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 RNAfold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric Murlet(seed) RNAfold
MCC 0.482 > 0.476
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.463 ± 0.103 < 0.473 ± 0.156
Sensitivity 0.319 < 0.460
Positive Predictive Value 0.734 > 0.500
Total TP 91 < 131
Total TN 37594 > 37456
Total FP 35 < 140
Total FP CONTRA 0 < 19
Total FP INCONS 33 < 112
Total FP COMP 2 < 9
Total FN 194 > 154
P-value 0.000179548697844

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 RNAfold).

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

^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 RNAfold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAfold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 131
Total TN 37456
Total FP 140
Total FP CONTRA 19
Total FP INCONS 112
Total FP COMP 9
Total FN 154
Total Scores
MCC 0.476
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.473 ± 0.156
Sensitivity 0.460
Positive Predictive Value 0.500
Nr of predictions 13

^top



2. Individual counts for RNAfold [ 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 0.71 0.63 0.80 33 10112 10 1 7 2 19
RFA_00632 0.38 0.39 0.37 11 4065 19 2 17 0 17
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 0.68 0.56 0.83 10 2004 5 0 2 3 8
RFA_00773 0.55 0.56 0.56 10 1935 8 2 6 0 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.