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 RNAfold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric TurboFold(seed) RNAfold
MCC 0.610 > 0.580
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.598 ± 0.185 > 0.587 ± 0.165
Sensitivity 0.598 < 0.605
Positive Predictive Value 0.630 > 0.565
Total TP 177 < 179
Total TN 27052 > 27016
Total FP 148 < 202
Total FP CONTRA 36 < 45
Total FP INCONS 68 < 93
Total FP COMP 44 < 64
Total FN 119 > 117
P-value 1.49381627234e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^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 RNAfold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAfold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 179
Total TN 27016
Total FP 202
Total FP CONTRA 45
Total FP INCONS 93
Total FP COMP 64
Total FN 117
Total Scores
MCC 0.580
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.587 ± 0.165
Sensitivity 0.605
Positive Predictive Value 0.565
Nr of predictions 13

^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
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
3W1K_J 0.97 0.97 0.97 30 1647 1 1 0 0 1
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
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
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

^top


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