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 RNAsubopt - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric RNAsubopt Fold
MCC 0.571 > 0.532
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.554 ± 0.098 > 0.489 ± 0.114
Sensitivity 0.612 > 0.567
Positive Predictive Value 0.539 > 0.507
Total TP 485 > 449
Total TN 99321 < 99334
Total FP 526 < 551
Total FP CONTRA 159 > 153
Total FP INCONS 255 < 284
Total FP COMP 112 < 114
Total FN 307 < 343
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of RNAsubopt - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAsubopt

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 485
Total TN 99321
Total FP 526
Total FP CONTRA 159
Total FP INCONS 255
Total FP COMP 112
Total FN 307
Total Scores
MCC 0.571
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.554 ± 0.098
Sensitivity 0.612
Positive Predictive Value 0.539
Nr of predictions 30

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KRL_A - 0.62 0.61 0.64 14 2002 15 5 3 7 9
2LC8_A -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 513 15 3 12 0 18
2M58_A - 0.60 0.58 0.64 7 533 4 1 3 0 5
3ADB_C - 0.98 0.97 1.00 32 1787 0 0 0 0 1
3IYQ_A 0.28 0.39 0.20 20 22342 96 41 37 18 31
3IZ4_A 0.56 0.60 0.53 57 25429 54 26 24 4 38
3J0L_a - 0.35 0.36 0.36 4 400 8 3 4 1 7
3J20_0 0.51 0.57 0.48 12 1194 14 2 11 1 9
3J3D_C 0.65 0.74 0.58 14 944 10 5 5 0 5
3J3E_8 0.25 0.33 0.20 5 2717 32 7 13 12 10
3J3F_8 0.35 0.47 0.26 9 4726 42 13 13 16 10
3NKB_B - 0.66 0.68 0.65 13 715 7 0 7 0 6
3NPB_A 0.84 0.78 0.91 29 2246 8 0 3 5 8
3O58_3 0.41 0.50 0.34 11 4732 35 6 15 14 11
3PDR_A 0.90 0.90 0.90 45 4790 7 2 3 2 5
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.73 0.72 0.75 21 1505 7 4 3 0 8
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 0.95 0.94 0.97 31 1957 2 0 1 1 2
3ZEX_C 0.30 0.34 0.26 10 5336 43 5 23 15 19
4A1C_2 0.18 0.25 0.14 5 4481 43 13 17 13 15
4AOB_A 0.62 0.62 0.64 18 1409 11 4 6 1 11
4ATO_G - 0.36 0.43 0.33 3 211 6 6 0 0 4
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 2 0 0 2 4
4ENC_A 0.36 0.33 0.42 5 484 7 0 7 0 10
4FRG_B 0.36 0.38 0.38 9 1178 15 2 13 0 15
4FRN_A 0.58 0.57 0.59 16 1821 11 3 8 0 12
4JF2_A 0.69 0.67 0.73 16 1060 6 4 2 0 8
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.