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 RNASampler(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of Carnac(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric RNASampler(20) Carnac(20)
MCC 0.612 > 0.590
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.633 ± 0.067 > 0.566 ± 0.072
Sensitivity 0.471 > 0.389
Positive Predictive Value 0.799 < 0.899
Total TP 708 > 585
Total TN 283821 < 284056
Total FP 252 > 92
Total FP CONTRA 28 > 9
Total FP INCONS 150 > 57
Total FP COMP 74 > 26
Total FN 796 < 919
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of RNASampler(20) and Carnac(20). 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 RNASampler(20) and Carnac(20)).

  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 RNASampler(20) and Carnac(20)).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for RNASampler(20) and Carnac(20). 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 RNASampler(20) and Carnac(20)).

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 708
Total TN 283821
Total FP 252
Total FP CONTRA 28
Total FP INCONS 150
Total FP COMP 74
Total FN 796
Total Scores
MCC 0.612
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.633 ± 0.067
Sensitivity 0.471
Positive Predictive Value 0.799
Nr of predictions 38

^top



2. Individual counts for RNASampler(20) [ 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 0.88 0.78 1.00 21 2829 0 0 0 0 6
3A2K_C 0.86 0.75 1.00 21 2905 0 0 0 0 7
3AMU_B 0.82 0.70 0.95 19 2983 3 0 1 2 8
3G4S_9 0.50 0.28 0.89 16 7363 2 1 1 0 41
3GX2_A 0.74 0.55 1.00 22 4349 1 0 0 1 18
3IVN_B 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 2327 0 0 0 0 12
3IZ4_A 0.47 0.32 0.69 42 70815 23 6 13 4 90
3IZF_C 0.74 0.57 0.97 31 6871 1 0 1 0 23
3J20_0 0.80 0.67 0.95 20 2829 2 0 1 1 10
3J20_1 0.96 0.91 1.00 21 2905 0 0 0 0 2
3J2L_3 0.45 0.32 0.63 17 7848 12 1 9 2 36
3J3D_C 0.82 0.71 0.95 20 2754 1 0 1 0 8
3J3E_7 0.62 0.48 0.81 26 7108 6 0 6 0 28
3J3E_8 0.12 0.09 0.18 3 7486 21 2 12 7 30
3J3F_7 0.66 0.52 0.84 26 7229 5 0 5 0 24
3J3F_8 0.39 0.33 0.46 12 12220 17 1 13 3 24
3J3V_B 0.63 0.42 0.96 24 6996 1 0 1 0 33
3JYV_7 0.81 0.66 1.00 21 2829 0 0 0 0 11
3JYX_4 0.32 0.30 0.34 10 12217 26 4 15 7 23
3JYX_3 0.58 0.44 0.75 12 6312 11 0 4 7 15
3LA5_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2465 0 0 0 0 14
3NPB_A 0.68 0.48 0.96 22 6998 4 1 0 3 24
3O58_2 0.79 0.71 0.87 27 7229 5 2 2 1 11
3O58_3 0.43 0.34 0.55 12 12381 18 2 8 8 23
3PDR_A 0.70 0.53 0.93 38 12839 5 0 3 2 34
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.67 0.48 0.95 20 3895 1 0 1 0 22
3ZEX_D 0.68 0.49 0.96 24 6996 1 0 1 0 25
3ZEX_C 0.27 0.19 0.38 10 14170 20 1 15 4 42
3ZND_W 0.41 0.39 0.43 9 2982 15 2 10 3 14
4A1C_2 0.18 0.15 0.23 5 11759 30 0 17 13 28
4A1C_3 0.74 0.56 1.00 30 7110 0 0 0 0 24
4AOB_A 0.58 0.40 0.85 17 4351 4 0 3 1 25
4ENB_A 0.60 0.37 1.00 7 1268 0 0 0 0 12
4ENC_A 0.76 0.58 1.00 11 1315 0 0 0 0 8
4FRG_B 0.55 0.41 0.76 13 3469 4 0 4 0 19

^top



Performance of Carnac(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 585
Total TN 284056
Total FP 92
Total FP CONTRA 9
Total FP INCONS 57
Total FP COMP 26
Total FN 919
Total Scores
MCC 0.590
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.566 ± 0.072
Sensitivity 0.389
Positive Predictive Value 0.899
Nr of predictions 38

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KDQ_B 0.73 0.55 1.00 6 400 0 0 0 0 5
2WRQ_Y 0.57 0.59 0.56 10 2832 13 5 3 5 7
2XQD_Y 0.79 0.63 1.00 17 2833 0 0 0 0 10
3A2K_C 0.78 0.61 1.00 17 2909 0 0 0 0 11
3AMU_B 0.69 0.59 0.80 16 2983 6 0 4 2 11
3G4S_9 0.50 0.28 0.89 16 7363 2 1 1 0 41
3GX2_A 0.57 0.33 1.00 13 4358 0 0 0 0 27
3IVN_B 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 2327 0 0 0 0 12
3IZ4_A 0.47 0.23 0.94 31 70843 2 0 2 0 101
3IZF_C 0.73 0.56 0.97 30 6872 1 0 1 0 24
3J20_0 0.62 0.53 0.73 16 2828 7 0 6 1 14
3J20_1 0.86 0.74 1.00 17 2909 0 0 0 0 6
3J2L_3 0.46 0.34 0.64 18 7847 11 0 10 1 35
3J3D_C 0.82 0.71 0.95 20 2754 1 0 1 0 8
3J3E_7 0.65 0.44 0.96 24 7115 1 0 1 0 30
3J3E_8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 7503 0 0 0 0 33
3J3F_7 0.66 0.44 1.00 22 7238 0 0 0 0 28
3J3F_8 0.50 0.25 1.00 9 12237 0 0 0 0 27
3J3V_B 0.58 0.35 0.95 20 7000 1 0 1 0 37
3JYV_7 0.68 0.50 0.94 16 2833 1 0 1 0 16
3JYX_4 0.46 0.21 1.00 7 12239 2 0 0 2 26
3JYX_3 0.64 0.56 0.75 15 6308 10 1 4 5 12
3LA5_A 0.78 0.62 1.00 21 2464 0 0 0 0 13
3NPB_A 0.44 0.20 1.00 9 7012 2 0 0 2 37
3O58_2 0.83 0.71 0.96 27 7232 2 0 1 1 11
3O58_3 0.51 0.26 1.00 9 12394 0 0 0 0 26
3PDR_A 0.62 0.40 0.97 29 12850 3 0 1 2 43
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.60 0.38 0.94 16 3899 1 0 1 0 26
3ZEX_D 0.73 0.53 1.00 26 6995 0 0 0 0 23
3ZEX_C 0.31 0.13 0.70 7 14186 3 1 2 0 45
3ZND_W 0.47 0.39 0.56 9 2987 10 0 7 3 14
4A1C_2 0.33 0.15 0.71 5 11774 3 0 2 1 28
4A1C_3 0.67 0.52 0.88 28 7108 4 0 4 0 26
4AOB_A 0.49 0.33 0.74 14 4352 6 1 4 1 28
4ENB_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1275 0 0 0 0 19
4ENC_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1326 0 0 0 0 19
4FRG_B 0.43 0.19 1.00 6 3480 0 0 0 0 26

^top


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