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 Sfold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric Sfold Mastr(seed)
MCC 0.601 > 0.236
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.632 ± 0.065 > 0.108 ± 0.078
Sensitivity 0.513 > 0.062
Positive Predictive Value 0.707 < 0.900
Total TP 967 > 117
Total TN 351587 < 352824
Total FP 489 > 15
Total FP CONTRA 54 > 0
Total FP INCONS 346 > 13
Total FP COMP 89 > 2
Total FN 918 < 1768
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

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

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

^top





Performance of Sfold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Sfold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 967
Total TN 351587
Total FP 489
Total FP CONTRA 54
Total FP INCONS 346
Total FP COMP 89
Total FN 918
Total Scores
MCC 0.601
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.632 ± 0.065
Sensitivity 0.513
Positive Predictive Value 0.707
Nr of predictions 53

^top



2. Individual counts for Sfold [ 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 0.92 0.89 0.94 17 1110 2 0 1 1 2
2KUR_A 0.90 0.86 0.95 18 1109 1 0 1 0 3
2KUU_A 0.87 0.81 0.94 17 1110 2 0 1 1 4
2KUV_A 0.88 0.82 0.95 18 1109 1 0 1 0 4
2KUW_A 0.90 0.86 0.95 18 1109 1 0 1 0 3
2KX8_A 0.94 0.89 1.00 16 845 0 0 0 0 2
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 0.97 0.95 1.00 19 971 0 0 0 0 1
2LC8_A 0.45 0.35 0.58 7 1528 5 0 5 0 13
2WRQ_Y 0.53 0.53 0.53 9 2833 13 5 3 5 8
2WWQ_V 0.80 0.68 0.95 19 2906 2 0 1 1 9
2XKV_B 0.51 0.50 0.53 10 4541 23 0 9 14 10
2XQD_Y 0.77 0.67 0.90 18 2830 2 0 2 0 9
2XXA_G 0.36 0.31 0.43 13 5121 17 1 16 0 29
2ZZM_B 0.12 0.09 0.17 3 3468 15 0 15 0 29
2ZZN_D 0.82 0.78 0.88 21 2461 3 0 3 0 6
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 0.44 0.39 0.50 11 2679 11 2 9 0 17
3AMU_B 0.70 0.59 0.84 16 2984 5 0 3 2 11
3G4S_9 0.51 0.39 0.69 22 7349 10 1 9 0 35
3GX2_A 0.72 0.55 0.96 22 4348 2 0 1 1 18
3IVN_B 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 2327 0 0 0 0 12
3IYQ_A 0.33 0.34 0.32 32 60627 71 19 48 4 62
3IZ4_A 0.52 0.42 0.65 56 70790 31 3 27 1 76
3IZF_C 0.71 0.61 0.83 33 6863 7 0 7 0 21
3J16_L 0.29 0.23 0.37 7 2756 12 0 12 0 23
3J20_1 0.73 0.70 0.76 16 2905 6 0 5 1 7
3J20_0 0.43 0.40 0.48 12 2825 14 0 13 1 18
3J2L_3 0.62 0.53 0.74 28 7837 12 0 10 2 25
3JYV_7 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2834 16 0 16 0 32
3JYX_3 0.62 0.63 0.61 17 6300 19 1 10 8 10
3JYX_4 0.35 0.30 0.42 10 12222 23 3 11 9 23
3LA5_A 0.78 0.62 1.00 21 2464 0 0 0 0 13
3NPB_A 0.77 0.65 0.91 30 6988 6 1 2 3 16
3O58_3 0.43 0.34 0.55 12 12381 17 0 10 7 23
3O58_2 0.74 0.74 0.74 28 7222 11 3 7 1 10
3PDR_A 0.69 0.56 0.85 40 12833 9 0 7 2 32
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.65 0.50 0.84 21 3891 4 1 3 0 21
3UZL_B 0.51 0.32 0.80 12 3555 3 2 1 0 25
3W3S_B 0.57 0.53 0.64 21 4720 13 1 11 1 19
3ZEX_C 0.32 0.21 0.48 11 14173 26 1 11 14 41
3ZEX_D 0.74 0.63 0.86 31 6985 5 0 5 0 18
4A1C_3 0.69 0.57 0.84 31 7103 6 1 5 0 23
4A1C_2 0.16 0.15 0.17 5 11751 34 2 23 9 28
4AOB_A 0.50 0.40 0.63 17 4344 11 2 8 1 25
4ENB_A 0.76 0.58 1.00 11 1264 0 0 0 0 8
4ENC_A 0.51 0.26 1.00 5 1321 0 0 0 0 14
4FRG_B 0.62 0.47 0.83 15 3468 3 1 2 0 17
4FRN_A 0.63 0.44 0.89 16 5133 2 2 0 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.