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 RNAfold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric Afold RNAfold
MCC 0.493 > 0.483
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.559 ± 0.134 < 0.587 ± 0.128
Sensitivity 0.537 > 0.527
Positive Predictive Value 0.453 > 0.442
Total TP 1397 > 1373
Total TN 4970891 > 4970871
Total FP 2083 < 2116
Total FP CONTRA 525 < 531
Total FP INCONS 1163 < 1201
Total FP COMP 395 > 384
Total FN 1206 < 1230
P-value 5.02343278931e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 RNAfold).

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

^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 RNAfold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAfold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 1373
Total TN 4970871
Total FP 2116
Total FP CONTRA 531
Total FP INCONS 1201
Total FP COMP 384
Total FN 1230
Total Scores
MCC 0.483
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.587 ± 0.128
Sensitivity 0.527
Positive Predictive Value 0.442
Nr of predictions 24

^top



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
2KFC_A - -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 229 7 1 6 0 8
2LC8_A 0.64 0.61 0.69 11 512 5 0 5 0 7
2RP0_A - 0.84 0.71 1.00 5 111 0 0 0 0 2
2WDL_A - 0.49 0.52 0.47 408 1444460 493 86 368 39 380
2ZZN_D 0.93 0.95 0.91 21 961 3 2 0 1 1
3A2K_C 0.47 0.50 0.46 11 1084 13 3 10 0 11
3A3A_A 0.97 0.93 1.00 28 1472 0 0 0 0 2
3ADB_C - 0.35 0.36 0.36 12 1786 22 1 20 1 21
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 0.69 0.68 0.70 19 1445 9 1 7 1 9
3IYQ_A 0.24 0.33 0.17 17 22340 95 45 38 12 34
3IZ4_A 0.56 0.60 0.52 57 25426 57 26 27 4 38
3JYV_7 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 1089 22 4 18 0 20
3JYX_5 - 0.36 0.46 0.29 220 1968243 783 251 288 244 261
3KIY_A - 0.50 0.53 0.48 414 1485013 501 90 363 48 372
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 0.91 0.86 0.97 32 2245 5 1 0 4 5
3O58_3 0.41 0.50 0.34 11 4732 35 6 15 14 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 4482 43 11 18 14 15
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 2 0 0 2 4

^top


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