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 TurboFold(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of Murlet(seed) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

  5. Compile and download dataset for TurboFold(seed) & Murlet(seed) [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric TurboFold(seed) Murlet(seed)
MCC 0.610 > 0.526
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.598 ± 0.185 > 0.520 ± 0.114
Sensitivity 0.598 > 0.341
Positive Predictive Value 0.630 < 0.821
Total TP 177 > 101
Total TN 27052 < 27210
Total FP 148 > 27
Total FP CONTRA 36 > 3
Total FP INCONS 68 > 19
Total FP COMP 44 > 5
Total FN 119 < 195
P-value 1.3551590886e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of TurboFold(seed) and Murlet(seed). 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 TurboFold(seed) and Murlet(seed)).

  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 TurboFold(seed) and Murlet(seed)).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for TurboFold(seed) and Murlet(seed). 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 TurboFold(seed) and Murlet(seed)).

^top





Performance of TurboFold(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for TurboFold(seed)

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 177
Total TN 27052
Total FP 148
Total FP CONTRA 36
Total FP INCONS 68
Total FP COMP 44
Total FN 119
Total Scores
MCC 0.610
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.598 ± 0.185
Sensitivity 0.598
Positive Predictive Value 0.630
Nr of predictions 13

^top



2. Individual counts for TurboFold(seed) [ 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
3J3E_8 0.27 0.33 0.23 5 2720 28 6 11 11 10
3J3F_8 0.42 0.53 0.34 10 4732 35 9 10 16 9
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.71 0.69 0.74 20 1506 7 2 5 0 9
3W1K_J 0.97 0.97 0.97 30 1647 1 1 0 0 1
3ZEX_C 0.49 0.45 0.54 13 5350 15 2 9 4 16
4A1C_2 0.20 0.25 0.17 5 4486 37 9 16 12 15
4AOB_A 0.67 0.59 0.77 17 1415 6 2 3 1 12
4ENB_A 0.77 0.60 1.00 9 463 0 0 0 0 6
4ENC_A 0.73 0.60 0.90 9 486 1 1 0 0 6
4FRN_A 0.79 0.71 0.87 20 1825 3 1 2 0 8
4JF2_A 0.89 0.79 1.00 19 1063 0 0 0 0 5

^top



Performance of Murlet(seed) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Murlet(seed)

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 101
Total TN 27210
Total FP 27
Total FP CONTRA 3
Total FP INCONS 19
Total FP COMP 5
Total FN 195
Total Scores
MCC 0.526
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.520 ± 0.114
Sensitivity 0.341
Positive Predictive Value 0.821
Nr of predictions 13

^top



2. Individual counts for Murlet(seed) [ 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 0 516 12 0 12 0 18
3J3E_8 0.36 0.13 1.00 2 2740 2 0 0 2 13
3J3F_8 0.61 0.37 1.00 7 4754 0 0 0 0 12
3RKF_A 0.62 0.50 0.80 12 851 3 1 2 0 12
3SD1_A 0.56 0.38 0.85 11 1520 2 0 2 0 18
3W1K_J 0.47 0.26 0.89 8 1669 1 0 1 0 23
3ZEX_C 0.49 0.24 1.00 7 5367 0 0 0 0 22
4A1C_2 0.59 0.35 1.00 7 4509 0 0 0 0 13
4AOB_A 0.69 0.48 1.00 14 1423 1 0 0 1 15
4ENB_A 0.63 0.40 1.00 6 466 0 0 0 0 9
4ENC_A 0.63 0.40 1.00 6 490 0 0 0 0 9
4FRN_A 0.66 0.50 0.88 14 1832 2 1 1 0 14
4JF2_A 0.47 0.29 0.78 7 1073 4 1 1 2 17

^top


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