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 PETfold_pre2.0(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

  5. Compile and download dataset for PETfold_pre2.0(seed) & Contrafold [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric PETfold_pre2.0(seed) Contrafold
MCC 0.866 > 0.689
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.837 ± 0.059 > 0.662 ± 0.102
Sensitivity 0.841 > 0.703
Positive Predictive Value 0.892 > 0.677
Total TP 858 > 717
Total TN 473383 > 473286
Total FP 280 < 513
Total FP CONTRA 35 < 91
Total FP INCONS 69 < 251
Total FP COMP 176 > 171
Total FN 162 < 303
P-value 5.19332990918e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of PETfold_pre2.0(seed) 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 PETfold_pre2.0(seed) and Contrafold).

  2. Comparison of performance of PETfold_pre2.0(seed) 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 PETfold_pre2.0(seed) 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 PETfold_pre2.0(seed) 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 PETfold_pre2.0(seed) and Contrafold).

  5. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for PETfold_pre2.0(seed) 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 PETfold_pre2.0(seed) and Contrafold).

  6. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for PETfold_pre2.0(seed) 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 PETfold_pre2.0(seed) and Contrafold).

^top





Performance of PETfold_pre2.0(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for PETfold_pre2.0(seed)

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 858
Total TN 473383
Total FP 280
Total FP CONTRA 35
Total FP INCONS 69
Total FP COMP 176
Total FN 162
Total Scores
MCC 0.866
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.837 ± 0.059
Sensitivity 0.841
Positive Predictive Value 0.892
Nr of predictions 26

^top



2. Individual counts for PETfold_pre2.0(seed) [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.41 0.33 0.55 6 517 5 0 5 0 12
3J16_L 1.00 1.00 1.00 21 1138 1 0 0 1 0
3J20_1 1.00 1.00 1.00 20 1092 2 0 0 2 0
3J20_2 0.86 0.86 0.86 356 421956 129 18 38 73 56
3J20_0 0.95 0.95 0.95 20 1198 2 1 0 1 1
3J2L_3 0.97 0.94 1.00 32 2988 5 0 0 5 2
3J3D_C 0.90 0.95 0.86 18 947 4 3 0 1 1
3J3E_8 0.71 0.67 0.77 10 2729 8 1 2 5 5
3J3E_7 0.97 0.97 0.97 33 2707 6 0 1 5 1
3J3F_8 0.86 0.84 0.89 16 4743 13 2 0 11 3
3J3F_7 0.99 0.97 1.00 35 2899 4 0 0 4 1
3J3V_B 0.90 0.89 0.92 24 2630 14 0 2 12 3
3UZL_B 0.93 0.88 1.00 14 1279 8 0 0 8 2
3W1K_J 0.85 0.81 0.89 25 1650 4 2 1 1 6
3W3S_B 0.80 0.73 0.89 24 1962 6 1 2 3 9
3ZEX_D 0.96 0.94 0.97 33 2762 6 0 1 5 2
3ZEX_C 0.70 0.59 0.85 17 5354 12 1 2 9 12
3ZND_W 0.67 0.75 0.60 6 1181 16 0 4 12 2
4A1C_3 1.00 1.00 1.00 37 2726 2 0 0 2 0
4A1C_2 0.79 0.75 0.83 15 4498 12 1 2 9 5
4AOB_A 0.85 0.79 0.92 23 1412 4 0 2 2 6
4ENB_A 0.61 0.53 0.73 8 461 5 1 2 2 7
4ENC_A 0.61 0.53 0.73 8 485 5 1 2 2 7
4FRG_B 0.87 0.83 0.91 20 1180 3 0 2 1 4
4FRN_A 0.83 0.79 0.88 22 1823 3 2 1 0 6
4JF2_A 0.76 0.63 0.94 15 1066 1 1 0 0 9

^top



Performance of Contrafold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Contrafold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 717
Total TN 473286
Total FP 513
Total FP CONTRA 91
Total FP INCONS 251
Total FP COMP 171
Total FN 303
Total Scores
MCC 0.689
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.662 ± 0.102
Sensitivity 0.703
Positive Predictive Value 0.677
Nr of predictions 26

^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
2LC8_A 0.46 0.39 0.58 7 516 5 3 2 0 11
3J16_L 0.55 0.57 0.55 12 1137 10 3 7 0 9
3J20_1 1.00 1.00 1.00 20 1092 5 0 0 5 0
3J20_2 0.70 0.72 0.69 296 421939 197 27 106 64 116
3J20_0 0.53 0.57 0.50 12 1195 13 3 9 1 9
3J2L_3 0.74 0.76 0.72 26 2984 16 1 9 6 8
3J3D_C 0.71 0.79 0.65 15 945 8 3 5 0 4
3J3E_8 0.12 0.13 0.11 2 2724 32 5 11 16 13
3J3E_7 0.58 0.59 0.59 20 2707 16 2 12 2 14
3J3F_8 0.35 0.47 0.26 9 4726 44 13 13 18 10
3J3F_7 0.84 0.86 0.82 31 2896 11 1 6 4 5
3J3V_B 0.72 0.74 0.71 20 2628 16 0 8 8 7
3UZL_B 0.90 0.88 0.93 14 1278 8 0 1 7 2
3W1K_J 0.97 0.97 0.97 30 1647 1 1 0 0 1
3W3S_B 0.98 0.97 1.00 32 1957 1 0 0 1 1
3ZEX_D 0.87 0.86 0.88 30 2762 11 0 4 7 5
3ZEX_C 0.35 0.34 0.37 10 5347 23 4 13 6 19
3ZND_W 0.22 0.38 0.14 3 1170 27 9 9 9 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
4FRN_A 0.74 0.71 0.77 20 1822 6 1 5 0 8
4JF2_A 0.89 0.79 1.00 19 1063 0 0 0 0 5

^top


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