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 MXScarna(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of Carnac(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

  5. Compile and download dataset for MXScarna(20) & Carnac(20) [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric MXScarna(20) Carnac(20)
MCC 0.611 > 0.590
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.617 ± 0.065 > 0.566 ± 0.072
Sensitivity 0.509 > 0.389
Positive Predictive Value 0.737 < 0.899
Total TP 766 > 585
Total TN 283667 < 284056
Total FP 379 > 92
Total FP CONTRA 48 > 9
Total FP INCONS 226 > 57
Total FP COMP 105 > 26
Total FN 738 < 919
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of MXScarna(20) and Carnac(20). 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 MXScarna(20) and Carnac(20)).

  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 MXScarna(20) and Carnac(20)).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for MXScarna(20) and Carnac(20). 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 MXScarna(20) and Carnac(20)).

^top





Performance of MXScarna(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for MXScarna(20)

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 766
Total TN 283667
Total FP 379
Total FP CONTRA 48
Total FP INCONS 226
Total FP COMP 105
Total FN 738
Total Scores
MCC 0.611
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.617 ± 0.065
Sensitivity 0.509
Positive Predictive Value 0.737
Nr of predictions 38

^top



2. Individual counts for MXScarna(20) [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KDQ_B 0.95 0.91 1.00 10 396 0 0 0 0 1
2WRQ_Y 0.57 0.59 0.56 10 2832 13 5 3 5 7
2XQD_Y 0.88 0.78 1.00 21 2829 0 0 0 0 6
3A2K_C 0.66 0.57 0.76 16 2905 6 1 4 1 12
3AMU_B 0.86 0.74 1.00 20 2983 2 0 0 2 7
3G4S_9 0.52 0.40 0.68 23 7347 13 1 10 2 34
3GX2_A 0.70 0.58 0.85 23 4344 5 0 4 1 17
3IVN_B 0.74 0.58 0.95 18 2327 1 1 0 0 13
3IZ4_A 0.51 0.41 0.64 54 70791 32 7 24 1 78
3IZF_C 0.67 0.59 0.76 32 6861 11 1 9 1 22
3J20_0 0.82 0.67 1.00 20 2830 0 0 0 0 10
3J20_1 0.93 0.87 1.00 20 2906 0 0 0 0 3
3J2L_3 0.54 0.42 0.71 22 7844 11 1 8 2 31
3J3D_C 0.82 0.71 0.95 20 2754 1 0 1 0 8
3J3E_7 0.61 0.54 0.69 29 7098 13 2 11 0 25
3J3E_8 0.14 0.09 0.23 3 7490 15 2 8 5 30
3J3F_7 0.66 0.60 0.73 30 7219 12 1 10 1 20
3J3F_8 0.43 0.36 0.52 13 12221 26 2 10 14 23
3J3V_B 0.74 0.61 0.90 35 6982 4 1 3 0 22
3JYV_7 0.79 0.63 1.00 20 2830 0 0 0 0 12
3JYX_4 0.33 0.30 0.37 10 12219 32 2 15 15 23
3JYX_3 0.55 0.52 0.58 14 6304 23 0 10 13 13
3LA5_A 0.78 0.62 1.00 21 2464 0 0 0 0 13
3NPB_A 0.69 0.59 0.82 27 6988 9 1 5 3 19
3O58_2 0.74 0.74 0.74 28 7222 13 4 6 3 10
3O58_3 0.52 0.40 0.67 14 12382 17 2 5 10 21
3PDR_A 0.71 0.57 0.89 41 12834 9 0 5 4 31
3RKF_A 0.72 0.53 1.00 18 2193 0 0 0 0 16
3SD1_A 0.63 0.55 0.74 23 3885 8 2 6 0 19
3ZEX_D 0.68 0.63 0.74 31 6979 11 2 9 0 18
3ZEX_C 0.31 0.21 0.46 11 14172 13 2 11 0 41
3ZND_W 0.37 0.35 0.40 8 2983 15 2 10 3 15
4A1C_2 0.18 0.15 0.21 5 11757 36 2 17 17 28
4A1C_3 0.64 0.56 0.75 30 7100 11 2 8 1 24
4AOB_A 0.62 0.55 0.72 23 4339 10 0 9 1 19
4ENB_A 0.26 0.11 0.67 2 1272 1 0 1 0 17
4ENC_A 0.60 0.37 1.00 7 1319 0 0 0 0 12
4FRG_B 0.55 0.44 0.70 14 3466 6 2 4 0 18

^top



Performance of Carnac(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Carnac(20)

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 585
Total TN 284056
Total FP 92
Total FP CONTRA 9
Total FP INCONS 57
Total FP COMP 26
Total FN 919
Total Scores
MCC 0.590
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.566 ± 0.072
Sensitivity 0.389
Positive Predictive Value 0.899
Nr of predictions 38

^top



2. Individual counts for Carnac(20) [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KDQ_B 0.73 0.55 1.00 6 400 0 0 0 0 5
2WRQ_Y 0.57 0.59 0.56 10 2832 13 5 3 5 7
2XQD_Y 0.79 0.63 1.00 17 2833 0 0 0 0 10
3A2K_C 0.78 0.61 1.00 17 2909 0 0 0 0 11
3AMU_B 0.69 0.59 0.80 16 2983 6 0 4 2 11
3G4S_9 0.50 0.28 0.89 16 7363 2 1 1 0 41
3GX2_A 0.57 0.33 1.00 13 4358 0 0 0 0 27
3IVN_B 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 2327 0 0 0 0 12
3IZ4_A 0.47 0.23 0.94 31 70843 2 0 2 0 101
3IZF_C 0.73 0.56 0.97 30 6872 1 0 1 0 24
3J20_0 0.62 0.53 0.73 16 2828 7 0 6 1 14
3J20_1 0.86 0.74 1.00 17 2909 0 0 0 0 6
3J2L_3 0.46 0.34 0.64 18 7847 11 0 10 1 35
3J3D_C 0.82 0.71 0.95 20 2754 1 0 1 0 8
3J3E_7 0.65 0.44 0.96 24 7115 1 0 1 0 30
3J3E_8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 7503 0 0 0 0 33
3J3F_7 0.66 0.44 1.00 22 7238 0 0 0 0 28
3J3F_8 0.50 0.25 1.00 9 12237 0 0 0 0 27
3J3V_B 0.58 0.35 0.95 20 7000 1 0 1 0 37
3JYV_7 0.68 0.50 0.94 16 2833 1 0 1 0 16
3JYX_4 0.46 0.21 1.00 7 12239 2 0 0 2 26
3JYX_3 0.64 0.56 0.75 15 6308 10 1 4 5 12
3LA5_A 0.78 0.62 1.00 21 2464 0 0 0 0 13
3NPB_A 0.44 0.20 1.00 9 7012 2 0 0 2 37
3O58_2 0.83 0.71 0.96 27 7232 2 0 1 1 11
3O58_3 0.51 0.26 1.00 9 12394 0 0 0 0 26
3PDR_A 0.62 0.40 0.97 29 12850 3 0 1 2 43
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.60 0.38 0.94 16 3899 1 0 1 0 26
3ZEX_D 0.73 0.53 1.00 26 6995 0 0 0 0 23
3ZEX_C 0.31 0.13 0.70 7 14186 3 1 2 0 45
3ZND_W 0.47 0.39 0.56 9 2987 10 0 7 3 14
4A1C_2 0.33 0.15 0.71 5 11774 3 0 2 1 28
4A1C_3 0.67 0.52 0.88 28 7108 4 0 4 0 26
4AOB_A 0.49 0.33 0.74 14 4352 6 1 4 1 28
4ENB_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1275 0 0 0 0 19
4ENC_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1326 0 0 0 0 19
4FRG_B 0.43 0.19 1.00 6 3480 0 0 0 0 26

^top


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