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 MXScarna(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric MXScarna(seed) Cylofold
MCC 0.775 > 0.706
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.733 ± 0.102 > 0.725 ± 0.096
Sensitivity 0.734 > 0.693
Positive Predictive Value 0.826 > 0.729
Total TP 504 > 476
Total TN 44933 > 44890
Total FP 187 < 229
Total FP CONTRA 23 < 54
Total FP INCONS 83 < 123
Total FP COMP 81 > 52
Total FN 183 < 211
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of MXScarna(seed) 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 MXScarna(seed) and Cylofold).

  2. Comparison of performance of MXScarna(seed) 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 MXScarna(seed) 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 MXScarna(seed) 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 MXScarna(seed) and Cylofold).

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

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

^top





Performance of MXScarna(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for MXScarna(seed)

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 504
Total TN 44933
Total FP 187
Total FP CONTRA 23
Total FP INCONS 83
Total FP COMP 81
Total FN 183
Total Scores
MCC 0.775
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.733 ± 0.102
Sensitivity 0.734
Positive Predictive Value 0.826
Nr of predictions 28

^top



2. Individual counts for MXScarna(seed) [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KX8_A -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 369 2 0 2 0 16
2L1F_A 0.93 0.91 0.95 21 741 1 0 1 0 2
2L1F_B 0.98 0.96 1.00 23 768 0 0 0 0 1
2L94_A 0.55 0.56 0.59 10 340 8 0 7 1 8
2LC8_A -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 518 12 0 10 2 18
2XKV_B 0.78 0.82 0.75 9 1823 20 0 3 17 2
2XQD_Y 0.85 0.81 0.89 17 1110 3 0 2 1 4
2XXA_G 0.74 0.69 0.80 24 2015 7 0 6 1 11
3AKZ_H 1.00 1.00 1.00 20 1107 1 0 0 1 0
3AMU_B 0.97 0.95 1.00 18 1139 2 0 0 2 1
3IZF_C 0.84 0.83 0.85 29 2606 11 0 5 6 6
3J16_L 0.98 0.95 1.00 20 1139 0 0 0 0 1
3J20_0 0.90 0.86 0.95 18 1200 1 1 0 0 3
3J20_1 0.97 0.95 1.00 19 1093 1 0 0 1 1
3J2L_3 0.79 0.76 0.81 26 2988 11 1 5 5 8
3O58_2 0.93 0.94 0.94 29 2723 11 0 2 9 2
3O58_3 0.54 0.50 0.58 11 4745 20 5 3 12 11
3PDR_A 0.87 0.88 0.86 44 4789 10 4 3 3 6
3RKF_A 0.86 0.75 1.00 18 848 0 0 0 0 6
3SD1_A 0.74 0.76 0.73 22 1503 9 4 4 1 7
3UZL_B 0.83 0.75 0.92 12 1280 8 0 1 7 4
3W3S_B 0.74 0.70 0.79 23 1960 7 0 6 1 10
3ZEX_D 0.87 0.86 0.88 30 2762 11 0 4 7 5
4AOB_A 0.71 0.69 0.74 20 1410 10 2 5 3 9
4ENB_A 0.54 0.40 0.75 6 464 2 0 2 0 9
4ENC_A 0.48 0.40 0.60 6 486 4 1 3 0 9
4FRG_B 0.49 0.42 0.59 10 1185 8 2 5 1 14
4FRN_A 0.70 0.68 0.73 19 1822 7 3 4 0 9

^top



Performance of Cylofold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Cylofold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 476
Total TN 44890
Total FP 229
Total FP CONTRA 54
Total FP INCONS 123
Total FP COMP 52
Total FN 211
Total Scores
MCC 0.706
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.725 ± 0.096
Sensitivity 0.693
Positive Predictive Value 0.729
Nr of predictions 28

^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
2KX8_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 16 355 0 0 0 0 0
2L1F_A 0.93 0.87 1.00 20 743 0 0 0 0 3
2L1F_B 0.93 0.88 1.00 21 770 0 0 0 0 3
2L94_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 18 339 1 0 0 1 0
2LC8_A 0.64 0.61 0.69 11 512 5 1 4 0 7
2XKV_B 0.41 0.55 0.32 6 1816 25 9 4 12 5
2XQD_Y 0.89 0.95 0.83 20 1105 5 4 0 1 1
2XXA_G 0.10 0.11 0.11 4 2009 32 2 30 0 31
3AKZ_H 0.77 0.75 0.79 15 1108 7 0 4 3 5
3AMU_B 0.77 0.79 0.75 15 1137 8 0 5 3 4
3IZF_C 0.85 0.83 0.88 29 2607 7 0 4 3 6
3J16_L 0.90 0.81 1.00 17 1142 0 0 0 0 4
3J20_0 0.74 0.76 0.73 16 1197 7 3 3 1 5
3J20_1 0.71 0.75 0.68 15 1090 8 2 5 1 5
3J2L_3 0.71 0.68 0.74 23 2989 11 0 8 3 11
3O58_2 0.90 0.84 0.96 26 2727 3 0 1 2 5
3O58_3 0.42 0.50 0.35 11 4733 30 9 11 10 11
3PDR_A 0.86 0.78 0.95 39 4799 4 1 1 2 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
3UZL_B 0.45 0.50 0.42 8 1274 18 4 7 7 8
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
4AOB_A 0.42 0.38 0.48 11 1414 13 3 9 1 18
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
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

^top


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