 | ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
 | ||||||||||||||
Table of contents:
- Overview
- Performance Plots
- Performance of HotKnots - scored higher in this pairwise comparison
- Performance of Cylofold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison
- Compile and download dataset for HotKnots & Cylofold [.zip] - may take several seconds...
Overview
| Metric | HotKnots | Cylofold | |
|---|---|---|---|
| MCC | 0.625 | > | 0.607 |
| Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals | 0.600 ± 0.096 | > | 0.586 ± 0.088 |
| Sensitivity | 0.555 | > | 0.512 |
| Positive Predictive Value | 0.709 | < | 0.727 |
| Total TP | 503 | > | 464 |
| Total TN | 111838 | < | 111909 |
| Total FP | 221 | > | 197 |
| Total FP CONTRA | 30 | > | 21 |
| Total FP INCONS | 176 | > | 153 |
| Total FP COMP | 15 | < | 23 |
| Total FN | 404 | < | 443 |
| P-value | 1.43288893557e-07 | ||
Performance plots
-
Comparison of performance of HotKnots 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 HotKnots and Cylofold).
-
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 HotKnots and Cylofold).
-
Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for HotKnots 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 HotKnots and Cylofold).
Performance of HotKnots - scored higher in this pairwise comparison
1. Total counts & total scores for HotKnots
| Total Base Pair Counts | |
|---|---|
| Total TP | 503 |
| Total TN | 111838 |
| Total FP | 221 |
| Total FP CONTRA | 30 |
| Total FP INCONS | 176 |
| Total FP COMP | 15 |
| Total FN | 404 |
| Total Scores | |
|---|---|
| MCC | 0.625 |
| Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals | 0.600 ± 0.096 |
| Sensitivity | 0.555 |
| Positive Predictive Value | 0.709 |
| Nr of predictions | 28 |
2. Individual counts for HotKnots [ 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 | - | 0.79 | 0.74 | 0.85 | 28 | 4153 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 10 |
| 3AKZ_H | 0.43 | 0.39 | 0.48 | 11 | 2678 | 12 | 2 | 10 | 0 | 17 | |
| 3AM1_B | - | 0.78 | 0.71 | 0.86 | 25 | 3211 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 10 |
| 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 | - | 0.51 | 0.50 | 0.53 | 8 | 1113 | 7 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 8 |
| 3J0L_2 | - | 0.28 | 0.27 | 0.29 | 9 | 6185 | 23 | 3 | 19 | 1 | 24 |
| 3J0L_g | - | -0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | 460 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
| 3J0L_7 | - | 0.28 | 0.29 | 0.29 | 5 | 1208 | 12 | 0 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
| 3J16_L | 0.26 | 0.23 | 0.30 | 7 | 2752 | 16 | 1 | 15 | 0 | 23 | |
| 3NDB_M | - | 0.84 | 0.74 | 0.96 | 45 | 9133 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 16 |
| 3NKB_B | - | 0.59 | 0.54 | 0.67 | 14 | 1995 | 7 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 12 |
| 3O58_3 | 0.23 | 0.26 | 0.21 | 9 | 12360 | 34 | 10 | 24 | 0 | 26 | |
| 3O58_2 | 0.71 | 0.71 | 0.71 | 27 | 7222 | 12 | 4 | 7 | 1 | 11 | |
| 3PDR_A | 0.67 | 0.56 | 0.82 | 40 | 12831 | 11 | 0 | 9 | 2 | 32 | |
| 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 | 0.89 | 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 |
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 |
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 |
Matthews Correlation Coeffient, Sensitivity and Positive Predictive Value have been calculated based on the paper by Gardener & Giegerich, 2004.