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 ProbKnot - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric ProbKnot Afold
MCC 0.542 > 0.533
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.554 ± 0.146 > 0.551 ± 0.138
Sensitivity 0.508 > 0.499
Positive Predictive Value 0.582 > 0.574
Total TP 389 > 382
Total TN 209816 < 209818
Total FP 318 < 323
Total FP CONTRA 53 > 50
Total FP INCONS 226 < 234
Total FP COMP 39 = 39
Total FN 377 < 384
P-value 2.40179680388e-07

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of ProbKnot and Afold. 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 ProbKnot and Afold).

  2. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for ProbKnot and Afold. 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 ProbKnot and Afold).

^top





Performance of ProbKnot - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for ProbKnot

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 389
Total TN 209816
Total FP 318
Total FP CONTRA 53
Total FP INCONS 226
Total FP COMP 39
Total FN 377
Total Scores
MCC 0.542
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.554 ± 0.146
Sensitivity 0.508
Positive Predictive Value 0.582
Nr of predictions 18

^top



2. Individual counts for ProbKnot [ 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
2LC8_A -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1525 15 2 13 0 20
2LKR_A - 0.85 0.77 0.94 30 6073 4 0 2 2 9
3AKZ_H 0.73 0.75 0.72 21 2672 8 4 4 0 7
3AM1_B - 0.74 0.71 0.78 25 3208 7 1 6 0 10
3IYQ_A 0.28 0.31 0.26 29 60616 85 22 59 4 65
3IZ4_A 0.52 0.46 0.60 61 70774 46 6 35 5 71
3IZF_C 0.72 0.61 0.85 33 6864 6 0 6 0 21
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1212 13 0 13 0 17
3NDB_M - 0.77 0.69 0.88 42 9132 7 0 6 1 19
3NKB_B - 0.59 0.54 0.67 14 1995 7 0 7 0 12
3NPB_A 0.72 0.61 0.85 28 6988 8 1 4 3 18
3O58_3 0.31 0.34 0.29 12 12362 41 4 25 12 23
3O58_2 0.76 0.76 0.76 29 7222 10 3 6 1 9
3RKF_A 0.73 0.59 0.91 20 2189 2 1 1 0 14
3U4M_B - 0.45 0.35 0.59 13 3138 9 1 8 0 24
4A1C_2 0.13 0.15 0.12 5 11738 49 7 31 11 28
4ENB_A 0.73 0.58 0.92 11 1263 1 1 0 0 8

^top



Performance of Afold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Afold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 382
Total TN 209818
Total FP 323
Total FP CONTRA 50
Total FP INCONS 234
Total FP COMP 39
Total FN 384
Total Scores
MCC 0.533
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.551 ± 0.138
Sensitivity 0.499
Positive Predictive Value 0.574
Nr of predictions 18

^top



2. Individual counts for Afold [ 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
2LC8_A 0.61 0.55 0.69 11 1524 6 0 5 1 9
2LKR_A - 0.93 0.87 1.00 34 6071 3 0 0 3 5
3AKZ_H 0.16 0.14 0.19 4 2680 17 2 15 0 24
3AM1_B - 0.72 0.66 0.79 23 3211 6 0 6 0 12
3IYQ_A 0.31 0.34 0.29 32 60616 82 23 55 4 62
3IZ4_A 0.48 0.45 0.51 59 70760 58 11 46 1 73
3IZF_C 0.66 0.57 0.76 31 6862 10 1 9 0 23
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1210 15 1 14 0 17
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
3NPB_A 0.74 0.61 0.90 28 6990 5 0 3 2 18
3O58_3 0.34 0.34 0.34 12 12368 37 2 21 14 23
3O58_2 0.66 0.66 0.66 25 7222 14 4 9 1 13
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3U4M_B - 0.38 0.32 0.46 12 3134 14 0 14 0 25
4A1C_2 0.14 0.15 0.14 5 11745 43 5 26 12 28
4ENB_A 0.67 0.58 0.79 11 1261 3 1 2 0 8

^top


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