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 CentroidFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric CentroidFold Afold
MCC 0.574 > 0.459
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.639 ± 0.120 > 0.554 ± 0.109
Sensitivity 0.565 > 0.510
Positive Predictive Value 0.583 > 0.414
Total TP 1255 > 1134
Total TN 3953462 > 3952875
Total FP 1285 < 2009
Total FP CONTRA 307 < 538
Total FP INCONS 589 < 1066
Total FP COMP 389 < 405
Total FN 968 < 1089
P-value 5.1503931209e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of CentroidFold and Afold. 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 CentroidFold and Afold).

  2. 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 CentroidFold and Afold).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for CentroidFold and Afold. 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 CentroidFold and Afold).

^top





Performance of CentroidFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for CentroidFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 1255
Total TN 3953462
Total FP 1285
Total FP CONTRA 307
Total FP INCONS 589
Total FP COMP 389
Total FN 968
Total Scores
MCC 0.574
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.639 ± 0.120
Sensitivity 0.565
Positive Predictive Value 0.583
Nr of predictions 26

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.51 0.39 0.70 7 518 3 1 2 0 11
2M58_A - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 538 6 0 6 0 12
2ZZN_D 0.93 0.95 0.91 21 961 3 2 0 1 1
3A2K_C 0.49 0.55 0.46 12 1082 14 3 11 0 10
3A3A_A 0.97 0.93 1.00 28 1472 0 0 0 0 2
3ADB_C - 0.98 0.97 1.00 32 1787 0 0 0 0 1
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
3IWN_A 0.86 0.79 0.96 22 1449 1 0 1 0 6
3IYQ_A 0.29 0.39 0.22 20 22347 86 39 34 13 31
3IZ4_A 0.60 0.57 0.64 54 25451 38 16 15 7 41
3J3E_8 0.12 0.13 0.13 2 2726 22 4 10 8 13
3JYV_7 0.92 0.85 1.00 17 1094 2 0 0 2 3
3JYX_5 - 0.45 0.48 0.42 232 1968448 572 135 187 250 249
3KIY_A - 0.71 0.68 0.75 536 1485164 253 58 122 73 250
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
3NKB_B - 0.66 0.68 0.65 13 715 7 0 7 0 6
3NPB_A 0.87 0.84 0.91 31 2244 8 1 2 5 6
3O58_3 0.44 0.41 0.47 9 4745 11 1 9 1 13
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3U4M_B - 0.81 0.77 0.85 17 1256 5 0 3 2 5
3W3S_B 0.95 0.91 1.00 30 1959 1 0 0 1 3
3ZEX_B - 0.27 0.25 0.31 85 421074 210 38 155 17 261
4A1C_2 0.22 0.25 0.19 5 4490 29 9 12 8 15
4ATO_G - 0.61 0.57 0.67 4 214 2 0 2 0 3
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 1 0 0 1 4
4JRC_A - 0.38 0.41 0.39 7 604 11 0 11 0 10

^top



Performance of Afold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Afold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 1134
Total TN 3952875
Total FP 2009
Total FP CONTRA 538
Total FP INCONS 1066
Total FP COMP 405
Total FN 1089
Total Scores
MCC 0.459
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.554 ± 0.109
Sensitivity 0.510
Positive Predictive Value 0.414
Nr of predictions 26

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.64 0.61 0.69 11 512 6 0 5 1 7
2M58_A - 0.40 0.42 0.42 5 532 8 1 6 1 7
2ZZN_D 0.91 0.91 0.91 20 962 3 2 0 1 2
3A2K_C 0.46 0.50 0.44 11 1083 14 3 11 0 11
3A3A_A 0.93 0.87 1.00 26 1474 0 0 0 0 4
3ADB_C - 0.85 0.85 0.85 28 1786 6 0 5 1 5
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
3IWN_A 0.67 0.68 0.68 19 1444 9 1 8 0 9
3IYQ_A 0.23 0.33 0.17 17 22339 97 47 37 13 34
3IZ4_A 0.52 0.57 0.48 54 25423 63 27 32 4 41
3J3E_8 0.26 0.33 0.21 5 2718 31 6 13 12 10
3JYV_7 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 1088 23 4 19 0 20
3JYX_5 - 0.34 0.44 0.27 210 1968232 793 260 300 233 271
3KIY_A - 0.53 0.55 0.51 430 1485031 475 81 338 56 356
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
3NKB_B - 0.69 0.74 0.67 14 714 7 0 7 0 5
3NPB_A 0.82 0.73 0.93 27 2249 6 0 2 4 10
3O58_3 0.41 0.50 0.34 11 4732 38 6 15 17 11
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3U4M_B - 0.49 0.55 0.46 12 1250 14 3 11 0 10
3W3S_B 0.55 0.55 0.56 18 1957 15 4 10 1 15
3ZEX_B - 0.34 0.38 0.31 132 420926 337 77 217 43 214
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.15 5 4483 43 11 17 15 15
4ATO_G - 0.38 0.43 0.38 3 212 6 5 0 1 4
4ENB_A 0.81 0.73 0.92 11 460 3 0 1 2 4
4JRC_A - 0.27 0.29 0.29 5 605 12 0 12 0 12

^top


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