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 HotKnots - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric MXScarna(seed) HotKnots
MCC 0.769 > 0.676
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.763 ± 0.063 > 0.723 ± 0.081
Sensitivity 0.727 > 0.706
Positive Predictive Value 0.819 > 0.653
Total TP 944 > 916
Total TN 128618 > 128369
Total FP 413 < 662
Total FP CONTRA 76 < 168
Total FP INCONS 133 < 318
Total FP COMP 204 > 176
Total FN 354 < 382
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

  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 HotKnots).

  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 HotKnots).

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

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

^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 944
Total TN 128618
Total FP 413
Total FP CONTRA 76
Total FP INCONS 133
Total FP COMP 204
Total FN 354
Total Scores
MCC 0.769
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.763 ± 0.063
Sensitivity 0.727
Positive Predictive Value 0.819
Nr of predictions 52

^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
2KDQ_B 1.00 1.00 1.00 10 164 0 0 0 0 0
2KE6_A 0.91 0.89 0.94 16 450 2 0 1 1 2
2KUR_A 0.92 0.89 0.94 17 449 1 0 1 0 2
2KUU_A 0.91 0.89 0.94 16 430 2 0 1 1 2
2KUV_A 0.92 0.89 0.94 17 421 1 0 1 0 2
2KUW_A 0.78 0.72 0.87 13 455 3 0 2 1 5
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
2WRQ_Y 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 1143 12 0 0 12 0
2WWQ_V 0.70 0.68 0.72 13 1186 7 0 5 2 6
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
2ZZM_B 0.81 0.67 1.00 10 1348 9 0 0 9 5
2ZZN_D 0.95 0.91 1.00 20 964 0 0 0 0 2
3A2K_C 0.95 0.91 1.00 20 1088 0 0 0 0 2
3A3A_A 0.84 0.77 0.92 23 1475 4 0 2 2 7
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
3GX2_A 0.83 0.82 0.85 23 1422 7 2 2 3 5
3IVN_B 0.69 0.57 0.87 13 888 2 2 0 0 10
3IYQ_A 0.44 0.47 0.41 24 22382 49 21 13 15 27
3IZ4_A 0.73 0.64 0.82 61 25462 22 12 1 9 34
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_1 0.97 0.95 1.00 19 1093 1 0 0 1 1
3J20_0 0.90 0.86 0.95 18 1200 1 1 0 0 3
3J2L_3 0.79 0.76 0.81 26 2988 11 1 5 5 8
3JYV_7 0.95 0.90 1.00 18 1093 2 0 0 2 2
3JYX_4 0.70 0.83 0.59 10 4739 21 6 1 14 2
3JYX_3 0.77 0.80 0.75 12 2362 24 0 4 20 3
3LA5_A 0.82 0.72 0.95 18 935 1 1 0 0 7
3NPB_A 0.76 0.70 0.84 26 2247 10 2 3 5 11
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_C 0.39 0.31 0.50 9 5356 21 3 6 12 20
3ZEX_D 0.87 0.86 0.88 30 2762 11 0 4 7 5
4A1C_3 0.92 0.92 0.92 34 2726 6 0 3 3 3
4A1C_2 0.45 0.40 0.50 8 4500 20 4 4 12 12
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 HotKnots - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for HotKnots

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 916
Total TN 128369
Total FP 662
Total FP CONTRA 168
Total FP INCONS 318
Total FP COMP 176
Total FN 382
Total Scores
MCC 0.676
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.723 ± 0.081
Sensitivity 0.706
Positive Predictive Value 0.653
Nr of predictions 52

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KDQ_B 1.00 1.00 1.00 10 164 0 0 0 0 0
2KE6_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 18 449 1 0 0 1 0
2KUR_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 19 448 0 0 0 0 0
2KUU_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 18 429 1 0 0 1 0
2KUV_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 19 420 0 0 0 0 0
2KUW_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 18 452 1 0 0 1 0
2KX8_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 16 355 0 0 0 0 0
2L1F_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 23 740 0 0 0 0 0
2L1F_B 1.00 1.00 1.00 24 767 0 0 0 0 0
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 0 5 0 7
2WRQ_Y 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 1143 14 0 0 14 0
2WWQ_V 1.00 1.00 1.00 19 1185 5 0 0 5 0
2XKV_B 0.64 0.73 0.57 8 1821 25 0 6 19 3
2XQD_Y 0.98 0.95 1.00 20 1109 1 0 0 1 1
2XXA_G 0.35 0.34 0.38 12 2013 21 1 19 1 23
2ZZM_B 0.25 0.27 0.25 4 1342 20 3 9 8 11
2ZZN_D 0.93 0.95 0.91 21 961 3 2 0 1 1
3A2K_C 0.47 0.50 0.46 11 1084 13 3 10 0 11
3A3A_A 0.97 0.93 1.00 28 1472 0 0 0 0 2
3AKZ_H 0.48 0.50 0.48 10 1106 13 4 7 2 10
3AMU_B 0.81 0.79 0.83 15 1139 6 0 3 3 4
3GX2_A 0.81 0.79 0.85 22 1423 5 2 2 1 6
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
3IYQ_A 0.24 0.33 0.17 17 22341 96 47 35 14 34
3IZ4_A 0.56 0.60 0.52 57 25426 57 26 27 4 38
3IZF_C 0.89 0.91 0.86 32 2603 9 0 5 4 3
3J16_L 0.31 0.33 0.30 7 1136 16 3 13 0 14
3J20_1 0.75 0.75 0.75 15 1092 8 0 5 3 5
3J20_0 0.54 0.57 0.52 12 1196 12 3 8 1 9
3J2L_3 0.80 0.82 0.78 28 2984 12 1 7 4 6
3JYV_7 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 1089 22 4 18 0 20
3JYX_4 0.61 0.83 0.45 10 4734 31 10 2 19 2
3JYX_3 0.77 0.80 0.75 12 2362 27 0 4 23 3
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
3NPB_A 0.85 0.78 0.94 29 2247 6 0 2 4 8
3O58_2 0.87 0.87 0.87 27 2723 12 0 4 8 4
3O58_3 0.26 0.36 0.19 8 4722 35 16 18 1 14
3PDR_A 0.81 0.80 0.82 40 4791 11 3 6 2 10
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.77 0.76 0.79 22 1505 6 4 2 0 7
3UZL_B 0.49 0.50 0.50 8 1277 15 0 8 7 8
3W3S_B 0.60 0.61 0.61 20 1956 14 4 9 1 13
3ZEX_C -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 5328 46 11 35 0 29
3ZEX_D 0.90 0.86 0.94 30 2764 6 0 2 4 5
4A1C_3 0.88 0.86 0.89 32 2727 7 0 4 3 5
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.15 5 4483 42 12 16 14 15
4AOB_A 0.60 0.59 0.63 17 1410 11 4 6 1 12
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 0.36 0.38 0.38 9 1178 15 2 13 0 15
4FRN_A 0.59 0.57 0.62 16 1822 10 2 8 0 12

^top


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