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 McQFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric McQFold Cylofold
MCC 0.641 > 0.607
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.604 ± 0.104 > 0.586 ± 0.088
Sensitivity 0.546 > 0.512
Positive Predictive Value 0.758 > 0.727
Total TP 495 > 464
Total TN 111894 < 111909
Total FP 174 < 197
Total FP CONTRA 22 > 21
Total FP INCONS 136 < 153
Total FP COMP 16 < 23
Total FN 412 < 443
P-value 5.23657817852e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 McQFold and Cylofold).

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

^top





Performance of McQFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for McQFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 495
Total TN 111894
Total FP 174
Total FP CONTRA 22
Total FP INCONS 136
Total FP COMP 16
Total FN 412
Total Scores
MCC 0.641
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.604 ± 0.104
Sensitivity 0.546
Positive Predictive Value 0.758
Nr of predictions 28

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KRL_A - 0.59 0.53 0.68 21 5120 13 3 7 3 19
2KX8_A 0.88 0.83 0.94 15 845 1 0 1 0 3
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 - 0.51 0.46 0.58 18 6074 13 2 11 0 21
2XQD_Y 0.88 0.78 1.00 21 2829 0 0 0 0 6
3ADB_C - 0.92 0.84 1.00 32 4154 1 0 0 1 6
3AKZ_H 0.68 0.61 0.77 17 2679 6 1 4 1 11
3AM1_B - 0.91 0.83 1.00 29 3211 1 0 0 1 6
3AMU_B 0.75 0.59 0.94 16 2986 3 0 1 2 11
3IZF_C 0.68 0.56 0.83 30 6867 6 0 6 0 24
3J0L_a - 0.26 0.19 0.38 3 1120 5 1 4 0 13
3J0L_2 - 0.26 0.24 0.30 8 6189 21 0 19 2 25
3J0L_g - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 461 4 1 3 0 4
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1215 10 0 10 0 17
3J16_L 0.75 0.57 1.00 17 2758 0 0 0 0 13
3NDB_M - 0.81 0.70 0.93 43 9134 4 1 2 1 18
3NKB_B - 0.36 0.31 0.44 8 1998 10 1 9 0 18
3O58_3 0.26 0.26 0.26 9 12368 26 10 16 0 26
3O58_2 0.83 0.71 0.96 27 7232 2 0 1 1 11
3PDR_A 0.69 0.56 0.87 40 12834 9 0 6 3 32
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.71 0.60 0.86 25 3887 4 0 4 0 17
3U4M_B - 0.73 0.57 0.95 21 3138 1 0 1 0 16
3UZL_B 0.45 0.41 0.52 15 3541 14 0 14 0 22
4AOB_A 0.42 0.33 0.54 14 4345 13 1 11 1 28
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 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

^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


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