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 Contrafold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric Contrafold ProbKnot
MCC 0.488 > 0.478
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.517 ± 0.068 > 0.500 ± 0.069
Sensitivity 0.424 > 0.423
Positive Predictive Value 0.562 > 0.542
Total TP 1537 > 1531
Total TN 2725748 > 2725661
Total FP 1305 < 1413
Total FP CONTRA 127 < 151
Total FP INCONS 1072 < 1141
Total FP COMP 106 < 121
Total FN 2084 < 2090
P-value 5.84585956207e-05

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of Contrafold and ProbKnot. 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 Contrafold and ProbKnot).

  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 Contrafold and ProbKnot).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Contrafold and ProbKnot. 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 Contrafold and ProbKnot).

^top





Performance of Contrafold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Contrafold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 1537
Total TN 2725748
Total FP 1305
Total FP CONTRA 127
Total FP INCONS 1072
Total FP COMP 106
Total FN 2084
Total Scores
MCC 0.488
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.517 ± 0.068
Sensitivity 0.424
Positive Predictive Value 0.562
Nr of predictions 61

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KRL_A - 0.76 0.60 0.96 24 5126 5 0 1 4 16
2KX8_A 0.94 0.89 1.00 16 845 0 0 0 0 2
2LA5_A - 0.39 0.26 0.63 5 622 3 1 2 0 14
2LC8_A 0.45 0.35 0.58 7 1528 5 2 3 0 13
2LKR_A - 0.84 0.79 0.89 31 6070 6 0 4 2 8
2M58_A - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1640 13 0 13 0 17
2XQD_Y 0.78 0.70 0.86 19 2828 3 0 3 0 8
3AKZ_H 0.39 0.39 0.41 11 2674 17 4 12 1 17
3AM1_B - 0.68 0.63 0.73 22 3210 8 1 7 0 13
3AMU_B 0.65 0.59 0.73 16 2981 8 0 6 2 11
3IYQ_A 0.34 0.37 0.32 35 60615 80 21 55 4 59
3IZ4_A 0.52 0.45 0.61 60 70777 44 4 35 5 72
3IZF_C 0.68 0.61 0.77 33 6860 10 1 9 0 21
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1218 7 0 7 0 17
3J0L_2 - 0.25 0.24 0.28 8 6187 26 0 21 5 25
3J0L_g - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 464 1 1 0 0 4
3J0L_a - 0.50 0.44 0.58 7 1116 5 2 3 0 9
3J16_L 0.46 0.40 0.55 12 2753 10 1 9 0 18
3J20_2 0.58 0.51 0.66 321 1116277 172 10 157 5 312
3J20_1 0.96 0.91 1.00 21 2905 4 0 0 4 2
3J20_0 0.44 0.40 0.50 12 2826 13 0 12 1 18
3J2C_O - 0.79 0.67 0.93 42 10251 4 0 3 1 21
3J2C_M - 0.43 0.34 0.53 71 106357 66 9 54 3 136
3J2L_3 0.56 0.49 0.65 26 7835 16 0 14 2 27
3J3D_C 0.67 0.61 0.74 17 2752 6 0 6 0 11
3J3E_7 0.45 0.37 0.56 20 7104 16 1 15 0 34
3J3E_8 0.07 0.06 0.10 2 7483 32 1 17 14 31
3J3F_8 0.31 0.33 0.29 12 12205 41 4 25 12 24
3J3F_7 0.68 0.62 0.76 31 7219 11 0 10 1 19
3J3V_B 0.48 0.39 0.61 22 6985 14 1 13 0 35
3NDB_M - 0.81 0.72 0.92 44 9132 5 0 4 1 17
3NKB_B - 0.54 0.50 0.59 13 1994 9 0 9 0 13
3NPB_A 0.76 0.70 0.84 32 6983 8 1 5 2 14
3O58_3 0.28 0.26 0.31 9 12374 20 3 17 0 26
3O58_2 0.78 0.76 0.81 29 7224 10 2 5 3 9
3PDR_A 0.69 0.60 0.80 43 12826 13 0 11 2 29
3RKF_A 0.73 0.59 0.91 20 2189 2 1 1 0 14
3SD1_A 0.57 0.48 0.69 20 3887 9 2 7 0 22
3U4M_B - 0.59 0.46 0.77 17 3138 5 0 5 0 20
3UZL_B 0.70 0.54 0.91 20 3548 2 0 2 0 17
3W1K_J 0.87 0.79 0.97 30 4155 1 1 0 0 8
3W3S_B 0.89 0.80 1.00 32 4721 1 0 0 1 8
3ZEX_B - 0.22 0.18 0.26 100 1071996 294 23 261 10 458
3ZEX_F - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2619 9 2 7 0 12
3ZEX_C 0.28 0.21 0.38 11 14167 22 3 15 4 41
3ZEX_H - 0.17 0.18 0.17 7 9003 35 6 29 0 31
3ZEX_D 0.73 0.67 0.80 33 6980 8 1 7 0 16
3ZEX_E - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 21889 58 4 52 2 77
3ZEX_G - 0.28 0.24 0.33 18 16416 41 2 35 4 56
3ZND_W 0.19 0.22 0.18 5 2975 25 1 22 2 18
4A1C_2 0.16 0.15 0.17 5 11751 33 5 20 8 28
4A1C_3 0.66 0.57 0.78 31 7100 9 1 8 0 23
4AOB_A 0.44 0.36 0.56 15 4344 13 1 11 1 27
4ATO_G - 0.44 0.40 0.50 4 520 4 0 4 0 6
4ENB_A 0.73 0.58 0.92 11 1263 1 1 0 0 8
4ENC_A 0.73 0.58 0.92 11 1314 1 1 0 0 8
4FNJ_A - 0.79 0.63 1.00 10 585 0 0 0 0 6
4FRG_B 0.68 0.56 0.82 18 3464 4 1 3 0 14
4FRN_A 0.65 0.56 0.77 20 5125 6 1 5 0 16
4JF2_A 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 2831 0 0 0 0 12
4JRC_A - 0.34 0.30 0.39 7 1522 11 0 11 0 16

^top



Performance of ProbKnot - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for ProbKnot

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 1531
Total TN 2725661
Total FP 1413
Total FP CONTRA 151
Total FP INCONS 1141
Total FP COMP 121
Total FN 2090
Total Scores
MCC 0.478
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.500 ± 0.069
Sensitivity 0.423
Positive Predictive Value 0.542
Nr of predictions 61

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KRL_A - 0.69 0.60 0.80 24 5121 11 2 4 5 16
2KX8_A 0.94 0.89 1.00 16 845 0 0 0 0 2
2LA5_A - 0.45 0.32 0.67 6 621 3 0 3 0 13
2LC8_A -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1525 15 2 13 0 20
2LKR_A - 0.85 0.77 0.94 30 6073 4 0 2 2 9
2M58_A - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1638 15 0 15 0 17
2XQD_Y 0.90 0.81 1.00 22 2828 1 0 0 1 5
3AKZ_H 0.73 0.75 0.72 21 2672 8 4 4 0 7
3AM1_B - 0.74 0.71 0.78 25 3208 7 1 6 0 10
3AMU_B 0.65 0.59 0.73 16 2981 8 0 6 2 11
3IYQ_A 0.28 0.31 0.26 29 60616 85 22 59 4 65
3IZ4_A 0.52 0.46 0.60 61 70774 46 6 35 5 71
3IZF_C 0.72 0.61 0.85 33 6864 6 0 6 0 21
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1212 13 0 13 0 17
3J0L_2 - 0.27 0.27 0.28 9 6184 26 2 21 3 24
3J0L_g - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 458 7 2 5 0 4
3J0L_a - 0.55 0.50 0.62 8 1115 5 2 3 0 8
3J16_L 0.35 0.33 0.38 10 2749 16 1 15 0 20
3J20_2 0.50 0.43 0.57 272 1116290 208 11 192 5 361
3J20_1 0.71 0.70 0.73 16 2904 7 0 6 1 7
3J20_0 0.45 0.40 0.52 12 2827 12 0 11 1 18
3J2C_O - 0.60 0.52 0.70 33 10249 15 0 14 1 30
3J2C_M - 0.37 0.30 0.45 63 106352 79 9 67 3 144
3J2L_3 0.60 0.49 0.74 26 7840 11 0 9 2 27
3J3D_C 0.46 0.43 0.50 12 2751 12 1 11 0 16
3J3E_7 0.47 0.35 0.63 19 7110 11 0 11 0 35
3J3E_8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 7476 37 3 24 10 33
3J3F_8 0.35 0.33 0.36 12 12213 35 3 18 14 24
3J3F_7 0.76 0.64 0.91 32 7225 3 0 3 0 18
3J3V_B 0.53 0.42 0.67 24 6985 12 1 11 0 33
3NDB_M - 0.77 0.69 0.88 42 9132 7 0 6 1 19
3NKB_B - 0.59 0.54 0.67 14 1995 7 0 7 0 12
3NPB_A 0.72 0.61 0.85 28 6988 8 1 4 3 18
3O58_3 0.31 0.34 0.29 12 12362 41 4 25 12 23
3O58_2 0.76 0.76 0.76 29 7222 10 3 6 1 9
3PDR_A 0.74 0.64 0.85 46 12826 10 1 7 2 26
3RKF_A 0.73 0.59 0.91 20 2189 2 1 1 0 14
3SD1_A 0.55 0.48 0.65 20 3885 11 2 9 0 22
3U4M_B - 0.45 0.35 0.59 13 3138 9 1 8 0 24
3UZL_B 0.73 0.62 0.85 23 3543 4 0 4 0 14
3W1K_J 0.87 0.79 0.97 30 4155 1 1 0 0 8
3W3S_B 0.89 0.80 1.00 32 4721 1 0 0 1 8
3ZEX_B - 0.29 0.26 0.33 146 1071940 307 34 260 13 412
3ZEX_F - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2620 11 2 6 3 12
3ZEX_C 0.38 0.31 0.47 16 14162 21 2 16 3 36
3ZEX_H - 0.19 0.18 0.19 7 9009 29 4 25 0 31
3ZEX_D 0.77 0.67 0.89 33 6984 4 0 4 0 16
3ZEX_E - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 21886 61 2 57 2 77
3ZEX_G - 0.77 0.66 0.91 49 16417 10 0 5 5 25
3ZND_W 0.20 0.22 0.19 5 2977 24 1 20 3 18
4A1C_2 0.13 0.15 0.12 5 11738 49 7 31 11 28
4A1C_3 0.73 0.61 0.87 33 7102 6 1 4 1 21
4AOB_A 0.50 0.40 0.63 17 4344 11 2 8 1 25
4ATO_G - 0.32 0.30 0.38 3 520 5 1 4 0 7
4ENB_A 0.73 0.58 0.92 11 1263 1 1 0 0 8
4ENC_A 0.45 0.42 0.50 8 1310 8 1 7 0 11
4FNJ_A - 0.66 0.50 0.89 8 586 1 0 1 0 8
4FRG_B 0.37 0.31 0.45 10 3464 12 3 9 0 22
4FRN_A 0.44 0.36 0.54 13 5127 11 2 9 0 23
4JF2_A 0.80 0.71 0.92 22 2826 2 2 0 0 9
4JRC_A - 0.25 0.22 0.31 5 1524 11 0 11 0 18

^top


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