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 Cylofold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric Cylofold HotKnots
MCC 0.669 > 0.662
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.663 ± 0.123 < 0.667 ± 0.101
Sensitivity 0.648 < 0.685
Positive Predictive Value 0.700 > 0.651
Total TP 282 < 298
Total TN 27820 > 27765
Total FP 145 < 176
Total FP CONTRA 41 < 55
Total FP INCONS 80 < 105
Total FP COMP 24 > 16
Total FN 153 > 137
P-value 2.62963406642e-06

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of Cylofold and HotKnots. 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 Cylofold and HotKnots).

  2. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Cylofold and HotKnots. 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 Cylofold and HotKnots).

^top





Performance of Cylofold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Cylofold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 282
Total TN 27820
Total FP 145
Total FP CONTRA 41
Total FP INCONS 80
Total FP COMP 24
Total FN 153
Total Scores
MCC 0.669
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.663 ± 0.123
Sensitivity 0.648
Positive Predictive Value 0.700
Nr of predictions 19

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KRL_A - 0.85 0.87 0.83 20 2000 12 4 0 8 3
2LC8_A 0.64 0.61 0.69 11 512 5 1 4 0 7
2M58_A - 0.60 0.58 0.64 7 533 4 1 3 0 5
3ADB_C - 0.84 0.82 0.87 27 1788 4 0 4 0 6
3J0L_a - 0.17 0.18 0.20 2 401 9 3 5 1 9
3J20_0 0.74 0.76 0.73 16 1197 7 3 3 1 5
3NKB_B - 0.46 0.42 0.53 8 720 7 0 7 0 11
3O58_3 0.42 0.50 0.35 11 4733 30 9 11 10 11
3PDR_A 0.86 0.78 0.95 39 4799 4 1 1 2 11
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.71 0.69 0.74 20 1506 7 2 5 0 9
3U4M_B - 0.49 0.55 0.46 12 1250 14 3 11 0 10
3W3S_B 0.48 0.45 0.52 15 1960 15 1 13 1 18
4AOB_A 0.42 0.38 0.48 11 1414 13 3 9 1 18
4ATO_G - 0.88 1.00 0.78 7 211 2 2 0 0 0
4ENB_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 457 0 0 0 0 0
4ENC_A 0.97 1.00 0.94 15 480 1 1 0 0 0
4FRG_B 0.93 0.88 1.00 21 1181 0 0 0 0 3
4FRN_A 0.23 0.18 0.31 5 1832 11 7 4 0 23

^top



Performance of HotKnots - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for HotKnots

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 298
Total TN 27765
Total FP 176
Total FP CONTRA 55
Total FP INCONS 105
Total FP COMP 16
Total FN 137
Total Scores
MCC 0.662
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.667 ± 0.101
Sensitivity 0.685
Positive Predictive Value 0.651
Nr of predictions 19

^top



2. Individual counts for HotKnots [ 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 0.64 0.61 0.69 11 512 5 0 5 0 7
2M58_A - 0.40 0.42 0.42 5 532 7 1 6 0 7
3ADB_C - 0.86 0.85 0.88 28 1787 5 0 4 1 5
3J0L_a - 0.55 0.64 0.50 7 397 8 5 2 1 4
3J20_0 0.54 0.57 0.52 12 1196 12 3 8 1 9
3NKB_B - 0.69 0.74 0.67 14 714 7 0 7 0 5
3O58_3 0.26 0.36 0.19 8 4722 35 16 18 1 14
3PDR_A 0.81 0.80 0.82 40 4791 11 3 6 2 10
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.77 0.76 0.79 22 1505 6 4 2 0 7
3U4M_B - 0.49 0.55 0.46 12 1250 14 3 11 0 10
3W3S_B 0.60 0.61 0.61 20 1956 14 4 9 1 13
4AOB_A 0.60 0.59 0.63 17 1410 11 4 6 1 12
4ATO_G - 0.72 1.00 0.54 7 207 6 6 0 0 0
4ENB_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 457 0 0 0 0 0
4ENC_A 0.97 1.00 0.94 15 480 1 1 0 0 0
4FRG_B 0.36 0.38 0.38 9 1178 15 2 13 0 15
4FRN_A 0.59 0.57 0.62 16 1822 10 2 8 0 12

^top


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