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 MCFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric ProbKnot MCFold
MCC 0.587 > 0.458
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.541 ± 0.115 > 0.429 ± 0.113
Sensitivity 0.536 > 0.476
Positive Predictive Value 0.648 > 0.449
Total TP 449 > 398
Total TN 113497 > 113304
Total FP 280 < 539
Total FP CONTRA 36 < 58
Total FP INCONS 208 < 430
Total FP COMP 36 < 51
Total FN 388 < 439
P-value 5.1503931209e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 MCFold).

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

^top





Performance of ProbKnot - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for ProbKnot

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 449
Total TN 113497
Total FP 280
Total FP CONTRA 36
Total FP INCONS 208
Total FP COMP 36
Total FN 388
Total Scores
MCC 0.587
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.541 ± 0.115
Sensitivity 0.536
Positive Predictive Value 0.648
Nr of predictions 26

^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
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
4A1C_2 0.13 0.15 0.12 5 11738 49 7 31 11 28
4A1C_3 0.73 0.61 0.87 33 7102 6 1 4 1 21
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 MCFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for MCFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 398
Total TN 113304
Total FP 539
Total FP CONTRA 58
Total FP INCONS 430
Total FP COMP 51
Total FN 439
Total Scores
MCC 0.458
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.429 ± 0.113
Sensitivity 0.476
Positive Predictive Value 0.449
Nr of predictions 26

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KX8_A 0.91 0.89 0.94 16 844 2 0 1 1 2
2LA5_A - -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 615 15 0 15 0 19
2LC8_A 0.41 0.45 0.39 9 1517 16 0 14 2 11
2LKR_A - 0.93 0.92 0.95 36 6067 14 0 2 12 3
2XQD_Y 0.34 0.37 0.32 10 2819 22 1 20 1 17
3AKZ_H 0.40 0.43 0.39 12 2670 19 3 16 0 16
3AM1_B - 0.93 0.89 0.97 31 3208 2 0 1 1 4
3AMU_B 0.44 0.48 0.42 13 2972 18 2 16 0 14
3IZF_C 0.71 0.69 0.74 37 6853 14 0 13 1 17
3J0L_2 - 0.21 0.24 0.18 8 6172 39 7 29 3 25
3J0L_g - 0.13 0.25 0.08 1 452 12 8 4 0 3
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1206 19 4 15 0 17
3J0L_a - 0.16 0.19 0.17 3 1110 15 1 14 0 13
3J16_L 0.45 0.47 0.44 14 2743 19 1 17 1 16
3NDB_M - 0.23 0.23 0.24 14 9121 46 1 44 1 47
3NKB_B - 0.56 0.58 0.56 15 1989 13 0 12 1 11
3O58_3 0.22 0.26 0.19 9 12355 45 9 30 6 26
3O58_2 0.20 0.24 0.17 9 7208 44 5 38 1 29
3PDR_A 0.66 0.61 0.72 44 12819 19 0 17 2 28
3RKF_A 0.70 0.65 0.76 22 2182 7 1 6 0 12
3SD1_A 0.33 0.33 0.35 14 3876 26 0 26 0 28
3U4M_B - 0.59 0.59 0.59 22 3123 15 0 15 0 15
4A1C_2 0.13 0.15 0.11 5 11735 56 10 31 15 28
4A1C_3 0.68 0.67 0.71 36 7089 17 1 14 2 18
4ENB_A 0.61 0.63 0.60 12 1255 8 2 6 0 7
4ENC_A 0.28 0.32 0.27 6 1304 17 2 14 1 13

^top


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