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 PETfold_pre2.0(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

  5. Compile and download dataset for PETfold_pre2.0(seed) & Contrafold [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric PETfold_pre2.0(seed) Contrafold
MCC 0.715 > 0.565
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.699 ± 0.059 > 0.562 ± 0.093
Sensitivity 0.602 > 0.492
Positive Predictive Value 0.850 > 0.650
Total TP 935 > 764
Total TN 1251685 > 1251610
Total FP 203 < 466
Total FP CONTRA 18 < 37
Total FP INCONS 147 < 374
Total FP COMP 38 < 55
Total FN 617 < 788
P-value 5.02343278931e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of PETfold_pre2.0(seed) 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 PETfold_pre2.0(seed) and Contrafold).

  2. Comparison of performance of PETfold_pre2.0(seed) 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 PETfold_pre2.0(seed) 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 PETfold_pre2.0(seed) 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 PETfold_pre2.0(seed) and Contrafold).

  5. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for PETfold_pre2.0(seed) 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 PETfold_pre2.0(seed) and Contrafold).

  6. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for PETfold_pre2.0(seed) 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 PETfold_pre2.0(seed) and Contrafold).

^top





Performance of PETfold_pre2.0(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for PETfold_pre2.0(seed)

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 935
Total TN 1251685
Total FP 203
Total FP CONTRA 18
Total FP INCONS 147
Total FP COMP 38
Total FN 617
Total Scores
MCC 0.715
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.699 ± 0.059
Sensitivity 0.602
Positive Predictive Value 0.850
Nr of predictions 26

^top



2. Individual counts for PETfold_pre2.0(seed) [ 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 0 5 0 14
3J16_L 0.82 0.70 0.95 21 2753 1 0 1 0 9
3J20_1 0.96 0.91 1.00 21 2905 1 0 0 1 2
3J20_2 0.71 0.61 0.81 388 1116287 97 10 80 7 245
3J20_0 0.84 0.70 1.00 21 2829 1 0 0 1 9
3J2L_3 0.77 0.62 0.94 33 7840 4 0 2 2 20
3J3D_C 0.82 0.71 0.95 20 2754 2 0 1 1 8
3J3E_8 0.43 0.30 0.63 10 7487 8 0 6 2 23
3J3E_7 0.78 0.67 0.92 36 7101 3 0 3 0 18
3J3F_8 0.63 0.53 0.76 19 12221 10 0 6 4 17
3J3F_7 0.85 0.74 0.97 37 7222 2 0 1 1 13
3J3V_B 0.76 0.61 0.95 35 6984 3 0 2 1 22
3UZL_B 0.72 0.54 0.95 20 3549 2 1 0 1 17
3W1K_J 0.80 0.68 0.93 26 4158 3 1 1 1 12
3W3S_B 0.78 0.65 0.93 26 4725 4 0 2 2 14
3ZEX_D 0.82 0.73 0.92 36 6982 3 0 3 0 13
3ZEX_C 0.53 0.37 0.76 19 14171 10 1 5 4 33
3ZND_W 0.47 0.43 0.53 10 2984 12 0 9 3 13
4A1C_3 0.83 0.70 0.97 38 7101 1 0 1 0 16
4A1C_2 0.57 0.45 0.71 15 11760 12 0 6 6 18
4AOB_A 0.72 0.57 0.92 24 4345 3 0 2 1 18
4ENB_A 0.50 0.42 0.62 8 1262 5 1 4 0 11
4ENC_A 0.50 0.42 0.62 8 1313 5 1 4 0 11
4FRG_B 0.74 0.63 0.87 20 3463 3 1 2 0 12
4FRN_A 0.73 0.61 0.88 22 5126 3 2 1 0 14
4JF2_A 0.72 0.52 1.00 16 2834 0 0 0 0 15

^top



Performance of Contrafold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Contrafold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 764
Total TN 1251610
Total FP 466
Total FP CONTRA 37
Total FP INCONS 374
Total FP COMP 55
Total FN 788
Total Scores
MCC 0.565
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.562 ± 0.093
Sensitivity 0.492
Positive Predictive Value 0.650
Nr of predictions 26

^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
2LC8_A 0.45 0.35 0.58 7 1528 5 2 3 0 13
3J16_L 0.46 0.40 0.55 12 2753 10 1 9 0 18
3J20_1 0.96 0.91 1.00 21 2905 4 0 0 4 2
3J20_2 0.58 0.51 0.66 321 1116277 172 10 157 5 312
3J20_0 0.44 0.40 0.50 12 2826 13 0 12 1 18
3J2L_3 0.56 0.49 0.65 26 7835 16 0 14 2 27
3J3D_C 0.67 0.61 0.74 17 2752 6 0 6 0 11
3J3E_8 0.07 0.06 0.10 2 7483 32 1 17 14 31
3J3E_7 0.45 0.37 0.56 20 7104 16 1 15 0 34
3J3F_8 0.31 0.33 0.29 12 12205 41 4 25 12 24
3J3F_7 0.68 0.62 0.76 31 7219 11 0 10 1 19
3J3V_B 0.48 0.39 0.61 22 6985 14 1 13 0 35
3UZL_B 0.70 0.54 0.91 20 3548 2 0 2 0 17
3W1K_J 0.87 0.79 0.97 30 4155 1 1 0 0 8
3W3S_B 0.89 0.80 1.00 32 4721 1 0 0 1 8
3ZEX_D 0.73 0.67 0.80 33 6980 8 1 7 0 16
3ZEX_C 0.28 0.21 0.38 11 14167 22 3 15 4 41
3ZND_W 0.19 0.22 0.18 5 2975 25 1 22 2 18
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
4FRN_A 0.65 0.56 0.77 20 5125 6 1 5 0 16
4JF2_A 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 2831 0 0 0 0 12

^top


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