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 Afold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

  5. Compile and download dataset for Afold & RNAwolf [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric Afold RNAwolf
MCC 0.525 > 0.393
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.681 ± 0.118 > 0.578 ± 0.130
Sensitivity 0.563 > 0.406
Positive Predictive Value 0.492 > 0.383
Total TP 526 > 379
Total TN 463378 < 463458
Total FP 669 < 705
Total FP CONTRA 158 < 184
Total FP INCONS 386 < 427
Total FP COMP 125 > 94
Total FN 408 < 555
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of Afold and RNAwolf. 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 Afold and RNAwolf).

  2. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Afold and RNAwolf. 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 Afold and RNAwolf).

^top





Performance of Afold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Afold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 526
Total TN 463378
Total FP 669
Total FP CONTRA 158
Total FP INCONS 386
Total FP COMP 125
Total FN 408
Total Scores
MCC 0.525
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.681 ± 0.118
Sensitivity 0.563
Positive Predictive Value 0.492
Nr of predictions 38

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LBS_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 193 0 0 0 0 0
2LC8_A 0.64 0.61 0.69 11 512 6 0 5 1 7
2LDL_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 131 1 0 0 1 0
2LDT_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 11 151 0 0 0 0 0
2LHP_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 246 0 0 0 0 0
2LI4_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 175 0 0 0 0 0
2LJJ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 7 123 3 0 0 3 0
2LK3_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 91 0 0 0 0 0
2LKR_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 29 2411 8 0 0 8 0
2LQZ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 124 2 0 0 2 0
2LU0_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 16 422 0 0 0 0 0
2LWK_A - 0.85 0.82 0.90 9 197 2 0 1 1 2
2M58_A - 0.40 0.42 0.42 5 532 8 1 6 1 7
2YIE_Z - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 587 16 6 9 1 8
2YIE_X - 0.53 0.57 0.50 4 536 8 1 3 4 3
3J0L_1 - 0.83 0.77 0.91 10 473 5 0 1 4 3
3J0L_h - 0.87 0.81 0.93 26 2112 5 1 1 3 6
3J0L_7 - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 504 15 1 14 0 10
3J2C_O - 0.70 0.68 0.72 28 3948 18 3 8 7 13
3J3E_8 0.26 0.33 0.21 5 2718 31 6 13 12 10
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SIU_F - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 137 0 0 0 0 0
3SN2_B 0.95 0.92 1.00 11 143 0 0 0 0 1
3U4M_B - 0.49 0.55 0.46 12 1250 14 3 11 0 10
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 239 1 0 0 1 0
3W3S_B 0.55 0.55 0.56 18 1957 15 4 10 1 15
3ZEX_H - 0.25 0.37 0.18 7 3586 33 20 12 1 12
3ZEX_D 0.82 0.77 0.87 27 2765 8 0 4 4 8
3ZEX_F - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 908 12 2 4 6 4
3ZEX_B - 0.34 0.38 0.31 132 420926 337 77 217 43 214
3ZEX_E - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 8251 55 17 36 2 34
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.15 5 4483 43 11 17 15 15
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
4ATO_G - 0.38 0.43 0.38 3 212 6 5 0 1 4
4ENB_A 0.81 0.73 0.92 11 460 3 0 1 2 4
4FNJ_A - 0.86 0.83 0.91 10 239 1 0 1 0 2
4HXH_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 89 1 0 0 1 0
4JRC_A - 0.27 0.29 0.29 5 605 12 0 12 0 12

^top



Performance of RNAwolf - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAwolf

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 379
Total TN 463458
Total FP 705
Total FP CONTRA 184
Total FP INCONS 427
Total FP COMP 94
Total FN 555
Total Scores
MCC 0.393
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.578 ± 0.130
Sensitivity 0.406
Positive Predictive Value 0.383
Nr of predictions 38

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LBS_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 193 0 0 0 0 0
2LC8_A 0.52 0.50 0.56 9 512 7 0 7 0 9
2LDL_A - 0.88 0.78 1.00 7 133 0 0 0 0 2
2LDT_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 11 151 0 0 0 0 0
2LHP_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 246 1 0 0 1 0
2LI4_A - 0.96 0.93 1.00 13 176 0 0 0 0 1
2LJJ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 7 123 3 0 0 3 0
2LK3_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 91 0 0 0 0 0
2LKR_A - 0.84 0.79 0.88 23 2414 11 0 3 8 6
2LQZ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 124 1 0 0 1 0
2LU0_A - 0.97 0.94 1.00 15 423 0 0 0 0 1
2LWK_A - 0.48 0.45 0.56 5 198 5 0 4 1 6
2M58_A - 0.60 0.58 0.64 7 533 4 1 3 0 5
2YIE_Z - 0.62 0.63 0.63 5 594 7 1 2 4 3
2YIE_X - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 536 11 1 7 3 7
3J0L_1 - 0.68 0.54 0.88 7 476 5 0 1 4 6
3J0L_h - 0.47 0.41 0.57 13 2117 12 1 9 2 19
3J0L_7 - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 509 10 1 9 0 10
3J2C_O - 0.41 0.44 0.40 18 3942 30 7 20 3 23
3J3E_8 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2719 37 6 17 14 15
3RKF_A 0.89 0.83 0.95 20 845 1 0 1 0 4
3SIU_F - 0.86 0.75 1.00 6 139 0 0 0 0 2
3SN2_B 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 142 0 0 0 0 0
3U4M_B - 0.50 0.50 0.52 11 1255 12 1 9 2 11
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 239 1 0 0 1 0
3W3S_B 0.70 0.70 0.72 23 1957 10 0 9 1 10
3ZEX_H - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 3593 33 17 15 1 19
3ZEX_D 0.26 0.26 0.27 9 2763 24 8 16 0 26
3ZEX_F - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 910 17 0 4 13 4
3ZEX_B - 0.18 0.19 0.17 65 420964 343 98 225 20 281
3ZEX_E - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 8244 60 23 37 0 34
4A1C_2 0.12 0.15 0.10 3 4487 38 12 14 12 17
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
4ATO_G - -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 213 7 4 3 0 7
4ENB_A 0.45 0.40 0.55 6 461 5 1 4 0 9
4FNJ_A - -0.04 0.00 0.00 0 243 7 0 7 0 12
4HXH_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 89 0 0 0 0 0
4JRC_A - 0.71 0.65 0.79 11 608 3 2 1 0 6

^top


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