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 McQFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric MXScarna(seed) McQFold
MCC 0.786 > 0.637
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.764 ± 0.062 > 0.706 ± 0.083
Sensitivity 0.749 > 0.643
Positive Predictive Value 0.825 > 0.634
Total TP 1281 > 1100
Total TN 550587 > 550403
Total FP 560 < 802
Total FP CONTRA 90 < 208
Total FP INCONS 181 < 428
Total FP COMP 289 > 166
Total FN 429 < 610
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

  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 McQFold).

  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 McQFold).

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

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

^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 1281
Total TN 550587
Total FP 560
Total FP CONTRA 90
Total FP INCONS 181
Total FP COMP 289
Total FN 429
Total Scores
MCC 0.786
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.764 ± 0.062
Sensitivity 0.749
Positive Predictive Value 0.825
Nr of predictions 53

^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_0 0.90 0.86 0.95 18 1200 1 1 0 0 3
3J20_2 0.83 0.82 0.84 337 421969 147 14 48 85 75
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
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_3 0.54 0.50 0.58 11 4745 20 5 3 12 11
3O58_2 0.93 0.94 0.94 29 2723 11 0 2 9 2
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 McQFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for McQFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 1100
Total TN 550403
Total FP 802
Total FP CONTRA 208
Total FP INCONS 428
Total FP COMP 166
Total FN 610
Total Scores
MCC 0.637
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.706 ± 0.083
Sensitivity 0.643
Positive Predictive Value 0.634
Nr of predictions 53

^top



2. Individual counts for McQFold [ 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 0.83 1.00 15 452 1 0 0 1 3
2KUR_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 16 451 0 0 0 0 3
2KUU_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 15 432 1 0 0 1 3
2KUV_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 16 423 0 0 0 0 3
2KUW_A 0.94 0.89 1.00 16 454 0 0 0 0 2
2KX8_A 0.93 0.94 0.94 15 355 1 0 1 0 1
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 1 4 0 7
2WRQ_Y 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 1143 14 0 0 14 0
2WWQ_V 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1204 0 0 0 0 19
2XKV_B 0.33 0.36 0.31 4 1822 27 2 7 18 7
2XQD_Y 0.98 0.95 1.00 20 1109 1 0 0 1 1
2XXA_G 0.27 0.26 0.30 9 2015 22 0 21 1 26
2ZZM_B 0.18 0.20 0.19 3 1342 22 4 9 9 12
2ZZN_D 0.93 0.95 0.91 21 961 2 2 0 0 1
3A2K_C 0.98 0.95 1.00 21 1087 0 0 0 0 1
3A3A_A 0.97 0.93 1.00 28 1472 0 0 0 0 2
3AKZ_H 0.78 0.80 0.76 16 1106 7 2 3 2 4
3AMU_B 0.86 0.79 0.94 15 1141 4 0 1 3 4
3GX2_A 0.56 0.57 0.57 16 1421 13 4 8 1 12
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
3IYQ_A 0.22 0.31 0.15 16 22335 100 45 44 11 35
3IZ4_A 0.46 0.46 0.47 44 25442 56 14 36 6 51
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_2 0.55 0.56 0.55 231 421948 234 41 148 45 181
3J20_1 1.00 1.00 1.00 20 1092 1 0 0 1 0
3J2L_3 0.71 0.68 0.74 23 2989 11 0 8 3 11
3JYV_7 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 1091 20 4 16 0 20
3JYX_4 0.35 0.58 0.22 7 4724 33 17 8 8 5
3JYX_3 0.28 0.40 0.20 6 2348 24 17 7 0 9
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
3NPB_A 0.90 0.81 1.00 30 2248 5 0 0 5 7
3O58_3 0.30 0.36 0.25 8 4732 27 15 9 3 14
3O58_2 0.93 0.87 1.00 27 2727 2 0 0 2 4
3PDR_A 0.83 0.80 0.87 40 4794 9 2 4 3 10
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.82 0.83 0.83 24 1504 5 1 4 0 5
3UZL_B 0.62 0.75 0.52 12 1270 17 8 3 6 4
3W3S_B 0.49 0.45 0.54 15 1961 14 1 12 1 18
3ZEX_C 0.33 0.34 0.32 10 5343 25 4 17 4 19
3ZEX_D 0.76 0.66 0.88 23 2770 6 1 2 3 12
4A1C_3 0.28 0.30 0.28 11 2724 30 4 24 2 26
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.16 5 4484 33 11 16 6 15
4AOB_A 0.50 0.48 0.54 14 1411 13 3 9 1 15
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 0.82 0.71 0.95 20 1827 1 1 0 0 8

^top


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