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 RNASampler(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric RNASampler(20) Contrafold
MCC 0.640 > 0.554
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.667 ± 0.075 > 0.570 ± 0.101
Sensitivity 0.491 > 0.488
Positive Predictive Value 0.839 > 0.634
Total TP 483 > 480
Total TN 198829 > 198648
Total FP 147 < 314
Total FP CONTRA 21 < 45
Total FP INCONS 72 < 232
Total FP COMP 54 > 37
Total FN 501 < 504
P-value 5.06544643719e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of RNASampler(20) and Contrafold. 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 RNASampler(20) and Contrafold).

  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 RNASampler(20) and Contrafold).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for RNASampler(20) and Contrafold. 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 RNASampler(20) and Contrafold).

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 483
Total TN 198829
Total FP 147
Total FP CONTRA 21
Total FP INCONS 72
Total FP COMP 54
Total FN 501
Total Scores
MCC 0.640
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.667 ± 0.075
Sensitivity 0.491
Positive Predictive Value 0.839
Nr of predictions 25

^top



2. Individual counts for RNASampler(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 13 5 3 5 7
2XQD_Y 0.88 0.78 1.00 21 2829 0 0 0 0 6
3A2K_C 0.86 0.75 1.00 21 2905 0 0 0 0 7
3AMU_B 0.82 0.70 0.95 19 2983 3 0 1 2 8
3G4S_9 0.50 0.28 0.89 16 7363 2 1 1 0 41
3GX2_A 0.74 0.55 1.00 22 4349 1 0 0 1 18
3IVN_B 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 2327 0 0 0 0 12
3IZ4_A 0.47 0.32 0.69 42 70815 23 6 13 4 90
3IZF_C 0.74 0.57 0.97 31 6871 1 0 1 0 23
3JYV_7 0.81 0.66 1.00 21 2829 0 0 0 0 11
3JYX_3 0.58 0.44 0.75 12 6312 11 0 4 7 15
3JYX_4 0.32 0.30 0.34 10 12217 26 4 15 7 23
3LA5_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2465 0 0 0 0 14
3NPB_A 0.68 0.48 0.96 22 6998 4 1 0 3 24
3O58_2 0.79 0.71 0.87 27 7229 5 2 2 1 11
3O58_3 0.43 0.34 0.55 12 12381 18 2 8 8 23
3PDR_A 0.70 0.53 0.93 38 12839 5 0 3 2 34
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.67 0.48 0.95 20 3895 1 0 1 0 22
4A1C_3 0.74 0.56 1.00 30 7110 0 0 0 0 24
4A1C_2 0.18 0.15 0.23 5 11759 30 0 17 13 28
4AOB_A 0.58 0.40 0.85 17 4351 4 0 3 1 25
4ENB_A 0.60 0.37 1.00 7 1268 0 0 0 0 12
4ENC_A 0.76 0.58 1.00 11 1315 0 0 0 0 8

^top



Performance of Contrafold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Contrafold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 480
Total TN 198648
Total FP 314
Total FP CONTRA 45
Total FP INCONS 232
Total FP COMP 37
Total FN 504
Total Scores
MCC 0.554
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.570 ± 0.101
Sensitivity 0.488
Positive Predictive Value 0.634
Nr of predictions 25

^top



2. Individual counts for Contrafold [ 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 13 5 3 5 7
2XQD_Y 0.78 0.70 0.86 19 2828 3 0 3 0 8
3A2K_C 0.44 0.43 0.46 12 2900 14 2 12 0 16
3AMU_B 0.65 0.59 0.73 16 2981 8 0 6 2 11
3G4S_9 0.30 0.25 0.38 14 7344 23 1 22 0 43
3GX2_A 0.77 0.63 0.96 25 4345 2 0 1 1 15
3IVN_B 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 2327 0 0 0 0 12
3IZ4_A 0.52 0.45 0.61 60 70777 44 4 35 5 72
3IZF_C 0.68 0.61 0.77 33 6860 10 1 9 0 21
3JYV_7 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2830 20 0 20 0 32
3JYX_3 0.28 0.30 0.27 8 6298 23 8 14 1 19
3JYX_4 0.20 0.21 0.20 7 12211 35 6 22 7 26
3LA5_A 0.78 0.62 1.00 21 2464 0 0 0 0 13
3NPB_A 0.76 0.70 0.84 32 6983 8 1 5 2 14
3O58_2 0.78 0.76 0.81 29 7224 10 2 5 3 9
3O58_3 0.28 0.26 0.31 9 12374 20 3 17 0 26
3PDR_A 0.69 0.60 0.80 43 12826 13 0 11 2 29
3RKF_A 0.73 0.59 0.91 20 2189 2 1 1 0 14
3SD1_A 0.57 0.48 0.69 20 3887 9 2 7 0 22
4A1C_3 0.66 0.57 0.78 31 7100 9 1 8 0 23
4A1C_2 0.16 0.15 0.17 5 11751 33 5 20 8 28
4AOB_A 0.44 0.36 0.56 15 4344 13 1 11 1 27
4ENB_A 0.73 0.58 0.92 11 1263 1 1 0 0 8
4ENC_A 0.73 0.58 0.92 11 1314 1 1 0 0 8

^top


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