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 McQFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric McQFold NanoFolder
MCC 0.582 > 0.380
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.691 ± 0.141 > 0.565 ± 0.149
Sensitivity 0.593 > 0.470
Positive Predictive Value 0.582 > 0.321
Total TP 291 > 231
Total TN 40540 > 40321
Total FP 251 < 536
Total FP CONTRA 63 < 162
Total FP INCONS 146 < 326
Total FP COMP 42 < 48
Total FN 200 < 260
P-value 5.23657817852e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of McQFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for McQFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 291
Total TN 40540
Total FP 251
Total FP CONTRA 63
Total FP INCONS 146
Total FP COMP 42
Total FN 200
Total Scores
MCC 0.582
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.691 ± 0.141
Sensitivity 0.593
Positive Predictive Value 0.582
Nr of predictions 24

^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
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
2LK3_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 91 0 0 0 0 0
2LKR_A - 0.55 0.55 0.55 16 2411 15 5 8 2 13
2LQZ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 124 3 0 0 3 0
2LWK_A - 0.95 0.91 1.00 10 197 2 0 0 2 1
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
3J2L_3 0.71 0.68 0.74 23 2989 11 0 8 3 11
3SN2_B 0.95 0.92 1.00 11 143 0 0 0 0 1
3U4M_B - 0.95 0.91 1.00 20 1256 2 0 0 2 2
3UZL_B 0.62 0.75 0.52 12 1270 17 8 3 6 4
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 239 0 0 0 0 0
3W3S_B 0.49 0.45 0.54 15 1961 14 1 12 1 18
3ZEX_D 0.76 0.66 0.88 23 2770 6 1 2 3 12
3ZEX_G - 0.36 0.40 0.34 18 6454 40 11 24 5 27
3ZEX_E - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 8256 53 17 31 5 34
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.16 5 4484 33 11 16 6 15
4A1C_3 0.28 0.30 0.28 11 2724 30 4 24 2 26
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 - -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 215 5 0 5 0 7
4ENC_A 0.97 1.00 0.94 15 480 1 1 0 0 0
4HXH_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 89 0 0 0 0 0

^top



Performance of NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for NanoFolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 231
Total TN 40321
Total FP 536
Total FP CONTRA 162
Total FP INCONS 326
Total FP COMP 48
Total FN 260
Total Scores
MCC 0.380
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.565 ± 0.149
Sensitivity 0.470
Positive Predictive Value 0.321
Nr of predictions 24

^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
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
2LWK_A - 0.95 0.91 1.00 10 197 2 0 0 2 1
3J16_L 0.43 0.52 0.37 11 1129 19 8 11 0 10
3J20_1 0.42 0.50 0.37 10 1085 20 5 12 3 10
3J2L_3 0.13 0.18 0.12 6 2969 46 14 31 1 28
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
3UZL_B 0.41 0.56 0.31 9 1264 25 10 10 5 7
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 239 0 0 0 0 0
3W3S_B 0.18 0.21 0.18 7 1949 34 2 31 1 26
3ZEX_D 0.30 0.37 0.27 13 2747 36 10 26 0 22
3ZEX_G - 0.04 0.07 0.04 3 6431 77 18 55 4 42
3ZEX_E - 0.03 0.06 0.02 2 8222 86 31 49 6 32
4A1C_2 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 4469 61 18 29 14 20
4A1C_3 0.58 0.68 0.51 25 2714 24 9 15 0 12
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.39 0.41 0.39 12 1406 20 4 15 1 17
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

^top


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