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 Fold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric Fold MCFold
MCC 0.585 > 0.448
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.520 ± 0.119 > 0.419 ± 0.111
Sensitivity 0.518 > 0.466
Positive Predictive Value 0.667 > 0.438
Total TP 448 > 403
Total TN 116444 > 116196
Total FP 258 < 569
Total FP CONTRA 26 < 62
Total FP INCONS 198 < 455
Total FP COMP 34 < 52
Total FN 417 < 462
P-value 5.1503931209e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of Fold and MCFold. 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 Fold and MCFold).

  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 Fold and MCFold).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Fold and MCFold. 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 Fold and MCFold).

^top





Performance of Fold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Fold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 448
Total TN 116444
Total FP 258
Total FP CONTRA 26
Total FP INCONS 198
Total FP COMP 34
Total FN 417
Total Scores
MCC 0.585
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.520 ± 0.119
Sensitivity 0.518
Positive Predictive Value 0.667
Nr of predictions 27

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
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 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1525 15 2 13 0 20
2LKR_A - 0.85 0.79 0.91 31 6071 5 0 3 2 8
2WWQ_V 0.76 0.64 0.90 18 2906 3 0 2 1 10
2XQD_Y 0.88 0.78 1.00 21 2829 0 0 0 0 6
3AKZ_H 0.84 0.75 0.95 21 2679 1 1 0 0 7
3AM1_B - 0.78 0.71 0.86 25 3211 4 0 4 0 10
3AMU_B 0.64 0.59 0.70 16 2980 9 0 7 2 11
3IZF_C 0.70 0.59 0.82 32 6864 7 1 6 0 22
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1213 12 0 12 0 17
3J0L_2 - 0.25 0.24 0.26 8 6185 25 2 21 2 25
3J0L_g - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 461 4 1 3 0 4
3J0L_a - 0.20 0.19 0.23 3 1115 10 2 8 0 13
3J16_L 0.63 0.53 0.76 16 2754 5 0 5 0 14
3NDB_M - 0.84 0.74 0.96 45 9133 3 0 2 1 16
3NKB_B - 0.35 0.31 0.42 8 1997 11 0 11 0 18
3O58_3 0.29 0.31 0.28 11 12363 41 3 26 12 24
3O58_2 0.71 0.71 0.71 27 7222 12 3 8 1 11
3PDR_A 0.77 0.64 0.94 46 12831 5 0 3 2 26
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.57 0.48 0.69 20 3887 9 1 8 0 22
3U4M_B - 0.45 0.35 0.59 13 3138 9 1 8 0 24
4A1C_2 0.14 0.15 0.14 5 11744 43 5 27 11 28
4A1C_3 0.68 0.57 0.82 31 7102 7 1 6 0 23
4ENB_A 0.32 0.26 0.42 5 1263 7 1 6 0 14
4ENC_A 0.31 0.26 0.38 5 1313 8 1 7 0 14

^top



Performance of MCFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for MCFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 403
Total TN 116196
Total FP 569
Total FP CONTRA 62
Total FP INCONS 455
Total FP COMP 52
Total FN 462
Total Scores
MCC 0.448
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.419 ± 0.111
Sensitivity 0.466
Positive Predictive Value 0.438
Nr of predictions 27

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KX8_A 0.91 0.89 0.94 16 844 2 0 1 1 2
2LA5_A - -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 615 15 0 15 0 19
2LC8_A 0.41 0.45 0.39 9 1517 16 0 14 2 11
2LKR_A - 0.93 0.92 0.95 36 6067 14 0 2 12 3
2WWQ_V 0.15 0.18 0.15 5 2892 30 4 25 1 23
2XQD_Y 0.34 0.37 0.32 10 2819 22 1 20 1 17
3AKZ_H 0.40 0.43 0.39 12 2670 19 3 16 0 16
3AM1_B - 0.93 0.89 0.97 31 3208 2 0 1 1 4
3AMU_B 0.44 0.48 0.42 13 2972 18 2 16 0 14
3IZF_C 0.71 0.69 0.74 37 6853 14 0 13 1 17
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1206 19 4 15 0 17
3J0L_2 - 0.21 0.24 0.18 8 6172 39 7 29 3 25
3J0L_g - 0.13 0.25 0.08 1 452 12 8 4 0 3
3J0L_a - 0.16 0.19 0.17 3 1110 15 1 14 0 13
3J16_L 0.45 0.47 0.44 14 2743 19 1 17 1 16
3NDB_M - 0.23 0.23 0.24 14 9121 46 1 44 1 47
3NKB_B - 0.56 0.58 0.56 15 1989 13 0 12 1 11
3O58_3 0.22 0.26 0.19 9 12355 45 9 30 6 26
3O58_2 0.20 0.24 0.17 9 7208 44 5 38 1 29
3PDR_A 0.66 0.61 0.72 44 12819 19 0 17 2 28
3RKF_A 0.70 0.65 0.76 22 2182 7 1 6 0 12
3SD1_A 0.33 0.33 0.35 14 3876 26 0 26 0 28
3U4M_B - 0.59 0.59 0.59 22 3123 15 0 15 0 15
4A1C_2 0.13 0.15 0.11 5 11735 56 10 31 15 28
4A1C_3 0.68 0.67 0.71 36 7089 17 1 14 2 18
4ENB_A 0.61 0.63 0.60 12 1255 8 2 6 0 7
4ENC_A 0.28 0.32 0.27 6 1304 17 2 14 1 13

^top


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