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 RNAfold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric Cylofold RNAfold
MCC 0.669 > 0.609
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.663 ± 0.123 > 0.575 ± 0.105
Sensitivity 0.648 > 0.614
Positive Predictive Value 0.700 > 0.617
Total TP 282 > 267
Total TN 27820 > 27790
Total FP 145 < 198
Total FP CONTRA 41 = 41
Total FP INCONS 80 < 125
Total FP COMP 24 < 32
Total FN 153 < 168
P-value 3.39090039918e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^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 RNAfold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAfold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 267
Total TN 27790
Total FP 198
Total FP CONTRA 41
Total FP INCONS 125
Total FP COMP 32
Total FN 168
Total Scores
MCC 0.609
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.575 ± 0.105
Sensitivity 0.614
Positive Predictive Value 0.617
Nr of predictions 19

^top



2. Individual counts for RNAfold [ 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 - 0.35 0.36 0.36 12 1786 22 1 20 1 21
3J0L_a - 0.18 0.18 0.22 2 402 8 3 4 1 9
3J20_0 0.51 0.57 0.48 12 1194 14 3 10 1 9
3NKB_B - 0.69 0.74 0.67 14 714 7 0 7 0 5
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 0.77 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 - 0.38 0.43 0.38 3 212 5 5 0 0 4
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 2 0 0 2 4
4ENC_A 0.37 0.33 0.45 5 485 7 0 6 1 10
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.