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 RNAsubopt - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric RNAalifold(20) RNAsubopt
MCC 0.659 > 0.545
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.656 ± 0.071 > 0.559 ± 0.098
Sensitivity 0.510 > 0.486
Positive Predictive Value 0.854 > 0.616
Total TP 502 > 478
Total TN 198817 > 198629
Total FP 121 < 346
Total FP CONTRA 21 < 48
Total FP INCONS 65 < 250
Total FP COMP 35 < 48
Total FN 482 < 506
P-value 5.19332990918e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 RNAsubopt).

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

^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 RNAsubopt - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAsubopt

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 478
Total TN 198629
Total FP 346
Total FP CONTRA 48
Total FP INCONS 250
Total FP COMP 48
Total FN 506
Total Scores
MCC 0.545
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.559 ± 0.098
Sensitivity 0.486
Positive Predictive Value 0.616
Nr of predictions 25

^top



2. Individual counts for RNAsubopt [ 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 12 5 3 4 7
2XQD_Y 0.75 0.67 0.86 18 2829 3 0 3 0 9
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 0.28 0.23 0.35 13 7344 24 1 23 0 44
3GX2_A 0.44 0.38 0.54 15 4343 14 1 12 1 25
3IVN_B 0.76 0.58 1.00 18 2328 0 0 0 0 13
3IZ4_A 0.51 0.47 0.56 62 70766 49 8 40 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 2829 21 0 21 0 32
3JYX_3 0.63 0.63 0.63 17 6301 21 1 9 11 10
3JYX_4 0.19 0.21 0.17 7 12204 38 11 24 3 26
3LA5_A 0.78 0.62 1.00 21 2464 0 0 0 0 13
3NPB_A 0.75 0.65 0.86 30 6986 7 1 4 2 16
3O58_2 0.72 0.74 0.70 28 7220 13 4 8 1 10
3O58_3 0.34 0.34 0.34 12 12368 34 2 21 11 23
3PDR_A 0.75 0.63 0.90 45 12830 7 1 4 2 27
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.61 0.50 0.75 21 3888 7 1 6 0 21
4A1C_3 0.70 0.59 0.82 32 7101 7 1 6 0 22
4A1C_2 0.14 0.15 0.13 5 11742 43 5 29 9 28
4AOB_A 0.52 0.43 0.64 18 4343 11 2 8 1 24
4ENB_A 0.70 0.58 0.85 11 1262 2 1 1 0 8
4ENC_A 0.32 0.26 0.42 5 1314 7 0 7 0 14

^top


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