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 IPknot - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric IPknot Cylofold
MCC 0.753 > 0.626
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.764 ± 0.092 > 0.678 ± 0.094
Sensitivity 0.733 > 0.615
Positive Predictive Value 0.780 > 0.649
Total TP 547 > 459
Total TN 46777 > 46771
Total FP 213 < 291
Total FP CONTRA 40 < 69
Total FP INCONS 114 < 179
Total FP COMP 59 > 43
Total FN 199 < 287
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of IPknot and Cylofold. 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 IPknot and Cylofold).

  2. Comparison of performance of IPknot and Cylofold. 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 IPknot and Cylofold).

  3. 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 IPknot and Cylofold).

  4. 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 IPknot and Cylofold).

  5. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for IPknot and Cylofold. 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 IPknot and Cylofold).

  6. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for IPknot and Cylofold. 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 IPknot and Cylofold).

^top





Performance of IPknot - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for IPknot

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 547
Total TN 46777
Total FP 213
Total FP CONTRA 40
Total FP INCONS 114
Total FP COMP 59
Total FN 199
Total Scores
MCC 0.753
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.764 ± 0.092
Sensitivity 0.733
Positive Predictive Value 0.780
Nr of predictions 42

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.41 0.33 0.55 6 517 5 1 4 0 12
2LDL_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 131 0 0 0 0 0
2LDT_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 11 151 0 0 0 0 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 - 0.88 0.86 0.89 25 2412 9 0 3 6 4
2LWK_A - 0.95 0.91 1.00 10 197 1 0 0 1 1
2YIE_Z - 0.53 0.63 0.45 5 591 6 4 2 0 3
2YIE_X - 1.00 1.00 1.00 7 537 3 0 0 3 0
3AMU_B 0.81 0.79 0.83 15 1139 6 0 3 3 4
3J0L_h - 0.90 0.81 1.00 26 2114 2 0 0 2 6
3J0L_a - 0.16 0.18 0.18 2 400 10 3 6 1 9
3J0L_1 - 0.83 0.77 0.91 10 473 4 0 1 3 3
3J0L_7 - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 512 7 1 6 0 10
3J0L_g - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 174 4 0 2 2 2
3J0L_2 - 0.49 0.46 0.52 12 2227 18 0 11 7 14
3J16_L 0.90 0.81 1.00 17 1142 0 0 0 0 4
3J20_1 1.00 1.00 1.00 20 1092 1 0 0 1 0
3J20_0 0.54 0.57 0.52 12 1196 12 3 8 1 9
3J2C_O - 0.98 0.95 1.00 39 3948 4 0 0 4 2
3J2L_3 0.82 0.82 0.82 28 2986 10 0 6 4 6
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.74 0.69 0.80 20 1508 5 0 5 0 9
3SIU_F - 0.86 0.75 1.00 6 139 0 0 0 0 2
3SN2_B 0.95 0.92 1.00 11 143 0 0 0 0 1
3TRZ_Z - 1.00 1.00 1.00 5 87 1 0 0 1 0
3TS2_V - 1.00 1.00 1.00 5 103 0 0 0 0 0
3U4M_B - 0.91 0.91 0.91 20 1254 3 2 0 1 2
3UZL_B 0.93 0.88 1.00 14 1279 7 0 0 7 2
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_D 0.81 0.80 0.82 28 2762 10 0 6 4 7
3ZEX_E - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 8256 53 19 29 5 34
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.50 0.48 0.54 14 1411 13 3 9 1 15
4ATO_G - 0.49 0.57 0.44 4 211 6 0 5 1 3
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 0 0 0 0 4
4ENC_A 0.59 0.53 0.67 8 484 4 0 4 0 7
4FNJ_A - 0.91 0.83 1.00 10 240 0 0 0 0 2
4FRG_B 0.75 0.71 0.81 17 1181 4 3 1 0 7
4FRN_A 0.79 0.71 0.87 20 1825 3 1 2 0 8
4HXH_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 89 0 0 0 0 0

^top



Performance of Cylofold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Cylofold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 459
Total TN 46771
Total FP 291
Total FP CONTRA 69
Total FP INCONS 179
Total FP COMP 43
Total FN 287
Total Scores
MCC 0.626
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.678 ± 0.094
Sensitivity 0.615
Positive Predictive Value 0.649
Nr of predictions 42

^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
2LC8_A 0.64 0.61 0.69 11 512 5 1 4 0 7
2LDL_A - 0.81 0.67 1.00 6 134 0 0 0 0 3
2LDT_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 11 151 0 0 0 0 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 - 0.56 0.55 0.57 16 2412 13 4 8 1 13
2LWK_A - 0.95 0.91 1.00 10 197 1 0 0 1 1
2YIE_Z - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 591 11 5 6 0 8
2YIE_X - 0.43 0.57 0.33 4 532 10 2 6 2 3
3AMU_B 0.77 0.79 0.75 15 1137 8 0 5 3 4
3J0L_h - 0.55 0.50 0.62 16 2114 10 2 8 0 16
3J0L_a - 0.17 0.18 0.20 2 401 9 3 5 1 9
3J0L_1 - 0.73 0.62 0.89 8 475 3 0 1 2 5
3J0L_7 - 0.41 0.50 0.36 5 505 10 3 6 1 5
3J0L_g - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 174 4 0 2 2 2
3J0L_2 - 0.49 0.46 0.52 12 2227 18 0 11 7 14
3J16_L 0.90 0.81 1.00 17 1142 0 0 0 0 4
3J20_1 0.71 0.75 0.68 15 1090 8 2 5 1 5
3J20_0 0.74 0.76 0.73 16 1197 7 3 3 1 5
3J2C_O - 0.51 0.49 0.54 20 3950 19 1 16 2 21
3J2L_3 0.71 0.68 0.74 23 2989 11 0 8 3 11
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.71 0.69 0.74 20 1506 7 2 5 0 9
3SIU_F - 0.86 0.75 1.00 6 139 0 0 0 0 2
3SN2_B 0.63 0.42 1.00 5 149 0 0 0 0 7
3TRZ_Z - 1.00 1.00 1.00 5 87 1 0 0 1 0
3TS2_V - 1.00 1.00 1.00 5 103 0 0 0 0 0
3U4M_B - 0.49 0.55 0.46 12 1250 14 3 11 0 10
3UZL_B 0.45 0.50 0.42 8 1274 18 4 7 7 8
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 239 0 0 0 0 0
3W3S_B 0.48 0.45 0.52 15 1960 15 1 13 1 18
3ZEX_D 0.69 0.69 0.71 24 2762 11 5 5 1 11
3ZEX_E - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 8258 51 15 31 5 34
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.42 0.38 0.48 11 1414 13 3 9 1 18
4ATO_G - 0.88 1.00 0.78 7 211 2 2 0 0 0
4ENB_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 457 0 0 0 0 0
4ENC_A 0.97 1.00 0.94 15 480 1 1 0 0 0
4FNJ_A - 0.81 0.67 1.00 8 242 0 0 0 0 4
4FRG_B 0.93 0.88 1.00 21 1181 0 0 0 0 3
4FRN_A 0.23 0.18 0.31 5 1832 11 7 4 0 23
4HXH_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 89 0 0 0 0 0

^top


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