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 HotKnots - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric RNASampler(20) HotKnots
MCC 0.640 > 0.580
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.667 ± 0.075 > 0.611 ± 0.099
Sensitivity 0.491 < 0.514
Positive Predictive Value 0.839 > 0.658
Total TP 483 < 506
Total TN 198829 > 198636
Total FP 147 < 312
Total FP CONTRA 21 < 51
Total FP INCONS 72 < 212
Total FP COMP 54 > 49
Total FN 501 > 478
P-value 5.10776592382e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 HotKnots).

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

^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 HotKnots - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for HotKnots

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 506
Total TN 198636
Total FP 312
Total FP CONTRA 51
Total FP INCONS 212
Total FP COMP 49
Total FN 478
Total Scores
MCC 0.580
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.611 ± 0.099
Sensitivity 0.514
Positive Predictive Value 0.658
Nr of predictions 25

^top



2. Individual counts for HotKnots [ 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 0.42 0.39 0.46 11 2902 13 2 11 0 17
3AMU_B 0.70 0.59 0.84 16 2984 5 0 3 2 11
3G4S_9 0.50 0.39 0.65 22 7347 12 1 11 0 35
3GX2_A 0.68 0.55 0.85 22 4345 5 0 4 1 18
3IVN_B 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 2327 0 0 0 0 12
3IZ4_A 0.51 0.47 0.55 62 70763 52 10 41 1 70
3IZF_C 0.70 0.61 0.80 33 6862 8 1 7 0 21
3JYV_7 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2828 22 1 21 0 32
3JYX_3 0.62 0.63 0.61 17 6300 22 1 10 11 10
3JYX_4 0.32 0.30 0.33 10 12216 31 5 15 11 23
3LA5_A 0.78 0.62 1.00 21 2464 0 0 0 0 13
3NPB_A 0.78 0.65 0.94 30 6989 5 0 2 3 16
3O58_2 0.71 0.71 0.71 27 7222 12 4 7 1 11
3O58_3 0.23 0.26 0.21 9 12360 34 10 24 0 26
3PDR_A 0.67 0.56 0.82 40 12831 11 0 9 2 32
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.64 0.52 0.79 22 3888 6 1 5 0 20
4A1C_3 0.70 0.59 0.82 32 7101 7 1 6 0 22
4A1C_2 0.14 0.15 0.14 5 11745 42 6 25 11 28
4AOB_A 0.50 0.40 0.63 17 4344 11 2 8 1 25
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.