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 Murlet(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

  5. Compile and download dataset for Murlet(20) & Contrafold [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric Murlet(20) Contrafold
MCC 0.693 > 0.664
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.690 ± 0.070 > 0.679 ± 0.096
Sensitivity 0.594 < 0.681
Positive Predictive Value 0.815 > 0.654
Total TP 532 < 610
Total TN 92209 > 91929
Total FP 202 < 460
Total FP CONTRA 25 < 106
Total FP INCONS 96 < 217
Total FP COMP 81 < 137
Total FN 364 > 286
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of Murlet(20) and Contrafold. 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 Murlet(20) and Contrafold).

  2. Comparison of performance of Murlet(20) and Contrafold. 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 Murlet(20) and Contrafold).

  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 Murlet(20) and Contrafold).

  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 Murlet(20) and Contrafold).

  5. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Murlet(20) and Contrafold. 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 Murlet(20) and Contrafold).

  6. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Murlet(20) and Contrafold. 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 Murlet(20) and Contrafold).

^top





Performance of Murlet(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Murlet(20)

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 532
Total TN 92209
Total FP 202
Total FP CONTRA 25
Total FP INCONS 96
Total FP COMP 81
Total FN 364
Total Scores
MCC 0.693
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.690 ± 0.070
Sensitivity 0.594
Positive Predictive Value 0.815
Nr of predictions 34

^top



2. Individual counts for Murlet(20) [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KDQ_B 0.70 0.50 1.00 5 169 0 0 0 0 5
2L94_A 0.51 0.50 0.56 9 341 8 0 7 1 9
2WRQ_Y 0.63 0.67 0.60 6 1142 13 1 3 9 3
2XKV_B 0.60 0.36 1.00 4 1831 3 0 0 3 7
2XQD_Y 0.88 0.86 0.90 18 1109 3 0 2 1 3
2XXA_G 0.44 0.20 1.00 7 2038 0 0 0 0 28
3A2K_C 0.88 0.86 0.90 19 1087 2 0 2 0 3
3AMU_B 0.89 0.89 0.89 17 1138 4 0 2 2 2
3G4S_9 0.85 0.77 0.95 20 2715 5 0 1 4 6
3GX2_A 0.73 0.54 1.00 15 1434 1 0 0 1 13
3IVN_B 0.80 0.65 1.00 15 888 0 0 0 0 8
3IZ4_A 0.46 0.33 0.66 31 25489 22 3 13 6 64
3IZF_C 0.88 0.83 0.94 29 2609 5 0 2 3 6
3J20_0 0.65 0.62 0.68 13 1200 6 1 5 0 8
3J20_1 0.69 0.60 0.80 12 1097 4 0 3 1 8
3J2L_3 0.84 0.74 0.96 25 2994 4 0 1 3 9
3JYV_7 0.84 0.80 0.89 16 1093 4 0 2 2 4
3JYX_4 0.72 0.75 0.69 9 4743 15 3 1 11 3
3JYX_3 0.76 0.73 0.79 11 2364 14 0 3 11 4
3LA5_A 0.80 0.64 1.00 16 938 0 0 0 0 9
3NPB_A 0.65 0.43 1.00 16 2262 2 0 0 2 21
3O58_2 1.00 1.00 1.00 31 2723 2 0 0 2 0
3O58_3 0.37 0.32 0.44 7 4748 13 4 5 4 15
3PDR_A 0.84 0.76 0.93 38 4799 3 1 2 0 12
3RKF_A 0.81 0.67 1.00 16 850 0 0 0 0 8
3SD1_A 0.82 0.83 0.83 24 1504 5 4 1 0 5
3ZEX_C 0.42 0.38 0.48 11 5351 16 2 10 4 18
3ZEX_D 0.90 0.86 0.94 30 2764 5 0 2 3 5
4A1C_3 0.72 0.59 0.88 22 2738 4 0 3 1 15
4A1C_2 0.22 0.25 0.20 5 4491 24 5 15 4 15
4AOB_A 0.87 0.76 1.00 22 1415 3 0 0 3 7
4ENB_A 0.51 0.27 1.00 4 468 0 0 0 0 11
4ENC_A 0.57 0.33 1.00 5 491 0 0 0 0 10
4FRG_B 0.19 0.17 0.25 4 1186 12 1 11 0 20

^top



Performance of Contrafold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Contrafold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 610
Total TN 91929
Total FP 460
Total FP CONTRA 106
Total FP INCONS 217
Total FP COMP 137
Total FN 286
Total Scores
MCC 0.664
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.679 ± 0.096
Sensitivity 0.681
Positive Predictive Value 0.654
Nr of predictions 34

^top



2. Individual counts for Contrafold [ 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
2L94_A 0.94 0.94 0.94 17 339 2 0 1 1 1
2WRQ_Y 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 1143 14 0 0 14 0
2XKV_B 0.64 0.73 0.57 8 1821 27 0 6 21 3
2XQD_Y 0.85 0.86 0.86 18 1108 4 0 3 1 3
2XXA_G 0.10 0.11 0.12 4 2012 30 2 27 1 31
3A2K_C 0.49 0.55 0.46 12 1082 14 3 11 0 10
3AMU_B 0.75 0.79 0.71 15 1136 9 0 6 3 4
3G4S_9 0.45 0.50 0.42 13 2705 24 6 12 6 13
3GX2_A 0.93 0.89 0.96 25 1423 2 1 0 1 3
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
3IZ4_A 0.57 0.58 0.57 55 25440 49 18 23 8 40
3IZF_C 0.89 0.91 0.86 32 2603 11 0 5 6 3
3J20_0 0.53 0.57 0.50 12 1195 13 3 9 1 9
3J20_1 1.00 1.00 1.00 20 1092 5 0 0 5 0
3J2L_3 0.74 0.76 0.72 26 2984 16 1 9 6 8
3JYV_7 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 1091 20 4 16 0 20
3JYX_4 0.39 0.58 0.27 7 4730 35 13 6 16 5
3JYX_3 0.33 0.47 0.24 7 2349 24 16 6 2 8
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
3NPB_A 0.86 0.84 0.89 31 2243 9 1 3 5 6
3O58_2 0.92 0.94 0.91 29 2722 10 0 3 7 2
3O58_3 0.32 0.36 0.29 8 4736 21 7 13 1 14
3PDR_A 0.83 0.86 0.80 43 4786 13 5 6 2 7
3RKF_A 0.87 0.83 0.91 20 844 2 2 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.68 0.69 0.69 20 1504 9 5 4 0 9
3ZEX_C 0.35 0.34 0.37 10 5347 23 4 13 6 19
3ZEX_D 0.87 0.86 0.88 30 2762 11 0 4 7 5
4A1C_3 0.81 0.81 0.81 30 2726 10 0 7 3 7
4A1C_2 0.21 0.25 0.19 5 4489 33 9 13 11 15
4AOB_A 0.53 0.52 0.56 15 1410 13 3 9 1 14
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 1 0 0 1 4
4ENC_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 485 1 0 0 1 4
4FRG_B 0.73 0.71 0.77 17 1180 5 3 2 0 7

^top


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