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 Fold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric Fold NanoFolder
MCC 0.503 > 0.272
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.476 ± 0.122 > 0.326 ± 0.081
Sensitivity 0.439 > 0.284
Positive Predictive Value 0.582 > 0.269
Total TP 434 > 281
Total TN 155532 > 155234
Total FP 363 < 805
Total FP CONTRA 27 < 93
Total FP INCONS 285 < 670
Total FP COMP 51 > 42
Total FN 555 < 708
P-value 5.19332990918e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of Fold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Fold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 434
Total TN 155532
Total FP 363
Total FP CONTRA 27
Total FP INCONS 285
Total FP COMP 51
Total FN 555
Total Scores
MCC 0.503
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.476 ± 0.122
Sensitivity 0.439
Positive Predictive Value 0.582
Nr of predictions 26

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1525 15 2 13 0 20
2LKR_A - 0.85 0.79 0.91 31 6071 5 0 3 2 8
2M58_A - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1638 15 0 15 0 17
3J16_L 0.63 0.53 0.76 16 2754 5 0 5 0 14
3J20_1 0.96 0.91 1.00 21 2905 0 0 0 0 2
3J2L_3 0.62 0.53 0.74 28 7837 12 0 10 2 25
3J3D_C 0.47 0.43 0.52 12 2752 11 1 10 0 16
3J3E_8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 7478 34 2 23 9 33
3J3E_7 0.46 0.37 0.57 20 7105 15 1 14 0 34
3J3F_8 0.28 0.28 0.29 10 12211 39 5 20 14 26
3J3F_7 0.79 0.68 0.92 34 7223 4 0 3 1 16
3J3V_B 0.51 0.42 0.63 24 6983 14 1 13 0 33
3U4M_B - 0.45 0.35 0.59 13 3138 9 1 8 0 24
3UZL_B 0.77 0.62 0.96 23 3546 1 0 1 0 14
3W3S_B 0.85 0.75 0.97 30 4722 2 0 1 1 10
3ZEX_D 0.76 0.67 0.87 33 6983 5 1 4 0 16
3ZEX_G - 0.76 0.65 0.89 48 16417 12 0 6 6 26
3ZEX_E - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 21890 57 2 53 2 77
3ZND_W 0.20 0.22 0.19 5 2977 23 1 20 2 18
4A1C_3 0.68 0.57 0.82 31 7102 7 1 6 0 23
4A1C_2 0.14 0.15 0.14 5 11744 43 5 27 11 28
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
4ENC_A 0.31 0.26 0.38 5 1313 8 1 7 0 14
4JF2_A 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 2831 0 0 0 0 12
4JRC_A - 0.29 0.26 0.35 6 1523 11 0 11 0 17

^top



Performance of NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for NanoFolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 281
Total TN 155234
Total FP 805
Total FP CONTRA 93
Total FP INCONS 670
Total FP COMP 42
Total FN 708
Total Scores
MCC 0.272
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.326 ± 0.081
Sensitivity 0.284
Positive Predictive Value 0.269
Nr of predictions 26

^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
3J3D_C 0.70 0.71 0.69 20 2746 9 2 7 0 8
3J3E_8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 7466 47 6 31 10 33
3J3E_7 0.35 0.33 0.37 18 7091 31 1 30 0 36
3J3F_8 0.27 0.33 0.22 12 12192 54 9 33 12 24
3J3F_7 0.17 0.18 0.17 9 7208 43 3 40 0 41
3J3V_B 0.24 0.23 0.27 13 6973 35 1 34 0 44
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_G - 0.05 0.05 0.05 4 16393 76 5 69 2 70
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
4A1C_3 0.48 0.46 0.51 25 7091 24 2 22 0 29
4A1C_2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 11728 61 12 41 8 33
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
4JF2_A 0.51 0.55 0.49 17 2815 18 5 13 0 14
4JRC_A - 0.48 0.48 0.50 11 1518 11 0 11 0 12

^top


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