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 Sfold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric RNASampler(20) Sfold
MCC 0.612 > 0.560
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.633 ± 0.067 > 0.559 ± 0.072
Sensitivity 0.471 > 0.466
Positive Predictive Value 0.799 > 0.677
Total TP 708 > 701
Total TN 283821 > 283671
Total FP 252 < 425
Total FP CONTRA 28 < 35
Total FP INCONS 150 < 300
Total FP COMP 74 < 90
Total FN 796 < 803
P-value 5.23657817852e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 Sfold).

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

^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 Sfold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Sfold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 701
Total TN 283671
Total FP 425
Total FP CONTRA 35
Total FP INCONS 300
Total FP COMP 90
Total FN 803
Total Scores
MCC 0.560
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.559 ± 0.072
Sensitivity 0.466
Positive Predictive Value 0.677
Nr of predictions 38

^top



2. Individual counts for Sfold [ 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 0.53 0.53 0.53 9 2833 13 5 3 5 8
2XQD_Y 0.77 0.67 0.90 18 2830 2 0 2 0 9
3A2K_C 0.42 0.39 0.46 11 2902 13 2 11 0 17
3AMU_B 0.70 0.59 0.84 16 2984 5 0 3 2 11
3G4S_9 0.51 0.39 0.69 22 7349 10 1 9 0 35
3GX2_A 0.72 0.55 0.96 22 4348 2 0 1 1 18
3IVN_B 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 2327 0 0 0 0 12
3IZ4_A 0.52 0.42 0.65 56 70790 31 3 27 1 76
3IZF_C 0.71 0.61 0.83 33 6863 7 0 7 0 21
3J20_0 0.43 0.40 0.48 12 2825 14 0 13 1 18
3J20_1 0.73 0.70 0.76 16 2905 6 0 5 1 7
3J2L_3 0.62 0.53 0.74 28 7837 12 0 10 2 25
3J3D_C 0.36 0.25 0.54 7 2762 6 0 6 0 21
3J3E_7 0.60 0.50 0.73 27 7103 10 1 9 0 27
3J3E_8 0.06 0.06 0.08 2 7477 32 2 22 8 31
3J3F_7 0.69 0.60 0.79 30 7222 8 1 7 0 20
3J3F_8 0.35 0.33 0.38 12 12214 34 3 17 14 24
3J3V_B 0.51 0.37 0.72 21 6992 8 0 8 0 36
3JYV_7 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2834 16 0 16 0 32
3JYX_4 0.35 0.30 0.42 10 12222 23 3 11 9 23
3JYX_3 0.62 0.63 0.61 17 6300 19 1 10 8 10
3LA5_A 0.78 0.62 1.00 21 2464 0 0 0 0 13
3NPB_A 0.77 0.65 0.91 30 6988 6 1 2 3 16
3O58_2 0.74 0.74 0.74 28 7222 11 3 7 1 10
3O58_3 0.43 0.34 0.55 12 12381 17 0 10 7 23
3PDR_A 0.69 0.56 0.85 40 12833 9 0 7 2 32
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.65 0.50 0.84 21 3891 4 1 3 0 21
3ZEX_D 0.74 0.63 0.86 31 6985 5 0 5 0 18
3ZEX_C 0.32 0.21 0.48 11 14173 26 1 11 14 41
3ZND_W 0.20 0.22 0.19 5 2977 22 1 20 1 18
4A1C_2 0.16 0.15 0.17 5 11751 34 2 23 9 28
4A1C_3 0.69 0.57 0.84 31 7103 6 1 5 0 23
4AOB_A 0.50 0.40 0.63 17 4344 11 2 8 1 25
4ENB_A 0.76 0.58 1.00 11 1264 0 0 0 0 8
4ENC_A 0.51 0.26 1.00 5 1321 0 0 0 0 14
4FRG_B 0.62 0.47 0.83 15 3468 3 1 2 0 17

^top


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