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 RNAshapes - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric RNAshapes Mastr(20)
MCC 0.517 > 0.500
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.529 ± 0.077 > 0.458 ± 0.108
Sensitivity 0.453 > 0.336
Positive Predictive Value 0.595 < 0.749
Total TP 681 > 506
Total TN 283563 < 284031
Total FP 565 > 202
Total FP CONTRA 47 > 19
Total FP INCONS 416 > 151
Total FP COMP 102 > 32
Total FN 823 < 998
P-value 3.53079410487e-06

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of RNAshapes and Mastr(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 RNAshapes and Mastr(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 RNAshapes and Mastr(20)).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for RNAshapes and Mastr(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 RNAshapes and Mastr(20)).

^top





Performance of RNAshapes - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAshapes

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 681
Total TN 283563
Total FP 565
Total FP CONTRA 47
Total FP INCONS 416
Total FP COMP 102
Total FN 823
Total Scores
MCC 0.517
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.529 ± 0.077
Sensitivity 0.453
Positive Predictive Value 0.595
Nr of predictions 38

^top



2. Individual counts for RNAshapes [ 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 0.59 0.59 0.59 10 2833 12 4 3 5 7
2XQD_Y 0.64 0.56 0.75 15 2830 5 0 5 0 12
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 0.41 0.32 0.53 18 7347 16 1 15 0 39
3GX2_A 0.76 0.63 0.93 25 4344 3 0 2 1 15
3IVN_B 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 2327 0 0 0 0 12
3IZ4_A 0.52 0.45 0.60 60 70776 45 6 34 5 72
3IZF_C 0.59 0.52 0.68 28 6862 13 1 12 0 26
3J20_0 0.43 0.40 0.48 12 2825 14 0 13 1 18
3J20_1 0.96 0.91 1.00 21 2905 0 0 0 0 2
3J2L_3 0.59 0.51 0.69 27 7836 14 0 12 2 26
3J3D_C 0.60 0.54 0.68 15 2753 7 0 7 0 13
3J3E_7 0.48 0.41 0.58 22 7102 16 1 15 0 32
3J3E_8 0.17 0.15 0.19 5 7477 29 2 19 8 28
3J3F_7 0.68 0.58 0.81 29 7224 7 1 6 0 21
3J3F_8 0.30 0.31 0.30 11 12209 39 3 23 13 25
3J3V_B 0.20 0.16 0.26 9 6987 25 0 25 0 48
3JYV_7 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2830 20 0 20 0 32
3JYX_4 0.31 0.30 0.31 10 12214 35 5 17 13 23
3JYX_3 0.63 0.63 0.63 17 6301 21 1 9 11 10
3LA5_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2465 0 0 0 0 14
3NPB_A 0.77 0.63 0.94 29 6990 4 1 1 2 17
3O58_2 0.60 0.61 0.59 23 7221 18 4 12 2 15
3O58_3 0.34 0.34 0.34 12 12368 37 2 21 14 23
3PDR_A 0.67 0.56 0.80 40 12830 12 0 10 2 32
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.64 0.52 0.79 22 3888 6 1 5 0 20
3ZEX_D 0.76 0.63 0.91 31 6987 3 0 3 0 18
3ZEX_C 0.23 0.21 0.25 11 14152 41 1 32 8 41
3ZND_W 0.20 0.22 0.19 5 2977 22 1 20 1 18
4A1C_2 0.14 0.15 0.14 5 11746 41 5 25 11 28
4A1C_3 0.68 0.57 0.82 31 7102 7 1 6 0 23
4AOB_A 0.50 0.40 0.63 17 4344 11 2 8 1 25
4ENB_A 0.70 0.58 0.85 11 1262 2 1 1 0 8
4ENC_A 0.32 0.26 0.42 5 1314 7 1 6 0 14
4FRG_B 0.32 0.28 0.38 9 3462 15 0 15 0 23

^top



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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 506
Total TN 284031
Total FP 202
Total FP CONTRA 19
Total FP INCONS 151
Total FP COMP 32
Total FN 998
Total Scores
MCC 0.500
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.458 ± 0.108
Sensitivity 0.336
Positive Predictive Value 0.749
Nr of predictions 38

^top



2. Individual counts for Mastr(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 12 5 3 4 7
2XQD_Y 0.88 0.78 1.00 21 2829 0 0 0 0 6
3A2K_C 0.72 0.61 0.85 17 2906 3 0 3 0 11
3AMU_B 0.77 0.59 1.00 16 2987 1 0 0 1 11
3G4S_9 0.48 0.32 0.75 18 7357 8 1 5 2 39
3GX2_A 0.39 0.28 0.55 11 4351 10 0 9 1 29
3IVN_B 0.78 0.65 0.95 20 2325 1 1 0 0 11
3IZ4_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 70876 0 0 0 0 132
3IZF_C 0.73 0.63 0.85 34 6863 7 1 5 1 20
3J20_0 0.84 0.70 1.00 21 2829 1 0 0 1 9
3J20_1 0.25 0.22 0.29 5 2909 12 0 12 0 18
3J2L_3 0.34 0.25 0.48 13 7848 16 1 13 2 40
3J3D_C 0.82 0.71 0.95 20 2754 1 0 1 0 8
3J3E_7 0.66 0.57 0.76 31 7099 10 1 9 0 23
3J3E_8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 7503 0 0 0 0 33
3J3F_7 0.72 0.64 0.82 32 7221 8 0 7 1 18
3J3F_8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 12246 0 0 0 0 36
3J3V_B 0.19 0.12 0.30 7 6998 16 0 16 0 50
3JYV_7 0.81 0.66 1.00 21 2829 0 0 0 0 11
3JYX_4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 12246 0 0 0 0 33
3JYX_3 0.56 0.56 0.58 15 6302 23 1 10 12 12
3LA5_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2465 0 0 0 0 14
3NPB_A 0.30 0.24 0.39 11 6993 18 1 16 1 35
3O58_2 0.76 0.76 0.76 29 7222 12 3 6 3 9
3O58_3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 12403 0 0 0 0 35
3PDR_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 12880 0 0 0 0 72
3RKF_A 0.70 0.50 1.00 17 2194 0 0 0 0 17
3SD1_A 0.61 0.50 0.75 21 3888 7 1 6 0 21
3ZEX_D 0.80 0.71 0.90 35 6982 4 0 4 0 14
3ZEX_C 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 14196 0 0 0 0 52
3ZND_W -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2988 16 3 12 1 23
4A1C_2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 11781 0 0 0 0 33
4A1C_3 0.70 0.59 0.84 32 7102 7 0 6 1 22
4AOB_A 0.39 0.26 0.58 11 4352 9 0 8 1 31
4ENB_A 0.39 0.16 1.00 3 1272 0 0 0 0 16
4ENC_A 0.51 0.26 1.00 5 1321 0 0 0 0 14
4FRG_B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 3486 0 0 0 0 32

^top


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