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 UNAFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of Carnac(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric UNAFold Carnac(20)
MCC 0.692 > 0.686
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.704 ± 0.085 > 0.650 ± 0.095
Sensitivity 0.701 > 0.518
Positive Predictive Value 0.689 < 0.915
Total TP 628 > 464
Total TN 91950 < 92355
Total FP 461 > 102
Total FP CONTRA 73 > 8
Total FP INCONS 211 > 35
Total FP COMP 177 > 59
Total FN 268 < 432
P-value 2.58638884049e-05

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of UNAFold and Carnac(20). 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 UNAFold and Carnac(20)).

  2. Comparison of performance of UNAFold and Carnac(20). 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 UNAFold and Carnac(20)).

  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 UNAFold and Carnac(20)).

  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 UNAFold and Carnac(20)).

  5. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for UNAFold and Carnac(20). 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 UNAFold and Carnac(20)).

  6. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for UNAFold and Carnac(20). 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 UNAFold and Carnac(20)).

^top





Performance of UNAFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for UNAFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 628
Total TN 91950
Total FP 461
Total FP CONTRA 73
Total FP INCONS 211
Total FP COMP 177
Total FN 268
Total Scores
MCC 0.692
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.704 ± 0.085
Sensitivity 0.701
Positive Predictive Value 0.689
Nr of predictions 34

^top



2. Individual counts for UNAFold [ 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 18 339 1 0 0 1 0
2WRQ_Y 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 1143 14 0 0 14 0
2XKV_B 0.58 0.64 0.54 7 1822 23 0 6 17 4
2XQD_Y 0.98 0.95 1.00 20 1109 1 0 0 1 1
2XXA_G 0.35 0.34 0.38 12 2013 21 1 19 1 23
3A2K_C 0.47 0.50 0.46 11 1084 13 3 10 0 11
3AMU_B 0.81 0.79 0.83 15 1139 6 0 3 3 4
3G4S_9 0.78 0.77 0.80 20 2711 13 2 3 8 6
3GX2_A 0.81 0.79 0.85 22 1423 5 2 2 1 6
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
3IZ4_A 0.58 0.60 0.57 57 25436 53 12 31 10 38
3IZF_C 0.89 0.91 0.86 32 2603 9 0 5 4 3
3J20_0 0.51 0.57 0.48 12 1194 14 3 10 1 9
3J20_1 0.75 0.75 0.75 15 1092 6 0 5 1 5
3J2L_3 0.80 0.82 0.78 28 2984 12 1 7 4 6
3JYV_7 0.24 0.25 0.25 5 1091 16 7 8 1 15
3JYX_4 0.61 0.83 0.45 10 4734 31 10 2 19 2
3JYX_3 0.77 0.80 0.75 12 2362 27 0 4 23 3
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
3NPB_A 0.85 0.78 0.94 29 2247 6 0 2 4 8
3O58_2 0.87 0.87 0.87 27 2723 12 0 4 8 4
3O58_3 0.42 0.50 0.35 11 4733 34 5 15 14 11
3PDR_A 0.93 0.92 0.94 46 4791 5 1 2 2 4
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
3ZEX_C 0.30 0.34 0.26 10 5336 43 5 23 15 19
3ZEX_D 0.88 0.83 0.94 29 2765 6 0 2 4 6
4A1C_3 0.88 0.86 0.89 32 2727 7 0 4 3 5
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.15 5 4483 42 11 17 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

^top



Performance of Carnac(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 464
Total TN 92355
Total FP 102
Total FP CONTRA 8
Total FP INCONS 35
Total FP COMP 59
Total FN 432
Total Scores
MCC 0.686
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.650 ± 0.095
Sensitivity 0.518
Positive Predictive Value 0.915
Nr of predictions 34

^top



2. Individual counts for Carnac(20) [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KDQ_B 0.77 0.60 1.00 6 168 0 0 0 0 4
2L94_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 357 0 0 0 0 18
2WRQ_Y 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 1143 14 0 0 14 0
2XKV_B 0.43 0.18 1.00 2 1833 1 0 0 1 9
2XQD_Y 0.87 0.76 1.00 16 1113 1 0 0 1 5
2XXA_G 0.29 0.09 1.00 3 2042 0 0 0 0 32
3A2K_C 0.88 0.77 1.00 17 1091 0 0 0 0 5
3AMU_B 0.79 0.79 0.79 15 1138 7 0 4 3 4
3G4S_9 0.73 0.54 1.00 14 2722 4 0 0 4 12
3GX2_A 0.68 0.46 1.00 13 1436 0 0 0 0 15
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
3IZ4_A 0.52 0.31 0.88 29 25503 4 3 1 0 66
3IZF_C 0.91 0.83 1.00 29 2611 2 0 0 2 6
3J20_0 0.69 0.71 0.68 15 1197 8 1 6 1 6
3J20_1 0.89 0.80 1.00 16 1096 1 0 0 1 4
3J2L_3 0.59 0.53 0.67 18 2993 11 0 9 2 16
3JYV_7 0.81 0.70 0.93 14 1096 3 0 1 2 6
3JYX_4 0.76 0.58 1.00 7 4749 2 0 0 2 5
3JYX_3 0.83 0.80 0.86 12 2364 13 0 2 11 3
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
3NPB_A 0.46 0.22 1.00 8 2270 3 0 0 3 29
3O58_2 0.93 0.87 1.00 27 2727 2 0 0 2 4
3O58_3 0.60 0.36 1.00 8 4756 1 0 0 1 14
3PDR_A 0.75 0.58 0.97 29 4810 3 1 0 2 21
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.72 0.55 0.94 16 1516 1 0 1 0 13
3ZEX_C 0.37 0.21 0.67 6 5365 4 1 2 1 23
3ZEX_D 0.81 0.66 1.00 23 2773 3 0 0 3 12
4A1C_3 0.79 0.73 0.87 27 2732 5 0 4 1 10
4A1C_2 0.42 0.25 0.71 5 4509 3 0 2 1 15
4AOB_A 0.59 0.48 0.74 14 1418 6 2 3 1 15
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 0.50 0.25 1.00 6 1196 0 0 0 0 18

^top


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