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 IPknot - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric PETfold_pre2.0(seed) IPknot
MCC 0.866 > 0.710
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.837 ± 0.059 > 0.659 ± 0.107
Sensitivity 0.841 > 0.700
Positive Predictive Value 0.892 > 0.722
Total TP 858 > 714
Total TN 473383 > 473356
Total FP 280 < 408
Total FP CONTRA 35 < 73
Total FP INCONS 69 < 202
Total FP COMP 176 > 133
Total FN 162 < 306
P-value 5.19332990918e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

  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 IPknot).

  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 IPknot).

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

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

^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 IPknot - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for IPknot

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 714
Total TN 473356
Total FP 408
Total FP CONTRA 73
Total FP INCONS 202
Total FP COMP 133
Total FN 306
Total Scores
MCC 0.710
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.659 ± 0.107
Sensitivity 0.700
Positive Predictive Value 0.722
Nr of predictions 26

^top



2. Individual counts for IPknot [ 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 1 4 0 12
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
3J20_2 0.75 0.74 0.76 305 421966 159 17 80 62 107
3J20_0 0.54 0.57 0.52 12 1196 12 3 8 1 9
3J2L_3 0.82 0.82 0.82 28 2986 10 0 6 4 6
3J3D_C 0.52 0.53 0.53 10 949 9 3 6 0 9
3J3E_8 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2723 25 5 14 6 15
3J3E_7 0.60 0.56 0.66 19 2712 11 1 9 1 15
3J3F_8 0.36 0.47 0.28 9 4729 40 11 12 17 10
3J3F_7 0.81 0.83 0.79 30 2896 10 1 7 2 6
3J3V_B 0.54 0.56 0.54 15 2628 16 4 9 3 12
3UZL_B 0.93 0.88 1.00 14 1279 7 0 0 7 2
3W1K_J 0.97 0.97 0.97 30 1647 1 1 0 0 1
3W3S_B 0.94 0.91 0.97 30 1958 2 0 1 1 3
3ZEX_D 0.81 0.80 0.82 28 2762 10 0 6 4 7
3ZEX_C 0.51 0.34 0.77 10 5361 7 1 2 4 19
3ZND_W 0.24 0.38 0.16 3 1172 25 9 7 9 5
4A1C_3 0.83 0.81 0.86 30 2728 7 0 5 2 7
4A1C_2 0.23 0.25 0.22 5 4493 26 8 10 8 15
4AOB_A 0.50 0.48 0.54 14 1411 13 3 9 1 15
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 0 0 0 0 4
4ENC_A 0.59 0.53 0.67 8 484 4 0 4 0 7
4FRG_B 0.75 0.71 0.81 17 1181 4 3 1 0 7
4FRN_A 0.79 0.71 0.87 20 1825 3 1 2 0 8
4JF2_A 0.96 0.96 0.96 23 1058 1 1 0 0 1

^top


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