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 MCFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric CentroidFold MCFold
MCC 0.695 > 0.467
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.661 ± 0.100 > 0.451 ± 0.094
Sensitivity 0.669 > 0.512
Positive Predictive Value 0.730 > 0.439
Total TP 440 > 337
Total TN 49897 > 49732
Total FP 207 < 513
Total FP CONTRA 52 < 109
Total FP INCONS 111 < 322
Total FP COMP 44 < 82
Total FN 218 < 321
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 MCFold).

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

^top





Performance of CentroidFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for CentroidFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 440
Total TN 49897
Total FP 207
Total FP CONTRA 52
Total FP INCONS 111
Total FP COMP 44
Total FN 218
Total Scores
MCC 0.695
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.661 ± 0.100
Sensitivity 0.669
Positive Predictive Value 0.730
Nr of predictions 30

^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
3GX2_A 0.94 0.89 1.00 25 1424 1 0 0 1 3
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
3J0L_a - 0.41 0.36 0.50 4 403 5 3 1 1 7
3J20_0 0.54 0.57 0.52 12 1196 12 3 8 1 9
3J3D_C 0.73 0.79 0.68 15 946 7 3 4 0 4
3J3E_8 0.12 0.13 0.13 2 2726 22 4 10 8 13
3J3F_8 0.36 0.47 0.28 9 4729 37 12 11 14 10
3JYV_7 0.92 0.85 1.00 17 1094 2 0 0 2 3
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
3O58_3 0.44 0.41 0.47 9 4745 11 1 9 1 13
3PDR_A 0.88 0.86 0.90 43 4792 7 2 3 2 7
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.70 0.69 0.71 20 1505 8 4 4 0 9
3U4M_B - 0.81 0.77 0.85 17 1256 5 0 3 2 5
3ZEX_C 0.48 0.34 0.67 10 5359 6 1 4 1 19
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
4ENC_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 485 1 0 0 1 4
4FRG_B 0.75 0.71 0.81 17 1181 4 3 1 0 7
4FRN_A 0.80 0.71 0.91 20 1826 2 1 1 0 8
4JF2_A 0.89 0.79 1.00 19 1063 0 0 0 0 5
4JRC_A - 0.38 0.41 0.39 7 604 11 0 11 0 10

^top



Performance of MCFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for MCFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 337
Total TN 49732
Total FP 513
Total FP CONTRA 109
Total FP INCONS 322
Total FP COMP 82
Total FN 321
Total Scores
MCC 0.467
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.451 ± 0.094
Sensitivity 0.512
Positive Predictive Value 0.439
Nr of predictions 30

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.44 0.44 0.47 8 511 10 0 9 1 10
2M58_A - 0.22 0.25 0.23 3 531 13 1 9 3 9
2ZZN_D 0.69 0.73 0.67 16 960 11 1 7 3 6
3A2K_C 0.49 0.55 0.46 12 1082 14 3 11 0 10
3A3A_A 0.98 0.97 1.00 29 1471 0 0 0 0 1
3GX2_A 0.58 0.61 0.57 17 1419 15 1 12 2 11
3IVN_B 0.45 0.48 0.46 11 879 14 5 8 1 12
3IWN_A 0.19 0.21 0.20 6 1442 24 5 19 0 22
3J0L_a - 0.14 0.18 0.15 2 398 13 1 10 2 9
3J20_0 0.66 0.71 0.63 15 1195 11 3 6 2 6
3J3D_C 0.54 0.63 0.48 12 943 13 4 9 0 7
3J3E_8 0.15 0.20 0.12 3 2716 36 11 12 13 12
3J3F_8 0.14 0.21 0.10 4 4720 51 17 20 14 15
3JYV_7 0.25 0.30 0.24 6 1086 20 8 11 1 14
3LA5_A 0.44 0.44 0.48 11 931 12 2 10 0 14
3NKB_B - 0.68 0.74 0.64 14 713 8 2 6 0 5
3O58_3 0.28 0.36 0.22 8 4727 39 14 15 10 14
3PDR_A 0.78 0.80 0.77 40 4788 14 5 7 2 10
3RKF_A 0.89 0.88 0.91 21 843 3 0 2 1 3
3SD1_A 0.43 0.45 0.43 13 1503 17 1 16 0 16
3U4M_B - 0.74 0.77 0.71 17 1252 10 1 6 3 5
3ZEX_C 0.30 0.34 0.27 10 5337 28 6 21 1 19
4A1C_2 0.18 0.25 0.14 5 4480 45 12 19 14 15
4ATO_G - 0.36 0.43 0.33 3 211 8 0 6 2 4
4ENB_A 0.78 0.73 0.85 11 459 4 0 2 2 4
4ENC_A 0.34 0.33 0.38 5 483 11 0 8 3 10
4FRG_B 0.35 0.38 0.35 9 1176 17 3 14 0 15
4FRN_A 0.09 0.11 0.10 3 1818 28 2 25 1 25
4JF2_A 0.74 0.75 0.75 18 1058 7 1 5 1 6
4JRC_A - 0.24 0.29 0.23 5 600 17 0 17 0 12

^top


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