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 RNAfold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric IPknot RNAfold
MCC 0.600 > 0.488
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.598 ± 0.114 > 0.506 ± 0.098
Sensitivity 0.560 > 0.516
Positive Predictive Value 0.644 > 0.463
Total TP 683 > 629
Total TN 878444 > 878146
Total FP 498 < 889
Total FP CONTRA 90 < 182
Total FP INCONS 287 < 547
Total FP COMP 121 < 160
Total FN 537 < 591
P-value 5.19332990918e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 RNAfold).

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

^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 RNAfold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAfold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 629
Total TN 878146
Total FP 889
Total FP CONTRA 182
Total FP INCONS 547
Total FP COMP 160
Total FN 591
Total Scores
MCC 0.488
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.506 ± 0.098
Sensitivity 0.516
Positive Predictive Value 0.463
Nr of predictions 24

^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
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
3J0L_a - 0.18 0.18 0.22 2 402 8 3 4 1 9
3J20_2 0.56 0.58 0.54 238 421930 251 36 164 51 174
3J20_0 0.51 0.57 0.48 12 1194 14 3 10 1 9
3J3D_C 0.33 0.37 0.32 7 946 15 3 12 0 12
3J3E_8 0.25 0.33 0.20 5 2717 31 7 13 11 10
3J3F_8 0.33 0.42 0.27 8 4731 42 10 12 20 11
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
3W1K_J 0.97 0.97 0.97 30 1647 1 1 0 0 1
3W3S_B 0.60 0.61 0.61 20 1956 14 4 9 1 13
3ZEX_B - 0.35 0.39 0.32 136 420925 333 77 214 42 210
3ZEX_C 0.30 0.34 0.26 10 5336 43 5 23 15 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 0.85 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
4JF2_A 0.86 0.79 0.95 19 1062 1 1 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.