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 ProbKnot - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric ProbKnot NanoFolder
MCC 0.492 > 0.272
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.464 ± 0.117 > 0.326 ± 0.081
Sensitivity 0.434 > 0.284
Positive Predictive Value 0.565 > 0.269
Total TP 429 > 281
Total TN 155519 > 155234
Total FP 383 < 805
Total FP CONTRA 29 < 93
Total FP INCONS 301 < 670
Total FP COMP 53 > 42
Total FN 560 < 708
P-value 5.23657817852e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of ProbKnot - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for ProbKnot

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 429
Total TN 155519
Total FP 383
Total FP CONTRA 29
Total FP INCONS 301
Total FP COMP 53
Total FN 560
Total Scores
MCC 0.492
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.464 ± 0.117
Sensitivity 0.434
Positive Predictive Value 0.565
Nr of predictions 26

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1525 15 2 13 0 20
2LKR_A - 0.85 0.77 0.94 30 6073 4 0 2 2 9
2M58_A - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1638 15 0 15 0 17
3J16_L 0.35 0.33 0.38 10 2749 16 1 15 0 20
3J20_1 0.71 0.70 0.73 16 2904 7 0 6 1 7
3J2L_3 0.60 0.49 0.74 26 7840 11 0 9 2 27
3J3D_C 0.46 0.43 0.50 12 2751 12 1 11 0 16
3J3E_8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 7476 37 3 24 10 33
3J3E_7 0.47 0.35 0.63 19 7110 11 0 11 0 35
3J3F_8 0.35 0.33 0.36 12 12213 35 3 18 14 24
3J3F_7 0.76 0.64 0.91 32 7225 3 0 3 0 18
3J3V_B 0.53 0.42 0.67 24 6985 12 1 11 0 33
3U4M_B - 0.45 0.35 0.59 13 3138 9 1 8 0 24
3UZL_B 0.73 0.62 0.85 23 3543 4 0 4 0 14
3W3S_B 0.89 0.80 1.00 32 4721 1 0 0 1 8
3ZEX_D 0.77 0.67 0.89 33 6984 4 0 4 0 16
3ZEX_G - 0.77 0.66 0.91 49 16417 10 0 5 5 25
3ZEX_E - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 21886 61 2 57 2 77
3ZND_W 0.20 0.22 0.19 5 2977 24 1 20 3 18
4A1C_3 0.73 0.61 0.87 33 7102 6 1 4 1 21
4A1C_2 0.13 0.15 0.12 5 11738 49 7 31 11 28
4AOB_A 0.50 0.40 0.63 17 4344 11 2 8 1 25
4ATO_G - 0.32 0.30 0.38 3 520 5 1 4 0 7
4ENC_A 0.45 0.42 0.50 8 1310 8 1 7 0 11
4JF2_A 0.80 0.71 0.92 22 2826 2 2 0 0 9
4JRC_A - 0.25 0.22 0.31 5 1524 11 0 11 0 18

^top



Performance of NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for NanoFolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 281
Total TN 155234
Total FP 805
Total FP CONTRA 93
Total FP INCONS 670
Total FP COMP 42
Total FN 708
Total Scores
MCC 0.272
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.326 ± 0.081
Sensitivity 0.284
Positive Predictive Value 0.269
Nr of predictions 26

^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
3ZEX_E - 0.03 0.04 0.03 3 21859 85 9 74 2 74
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
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.