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 Contrafold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

  5. Compile and download dataset for Contrafold & Cylofold [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric Contrafold Cylofold
MCC 0.629 > 0.607
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.581 ± 0.095 < 0.586 ± 0.088
Sensitivity 0.546 > 0.512
Positive Predictive Value 0.730 > 0.727
Total TP 495 > 464
Total TN 111869 < 111909
Total FP 204 > 197
Total FP CONTRA 24 > 21
Total FP INCONS 159 > 153
Total FP COMP 21 < 23
Total FN 412 < 443
P-value 7.39132889808e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of Contrafold and Cylofold. 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 Contrafold and Cylofold).

  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 Contrafold and Cylofold).

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

^top





Performance of Contrafold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Contrafold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 495
Total TN 111869
Total FP 204
Total FP CONTRA 24
Total FP INCONS 159
Total FP COMP 21
Total FN 412
Total Scores
MCC 0.629
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.581 ± 0.095
Sensitivity 0.546
Positive Predictive Value 0.730
Nr of predictions 28

^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
2KRL_A - 0.76 0.60 0.96 24 5126 5 0 1 4 16
2KX8_A 0.94 0.89 1.00 16 845 0 0 0 0 2
2LA5_A - 0.39 0.26 0.63 5 622 3 1 2 0 14
2LC8_A 0.45 0.35 0.58 7 1528 5 2 3 0 13
2LKR_A - 0.84 0.79 0.89 31 6070 6 0 4 2 8
2XQD_Y 0.78 0.70 0.86 19 2828 3 0 3 0 8
3ADB_C - 0.92 0.84 1.00 32 4154 0 0 0 0 6
3AKZ_H 0.39 0.39 0.41 11 2674 17 4 12 1 17
3AM1_B - 0.68 0.63 0.73 22 3210 8 1 7 0 13
3AMU_B 0.65 0.59 0.73 16 2981 8 0 6 2 11
3IZF_C 0.68 0.61 0.77 33 6860 10 1 9 0 21
3J0L_a - 0.50 0.44 0.58 7 1116 5 2 3 0 9
3J0L_2 - 0.25 0.24 0.28 8 6187 26 0 21 5 25
3J0L_g - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 464 1 1 0 0 4
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1218 7 0 7 0 17
3J16_L 0.46 0.40 0.55 12 2753 10 1 9 0 18
3NDB_M - 0.81 0.72 0.92 44 9132 5 0 4 1 17
3NKB_B - 0.54 0.50 0.59 13 1994 9 0 9 0 13
3O58_3 0.28 0.26 0.31 9 12374 20 3 17 0 26
3O58_2 0.78 0.76 0.81 29 7224 10 2 5 3 9
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
3U4M_B - 0.59 0.46 0.77 17 3138 5 0 5 0 20
3UZL_B 0.70 0.54 0.91 20 3548 2 0 2 0 17
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



Performance of Cylofold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Cylofold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 464
Total TN 111909
Total FP 197
Total FP CONTRA 21
Total FP INCONS 153
Total FP COMP 23
Total FN 443
Total Scores
MCC 0.607
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.586 ± 0.088
Sensitivity 0.512
Positive Predictive Value 0.727
Nr of predictions 28

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KRL_A - 0.72 0.60 0.86 24 5123 8 2 2 4 16
2KX8_A 0.94 0.89 1.00 16 845 0 0 0 0 2
2LA5_A - 0.46 0.26 0.83 5 624 1 0 1 0 14
2LC8_A 0.61 0.55 0.69 11 1524 5 0 5 0 9
2LKR_A - 0.50 0.44 0.59 17 6076 12 2 10 0 22
2XQD_Y 0.81 0.78 0.84 21 2825 4 4 0 0 6
3ADB_C - 0.78 0.71 0.87 27 4155 4 0 4 0 11
3AKZ_H 0.66 0.57 0.76 16 2680 6 0 5 1 12
3AM1_B - 0.76 0.63 0.92 22 3216 2 0 2 0 13
3AMU_B 0.67 0.59 0.76 16 2982 7 0 5 2 11
3IZF_C 0.68 0.56 0.83 30 6867 6 0 6 0 24
3J0L_a - 0.22 0.19 0.27 3 1117 8 1 7 0 13
3J0L_2 - 0.39 0.36 0.43 12 6188 18 2 14 2 21
3J0L_g - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 461 4 1 3 0 4
3J0L_7 - 0.30 0.29 0.33 5 1210 10 0 10 0 12
3J16_L 0.75 0.57 1.00 17 2758 0 0 0 0 13
3NDB_M - 0.58 0.48 0.71 29 9139 13 1 11 1 32
3NKB_B - 0.40 0.31 0.53 8 2001 7 0 7 0 18
3O58_3 0.36 0.34 0.38 12 12371 29 5 15 9 23
3O58_2 0.80 0.68 0.93 26 7232 3 0 2 1 12
3PDR_A 0.72 0.54 0.95 39 12839 4 0 2 2 33
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.62 0.50 0.78 21 3889 6 0 6 0 21
3U4M_B - 0.38 0.32 0.46 12 3134 14 0 14 0 25
3UZL_B 0.45 0.38 0.54 14 3544 12 1 11 0 23
4AOB_A 0.35 0.26 0.48 11 4348 13 1 11 1 31
4ENB_A 0.89 0.79 1.00 15 1260 0 0 0 0 4
4ENC_A 0.86 0.79 0.94 15 1310 1 1 0 0 4

^top


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