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 RNAshapes - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric Contrafold RNAshapes
MCC 0.663 > 0.610
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.695 ± 0.101 > 0.622 ± 0.114
Sensitivity 0.678 > 0.625
Positive Predictive Value 0.654 > 0.602
Total TP 497 > 458
Total TN 85202 > 85201
Total FP 322 < 371
Total FP CONTRA 113 > 103
Total FP INCONS 150 < 200
Total FP COMP 59 < 68
Total FN 236 < 275
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 RNAshapes).

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

^top





Performance of Contrafold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Contrafold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 497
Total TN 85202
Total FP 322
Total FP CONTRA 113
Total FP INCONS 150
Total FP COMP 59
Total FN 236
Total Scores
MCC 0.663
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.695 ± 0.101
Sensitivity 0.678
Positive Predictive Value 0.654
Nr of predictions 28

^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
2KRL_A - 0.91 0.87 0.95 20 2003 9 1 0 8 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
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
3GX2_A 0.93 0.89 0.96 25 1423 2 1 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 0.28 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
3J0L_a - 0.53 0.55 0.55 6 400 6 3 2 1 5
3JYV_7 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 1091 20 4 16 0 20
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
3PDR_A 0.83 0.86 0.80 43 4786 13 5 6 2 7
3RKF_A 0.87 0.83 0.91 20 844 2 2 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.68 0.69 0.69 20 1504 9 5 4 0 9
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
4AOB_A 0.53 0.52 0.56 15 1410 13 3 9 1 14
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 RNAshapes - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAshapes

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 458
Total TN 85201
Total FP 371
Total FP CONTRA 103
Total FP INCONS 200
Total FP COMP 68
Total FN 275
Total Scores
MCC 0.610
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.622 ± 0.114
Sensitivity 0.625
Positive Predictive Value 0.602
Nr of predictions 28

^top



2. Individual counts for RNAshapes [ 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
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
2RP0_A - 0.84 0.71 1.00 5 111 0 0 0 0 2
2ZZN_D 0.77 0.77 0.77 17 962 5 1 4 0 5
3A2K_C 0.47 0.50 0.46 11 1084 13 3 10 0 11
3A3A_A 0.84 0.80 0.89 24 1473 3 0 3 0 6
3ADB_C - 0.71 0.70 0.74 23 1788 8 0 8 0 10
3GCA_A - 0.84 0.71 1.00 5 153 0 0 0 0 2
3GX2_A 0.91 0.89 0.93 25 1422 3 1 1 1 3
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
3IWN_A 0.83 0.79 0.88 22 1447 3 1 2 0 6
3IYQ_A 0.19 0.27 0.14 14 22340 95 43 43 9 37
3IZ4_A 0.57 0.58 0.56 55 25437 50 16 28 6 40
3J0L_a - 0.18 0.18 0.22 2 402 8 3 4 1 9
3JYV_7 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 1092 20 1 18 1 20
3LA5_A 0.89 0.80 1.00 20 934 0 0 0 0 5
3NKB_B - 0.75 0.74 0.78 14 717 6 0 4 2 5
3NPB_A 0.84 0.76 0.93 28 2248 5 1 1 3 9
3O58_3 0.41 0.50 0.34 11 4732 38 6 15 17 11
3PDR_A 0.80 0.80 0.80 40 4790 12 3 7 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 0.16 5 4484 41 11 16 14 15
4AOB_A 0.60 0.59 0.63 17 1410 11 4 6 1 12
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 2 0 0 2 4
4ENC_A 0.37 0.33 0.45 5 485 7 0 6 1 10

^top


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