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 RNAsubopt - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric CentroidFold RNAsubopt
MCC 0.687 > 0.583
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.681 ± 0.088 > 0.568 ± 0.090
Sensitivity 0.678 > 0.615
Positive Predictive Value 0.703 > 0.559
Total TP 671 > 609
Total TN 108746 > 108612
Total FP 363 < 594
Total FP CONTRA 113 < 174
Total FP INCONS 171 < 306
Total FP COMP 79 < 114
Total FN 319 < 381
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 RNAsubopt).

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

^top





Performance of CentroidFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for CentroidFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 671
Total TN 108746
Total FP 363
Total FP CONTRA 113
Total FP INCONS 171
Total FP COMP 79
Total FN 319
Total Scores
MCC 0.687
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.681 ± 0.088
Sensitivity 0.678
Positive Predictive Value 0.703
Nr of predictions 38

^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
2KRL_A - 0.91 0.87 0.95 20 2003 9 1 0 8 3
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
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
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
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
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
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
3W1K_J 0.97 0.97 0.97 30 1647 1 1 0 0 1
3W3S_B 0.95 0.91 1.00 30 1959 1 0 0 1 3
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
4AOB_A 0.50 0.48 0.54 14 1411 13 3 9 1 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 RNAsubopt - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAsubopt

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 609
Total TN 108612
Total FP 594
Total FP CONTRA 174
Total FP INCONS 306
Total FP COMP 114
Total FN 381
Total Scores
MCC 0.583
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.568 ± 0.090
Sensitivity 0.615
Positive Predictive Value 0.559
Nr of predictions 38

^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
2KRL_A - 0.62 0.61 0.64 14 2002 15 5 3 7 9
2LC8_A -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 513 15 3 12 0 18
2M58_A - 0.60 0.58 0.64 7 533 4 1 3 0 5
2ZZN_D 0.52 0.55 0.52 12 961 11 3 8 0 10
3A2K_C 0.47 0.50 0.46 11 1084 13 3 10 0 11
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
3GX2_A 0.53 0.54 0.54 15 1421 14 4 9 1 13
3IVN_B 0.88 0.78 1.00 18 885 0 0 0 0 5
3IWN_A 0.69 0.68 0.70 19 1445 9 1 7 1 9
3IYQ_A 0.28 0.39 0.20 20 22342 96 41 37 18 31
3IZ4_A 0.56 0.60 0.53 57 25429 54 26 24 4 38
3J0L_a - 0.35 0.36 0.36 4 400 8 3 4 1 7
3J20_0 0.51 0.57 0.48 12 1194 14 2 11 1 9
3J3D_C 0.65 0.74 0.58 14 944 10 5 5 0 5
3J3E_8 0.25 0.33 0.20 5 2717 32 7 13 12 10
3J3F_8 0.35 0.47 0.26 9 4726 42 13 13 16 10
3JYV_7 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 1090 21 4 17 0 20
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 0.84 0.78 0.91 29 2246 8 0 3 5 8
3O58_3 0.41 0.50 0.34 11 4732 35 6 15 14 11
3PDR_A 0.90 0.90 0.90 45 4790 7 2 3 2 5
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.73 0.72 0.75 21 1505 7 4 3 0 8
3U4M_B - 0.49 0.55 0.46 12 1250 14 3 11 0 10
3W1K_J 0.97 0.97 0.97 30 1647 1 1 0 0 1
3W3S_B 0.95 0.94 0.97 31 1957 2 0 1 1 2
3ZEX_C 0.30 0.34 0.26 10 5336 43 5 23 15 19
4A1C_2 0.18 0.25 0.14 5 4481 43 13 17 13 15
4AOB_A 0.62 0.62 0.64 18 1409 11 4 6 1 11
4ATO_G - 0.36 0.43 0.33 3 211 6 6 0 0 4
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 2 0 0 2 4
4ENC_A 0.36 0.33 0.42 5 484 7 0 7 0 10
4FRG_B 0.36 0.38 0.38 9 1178 15 2 13 0 15
4FRN_A 0.58 0.57 0.59 16 1821 11 3 8 0 12
4JF2_A 0.69 0.67 0.73 16 1060 6 4 2 0 8
4JRC_A - 0.34 0.35 0.35 6 605 11 0 11 0 11

^top


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