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 IPknot - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric IPknot Fold
MCC 0.600 > 0.459
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.598 ± 0.114 > 0.435 ± 0.124
Sensitivity 0.560 > 0.489
Positive Predictive Value 0.644 > 0.433
Total TP 683 > 596
Total TN 878444 > 878126
Total FP 498 < 944
Total FP CONTRA 90 < 200
Total FP INCONS 287 < 582
Total FP COMP 121 < 162
Total FN 537 < 624
P-value 5.1503931209e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 IPknot and Fold).

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

^top





Performance of IPknot - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for IPknot

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 683
Total TN 878444
Total FP 498
Total FP CONTRA 90
Total FP INCONS 287
Total FP COMP 121
Total FN 537
Total Scores
MCC 0.600
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.598 ± 0.114
Sensitivity 0.560
Positive Predictive Value 0.644
Nr of predictions 24

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.41 0.33 0.55 6 517 5 1 4 0 12
2M58_A - 0.71 0.58 0.88 7 536 1 1 0 0 5
3J0L_a - 0.16 0.18 0.18 2 400 10 3 6 1 9
3J20_2 0.75 0.74 0.76 305 421966 159 17 80 62 107
3J20_0 0.54 0.57 0.52 12 1196 12 3 8 1 9
3J3D_C 0.52 0.53 0.53 10 949 9 3 6 0 9
3J3E_8 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2723 25 5 14 6 15
3J3F_8 0.36 0.47 0.28 9 4729 40 11 12 17 10
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.74 0.69 0.80 20 1508 5 0 5 0 9
3U4M_B - 0.91 0.91 0.91 20 1254 3 2 0 1 2
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 - 0.33 0.27 0.40 95 421115 160 26 116 18 251
3ZEX_C 0.51 0.34 0.77 10 5361 7 1 2 4 19
4A1C_2 0.23 0.25 0.22 5 4493 26 8 10 8 15
4AOB_A 0.50 0.48 0.54 14 1411 13 3 9 1 15
4ATO_G - 0.49 0.57 0.44 4 211 6 0 5 1 3
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 0 0 0 0 4
4ENC_A 0.59 0.53 0.67 8 484 4 0 4 0 7
4FRG_B 0.75 0.71 0.81 17 1181 4 3 1 0 7
4FRN_A 0.79 0.71 0.87 20 1825 3 1 2 0 8
4JF2_A 0.96 0.96 0.96 23 1058 1 1 0 0 1
4JRC_A - 0.45 0.29 0.71 5 615 2 0 2 0 12

^top



Performance of Fold - scored lower 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


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