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 ProbKnot - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of Murlet(seed) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric ProbKnot Murlet(seed)
MCC 0.514 > 0.482
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.516 ± 0.123 > 0.463 ± 0.103
Sensitivity 0.495 > 0.319
Positive Predictive Value 0.542 < 0.734
Total TP 141 > 91
Total TN 37458 < 37594
Total FP 126 > 35
Total FP CONTRA 13 > 0
Total FP INCONS 106 > 33
Total FP COMP 7 > 2
Total FN 144 < 194
P-value 2.45805449719e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 ProbKnot and Murlet(seed)).

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

^top





Performance of ProbKnot - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for ProbKnot

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 141
Total TN 37458
Total FP 126
Total FP CONTRA 13
Total FP INCONS 106
Total FP COMP 7
Total FN 144
Total Scores
MCC 0.514
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.516 ± 0.123
Sensitivity 0.495
Positive Predictive Value 0.542
Nr of predictions 13

^top



2. Individual counts for ProbKnot [ 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_00716 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2680 22 0 21 1 23
PDB_01092 0.73 0.63 0.85 33 10114 8 1 5 2 19
RFA_00632 0.40 0.39 0.41 11 4068 16 0 16 0 17
RFA_00636 0.44 0.46 0.43 13 3975 17 0 17 0 15
RFA_00767 0.63 0.56 0.71 10 1877 4 0 4 0 8
RFA_00768 0.44 0.44 0.44 8 1873 11 1 9 1 10
RFA_00769 0.54 0.56 0.53 10 1934 9 4 5 0 8
RFA_00770 0.59 0.56 0.63 10 2000 9 0 6 3 8
RFA_00773 0.55 0.56 0.56 10 1935 8 3 5 0 8
RFA_00779 0.63 0.56 0.71 10 1939 4 3 1 0 8
RFA_00808 0.65 0.56 0.75 9 2004 3 0 3 0 7
RFA_00809 0.35 0.38 0.33 6 2127 12 1 11 0 10

^top



Performance of Murlet(seed) - scored lower 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


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