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 Contrafold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric Contrafold Afold
MCC 0.630 > 0.493
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.668 ± 0.114 > 0.559 ± 0.134
Sensitivity 0.658 > 0.537
Positive Predictive Value 0.602 > 0.453
Total TP 1714 > 1397
Total TN 4971131 > 4970891
Total FP 1615 < 2083
Total FP CONTRA 415 < 525
Total FP INCONS 716 < 1163
Total FP COMP 484 > 395
Total FN 889 < 1206
P-value 5.1503931209e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 Contrafold and Afold).

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

^top





Performance of Contrafold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Contrafold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 1714
Total TN 4971131
Total FP 1615
Total FP CONTRA 415
Total FP INCONS 716
Total FP COMP 484
Total FN 889
Total Scores
MCC 0.630
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.668 ± 0.114
Sensitivity 0.658
Positive Predictive Value 0.602
Nr of predictions 24

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KFC_A - 0.71 0.63 0.83 5 230 1 1 0 0 3
2LC8_A 0.46 0.39 0.58 7 516 5 3 2 0 11
2RP0_A - 0.84 0.71 1.00 5 111 0 0 0 0 2
2WDL_A - 0.69 0.71 0.68 556 1444510 320 75 181 64 232
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
3GCA_A - 0.76 0.71 0.83 5 152 1 1 0 0 2
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 0.28 0.39 0.20 20 22341 95 44 35 16 31
3IZ4_A 0.57 0.58 0.57 55 25440 49 18 23 8 40
3JYV_7 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 1091 20 4 16 0 20
3JYX_5 - 0.43 0.50 0.37 240 1968358 697 172 232 293 241
3KIY_A - 0.70 0.71 0.69 561 1485072 329 73 174 82 225
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
3NKB_B - 0.63 0.68 0.59 13 713 9 0 9 0 6
3NPB_A 0.86 0.84 0.89 31 2243 9 1 3 5 6
3O58_3 0.32 0.36 0.29 8 4736 21 7 13 1 14
3RKF_A 0.87 0.83 0.91 20 844 2 2 0 0 4
3U4M_B - 0.81 0.77 0.85 17 1256 5 0 3 2 5
4A1C_2 0.21 0.25 0.19 5 4489 33 9 13 11 15
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 1 0 0 1 4

^top



Performance of Afold - scored lower 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


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