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 Cylofold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of CentroidHomfold‑LAST - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

  5. Compile and download dataset for Cylofold & CentroidHomfold‑LAST [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric Cylofold CentroidHomfold‑LAST
MCC 0.764 > 0.538
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.800 ± 0.075 > 0.588 ± 0.082
Sensitivity 0.742 > 0.469
Positive Predictive Value 0.791 > 0.627
Total TP 636 > 402
Total TN 74778 < 74941
Total FP 184 < 242
Total FP CONTRA 31 > 22
Total FP INCONS 137 < 217
Total FP COMP 16 > 3
Total FN 221 < 455
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of Cylofold and CentroidHomfold-LAST. 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 Cylofold and CentroidHomfold‑LAST).

  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 Cylofold and CentroidHomfold‑LAST).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Cylofold and CentroidHomfold-LAST. 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 Cylofold and CentroidHomfold‑LAST).

^top





Performance of Cylofold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Cylofold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 636
Total TN 74778
Total FP 184
Total FP CONTRA 31
Total FP INCONS 137
Total FP COMP 16
Total FN 221
Total Scores
MCC 0.764
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.800 ± 0.075
Sensitivity 0.742
Positive Predictive Value 0.791
Nr of predictions 45

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
PDB_00005 0.78 0.79 0.79 11 932 3 0 3 0 3
PDB_00018 - 0.90 0.90 0.90 18 1015 2 2 0 0 2
PDB_00020 - 0.79 0.75 0.83 15 762 3 0 3 0 5
PDB_00041 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 618 0 0 0 0 0
PDB_00053 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 11 424 0 0 0 0 0
PDB_00056 - 0.93 0.88 1.00 14 616 0 0 0 0 2
PDB_00123 - 0.94 0.94 0.94 34 4150 2 2 0 0 2
PDB_00124 - 0.86 0.90 0.82 9 485 2 2 0 0 1
PDB_00128 - 0.78 0.79 0.79 11 482 3 0 3 0 3
PDB_00134 - 0.94 1.00 0.89 8 369 1 1 0 0 0
PDB_00138 - 0.94 1.00 0.89 8 369 1 1 0 0 0
PDB_00209 - 0.96 1.00 0.92 11 549 1 1 0 0 0
PDB_00243 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 618 0 0 0 0 0
PDB_00352 - 0.90 0.95 0.86 18 1204 3 2 1 0 1
PDB_00571 0.87 0.80 0.95 20 3300 1 1 0 0 5
PDB_00713 - 0.24 0.24 0.26 5 1997 14 0 14 0 16
PDB_00716 0.68 0.70 0.67 16 2677 9 0 8 1 7
PDB_00828 0.88 0.78 1.00 21 2464 0 0 0 0 6
PDB_00829 0.43 0.42 0.45 10 2256 12 0 12 0 14
PDB_00842 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 370 0 0 0 0 0
PDB_00851 - 0.45 0.39 0.53 16 4723 14 0 14 0 25
PDB_00857 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 1066 0 0 0 0 0
PDB_00874 - 0.21 0.20 0.25 4 930 12 0 12 0 16
PDB_00886 - 0.34 0.35 0.35 14 4146 26 0 26 0 26
PDB_00918 - 0.93 1.00 0.88 7 317 1 1 0 0 0
PDB_01009 0.90 0.90 0.90 19 2464 5 0 2 3 2
PDB_01020 0.86 0.74 1.00 17 2261 1 0 0 1 6
PDB_01040 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 20 1108 0 0 0 0 0
PDB_01059 - 0.88 1.00 0.78 7 222 2 2 0 0 0
PDB_01073 0.75 0.65 0.88 22 4346 4 2 1 1 12
PDB_01194 - 0.97 0.93 1.00 14 482 0 0 0 0 1
PDB_01201 - 0.95 0.91 1.00 20 1108 0 0 0 0 2
PDB_01203 - 0.74 0.68 0.81 13 1160 3 2 1 0 6
PDB_01260 - 0.41 0.36 0.47 9 1811 10 0 10 0 16
PDB_01281 - -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 366 12 0 12 0 14
PDB_01299 - 0.90 0.87 0.93 13 889 1 1 0 0 2
RFA_00632 0.54 0.54 0.56 15 4068 12 2 10 0 13
RFA_00636 0.78 0.82 0.74 23 3974 8 7 1 0 5
RFA_00767 1.00 1.00 1.00 18 1873 4 0 0 4 0
RFA_00768 1.00 1.00 1.00 18 1873 0 0 0 0 0
RFA_00769 0.97 1.00 0.95 18 1934 1 1 0 0 0
RFA_00770 0.88 0.78 1.00 14 2002 3 0 0 3 4
RFA_00773 0.97 1.00 0.95 18 1934 4 1 0 3 0
RFA_00779 0.97 0.94 1.00 17 1936 0 0 0 0 1
RFA_00809 0.79 0.81 0.76 13 2128 4 0 4 0 3

^top



Performance of CentroidHomfold‑LAST - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for CentroidHomfold‑LAST

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 402
Total TN 74941
Total FP 242
Total FP CONTRA 22
Total FP INCONS 217
Total FP COMP 3
Total FN 455
Total Scores
MCC 0.538
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.588 ± 0.082
Sensitivity 0.469
Positive Predictive Value 0.627
Nr of predictions 45

^top



2. Individual counts for CentroidHomfold‑LAST [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
PDB_00005 0.70 0.50 1.00 7 939 0 0 0 0 7
PDB_00018 - 0.20 0.20 0.22 4 1017 14 2 12 0 16
PDB_00020 - 0.41 0.35 0.50 7 766 7 0 7 0 13
PDB_00041 - 0.70 0.50 1.00 6 624 0 0 0 0 6
PDB_00053 - 0.73 0.55 1.00 6 429 0 0 0 0 5
PDB_00056 - 0.93 0.88 1.00 14 616 0 0 0 0 2
PDB_00123 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 4151 35 0 35 0 36
PDB_00124 - 0.70 0.50 1.00 5 491 0 0 0 0 5
PDB_00128 - 0.80 0.71 0.91 10 485 1 0 1 0 4
PDB_00134 - 0.79 0.63 1.00 5 373 0 0 0 0 3
PDB_00138 - 0.79 0.63 1.00 5 373 0 0 0 0 3
PDB_00209 - 0.67 0.45 1.00 5 556 0 0 0 0 6
PDB_00243 - 0.67 0.58 0.78 7 621 2 0 2 0 5
PDB_00352 - 0.72 0.53 1.00 10 1215 0 0 0 0 9
PDB_00571 0.87 0.80 0.95 20 3300 1 1 0 0 5
PDB_00713 - 0.56 0.43 0.75 9 2004 3 0 3 0 12
PDB_00716 0.25 0.22 0.29 5 2684 12 0 12 0 18
PDB_00828 0.84 0.70 1.00 19 2466 0 0 0 0 8
PDB_00829 0.84 0.71 1.00 17 2261 0 0 0 0 7
PDB_00842 - 0.79 0.63 1.00 5 373 0 0 0 0 3
PDB_00851 - 0.44 0.39 0.52 16 4722 15 0 15 0 25
PDB_00857 - 0.54 0.40 0.75 6 1073 2 0 2 0 9
PDB_00874 - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 929 17 0 17 0 20
PDB_00886 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 4148 38 0 38 0 40
PDB_00918 - 0.75 0.57 1.00 4 321 0 0 0 0 3
PDB_01009 0.95 0.90 1.00 19 2466 2 0 0 2 2
PDB_01020 0.86 0.74 1.00 17 2261 0 0 0 0 6
PDB_01040 - 0.30 0.30 0.32 6 1109 13 0 13 0 14
PDB_01059 - 0.75 0.57 1.00 4 227 0 0 0 0 3
PDB_01073 0.84 0.71 1.00 24 4347 1 0 0 1 10
PDB_01194 - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 487 9 0 9 0 15
PDB_01201 - 0.79 0.64 1.00 14 1114 0 0 0 0 8
PDB_01203 - 0.72 0.68 0.76 13 1159 4 3 1 0 6
PDB_01260 - 0.64 0.48 0.86 12 1816 2 0 2 0 13
PDB_01281 - -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 366 12 0 12 0 14
PDB_01299 - 0.78 0.67 0.91 10 892 1 1 0 0 5
RFA_00632 0.51 0.50 0.52 14 4068 13 3 10 0 14
RFA_00636 0.64 0.64 0.64 18 3977 10 3 7 0 10
RFA_00767 0.66 0.44 1.00 8 1883 0 0 0 0 10
RFA_00768 0.66 0.44 1.00 8 1883 0 0 0 0 10
RFA_00769 0.54 0.56 0.53 10 1934 9 4 5 0 8
RFA_00770 0.58 0.39 0.88 7 2008 1 0 1 0 11
RFA_00773 0.55 0.56 0.56 10 1935 8 3 5 0 8
RFA_00779 0.59 0.56 0.63 10 1937 6 2 4 0 8
RFA_00809 0.47 0.38 0.60 6 2135 4 0 4 0 10

^top


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