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 UNAFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric RNAalifold(20) UNAFold
MCC 0.659 > 0.589
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.656 ± 0.071 > 0.601 ± 0.086
Sensitivity 0.510 < 0.513
Positive Predictive Value 0.854 > 0.681
Total TP 502 < 505
Total TN 198817 > 198663
Total FP 121 < 303
Total FP CONTRA 21 < 33
Total FP INCONS 65 < 204
Total FP COMP 35 < 66
Total FN 482 > 479
P-value 5.06544643719e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 UNAFold).

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

^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 UNAFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for UNAFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 505
Total TN 198663
Total FP 303
Total FP CONTRA 33
Total FP INCONS 204
Total FP COMP 66
Total FN 479
Total Scores
MCC 0.589
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.601 ± 0.086
Sensitivity 0.513
Positive Predictive Value 0.681
Nr of predictions 25

^top



2. Individual counts for UNAFold [ 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 0.67 22 7348 11 1 10 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 0.45 0.58 60 70772 50 4 40 6 72
3IZF_C 0.70 0.61 0.80 33 6862 8 1 7 0 21
3JYV_7 0.22 0.19 0.29 6 2829 15 0 15 0 26
3JYX_3 0.62 0.63 0.61 17 6300 22 1 10 11 10
3JYX_4 0.32 0.30 0.34 10 12217 31 3 16 12 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 0.35 0.34 0.35 12 12369 33 1 21 11 23
3PDR_A 0.77 0.64 0.94 46 12831 5 0 3 2 26
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 5 26 11 28
4AOB_A 0.50 0.40 0.63 17 4344 11 2 8 1 25
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 1 6 0 14

^top


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