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 Murlet(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric Murlet(20) Contrafold
MCC 0.577 > 0.551
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.577 ± 0.062 > 0.572 ± 0.087
Sensitivity 0.423 < 0.486
Positive Predictive Value 0.791 > 0.630
Total TP 552 < 634
Total TN 247762 > 247454
Total FP 182 < 436
Total FP CONTRA 16 < 51
Total FP INCONS 130 < 321
Total FP COMP 36 < 64
Total FN 753 > 671
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  2. Comparison of performance of Murlet(20) and Contrafold. 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 Murlet(20) and Contrafold).

  3. 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 Murlet(20) and Contrafold).

  4. 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 Murlet(20) and Contrafold).

  5. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Murlet(20) and Contrafold. 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 Murlet(20) and Contrafold).

  6. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Murlet(20) and Contrafold. 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 Murlet(20) and Contrafold).

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 552
Total TN 247762
Total FP 182
Total FP CONTRA 16
Total FP INCONS 130
Total FP COMP 36
Total FN 753
Total Scores
MCC 0.577
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.577 ± 0.062
Sensitivity 0.423
Positive Predictive Value 0.791
Nr of predictions 34

^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
2KDQ_B 0.67 0.45 1.00 5 401 0 0 0 0 6
2L94_A 0.53 0.50 0.59 10 973 7 0 7 0 10
2WRQ_Y 0.41 0.41 0.41 7 2833 12 6 4 2 10
2XKV_B 0.45 0.20 1.00 4 4556 3 0 0 3 16
2XQD_Y 0.80 0.70 0.90 19 2829 2 0 2 0 8
2XXA_G 0.41 0.17 1.00 7 5144 0 0 0 0 35
3A2K_C 0.78 0.68 0.90 19 2905 2 0 2 0 9
3AMU_B 0.77 0.67 0.90 18 2983 3 0 2 1 9
3G4S_9 0.58 0.39 0.88 22 7356 3 1 2 0 35
3GX2_A 0.61 0.38 1.00 15 4356 1 0 0 1 25
3IVN_B 0.69 0.48 1.00 15 2331 0 0 0 0 16
3IZ4_A 0.40 0.24 0.65 32 70827 21 1 16 4 100
3IZF_C 0.71 0.56 0.91 30 6870 4 0 3 1 24
3J20_0 0.58 0.47 0.74 14 2831 5 0 5 0 16
3J20_1 0.68 0.57 0.81 13 2910 3 0 3 0 10
3J2L_3 0.69 0.49 0.96 26 7848 3 0 1 2 27
3JYV_7 0.67 0.53 0.85 17 2830 3 0 3 0 15
3JYX_4 0.36 0.27 0.47 9 12227 15 0 10 5 24
3JYX_3 0.60 0.52 0.70 14 6308 11 0 6 5 13
3LA5_A 0.68 0.47 1.00 16 2469 0 0 0 0 18
3NPB_A 0.55 0.35 0.89 16 7003 2 1 1 0 30
3O58_2 0.89 0.82 0.97 31 7228 2 0 1 1 7
3O58_3 0.33 0.23 0.47 8 12386 12 2 7 3 27
3PDR_A 0.70 0.53 0.93 38 12839 3 0 3 0 34
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



Performance of Contrafold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Contrafold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 634
Total TN 247454
Total FP 436
Total FP CONTRA 51
Total FP INCONS 321
Total FP COMP 64
Total FN 671
Total Scores
MCC 0.551
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.572 ± 0.087
Sensitivity 0.486
Positive Predictive Value 0.630
Nr of predictions 34

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KDQ_B 0.95 0.91 1.00 10 396 0 0 0 0 1
2L94_A 0.92 0.90 0.95 18 971 1 0 1 0 2
2WRQ_Y 0.57 0.59 0.56 10 2832 13 5 3 5 7
2XKV_B 0.51 0.50 0.53 10 4541 25 0 9 16 10
2XQD_Y 0.78 0.70 0.86 19 2828 3 0 3 0 8
2XXA_G 0.13 0.12 0.15 5 5117 29 1 28 0 37
3A2K_C 0.44 0.43 0.46 12 2900 14 2 12 0 16
3AMU_B 0.65 0.59 0.73 16 2981 8 0 6 2 11
3G4S_9 0.30 0.25 0.38 14 7344 23 1 22 0 43
3GX2_A 0.77 0.63 0.96 25 4345 2 0 1 1 15
3IVN_B 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 2327 0 0 0 0 12
3IZ4_A 0.52 0.45 0.61 60 70777 44 4 35 5 72
3IZF_C 0.68 0.61 0.77 33 6860 10 1 9 0 21
3J20_0 0.44 0.40 0.50 12 2826 13 0 12 1 18
3J20_1 0.96 0.91 1.00 21 2905 4 0 0 4 2
3J2L_3 0.56 0.49 0.65 26 7835 16 0 14 2 27
3JYV_7 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2830 20 0 20 0 32
3JYX_4 0.20 0.21 0.20 7 12211 35 6 22 7 26
3JYX_3 0.28 0.30 0.27 8 6298 23 8 14 1 19
3LA5_A 0.78 0.62 1.00 21 2464 0 0 0 0 13
3NPB_A 0.76 0.70 0.84 32 6983 8 1 5 2 14
3O58_2 0.78 0.76 0.81 29 7224 10 2 5 3 9
3O58_3 0.28 0.26 0.31 9 12374 20 3 17 0 26
3PDR_A 0.69 0.60 0.80 43 12826 13 0 11 2 29
3RKF_A 0.73 0.59 0.91 20 2189 2 1 1 0 14
3SD1_A 0.57 0.48 0.69 20 3887 9 2 7 0 22
3ZEX_C 0.28 0.21 0.38 11 14167 22 3 15 4 41
3ZEX_D 0.73 0.67 0.80 33 6980 8 1 7 0 16
4A1C_3 0.66 0.57 0.78 31 7100 9 1 8 0 23
4A1C_2 0.16 0.15 0.17 5 11751 33 5 20 8 28
4AOB_A 0.44 0.36 0.56 15 4344 13 1 11 1 27
4ENB_A 0.73 0.58 0.92 11 1263 1 1 0 0 8
4ENC_A 0.73 0.58 0.92 11 1314 1 1 0 0 8
4FRG_B 0.68 0.56 0.82 18 3464 4 1 3 0 14

^top


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