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 RNAshapes - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric Carnac(20) RNAshapes
MCC 0.601 > 0.554
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.577 ± 0.090 > 0.567 ± 0.091
Sensitivity 0.397 < 0.482
Positive Predictive Value 0.914 > 0.642
Total TP 391 < 474
Total TN 198977 > 198667
Total FP 58 < 333
Total FP CONTRA 8 < 38
Total FP INCONS 29 < 226
Total FP COMP 21 < 69
Total FN 593 > 510
P-value 5.23657817852e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 RNAshapes).

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

^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 RNAshapes - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAshapes

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 474
Total TN 198667
Total FP 333
Total FP CONTRA 38
Total FP INCONS 226
Total FP COMP 69
Total FN 510
Total Scores
MCC 0.554
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.567 ± 0.091
Sensitivity 0.482
Positive Predictive Value 0.642
Nr of predictions 25

^top



2. Individual counts for RNAshapes [ 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 0.59 0.59 0.59 10 2833 12 4 3 5 7
2XQD_Y 0.64 0.56 0.75 15 2830 5 0 5 0 12
3A2K_C 0.42 0.39 0.46 11 2902 13 2 11 0 17
3AMU_B 0.70 0.59 0.84 16 2984 5 0 3 2 11
3G4S_9 0.41 0.32 0.53 18 7347 16 1 15 0 39
3GX2_A 0.76 0.63 0.93 25 4344 3 0 2 1 15
3IVN_B 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 2327 0 0 0 0 12
3IZ4_A 0.52 0.45 0.60 60 70776 45 6 34 5 72
3IZF_C 0.59 0.52 0.68 28 6862 13 1 12 0 26
3JYV_7 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2830 20 0 20 0 32
3JYX_3 0.63 0.63 0.63 17 6301 21 1 9 11 10
3JYX_4 0.31 0.30 0.31 10 12214 35 5 17 13 23
3LA5_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2465 0 0 0 0 14
3NPB_A 0.77 0.63 0.94 29 6990 4 1 1 2 17
3O58_2 0.60 0.61 0.59 23 7221 18 4 12 2 15
3O58_3 0.34 0.34 0.34 12 12368 37 2 21 14 23
3PDR_A 0.67 0.56 0.80 40 12830 12 0 10 2 32
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.64 0.52 0.79 22 3888 6 1 5 0 20
4A1C_3 0.68 0.57 0.82 31 7102 7 1 6 0 23
4A1C_2 0.14 0.15 0.14 5 11746 41 5 25 11 28
4AOB_A 0.50 0.40 0.63 17 4344 11 2 8 1 25
4ENB_A 0.70 0.58 0.85 11 1262 2 1 1 0 8
4ENC_A 0.32 0.26 0.42 5 1314 7 1 6 0 14

^top


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