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 Pknots - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric Pknots NanoFolder
MCC 0.434 > 0.293
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.466 ± 0.103 > 0.338 ± 0.081
Sensitivity 0.387 > 0.305
Positive Predictive Value 0.495 > 0.290
Total TP 353 > 278
Total TN 133620 > 133375
Total FP 407 < 720
Total FP CONTRA 30 < 84
Total FP INCONS 330 < 596
Total FP COMP 47 > 40
Total FN 559 < 634
P-value 5.23657817852e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of Pknots 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 Pknots 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 Pknots and NanoFolder).

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

^top





Performance of Pknots - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Pknots

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 353
Total TN 133620
Total FP 407
Total FP CONTRA 30
Total FP INCONS 330
Total FP COMP 47
Total FN 559
Total Scores
MCC 0.434
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.466 ± 0.103
Sensitivity 0.387
Positive Predictive Value 0.495
Nr of predictions 25

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.79 0.75 0.83 15 1522 3 1 2 0 5
2LKR_A - 0.44 0.44 0.45 17 6067 22 4 17 1 22
2M58_A - 0.51 0.41 0.64 7 1642 4 1 3 0 10
3J16_L 0.34 0.30 0.41 9 2753 13 0 13 0 21
3J20_1 0.96 0.91 1.00 21 2905 0 0 0 0 2
3J2L_3 0.62 0.51 0.75 27 7839 12 0 9 3 26
3J3D_C 0.46 0.43 0.50 12 2751 12 1 11 0 16
3J3E_8 0.07 0.06 0.08 2 7479 33 2 20 11 31
3J3E_7 0.43 0.35 0.54 19 7105 16 1 15 0 35
3J3F_8 0.36 0.36 0.37 13 12211 34 2 20 12 23
3J3F_7 0.27 0.24 0.32 12 7222 27 1 25 1 38
3J3V_B 0.41 0.33 0.51 19 6984 18 1 17 0 38
3U4M_B - 0.26 0.22 0.32 8 3135 17 0 17 0 29
3UZL_B 0.75 0.59 0.96 22 3547 1 0 1 0 15
3W3S_B 0.71 0.63 0.81 25 4722 7 0 6 1 15
3ZEX_D 0.27 0.24 0.30 12 6981 28 0 28 0 37
3ZEX_G - 0.36 0.32 0.41 24 16413 37 3 31 3 50
3ZND_W 0.20 0.22 0.19 5 2977 23 1 20 2 18
4A1C_2 0.24 0.24 0.25 8 11749 36 3 21 12 25
4A1C_3 0.25 0.22 0.29 12 7099 29 1 28 0 42
4AOB_A 0.17 0.14 0.21 6 4343 23 1 21 1 36
4ATO_G - 0.30 0.30 0.33 3 519 6 2 4 0 7
4ENC_A 0.86 0.79 0.94 15 1310 1 1 0 0 4
4JF2_A 0.81 0.77 0.86 24 2822 4 3 1 0 7
4JRC_A - 0.81 0.70 0.94 16 1523 1 1 0 0 7

^top



Performance of NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for NanoFolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 278
Total TN 133375
Total FP 720
Total FP CONTRA 84
Total FP INCONS 596
Total FP COMP 40
Total FN 634
Total Scores
MCC 0.293
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.338 ± 0.081
Sensitivity 0.305
Positive Predictive Value 0.290
Nr of predictions 25

^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
2LC8_A 0.52 0.55 0.50 11 1518 11 0 11 0 9
2LKR_A - 0.29 0.33 0.25 13 6054 38 8 30 0 26
2M58_A - 0.43 0.47 0.40 8 1633 12 4 8 0 9
3J16_L 0.36 0.37 0.37 11 2745 19 3 16 0 19
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_8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 7466 47 6 31 10 33
3J3E_7 0.35 0.33 0.37 18 7091 31 1 30 0 36
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
3U4M_B - 0.61 0.57 0.66 21 3128 11 1 10 0 16
3UZL_B 0.36 0.35 0.38 13 3536 21 3 18 0 24
3W3S_B 0.17 0.18 0.18 7 4713 34 1 32 1 33
3ZEX_D 0.26 0.27 0.27 13 6972 36 1 35 0 36
3ZEX_G - 0.05 0.05 0.05 4 16393 76 5 69 2 70
3ZND_W 0.18 0.22 0.17 5 2973 29 6 19 4 18
4A1C_2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 11728 61 12 41 8 33
4A1C_3 0.48 0.46 0.51 25 7091 24 2 22 0 29
4AOB_A 0.33 0.29 0.39 12 4340 20 1 18 1 30
4ATO_G - 0.61 0.70 0.54 7 515 6 2 4 0 3
4ENC_A 0.57 0.58 0.58 11 1307 9 0 8 1 8
4JF2_A 0.51 0.55 0.49 17 2815 18 5 13 0 14
4JRC_A - 0.48 0.48 0.50 11 1518 11 0 11 0 12

^top


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