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 Mastr(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric Contrafold Mastr(20)
MCC 0.554 > 0.523
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.570 ± 0.101 > 0.511 ± 0.127
Sensitivity 0.488 > 0.348
Positive Predictive Value 0.634 < 0.790
Total TP 480 > 342
Total TN 198648 < 198972
Total FP 314 > 118
Total FP CONTRA 45 > 14
Total FP INCONS 232 > 77
Total FP COMP 37 > 27
Total FN 504 < 642
P-value 5.59469103578e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of Contrafold - scored higher 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



Performance of Mastr(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 342
Total TN 198972
Total FP 118
Total FP CONTRA 14
Total FP INCONS 77
Total FP COMP 27
Total FN 642
Total Scores
MCC 0.523
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.511 ± 0.127
Sensitivity 0.348
Positive Predictive Value 0.790
Nr of predictions 25

^top



2. Individual counts for Mastr(20) [ 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 12 5 3 4 7
2XQD_Y 0.88 0.78 1.00 21 2829 0 0 0 0 6
3A2K_C 0.72 0.61 0.85 17 2906 3 0 3 0 11
3AMU_B 0.77 0.59 1.00 16 2987 1 0 0 1 11
3G4S_9 0.48 0.32 0.75 18 7357 8 1 5 2 39
3GX2_A 0.39 0.28 0.55 11 4351 10 0 9 1 29
3IVN_B 0.78 0.65 0.95 20 2325 1 1 0 0 11
3IZ4_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 70876 0 0 0 0 132
3IZF_C 0.73 0.63 0.85 34 6863 7 1 5 1 20
3JYV_7 0.81 0.66 1.00 21 2829 0 0 0 0 11
3JYX_3 0.56 0.56 0.58 15 6302 23 1 10 12 12
3JYX_4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 12246 0 0 0 0 33
3LA5_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2465 0 0 0 0 14
3NPB_A 0.30 0.24 0.39 11 6993 18 1 16 1 35
3O58_2 0.76 0.76 0.76 29 7222 12 3 6 3 9
3O58_3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 12403 0 0 0 0 35
3PDR_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 12880 0 0 0 0 72
3RKF_A 0.70 0.50 1.00 17 2194 0 0 0 0 17
3SD1_A 0.61 0.50 0.75 21 3888 7 1 6 0 21
4A1C_3 0.70 0.59 0.84 32 7102 7 0 6 1 22
4A1C_2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 11781 0 0 0 0 33
4AOB_A 0.39 0.26 0.58 11 4352 9 0 8 1 31
4ENB_A 0.39 0.16 1.00 3 1272 0 0 0 0 16
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.