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 CentroidAlifold(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric CentroidAlifold(seed) CentroidFold
MCC 0.624 > 0.577
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.560 ± 0.054 < 0.609 ± 0.065
Sensitivity 0.443 < 0.496
Positive Predictive Value 0.880 > 0.672
Total TP 1241 < 1388
Total TN 1514505 > 1513852
Total FP 217 < 757
Total FP CONTRA 23 < 86
Total FP INCONS 147 < 590
Total FP COMP 47 < 81
Total FN 1559 > 1412
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of CentroidAlifold(seed) and CentroidFold. 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 CentroidAlifold(seed) and CentroidFold).

  2. 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 CentroidAlifold(seed) and CentroidFold).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for CentroidAlifold(seed) and CentroidFold. 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 CentroidAlifold(seed) and CentroidFold).

^top





Performance of CentroidAlifold(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 1241
Total TN 1514505
Total FP 217
Total FP CONTRA 23
Total FP INCONS 147
Total FP COMP 47
Total FN 1559
Total Scores
MCC 0.624
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.560 ± 0.054
Sensitivity 0.443
Positive Predictive Value 0.880
Nr of predictions 61

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KE6_A 0.44 0.42 0.47 8 1111 10 0 9 1 11
2KUR_A 0.77 0.71 0.83 15 1110 3 0 3 0 6
2KUU_A 0.84 0.76 0.94 16 1111 2 0 1 1 5
2KUV_A 0.44 0.41 0.50 9 1110 9 0 9 0 13
2KUW_A 0.45 0.43 0.50 9 1110 9 0 9 0 12
2KX8_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 861 0 0 0 0 18
2L1F_A 0.98 0.96 1.00 23 2057 0 0 0 0 1
2L1F_B 0.98 0.96 1.00 24 2121 0 0 0 0 1
2L94_A 0.53 0.50 0.59 10 973 7 0 7 0 10
2LC8_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1540 0 0 0 0 20
2WRQ_Y 0.24 0.12 0.50 2 2846 4 0 2 2 15
2WWQ_V 0.46 0.21 1.00 6 2920 0 0 0 0 22
2XKV_B 0.53 0.50 0.56 10 4542 20 0 8 12 10
2XQD_Y 0.47 0.22 1.00 6 2844 0 0 0 0 21
2XXA_G 0.77 0.64 0.93 27 5122 3 0 2 1 15
2ZZM_B 0.14 0.06 0.33 2 3480 4 0 4 0 30
2ZZN_D 0.47 0.22 1.00 6 2479 0 0 0 0 21
3A2K_C 0.46 0.21 1.00 6 2920 0 0 0 0 22
3A3A_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 27 3628 0 0 0 0 10
3AKZ_H 0.46 0.21 1.00 6 2695 0 0 0 0 22
3AMU_B 0.47 0.22 1.00 6 2997 0 0 0 0 21
3GX2_A 0.77 0.60 1.00 24 4347 1 0 0 1 16
3IVN_B 0.78 0.65 0.95 20 2325 1 1 0 0 11
3IYQ_A 0.52 0.39 0.70 37 60673 21 10 6 5 57
3IZ4_A 0.58 0.39 0.88 51 70818 7 2 5 0 81
3IZF_C 0.54 0.30 1.00 16 6887 0 0 0 0 38
3J16_L 0.45 0.20 1.00 6 2769 0 0 0 0 24
3J20_2 0.72 0.60 0.86 381 1116321 70 5 58 7 252
3J20_0 0.45 0.20 1.00 6 2844 0 0 0 0 24
3J20_1 0.51 0.26 1.00 6 2920 0 0 0 0 17
3J2L_3 0.53 0.28 1.00 15 7860 2 0 0 2 38
3J3D_C 0.46 0.21 1.00 6 2769 0 0 0 0 22
3J3E_8 0.26 0.09 0.75 3 7499 1 0 1 0 30
3J3E_7 0.56 0.33 0.95 18 7121 1 0 1 0 36
3J3F_8 0.55 0.33 0.92 12 12233 1 0 1 0 24
3J3F_7 0.58 0.34 1.00 17 7243 1 0 0 1 33
3J3V_B 0.48 0.28 0.84 16 7002 3 0 3 0 41
3JYV_7 0.43 0.19 1.00 6 2844 0 0 0 0 26
3JYX_4 0.52 0.30 0.91 10 12235 3 0 1 2 23
3JYX_3 0.59 0.41 0.85 11 6315 5 0 2 3 16
3LA5_A 0.78 0.62 1.00 21 2464 0 0 0 0 13
3NPB_A 0.71 0.54 0.93 25 6994 4 1 1 2 21
3O58_2 0.65 0.42 1.00 16 7244 0 0 0 0 22
3O58_3 0.56 0.34 0.92 12 12390 1 0 1 0 23
3PDR_A 0.77 0.61 0.98 44 12835 3 0 1 2 28
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.71 0.52 0.96 22 3893 1 0 1 0 20
3UZL_B 0.40 0.16 1.00 6 3564 0 0 0 0 31
3W1K_J 0.78 0.66 0.93 25 4159 2 1 1 0 13
3W3S_B 0.74 0.60 0.92 24 4727 3 0 2 1 16
3ZEX_D 0.60 0.37 1.00 18 7003 0 0 0 0 31
3ZEX_C 0.46 0.23 0.92 12 14183 1 1 0 0 40
3ZND_W 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2998 6 0 5 1 23
4A1C_2 0.46 0.24 0.89 8 11772 3 0 1 2 25
4A1C_3 0.54 0.30 1.00 16 7124 0 0 0 0 38
4AOB_A 0.75 0.57 1.00 24 4347 1 0 0 1 18
4ENB_A 0.65 0.42 1.00 8 1267 0 0 0 0 11
4ENC_A 0.65 0.42 1.00 8 1318 0 0 0 0 11
4FRG_B 0.69 0.53 0.89 17 3467 2 1 1 0 15
4FRN_A 0.71 0.56 0.91 20 5129 2 1 1 0 16
4JF2_A 0.72 0.52 1.00 16 2834 0 0 0 0 15

^top



Performance of CentroidFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for CentroidFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 1388
Total TN 1513852
Total FP 757
Total FP CONTRA 86
Total FP INCONS 590
Total FP COMP 81
Total FN 1412
Total Scores
MCC 0.577
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.609 ± 0.065
Sensitivity 0.496
Positive Predictive Value 0.672
Nr of predictions 61

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KE6_A 0.97 0.95 1.00 18 1110 1 0 0 1 1
2KUR_A 0.95 0.90 1.00 19 1109 0 0 0 0 2
2KUU_A 0.92 0.86 1.00 18 1110 1 0 0 1 3
2KUV_A 0.93 0.86 1.00 19 1109 0 0 0 0 3
2KUW_A 0.95 0.90 1.00 19 1109 0 0 0 0 2
2KX8_A 0.94 0.89 1.00 16 845 0 0 0 0 2
2L1F_A 0.98 0.96 1.00 23 2057 0 0 0 0 1
2L1F_B 0.98 0.96 1.00 24 2121 0 0 0 0 1
2L94_A 0.92 0.90 0.95 18 971 1 0 1 0 2
2LC8_A 0.49 0.35 0.70 7 1530 3 1 2 0 13
2WRQ_Y 0.57 0.59 0.56 10 2832 12 5 3 4 7
2WWQ_V 0.80 0.68 0.95 19 2906 3 0 1 2 9
2XKV_B 0.51 0.50 0.53 10 4541 25 0 9 16 10
2XQD_Y 0.75 0.67 0.86 18 2829 3 0 3 0 9
2XXA_G 0.15 0.12 0.20 5 5126 20 1 19 0 37
2ZZM_B 0.18 0.16 0.23 5 3464 17 3 14 0 27
2ZZN_D 0.82 0.78 0.88 21 2461 3 0 3 0 6
3A2K_C 0.44 0.43 0.46 12 2900 14 2 12 0 16
3A3A_A 0.87 0.76 1.00 28 3627 0 0 0 0 9
3AKZ_H 0.43 0.39 0.48 11 2678 12 2 10 0 17
3AMU_B 0.70 0.59 0.84 16 2984 5 0 3 2 11
3GX2_A 0.79 0.63 1.00 25 4346 1 0 0 1 15
3IVN_B 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 2327 0 0 0 0 12
3IYQ_A 0.36 0.37 0.34 35 60624 71 17 50 4 59
3IZ4_A 0.55 0.45 0.68 59 70789 33 4 24 5 73
3IZF_C 0.68 0.61 0.77 33 6860 10 1 9 0 21
3J16_L 0.50 0.40 0.63 12 2756 7 0 7 0 18
3J20_2 0.56 0.48 0.67 303 1116310 158 8 144 6 330
3J20_0 0.44 0.40 0.50 12 2826 13 0 12 1 18
3J20_1 0.91 0.87 0.95 20 2905 2 0 1 1 3
3J2L_3 0.53 0.49 0.58 26 7830 21 0 19 2 27
3J3D_C 0.49 0.43 0.57 12 2754 9 0 9 0 16
3J3E_8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 7485 21 2 16 3 33
3J3E_7 0.46 0.37 0.59 20 7106 14 1 13 0 34
3J3F_8 0.34 0.33 0.34 12 12211 34 4 19 11 24
3J3F_7 0.20 0.18 0.23 9 7221 30 1 29 0 41
3J3V_B 0.47 0.37 0.60 21 6986 14 1 13 0 36
3JYV_7 0.77 0.59 1.00 19 2831 0 0 0 0 13
3JYX_4 0.23 0.21 0.25 7 12218 25 5 16 4 26
3JYX_3 0.29 0.30 0.30 8 6301 20 8 11 1 19
3LA5_A 0.78 0.62 1.00 21 2464 0 0 0 0 13
3NPB_A 0.77 0.70 0.86 32 6984 7 1 4 2 14
3O58_2 0.82 0.76 0.88 29 7227 7 1 3 3 9
3O58_3 0.38 0.29 0.50 10 12383 10 0 10 0 25
3PDR_A 0.73 0.60 0.90 43 12832 7 0 5 2 29
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.58 0.48 0.71 20 3888 8 1 7 0 22
3UZL_B 0.72 0.54 0.95 20 3549 1 0 1 0 17
3W1K_J 0.56 0.50 0.63 19 4156 11 2 9 0 19
3W3S_B 0.87 0.78 0.97 31 4721 2 0 1 1 9
3ZEX_D 0.73 0.59 0.91 29 6989 3 0 3 0 20
3ZEX_C 0.47 0.27 0.82 14 14179 3 1 2 0 38
3ZND_W 0.20 0.22 0.19 5 2977 23 1 20 2 18
4A1C_2 0.16 0.15 0.17 5 11752 29 5 19 5 28
4A1C_3 0.67 0.56 0.81 30 7103 7 1 6 0 24
4AOB_A 0.45 0.33 0.61 14 4348 10 1 8 1 28
4ENB_A 0.76 0.58 1.00 11 1264 0 0 0 0 8
4ENC_A 0.73 0.58 0.92 11 1314 1 1 0 0 8
4FRG_B 0.24 0.22 0.28 7 3461 18 3 15 0 25
4FRN_A 0.40 0.28 0.59 10 5134 7 2 5 0 26
4JF2_A 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 2831 0 0 0 0 12

^top


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