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 NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric IPknot NanoFolder
MCC 0.633 > 0.339
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.715 ± 0.109 > 0.536 ± 0.139
Sensitivity 0.542 > 0.350
Positive Predictive Value 0.743 > 0.338
Total TP 400 > 258
Total TN 106311 > 106086
Total FP 155 < 523
Total FP CONTRA 14 < 60
Total FP INCONS 124 < 445
Total FP COMP 17 < 18
Total FN 338 < 480
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of IPknot and NanoFolder. 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 NanoFolder).

  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 NanoFolder).

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

^top





Performance of IPknot - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for IPknot

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 400
Total TN 106311
Total FP 155
Total FP CONTRA 14
Total FP INCONS 124
Total FP COMP 17
Total FN 338
Total Scores
MCC 0.633
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.715 ± 0.109
Sensitivity 0.542
Positive Predictive Value 0.743
Nr of predictions 25

^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
2LC8_A 0.40 0.30 0.55 6 1529 5 1 4 0 14
2LDL_A - 0.90 0.82 1.00 9 342 0 0 0 0 2
2LI4_A - 0.93 0.88 1.00 14 482 0 0 0 0 2
2LK3_A - 0.95 0.90 1.00 9 267 0 0 0 0 1
2LKR_A - 0.84 0.77 0.91 30 6072 4 0 3 1 9
2LQZ_A - 0.85 0.82 0.90 9 341 1 1 0 0 2
2LWK_A - 0.83 0.77 0.91 10 485 1 0 1 0 3
3J16_L 0.75 0.57 1.00 17 2758 0 0 0 0 13
3J20_1 0.96 0.91 1.00 21 2905 0 0 0 0 2
3J2L_3 0.66 0.55 0.81 29 7839 9 0 7 2 24
3SN2_B 0.96 0.92 1.00 11 395 0 0 0 0 1
3U4M_B - 0.68 0.54 0.87 20 3137 3 1 2 0 17
3UZL_B 0.72 0.54 0.95 20 3549 1 0 1 0 17
3VJR_D - 0.96 0.92 1.00 12 618 0 0 0 0 1
3W3S_B 0.85 0.75 0.97 30 4722 2 0 1 1 10
3ZEX_G - 0.70 0.61 0.82 45 16416 14 1 9 4 29
3ZEX_D 0.72 0.63 0.82 31 6983 7 0 7 0 18
3ZEX_E - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 21894 53 4 47 2 77
4A1C_2 0.17 0.15 0.19 5 11755 26 4 17 5 28
4A1C_3 0.69 0.57 0.84 31 7103 6 1 5 0 23
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 222 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.42 0.33 0.54 14 4345 13 1 11 1 28
4ATO_G - 0.41 0.40 0.44 4 519 6 0 5 1 6
4ENC_A 0.52 0.42 0.67 8 1314 4 0 4 0 11
4HXH_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 319 0 0 0 0 0

^top



Performance of NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for NanoFolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 258
Total TN 106086
Total FP 523
Total FP CONTRA 60
Total FP INCONS 445
Total FP COMP 18
Total FN 480
Total Scores
MCC 0.339
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.536 ± 0.139
Sensitivity 0.350
Positive Predictive Value 0.338
Nr of predictions 25

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.52 0.55 0.50 11 1518 11 0 11 0 9
2LDL_A - 0.90 0.82 1.00 9 342 1 0 0 1 2
2LI4_A - 0.93 0.88 1.00 14 482 0 0 0 0 2
2LK3_A - 0.95 0.90 1.00 9 267 0 0 0 0 1
2LKR_A - 0.29 0.33 0.25 13 6054 38 8 30 0 26
2LQZ_A - 0.91 0.91 0.91 10 340 1 1 0 0 1
2LWK_A - 0.83 0.77 0.91 10 485 2 0 1 1 3
3J16_L 0.36 0.37 0.37 11 2745 19 3 16 0 19
3J20_1 0.41 0.48 0.37 11 2896 19 5 14 0 12
3J2L_3 0.11 0.11 0.12 6 7824 46 3 42 1 47
3SN2_B 0.96 0.92 1.00 11 395 0 0 0 0 1
3U4M_B - 0.61 0.57 0.66 21 3128 11 1 10 0 16
3UZL_B 0.36 0.35 0.38 13 3536 21 3 18 0 24
3VJR_D - 0.96 0.92 1.00 12 618 0 0 0 0 1
3W3S_B 0.17 0.18 0.18 7 4713 34 1 32 1 33
3ZEX_G - 0.05 0.05 0.05 4 16393 76 5 69 2 70
3ZEX_D 0.26 0.27 0.27 13 6972 36 1 35 0 36
3ZEX_E - 0.03 0.04 0.03 3 21859 85 9 74 2 74
4A1C_2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 11728 61 12 41 8 33
4A1C_3 0.48 0.46 0.51 25 7091 24 2 22 0 29
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 222 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.33 0.29 0.39 12 4340 20 1 18 1 30
4ATO_G - 0.61 0.70 0.54 7 515 6 2 4 0 3
4ENC_A 0.57 0.58 0.58 11 1307 9 0 8 1 8
4HXH_A - 0.81 1.00 0.67 6 316 3 3 0 0 0

^top


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