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 Fold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric Fold RNAwolf
MCC 0.459 > 0.406
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.435 ± 0.124 > 0.432 ± 0.124
Sensitivity 0.489 > 0.415
Positive Predictive Value 0.433 > 0.399
Total TP 596 > 506
Total TN 878126 < 878235
Total FP 944 > 895
Total FP CONTRA 200 > 199
Total FP INCONS 582 > 564
Total FP COMP 162 > 132
Total FN 624 < 714
P-value 5.19332990918e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of Fold and RNAwolf. 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 Fold and RNAwolf).

  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 Fold and RNAwolf).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Fold and RNAwolf. 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 Fold and RNAwolf).

^top





Performance of Fold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Fold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 596
Total TN 878126
Total FP 944
Total FP CONTRA 200
Total FP INCONS 582
Total FP COMP 162
Total FN 624
Total Scores
MCC 0.459
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.435 ± 0.124
Sensitivity 0.489
Positive Predictive Value 0.433
Nr of predictions 24

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
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 - 0.15 0.18 0.17 2 399 11 4 6 1 9
3J20_2 0.55 0.58 0.53 239 421918 270 31 180 59 173
3J20_0 0.54 0.57 0.52 12 1196 12 3 8 1 9
3J3D_C 0.47 0.53 0.43 10 945 13 5 8 0 9
3J3E_8 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2719 34 5 18 11 15
3J3F_8 0.32 0.42 0.25 8 4729 41 12 12 17 11
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.68 0.69 0.69 20 1504 9 4 5 0 9
3U4M_B - 0.58 0.59 0.59 13 1254 9 2 7 0 9
3W1K_J 0.97 0.97 0.97 30 1647 1 1 0 0 1
3W3S_B 0.94 0.91 0.97 30 1958 2 0 1 1 3
3ZEX_B - 0.32 0.36 0.29 123 420926 346 87 216 43 223
3ZEX_C 0.28 0.34 0.23 10 5330 46 9 25 12 19
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.15 5 4482 43 11 18 14 15
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 0.37 0.33 0.45 5 461 7 0 6 1 10
4ENC_A 0.36 0.33 0.42 5 484 8 0 7 1 10
4FRG_B 0.22 0.25 0.23 6 1176 20 7 13 0 18
4FRN_A 0.46 0.46 0.46 13 1820 15 7 8 0 15
4JF2_A 0.89 0.79 1.00 19 1063 0 0 0 0 5
4JRC_A - 0.34 0.35 0.35 6 605 11 0 11 0 11

^top



Performance of RNAwolf - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAwolf

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 506
Total TN 878235
Total FP 895
Total FP CONTRA 199
Total FP INCONS 564
Total FP COMP 132
Total FN 714
Total Scores
MCC 0.406
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.432 ± 0.124
Sensitivity 0.415
Positive Predictive Value 0.399
Nr of predictions 24

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.52 0.50 0.56 9 512 7 0 7 0 9
2M58_A - 0.60 0.58 0.64 7 533 4 1 3 0 5
3J0L_a - 0.14 0.18 0.14 2 397 13 4 8 1 9
3J20_2 0.55 0.55 0.56 228 421959 243 27 154 62 184
3J20_0 0.54 0.57 0.52 12 1196 12 2 9 1 9
3J3D_C 0.92 0.95 0.90 18 948 3 2 0 1 1
3J3E_8 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2719 37 6 17 14 15
3J3F_8 0.28 0.37 0.23 7 4730 39 9 15 15 12
3RKF_A 0.89 0.83 0.95 20 845 1 0 1 0 4
3SD1_A 0.58 0.59 0.59 17 1504 12 2 10 0 12
3U4M_B - 0.50 0.50 0.52 11 1255 12 1 9 2 11
3W1K_J 0.81 0.77 0.86 24 1650 5 0 4 1 7
3W3S_B 0.70 0.70 0.72 23 1957 10 0 9 1 10
3ZEX_B - 0.18 0.19 0.17 65 420964 343 98 225 20 281
3ZEX_C 0.08 0.10 0.07 3 5328 43 18 25 0 26
4A1C_2 0.12 0.15 0.10 3 4487 38 12 14 12 17
4AOB_A 0.26 0.24 0.30 7 1414 17 2 14 1 22
4ATO_G - -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 213 7 4 3 0 7
4ENB_A 0.45 0.40 0.55 6 461 5 1 4 0 9
4ENC_A 0.34 0.33 0.38 5 483 9 0 8 1 10
4FRG_B 0.54 0.50 0.60 12 1182 8 3 5 0 12
4FRN_A -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1828 20 1 19 0 28
4JF2_A 0.72 0.67 0.80 16 1062 4 4 0 0 8
4JRC_A - 0.71 0.65 0.79 11 608 3 2 1 0 6

^top


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