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 RNAalifold(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric RNAalifold(20) Carnac(20)
MCC 0.656 > 0.590
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.654 ± 0.059 > 0.566 ± 0.072
Sensitivity 0.511 > 0.389
Positive Predictive Value 0.846 < 0.899
Total TP 769 > 585
Total TN 283798 < 284056
Total FP 189 > 92
Total FP CONTRA 25 > 9
Total FP INCONS 115 > 57
Total FP COMP 49 > 26
Total FN 735 < 919
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 769
Total TN 283798
Total FP 189
Total FP CONTRA 25
Total FP INCONS 115
Total FP COMP 49
Total FN 735
Total Scores
MCC 0.656
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.654 ± 0.059
Sensitivity 0.511
Positive Predictive Value 0.846
Nr of predictions 38

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KDQ_B 0.60 0.36 1.00 4 402 0 0 0 0 7
2WRQ_Y 0.57 0.59 0.56 10 2832 11 5 3 3 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 0.86 0.74 1.00 20 2983 1 0 0 1 7
3G4S_9 0.69 0.49 0.97 28 7352 3 1 0 2 29
3GX2_A 0.77 0.60 1.00 24 4347 1 0 0 1 16
3IVN_B 0.74 0.58 0.95 18 2327 1 1 0 0 13
3IZ4_A 0.53 0.35 0.82 46 70820 15 4 6 5 86
3IZF_C 0.71 0.59 0.86 32 6866 5 1 4 0 22
3J20_0 0.84 0.70 1.00 21 2829 0 0 0 0 9
3J20_1 0.96 0.91 1.00 21 2905 0 0 0 0 2
3J2L_3 0.69 0.47 1.00 25 7850 2 0 0 2 28
3J3D_C 0.80 0.68 0.95 19 2755 1 0 1 0 9
3J3E_7 0.69 0.56 0.86 30 7105 5 1 4 0 24
3J3E_8 0.23 0.15 0.36 5 7489 9 1 8 0 28
3J3F_7 0.74 0.58 0.94 29 7229 2 0 2 0 21
3J3F_8 0.48 0.39 0.58 14 12222 17 1 9 7 22
3J3V_B 0.65 0.49 0.88 28 6989 4 0 4 0 29
3JYV_7 0.81 0.66 1.00 21 2829 0 0 0 0 11
3JYX_4 0.39 0.30 0.50 10 12226 15 0 10 5 23
3JYX_3 0.60 0.52 0.70 14 6308 17 0 6 11 13
3LA5_A 0.75 0.56 1.00 19 2466 0 0 0 0 15
3NPB_A 0.68 0.48 0.96 22 6998 3 1 0 2 24
3O58_2 0.79 0.76 0.83 29 7225 7 3 3 1 9
3O58_3 0.37 0.26 0.53 9 12386 8 2 6 0 26
3PDR_A 0.76 0.61 0.96 44 12834 3 0 2 1 28
3RKF_A 0.68 0.50 0.94 17 2193 1 0 1 0 17
3SD1_A 0.70 0.60 0.83 25 3886 5 1 4 0 17
3ZEX_D 0.80 0.69 0.92 34 6984 3 0 3 0 15
3ZEX_C 0.39 0.27 0.56 14 14171 14 1 10 3 38
3ZND_W 0.47 0.43 0.53 10 2984 11 0 9 2 13
4A1C_2 0.17 0.15 0.19 5 11755 23 2 19 2 28
4A1C_3 0.74 0.57 0.97 31 7108 1 0 1 0 23
4AOB_A 0.72 0.52 1.00 22 4349 1 0 0 1 20
4ENB_A 0.46 0.21 1.00 4 1271 0 0 0 0 15
4ENC_A 0.56 0.32 1.00 6 1320 0 0 0 0 13
4FRG_B 0.73 0.53 1.00 17 3469 0 0 0 0 15

^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.