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 RNAsubopt - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric RNAsubopt Mastr(seed)
MCC 0.661 > 0.279
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.684 ± 0.077 > 0.112 ± 0.081
Sensitivity 0.690 > 0.088
Positive Predictive Value 0.641 < 0.899
Total TP 913 > 116
Total TN 131083 < 132378
Total FP 716 > 16
Total FP CONTRA 165 > 0
Total FP INCONS 346 > 13
Total FP COMP 205 > 3
Total FN 411 < 1208
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

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

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

^top





Performance of RNAsubopt - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAsubopt

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 913
Total TN 131083
Total FP 716
Total FP CONTRA 165
Total FP INCONS 346
Total FP COMP 205
Total FN 411
Total Scores
MCC 0.661
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.684 ± 0.077
Sensitivity 0.690
Positive Predictive Value 0.641
Nr of predictions 53

^top



2. Individual counts for RNAsubopt [ 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 0.88 0.89 0.89 16 449 3 0 2 1 2
2KUR_A 0.89 0.89 0.89 17 448 2 0 2 0 2
2KUU_A 0.88 0.89 0.89 16 429 3 0 2 1 2
2KUV_A 0.89 0.89 0.89 17 420 2 0 2 0 2
2KUW_A 0.94 0.94 0.94 17 452 2 0 1 1 1
2KX8_A 0.97 0.94 1.00 15 356 0 0 0 0 1
2L1F_B 0.96 0.92 1.00 22 769 0 0 0 0 2
2L1F_A 0.95 0.91 1.00 21 742 0 0 0 0 2
2L94_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 18 339 1 0 0 1 0
2LC8_A -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 513 15 3 12 0 18
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 25 0 6 19 3
2XQD_Y 0.83 0.81 0.85 17 1109 4 0 3 1 4
2XXA_G 0.49 0.49 0.52 17 2012 17 1 15 1 18
2ZZM_B 0.29 0.33 0.26 5 1339 22 5 9 8 10
2ZZN_D 0.52 0.55 0.52 12 961 11 3 8 0 10
3A2K_C 0.47 0.50 0.46 11 1084 13 3 10 0 11
3A3A_A 0.97 0.93 1.00 28 1472 0 0 0 0 2
3AKZ_H 0.43 0.45 0.43 9 1106 14 3 9 2 11
3AMU_B 0.81 0.79 0.83 15 1139 6 0 3 3 4
3G4S_9 0.41 0.46 0.38 12 2704 25 7 13 5 14
3GX2_A 0.53 0.54 0.54 15 1421 14 4 9 1 13
3IVN_B 0.88 0.78 1.00 18 885 0 0 0 0 5
3IYQ_A 0.28 0.39 0.20 20 22342 96 41 37 18 31
3IZ4_A 0.56 0.60 0.53 57 25429 54 26 24 4 38
3IZF_C 0.89 0.91 0.86 32 2603 9 0 5 4 3
3J16_L 0.49 0.52 0.48 11 1136 12 3 9 0 10
3J20_1 1.00 1.00 1.00 20 1092 3 0 0 3 0
3J20_0 0.51 0.57 0.48 12 1194 14 2 11 1 9
3J2L_3 0.80 0.82 0.78 28 2984 13 1 7 5 6
3JYV_7 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 1090 21 4 17 0 20
3JYX_3 0.77 0.80 0.75 12 2362 26 0 4 22 3
3JYX_4 0.34 0.58 0.21 7 4722 38 20 7 11 5
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
3NPB_A 0.84 0.78 0.91 29 2246 8 0 3 5 8
3O58_3 0.41 0.50 0.34 11 4732 35 6 15 14 11
3O58_2 0.87 0.90 0.85 28 2721 13 0 5 8 3
3PDR_A 0.90 0.90 0.90 45 4790 7 2 3 2 5
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.73 0.72 0.75 21 1505 7 4 3 0 8
3UZL_B 0.49 0.50 0.50 8 1277 15 0 8 7 8
3W3S_B 0.95 0.94 0.97 31 1957 2 0 1 1 2
3ZEX_C 0.30 0.34 0.26 10 5336 43 5 23 15 19
3ZEX_D 0.91 0.89 0.94 31 2763 6 0 2 4 4
4A1C_3 0.85 0.84 0.86 31 2727 8 0 5 3 6
4A1C_2 0.18 0.25 0.14 5 4481 43 13 17 13 15
4AOB_A 0.62 0.62 0.64 18 1409 11 4 6 1 11
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 2 0 0 2 4
4ENC_A 0.36 0.33 0.42 5 484 7 0 7 0 10
4FRG_B 0.36 0.38 0.38 9 1178 15 2 13 0 15
4FRN_A 0.58 0.57 0.59 16 1821 11 3 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.