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 Vsfold5 - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

  5. Compile and download dataset for Vsfold5 & NanoFolder [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric Vsfold5 NanoFolder
MCC 0.350 > 0.290
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.382 ± 0.109 > 0.337 ± 0.081
Sensitivity 0.302 < 0.303
Positive Predictive Value 0.415 > 0.287
Total TP 276 < 277
Total TN 139142 > 138841
Total FP 426 < 729
Total FP CONTRA 34 < 88
Total FP INCONS 355 < 601
Total FP COMP 37 < 40
Total FN 639 > 638
P-value 5.19332990918e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of Vsfold5 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 Vsfold5 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 Vsfold5 and NanoFolder).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Vsfold5 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 Vsfold5 and NanoFolder).

^top





Performance of Vsfold5 - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Vsfold5

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 276
Total TN 139142
Total FP 426
Total FP CONTRA 34
Total FP INCONS 355
Total FP COMP 37
Total FN 639
Total Scores
MCC 0.350
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.382 ± 0.109
Sensitivity 0.302
Positive Predictive Value 0.415
Nr of predictions 25

^top



2. Individual counts for Vsfold5 [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1527 13 0 13 0 20
2LKR_A - 0.27 0.23 0.32 9 6077 19 2 17 0 30
2M58_A - 0.32 0.24 0.44 4 1644 5 1 4 0 13
3J16_L 0.82 0.67 1.00 20 2755 0 0 0 0 10
3J20_1 0.71 0.70 0.73 16 2904 6 0 6 0 7
3J2L_3 0.56 0.45 0.71 24 7841 13 1 9 3 29
3J3D_C 0.60 0.54 0.68 15 2753 7 0 7 0 13
3J3E_8 0.06 0.06 0.08 2 7477 31 5 19 7 31
3J3E_7 0.47 0.37 0.61 20 7107 13 0 13 0 34
3J3F_8 0.33 0.33 0.33 12 12210 35 5 19 11 24
3J3F_7 0.21 0.18 0.26 9 7226 25 1 24 0 41
3J3V_B 0.16 0.12 0.21 7 6988 26 1 25 0 50
3U4M_B - 0.38 0.32 0.46 12 3134 14 0 14 0 25
3UZL_B 0.16 0.14 0.20 5 3545 20 1 19 0 32
3W3S_B 0.76 0.70 0.82 28 4719 7 1 5 1 12
3ZEX_E - 0.07 0.06 0.08 5 21886 54 5 49 0 72
3ZEX_D 0.08 0.06 0.11 3 6994 24 0 24 0 46
3ZND_W 0.41 0.39 0.43 9 2982 14 2 10 2 14
4A1C_2 0.24 0.24 0.24 8 11748 37 3 22 12 25
4A1C_3 0.26 0.22 0.32 12 7103 25 2 23 0 42
4AOB_A 0.18 0.14 0.25 6 4347 19 1 17 1 36
4ATO_G - 0.56 0.60 0.55 6 517 5 1 4 0 4
4ENC_A 0.86 0.79 0.94 15 1310 1 1 0 0 4
4JF2_A 0.84 0.77 0.92 24 2824 2 1 1 0 7
4JRC_A - 0.25 0.22 0.31 5 1524 11 0 11 0 18

^top



Performance of NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for NanoFolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 277
Total TN 138841
Total FP 729
Total FP CONTRA 88
Total FP INCONS 601
Total FP COMP 40
Total FN 638
Total Scores
MCC 0.290
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.337 ± 0.081
Sensitivity 0.303
Positive Predictive Value 0.287
Nr of predictions 25

^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_E - 0.03 0.04 0.03 3 21859 85 9 74 2 74
3ZEX_D 0.26 0.27 0.27 13 6972 36 1 35 0 36
3ZND_W 0.18 0.22 0.17 5 2973 29 6 19 4 18
4A1C_2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 11728 61 12 41 8 33
4A1C_3 0.48 0.46 0.51 25 7091 24 2 22 0 29
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.