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 CentroidAlifold(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric CentroidAlifold(20) RNAsubopt
MCC 0.695 > 0.555
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.693 ± 0.065 > 0.554 ± 0.098
Sensitivity 0.540 > 0.497
Positive Predictive Value 0.897 > 0.624
Total TP 495 > 455
Total TN 191066 > 190889
Total FP 88 < 322
Total FP CONTRA 13 < 47
Total FP INCONS 44 < 227
Total FP COMP 31 < 48
Total FN 421 < 461
P-value 5.19332990918e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of CentroidAlifold(20) and RNAsubopt. 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 CentroidAlifold(20) and RNAsubopt).

  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 CentroidAlifold(20) and RNAsubopt).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for CentroidAlifold(20) and RNAsubopt. 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 CentroidAlifold(20) and RNAsubopt).

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 495
Total TN 191066
Total FP 88
Total FP CONTRA 13
Total FP INCONS 44
Total FP COMP 31
Total FN 421
Total Scores
MCC 0.695
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.693 ± 0.065
Sensitivity 0.540
Positive Predictive Value 0.897
Nr of predictions 23

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2WRQ_Y 0.57 0.59 0.56 10 2832 11 5 3 3 7
2XQD_Y 0.88 0.78 1.00 21 2829 0 0 0 0 6
3A2K_C 0.86 0.75 1.00 21 2905 0 0 0 0 7
3AMU_B 0.86 0.74 1.00 20 2983 1 0 0 1 7
3GX2_A 0.77 0.60 1.00 24 4347 1 0 0 1 16
3IVN_B 0.78 0.65 0.95 20 2325 1 1 0 0 11
3IZ4_A 0.58 0.39 0.88 51 70818 7 3 4 0 81
3IZF_C 0.75 0.61 0.92 33 6867 4 0 3 1 21
3JYV_7 0.81 0.66 1.00 21 2829 0 0 0 0 11
3JYX_4 0.39 0.27 0.56 9 12230 9 0 7 2 24
3JYX_3 0.61 0.56 0.68 15 6306 20 0 7 13 12
3LA5_A 0.78 0.62 1.00 21 2464 0 0 0 0 13
3NPB_A 0.70 0.54 0.89 25 6993 5 1 2 2 21
3O58_3 0.54 0.31 0.92 11 12391 1 0 1 0 24
3O58_2 0.78 0.76 0.81 29 7224 9 2 5 2 9
3PDR_A 0.76 0.63 0.94 45 12832 5 0 3 2 27
3RKF_A 0.72 0.53 1.00 18 2193 0 0 0 0 16
3SD1_A 0.71 0.52 0.96 22 3893 1 0 1 0 20
4A1C_3 0.76 0.63 0.92 34 7103 4 0 3 1 20
4A1C_2 0.26 0.15 0.45 5 11770 8 1 5 2 28
4AOB_A 0.75 0.57 1.00 24 4347 1 0 0 1 18
4ENB_A 0.69 0.47 1.00 9 1266 0 0 0 0 10
4ENC_A 0.60 0.37 1.00 7 1319 0 0 0 0 12

^top



Performance of RNAsubopt - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAsubopt

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 455
Total TN 190889
Total FP 322
Total FP CONTRA 47
Total FP INCONS 227
Total FP COMP 48
Total FN 461
Total Scores
MCC 0.555
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.554 ± 0.098
Sensitivity 0.497
Positive Predictive Value 0.624
Nr of predictions 23

^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
2WRQ_Y 0.57 0.59 0.56 10 2832 12 5 3 4 7
2XQD_Y 0.75 0.67 0.86 18 2829 3 0 3 0 9
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
3GX2_A 0.44 0.38 0.54 15 4343 14 1 12 1 25
3IVN_B 0.76 0.58 1.00 18 2328 0 0 0 0 13
3IZ4_A 0.51 0.47 0.56 62 70766 49 8 40 1 70
3IZF_C 0.70 0.61 0.80 33 6862 8 1 7 0 21
3JYV_7 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2829 21 0 21 0 32
3JYX_4 0.19 0.21 0.17 7 12204 38 11 24 3 26
3JYX_3 0.63 0.63 0.63 17 6301 21 1 9 11 10
3LA5_A 0.78 0.62 1.00 21 2464 0 0 0 0 13
3NPB_A 0.75 0.65 0.86 30 6986 7 1 4 2 16
3O58_3 0.34 0.34 0.34 12 12368 34 2 21 11 23
3O58_2 0.72 0.74 0.70 28 7220 13 4 8 1 10
3PDR_A 0.75 0.63 0.90 45 12830 7 1 4 2 27
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.61 0.50 0.75 21 3888 7 1 6 0 21
4A1C_3 0.70 0.59 0.82 32 7101 7 1 6 0 22
4A1C_2 0.14 0.15 0.13 5 11742 43 5 29 9 28
4AOB_A 0.52 0.43 0.64 18 4343 11 2 8 1 24
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 0 7 0 14

^top


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