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 McQFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric McQFold NanoFolder
MCC 0.493 > 0.327
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.626 ± 0.134 > 0.519 ± 0.140
Sensitivity 0.424 > 0.338
Positive Predictive Value 0.581 > 0.326
Total TP 306 > 244
Total TN 105826 > 105604
Total FP 236 < 523
Total FP CONTRA 17 < 60
Total FP INCONS 204 < 445
Total FP COMP 15 < 18
Total FN 416 < 478
P-value 4.98172311752e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of McQFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for McQFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 306
Total TN 105826
Total FP 236
Total FP CONTRA 17
Total FP INCONS 204
Total FP COMP 15
Total FN 416
Total Scores
MCC 0.493
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.626 ± 0.134
Sensitivity 0.424
Positive Predictive Value 0.581
Nr of predictions 24

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.61 0.55 0.69 11 1524 5 0 5 0 9
2LDL_A - 0.73 0.55 1.00 6 345 0 0 0 0 5
2LK3_A - 0.95 0.90 1.00 9 267 0 0 0 0 1
2LKR_A - 0.51 0.46 0.58 18 6074 13 2 11 0 21
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 0.75 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 0.56 0.43 0.72 23 7843 11 0 9 2 30
3SN2_B 0.96 0.92 1.00 11 395 0 0 0 0 1
3U4M_B - 0.73 0.57 0.95 21 3138 1 0 1 0 16
3UZL_B 0.45 0.41 0.52 15 3541 14 0 14 0 22
3VJR_D - 0.96 0.92 1.00 12 618 0 0 0 0 1
3W3S_B 0.44 0.38 0.54 15 4725 14 0 13 1 25
3ZEX_D 0.69 0.53 0.90 26 6992 3 1 2 0 23
3ZEX_G - 0.31 0.27 0.36 20 16416 38 1 34 3 54
3ZEX_E - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 21894 53 4 47 2 77
4A1C_2 0.15 0.15 0.15 5 11748 33 5 23 5 28
4A1C_3 0.25 0.22 0.29 12 7099 29 1 28 0 42
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 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 523 5 0 5 0 10
4ENC_A 0.86 0.79 0.94 15 1310 1 1 0 0 4
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 244
Total TN 105604
Total FP 523
Total FP CONTRA 60
Total FP INCONS 445
Total FP COMP 18
Total FN 478
Total Scores
MCC 0.327
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.519 ± 0.140
Sensitivity 0.338
Positive Predictive Value 0.326
Nr of predictions 24

^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
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_D 0.26 0.27 0.27 13 6972 36 1 35 0 36
3ZEX_G - 0.05 0.05 0.05 4 16393 76 5 69 2 70
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.