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 RNASampler(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric RNASampler(20) Contrafold
MCC 0.751 > 0.664
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.774 ± 0.073 > 0.679 ± 0.096
Sensitivity 0.663 < 0.681
Positive Predictive Value 0.856 > 0.654
Total TP 594 < 610
Total TN 92168 > 91929
Total FP 209 < 460
Total FP CONTRA 41 < 106
Total FP INCONS 59 < 217
Total FP COMP 109 < 137
Total FN 302 > 286
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

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

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

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 594
Total TN 92168
Total FP 209
Total FP CONTRA 41
Total FP INCONS 59
Total FP COMP 109
Total FN 302
Total Scores
MCC 0.751
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.774 ± 0.073
Sensitivity 0.663
Positive Predictive Value 0.856
Nr of predictions 34

^top



2. Individual counts for RNASampler(20) [ 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 0.60 0.36 1.00 4 1831 2 0 0 2 7
2XQD_Y 0.98 0.95 1.00 20 1109 1 0 0 1 1
2XXA_G 0.34 0.11 1.00 4 2041 0 0 0 0 31
3A2K_C 0.98 0.95 1.00 21 1087 0 0 0 0 1
3AMU_B 0.95 0.95 0.95 18 1138 4 0 1 3 1
3G4S_9 0.73 0.54 1.00 14 2722 4 0 0 4 12
3GX2_A 0.88 0.79 1.00 22 1427 1 0 0 1 6
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
3IZ4_A 0.52 0.41 0.65 39 25476 26 15 6 5 56
3IZF_C 0.92 0.86 1.00 30 2610 2 0 0 2 5
3J20_0 0.90 0.90 0.90 19 1198 3 1 1 1 2
3J20_1 1.00 1.00 1.00 20 1092 1 0 0 1 0
3J2L_3 0.56 0.50 0.63 17 2993 12 3 7 2 17
3JYV_7 0.97 0.95 1.00 19 1092 2 0 0 2 1
3JYX_4 0.61 0.83 0.45 10 4734 26 10 2 14 2
3JYX_3 0.70 0.60 0.82 9 2367 14 0 2 12 6
3LA5_A 0.89 0.80 1.00 20 934 0 0 0 0 5
3NPB_A 0.75 0.57 1.00 21 2257 5 0 0 5 16
3O58_2 0.93 0.87 1.00 27 2727 5 0 0 5 4
3O58_3 0.51 0.50 0.52 11 4743 19 5 5 9 11
3PDR_A 0.84 0.76 0.93 38 4799 5 1 2 2 12
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.81 0.69 0.95 20 1512 1 0 1 0 9
3ZEX_C 0.35 0.31 0.39 9 5351 21 3 11 7 20
3ZEX_D 0.83 0.69 1.00 24 2772 1 0 0 1 11
4A1C_3 0.90 0.81 1.00 30 2733 0 0 0 0 7
4A1C_2 0.24 0.25 0.24 5 4495 30 3 13 14 15
4AOB_A 0.70 0.59 0.85 17 1417 4 0 3 1 12
4ENB_A 0.68 0.47 1.00 7 465 0 0 0 0 8
4ENC_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 485 0 0 0 0 4
4FRG_B 0.64 0.54 0.76 13 1185 4 0 4 0 11

^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.