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 Cylofold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric Cylofold RNAfold
MCC 0.607 > 0.586
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.586 ± 0.088 > 0.545 ± 0.099
Sensitivity 0.512 < 0.513
Positive Predictive Value 0.727 > 0.677
Total TP 464 < 465
Total TN 111909 > 111860
Total FP 197 < 250
Total FP CONTRA 21 = 21
Total FP INCONS 153 < 201
Total FP COMP 23 < 28
Total FN 443 > 442
P-value 5.1503931209e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 Cylofold and RNAfold).

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

^top





Performance of Cylofold - scored higher 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



Performance of RNAfold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAfold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 465
Total TN 111860
Total FP 250
Total FP CONTRA 21
Total FP INCONS 201
Total FP COMP 28
Total FN 442
Total Scores
MCC 0.586
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.545 ± 0.099
Sensitivity 0.513
Positive Predictive Value 0.677
Nr of predictions 28

^top



2. Individual counts for RNAfold [ 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 0.61 0.55 0.69 11 1524 5 0 5 0 9
2LKR_A - 0.93 0.87 1.00 34 6071 3 0 0 3 5
2XQD_Y 0.88 0.78 1.00 21 2829 0 0 0 0 6
3ADB_C - 0.33 0.32 0.35 12 4152 22 0 22 0 26
3AKZ_H 0.43 0.39 0.48 11 2678 12 2 10 0 17
3AM1_B - 0.68 0.63 0.73 22 3210 8 1 7 0 13
3AMU_B 0.70 0.59 0.84 16 2984 5 0 3 2 11
3IZF_C 0.59 0.52 0.67 28 6861 14 1 13 0 26
3J0L_a - 0.23 0.19 0.30 3 1118 7 1 6 0 13
3J0L_2 - 0.25 0.24 0.26 8 6185 25 2 21 2 25
3J0L_g - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 460 5 1 4 0 4
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1213 12 0 12 0 17
3J16_L 0.75 0.57 1.00 17 2758 0 0 0 0 13
3NDB_M - 0.77 0.69 0.86 42 9131 8 0 7 1 19
3NKB_B - 0.59 0.54 0.67 14 1995 7 0 7 0 12
3O58_3 0.34 0.34 0.34 12 12368 34 2 21 11 23
3O58_2 0.59 0.61 0.58 23 7220 19 4 13 2 15
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 0.64 0.52 0.79 22 3888 6 1 5 0 20
3U4M_B - 0.38 0.32 0.46 12 3134 14 0 14 0 25
3UZL_B 0.48 0.38 0.61 14 3547 9 0 9 0 23
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.