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 RNAsubopt - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric RNAsubopt Mastr(20)
MCC 0.545 > 0.523
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.559 ± 0.098 > 0.511 ± 0.127
Sensitivity 0.486 > 0.348
Positive Predictive Value 0.616 < 0.790
Total TP 478 > 342
Total TN 198629 < 198972
Total FP 346 > 118
Total FP CONTRA 48 > 14
Total FP INCONS 250 > 77
Total FP COMP 48 > 27
Total FN 506 < 642
P-value 1.13709158556e-05

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of RNAsubopt - scored higher 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



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.