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 RNAfold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of Mastr(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric RNAfold Mastr(20)
MCC 0.569 > 0.523
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.583 ± 0.095 > 0.511 ± 0.127
Sensitivity 0.502 > 0.348
Positive Predictive Value 0.649 < 0.790
Total TP 494 > 342
Total TN 198644 < 198972
Total FP 329 > 118
Total FP CONTRA 44 > 14
Total FP INCONS 223 > 77
Total FP COMP 62 > 27
Total FN 490 < 642
P-value 5.19332990918e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of RNAfold and Mastr(20). 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 RNAfold and Mastr(20)).

  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 RNAfold and Mastr(20)).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for RNAfold and Mastr(20). 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 RNAfold and Mastr(20)).

^top





Performance of RNAfold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAfold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 494
Total TN 198644
Total FP 329
Total FP CONTRA 44
Total FP INCONS 223
Total FP COMP 62
Total FN 490
Total Scores
MCC 0.569
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.583 ± 0.095
Sensitivity 0.502
Positive Predictive Value 0.649
Nr of predictions 25

^top



2. Individual counts for RNAfold [ 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 0.51 0.39 0.69 22 7349 10 1 9 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 0.59 0.52 0.67 28 6861 14 1 13 0 26
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 0.31 0.30 0.32 10 12215 33 5 16 12 23
3LA5_A 0.78 0.62 1.00 21 2464 0 0 0 0 13
3NPB_A 0.83 0.72 0.97 33 6987 4 0 1 3 13
3O58_2 0.59 0.61 0.58 23 7220 19 4 13 2 15
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 0.64 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 11744 43 5 27 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



Performance of Mastr(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 342
Total TN 198972
Total FP 118
Total FP CONTRA 14
Total FP INCONS 77
Total FP COMP 27
Total FN 642
Total Scores
MCC 0.523
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.511 ± 0.127
Sensitivity 0.348
Positive Predictive Value 0.790
Nr of predictions 25

^top



2. Individual counts for Mastr(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 12 5 3 4 7
2XQD_Y 0.88 0.78 1.00 21 2829 0 0 0 0 6
3A2K_C 0.72 0.61 0.85 17 2906 3 0 3 0 11
3AMU_B 0.77 0.59 1.00 16 2987 1 0 0 1 11
3G4S_9 0.48 0.32 0.75 18 7357 8 1 5 2 39
3GX2_A 0.39 0.28 0.55 11 4351 10 0 9 1 29
3IVN_B 0.78 0.65 0.95 20 2325 1 1 0 0 11
3IZ4_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 70876 0 0 0 0 132
3IZF_C 0.73 0.63 0.85 34 6863 7 1 5 1 20
3JYV_7 0.81 0.66 1.00 21 2829 0 0 0 0 11
3JYX_3 0.56 0.56 0.58 15 6302 23 1 10 12 12
3JYX_4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 12246 0 0 0 0 33
3LA5_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2465 0 0 0 0 14
3NPB_A 0.30 0.24 0.39 11 6993 18 1 16 1 35
3O58_2 0.76 0.76 0.76 29 7222 12 3 6 3 9
3O58_3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 12403 0 0 0 0 35
3PDR_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 12880 0 0 0 0 72
3RKF_A 0.70 0.50 1.00 17 2194 0 0 0 0 17
3SD1_A 0.61 0.50 0.75 21 3888 7 1 6 0 21
4A1C_3 0.70 0.59 0.84 32 7102 7 0 6 1 22
4A1C_2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 11781 0 0 0 0 33
4AOB_A 0.39 0.26 0.58 11 4352 9 0 8 1 31
4ENB_A 0.39 0.16 1.00 3 1272 0 0 0 0 16
4ENC_A 0.51 0.26 1.00 5 1321 0 0 0 0 14

^top


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