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 Afold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric Afold Cylofold
MCC 0.559 > 0.535
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.556 ± 0.121 < 0.581 ± 0.098
Sensitivity 0.497 > 0.451
Positive Predictive Value 0.634 < 0.641
Total TP 383 > 348
Total TN 110453 < 110514
Total FP 246 > 212
Total FP CONTRA 17 > 12
Total FP INCONS 204 > 183
Total FP COMP 25 > 17
Total FN 388 < 423
P-value 6.07491858776e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 Afold and Cylofold).

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

^top





Performance of Afold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Afold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 383
Total TN 110453
Total FP 246
Total FP CONTRA 17
Total FP INCONS 204
Total FP COMP 25
Total FN 388
Total Scores
MCC 0.559
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.556 ± 0.121
Sensitivity 0.497
Positive Predictive Value 0.634
Nr of predictions 22

^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
2KX8_A 0.94 0.89 1.00 16 845 0 0 0 0 2
2LC8_A 0.61 0.55 0.69 11 1524 6 0 5 1 9
2LKR_A - 0.93 0.87 1.00 34 6071 3 0 0 3 5
2M58_A - 0.33 0.29 0.38 5 1640 8 1 7 0 12
3ADB_C - 0.78 0.74 0.82 28 4152 6 0 6 0 10
3AKZ_H 0.16 0.14 0.19 4 2680 17 2 15 0 24
3AM1_B - 0.72 0.66 0.79 23 3211 6 0 6 0 12
3IZF_C 0.66 0.57 0.76 31 6862 10 1 9 0 23
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1210 15 1 14 0 17
3J2C_O - 0.58 0.49 0.69 31 10251 15 1 13 1 32
3NDB_M - 0.84 0.74 0.96 45 9133 3 0 2 1 16
3NKB_B - 0.59 0.54 0.67 14 1995 7 0 7 0 12
3O58_3 0.34 0.34 0.34 12 12368 37 2 21 14 23
3O58_2 0.66 0.66 0.66 25 7222 14 4 9 1 13
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3U4M_B - 0.38 0.32 0.46 12 3134 14 0 14 0 25
3W3S_B 0.50 0.45 0.56 18 4721 15 1 13 1 22
3ZEX_D 0.72 0.61 0.86 30 6986 5 0 5 0 19
3ZEX_E - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 21892 55 2 51 2 77
4ATO_G - 0.32 0.30 0.38 3 520 6 1 4 1 7
4ENB_A 0.67 0.58 0.79 11 1261 3 1 2 0 8
4FNJ_A - 0.75 0.63 0.91 10 584 1 0 1 0 6

^top



Performance of Cylofold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Cylofold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 348
Total TN 110514
Total FP 212
Total FP CONTRA 12
Total FP INCONS 183
Total FP COMP 17
Total FN 423
Total Scores
MCC 0.535
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.581 ± 0.098
Sensitivity 0.451
Positive Predictive Value 0.641
Nr of predictions 22

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KX8_A 0.94 0.89 1.00 16 845 0 0 0 0 2
2LC8_A 0.61 0.55 0.69 11 1524 5 0 5 0 9
2LKR_A - 0.50 0.44 0.59 17 6076 12 2 10 0 22
2M58_A - 0.51 0.41 0.64 7 1642 4 1 3 0 10
3ADB_C - 0.78 0.71 0.87 27 4155 4 0 4 0 11
3AKZ_H 0.66 0.57 0.76 16 2680 6 0 5 1 12
3AM1_B - 0.76 0.63 0.92 22 3216 2 0 2 0 13
3IZF_C 0.68 0.56 0.83 30 6867 6 0 6 0 24
3J0L_7 - 0.30 0.29 0.33 5 1210 10 0 10 0 12
3J2C_O - 0.43 0.33 0.55 21 10258 18 0 17 1 42
3NDB_M - 0.58 0.48 0.71 29 9139 13 1 11 1 32
3NKB_B - 0.40 0.31 0.53 8 2001 7 0 7 0 18
3O58_3 0.36 0.34 0.38 12 12371 29 5 15 9 23
3O58_2 0.80 0.68 0.93 26 7232 3 0 2 1 12
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3U4M_B - 0.38 0.32 0.46 12 3134 14 0 14 0 25
3W3S_B 0.44 0.38 0.52 15 4724 15 0 14 1 25
3ZEX_D 0.58 0.49 0.69 24 6986 11 0 11 0 25
3ZEX_E - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 21897 51 2 46 3 77
4ATO_G - 0.73 0.70 0.78 7 519 2 1 1 0 3
4ENB_A 0.89 0.79 1.00 15 1260 0 0 0 0 4
4FNJ_A - 0.70 0.50 1.00 8 587 0 0 0 0 8

^top


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