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 Sfold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of Murlet(seed) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

  5. Compile and download dataset for Sfold & Murlet(seed) [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric Sfold Murlet(seed)
MCC 0.749 > 0.571
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.730 ± 0.129 > 0.568 ± 0.104
Sensitivity 0.701 > 0.386
Positive Predictive Value 0.808 < 0.855
Total TP 256 > 141
Total TN 26219 < 26371
Total FP 90 > 29
Total FP CONTRA 19 > 4
Total FP INCONS 42 > 20
Total FP COMP 29 > 5
Total FN 109 < 224
P-value 2.02510705504e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of Sfold and Murlet(seed). 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 Sfold and Murlet(seed)).

  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 Sfold and Murlet(seed)).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Sfold and Murlet(seed). 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 Sfold and Murlet(seed)).

^top





Performance of Sfold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Sfold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 256
Total TN 26219
Total FP 90
Total FP CONTRA 19
Total FP INCONS 42
Total FP COMP 29
Total FN 109
Total Scores
MCC 0.749
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.730 ± 0.129
Sensitivity 0.701
Positive Predictive Value 0.808
Nr of predictions 14

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.46 0.39 0.58 7 516 5 0 5 0 11
3A3A_A 0.97 0.93 1.00 28 1472 0 0 0 0 2
3GX2_A 0.86 0.79 0.96 22 1426 2 1 0 1 6
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
3NPB_A 0.85 0.78 0.94 29 2247 7 0 2 5 8
3O58_3 0.51 0.50 0.52 11 4743 18 2 8 8 11
3PDR_A 0.82 0.80 0.85 40 4793 9 2 5 2 10
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.78 0.72 0.84 21 1508 4 2 2 0 8
4A1C_2 0.21 0.25 0.19 5 4489 34 8 14 12 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 0 0 0 0 4
4ENC_A 0.57 0.33 1.00 5 491 0 0 0 0 10

^top



Performance of Murlet(seed) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Murlet(seed)

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 141
Total TN 26371
Total FP 29
Total FP CONTRA 4
Total FP INCONS 20
Total FP COMP 5
Total FN 224
Total Scores
MCC 0.571
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.568 ± 0.104
Sensitivity 0.386
Positive Predictive Value 0.855
Nr of predictions 14

^top



2. Individual counts for Murlet(seed) [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 516 12 0 12 0 18
3A3A_A 0.63 0.40 1.00 12 1488 0 0 0 0 18
3GX2_A 0.70 0.50 1.00 14 1435 1 0 0 1 14
3IVN_B 0.62 0.52 0.75 12 887 4 2 2 0 11
3LA5_A 0.67 0.56 0.82 14 937 3 1 2 0 11
3NPB_A 0.59 0.35 1.00 13 2265 2 0 0 2 24
3O58_3 0.52 0.27 1.00 6 4758 1 0 0 1 16
3PDR_A 0.53 0.28 1.00 14 4826 0 0 0 0 36
3RKF_A 0.62 0.50 0.80 12 851 3 1 2 0 12
3SD1_A 0.56 0.38 0.85 11 1520 2 0 2 0 18
4A1C_2 0.59 0.35 1.00 7 4509 0 0 0 0 13
4AOB_A 0.69 0.48 1.00 14 1423 1 0 0 1 15
4ENB_A 0.63 0.40 1.00 6 466 0 0 0 0 9
4ENC_A 0.63 0.40 1.00 6 490 0 0 0 0 9

^top


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