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 RNAsubopt - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric Murlet(seed) RNAsubopt
MCC 0.482 > 0.463
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.463 ± 0.103 < 0.468 ± 0.156
Sensitivity 0.319 < 0.446
Positive Predictive Value 0.734 > 0.488
Total TP 91 < 127
Total TN 37594 > 37458
Total FP 35 < 145
Total FP CONTRA 0 < 20
Total FP INCONS 33 < 113
Total FP COMP 2 < 12
Total FN 194 > 158
P-value 4.38571919282e-05

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 RNAsubopt).

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

^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 91
Total TN 37594
Total FP 35
Total FP CONTRA 0
Total FP INCONS 33
Total FP COMP 2
Total FN 194
Total Scores
MCC 0.482
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.463 ± 0.103
Sensitivity 0.319
Positive Predictive Value 0.734
Nr of predictions 13

^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_00005 0.53 0.29 1.00 4 942 2 0 0 2 10
PDB_00716 0.23 0.13 0.43 3 2694 4 0 4 0 20
PDB_01092 0.69 0.48 1.00 25 10128 0 0 0 0 27
RFA_00632 0.21 0.11 0.43 3 4088 4 0 4 0 25
RFA_00636 0.21 0.11 0.43 3 3998 4 0 4 0 25
RFA_00767 0.47 0.33 0.67 6 1882 3 0 3 0 12
RFA_00768 0.41 0.28 0.63 5 1883 3 0 3 0 13
RFA_00769 0.57 0.44 0.73 8 1942 3 0 3 0 10
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_00779 0.47 0.33 0.67 6 1944 3 0 3 0 12
RFA_00808 0.75 0.56 1.00 9 2007 0 0 0 0 7
RFA_00809 0.50 0.38 0.67 6 2136 3 0 3 0 10

^top



Performance of RNAsubopt - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAsubopt

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 127
Total TN 37458
Total FP 145
Total FP CONTRA 20
Total FP INCONS 113
Total FP COMP 12
Total FN 158
Total Scores
MCC 0.463
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.468 ± 0.156
Sensitivity 0.446
Positive Predictive Value 0.488
Nr of predictions 13

^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
PDB_00005 0.88 0.79 1.00 11 935 0 0 0 0 3
PDB_00716 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2678 24 1 22 1 23
PDB_01092 0.66 0.60 0.74 31 10111 13 3 8 2 21
RFA_00632 0.31 0.32 0.30 9 4065 21 2 19 0 19
RFA_00636 0.42 0.43 0.43 12 3977 16 2 14 0 16
RFA_00767 0.63 0.56 0.71 10 1877 4 0 4 0 8
RFA_00768 0.48 0.44 0.53 8 1876 7 1 6 0 10
RFA_00769 0.52 0.56 0.50 10 1933 10 4 6 0 8
RFA_00770 0.61 0.56 0.67 10 2001 8 0 5 3 8
RFA_00773 0.68 0.56 0.83 10 1941 5 1 1 3 8
RFA_00779 0.55 0.56 0.56 10 1935 8 3 5 0 8
RFA_00808 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2001 18 2 13 3 16
RFA_00809 0.36 0.38 0.35 6 2128 11 1 10 0 10

^top


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