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 Afold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric Afold McQFold
MCC 0.493 > 0.392
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.559 ± 0.134 < 0.628 ± 0.147
Sensitivity 0.537 > 0.360
Positive Predictive Value 0.453 > 0.429
Total TP 1397 > 936
Total TN 4970891 < 4971793
Total FP 2083 > 1369
Total FP CONTRA 525 > 263
Total FP INCONS 1163 > 984
Total FP COMP 395 > 122
Total FN 1206 < 1667
P-value 5.19332990918e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of Afold and McQFold. 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 Afold and McQFold).

  2. Average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCC) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were plotted for different RNA families, for which at least 3 members were present in the benchmarking dataset. 'n' denotes the number of MCCs used to calculate the average and CI. See tables below for raw data (individual counts for Afold and McQFold).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Afold and McQFold. 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 Afold and McQFold).

^top





Performance of Afold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Afold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 1397
Total TN 4970891
Total FP 2083
Total FP CONTRA 525
Total FP INCONS 1163
Total FP COMP 395
Total FN 1206
Total Scores
MCC 0.493
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.559 ± 0.134
Sensitivity 0.537
Positive Predictive Value 0.453
Nr of predictions 24

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KFC_A - -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 228 8 1 7 0 8
2LC8_A 0.64 0.61 0.69 11 512 6 0 5 1 7
2RP0_A - 0.76 0.71 0.83 5 110 1 0 1 0 2
2WDL_A - 0.52 0.54 0.50 426 1444477 465 78 341 46 362
2ZZN_D 0.91 0.91 0.91 20 962 3 2 0 1 2
3A2K_C 0.46 0.50 0.44 11 1083 14 3 11 0 11
3A3A_A 0.93 0.87 1.00 26 1474 0 0 0 0 4
3ADB_C - 0.85 0.85 0.85 28 1786 6 0 5 1 5
3GCA_A - -0.04 0.00 0.00 0 151 9 1 6 2 7
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
3IWN_A 0.67 0.68 0.68 19 1444 9 1 8 0 9
3IYQ_A 0.23 0.33 0.17 17 22339 97 47 37 13 34
3IZ4_A 0.52 0.57 0.48 54 25423 63 27 32 4 41
3JYV_7 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 1088 23 4 19 0 20
3JYX_5 - 0.34 0.44 0.27 210 1968232 793 260 300 233 271
3KIY_A - 0.53 0.55 0.51 430 1485031 475 81 338 56 356
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
3NKB_B - 0.69 0.74 0.67 14 714 7 0 7 0 5
3NPB_A 0.82 0.73 0.93 27 2249 6 0 2 4 10
3O58_3 0.41 0.50 0.34 11 4732 38 6 15 17 11
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3U4M_B - 0.49 0.55 0.46 12 1250 14 3 11 0 10
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.15 5 4483 43 11 17 15 15
4ENB_A 0.81 0.73 0.92 11 460 3 0 1 2 4

^top



Performance of McQFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for McQFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 936
Total TN 4971793
Total FP 1369
Total FP CONTRA 263
Total FP INCONS 984
Total FP COMP 122
Total FN 1667
Total Scores
MCC 0.392
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.628 ± 0.147
Sensitivity 0.360
Positive Predictive Value 0.429
Nr of predictions 24

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KFC_A - 0.79 0.63 1.00 5 231 0 0 0 0 3
2LC8_A 0.64 0.61 0.69 11 512 5 1 4 0 7
2RP0_A - 0.84 0.71 1.00 5 111 0 0 0 0 2
2WDL_A - 0.37 0.37 0.36 294 1444515 545 84 429 32 494
2ZZN_D 0.93 0.95 0.91 21 961 2 2 0 0 1
3A2K_C 0.98 0.95 1.00 21 1087 0 0 0 0 1
3A3A_A 0.97 0.93 1.00 28 1472 0 0 0 0 2
3ADB_C - 0.98 0.97 1.00 32 1787 1 0 0 1 1
3GCA_A - 0.84 0.71 1.00 5 153 0 0 0 0 2
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
3IWN_A 0.21 0.21 0.24 6 1447 19 2 17 0 22
3IYQ_A 0.22 0.31 0.15 16 22335 100 45 44 11 35
3IZ4_A 0.46 0.46 0.47 44 25442 56 14 36 6 51
3JYV_7 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 1091 20 4 16 0 20
3JYX_5 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1969002 0 0 0 0 481
3KIY_A - 0.38 0.38 0.38 302 1485090 544 83 405 56 484
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
3NKB_B - 0.42 0.42 0.44 8 717 10 2 8 0 11
3NPB_A 0.90 0.81 1.00 30 2248 5 0 0 5 7
3O58_3 0.30 0.36 0.25 8 4732 27 15 9 3 14
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3U4M_B - 0.95 0.91 1.00 20 1256 2 0 0 2 2
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.16 5 4484 33 11 16 6 15
4ENB_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 457 0 0 0 0 0

^top


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