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 RNAsubopt - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric Cylofold RNAsubopt
MCC 0.607 > 0.592
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.586 ± 0.088 > 0.533 ± 0.105
Sensitivity 0.512 < 0.518
Positive Predictive Value 0.727 > 0.682
Total TP 464 < 470
Total TN 111909 > 111858
Total FP 197 < 248
Total FP CONTRA 21 < 23
Total FP INCONS 153 < 196
Total FP COMP 23 < 29
Total FN 443 > 437
P-value 1.24386558293e-07

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^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 RNAsubopt - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAsubopt

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 470
Total TN 111858
Total FP 248
Total FP CONTRA 23
Total FP INCONS 196
Total FP COMP 29
Total FN 437
Total Scores
MCC 0.592
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.533 ± 0.105
Sensitivity 0.518
Positive Predictive Value 0.682
Nr of predictions 28

^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
2KRL_A - 0.52 0.43 0.65 17 5125 12 3 6 3 23
2KX8_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 15 846 0 0 0 0 3
2LA5_A - 0.39 0.26 0.63 5 622 3 1 2 0 14
2LC8_A -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1525 15 2 13 0 20
2LKR_A - 0.81 0.77 0.86 30 6070 9 0 5 4 9
2XQD_Y 0.75 0.67 0.86 18 2829 3 0 3 0 9
3ADB_C - 0.92 0.84 1.00 32 4154 0 0 0 0 6
3AKZ_H 0.39 0.36 0.43 10 2678 13 2 11 0 18
3AM1_B - 0.91 0.83 1.00 29 3211 0 0 0 0 6
3AMU_B 0.70 0.59 0.84 16 2984 5 0 3 2 11
3IZF_C 0.70 0.61 0.80 33 6862 8 1 7 0 21
3J0L_a - 0.35 0.31 0.42 5 1116 7 1 6 0 11
3J0L_2 - 0.25 0.24 0.28 8 6187 25 0 21 4 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 0.41 0.37 0.48 11 2752 12 1 11 0 19
3NDB_M - 0.77 0.69 0.86 42 9131 8 0 7 1 19
3NKB_B - 0.57 0.50 0.65 13 1996 7 0 7 0 13
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
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 0.52 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.