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 RNAalifold(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric RNAalifold(20) Contrafold
MCC 0.659 > 0.554
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.656 ± 0.071 > 0.570 ± 0.101
Sensitivity 0.510 > 0.488
Positive Predictive Value 0.854 > 0.634
Total TP 502 > 480
Total TN 198817 > 198648
Total FP 121 < 314
Total FP CONTRA 21 < 45
Total FP INCONS 65 < 232
Total FP COMP 35 < 37
Total FN 482 < 504
P-value 5.23657817852e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 502
Total TN 198817
Total FP 121
Total FP CONTRA 21
Total FP INCONS 65
Total FP COMP 35
Total FN 482
Total Scores
MCC 0.659
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.656 ± 0.071
Sensitivity 0.510
Positive Predictive Value 0.854
Nr of predictions 25

^top



2. Individual counts for RNAalifold(20) [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KDQ_B 0.60 0.36 1.00 4 402 0 0 0 0 7
2WRQ_Y 0.57 0.59 0.56 10 2832 11 5 3 3 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 0.86 0.74 1.00 20 2983 1 0 0 1 7
3G4S_9 0.69 0.49 0.97 28 7352 3 1 0 2 29
3GX2_A 0.77 0.60 1.00 24 4347 1 0 0 1 16
3IVN_B 0.74 0.58 0.95 18 2327 1 1 0 0 13
3IZ4_A 0.53 0.35 0.82 46 70820 15 4 6 5 86
3IZF_C 0.71 0.59 0.86 32 6866 5 1 4 0 22
3JYV_7 0.81 0.66 1.00 21 2829 0 0 0 0 11
3JYX_3 0.60 0.52 0.70 14 6308 17 0 6 11 13
3JYX_4 0.39 0.30 0.50 10 12226 15 0 10 5 23
3LA5_A 0.75 0.56 1.00 19 2466 0 0 0 0 15
3NPB_A 0.68 0.48 0.96 22 6998 3 1 0 2 24
3O58_2 0.79 0.76 0.83 29 7225 7 3 3 1 9
3O58_3 0.37 0.26 0.53 9 12386 8 2 6 0 26
3PDR_A 0.76 0.61 0.96 44 12834 3 0 2 1 28
3RKF_A 0.68 0.50 0.94 17 2193 1 0 1 0 17
3SD1_A 0.70 0.60 0.83 25 3886 5 1 4 0 17
4A1C_3 0.74 0.57 0.97 31 7108 1 0 1 0 23
4A1C_2 0.17 0.15 0.19 5 11755 23 2 19 2 28
4AOB_A 0.72 0.52 1.00 22 4349 1 0 0 1 20
4ENB_A 0.46 0.21 1.00 4 1271 0 0 0 0 15
4ENC_A 0.56 0.32 1.00 6 1320 0 0 0 0 13

^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.