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 Mastr(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric Mastr(20) Pknots
MCC 0.561 > 0.540
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.532 ± 0.124 < 0.592 ± 0.111
Sensitivity 0.401 < 0.487
Positive Predictive Value 0.790 > 0.605
Total TP 342 < 415
Total TN 128096 > 127843
Total FP 118 < 307
Total FP CONTRA 14 < 50
Total FP INCONS 77 < 221
Total FP COMP 27 < 36
Total FN 510 > 437
P-value 1.19178247576e-06

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 Mastr(20) and Pknots).

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

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 342
Total TN 128096
Total FP 118
Total FP CONTRA 14
Total FP INCONS 77
Total FP COMP 27
Total FN 510
Total Scores
MCC 0.561
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.532 ± 0.124
Sensitivity 0.401
Positive Predictive Value 0.790
Nr of predictions 24

^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
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



Performance of Pknots - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Pknots

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 415
Total TN 127843
Total FP 307
Total FP CONTRA 50
Total FP INCONS 221
Total FP COMP 36
Total FN 437
Total Scores
MCC 0.540
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.592 ± 0.111
Sensitivity 0.487
Positive Predictive Value 0.605
Nr of predictions 24

^top



2. Individual counts for Pknots [ 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 0.45 0.43 0.48 12 2901 13 2 11 0 16
3AMU_B 0.86 0.74 1.00 20 2983 2 0 0 2 7
3G4S_9 0.25 0.21 0.31 12 7342 27 0 27 0 45
3GX2_A 0.47 0.40 0.55 16 4342 14 1 12 1 24
3IVN_B 0.78 0.65 0.95 20 2325 1 0 1 0 11
3IZF_C 0.70 0.61 0.80 33 6862 8 1 7 0 21
3JYV_7 0.81 0.66 1.00 21 2829 0 0 0 0 11
3JYX_3 0.34 0.37 0.31 10 6296 24 9 13 2 17
3JYX_4 0.18 0.21 0.16 7 12203 41 13 23 5 26
3LA5_A 0.80 0.65 1.00 22 2463 0 0 0 0 12
3NPB_A 0.76 0.67 0.86 31 6985 8 1 4 3 15
3O58_2 0.83 0.74 0.93 28 7230 3 0 2 1 10
3O58_3 0.27 0.31 0.24 11 12357 38 11 24 3 24
3PDR_A 0.54 0.44 0.65 32 12831 19 0 17 2 40
3RKF_A 0.77 0.62 0.95 21 2189 1 0 1 0 13
3SD1_A 0.65 0.52 0.81 22 3889 5 0 5 0 20
4A1C_3 0.25 0.22 0.29 12 7099 29 1 28 0 42
4A1C_2 0.24 0.24 0.25 8 11749 36 3 21 12 25
4AOB_A 0.17 0.14 0.21 6 4343 23 1 21 1 36
4ENB_A 0.83 0.79 0.88 15 1258 2 1 1 0 4
4ENC_A 0.86 0.79 0.94 15 1310 1 1 0 0 4

^top


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