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 Murlet(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric Carnac(20) Murlet(20)
MCC 0.601 > 0.592
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.577 ± 0.090 < 0.601 ± 0.070
Sensitivity 0.397 < 0.437
Positive Predictive Value 0.914 > 0.807
Total TP 391 < 430
Total TN 198977 > 198872
Total FP 58 < 131
Total FP CONTRA 8 < 14
Total FP INCONS 29 < 89
Total FP COMP 21 < 28
Total FN 593 > 554
P-value 1.26649320034e-05

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 Murlet(20)).

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

^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 Murlet(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 430
Total TN 198872
Total FP 131
Total FP CONTRA 14
Total FP INCONS 89
Total FP COMP 28
Total FN 554
Total Scores
MCC 0.592
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.601 ± 0.070
Sensitivity 0.437
Positive Predictive Value 0.807
Nr of predictions 25

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KDQ_B 0.67 0.45 1.00 5 401 0 0 0 0 6
2WRQ_Y 0.41 0.41 0.41 7 2833 12 6 4 2 10
2XQD_Y 0.80 0.70 0.90 19 2829 2 0 2 0 8
3A2K_C 0.78 0.68 0.90 19 2905 2 0 2 0 9
3AMU_B 0.77 0.67 0.90 18 2983 3 0 2 1 9
3G4S_9 0.58 0.39 0.88 22 7356 3 1 2 0 35
3GX2_A 0.61 0.38 1.00 15 4356 1 0 0 1 25
3IVN_B 0.69 0.48 1.00 15 2331 0 0 0 0 16
3IZ4_A 0.40 0.24 0.65 32 70827 21 1 16 4 100
3IZF_C 0.71 0.56 0.91 30 6870 4 0 3 1 24
3JYV_7 0.67 0.53 0.85 17 2830 3 0 3 0 15
3JYX_3 0.60 0.52 0.70 14 6308 11 0 6 5 13
3JYX_4 0.36 0.27 0.47 9 12227 15 0 10 5 24
3LA5_A 0.68 0.47 1.00 16 2469 0 0 0 0 18
3NPB_A 0.55 0.35 0.89 16 7003 2 1 1 0 30
3O58_2 0.89 0.82 0.97 31 7228 2 0 1 1 7
3O58_3 0.33 0.23 0.47 8 12386 12 2 7 3 27
3PDR_A 0.70 0.53 0.93 38 12839 3 0 3 0 34
3RKF_A 0.68 0.47 1.00 16 2195 0 0 0 0 18
3SD1_A 0.68 0.57 0.83 24 3887 5 1 4 0 18
4A1C_3 0.59 0.41 0.85 22 7114 4 0 4 0 32
4A1C_2 0.17 0.15 0.20 5 11756 24 2 18 4 28
4AOB_A 0.72 0.55 0.96 23 4347 2 0 1 1 19
4ENB_A 0.46 0.21 1.00 4 1271 0 0 0 0 15
4ENC_A 0.51 0.26 1.00 5 1321 0 0 0 0 14

^top


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