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 RNAsubopt - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of Mastr(seed) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric RNAsubopt Mastr(seed)
MCC 0.564 > 0.236
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.597 ± 0.071 > 0.108 ± 0.078
Sensitivity 0.511 > 0.062
Positive Predictive Value 0.626 < 0.900
Total TP 964 > 117
Total TN 351415 < 352824
Total FP 665 > 15
Total FP CONTRA 78 > 0
Total FP INCONS 497 > 13
Total FP COMP 90 > 2
Total FN 921 < 1768
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of RNAsubopt and Mastr(seed). 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 RNAsubopt and Mastr(seed)).

  2. Comparison of performance of RNAsubopt and Mastr(seed). 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 RNAsubopt and Mastr(seed)).

  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 RNAsubopt and Mastr(seed)).

  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 RNAsubopt and Mastr(seed)).

  5. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for RNAsubopt and Mastr(seed). 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 RNAsubopt and Mastr(seed)).

  6. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for RNAsubopt and Mastr(seed). 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 RNAsubopt and Mastr(seed)).

^top





Performance of RNAsubopt - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAsubopt

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 964
Total TN 351415
Total FP 665
Total FP CONTRA 78
Total FP INCONS 497
Total FP COMP 90
Total FN 921
Total Scores
MCC 0.564
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.597 ± 0.071
Sensitivity 0.511
Positive Predictive Value 0.626
Nr of predictions 53

^top



2. Individual counts for RNAsubopt [ 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
2KE6_A 0.86 0.84 0.89 16 1110 3 0 2 1 3
2KUR_A 0.85 0.81 0.89 17 1109 2 0 2 0 4
2KUU_A 0.82 0.76 0.89 16 1110 3 0 2 1 5
2KUV_A 0.83 0.77 0.89 17 1109 2 0 2 0 5
2KUW_A 0.90 0.86 0.95 18 1109 1 0 1 0 3
2KX8_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 15 846 0 0 0 0 3
2L1F_B 0.94 0.88 1.00 22 2123 0 0 0 0 3
2L1F_A 0.93 0.88 1.00 21 2059 0 0 0 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
2WRQ_Y 0.57 0.59 0.56 10 2832 12 5 3 4 7
2WWQ_V 0.76 0.68 0.86 19 2904 5 0 3 2 9
2XKV_B 0.51 0.50 0.53 10 4541 23 0 9 14 10
2XQD_Y 0.75 0.67 0.86 18 2829 3 0 3 0 9
2XXA_G 0.47 0.43 0.53 18 5117 16 1 15 0 24
2ZZM_B 0.23 0.22 0.26 7 3459 20 2 18 0 25
2ZZN_D 0.48 0.44 0.52 12 2462 11 1 10 0 15
3A2K_C 0.42 0.39 0.46 11 2902 13 2 11 0 17
3A3A_A 0.87 0.76 1.00 28 3627 0 0 0 0 9
3AKZ_H 0.39 0.36 0.43 10 2678 13 2 11 0 18
3AMU_B 0.70 0.59 0.84 16 2984 5 0 3 2 11
3G4S_9 0.28 0.23 0.35 13 7344 24 1 23 0 44
3GX2_A 0.44 0.38 0.54 15 4343 14 1 12 1 25
3IVN_B 0.76 0.58 1.00 18 2328 0 0 0 0 13
3IYQ_A 0.33 0.36 0.30 34 60614 82 17 61 4 60
3IZ4_A 0.51 0.47 0.56 62 70766 49 8 40 1 70
3IZF_C 0.70 0.61 0.80 33 6862 8 1 7 0 21
3J16_L 0.41 0.37 0.48 11 2752 12 1 11 0 19
3J20_1 0.96 0.91 1.00 21 2905 2 0 0 2 2
3J20_0 0.43 0.40 0.48 12 2825 14 0 13 1 18
3J2L_3 0.61 0.53 0.72 28 7836 13 0 11 2 25
3JYV_7 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2829 21 0 21 0 32
3JYX_3 0.63 0.63 0.63 17 6301 21 1 9 11 10
3JYX_4 0.19 0.21 0.17 7 12204 38 11 24 3 26
3LA5_A 0.78 0.62 1.00 21 2464 0 0 0 0 13
3NPB_A 0.75 0.65 0.86 30 6986 7 1 4 2 16
3O58_3 0.34 0.34 0.34 12 12368 34 2 21 11 23
3O58_2 0.72 0.74 0.70 28 7220 13 4 8 1 10
3PDR_A 0.75 0.63 0.90 45 12830 7 1 4 2 27
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.61 0.50 0.75 21 3888 7 1 6 0 21
3UZL_B 0.48 0.38 0.61 14 3547 9 0 9 0 23
3W3S_B 0.87 0.78 0.97 31 4721 2 0 1 1 9
3ZEX_C 0.24 0.21 0.28 11 14157 42 1 27 14 41
3ZEX_D 0.80 0.69 0.92 34 6984 3 0 3 0 15
4A1C_3 0.70 0.59 0.82 32 7101 7 1 6 0 22
4A1C_2 0.14 0.15 0.13 5 11742 43 5 29 9 28
4AOB_A 0.52 0.43 0.64 18 4343 11 2 8 1 24
4ENB_A 0.70 0.58 0.85 11 1262 2 1 1 0 8
4ENC_A 0.32 0.26 0.42 5 1314 7 0 7 0 14
4FRG_B 0.32 0.28 0.38 9 3462 15 0 15 0 23
4FRN_A 0.51 0.44 0.59 16 5124 11 3 8 0 20

^top



Performance of Mastr(seed) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 117
Total TN 352824
Total FP 15
Total FP CONTRA 0
Total FP INCONS 13
Total FP COMP 2
Total FN 1768
Total Scores
MCC 0.236
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.108 ± 0.078
Sensitivity 0.062
Positive Predictive Value 0.900
Nr of predictions 53

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KDQ_B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 406 0 0 0 0 11
2KE6_A 0.92 0.84 1.00 16 1112 1 0 0 1 3
2KUR_A 0.79 0.71 0.88 15 1111 2 0 2 0 6
2KUU_A 0.76 0.67 0.88 14 1112 3 0 2 1 7
2KUV_A 0.77 0.68 0.88 15 1111 2 0 2 0 7
2KUW_A 0.52 0.48 0.59 10 1111 7 0 7 0 11
2KX8_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 861 0 0 0 0 18
2L1F_B 0.98 0.96 1.00 24 2121 0 0 0 0 1
2L1F_A 0.98 0.96 1.00 23 2057 0 0 0 0 1
2L94_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 990 0 0 0 0 20
2LC8_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1540 0 0 0 0 20
2WRQ_Y 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2850 0 0 0 0 17
2WWQ_V 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2926 0 0 0 0 28
2XKV_B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4560 0 0 0 0 20
2XQD_Y 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2850 0 0 0 0 27
2XXA_G 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 5151 0 0 0 0 42
2ZZM_B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 3486 0 0 0 0 32
2ZZN_D 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2485 0 0 0 0 27
3A2K_C 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2926 0 0 0 0 28
3A3A_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 3655 0 0 0 0 37
3AKZ_H 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2701 0 0 0 0 28
3AMU_B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 3003 0 0 0 0 27
3G4S_9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 7381 0 0 0 0 57
3GX2_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4371 0 0 0 0 40
3IVN_B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2346 0 0 0 0 31
3IYQ_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 60726 0 0 0 0 94
3IZ4_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 70876 0 0 0 0 132
3IZF_C 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 6903 0 0 0 0 54
3J16_L 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2775 0 0 0 0 30
3J20_1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2926 0 0 0 0 23
3J20_0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2850 0 0 0 0 30
3J2L_3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 7875 0 0 0 0 53
3JYV_7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2850 0 0 0 0 32
3JYX_3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 6328 0 0 0 0 27
3JYX_4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 12246 0 0 0 0 33
3LA5_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2485 0 0 0 0 34
3NPB_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 7021 0 0 0 0 46
3O58_3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 12403 0 0 0 0 35
3O58_2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 7260 0 0 0 0 38
3PDR_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 12880 0 0 0 0 72
3RKF_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2211 0 0 0 0 34
3SD1_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 3916 0 0 0 0 42
3UZL_B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 3570 0 0 0 0 37
3W3S_B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4753 0 0 0 0 40
3ZEX_C 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 14196 0 0 0 0 52
3ZEX_D 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 7021 0 0 0 0 49
4A1C_3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 7140 0 0 0 0 54
4A1C_2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 11781 0 0 0 0 33
4AOB_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4371 0 0 0 0 42
4ENB_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1275 0 0 0 0 19
4ENC_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1326 0 0 0 0 19
4FRG_B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 3486 0 0 0 0 32
4FRN_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 5151 0 0 0 0 36

^top


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