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 RNAalifold(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

  5. Compile and download dataset for RNAalifold(seed) & Fold [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric RNAalifold(seed) Fold
MCC 0.626 > 0.520
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.588 ± 0.091 < 0.602 ± 0.121
Sensitivity 0.457 < 0.472
Positive Predictive Value 0.857 > 0.573
Total TP 738 < 763
Total TN 1354115 > 1353644
Total FP 140 < 639
Total FP CONTRA 15 < 65
Total FP INCONS 108 < 504
Total FP COMP 17 < 70
Total FN 877 > 852
P-value 5.23657817852e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of RNAalifold(seed) and Fold. 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 RNAalifold(seed) and Fold).

  2. Comparison of performance of RNAalifold(seed) and Fold. 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 RNAalifold(seed) and Fold).

  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 RNAalifold(seed) and Fold).

  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 RNAalifold(seed) and Fold).

  5. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for RNAalifold(seed) and Fold. 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 RNAalifold(seed) and Fold).

  6. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for RNAalifold(seed) and Fold. 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 RNAalifold(seed) and Fold).

^top





Performance of RNAalifold(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAalifold(seed)

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 738
Total TN 1354115
Total FP 140
Total FP CONTRA 15
Total FP INCONS 108
Total FP COMP 17
Total FN 877
Total Scores
MCC 0.626
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.588 ± 0.091
Sensitivity 0.457
Positive Predictive Value 0.857
Nr of predictions 27

^top



2. Individual counts for RNAalifold(seed) [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KUR_A 0.95 0.90 1.00 19 1109 0 0 0 0 2
2KUU_A 0.92 0.86 1.00 18 1110 1 0 0 1 3
2KUV_A 0.93 0.86 1.00 19 1109 0 0 0 0 3
2KUW_A 0.84 0.76 0.94 16 1111 1 0 1 0 5
2KX8_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 861 0 0 0 0 18
2L1F_A 0.67 0.58 0.78 14 2062 4 0 4 0 10
2L1F_B 0.64 0.56 0.74 14 2126 5 0 5 0 11
2L94_A 0.59 0.40 0.89 8 981 1 0 1 0 12
2LC8_A -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1528 12 0 12 0 20
2XKV_B 0.59 0.35 1.00 7 4553 2 0 0 2 13
2XXA_G 0.46 0.21 1.00 9 5142 0 0 0 0 33
3IYQ_A 0.38 0.21 0.69 20 60697 13 5 4 4 74
3IZ4_A 0.42 0.21 0.85 28 70843 5 1 4 0 104
3J20_2 0.69 0.58 0.83 367 1116322 80 5 71 4 266
3NPB_A 0.66 0.48 0.92 22 6997 3 1 1 1 24
3O58_3 0.51 0.26 1.00 9 12394 0 0 0 0 26
3PDR_A 0.68 0.46 1.00 33 12847 1 0 0 1 39
3RKF_A 0.63 0.47 0.84 16 2192 3 1 2 0 18
3SD1_A 0.58 0.40 0.85 17 3896 3 1 2 0 25
3W3S_B 0.67 0.45 1.00 18 4735 1 0 0 1 22
3ZEX_C 0.42 0.17 1.00 9 14187 0 0 0 0 43
4A1C_2 0.39 0.15 1.00 5 11776 2 0 0 2 28
4AOB_A 0.72 0.52 1.00 22 4349 1 0 0 1 20
4ENB_A 0.56 0.32 1.00 6 1269 0 0 0 0 13
4ENC_A 0.56 0.32 1.00 6 1320 0 0 0 0 13
4FRG_B 0.73 0.53 1.00 17 3469 0 0 0 0 15
4FRN_A 0.69 0.53 0.90 19 5130 2 1 1 0 17

^top



Performance of Fold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Fold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 763
Total TN 1353644
Total FP 639
Total FP CONTRA 65
Total FP INCONS 504
Total FP COMP 70
Total FN 852
Total Scores
MCC 0.520
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.602 ± 0.121
Sensitivity 0.472
Positive Predictive Value 0.573
Nr of predictions 27

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KUR_A 0.95 0.90 1.00 19 1109 0 0 0 0 2
2KUU_A 0.92 0.86 1.00 18 1110 1 0 0 1 3
2KUV_A 0.93 0.86 1.00 19 1109 0 0 0 0 3
2KUW_A 0.95 0.90 1.00 19 1109 0 0 0 0 2
2KX8_A 0.94 0.89 1.00 16 845 0 0 0 0 2
2L1F_A 0.89 0.88 0.91 21 2057 2 0 2 0 3
2L1F_B 0.90 0.88 0.92 22 2121 2 0 2 0 3
2L94_A 0.97 0.95 1.00 19 971 0 0 0 0 1
2LC8_A -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1525 15 2 13 0 20
2XKV_B 0.51 0.50 0.53 10 4541 24 0 9 15 10
2XXA_G 0.93 0.86 1.00 36 5115 0 0 0 0 6
3IYQ_A 0.29 0.31 0.27 29 60618 83 20 59 4 65
3IZ4_A 0.53 0.46 0.61 61 70776 44 5 34 5 71
3J20_2 0.45 0.40 0.51 256 1116260 253 15 234 4 377
3NPB_A 0.70 0.61 0.80 28 6986 10 1 6 3 18
3O58_3 0.29 0.31 0.28 11 12363 41 3 26 12 24
3PDR_A 0.77 0.64 0.94 46 12831 5 0 3 2 26
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.57 0.48 0.69 20 3887 9 1 8 0 22
3W3S_B 0.85 0.75 0.97 30 4722 2 0 1 1 10
3ZEX_C 0.22 0.21 0.24 11 14151 45 4 30 11 41
4A1C_2 0.14 0.15 0.14 5 11744 43 5 27 11 28
4AOB_A 0.50 0.40 0.63 17 4344 11 2 8 1 25
4ENB_A 0.32 0.26 0.42 5 1263 7 1 6 0 14
4ENC_A 0.31 0.26 0.38 5 1313 8 1 7 0 14
4FRG_B 0.24 0.22 0.27 7 3460 19 3 16 0 25
4FRN_A 0.41 0.36 0.46 13 5123 15 2 13 0 23

^top


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