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 NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric Murlet(20) NanoFolder
MCC 0.607 > 0.269
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.584 ± 0.111 > 0.291 ± 0.118
Sensitivity 0.457 > 0.280
Positive Predictive Value 0.811 > 0.267
Total TP 253 > 155
Total TN 89076 > 88807
Total FP 77 < 463
Total FP CONTRA 3 < 52
Total FP INCONS 56 < 374
Total FP COMP 18 < 37
Total FN 301 < 399
P-value 2.10198558684e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^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 253
Total TN 89076
Total FP 77
Total FP CONTRA 3
Total FP INCONS 56
Total FP COMP 18
Total FN 301
Total Scores
MCC 0.607
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.584 ± 0.111
Sensitivity 0.457
Positive Predictive Value 0.811
Nr of predictions 14

^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
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_8 0.48 0.36 0.65 13 12226 10 0 7 3 23
3J3F_7 0.69 0.50 0.96 25 7234 1 0 1 0 25
3J3V_B 0.63 0.40 1.00 23 6998 0 0 0 0 34
3ZEX_D 0.77 0.65 0.91 32 6986 3 0 3 0 17
3ZND_W 0.45 0.39 0.53 9 2986 11 0 8 3 14
4A1C_3 0.59 0.41 0.85 22 7114 4 0 4 0 32
4A1C_2 0.17 0.15 0.20 5 11756 24 2 18 4 28
4AOB_A 0.72 0.55 0.96 23 4347 2 0 1 1 19
4ENC_A 0.51 0.26 1.00 5 1321 0 0 0 0 14

^top



Performance of NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for NanoFolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 155
Total TN 88807
Total FP 463
Total FP CONTRA 52
Total FP INCONS 374
Total FP COMP 37
Total FN 399
Total Scores
MCC 0.269
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.291 ± 0.118
Sensitivity 0.280
Positive Predictive Value 0.267
Nr of predictions 14

^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
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_7 0.35 0.33 0.37 18 7091 31 1 30 0 36
3J3E_8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 7466 47 6 31 10 33
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
3ZEX_D 0.26 0.27 0.27 13 6972 36 1 35 0 36
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
4ENC_A 0.57 0.58 0.58 11 1307 9 0 8 1 8

^top


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