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 Afold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric Afold RNAwolf
MCC 0.439 > 0.318
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.615 ± 0.114 > 0.535 ± 0.128
Sensitivity 0.397 > 0.298
Positive Predictive Value 0.488 > 0.342
Total TP 556 > 418
Total TN 1183386 > 1183303
Total FP 639 < 862
Total FP CONTRA 64 < 107
Total FP INCONS 520 < 698
Total FP COMP 55 < 57
Total FN 846 < 984
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of Afold and RNAwolf. 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 Afold and RNAwolf).

  2. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Afold and RNAwolf. 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 Afold and RNAwolf).

^top





Performance of Afold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Afold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 556
Total TN 1183386
Total FP 639
Total FP CONTRA 64
Total FP INCONS 520
Total FP COMP 55
Total FN 846
Total Scores
MCC 0.439
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.615 ± 0.114
Sensitivity 0.397
Positive Predictive Value 0.488
Nr of predictions 38

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LBS_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 482 0 0 0 0 0
2LC8_A 0.61 0.55 0.69 11 1524 6 0 5 1 9
2LDL_A - 0.90 0.82 1.00 9 342 1 0 0 1 2
2LDT_A - 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 454 0 0 0 0 4
2LHP_A - 0.97 0.94 1.00 15 651 0 0 0 0 1
2LI4_A - 0.93 0.88 1.00 14 482 0 0 0 0 2
2LJJ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 343 2 0 0 2 0
2LK3_A - 0.95 0.90 1.00 9 267 0 0 0 0 1
2LKR_A - 0.93 0.87 1.00 34 6071 3 0 0 3 5
2LQZ_A - 0.85 0.82 0.90 9 341 1 1 0 0 2
2LU0_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 16 1160 0 0 0 0 0
2LWK_A - 0.75 0.69 0.82 9 485 2 0 2 0 4
2M58_A - 0.33 0.29 0.38 5 1640 8 1 7 0 12
2YIE_Z - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1525 16 3 12 1 12
2YIE_X - 0.36 0.33 0.40 4 1368 8 2 4 2 8
3J0L_1 - 0.73 0.63 0.86 12 1211 3 0 2 1 7
3J0L_h - 0.73 0.60 0.90 26 6076 5 0 3 2 17
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1210 15 1 14 0 17
3J2C_O - 0.58 0.49 0.69 31 10251 15 1 13 1 32
3J3E_8 0.17 0.15 0.19 5 7477 31 2 19 10 28
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SIU_F - 0.85 0.73 1.00 8 370 0 0 0 0 3
3SN2_B 0.96 0.92 1.00 11 395 0 0 0 0 1
3U4M_B - 0.38 0.32 0.46 12 3134 14 0 14 0 25
3VJR_D - 0.96 0.92 1.00 12 618 1 0 0 1 1
3W3S_B 0.50 0.45 0.56 18 4721 15 1 13 1 22
3ZEX_H - 0.18 0.18 0.18 7 9006 33 6 26 1 31
3ZEX_D 0.72 0.61 0.86 30 6986 5 0 5 0 19
3ZEX_F - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2617 12 2 9 1 12
3ZEX_B - 0.29 0.26 0.32 147 1071922 322 35 276 11 411
3ZEX_E - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 21892 55 2 51 2 77
4A1C_2 0.14 0.15 0.14 5 11745 43 5 26 12 28
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 222 0 0 0 0 0
4ATO_G - 0.32 0.30 0.38 3 520 6 1 4 1 7
4ENB_A 0.67 0.58 0.79 11 1261 3 1 2 0 8
4FNJ_A - 0.75 0.63 0.91 10 584 1 0 1 0 6
4HXH_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 319 1 0 0 1 0
4JRC_A - 0.24 0.22 0.29 5 1523 12 0 12 0 18

^top



Performance of RNAwolf - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAwolf

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 418
Total TN 1183303
Total FP 862
Total FP CONTRA 107
Total FP INCONS 698
Total FP COMP 57
Total FN 984
Total Scores
MCC 0.318
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.535 ± 0.128
Sensitivity 0.298
Positive Predictive Value 0.342
Nr of predictions 38

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LBS_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 482 0 0 0 0 0
2LC8_A 0.52 0.50 0.56 10 1522 8 0 8 0 10
2LDL_A - 0.74 0.64 0.88 7 343 1 0 1 0 4
2LDT_A - 0.86 0.80 0.92 12 452 1 0 1 0 3
2LHP_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 16 650 1 0 0 1 0
2LI4_A - 0.97 0.94 1.00 15 481 0 0 0 0 1
2LJJ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 343 3 0 0 3 0
2LK3_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 10 266 0 0 0 0 0
2LKR_A - 0.81 0.74 0.88 29 6072 8 0 4 4 10
2LQZ_A - 0.91 0.91 0.91 10 340 1 1 0 0 1
2LU0_A - 0.97 0.94 1.00 15 1161 3 0 0 3 1
2LWK_A - 0.37 0.38 0.38 5 483 9 0 8 1 8
2M58_A - 0.51 0.47 0.57 8 1639 6 3 3 0 9
2YIE_Z - 0.43 0.42 0.45 5 1529 9 1 5 3 7
2YIE_X - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1364 15 4 10 1 12
3J0L_1 - 0.68 0.63 0.75 12 1209 5 0 4 1 7
3J0L_h - 0.33 0.30 0.37 13 6070 24 0 22 2 30
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1214 11 0 11 0 17
3J2C_O - 0.40 0.37 0.44 23 10244 30 0 29 1 40
3J3E_8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 7470 42 4 29 9 33
3RKF_A 0.72 0.62 0.84 21 2186 4 0 4 0 13
3SIU_F - 0.73 0.55 1.00 6 372 0 0 0 0 5
3SN2_B 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 394 0 0 0 0 0
3U4M_B - 0.44 0.38 0.52 14 3133 13 0 13 0 23
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 13 617 1 0 0 1 0
3W3S_B 0.68 0.63 0.74 25 4719 10 0 9 1 15
3ZEX_H - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 9006 40 8 31 1 38
3ZEX_D 0.20 0.18 0.22 9 6980 32 3 29 0 40
3ZEX_F - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2613 20 6 9 5 12
3ZEX_B - 0.14 0.13 0.15 70 1071902 417 55 353 9 488
3ZEX_E - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 21876 69 10 59 0 77
4A1C_2 0.08 0.09 0.08 3 11741 46 10 27 9 30
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 222 0 0 0 0 0
4ATO_G - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 520 8 1 7 0 10
4ENB_A 0.35 0.32 0.40 6 1260 9 1 8 0 13
4FNJ_A - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 587 8 0 8 0 16
4HXH_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 319 2 0 0 2 0
4JRC_A - 0.58 0.52 0.67 12 1522 6 0 6 0 11

^top


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