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 CentroidFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric CentroidFold HotKnots
MCC 0.704 > 0.635
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.733 ± 0.096 > 0.678 ± 0.115
Sensitivity 0.698 > 0.672
Positive Predictive Value 0.715 > 0.605
Total TP 496 > 478
Total TN 84758 > 84662
Total FP 252 < 365
Total FP CONTRA 85 < 134
Total FP INCONS 113 < 178
Total FP COMP 54 > 53
Total FN 215 < 233
P-value 5.10776592382e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of CentroidFold and HotKnots. 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 CentroidFold and HotKnots).

  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 CentroidFold and HotKnots).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for CentroidFold and HotKnots. 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 CentroidFold and HotKnots).

^top





Performance of CentroidFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for CentroidFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 496
Total TN 84758
Total FP 252
Total FP CONTRA 85
Total FP INCONS 113
Total FP COMP 54
Total FN 215
Total Scores
MCC 0.704
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.733 ± 0.096
Sensitivity 0.698
Positive Predictive Value 0.715
Nr of predictions 25

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KRL_A - 0.91 0.87 0.95 20 2003 9 1 0 8 3
2LC8_A 0.51 0.39 0.70 7 518 3 1 2 0 11
2ZZN_D 0.93 0.95 0.91 21 961 3 2 0 1 1
3A2K_C 0.49 0.55 0.46 12 1082 14 3 11 0 10
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 0 0 0 0 1
3GX2_A 0.94 0.89 1.00 25 1424 1 0 0 1 3
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
3IWN_A 0.86 0.79 0.96 22 1449 1 0 1 0 6
3IYQ_A 0.29 0.39 0.22 20 22347 86 39 34 13 31
3IZ4_A 0.60 0.57 0.64 54 25451 38 16 15 7 41
3J0L_a - 0.41 0.36 0.50 4 403 5 3 1 1 7
3JYV_7 0.92 0.85 1.00 17 1094 2 0 0 2 3
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
3NKB_B - 0.66 0.68 0.65 13 715 7 0 7 0 6
3NPB_A 0.87 0.84 0.91 31 2244 8 1 2 5 6
3O58_3 0.44 0.41 0.47 9 4745 11 1 9 1 13
3PDR_A 0.88 0.86 0.90 43 4792 7 2 3 2 7
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.70 0.69 0.71 20 1505 8 4 4 0 9
3U4M_B - 0.81 0.77 0.85 17 1256 5 0 3 2 5
4A1C_2 0.22 0.25 0.19 5 4490 29 9 12 8 15
4AOB_A 0.50 0.48 0.54 14 1411 13 3 9 1 15
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 1 0 0 1 4
4ENC_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 485 1 0 0 1 4

^top



Performance of HotKnots - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for HotKnots

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 478
Total TN 84662
Total FP 365
Total FP CONTRA 134
Total FP INCONS 178
Total FP COMP 53
Total FN 233
Total Scores
MCC 0.635
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.678 ± 0.115
Sensitivity 0.672
Positive Predictive Value 0.605
Nr of predictions 25

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KRL_A - 0.91 0.87 0.95 20 2003 9 1 0 8 3
2LC8_A 0.64 0.61 0.69 11 512 5 0 5 0 7
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 - 0.86 0.85 0.88 28 1787 5 0 4 1 5
3GX2_A 0.81 0.79 0.85 22 1423 5 2 2 1 6
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 22341 96 47 35 14 34
3IZ4_A 0.56 0.60 0.52 57 25426 57 26 27 4 38
3J0L_a - 0.55 0.64 0.50 7 397 8 5 2 1 4
3JYV_7 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 1089 22 4 18 0 20
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 0.85 0.78 0.94 29 2247 6 0 2 4 8
3O58_3 0.26 0.36 0.19 8 4722 35 16 18 1 14
3PDR_A 0.81 0.80 0.82 40 4791 11 3 6 2 10
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.77 0.76 0.79 22 1505 6 4 2 0 7
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 42 12 16 14 15
4AOB_A 0.60 0.59 0.63 17 1410 11 4 6 1 12
4ENB_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 457 0 0 0 0 0
4ENC_A 0.97 1.00 0.94 15 480 1 1 0 0 0

^top


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