CompaRNA - on-line benchmarks of RNA structure prediction methods
Home

Methods
Datasets
Rankings
RNA 2D Atlas

Help
FAQ

Contact us
RSS feeds
Twitter

Table of contents:

  1. Overview

  2. Performance Plots

  3. Performance of IPknot - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of MCFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

  5. Compile and download dataset for IPknot & MCFold [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric IPknot MCFold
MCC 0.688 > 0.571
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.719 ± 0.096 > 0.599 ± 0.123
Sensitivity 0.589 < 0.599
Positive Predictive Value 0.808 > 0.552
Total TP 409 < 416
Total TN 69530 > 69283
Total FP 115 < 402
Total FP CONTRA 16 < 46
Total FP INCONS 81 < 291
Total FP COMP 18 < 65
Total FN 285 > 278
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of IPknot and MCFold. Positive Predictive Value (PPV) is plotted against sensitivity. Each dot represents a single test of each method. See tables below for raw data (individual counts for IPknot and MCFold).

  2. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for IPknot and MCFold. The whiskers correspond to 95% confidence intervals (CIs). 'n' denotes the number of MCCs used to calculate average MCCs and CIs. See tables below for raw data (individual counts for IPknot and MCFold).

^top





Performance of IPknot - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for IPknot

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 409
Total TN 69530
Total FP 115
Total FP CONTRA 16
Total FP INCONS 81
Total FP COMP 18
Total FN 285
Total Scores
MCC 0.688
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.719 ± 0.096
Sensitivity 0.589
Positive Predictive Value 0.808
Nr of predictions 36

^top



2. Individual counts for IPknot [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LBS_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 482 0 0 0 0 0
2LC8_A 0.40 0.30 0.55 6 1529 5 1 4 0 14
2LDL_A - 0.90 0.82 1.00 9 342 0 0 0 0 2
2LDT_A - 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 454 0 0 0 0 4
2LHP_A - 0.97 0.94 1.00 15 651 0 0 0 0 1
2LI4_A - 0.93 0.88 1.00 14 482 0 0 0 0 2
2LJJ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 343 2 0 0 2 0
2LK3_A - 0.95 0.90 1.00 9 267 0 0 0 0 1
2LKR_A - 0.84 0.77 0.91 30 6072 4 0 3 1 9
2LQZ_A - 0.85 0.82 0.90 9 341 1 1 0 0 2
2LWK_A - 0.83 0.77 0.91 10 485 1 0 1 0 3
2YIE_X - 0.67 0.58 0.78 7 1369 3 1 1 1 5
2YIE_Z - 0.43 0.42 0.45 5 1529 6 3 3 0 7
3AMU_B 0.70 0.59 0.84 16 2984 5 0 3 2 11
3J0L_2 - 0.39 0.36 0.43 12 6188 18 2 14 2 21
3J0L_g - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 461 4 1 3 0 4
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1218 7 0 7 0 17
3J0L_h - 0.78 0.60 1.00 26 6079 2 0 0 2 17
3J0L_1 - 0.76 0.63 0.92 12 1212 2 0 1 1 7
3J0L_a - 0.21 0.19 0.25 3 1116 9 1 8 0 13
3J0L_8 - 0.93 0.88 1.00 7 183 0 0 0 0 1
3J16_L 0.75 0.57 1.00 17 2758 0 0 0 0 13
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.61 0.48 0.80 20 3891 5 0 5 0 22
3SIU_F - 0.73 0.55 1.00 6 372 0 0 0 0 5
3SN2_B 0.96 0.92 1.00 11 395 0 0 0 0 1
3TRZ_Z - 0.91 0.83 1.00 5 205 1 0 0 1 1
3TS0_U - 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 247 1 0 0 1 0
3TS2_V - 1.00 1.00 1.00 5 271 0 0 0 0 0
3U4M_B - 0.68 0.54 0.87 20 3137 3 1 2 0 17
3VJR_D - 0.96 0.92 1.00 12 618 0 0 0 0 1
4A1C_2 0.17 0.15 0.19 5 11755 26 4 17 5 28
4A1C_3 0.69 0.57 0.84 31 7103 6 1 5 0 23
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 222 0 0 0 0 0
4ENB_A 0.76 0.58 1.00 11 1264 0 0 0 0 8
4ENC_A 0.52 0.42 0.67 8 1314 4 0 4 0 11

^top



Performance of MCFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for MCFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 416
Total TN 69283
Total FP 402
Total FP CONTRA 46
Total FP INCONS 291
Total FP COMP 65
Total FN 278
Total Scores
MCC 0.571
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.599 ± 0.123
Sensitivity 0.599
Positive Predictive Value 0.552
Nr of predictions 36

^top



2. Individual counts for MCFold [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LBS_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 482 1 0 0 1 0
2LC8_A 0.41 0.45 0.39 9 1517 16 0 14 2 11
2LDL_A - 0.95 0.91 1.00 10 341 2 0 0 2 1
2LDT_A - 0.75 0.73 0.79 11 451 3 0 3 0 4
2LHP_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 16 650 1 0 0 1 0
2LI4_A - 0.97 0.94 1.00 15 481 0 0 0 0 1
2LJJ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 343 2 0 0 2 0
2LK3_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 10 266 0 0 0 0 0
2LKR_A - 0.93 0.92 0.95 36 6067 14 0 2 12 3
2LQZ_A - 0.91 0.91 0.91 10 340 1 1 0 0 1
2LWK_A - 0.92 0.92 0.92 12 483 2 0 1 1 1
2YIE_X - 0.06 0.08 0.06 1 1361 21 1 15 5 11
2YIE_Z - 0.36 0.50 0.27 6 1518 18 4 12 2 6
3AMU_B 0.44 0.48 0.42 13 2972 18 2 16 0 14
3J0L_2 - 0.21 0.24 0.18 8 6172 39 7 29 3 25
3J0L_g - 0.13 0.25 0.08 1 452 12 8 4 0 3
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1206 19 4 15 0 17
3J0L_h - 0.91 0.91 0.91 39 6062 13 0 4 9 4
3J0L_1 - 0.79 0.79 0.79 15 1206 6 0 4 2 4
3J0L_a - 0.16 0.19 0.17 3 1110 15 1 14 0 13
3J0L_8 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 182 0 0 0 0 0
3J16_L 0.45 0.47 0.44 14 2743 19 1 17 1 16
3RKF_A 0.70 0.65 0.76 22 2182 7 1 6 0 12
3SD1_A 0.33 0.33 0.35 14 3876 26 0 26 0 28
3SIU_F - 0.42 0.45 0.42 5 366 7 1 6 0 6
3SN2_B 0.55 0.58 0.54 7 393 6 0 6 0 5
3TRZ_Z - -0.04 0.00 0.00 0 201 9 0 9 0 6
3TS0_U - 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 247 2 0 0 2 0
3TS2_V - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 268 9 0 8 1 5
3U4M_B - 0.59 0.59 0.59 22 3123 15 0 15 0 15
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 13 617 1 0 0 1 0
4A1C_2 0.13 0.15 0.11 5 11735 56 10 31 15 28
4A1C_3 0.68 0.67 0.71 36 7089 17 1 14 2 18
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 222 0 0 0 0 0
4ENB_A 0.61 0.63 0.60 12 1255 8 2 6 0 7
4ENC_A 0.28 0.32 0.27 6 1304 17 2 14 1 13

^top


Matthews Correlation Coeffient, Sensitivity and Positive Predictive Value have been calculated based on the paper by Gardener & Giegerich, 2004.