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 Contrafold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric Contrafold RDfolder
MCC 0.734 > 0.569
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.712 ± 0.099 > 0.577 ± 0.138
Sensitivity 0.722 > 0.510
Positive Predictive Value 0.759 > 0.653
Total TP 368 > 260
Total TN 22821 < 22908
Total FP 125 < 141
Total FP CONTRA 34 > 28
Total FP INCONS 83 < 110
Total FP COMP 8 > 3
Total FN 142 < 250
P-value 5.19332990918e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of Contrafold and RDfolder. 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 Contrafold and RDfolder).

  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 Contrafold and RDfolder).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Contrafold and RDfolder. 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 Contrafold and RDfolder).

^top





Performance of Contrafold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Contrafold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 368
Total TN 22821
Total FP 125
Total FP CONTRA 34
Total FP INCONS 83
Total FP COMP 8
Total FN 142
Total Scores
MCC 0.734
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.712 ± 0.099
Sensitivity 0.722
Positive Predictive Value 0.759
Nr of predictions 25

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KFC_A - 0.71 0.63 0.83 5 230 1 1 0 0 3
2LC8_A 0.46 0.39 0.58 7 516 5 3 2 0 11
2RP0_A - 0.84 0.71 1.00 5 111 0 0 0 0 2
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
3GCA_A - 0.76 0.71 0.83 5 152 1 1 0 0 2
3GX2_A 0.93 0.89 0.96 25 1423 2 1 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 - 0.53 0.55 0.55 6 400 6 3 2 1 5
3J20_0 0.53 0.57 0.50 12 1195 13 3 9 1 9
3J3D_C 0.71 0.79 0.65 15 945 8 3 5 0 4
3JYV_7 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 1091 20 4 16 0 20
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
3NKB_B - 0.63 0.68 0.59 13 713 9 0 9 0 6
3RKF_A 0.87 0.83 0.91 20 844 2 2 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.68 0.69 0.69 20 1504 9 5 4 0 9
3W3S_B 0.98 0.97 1.00 32 1957 1 0 0 1 1
4AOB_A 0.53 0.52 0.56 15 1410 13 3 9 1 14
4ATO_G - 0.52 0.57 0.50 4 212 4 0 4 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
4JRC_A - 0.38 0.41 0.39 7 604 11 0 11 0 10

^top



Performance of RDfolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RDfolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 260
Total TN 22908
Total FP 141
Total FP CONTRA 28
Total FP INCONS 110
Total FP COMP 3
Total FN 250
Total Scores
MCC 0.569
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.577 ± 0.138
Sensitivity 0.510
Positive Predictive Value 0.653
Nr of predictions 25

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KFC_A - 0.79 0.63 1.00 5 231 0 0 0 0 3
2LC8_A -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 514 14 3 11 0 18
2RP0_A - 0.84 0.71 1.00 5 111 0 0 0 0 2
2ZZN_D 0.93 0.95 0.91 21 961 2 2 0 0 1
3A2K_C 0.98 0.95 1.00 21 1087 0 0 0 0 1
3A3A_A 0.59 0.50 0.71 15 1479 6 0 6 0 15
3ADB_C - 0.48 0.45 0.54 15 1791 13 1 12 0 18
3GCA_A - 0.84 0.71 1.00 5 153 0 0 0 0 2
3GX2_A 0.60 0.57 0.64 16 1424 10 2 7 1 12
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
3IWN_A -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1462 10 1 9 0 28
3J0L_a - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 407 4 3 1 0 11
3J20_0 0.82 0.76 0.89 16 1201 3 1 1 1 5
3J3D_C 0.76 0.79 0.75 15 948 5 3 2 0 4
3JYV_7 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 1091 20 4 16 0 20
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
3NKB_B - 0.43 0.42 0.47 8 718 9 2 7 0 11
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.35 0.24 0.54 7 1520 6 1 5 0 22
3W3S_B 0.29 0.27 0.33 9 1962 18 2 16 0 24
4AOB_A 0.42 0.38 0.48 11 1414 13 3 9 1 18
4ATO_G - 0.75 0.57 1.00 4 216 0 0 0 0 3
4ENB_A 0.48 0.40 0.60 6 462 4 0 4 0 9
4ENC_A 0.48 0.40 0.60 6 486 4 0 4 0 9
4JRC_A - 0.94 0.88 1.00 15 607 0 0 0 0 2

^top


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