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 HotKnots - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric HotKnots Fold
MCC 0.605 > 0.557
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.664 ± 0.132 > 0.524 ± 0.152
Sensitivity 0.657 > 0.589
Positive Predictive Value 0.562 > 0.534
Total TP 337 > 302
Total TN 75371 < 75405
Total FP 313 < 336
Total FP CONTRA 122 > 99
Total FP INCONS 141 < 165
Total FP COMP 50 < 72
Total FN 176 < 211
P-value 1.70887622364e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  2. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for HotKnots and Fold. 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 HotKnots and Fold).

^top





Performance of HotKnots - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for HotKnots

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 337
Total TN 75371
Total FP 313
Total FP CONTRA 122
Total FP INCONS 141
Total FP COMP 50
Total FN 176
Total Scores
MCC 0.605
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.664 ± 0.132
Sensitivity 0.657
Positive Predictive Value 0.562
Nr of predictions 17

^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
3ADB_C - 0.86 0.85 0.88 28 1787 5 0 4 1 5
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
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



Performance of Fold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Fold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 302
Total TN 75405
Total FP 336
Total FP CONTRA 99
Total FP INCONS 165
Total FP COMP 72
Total FN 211
Total Scores
MCC 0.557
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.524 ± 0.152
Sensitivity 0.589
Positive Predictive Value 0.534
Nr of predictions 17

^top



2. Individual counts for Fold [ 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 -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 513 15 3 12 0 18
3ADB_C - 0.86 0.85 0.88 28 1787 4 0 4 0 5
3IYQ_A 0.24 0.33 0.18 17 22345 95 40 38 17 34
3IZ4_A 0.60 0.61 0.59 58 25437 47 16 25 6 37
3J0L_a - 0.15 0.18 0.17 2 399 11 4 6 1 9
3NKB_B - 0.41 0.42 0.42 8 716 11 4 7 0 11
3NPB_A 0.77 0.73 0.82 27 2245 11 0 6 5 10
3O58_3 0.39 0.50 0.31 11 4728 41 9 16 16 11
3PDR_A 0.93 0.92 0.94 46 4791 5 1 2 2 4
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.68 0.69 0.69 20 1504 9 4 5 0 9
3U4M_B - 0.58 0.59 0.59 13 1254 9 2 7 0 9
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.15 5 4482 43 11 18 14 15
4AOB_A 0.60 0.59 0.63 17 1410 11 4 6 1 12
4ENB_A 0.37 0.33 0.45 5 461 7 0 6 1 10
4ENC_A 0.36 0.33 0.42 5 484 8 0 7 1 10

^top


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