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(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric MXScarna(seed) Afold
MCC 0.623 > 0.500
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.594 ± 0.103 > 0.540 ± 0.108
Sensitivity 0.507 > 0.463
Positive Predictive Value 0.767 > 0.544
Total TP 498 > 455
Total TN 246249 > 246062
Total FP 220 < 456
Total FP CONTRA 33 < 66
Total FP INCONS 118 < 315
Total FP COMP 69 < 75
Total FN 484 < 527
P-value 5.19332990918e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of MXScarna(seed) and Afold. 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(seed) and Afold).

  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(seed) and Afold).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for MXScarna(seed) and Afold. 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(seed) and Afold).

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 498
Total TN 246249
Total FP 220
Total FP CONTRA 33
Total FP INCONS 118
Total FP COMP 69
Total FN 484
Total Scores
MCC 0.623
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.594 ± 0.103
Sensitivity 0.507
Positive Predictive Value 0.767
Nr of predictions 26

^top



2. Individual counts for MXScarna(seed) [ 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
2KX8_A -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 859 2 0 2 0 18
2LC8_A -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1530 12 0 10 2 20
2WRQ_Y 0.57 0.59 0.56 10 2832 11 5 3 3 7
2ZZM_B 0.56 0.44 0.74 14 3467 5 4 1 0 18
2ZZN_D 0.86 0.74 1.00 20 2465 0 0 0 0 7
3A2K_C 0.84 0.71 1.00 20 2906 0 0 0 0 8
3A3A_A 0.77 0.65 0.92 24 3629 3 0 2 1 13
3AKZ_H 0.86 0.75 1.00 21 2680 0 0 0 0 7
3IVN_B 0.65 0.45 0.93 14 2331 1 1 0 0 17
3IYQ_A 0.45 0.38 0.54 36 60659 37 4 27 6 58
3IZ4_A 0.69 0.55 0.88 72 70794 11 3 7 1 60
3IZF_C 0.67 0.57 0.79 31 6864 9 1 7 1 23
3J3E_8 0.16 0.09 0.27 3 7492 14 1 7 6 30
3JYV_7 0.79 0.63 1.00 20 2830 0 0 0 0 12
3JYX_4 0.38 0.30 0.48 10 12225 21 3 8 10 23
3JYX_3 0.58 0.56 0.60 15 6303 21 1 9 11 12
3LA5_A 0.75 0.56 1.00 19 2466 0 0 0 0 15
3NPB_A 0.69 0.59 0.82 27 6988 9 2 4 3 19
3O58_3 0.45 0.34 0.60 12 12383 19 2 6 11 23
3O58_2 0.79 0.79 0.79 30 7222 10 4 4 2 8
3RKF_A 0.72 0.53 1.00 18 2193 0 0 0 0 16
3W3S_B 0.69 0.60 0.80 24 4723 6 0 6 0 16
3ZEX_D 0.76 0.69 0.83 34 6980 7 1 6 0 15
4A1C_2 0.35 0.24 0.50 8 11765 20 1 7 12 25
4ENB_A 0.48 0.32 0.75 6 1267 2 0 2 0 13

^top



Performance of Afold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Afold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 455
Total TN 246062
Total FP 456
Total FP CONTRA 66
Total FP INCONS 315
Total FP COMP 75
Total FN 527
Total Scores
MCC 0.500
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.540 ± 0.108
Sensitivity 0.463
Positive Predictive Value 0.544
Nr of predictions 26

^top



2. Individual counts for Afold [ 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
2KX8_A 0.94 0.89 1.00 16 845 0 0 0 0 2
2LC8_A 0.61 0.55 0.69 11 1524 6 0 5 1 9
2WRQ_Y 0.57 0.59 0.56 10 2832 13 5 3 5 7
2ZZM_B 0.21 0.19 0.25 6 3462 18 0 18 0 26
2ZZN_D 0.80 0.74 0.87 20 2462 3 0 3 0 7
3A2K_C 0.41 0.39 0.44 11 2901 14 2 12 0 17
3A3A_A 0.84 0.70 1.00 26 3629 0 0 0 0 11
3AKZ_H 0.16 0.14 0.19 4 2680 17 2 15 0 24
3IVN_B 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 2327 0 0 0 0 12
3IYQ_A 0.31 0.34 0.29 32 60616 82 23 55 4 62
3IZ4_A 0.48 0.45 0.51 59 70760 58 11 46 1 73
3IZF_C 0.66 0.57 0.76 31 6862 10 1 9 0 23
3J3E_8 0.17 0.15 0.19 5 7477 31 2 19 10 28
3JYV_7 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2827 23 1 22 0 32
3JYX_4 0.31 0.30 0.31 10 12214 35 5 17 13 23
3JYX_3 0.54 0.56 0.54 15 6300 24 1 12 11 12
3LA5_A 0.78 0.62 1.00 21 2464 0 0 0 0 13
3NPB_A 0.74 0.61 0.90 28 6990 5 0 3 2 18
3O58_3 0.34 0.34 0.34 12 12368 37 2 21 14 23
3O58_2 0.66 0.66 0.66 25 7222 14 4 9 1 13
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3W3S_B 0.50 0.45 0.56 18 4721 15 1 13 1 22
3ZEX_D 0.72 0.61 0.86 30 6986 5 0 5 0 19
4A1C_2 0.14 0.15 0.14 5 11745 43 5 26 12 28
4ENB_A 0.67 0.58 0.79 11 1261 3 1 2 0 8

^top


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