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 RDfolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric Fold RDfolder
MCC 0.572 > 0.463
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.502 ± 0.124 > 0.434 ± 0.120
Sensitivity 0.495 > 0.363
Positive Predictive Value 0.670 > 0.603
Total TP 307 > 225
Total TN 54633 < 54718
Total FP 157 > 154
Total FP CONTRA 14 > 10
Total FP INCONS 137 < 138
Total FP COMP 6 = 6
Total FN 313 < 395
P-value 5.1503931209e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 RDfolder).

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

^top





Performance of Fold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Fold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 307
Total TN 54633
Total FP 157
Total FP CONTRA 14
Total FP INCONS 137
Total FP COMP 6
Total FN 313
Total Scores
MCC 0.572
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.502 ± 0.124
Sensitivity 0.495
Positive Predictive Value 0.670
Nr of predictions 24

^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
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 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1525 15 2 13 0 20
2WWQ_V 0.76 0.64 0.90 18 2906 3 0 2 1 10
2XQD_Y 0.88 0.78 1.00 21 2829 0 0 0 0 6
3ADB_C - 0.80 0.74 0.88 28 4154 4 0 4 0 10
3AKZ_H 0.84 0.75 0.95 21 2679 1 1 0 0 7
3AM1_B - 0.78 0.71 0.86 25 3211 4 0 4 0 10
3AMU_B 0.64 0.59 0.70 16 2980 9 0 7 2 11
3J0L_a - 0.20 0.19 0.23 3 1115 10 2 8 0 13
3J0L_g - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 461 4 1 3 0 4
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1213 12 0 12 0 17
3J16_L 0.63 0.53 0.76 16 2754 5 0 5 0 14
3J20_0 0.45 0.40 0.52 12 2827 12 0 11 1 18
3J3D_C 0.47 0.43 0.52 12 2752 11 1 10 0 16
3NKB_B - 0.35 0.31 0.42 8 1997 11 0 11 0 18
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.57 0.48 0.69 20 3887 9 1 8 0 22
3W3S_B 0.85 0.75 0.97 30 4722 2 0 1 1 10
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 0.32 0.26 0.42 5 1263 7 1 6 0 14
4ENC_A 0.31 0.26 0.38 5 1313 8 1 7 0 14
4JRC_A - 0.29 0.26 0.35 6 1523 11 0 11 0 17

^top



Performance of RDfolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RDfolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 225
Total TN 54718
Total FP 154
Total FP CONTRA 10
Total FP INCONS 138
Total FP COMP 6
Total FN 395
Total Scores
MCC 0.463
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.434 ± 0.120
Sensitivity 0.363
Positive Predictive Value 0.603
Nr of predictions 24

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KX8_A 0.88 0.78 1.00 14 847 0 0 0 0 4
2LA5_A - 0.46 0.26 0.83 5 624 1 0 1 0 14
2LC8_A -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1526 14 2 12 0 20
2WWQ_V 0.64 0.50 0.82 14 2909 4 0 3 1 14
2XQD_Y 0.88 0.78 1.00 21 2829 0 0 0 0 6
3ADB_C - 0.46 0.39 0.54 15 4158 13 0 13 0 23
3AKZ_H 0.48 0.43 0.55 12 2679 11 1 9 1 16
3AM1_B - 0.47 0.43 0.54 15 3212 13 1 12 0 20
3AMU_B 0.18 0.15 0.22 4 2985 16 2 12 2 23
3J0L_a - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1124 4 1 3 0 16
3J0L_g - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 462 3 1 2 0 4
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1220 5 0 5 0 17
3J16_L 0.22 0.17 0.31 5 2759 11 0 11 0 25
3J20_0 0.73 0.57 0.94 17 2832 2 0 1 1 13
3J3D_C 0.72 0.61 0.85 17 2755 3 0 3 0 11
3NKB_B - 0.37 0.31 0.47 8 1999 9 0 9 0 18
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.30 0.17 0.54 7 3903 6 0 6 0 35
3W3S_B 0.27 0.23 0.33 9 4726 18 1 17 0 31
4AOB_A 0.35 0.26 0.48 11 4348 13 1 11 1 31
4ATO_G - 0.63 0.40 1.00 4 524 0 0 0 0 6
4ENB_A 0.43 0.32 0.60 6 1265 4 0 4 0 13
4ENC_A 0.43 0.32 0.60 6 1316 4 0 4 0 13
4JRC_A - 0.81 0.65 1.00 15 1525 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.