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 RNAshapes - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric RNAshapes Mastr(20)
MCC 0.554 > 0.523
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.567 ± 0.091 > 0.511 ± 0.127
Sensitivity 0.482 > 0.348
Positive Predictive Value 0.642 < 0.790
Total TP 474 > 342
Total TN 198667 < 198972
Total FP 333 > 118
Total FP CONTRA 38 > 14
Total FP INCONS 226 > 77
Total FP COMP 69 > 27
Total FN 510 < 642
P-value 4.11890491782e-07

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of RNAshapes - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAshapes

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 474
Total TN 198667
Total FP 333
Total FP CONTRA 38
Total FP INCONS 226
Total FP COMP 69
Total FN 510
Total Scores
MCC 0.554
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.567 ± 0.091
Sensitivity 0.482
Positive Predictive Value 0.642
Nr of predictions 25

^top



2. Individual counts for RNAshapes [ 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 0.59 0.59 0.59 10 2833 12 4 3 5 7
2XQD_Y 0.64 0.56 0.75 15 2830 5 0 5 0 12
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 0.41 0.32 0.53 18 7347 16 1 15 0 39
3GX2_A 0.76 0.63 0.93 25 4344 3 0 2 1 15
3IVN_B 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 2327 0 0 0 0 12
3IZ4_A 0.52 0.45 0.60 60 70776 45 6 34 5 72
3IZF_C 0.59 0.52 0.68 28 6862 13 1 12 0 26
3JYV_7 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2830 20 0 20 0 32
3JYX_3 0.63 0.63 0.63 17 6301 21 1 9 11 10
3JYX_4 0.31 0.30 0.31 10 12214 35 5 17 13 23
3LA5_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2465 0 0 0 0 14
3NPB_A 0.77 0.63 0.94 29 6990 4 1 1 2 17
3O58_2 0.60 0.61 0.59 23 7221 18 4 12 2 15
3O58_3 0.34 0.34 0.34 12 12368 37 2 21 14 23
3PDR_A 0.67 0.56 0.80 40 12830 12 0 10 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 0.68 0.57 0.82 31 7102 7 1 6 0 23
4A1C_2 0.14 0.15 0.14 5 11746 41 5 25 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.