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 Cylofold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric Cylofold NanoFolder
MCC 0.455 > 0.283
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.520 ± 0.115 > 0.349 ± 0.099
Sensitivity 0.384 > 0.295
Positive Predictive Value 0.547 > 0.283
Total TP 198 > 152
Total TN 72189 > 72013
Total FP 173 < 396
Total FP CONTRA 13 < 47
Total FP INCONS 151 < 339
Total FP COMP 9 < 10
Total FN 318 < 364
P-value 2.48055519165e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 Cylofold and NanoFolder).

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

^top





Performance of Cylofold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Cylofold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 198
Total TN 72189
Total FP 173
Total FP CONTRA 13
Total FP INCONS 151
Total FP COMP 9
Total FN 318
Total Scores
MCC 0.455
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.520 ± 0.115
Sensitivity 0.384
Positive Predictive Value 0.547
Nr of predictions 15

^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
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
3J16_L 0.75 0.57 1.00 17 2758 0 0 0 0 13
3J20_1 0.69 0.70 0.70 16 2903 7 2 5 0 7
3J2L_3 0.56 0.43 0.72 23 7843 11 0 9 2 30
3U4M_B - 0.38 0.32 0.46 12 3134 14 0 14 0 25
3UZL_B 0.45 0.38 0.54 14 3544 12 1 11 0 23
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
3ZND_W 0.40 0.39 0.41 9 2981 15 2 11 2 14
4AOB_A 0.35 0.26 0.48 11 4348 13 1 11 1 31
4ATO_G - 0.73 0.70 0.78 7 519 2 1 1 0 3
4ENC_A 0.86 0.79 0.94 15 1310 1 1 0 0 4

^top



Performance of NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for NanoFolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 152
Total TN 72013
Total FP 396
Total FP CONTRA 47
Total FP INCONS 339
Total FP COMP 10
Total FN 364
Total Scores
MCC 0.283
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.349 ± 0.099
Sensitivity 0.295
Positive Predictive Value 0.283
Nr of predictions 15

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.52 0.55 0.50 11 1518 11 0 11 0 9
2LKR_A - 0.29 0.33 0.25 13 6054 38 8 30 0 26
2M58_A - 0.43 0.47 0.40 8 1633 12 4 8 0 9
3J16_L 0.36 0.37 0.37 11 2745 19 3 16 0 19
3J20_1 0.41 0.48 0.37 11 2896 19 5 14 0 12
3J2L_3 0.11 0.11 0.12 6 7824 46 3 42 1 47
3U4M_B - 0.61 0.57 0.66 21 3128 11 1 10 0 16
3UZL_B 0.36 0.35 0.38 13 3536 21 3 18 0 24
3W3S_B 0.17 0.18 0.18 7 4713 34 1 32 1 33
3ZEX_D 0.26 0.27 0.27 13 6972 36 1 35 0 36
3ZEX_E - 0.03 0.04 0.03 3 21859 85 9 74 2 74
3ZND_W 0.18 0.22 0.17 5 2973 29 6 19 4 18
4AOB_A 0.33 0.29 0.39 12 4340 20 1 18 1 30
4ATO_G - 0.61 0.70 0.54 7 515 6 2 4 0 3
4ENC_A 0.57 0.58 0.58 11 1307 9 0 8 1 8

^top


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