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 Mastr(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric Mastr(20) NanoFolder
MCC 0.704 > 0.337
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.698 ± 0.072 > 0.365 ± 0.058
Sensitivity 0.599 > 0.391
Positive Predictive Value 0.832 > 0.298
Total TP 921 > 602
Total TN 239553 > 238640
Total FP 253 < 1482
Total FP CONTRA 7 < 281
Total FP INCONS 179 < 1137
Total FP COMP 67 > 64
Total FN 617 < 936
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 921
Total TN 239553
Total FP 253
Total FP CONTRA 7
Total FP INCONS 179
Total FP COMP 67
Total FN 617
Total Scores
MCC 0.704
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.698 ± 0.072
Sensitivity 0.599
Positive Predictive Value 0.832
Nr of predictions 59

^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
CRW_01535 0.86 0.86 0.86 32 7103 9 0 5 4 5
CRW_01539 0.92 0.89 0.94 33 7105 8 0 2 6 4
CRW_01563 0.90 0.89 0.92 33 6867 7 0 3 4 4
CRW_01583 0.92 0.92 0.92 34 7103 7 0 3 4 3
CRW_01590 0.92 0.92 0.92 34 7103 4 0 3 1 3
CRW_01593 0.82 0.78 0.85 29 7106 9 0 5 4 8
CRW_01595 0.79 0.78 0.81 29 8479 13 0 7 6 8
CRW_01603 0.90 0.86 0.94 32 7106 3 0 2 1 5
CRW_01617 0.92 0.92 0.92 34 7103 7 0 3 4 3
CRW_01625 0.90 0.89 0.92 33 7104 5 0 3 2 4
PDB_00070 0.93 0.88 1.00 21 2829 0 0 0 0 3
PDB_00571 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 3302 20 3 16 1 25
PDB_00828 0.88 0.78 1.00 21 2464 0 0 0 0 6
PDB_01236 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 11628 0 0 0 0 54
RFA_00416 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 1470 2 0 0 2 0
RFA_00434 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 1416 2 0 0 2 0
RFA_00436 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 1416 2 0 0 2 0
RFA_00442 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 1416 2 0 0 2 0
RFA_00664 0.64 0.57 0.73 8 979 4 0 3 1 6
RFA_00674 0.75 0.57 1.00 8 1120 0 0 0 0 6
RFA_00675 0.59 0.50 0.70 7 980 4 0 3 1 7
RFA_00677 0.75 0.57 1.00 8 982 0 0 0 0 6
RFA_00717 0.69 0.64 0.75 9 891 3 0 3 0 5
RFA_00730 0.91 0.83 1.00 10 893 2 0 0 2 2
RFA_00763 0.91 0.83 1.00 10 893 2 0 0 2 2
RFA_00765 0.96 0.92 1.00 11 892 2 0 0 2 1
SPR_00066 1.00 1.00 1.00 21 2829 0 0 0 0 0
SPR_00314 1.00 1.00 1.00 21 2905 1 0 0 1 0
SPR_00333 0.28 0.29 0.29 6 2754 15 0 15 0 15
SPR_00353 1.00 1.00 1.00 21 2829 0 0 0 0 0
SPR_00452 0.42 0.43 0.43 9 2829 12 0 12 0 12
SPR_00456 1.00 1.00 1.00 21 2829 0 0 0 0 0
SPR_00476 0.44 0.43 0.45 9 2755 11 0 11 0 12
SPR_00496 0.47 0.43 0.53 9 2758 8 0 8 0 12
SPR_00497 0.44 0.43 0.45 9 2755 11 0 11 0 12
SPR_00502 1.00 1.00 1.00 21 2905 0 0 0 0 0
SPR_00509 0.45 0.45 0.45 9 2906 12 0 11 1 11
SPR_00512 1.00 1.00 1.00 20 2906 1 0 0 1 0
SPR_00557 1.00 1.00 1.00 21 2829 0 0 0 0 0
SPR_00868 1.00 1.00 1.00 21 2905 0 0 0 0 0
SPR_00957 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2986 17 0 17 0 21
SPR_01040 0.42 0.43 0.43 9 2754 12 0 12 0 12
SRP_00038 0.59 0.48 0.73 16 5028 6 0 6 0 17
SRP_00046 0.47 0.22 1.00 7 4746 0 0 0 0 25
SRP_00170 0.62 0.48 0.80 12 4080 4 1 2 1 13
SRP_00194 0.46 0.29 0.75 6 3232 3 0 2 1 15
SRP_00200 0.44 0.19 1.00 7 6896 1 0 0 1 29
SRP_00233 0.46 0.21 1.00 7 5144 0 0 0 0 26
SRP_00243 0.47 0.23 1.00 7 5144 0 0 0 0 24
SRP_00244 0.39 0.15 1.00 6 6897 1 0 0 1 33
SRP_00266 0.49 0.24 1.00 7 4649 0 0 0 0 22
SRP_00269 0.83 0.70 1.00 23 5027 0 0 0 0 10
SRP_00273 0.70 0.60 0.83 24 6757 6 1 4 1 16
SRP_00303 0.66 0.56 0.78 18 6647 9 1 4 4 14
SRP_00333 0.45 0.21 1.00 7 5144 0 0 0 0 27
SRP_00338 0.44 0.19 1.00 7 5453 0 0 0 0 29
SRP_00342 0.49 0.24 1.00 6 3999 1 0 0 1 19
SRP_00358 0.86 0.80 0.93 28 6298 3 1 1 1 7
SRP_00383 0.59 0.42 0.83 10 3228 2 0 2 0 14

^top



Performance of NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for NanoFolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 602
Total TN 238640
Total FP 1482
Total FP CONTRA 281
Total FP INCONS 1137
Total FP COMP 64
Total FN 936
Total Scores
MCC 0.337
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.365 ± 0.058
Sensitivity 0.391
Positive Predictive Value 0.298
Nr of predictions 59

^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
CRW_01535 0.20 0.24 0.17 9 7088 43 7 36 0 28
CRW_01539 0.10 0.11 0.10 4 7099 40 1 36 3 33
CRW_01563 0.11 0.14 0.11 5 6856 43 5 37 1 32
CRW_01583 0.36 0.41 0.33 15 7095 31 8 22 1 22
CRW_01590 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 7093 50 7 40 3 37
CRW_01593 0.32 0.38 0.29 14 7091 36 5 30 1 23
CRW_01595 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 8459 57 10 46 1 37
CRW_01603 0.41 0.46 0.38 17 7095 29 6 22 1 20
CRW_01617 0.20 0.24 0.17 9 7087 45 7 37 1 28
CRW_01625 0.43 0.49 0.38 18 7093 31 7 22 2 19
PDB_00070 0.25 0.29 0.23 7 2819 24 4 20 0 17
PDB_00571 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 3286 36 6 29 1 25
PDB_00828 0.30 0.33 0.28 9 2453 23 0 23 0 18
PDB_01236 0.31 0.33 0.30 18 11568 43 3 39 1 36
RFA_00416 0.94 1.00 0.88 15 1468 6 2 0 4 0
RFA_00434 0.84 1.00 0.71 15 1410 8 6 0 2 0
RFA_00436 0.86 1.00 0.75 15 1411 7 5 0 2 0
RFA_00442 0.94 1.00 0.88 15 1414 4 2 0 2 0
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_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
SPR_00066 0.47 0.57 0.39 12 2819 20 4 15 1 9
SPR_00314 0.47 0.57 0.39 12 2895 21 9 10 2 9
SPR_00333 0.25 0.33 0.21 7 2741 27 10 17 0 14
SPR_00353 0.64 0.81 0.52 17 2817 16 8 8 0 4
SPR_00452 0.27 0.33 0.23 7 2820 24 7 16 1 14
SPR_00456 0.49 0.57 0.43 12 2822 19 5 11 3 9
SPR_00476 0.47 0.52 0.42 11 2749 17 4 11 2 10
SPR_00496 0.47 0.57 0.40 12 2745 22 7 11 4 9
SPR_00497 0.27 0.33 0.23 7 2745 23 5 18 0 14
SPR_00502 0.27 0.33 0.23 7 2896 26 2 21 3 14
SPR_00509 0.23 0.30 0.19 6 2895 25 8 17 0 14
SPR_00512 0.61 0.75 0.50 15 2896 15 6 9 0 5
SPR_00557 0.42 0.52 0.34 11 2818 22 8 13 1 10
SPR_00868 0.49 0.57 0.43 12 2898 19 5 11 3 9
SPR_00957 0.63 0.76 0.53 16 2973 15 7 7 1 5
SPR_01040 0.15 0.19 0.13 4 2744 27 4 23 0 17
SRP_00038 0.23 0.27 0.20 9 5005 36 1 35 0 24
SRP_00046 0.33 0.38 0.29 12 4712 30 3 26 1 20
SRP_00170 0.29 0.36 0.25 9 4059 28 4 23 1 16
SRP_00194 0.27 0.33 0.23 7 3209 27 5 19 3 14
SRP_00200 0.41 0.47 0.35 17 6855 31 4 27 0 19
SRP_00233 0.25 0.30 0.22 10 5106 35 4 31 0 23
SRP_00243 0.47 0.55 0.40 17 5109 25 7 18 0 14
SRP_00244 0.38 0.44 0.34 17 6853 33 2 31 0 22
SRP_00266 0.55 0.66 0.46 19 4615 22 8 14 0 10
SRP_00269 0.46 0.52 0.43 17 5010 24 6 17 1 16
SRP_00273 0.36 0.40 0.33 16 6737 34 6 27 1 24
SRP_00303 0.36 0.41 0.33 13 6630 27 3 24 0 19
SRP_00333 0.20 0.24 0.19 8 5108 35 3 32 0 26
SRP_00338 0.52 0.56 0.49 20 5419 22 4 17 1 16
SRP_00342 0.20 0.24 0.17 6 3970 29 7 22 0 19
SRP_00358 0.32 0.37 0.28 13 6282 33 4 29 0 22
SRP_00383 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 3205 35 9 26 0 24

^top


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