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 RNAsubopt - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric RNAsubopt Fold
MCC 0.579 > 0.557
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.572 ± 0.147 > 0.524 ± 0.152
Sensitivity 0.618 > 0.589
Positive Predictive Value 0.547 > 0.534
Total TP 317 > 302
Total TN 75392 < 75405
Total FP 329 < 336
Total FP CONTRA 110 > 99
Total FP INCONS 152 < 165
Total FP COMP 67 < 72
Total FN 196 < 211
P-value 2.69132796717e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of RNAsubopt - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAsubopt

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 317
Total TN 75392
Total FP 329
Total FP CONTRA 110
Total FP INCONS 152
Total FP COMP 67
Total FN 196
Total Scores
MCC 0.579
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.572 ± 0.147
Sensitivity 0.618
Positive Predictive Value 0.547
Nr of predictions 17

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KRL_A - 0.62 0.61 0.64 14 2002 15 5 3 7 9
2LC8_A -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 513 15 3 12 0 18
3ADB_C - 0.98 0.97 1.00 32 1787 0 0 0 0 1
3IYQ_A 0.28 0.39 0.20 20 22342 96 41 37 18 31
3IZ4_A 0.56 0.60 0.53 57 25429 54 26 24 4 38
3J0L_a - 0.35 0.36 0.36 4 400 8 3 4 1 7
3NKB_B - 0.66 0.68 0.65 13 715 7 0 7 0 6
3NPB_A 0.84 0.78 0.91 29 2246 8 0 3 5 8
3O58_3 0.41 0.50 0.34 11 4732 35 6 15 14 11
3PDR_A 0.90 0.90 0.90 45 4790 7 2 3 2 5
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.73 0.72 0.75 21 1505 7 4 3 0 8
3U4M_B - 0.49 0.55 0.46 12 1250 14 3 11 0 10
4A1C_2 0.18 0.25 0.14 5 4481 43 13 17 13 15
4AOB_A 0.62 0.62 0.64 18 1409 11 4 6 1 11
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 2 0 0 2 4
4ENC_A 0.36 0.33 0.42 5 484 7 0 7 0 10

^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.