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 MCFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric MCFold NanoFolder
MCC 0.475 > 0.377
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.563 ± 0.128 > 0.537 ± 0.122
Sensitivity 0.473 > 0.395
Positive Predictive Value 0.484 > 0.369
Total TP 393 > 328
Total TN 115618 > 115542
Total FP 509 < 601
Total FP CONTRA 44 < 79
Total FP INCONS 375 < 481
Total FP COMP 90 > 41
Total FN 437 < 502
P-value 5.19332990918e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of MCFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for MCFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 393
Total TN 115618
Total FP 509
Total FP CONTRA 44
Total FP INCONS 375
Total FP COMP 90
Total FN 437
Total Scores
MCC 0.475
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.563 ± 0.128
Sensitivity 0.473
Positive Predictive Value 0.484
Nr of predictions 30

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.41 0.45 0.39 9 1517 16 0 14 2 11
2LDL_A - 0.95 0.91 1.00 10 341 2 0 0 2 1
2LI4_A - 0.97 0.94 1.00 15 481 0 0 0 0 1
2LK3_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 10 266 0 0 0 0 0
2LKR_A - 0.93 0.92 0.95 36 6067 14 0 2 12 3
2LQZ_A - 0.91 0.91 0.91 10 340 1 1 0 0 1
2LU0_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 16 1160 5 0 0 5 0
2LWK_A - 0.92 0.92 0.92 12 483 2 0 1 1 1
2M58_A - 0.20 0.24 0.18 4 1631 19 2 16 1 13
3J16_L 0.45 0.47 0.44 14 2743 19 1 17 1 16
3J2L_3 0.58 0.57 0.60 30 7825 23 2 18 3 23
3J3D_C 0.42 0.43 0.43 12 2747 18 2 14 2 16
3J3E_7 0.40 0.39 0.42 21 7090 29 3 26 0 33
3J3E_8 0.12 0.12 0.12 4 7470 46 3 26 17 29
3J3F_7 0.74 0.74 0.74 37 7210 17 2 11 4 13
3J3F_8 0.13 0.17 0.11 6 12191 61 9 40 12 30
3SN2_B 0.55 0.58 0.54 7 393 6 0 6 0 5
3U4M_B - 0.59 0.59 0.59 22 3123 15 0 15 0 15
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 13 617 1 0 0 1 0
3ZEX_G - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 16456 15 1 14 0 74
3ZEX_D 0.17 0.18 0.18 9 6970 42 4 38 0 40
3ZND_W 0.19 0.22 0.18 5 2975 26 1 22 3 18
4A1C_3 0.68 0.67 0.71 36 7089 17 1 14 2 18
4A1C_2 0.13 0.15 0.11 5 11735 56 10 31 15 28
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 222 0 0 0 0 0
4ATO_G - 0.30 0.30 0.33 3 519 8 0 6 2 7
4ENC_A 0.28 0.32 0.27 6 1304 17 2 14 1 13
4HXH_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 319 4 0 0 4 0
4JF2_A 0.66 0.68 0.66 21 2818 11 0 11 0 10
4JRC_A - 0.20 0.22 0.21 5 1516 19 0 19 0 18

^top



Performance of NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for NanoFolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 328
Total TN 115542
Total FP 601
Total FP CONTRA 79
Total FP INCONS 481
Total FP COMP 41
Total FN 502
Total Scores
MCC 0.377
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.537 ± 0.122
Sensitivity 0.395
Positive Predictive Value 0.369
Nr of predictions 30

^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
2LU0_A - 0.94 1.00 0.89 16 1158 3 2 0 1 0
2LWK_A - 0.83 0.77 0.91 10 485 2 0 1 1 3
2M58_A - 0.43 0.47 0.40 8 1633 12 4 8 0 9
3J16_L 0.36 0.37 0.37 11 2745 19 3 16 0 19
3J2L_3 0.11 0.11 0.12 6 7824 46 3 42 1 47
3J3D_C 0.70 0.71 0.69 20 2746 9 2 7 0 8
3J3E_7 0.35 0.33 0.37 18 7091 31 1 30 0 36
3J3E_8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 7466 47 6 31 10 33
3J3F_7 0.17 0.18 0.17 9 7208 43 3 40 0 41
3J3F_8 0.27 0.33 0.22 12 12192 54 9 33 12 24
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
3VJR_D - 0.96 0.92 1.00 12 618 0 0 0 0 1
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
3ZND_W 0.18 0.22 0.17 5 2973 29 6 19 4 18
4A1C_3 0.48 0.46 0.51 25 7091 24 2 22 0 29
4A1C_2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 11728 61 12 41 8 33
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 222 0 0 0 0 0
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
4JF2_A 0.51 0.55 0.49 17 2815 18 5 13 0 14
4JRC_A - 0.48 0.48 0.50 11 1518 11 0 11 0 12

^top


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