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 Murlet(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric Murlet(20) Contrafold
MCC 0.590 > 0.536
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.587 ± 0.059 > 0.546 ± 0.080
Sensitivity 0.438 < 0.472
Positive Predictive Value 0.799 > 0.613
Total TP 658 < 710
Total TN 283883 > 283548
Total FP 210 < 526
Total FP CONTRA 17 < 58
Total FP INCONS 149 < 391
Total FP COMP 44 < 77
Total FN 846 > 794
P-value 5.23657817852e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of Murlet(20) and Contrafold. 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 Murlet(20) and Contrafold).

  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 Murlet(20) and Contrafold).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Murlet(20) and Contrafold. 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 Murlet(20) and Contrafold).

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 658
Total TN 283883
Total FP 210
Total FP CONTRA 17
Total FP INCONS 149
Total FP COMP 44
Total FN 846
Total Scores
MCC 0.590
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.587 ± 0.059
Sensitivity 0.438
Positive Predictive Value 0.799
Nr of predictions 38

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KDQ_B 0.67 0.45 1.00 5 401 0 0 0 0 6
2WRQ_Y 0.41 0.41 0.41 7 2833 12 6 4 2 10
2XQD_Y 0.80 0.70 0.90 19 2829 2 0 2 0 8
3A2K_C 0.78 0.68 0.90 19 2905 2 0 2 0 9
3AMU_B 0.77 0.67 0.90 18 2983 3 0 2 1 9
3G4S_9 0.58 0.39 0.88 22 7356 3 1 2 0 35
3GX2_A 0.61 0.38 1.00 15 4356 1 0 0 1 25
3IVN_B 0.69 0.48 1.00 15 2331 0 0 0 0 16
3IZ4_A 0.40 0.24 0.65 32 70827 21 1 16 4 100
3IZF_C 0.71 0.56 0.91 30 6870 4 0 3 1 24
3J20_0 0.58 0.47 0.74 14 2831 5 0 5 0 16
3J20_1 0.68 0.57 0.81 13 2910 3 0 3 0 10
3J2L_3 0.69 0.49 0.96 26 7848 3 0 1 2 27
3J3D_C 0.78 0.64 0.95 18 2756 1 0 1 0 10
3J3E_7 0.77 0.63 0.94 34 7104 2 0 2 0 20
3J3E_8 0.24 0.15 0.38 5 7490 13 1 7 5 28
3J3F_7 0.69 0.50 0.96 25 7234 1 0 1 0 25
3J3F_8 0.48 0.36 0.65 13 12226 10 0 7 3 23
3J3V_B 0.63 0.40 1.00 23 6998 0 0 0 0 34
3JYV_7 0.67 0.53 0.85 17 2830 3 0 3 0 15
3JYX_4 0.36 0.27 0.47 9 12227 15 0 10 5 24
3JYX_3 0.60 0.52 0.70 14 6308 11 0 6 5 13
3LA5_A 0.68 0.47 1.00 16 2469 0 0 0 0 18
3NPB_A 0.55 0.35 0.89 16 7003 2 1 1 0 30
3O58_2 0.89 0.82 0.97 31 7228 2 0 1 1 7
3O58_3 0.33 0.23 0.47 8 12386 12 2 7 3 27
3PDR_A 0.70 0.53 0.93 38 12839 3 0 3 0 34
3RKF_A 0.68 0.47 1.00 16 2195 0 0 0 0 18
3SD1_A 0.68 0.57 0.83 24 3887 5 1 4 0 18
3ZEX_D 0.77 0.65 0.91 32 6986 3 0 3 0 17
3ZEX_C 0.34 0.23 0.50 12 14172 15 1 11 3 40
3ZND_W 0.45 0.39 0.53 9 2986 11 0 8 3 14
4A1C_2 0.17 0.15 0.20 5 11756 24 2 18 4 28
4A1C_3 0.59 0.41 0.85 22 7114 4 0 4 0 32
4AOB_A 0.72 0.55 0.96 23 4347 2 0 1 1 19
4ENB_A 0.46 0.21 1.00 4 1271 0 0 0 0 15
4ENC_A 0.51 0.26 1.00 5 1321 0 0 0 0 14
4FRG_B 0.17 0.13 0.25 4 3470 12 1 11 0 28

^top



Performance of Contrafold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Contrafold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 710
Total TN 283548
Total FP 526
Total FP CONTRA 58
Total FP INCONS 391
Total FP COMP 77
Total FN 794
Total Scores
MCC 0.536
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.546 ± 0.080
Sensitivity 0.472
Positive Predictive Value 0.613
Nr of predictions 38

^top



2. Individual counts for Contrafold [ 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 0.78 0.70 0.86 19 2828 3 0 3 0 8
3A2K_C 0.44 0.43 0.46 12 2900 14 2 12 0 16
3AMU_B 0.65 0.59 0.73 16 2981 8 0 6 2 11
3G4S_9 0.30 0.25 0.38 14 7344 23 1 22 0 43
3GX2_A 0.77 0.63 0.96 25 4345 2 0 1 1 15
3IVN_B 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 2327 0 0 0 0 12
3IZ4_A 0.52 0.45 0.61 60 70777 44 4 35 5 72
3IZF_C 0.68 0.61 0.77 33 6860 10 1 9 0 21
3J20_0 0.44 0.40 0.50 12 2826 13 0 12 1 18
3J20_1 0.96 0.91 1.00 21 2905 4 0 0 4 2
3J2L_3 0.56 0.49 0.65 26 7835 16 0 14 2 27
3J3D_C 0.67 0.61 0.74 17 2752 6 0 6 0 11
3J3E_7 0.45 0.37 0.56 20 7104 16 1 15 0 34
3J3E_8 0.07 0.06 0.10 2 7483 32 1 17 14 31
3J3F_7 0.68 0.62 0.76 31 7219 11 0 10 1 19
3J3F_8 0.31 0.33 0.29 12 12205 41 4 25 12 24
3J3V_B 0.48 0.39 0.61 22 6985 14 1 13 0 35
3JYV_7 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2830 20 0 20 0 32
3JYX_4 0.20 0.21 0.20 7 12211 35 6 22 7 26
3JYX_3 0.28 0.30 0.27 8 6298 23 8 14 1 19
3LA5_A 0.78 0.62 1.00 21 2464 0 0 0 0 13
3NPB_A 0.76 0.70 0.84 32 6983 8 1 5 2 14
3O58_2 0.78 0.76 0.81 29 7224 10 2 5 3 9
3O58_3 0.28 0.26 0.31 9 12374 20 3 17 0 26
3PDR_A 0.69 0.60 0.80 43 12826 13 0 11 2 29
3RKF_A 0.73 0.59 0.91 20 2189 2 1 1 0 14
3SD1_A 0.57 0.48 0.69 20 3887 9 2 7 0 22
3ZEX_D 0.73 0.67 0.80 33 6980 8 1 7 0 16
3ZEX_C 0.28 0.21 0.38 11 14167 22 3 15 4 41
3ZND_W 0.19 0.22 0.18 5 2975 25 1 22 2 18
4A1C_2 0.16 0.15 0.17 5 11751 33 5 20 8 28
4A1C_3 0.66 0.57 0.78 31 7100 9 1 8 0 23
4AOB_A 0.44 0.36 0.56 15 4344 13 1 11 1 27
4ENB_A 0.73 0.58 0.92 11 1263 1 1 0 0 8
4ENC_A 0.73 0.58 0.92 11 1314 1 1 0 0 8
4FRG_B 0.68 0.56 0.82 18 3464 4 1 3 0 14

^top


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