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 Murlet(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

  5. Compile and download dataset for Murlet(seed) & NanoFolder [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric Murlet(seed) NanoFolder
MCC 0.470 > 0.261
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.330 ± 0.150 < 0.346 ± 0.124
Sensitivity 0.254 < 0.304
Positive Predictive Value 0.871 > 0.229
Total TP 210 < 251
Total TN 285019 > 284162
Total FP 36 < 909
Total FP CONTRA 0 < 167
Total FP INCONS 31 < 680
Total FP COMP 5 < 62
Total FN 617 > 576
P-value 5.1503931209e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of Murlet(seed) and NanoFolder. 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 Murlet(seed) and NanoFolder).

  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 Murlet(seed) and NanoFolder).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Murlet(seed) and NanoFolder. 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 Murlet(seed) and NanoFolder).

^top





Performance of Murlet(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Murlet(seed)

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 210
Total TN 285019
Total FP 36
Total FP CONTRA 0
Total FP INCONS 31
Total FP COMP 5
Total FN 617
Total Scores
MCC 0.470
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.330 ± 0.150
Sensitivity 0.254
Positive Predictive Value 0.871
Nr of predictions 25

^top



2. Individual counts for Murlet(seed) [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
PDB_01051 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 903 0 0 0 0 13
RFA_00416 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1485 0 0 0 0 15
RFA_00604 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 13530 0 0 0 0 35
RFA_00620 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 21945 0 0 0 0 39
RFA_00664 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 990 0 0 0 0 14
RFA_00674 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1128 0 0 0 0 14
RFA_00675 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 990 0 0 0 0 14
RFA_00677 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 990 0 0 0 0 14
RFA_00684 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 990 0 0 0 0 14
RFA_00703 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4278 0 0 0 0 14
RFA_00716 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 946 0 0 0 0 14
RFA_00717 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 903 0 0 0 0 14
RFA_00730 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 891 0 0 0 0 0
RFA_00763 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 891 0 0 0 0 0
RFA_00765 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 891 0 0 0 0 0
RFA_00770 0.57 0.44 0.73 8 2005 3 0 3 0 10
RFA_00773 0.41 0.28 0.63 5 1945 3 0 3 0 13
RFA_00808 0.75 0.56 1.00 9 2007 0 0 0 0 7
RFA_00816 0.75 0.63 0.90 26 23191 4 0 3 1 15
SRP_00197 0.47 0.28 0.80 28 49420 8 0 7 1 73
SRP_00198 0.47 0.27 0.82 28 51006 7 0 6 1 75
SRP_00278 0.53 0.30 0.94 31 46023 3 0 2 1 74
SRP_00285 0.45 0.20 1.00 6 3735 0 0 0 0 24
SRP_00322 0.44 0.25 0.79 27 48482 8 0 7 1 82
SRP_00338 0.41 0.17 1.00 6 5454 0 0 0 0 30

^top



Performance of NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for NanoFolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 251
Total TN 284162
Total FP 909
Total FP CONTRA 167
Total FP INCONS 680
Total FP COMP 62
Total FN 576
Total Scores
MCC 0.261
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.346 ± 0.124
Sensitivity 0.304
Positive Predictive Value 0.229
Nr of predictions 25

^top



2. Individual counts for NanoFolder [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
PDB_01051 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 885 18 1 17 0 13
RFA_00416 0.94 1.00 0.88 15 1468 6 2 0 4 0
RFA_00604 0.42 0.54 0.33 19 13472 53 14 25 14 16
RFA_00620 0.16 0.23 0.11 9 21864 80 29 43 8 30
RFA_00664 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 978 13 0 12 1 14
RFA_00674 0.12 0.14 0.13 2 1112 15 0 14 1 12
RFA_00675 0.28 0.29 0.29 4 976 10 1 9 0 10
RFA_00677 0.62 0.64 0.60 9 975 10 0 6 4 5
RFA_00684 0.74 0.71 0.77 10 977 5 2 1 2 4
RFA_00703 0.26 0.36 0.19 5 4252 32 5 16 11 9
RFA_00716 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 929 17 0 17 0 14
RFA_00717 0.64 0.64 0.64 9 889 5 2 3 0 5
RFA_00730 0.38 0.42 0.36 5 889 10 3 6 1 7
RFA_00763 0.38 0.42 0.36 5 889 10 3 6 1 7
RFA_00765 0.39 0.42 0.38 5 890 9 2 6 1 7
RFA_00770 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1996 24 0 20 4 18
RFA_00773 0.93 1.00 0.86 18 1932 9 3 0 6 0
RFA_00808 0.83 1.00 0.70 16 1993 7 7 0 0 0
RFA_00816 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 23133 89 30 57 2 41
SRP_00197 0.12 0.14 0.11 14 49324 117 16 101 0 87
SRP_00198 0.07 0.08 0.06 8 50903 129 15 114 0 95
SRP_00278 0.33 0.36 0.30 38 45928 90 14 76 0 67
SRP_00285 0.38 0.43 0.35 13 3704 24 6 18 0 17
SRP_00322 0.22 0.25 0.21 27 48385 105 8 96 1 82
SRP_00338 0.52 0.56 0.49 20 5419 22 4 17 1 16

^top


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