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 RNASampler(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric RNASampler(20) Contrafold
MCC 0.623 > 0.551
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.649 ± 0.070 > 0.572 ± 0.087
Sensitivity 0.470 < 0.486
Positive Predictive Value 0.830 > 0.630
Total TP 614 < 634
Total TN 247720 > 247454
Total FP 189 < 436
Total FP CONTRA 23 < 51
Total FP INCONS 103 < 321
Total FP COMP 63 < 64
Total FN 691 > 671
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

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

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

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 614
Total TN 247720
Total FP 189
Total FP CONTRA 23
Total FP INCONS 103
Total FP COMP 63
Total FN 691
Total Scores
MCC 0.623
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.649 ± 0.070
Sensitivity 0.470
Positive Predictive Value 0.830
Nr of predictions 34

^top



2. Individual counts for RNASampler(20) [ 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 0.45 0.20 1.00 4 4556 2 0 0 2 16
2XQD_Y 0.88 0.78 1.00 21 2829 0 0 0 0 6
2XXA_G 0.31 0.10 1.00 4 5147 0 0 0 0 38
3A2K_C 0.86 0.75 1.00 21 2905 0 0 0 0 7
3AMU_B 0.82 0.70 0.95 19 2983 3 0 1 2 8
3G4S_9 0.50 0.28 0.89 16 7363 2 1 1 0 41
3GX2_A 0.74 0.55 1.00 22 4349 1 0 0 1 18
3IVN_B 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 2327 0 0 0 0 12
3IZ4_A 0.47 0.32 0.69 42 70815 23 6 13 4 90
3IZF_C 0.74 0.57 0.97 31 6871 1 0 1 0 23
3J20_0 0.80 0.67 0.95 20 2829 2 0 1 1 10
3J20_1 0.96 0.91 1.00 21 2905 0 0 0 0 2
3J2L_3 0.45 0.32 0.63 17 7848 12 1 9 2 36
3JYV_7 0.81 0.66 1.00 21 2829 0 0 0 0 11
3JYX_4 0.32 0.30 0.34 10 12217 26 4 15 7 23
3JYX_3 0.58 0.44 0.75 12 6312 11 0 4 7 15
3LA5_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2465 0 0 0 0 14
3NPB_A 0.68 0.48 0.96 22 6998 4 1 0 3 24
3O58_2 0.79 0.71 0.87 27 7229 5 2 2 1 11
3O58_3 0.43 0.34 0.55 12 12381 18 2 8 8 23
3PDR_A 0.70 0.53 0.93 38 12839 5 0 3 2 34
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.67 0.48 0.95 20 3895 1 0 1 0 22
3ZEX_C 0.27 0.19 0.38 10 14170 20 1 15 4 42
3ZEX_D 0.68 0.49 0.96 24 6996 1 0 1 0 25
4A1C_3 0.74 0.56 1.00 30 7110 0 0 0 0 24
4A1C_2 0.18 0.15 0.23 5 11759 30 0 17 13 28
4AOB_A 0.58 0.40 0.85 17 4351 4 0 3 1 25
4ENB_A 0.60 0.37 1.00 7 1268 0 0 0 0 12
4ENC_A 0.76 0.58 1.00 11 1315 0 0 0 0 8
4FRG_B 0.55 0.41 0.76 13 3469 4 0 4 0 19

^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.