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 RNAshapes - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of Mastr(seed) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

  5. Compile and download dataset for RNAshapes & Mastr(seed) [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric RNAshapes Mastr(seed)
MCC 0.683 > 0.279
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.718 ± 0.073 > 0.112 ± 0.081
Sensitivity 0.702 > 0.088
Positive Predictive Value 0.672 < 0.899
Total TP 929 > 116
Total TN 131124 < 132378
Total FP 666 > 16
Total FP CONTRA 131 > 0
Total FP INCONS 323 > 13
Total FP COMP 212 > 3
Total FN 395 < 1208
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of RNAshapes and Mastr(seed). 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 RNAshapes and Mastr(seed)).

  2. Comparison of performance of RNAshapes and Mastr(seed). 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 RNAshapes and Mastr(seed)).

  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 RNAshapes and Mastr(seed)).

  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 RNAshapes and Mastr(seed)).

  5. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for RNAshapes and Mastr(seed). 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 RNAshapes and Mastr(seed)).

  6. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for RNAshapes and Mastr(seed). 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 RNAshapes and Mastr(seed)).

^top





Performance of RNAshapes - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAshapes

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 929
Total TN 131124
Total FP 666
Total FP CONTRA 131
Total FP INCONS 323
Total FP COMP 212
Total FN 395
Total Scores
MCC 0.683
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.718 ± 0.073
Sensitivity 0.702
Positive Predictive Value 0.672
Nr of predictions 53

^top



2. Individual counts for RNAshapes [ 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
2KE6_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 18 449 1 0 0 1 0
2KUR_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 19 448 0 0 0 0 0
2KUU_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 18 429 1 0 0 1 0
2KUV_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 19 420 0 0 0 0 0
2KUW_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 18 452 1 0 0 1 0
2KX8_A 0.97 0.94 1.00 15 356 0 0 0 0 1
2L1F_B 0.98 0.96 1.00 23 768 0 0 0 0 1
2L1F_A 0.89 0.87 0.91 20 741 2 0 2 0 3
2L94_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 18 339 1 0 0 1 0
2LC8_A 0.64 0.61 0.69 11 512 5 0 5 0 7
2WRQ_Y 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 1143 13 0 0 13 0
2WWQ_V 1.00 1.00 1.00 19 1185 5 0 0 5 0
2XKV_B 0.64 0.73 0.57 8 1821 24 0 6 18 3
2XQD_Y 0.70 0.67 0.74 14 1110 6 0 5 1 7
2XXA_G 1.00 1.00 1.00 35 2010 1 0 0 1 0
2ZZM_B 0.05 0.07 0.06 1 1340 25 4 13 8 14
2ZZN_D 0.77 0.77 0.77 17 962 5 1 4 0 5
3A2K_C 0.47 0.50 0.46 11 1084 13 3 10 0 11
3A3A_A 0.84 0.80 0.89 24 1473 3 0 3 0 6
3AKZ_H 0.78 0.80 0.76 16 1106 7 2 3 2 4
3AMU_B 0.81 0.79 0.83 15 1139 6 0 3 3 4
3G4S_9 0.58 0.58 0.60 15 2711 19 2 8 9 11
3GX2_A 0.91 0.89 0.93 25 1422 3 1 1 1 3
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
3IYQ_A 0.19 0.27 0.14 14 22340 95 43 43 9 37
3IZ4_A 0.57 0.58 0.56 55 25437 50 16 28 6 40
3IZF_C 0.76 0.77 0.75 27 2604 14 0 9 5 8
3J16_L 0.59 0.57 0.63 12 1140 7 0 7 0 9
3J20_1 1.00 1.00 1.00 20 1092 1 0 0 1 0
3J20_0 0.51 0.57 0.48 12 1194 14 3 10 1 9
3J2L_3 0.77 0.79 0.75 27 2984 14 1 8 5 7
3JYV_7 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 1092 20 1 18 1 20
3JYX_3 0.77 0.80 0.75 12 2362 26 0 4 22 3
3JYX_4 0.61 0.83 0.45 10 4734 35 10 2 23 2
3LA5_A 0.89 0.80 1.00 20 934 0 0 0 0 5
3NPB_A 0.84 0.76 0.93 28 2248 5 1 1 3 9
3O58_3 0.41 0.50 0.34 11 4732 38 6 15 17 11
3O58_2 0.73 0.74 0.72 23 2722 18 0 9 9 8
3PDR_A 0.80 0.80 0.80 40 4790 12 3 7 2 10
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.77 0.76 0.79 22 1505 6 4 2 0 7
3UZL_B 0.43 0.50 0.38 8 1272 17 4 9 4 8
3W3S_B 0.60 0.58 0.63 19 1959 12 2 9 1 14
3ZEX_C 0.29 0.34 0.26 10 5335 42 5 24 13 19
3ZEX_D 0.86 0.80 0.93 28 2766 6 0 2 4 7
4A1C_3 0.86 0.84 0.89 31 2728 7 0 4 3 6
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.16 5 4484 41 11 16 14 15
4AOB_A 0.60 0.59 0.63 17 1410 11 4 6 1 12
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 2 0 0 2 4
4ENC_A 0.37 0.33 0.45 5 485 7 0 6 1 10
4FRG_B 0.36 0.38 0.38 9 1178 15 2 13 0 15
4FRN_A 0.59 0.57 0.62 16 1822 10 2 8 0 12

^top



Performance of Mastr(seed) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Mastr(seed)

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 116
Total TN 132378
Total FP 16
Total FP CONTRA 0
Total FP INCONS 13
Total FP COMP 3
Total FN 1208
Total Scores
MCC 0.279
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.112 ± 0.081
Sensitivity 0.088
Positive Predictive Value 0.899
Nr of predictions 53

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KDQ_B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 174 0 0 0 0 10
2KE6_A 0.94 0.89 1.00 16 451 1 0 0 1 2
2KUR_A 0.83 0.79 0.88 15 450 2 0 2 0 4
2KUU_A 0.82 0.78 0.88 14 431 3 0 2 1 4
2KUV_A 0.83 0.79 0.88 15 422 2 0 2 0 4
2KUW_A 0.51 0.50 0.56 9 454 8 0 7 1 9
2KX8_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 371 0 0 0 0 16
2L1F_B 1.00 1.00 1.00 24 767 0 0 0 0 0
2L1F_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 23 740 0 0 0 0 0
2L94_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 357 0 0 0 0 18
2LC8_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 528 0 0 0 0 18
2WRQ_Y 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1152 0 0 0 0 9
2WWQ_V 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1204 0 0 0 0 19
2XKV_B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1835 0 0 0 0 11
2XQD_Y 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1129 0 0 0 0 21
2XXA_G 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2045 0 0 0 0 35
2ZZM_B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1358 0 0 0 0 15
2ZZN_D 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 984 0 0 0 0 22
3A2K_C 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1108 0 0 0 0 22
3A3A_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1500 0 0 0 0 30
3AKZ_H 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1127 0 0 0 0 20
3AMU_B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1157 0 0 0 0 19
3G4S_9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2736 0 0 0 0 26
3GX2_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1449 0 0 0 0 28
3IVN_B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 903 0 0 0 0 23
3IYQ_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 22440 0 0 0 0 51
3IZ4_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 25536 0 0 0 0 95
3IZF_C 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2640 0 0 0 0 35
3J16_L 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1159 0 0 0 0 21
3J20_1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1112 0 0 0 0 20
3J20_0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1219 0 0 0 0 21
3J2L_3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 3020 0 0 0 0 34
3JYV_7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1111 0 0 0 0 20
3JYX_3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2378 0 0 0 0 15
3JYX_4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4756 0 0 0 0 12
3LA5_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 954 0 0 0 0 25
3NPB_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2278 0 0 0 0 37
3O58_3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4764 0 0 0 0 22
3O58_2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2754 0 0 0 0 31
3PDR_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4840 0 0 0 0 50
3RKF_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 866 0 0 0 0 24
3SD1_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1533 0 0 0 0 29
3UZL_B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1293 0 0 0 0 16
3W3S_B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1989 0 0 0 0 33
3ZEX_C 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 5374 0 0 0 0 29
3ZEX_D 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2796 0 0 0 0 35
4A1C_3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2763 0 0 0 0 37
4A1C_2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4516 0 0 0 0 20
4AOB_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1437 0 0 0 0 29
4ENB_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 472 0 0 0 0 15
4ENC_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 496 0 0 0 0 15
4FRG_B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1202 0 0 0 0 24
4FRN_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1848 0 0 0 0 28

^top


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