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 MCFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric MCFold NanoFolder
MCC 0.574 > 0.440
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.623 ± 0.129 > 0.585 ± 0.128
Sensitivity 0.606 > 0.545
Positive Predictive Value 0.554 > 0.369
Total TP 347 > 312
Total TN 44491 > 44271
Total FP 386 < 617
Total FP CONTRA 75 < 199
Total FP INCONS 204 < 335
Total FP COMP 107 > 83
Total FN 226 < 261
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of MCFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for MCFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 347
Total TN 44491
Total FP 386
Total FP CONTRA 75
Total FP INCONS 204
Total FP COMP 107
Total FN 226
Total Scores
MCC 0.574
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.623 ± 0.129
Sensitivity 0.606
Positive Predictive Value 0.554
Nr of predictions 30

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.44 0.44 0.47 8 511 10 0 9 1 10
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 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 29 2411 11 0 0 11 0
2LQZ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 124 3 0 0 3 0
2LU0_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 16 422 2 0 0 2 0
2LWK_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 11 196 2 0 0 2 0
2M58_A - 0.22 0.25 0.23 3 531 13 1 9 3 9
3J16_L 0.54 0.57 0.52 12 1136 12 4 7 1 9
3J2L_3 0.77 0.79 0.75 27 2984 15 1 8 6 7
3J3D_C 0.54 0.63 0.48 12 943 13 4 9 0 7
3J3E_7 0.55 0.56 0.54 19 2706 23 1 15 7 15
3J3E_8 0.15 0.20 0.12 3 2716 36 11 12 13 12
3J3F_7 0.88 0.89 0.86 32 2897 9 1 4 4 4
3J3F_8 0.14 0.21 0.10 4 4720 51 17 20 14 15
3SN2_B 0.58 0.58 0.64 7 143 4 0 4 0 5
3U4M_B - 0.74 0.77 0.71 17 1252 10 1 6 3 5
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 239 1 0 0 1 0
3ZEX_G - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 6493 14 6 8 0 45
3ZEX_D 0.23 0.26 0.23 9 2756 33 6 25 2 26
3ZND_W 0.23 0.38 0.15 3 1171 26 9 8 9 5
4A1C_3 0.86 0.86 0.86 32 2726 9 0 5 4 5
4A1C_2 0.18 0.25 0.14 5 4480 45 12 19 14 15
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
4ATO_G - 0.36 0.43 0.33 3 211 8 0 6 2 4
4ENC_A 0.34 0.33 0.38 5 483 11 0 8 3 10
4HXH_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 89 0 0 0 0 0
4JF2_A 0.74 0.75 0.75 18 1058 7 1 5 1 6
4JRC_A - 0.24 0.29 0.23 5 600 17 0 17 0 12

^top



Performance of NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for NanoFolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 312
Total TN 44271
Total FP 617
Total FP CONTRA 199
Total FP INCONS 335
Total FP COMP 83
Total FN 261
Total Scores
MCC 0.440
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.585 ± 0.128
Sensitivity 0.545
Positive Predictive Value 0.369
Nr of predictions 30

^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
2LU0_A - 0.94 1.00 0.89 16 420 3 2 0 1 0
2LWK_A - 0.95 0.91 1.00 10 197 2 0 0 2 1
2M58_A - 0.45 0.58 0.37 7 525 13 6 6 1 5
3J16_L 0.43 0.52 0.37 11 1129 19 8 11 0 10
3J2L_3 0.13 0.18 0.12 6 2969 46 14 31 1 28
3J3D_C 0.76 0.95 0.62 18 939 11 9 2 0 1
3J3E_7 0.44 0.53 0.38 18 2693 31 10 20 1 16
3J3E_8 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2707 47 11 24 12 15
3J3F_7 0.20 0.25 0.18 9 2883 43 10 32 1 27
3J3F_8 0.30 0.47 0.19 9 4714 57 21 17 19 10
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
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 239 0 0 0 0 0
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
3ZND_W 0.24 0.38 0.16 3 1172 31 8 8 15 5
4A1C_3 0.58 0.68 0.51 25 2714 24 9 15 0 12
4A1C_2 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 4469 61 18 29 14 20
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
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
4JF2_A 0.55 0.67 0.47 16 1048 19 9 9 1 8
4JRC_A - 0.56 0.65 0.50 11 600 11 3 8 0 6

^top


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