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 Fold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric Fold NanoFolder
MCC 0.720 > 0.394
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.768 ± 0.137 > 0.582 ± 0.147
Sensitivity 0.739 > 0.485
Positive Predictive Value 0.709 > 0.334
Total TP 373 > 245
Total TN 40703 > 40496
Total FP 222 < 536
Total FP CONTRA 46 < 162
Total FP INCONS 107 < 326
Total FP COMP 69 > 48
Total FN 132 < 260
P-value 5.23657817852e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of Fold and NanoFolder. 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 Fold and NanoFolder).

  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 Fold and NanoFolder).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Fold and NanoFolder. 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 Fold and NanoFolder).

^top





Performance of Fold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Fold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 373
Total TN 40703
Total FP 222
Total FP CONTRA 46
Total FP INCONS 107
Total FP COMP 69
Total FN 132
Total Scores
MCC 0.720
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.768 ± 0.137
Sensitivity 0.739
Positive Predictive Value 0.709
Nr of predictions 25

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 513 15 3 12 0 18
2LDL_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 131 1 0 0 1 0
2LI4_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 175 0 0 0 0 0
2LK3_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 91 0 0 0 0 0
2LKR_A - 0.90 0.90 0.90 26 2411 10 0 3 7 3
2LQZ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 124 2 0 0 2 0
2LWK_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 11 196 1 0 0 1 0
3J16_L 0.76 0.76 0.76 16 1138 5 0 5 0 5
3J20_1 1.00 1.00 1.00 20 1092 1 0 0 1 0
3J2L_3 0.80 0.82 0.78 28 2984 12 1 7 4 6
3SN2_B 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 142 0 0 0 0 0
3U4M_B - 0.58 0.59 0.59 13 1254 9 2 7 0 9
3UZL_B 1.00 1.00 1.00 16 1277 8 0 0 8 0
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 239 0 0 0 0 0
3W3S_B 0.94 0.91 0.97 30 1958 2 0 1 1 3
3ZEX_G - 0.98 0.96 1.00 43 6464 17 0 0 17 2
3ZEX_D 0.90 0.86 0.94 30 2764 8 0 2 6 5
3ZEX_E - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 8249 57 20 35 2 34
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.15 5 4482 43 11 18 14 15
4A1C_3 0.86 0.84 0.89 31 2728 7 0 4 3 6
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.60 0.59 0.63 17 1410 11 4 6 1 12
4ATO_G - 0.38 0.43 0.38 3 212 5 5 0 0 4
4ENC_A 0.36 0.33 0.42 5 484 8 0 7 1 10
4HXH_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 89 0 0 0 0 0

^top



Performance of NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for NanoFolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 245
Total TN 40496
Total FP 536
Total FP CONTRA 162
Total FP INCONS 326
Total FP COMP 48
Total FN 260
Total Scores
MCC 0.394
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.582 ± 0.147
Sensitivity 0.485
Positive Predictive Value 0.334
Nr of predictions 25

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.54 0.61 0.50 11 506 11 1 10 0 7
2LDL_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 131 1 0 0 1 0
2LI4_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 175 0 0 0 0 0
2LK3_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 91 0 0 0 0 0
2LKR_A - 0.26 0.34 0.21 10 2392 41 15 23 3 19
2LQZ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 124 3 0 0 3 0
2LWK_A - 0.95 0.91 1.00 10 197 2 0 0 2 1
3J16_L 0.43 0.52 0.37 11 1129 19 8 11 0 10
3J20_1 0.42 0.50 0.37 10 1085 20 5 12 3 10
3J2L_3 0.13 0.18 0.12 6 2969 46 14 31 1 28
3SN2_B 0.95 0.92 1.00 11 143 0 0 0 0 1
3U4M_B - 0.77 0.91 0.67 20 1246 12 6 4 2 2
3UZL_B 0.41 0.56 0.31 9 1264 25 10 10 5 7
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 239 0 0 0 0 0
3W3S_B 0.18 0.21 0.18 7 1949 34 2 31 1 26
3ZEX_G - 0.04 0.07 0.04 3 6431 77 18 55 4 42
3ZEX_D 0.30 0.37 0.27 13 2747 36 10 26 0 22
3ZEX_E - 0.03 0.06 0.02 2 8222 86 31 49 6 32
4A1C_2 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 4469 61 18 29 14 20
4A1C_3 0.58 0.68 0.51 25 2714 24 9 15 0 12
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.39 0.41 0.39 12 1406 20 4 15 1 17
4ATO_G - 0.72 1.00 0.54 7 207 6 6 0 0 0
4ENC_A 0.66 0.73 0.61 11 478 9 2 5 2 4
4HXH_A - 0.80 1.00 0.67 6 86 3 3 0 0 0

^top


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