CompaRNA - on-line benchmarks of RNA structure prediction methods

CompaRNA - on-line benchmarks of RNA structure prediction methods

Laboratory of Structural Bioinformatics @ Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan

Home

RNA 2D Atlas

Help

FAQ

Table of contents:

Overview

Performance Plots

Performance of RNAfold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

Total counts & total scores
Individual counts

Performance of NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

Total counts & total scores
Individual counts

Compile and download dataset for RNAfold & NanoFolder [.zip] - may take several seconds...

Overview

Metric	RNAfold		NanoFolder
MCC	0.639	>	0.490
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals	0.717 ± 0.136	>	0.644 ± 0.159
Sensitivity	0.567	>	0.495
Positive Predictive Value	0.728	>	0.494
Total TP	230	>	201
Total TN	44689	>	44598
Total FP	102	<	218
Total FP CONTRA	10	<	31
Total FP INCONS	76	<	175
Total FP COMP	16	>	12
Total FN	176	<	205
P-value	2.69132796717e-08

Performance plots

Performance of RNAfold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAfold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP	230
Total TN	44689
Total FP	102
Total FP CONTRA	10
Total FP INCONS	76
Total FP COMP	16
Total FN	176

Total Scores
MCC	0.639
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals	0.717 ± 0.136
Sensitivity	0.567
Positive Predictive Value	0.728
Nr of predictions	17

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

RNA Chain	Rfam family	MCC	SENS	PPV	TP	TN	FP	FP CONTRA	FP INCONS	FP COMP	FN
2LC8_A	GP_knot1 links to Rfam database...	0.61	0.55	0.69	11	1524	5	0	5	0	9
2LDL_A	-	0.90	0.82	1.00	9	342	1	0	0	1	2
2LI4_A	-	0.93	0.88	1.00	14	482	0	0	0	0	2
2LK3_A	-	0.95	0.90	1.00	9	267	0	0	0	0	1
2LKR_A	-	0.93	0.87	1.00	34	6071	3	0	0	3	5
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
3J16_L	tRNA links to Rfam database...	0.75	0.57	1.00	17	2758	0	0	0	0	13
3SN2_B	IRE_II links to Rfam database...	0.96	0.92	1.00	11	395	0	0	0	0	1
3U4M_B	-	0.38	0.32	0.46	12	3134	14	0	14	0	25
3UZL_B	tRNA links to Rfam database...	0.48	0.38	0.61	14	3547	9	0	9	0	23
3VJR_D	-	0.96	0.92	1.00	12	618	0	0	0	0	1
4A1C_3	5S_rRNA links to Rfam database...	0.70	0.59	0.82	32	7101	7	1	6	0	22
4A1C_2	5_8S_rRNA links to Rfam database...	0.14	0.15	0.14	5	11744	43	5	27	11	28
4A4U_A	-	1.00	1.00	1.00	9	222	0	0	0	0	0
4AOB_A	SAM links to Rfam database...	0.50	0.40	0.63	17	4344	11	2	8	1	25
4ENC_A	crcB links to Rfam database...	0.32	0.26	0.42	5	1314	7	1	6	0	14

Performance of NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for NanoFolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP	201
Total TN	44598
Total FP	218
Total FP CONTRA	31
Total FP INCONS	175
Total FP COMP	12
Total FN	205

Total Scores
MCC	0.490
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals	0.644 ± 0.159
Sensitivity	0.495
Positive Predictive Value	0.494
Nr of predictions	17

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

RNA Chain	Rfam family	MCC	SENS	PPV	TP	TN	FP	FP CONTRA	FP INCONS	FP COMP	FN
2LC8_A	GP_knot1 links to Rfam database...	0.52	0.55	0.50	11	1518	11	0	11	0	9
2LDL_A	-	0.90	0.82	1.00	9	342	1	0	0	1	2
2LI4_A	-	0.93	0.88	1.00	14	482	0	0	0	0	2
2LK3_A	-	0.95	0.90	1.00	9	267	0	0	0	0	1
2LKR_A	-	0.29	0.33	0.25	13	6054	38	8	30	0	26
2LQZ_A	-	0.91	0.91	0.91	10	340	1	1	0	0	1
2LWK_A	-	0.83	0.77	0.91	10	485	2	0	1	1	3
3J16_L	tRNA links to Rfam database...	0.36	0.37	0.37	11	2745	19	3	16	0	19
3SN2_B	IRE_II links to Rfam database...	0.96	0.92	1.00	11	395	0	0	0	0	1
3U4M_B	-	0.61	0.57	0.66	21	3128	11	1	10	0	16
3UZL_B	tRNA links to Rfam database...	0.36	0.35	0.38	13	3536	21	3	18	0	24
3VJR_D	-	0.96	0.92	1.00	12	618	0	0	0	0	1
4A1C_3	5S_rRNA links to Rfam database...	0.48	0.46	0.51	25	7091	24	2	22	0	29
4A1C_2	5_8S_rRNA links to Rfam database...	0.00	0.00	0.00	0	11728	61	12	41	8	33
4A4U_A	-	1.00	1.00	1.00	9	222	0	0	0	0	0
4AOB_A	SAM links to Rfam database...	0.33	0.29	0.39	12	4340	20	1	18	1	30
4ENC_A	crcB links to Rfam database...	0.57	0.58	0.58	11	1307	9	0	8	1	8

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