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 RNAshapes - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric RNAshapes Afold
MCC 0.554 > 0.543
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.572 ± 0.117 > 0.534 ± 0.127
Sensitivity 0.578 < 0.581
Positive Predictive Value 0.538 > 0.514
Total TP 365 < 367
Total TN 79210 > 79175
Total FP 379 < 422
Total FP CONTRA 101 < 122
Total FP INCONS 213 < 225
Total FP COMP 65 < 75
Total FN 267 > 265
P-value 5.23657817852e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of RNAshapes - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAshapes

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 365
Total TN 79210
Total FP 379
Total FP CONTRA 101
Total FP INCONS 213
Total FP COMP 65
Total FN 267
Total Scores
MCC 0.554
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.572 ± 0.117
Sensitivity 0.578
Positive Predictive Value 0.538
Nr of predictions 26

^top



2. Individual counts for RNAshapes [ 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 0.77 0.77 0.77 17 962 5 1 4 0 5
3A2K_C 0.47 0.50 0.46 11 1084 13 3 10 0 11
3A3A_A 0.84 0.80 0.89 24 1473 3 0 3 0 6
3ADB_C - 0.71 0.70 0.74 23 1788 8 0 8 0 10
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 0.83 0.79 0.88 22 1447 3 1 2 0 6
3IYQ_A 0.19 0.27 0.14 14 22340 95 43 43 9 37
3IZ4_A 0.57 0.58 0.56 55 25437 50 16 28 6 40
3J3E_8 0.26 0.33 0.21 5 2718 29 6 13 10 10
3JYV_7 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 1092 20 1 18 1 20
3LA5_A 0.89 0.80 1.00 20 934 0 0 0 0 5
3NKB_B - 0.75 0.74 0.78 14 717 6 0 4 2 5
3NPB_A 0.84 0.76 0.93 28 2248 5 1 1 3 9
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 0.60 0.58 0.63 19 1959 12 2 9 1 14
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.16 5 4484 41 11 16 14 15
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
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.