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 RNASLOpt - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of Vsfold5 - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

  5. Compile and download dataset for RNASLOpt & Vsfold5 [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric RNASLOpt Vsfold5
MCC 0.641 > 0.507
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.686 ± 0.103 > 0.603 ± 0.120
Sensitivity 0.622 > 0.514
Positive Predictive Value 0.671 > 0.515
Total TP 444 > 367
Total TN 49326 > 49275
Total FP 277 < 396
Total FP CONTRA 68 < 94
Total FP INCONS 150 < 252
Total FP COMP 59 > 50
Total FN 270 < 347
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of RNASLOpt and Vsfold5. 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 RNASLOpt and Vsfold5).

  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 RNASLOpt and Vsfold5).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for RNASLOpt and Vsfold5. 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 RNASLOpt and Vsfold5).

^top





Performance of RNASLOpt - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNASLOpt

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 444
Total TN 49326
Total FP 277
Total FP CONTRA 68
Total FP INCONS 150
Total FP COMP 59
Total FN 270
Total Scores
MCC 0.641
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.686 ± 0.103
Sensitivity 0.622
Positive Predictive Value 0.671
Nr of predictions 39

^top



2. Individual counts for RNASLOpt [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.48 0.39 0.64 7 517 4 0 4 0 11
2LDL_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 131 1 0 0 1 0
2LHP_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 246 0 0 0 0 0
2LI4_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 175 0 0 0 0 0
2LJJ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 7 123 3 0 0 3 0
2LK3_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 91 0 0 0 0 0
2LKR_A - 0.70 0.69 0.71 20 2412 13 1 7 5 9
2LWK_A - 0.95 0.91 1.00 10 197 1 0 0 1 1
3J0L_2 - 0.49 0.46 0.52 12 2227 18 0 11 7 14
3J0L_1 - 0.73 0.62 0.89 8 475 4 0 1 3 5
3J0L_8 - 0.74 0.57 1.00 4 72 0 0 0 0 3
3J0L_h - 0.81 0.66 1.00 21 2119 0 0 0 0 11
3J0L_7 - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 506 13 3 10 0 10
3J0L_g - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 174 4 0 2 2 2
3J0L_a - 0.21 0.18 0.29 2 404 6 3 2 1 9
3J16_L 0.63 0.57 0.71 12 1142 5 0 5 0 9
3J20_0 0.74 0.76 0.73 16 1197 7 3 3 1 5
3J20_1 1.00 1.00 1.00 20 1092 1 0 0 1 0
3J2C_O - 0.72 0.68 0.76 28 3950 13 2 7 4 13
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
3TRZ_Z - 1.00 1.00 1.00 5 87 2 0 0 2 0
3TS0_U - 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 112 1 0 0 1 0
3TS2_V - 1.00 1.00 1.00 5 103 0 0 0 0 0
3U4M_B - 0.49 0.55 0.46 12 1250 14 3 11 0 10
3UZL_B 0.55 0.50 0.62 8 1280 9 1 4 4 8
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 239 0 0 0 0 0
3W3S_B 0.90 0.85 0.97 28 1960 2 0 1 1 5
3ZEX_D 0.86 0.74 1.00 26 2770 4 0 0 4 9
3ZEX_E - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 8254 55 20 30 5 34
4A1C_3 0.79 0.73 0.87 27 2732 5 0 4 1 10
4A1C_2 0.30 0.40 0.24 8 4482 35 13 13 9 12
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.31 0.28 0.38 8 1416 13 3 10 0 21
4ATO_G - 0.36 0.43 0.33 3 211 6 6 0 0 4
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 0 0 0 0 4
4ENC_A 0.73 0.60 0.90 9 486 1 1 0 0 6
4FRG_B 0.60 0.58 0.64 14 1180 8 3 5 0 10
4FRN_A 0.19 0.18 0.22 5 1825 18 6 12 0 23

^top



Performance of Vsfold5 - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Vsfold5

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 367
Total TN 49275
Total FP 396
Total FP CONTRA 94
Total FP INCONS 252
Total FP COMP 50
Total FN 347
Total Scores
MCC 0.507
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.603 ± 0.120
Sensitivity 0.514
Positive Predictive Value 0.515
Nr of predictions 39

^top



2. Individual counts for Vsfold5 [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 515 13 0 13 0 18
2LDL_A - 0.94 0.89 1.00 8 132 1 0 0 1 1
2LHP_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 246 0 0 0 0 0
2LI4_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 175 0 0 0 0 0
2LJJ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 7 123 3 0 0 3 0
2LK3_A - 0.94 0.89 1.00 8 92 0 0 0 0 1
2LKR_A - 0.31 0.31 0.32 9 2412 19 5 14 0 20
2LWK_A - 0.95 0.91 1.00 10 197 1 0 0 1 1
3J0L_2 - 0.42 0.42 0.44 11 2225 21 1 13 7 15
3J0L_1 - 0.25 0.23 0.30 3 474 8 3 4 1 10
3J0L_8 - 0.74 0.57 1.00 4 72 0 0 0 0 3
3J0L_h - 0.20 0.19 0.24 6 2115 19 3 16 0 26
3J0L_7 - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 506 13 3 10 0 10
3J0L_g - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 174 4 0 2 2 2
3J0L_a - 0.39 0.36 0.44 4 402 6 4 1 1 7
3J16_L 0.98 0.95 1.00 20 1139 0 0 0 0 1
3J20_0 0.76 0.76 0.76 16 1198 6 3 2 1 5
3J20_1 0.75 0.75 0.75 15 1092 7 0 5 2 5
3J2C_O - 0.33 0.32 0.36 13 3951 26 3 20 3 28
3J2L_3 0.70 0.71 0.71 24 2986 13 3 7 3 10
3SN2_B 0.95 0.92 1.00 11 143 0 0 0 0 1
3TRZ_Z - 1.00 1.00 1.00 5 87 1 0 0 1 0
3TS0_U - 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 112 1 0 0 1 0
3TS2_V - 1.00 1.00 1.00 5 103 0 0 0 0 0
3U4M_B - 0.49 0.55 0.46 12 1250 14 3 11 0 10
3UZL_B 0.24 0.31 0.20 5 1268 20 9 11 0 11
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 239 0 0 0 0 0
3W3S_B 0.83 0.85 0.82 28 1955 7 2 4 1 5
3ZEX_D 0.09 0.09 0.12 3 2771 24 5 17 2 32
3ZEX_E - 0.11 0.15 0.09 5 8247 54 21 31 2 29
4A1C_3 0.29 0.30 0.31 11 2727 26 4 21 1 26
4A1C_2 0.33 0.40 0.28 8 4487 37 8 13 16 12
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.21 0.21 0.25 6 1413 19 2 16 1 23
4ATO_G - 0.67 0.86 0.55 6 209 5 5 0 0 1
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 0.60 0.58 0.64 14 1180 8 3 5 0 10
4FRN_A 0.15 0.14 0.17 4 1825 19 3 16 0 24

^top


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