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 ProbKnot - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric Cylofold ProbKnot
MCC 0.654 > 0.618
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.653 ± 0.128 > 0.563 ± 0.139
Sensitivity 0.634 < 0.637
Positive Predictive Value 0.685 > 0.611
Total TP 255 < 256
Total TN 26032 > 25985
Total FP 141 < 194
Total FP CONTRA 41 < 63
Total FP INCONS 76 < 100
Total FP COMP 24 < 31
Total FN 147 > 146
P-value 2.89169006118e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of Cylofold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Cylofold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 255
Total TN 26032
Total FP 141
Total FP CONTRA 41
Total FP INCONS 76
Total FP COMP 24
Total FN 147
Total Scores
MCC 0.654
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.653 ± 0.128
Sensitivity 0.634
Positive Predictive Value 0.685
Nr of predictions 18

^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
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 ProbKnot - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for ProbKnot

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 256
Total TN 25985
Total FP 194
Total FP CONTRA 63
Total FP INCONS 100
Total FP COMP 31
Total FN 146
Total Scores
MCC 0.618
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.563 ± 0.139
Sensitivity 0.637
Positive Predictive Value 0.611
Nr of predictions 18

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KRL_A - 0.82 0.87 0.77 20 1998 15 6 0 9 3
2LC8_A -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 513 15 3 12 0 18
2M58_A - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 529 15 0 15 0 12
3J0L_a - 0.60 0.64 0.58 7 399 6 4 1 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 0.38 0.50 0.29 11 4726 42 10 17 15 11
3PDR_A 0.88 0.92 0.85 46 4786 10 5 3 2 4
3RKF_A 0.87 0.83 0.91 20 844 2 2 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.66 0.69 0.65 20 1502 11 6 5 0 9
3U4M_B - 0.58 0.59 0.59 13 1254 9 2 7 0 9
3W3S_B 0.98 0.97 1.00 32 1957 1 0 0 1 1
4AOB_A 0.60 0.59 0.63 17 1410 11 4 6 1 12
4ATO_G - 0.38 0.43 0.38 3 212 5 5 0 0 4
4ENB_A 0.81 0.73 0.92 11 460 1 1 0 0 4
4ENC_A 0.52 0.53 0.53 8 481 8 0 7 1 7
4FRG_B 0.38 0.38 0.41 9 1180 13 6 7 0 15
4FRN_A 0.49 0.46 0.54 13 1824 11 6 5 0 15

^top


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