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 RNAfold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric RNAfold NanoFolder
MCC 0.503 > 0.272
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.495 ± 0.101 > 0.326 ± 0.081
Sensitivity 0.439 > 0.284
Positive Predictive Value 0.583 > 0.269
Total TP 434 > 281
Total TN 155533 > 155234
Total FP 363 < 805
Total FP CONTRA 26 < 93
Total FP INCONS 285 < 670
Total FP COMP 52 > 42
Total FN 555 < 708
P-value 5.1503931209e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of RNAfold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAfold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 434
Total TN 155533
Total FP 363
Total FP CONTRA 26
Total FP INCONS 285
Total FP COMP 52
Total FN 555
Total Scores
MCC 0.503
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.495 ± 0.101
Sensitivity 0.439
Positive Predictive Value 0.583
Nr of predictions 26

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.61 0.55 0.69 11 1524 5 0 5 0 9
2LKR_A - 0.93 0.87 1.00 34 6071 3 0 0 3 5
2M58_A - 0.34 0.29 0.42 5 1641 7 1 6 0 12
3J16_L 0.75 0.57 1.00 17 2758 0 0 0 0 13
3J20_1 0.96 0.91 1.00 21 2905 2 0 0 2 2
3J2L_3 0.62 0.53 0.74 28 7837 12 0 10 2 25
3J3D_C 0.28 0.25 0.32 7 2753 15 1 14 0 21
3J3E_8 0.16 0.15 0.19 5 7476 31 2 20 9 28
3J3E_7 0.58 0.48 0.70 26 7103 11 1 10 0 28
3J3F_8 0.30 0.31 0.31 11 12210 39 4 21 14 25
3J3F_7 0.73 0.64 0.84 32 7222 7 0 6 1 18
3J3V_B 0.54 0.44 0.68 25 6984 12 1 11 0 32
3U4M_B - 0.38 0.32 0.46 12 3134 14 0 14 0 25
3UZL_B 0.48 0.38 0.61 14 3547 9 0 9 0 23
3W3S_B 0.55 0.50 0.61 20 4720 14 1 12 1 20
3ZEX_D 0.77 0.65 0.91 32 6986 3 0 3 0 17
3ZEX_G - 0.66 0.57 0.76 42 16416 18 0 13 5 32
3ZEX_E - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 21893 54 4 48 2 77
3ZND_W 0.20 0.22 0.19 5 2977 22 1 20 1 18
4A1C_3 0.70 0.59 0.82 32 7101 7 1 6 0 22
4A1C_2 0.14 0.15 0.14 5 11744 43 5 27 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 0.32 0.26 0.42 5 1314 7 1 6 0 14
4JF2_A 0.76 0.61 0.95 19 2830 1 0 1 0 12
4JRC_A - 0.29 0.26 0.35 6 1523 11 0 11 0 17

^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.