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 UNAFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

  5. Compile and download dataset for UNAFold & RNASLOpt [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric UNAFold RNASLOpt
MCC 0.532 > 0.489
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.606 ± 0.094 > 0.580 ± 0.099
Sensitivity 0.466 > 0.393
Positive Predictive Value 0.611 < 0.614
Total TP 664 > 559
Total TN 280086 < 280261
Total FP 476 > 392
Total FP CONTRA 44 > 43
Total FP INCONS 378 > 309
Total FP COMP 54 > 40
Total FN 760 < 865
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of UNAFold and RNASLOpt. 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 UNAFold and RNASLOpt).

  2. Comparison of performance of UNAFold and RNASLOpt. 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 UNAFold and RNASLOpt).

  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 UNAFold and RNASLOpt).

  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 UNAFold and RNASLOpt).

  5. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for UNAFold and RNASLOpt. 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 UNAFold and RNASLOpt).

  6. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for UNAFold and RNASLOpt. 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 UNAFold and RNASLOpt).

^top





Performance of UNAFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for UNAFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 664
Total TN 280086
Total FP 476
Total FP CONTRA 44
Total FP INCONS 378
Total FP COMP 54
Total FN 760
Total Scores
MCC 0.532
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.606 ± 0.094
Sensitivity 0.466
Positive Predictive Value 0.611
Nr of predictions 47

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1525 15 2 13 0 20
2LDL_A - 0.90 0.82 1.00 9 342 1 0 0 1 2
2LHP_A - 0.97 0.94 1.00 15 651 0 0 0 0 1
2LI4_A - 0.93 0.88 1.00 14 482 0 0 0 0 2
2LJJ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 343 2 0 0 2 0
2LK3_A - 0.95 0.90 1.00 9 267 0 0 0 0 1
2LKR_A - 0.93 0.87 1.00 34 6071 1 0 0 1 5
2LQZ_A - 0.85 0.82 0.90 9 341 1 1 0 0 2
2LWK_A - 0.83 0.77 0.91 10 485 1 0 1 0 3
3J0L_a - 0.51 0.50 0.53 8 1113 7 3 4 0 8
3J0L_g - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 461 4 1 3 0 4
3J0L_7 - 0.48 0.41 0.58 7 1213 5 0 5 0 10
3J0L_h - 0.75 0.60 0.93 26 6077 4 0 2 2 17
3J0L_8 - 0.93 0.88 1.00 7 183 0 0 0 0 1
3J0L_1 - 0.70 0.58 0.85 11 1212 2 0 2 0 8
3J0L_2 - 0.25 0.24 0.26 8 6185 25 2 21 2 25
3J16_L 0.26 0.23 0.30 7 2752 16 1 15 0 23
3J20_1 0.73 0.70 0.76 16 2905 5 0 5 0 7
3J20_0 0.43 0.40 0.48 12 2825 14 0 13 1 18
3J2C_M - 0.56 0.46 0.69 96 106351 49 7 37 5 111
3J2C_O - 0.52 0.44 0.61 28 10250 19 0 18 1 35
3J2L_3 0.62 0.53 0.74 28 7837 12 0 10 2 25
3SN2_B 0.96 0.92 1.00 11 395 0 0 0 0 1
3TRZ_Z - 0.91 0.83 1.00 5 205 1 0 0 1 1
3TS0_U - 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 247 1 0 0 1 0
3TS2_V - 1.00 1.00 1.00 5 271 0 0 0 0 0
3U4M_B - 0.38 0.32 0.46 12 3134 14 0 14 0 25
3UZL_B 0.48 0.38 0.61 14 3547 9 0 9 0 23
3VJR_D - 0.96 0.92 1.00 12 618 0 0 0 0 1
3W3S_B 0.56 0.50 0.63 20 4721 13 1 11 1 20
3ZEX_F - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2617 11 2 9 0 12
3ZEX_G - 0.75 0.64 0.89 47 16418 12 0 6 6 27
3ZEX_E - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 21893 54 4 48 2 77
3ZEX_D 0.77 0.65 0.91 32 6986 3 0 3 0 17
3ZEX_H - 0.18 0.18 0.18 7 9006 32 6 26 0 31
3ZEX_C 0.24 0.21 0.28 11 14157 42 1 27 14 41
4A1C_3 0.70 0.59 0.82 32 7101 7 1 6 0 22
4A1C_2 0.14 0.15 0.14 5 11745 42 5 26 11 28
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 222 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.50 0.40 0.63 17 4344 11 2 8 1 25
4ATO_G - 0.32 0.30 0.38 3 520 5 1 4 0 7
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 1 6 0 14
4FNJ_A - 0.79 0.63 1.00 10 585 0 0 0 0 6
4FRG_B 0.32 0.28 0.38 9 3462 15 0 15 0 23
4FRN_A 0.43 0.36 0.52 13 5126 12 2 10 0 23
4HXH_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 319 0 0 0 0 0

^top



Performance of RNASLOpt - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNASLOpt

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 559
Total TN 280261
Total FP 392
Total FP CONTRA 43
Total FP INCONS 309
Total FP COMP 40
Total FN 865
Total Scores
MCC 0.489
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.580 ± 0.099
Sensitivity 0.393
Positive Predictive Value 0.614
Nr of predictions 47

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.47 0.35 0.64 7 1529 4 0 4 0 13
2LDL_A - 0.90 0.82 1.00 9 342 1 0 0 1 2
2LHP_A - 0.97 0.94 1.00 15 651 0 0 0 0 1
2LI4_A - 0.93 0.88 1.00 14 482 0 0 0 0 2
2LJJ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 343 2 0 0 2 0
2LK3_A - 0.95 0.90 1.00 9 267 0 0 0 0 1
2LKR_A - 0.68 0.62 0.75 24 6073 9 0 8 1 15
2LQZ_A - 0.85 0.82 0.90 9 341 1 1 0 0 2
2LWK_A - 0.83 0.77 0.91 10 485 1 0 1 0 3
3J0L_a - 0.26 0.19 0.38 3 1120 5 1 4 0 13
3J0L_g - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 461 4 1 3 0 4
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1212 13 0 13 0 17
3J0L_h - 0.70 0.49 1.00 21 6084 0 0 0 0 22
3J0L_8 - 0.70 0.50 1.00 4 186 0 0 0 0 4
3J0L_1 - 0.65 0.47 0.90 9 1215 3 0 1 2 10
3J0L_2 - 0.39 0.36 0.43 12 6188 18 2 14 2 21
3J16_L 0.53 0.40 0.71 12 2758 5 0 5 0 18
3J20_1 0.96 0.91 1.00 21 2905 0 0 0 0 2
3J20_0 0.66 0.57 0.77 17 2828 6 1 4 1 13
3J2C_M - 0.38 0.29 0.50 60 106370 64 11 50 3 147
3J2C_O - 0.62 0.49 0.78 31 10256 10 0 9 1 32
3J2L_3 0.56 0.43 0.72 23 7843 11 0 9 2 30
3SN2_B 0.96 0.92 1.00 11 395 0 0 0 0 1
3TRZ_Z - 0.91 0.83 1.00 5 205 2 0 0 2 1
3TS0_U - 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 247 1 0 0 1 0
3TS2_V - 1.00 1.00 1.00 5 271 0 0 0 0 0
3U4M_B - 0.38 0.32 0.46 12 3134 14 0 14 0 25
3UZL_B 0.48 0.32 0.71 12 3553 5 0 5 0 25
3VJR_D - 0.96 0.92 1.00 12 618 0 0 0 0 1
3W3S_B 0.82 0.70 0.97 28 4724 2 0 1 1 12
3ZEX_F - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2628 0 0 0 0 12
3ZEX_G - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 16471 0 0 0 0 74
3ZEX_E - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 21892 55 4 49 2 77
3ZEX_D 0.76 0.59 0.97 29 6991 1 0 1 0 20
3ZEX_H - 0.19 0.18 0.21 7 9012 26 4 22 0 31
3ZEX_C 0.26 0.21 0.33 11 14163 35 2 20 13 41
4A1C_3 0.67 0.52 0.88 28 7108 4 0 4 0 26
4A1C_2 0.23 0.24 0.22 8 11744 35 8 21 6 25
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 222 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.26 0.19 0.38 8 4350 13 2 11 0 34
4ATO_G - 0.30 0.30 0.33 3 519 6 2 4 0 7
4ENB_A 0.76 0.58 1.00 11 1264 0 0 0 0 8
4ENC_A 0.65 0.47 0.90 9 1316 1 1 0 0 10
4FNJ_A - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 584 11 0 11 0 16
4FRG_B 0.56 0.47 0.68 15 3464 7 1 6 0 17
4FRN_A 0.20 0.17 0.26 6 5128 17 2 15 0 30
4HXH_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 319 0 0 0 0 0

^top


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