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 Carnac(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

  5. Compile and download dataset for Carnac(20) & Contrafold [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric Carnac(20) Contrafold
MCC 0.601 > 0.554
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.577 ± 0.090 > 0.570 ± 0.101
Sensitivity 0.397 < 0.488
Positive Predictive Value 0.914 > 0.634
Total TP 391 < 480
Total TN 198977 > 198648
Total FP 58 < 314
Total FP CONTRA 8 < 45
Total FP INCONS 29 < 232
Total FP COMP 21 < 37
Total FN 593 > 504
P-value 5.1503931209e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of Carnac(20) and Contrafold. 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 Carnac(20) and Contrafold).

  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 Carnac(20) and Contrafold).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Carnac(20) and Contrafold. 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 Carnac(20) and Contrafold).

^top





Performance of Carnac(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Carnac(20)

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 391
Total TN 198977
Total FP 58
Total FP CONTRA 8
Total FP INCONS 29
Total FP COMP 21
Total FN 593
Total Scores
MCC 0.601
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.577 ± 0.090
Sensitivity 0.397
Positive Predictive Value 0.914
Nr of predictions 25

^top



2. Individual counts for Carnac(20) [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KDQ_B 0.73 0.55 1.00 6 400 0 0 0 0 5
2WRQ_Y 0.57 0.59 0.56 10 2832 13 5 3 5 7
2XQD_Y 0.79 0.63 1.00 17 2833 0 0 0 0 10
3A2K_C 0.78 0.61 1.00 17 2909 0 0 0 0 11
3AMU_B 0.69 0.59 0.80 16 2983 6 0 4 2 11
3G4S_9 0.50 0.28 0.89 16 7363 2 1 1 0 41
3GX2_A 0.57 0.33 1.00 13 4358 0 0 0 0 27
3IVN_B 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 2327 0 0 0 0 12
3IZ4_A 0.47 0.23 0.94 31 70843 2 0 2 0 101
3IZF_C 0.73 0.56 0.97 30 6872 1 0 1 0 24
3JYV_7 0.68 0.50 0.94 16 2833 1 0 1 0 16
3JYX_3 0.64 0.56 0.75 15 6308 10 1 4 5 12
3JYX_4 0.46 0.21 1.00 7 12239 2 0 0 2 26
3LA5_A 0.78 0.62 1.00 21 2464 0 0 0 0 13
3NPB_A 0.44 0.20 1.00 9 7012 2 0 0 2 37
3O58_2 0.83 0.71 0.96 27 7232 2 0 1 1 11
3O58_3 0.51 0.26 1.00 9 12394 0 0 0 0 26
3PDR_A 0.62 0.40 0.97 29 12850 3 0 1 2 43
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.60 0.38 0.94 16 3899 1 0 1 0 26
4A1C_3 0.67 0.52 0.88 28 7108 4 0 4 0 26
4A1C_2 0.33 0.15 0.71 5 11774 3 0 2 1 28
4AOB_A 0.49 0.33 0.74 14 4352 6 1 4 1 28
4ENB_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1275 0 0 0 0 19
4ENC_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1326 0 0 0 0 19

^top



Performance of Contrafold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Contrafold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 480
Total TN 198648
Total FP 314
Total FP CONTRA 45
Total FP INCONS 232
Total FP COMP 37
Total FN 504
Total Scores
MCC 0.554
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.570 ± 0.101
Sensitivity 0.488
Positive Predictive Value 0.634
Nr of predictions 25

^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
2KDQ_B 0.95 0.91 1.00 10 396 0 0 0 0 1
2WRQ_Y 0.57 0.59 0.56 10 2832 13 5 3 5 7
2XQD_Y 0.78 0.70 0.86 19 2828 3 0 3 0 8
3A2K_C 0.44 0.43 0.46 12 2900 14 2 12 0 16
3AMU_B 0.65 0.59 0.73 16 2981 8 0 6 2 11
3G4S_9 0.30 0.25 0.38 14 7344 23 1 22 0 43
3GX2_A 0.77 0.63 0.96 25 4345 2 0 1 1 15
3IVN_B 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 2327 0 0 0 0 12
3IZ4_A 0.52 0.45 0.61 60 70777 44 4 35 5 72
3IZF_C 0.68 0.61 0.77 33 6860 10 1 9 0 21
3JYV_7 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2830 20 0 20 0 32
3JYX_3 0.28 0.30 0.27 8 6298 23 8 14 1 19
3JYX_4 0.20 0.21 0.20 7 12211 35 6 22 7 26
3LA5_A 0.78 0.62 1.00 21 2464 0 0 0 0 13
3NPB_A 0.76 0.70 0.84 32 6983 8 1 5 2 14
3O58_2 0.78 0.76 0.81 29 7224 10 2 5 3 9
3O58_3 0.28 0.26 0.31 9 12374 20 3 17 0 26
3PDR_A 0.69 0.60 0.80 43 12826 13 0 11 2 29
3RKF_A 0.73 0.59 0.91 20 2189 2 1 1 0 14
3SD1_A 0.57 0.48 0.69 20 3887 9 2 7 0 22
4A1C_3 0.66 0.57 0.78 31 7100 9 1 8 0 23
4A1C_2 0.16 0.15 0.17 5 11751 33 5 20 8 28
4AOB_A 0.44 0.36 0.56 15 4344 13 1 11 1 27
4ENB_A 0.73 0.58 0.92 11 1263 1 1 0 0 8
4ENC_A 0.73 0.58 0.92 11 1314 1 1 0 0 8

^top


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