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 IPknot - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric IPknot Murlet(20)
MCC 0.601 > 0.569
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.609 ± 0.114 > 0.558 ± 0.118
Sensitivity 0.485 > 0.428
Positive Predictive Value 0.751 < 0.762
Total TP 247 > 218
Total TN 73048 < 73091
Total FP 96 > 79
Total FP CONTRA 8 > 5
Total FP INCONS 74 > 63
Total FP COMP 14 > 11
Total FN 262 < 291
P-value 2.02510705504e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of IPknot and Murlet(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 IPknot and Murlet(20)).

  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 IPknot and Murlet(20)).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for IPknot and Murlet(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 IPknot and Murlet(20)).

^top





Performance of IPknot - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for IPknot

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 247
Total TN 73048
Total FP 96
Total FP CONTRA 8
Total FP INCONS 74
Total FP COMP 14
Total FN 262
Total Scores
MCC 0.601
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.609 ± 0.114
Sensitivity 0.485
Positive Predictive Value 0.751
Nr of predictions 14

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
3AMU_B 0.70 0.59 0.84 16 2984 5 0 3 2 11
3J20_1 0.96 0.91 1.00 21 2905 0 0 0 0 2
3J20_0 0.45 0.40 0.52 12 2827 12 0 11 1 18
3J2L_3 0.66 0.55 0.81 29 7839 9 0 7 2 24
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.61 0.48 0.80 20 3891 5 0 5 0 22
3ZEX_C 0.41 0.21 0.79 11 14182 6 1 2 3 41
3ZEX_D 0.72 0.63 0.82 31 6983 7 0 7 0 18
4A1C_3 0.69 0.57 0.84 31 7103 6 1 5 0 23
4A1C_2 0.17 0.15 0.19 5 11755 26 4 17 5 28
4AOB_A 0.42 0.33 0.54 14 4345 13 1 11 1 28
4ENB_A 0.76 0.58 1.00 11 1264 0 0 0 0 8
4ENC_A 0.52 0.42 0.67 8 1314 4 0 4 0 11
4FRG_B 0.69 0.56 0.86 18 3465 3 1 2 0 14

^top



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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 218
Total TN 73091
Total FP 79
Total FP CONTRA 5
Total FP INCONS 63
Total FP COMP 11
Total FN 291
Total Scores
MCC 0.569
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.558 ± 0.118
Sensitivity 0.428
Positive Predictive Value 0.762
Nr of predictions 14

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
3AMU_B 0.77 0.67 0.90 18 2983 3 0 2 1 9
3J20_1 0.68 0.57 0.81 13 2910 3 0 3 0 10
3J20_0 0.58 0.47 0.74 14 2831 5 0 5 0 16
3J2L_3 0.69 0.49 0.96 26 7848 3 0 1 2 27
3RKF_A 0.68 0.47 1.00 16 2195 0 0 0 0 18
3SD1_A 0.68 0.57 0.83 24 3887 5 1 4 0 18
3ZEX_C 0.34 0.23 0.50 12 14172 15 1 11 3 40
3ZEX_D 0.77 0.65 0.91 32 6986 3 0 3 0 17
4A1C_3 0.59 0.41 0.85 22 7114 4 0 4 0 32
4A1C_2 0.17 0.15 0.20 5 11756 24 2 18 4 28
4AOB_A 0.72 0.55 0.96 23 4347 2 0 1 1 19
4ENB_A 0.46 0.21 1.00 4 1271 0 0 0 0 15
4ENC_A 0.51 0.26 1.00 5 1321 0 0 0 0 14
4FRG_B 0.17 0.13 0.25 4 3470 12 1 11 0 28

^top


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