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 Fold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric RNAshapes Fold
MCC 0.557 > 0.532
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.558 ± 0.090 > 0.489 ± 0.114
Sensitivity 0.587 > 0.567
Positive Predictive Value 0.535 > 0.507
Total TP 465 > 449
Total TN 99351 > 99334
Total FP 514 < 551
Total FP CONTRA 136 < 153
Total FP INCONS 268 < 284
Total FP COMP 110 < 114
Total FN 327 < 343
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of RNAshapes - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAshapes

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 465
Total TN 99351
Total FP 514
Total FP CONTRA 136
Total FP INCONS 268
Total FP COMP 110
Total FN 327
Total Scores
MCC 0.557
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.558 ± 0.090
Sensitivity 0.587
Positive Predictive Value 0.535
Nr of predictions 30

^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
2KRL_A - 0.91 0.87 0.95 20 2003 9 1 0 8 3
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
3ADB_C - 0.71 0.70 0.74 23 1788 8 0 8 0 10
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
3J0L_a - 0.18 0.18 0.22 2 402 8 3 4 1 9
3J20_0 0.51 0.57 0.48 12 1194 14 3 10 1 9
3J3D_C 0.63 0.68 0.59 13 946 9 3 6 0 6
3J3E_8 0.26 0.33 0.21 5 2718 29 6 13 10 10
3J3F_8 0.33 0.42 0.26 8 4730 42 11 12 19 11
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
3PDR_A 0.80 0.80 0.80 40 4790 12 3 7 2 10
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 0.58 0.63 19 1959 12 2 9 1 14
3ZEX_C 0.29 0.34 0.26 10 5335 42 5 24 13 19
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.16 5 4484 41 11 16 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 0.89 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 Fold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Fold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 449
Total TN 99334
Total FP 551
Total FP CONTRA 153
Total FP INCONS 284
Total FP COMP 114
Total FN 343
Total Scores
MCC 0.532
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.489 ± 0.114
Sensitivity 0.567
Positive Predictive Value 0.507
Nr of predictions 30

^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
2KRL_A - 0.91 0.87 0.95 20 2003 9 1 0 8 3
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
3ADB_C - 0.86 0.85 0.88 28 1787 4 0 4 0 5
3IYQ_A 0.24 0.33 0.18 17 22345 95 40 38 17 34
3IZ4_A 0.60 0.61 0.59 58 25437 47 16 25 6 37
3J0L_a - 0.15 0.18 0.17 2 399 11 4 6 1 9
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
3NKB_B - 0.41 0.42 0.42 8 716 11 4 7 0 11
3NPB_A 0.77 0.73 0.82 27 2245 11 0 6 5 10
3O58_3 0.39 0.50 0.31 11 4728 41 9 16 16 11
3PDR_A 0.93 0.92 0.94 46 4791 5 1 2 2 4
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_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.