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 HotKnots - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric HotKnots Afold
MCC 0.566 > 0.543
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.592 ± 0.128 > 0.534 ± 0.127
Sensitivity 0.611 > 0.581
Positive Predictive Value 0.532 > 0.514
Total TP 386 > 367
Total TN 79163 < 79175
Total FP 392 < 422
Total FP CONTRA 133 > 122
Total FP INCONS 207 < 225
Total FP COMP 52 < 75
Total FN 246 < 265
P-value 5.10776592382e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 HotKnots and Afold).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for HotKnots and Afold. 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 HotKnots and Afold).

^top





Performance of HotKnots - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for HotKnots

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 386
Total TN 79163
Total FP 392
Total FP CONTRA 133
Total FP INCONS 207
Total FP COMP 52
Total FN 246
Total Scores
MCC 0.566
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.592 ± 0.128
Sensitivity 0.611
Positive Predictive Value 0.532
Nr of predictions 26

^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
2KFC_A - -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 229 7 1 6 0 8
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
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 0.47 0.50 0.46 11 1084 13 3 10 0 11
3A3A_A 0.97 0.93 1.00 28 1472 0 0 0 0 2
3ADB_C - 0.86 0.85 0.88 28 1787 5 0 4 1 5
3GCA_A - 0.84 0.71 1.00 5 153 0 0 0 0 2
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
3IWN_A 0.69 0.68 0.70 19 1445 9 1 7 1 9
3IYQ_A 0.24 0.33 0.17 17 22341 96 47 35 14 34
3IZ4_A 0.56 0.60 0.52 57 25426 57 26 27 4 38
3J3E_8 0.15 0.20 0.12 3 2717 33 7 15 11 12
3JYV_7 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 1089 22 4 18 0 20
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
3NKB_B - 0.69 0.74 0.67 14 714 7 0 7 0 5
3NPB_A 0.85 0.78 0.94 29 2247 6 0 2 4 8
3O58_3 0.26 0.36 0.19 8 4722 35 16 18 1 14
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
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
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.15 5 4483 42 12 16 14 15
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
4JRC_A - 0.34 0.35 0.35 6 605 11 0 11 0 11

^top



Performance of Afold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Afold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 367
Total TN 79175
Total FP 422
Total FP CONTRA 122
Total FP INCONS 225
Total FP COMP 75
Total FN 265
Total Scores
MCC 0.543
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.534 ± 0.127
Sensitivity 0.581
Positive Predictive Value 0.514
Nr of predictions 26

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KFC_A - -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 228 8 1 7 0 8
2LC8_A 0.64 0.61 0.69 11 512 6 0 5 1 7
2M58_A - 0.40 0.42 0.42 5 532 8 1 6 1 7
2RP0_A - 0.76 0.71 0.83 5 110 1 0 1 0 2
2ZZN_D 0.91 0.91 0.91 20 962 3 2 0 1 2
3A2K_C 0.46 0.50 0.44 11 1083 14 3 11 0 11
3A3A_A 0.93 0.87 1.00 26 1474 0 0 0 0 4
3ADB_C - 0.85 0.85 0.85 28 1786 6 0 5 1 5
3GCA_A - -0.04 0.00 0.00 0 151 9 1 6 2 7
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
3IWN_A 0.67 0.68 0.68 19 1444 9 1 8 0 9
3IYQ_A 0.23 0.33 0.17 17 22339 97 47 37 13 34
3IZ4_A 0.52 0.57 0.48 54 25423 63 27 32 4 41
3J3E_8 0.26 0.33 0.21 5 2718 31 6 13 12 10
3JYV_7 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 1088 23 4 19 0 20
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
3NKB_B - 0.69 0.74 0.67 14 714 7 0 7 0 5
3NPB_A 0.82 0.73 0.93 27 2249 6 0 2 4 10
3O58_3 0.41 0.50 0.34 11 4732 38 6 15 17 11
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3U4M_B - 0.49 0.55 0.46 12 1250 14 3 11 0 10
3W3S_B 0.55 0.55 0.56 18 1957 15 4 10 1 15
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.15 5 4483 43 11 17 15 15
4ATO_G - 0.38 0.43 0.38 3 212 6 5 0 1 4
4ENB_A 0.81 0.73 0.92 11 460 3 0 1 2 4
4JRC_A - 0.27 0.29 0.29 5 605 12 0 12 0 12

^top


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