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 Cylofold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric ProbKnot Cylofold
MCC 0.608 > 0.599
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.561 ± 0.106 < 0.578 ± 0.091
Sensitivity 0.547 > 0.503
Positive Predictive Value 0.682 < 0.720
Total TP 475 > 437
Total TN 107665 < 107754
Total FP 251 > 193
Total FP CONTRA 32 > 21
Total FP INCONS 189 > 149
Total FP COMP 30 > 23
Total FN 394 < 432
P-value 3.10701214729e-05

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of ProbKnot - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for ProbKnot

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 475
Total TN 107665
Total FP 251
Total FP CONTRA 32
Total FP INCONS 189
Total FP COMP 30
Total FN 394
Total Scores
MCC 0.608
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.561 ± 0.106
Sensitivity 0.547
Positive Predictive Value 0.682
Nr of predictions 27

^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
2KRL_A - 0.69 0.60 0.80 24 5121 11 2 4 5 16
2KX8_A 0.94 0.89 1.00 16 845 0 0 0 0 2
2LA5_A - 0.45 0.32 0.67 6 621 3 0 3 0 13
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
2XQD_Y 0.90 0.81 1.00 22 2828 1 0 0 1 5
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
3AMU_B 0.65 0.59 0.73 16 2981 8 0 6 2 11
3IZF_C 0.72 0.61 0.85 33 6864 6 0 6 0 21
3J0L_2 - 0.27 0.27 0.28 9 6184 26 2 21 3 24
3J0L_g - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 458 7 2 5 0 4
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1212 13 0 13 0 17
3J0L_a - 0.55 0.50 0.62 8 1115 5 2 3 0 8
3J16_L 0.35 0.33 0.38 10 2749 16 1 15 0 20
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
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
3PDR_A 0.74 0.64 0.85 46 12826 10 1 7 2 26
3RKF_A 0.73 0.59 0.91 20 2189 2 1 1 0 14
3SD1_A 0.55 0.48 0.65 20 3885 11 2 9 0 22
3U4M_B - 0.45 0.35 0.59 13 3138 9 1 8 0 24
3UZL_B 0.73 0.62 0.85 23 3543 4 0 4 0 14
4AOB_A 0.50 0.40 0.63 17 4344 11 2 8 1 25
4ENB_A 0.73 0.58 0.92 11 1263 1 1 0 0 8
4ENC_A 0.45 0.42 0.50 8 1310 8 1 7 0 11

^top



Performance of Cylofold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Cylofold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 437
Total TN 107754
Total FP 193
Total FP CONTRA 21
Total FP INCONS 149
Total FP COMP 23
Total FN 432
Total Scores
MCC 0.599
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.578 ± 0.091
Sensitivity 0.503
Positive Predictive Value 0.720
Nr of predictions 27

^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
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_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
3J0L_a - 0.22 0.19 0.27 3 1117 8 1 7 0 13
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.