Table 1 |
|||||
|
Fpocket performance |
|||||
|
Dataset |
Algorithm |
Rank 1 |
Rank 3 |
||
|
|
|||||
|
unbound |
bound |
unbound |
bound |
||
|
|
|||||
|
Pocket Picker |
|||||
|
Fpocket |
69 (67) |
83 (85) |
94 (92) |
92 (92) |
|
|
PocketPicker |
69 |
72 |
85 |
85 |
|
|
LIGSITE(CS) |
60 |
69 |
77 |
87 |
|
|
LIGSITE |
58 |
69 |
75 |
87 |
|
|
CAST |
58 |
67 |
75 |
83 |
|
|
PASS |
60 |
63 |
71 |
81 |
|
|
SURFNET |
52 |
54 |
75 |
78 |
|
|
LIGSITE(CSC) |
71 |
79 |
- |
- |
|
|
|
|||||
|
Cheng et al. |
|||||
|
Fpocket |
- |
75 (70) |
- |
95 (90) |
|
|
PocketPicker |
- |
70 |
- |
80 |
|
|
|
|||||
|
Astex Diverse set |
|||||
|
Fpocket |
- |
67 (73) |
- |
82 (88) |
|
|
PocketPicker |
- |
59 |
- |
67 |
|
|
|
|||||
|
Comparison of results obtained for fpocket and other approaches. For sake of comparison, scores are reported using the PPc, and we present scores at rank 1 and 3 (true pocket in the top 3 pockets proposed by fpocket). For the Pocket Picker dataset, results are taken from [23] for all but fpocket. For fpocket, numbers within parentheses correspond to scores obtained using the MOc. |
|||||
|
Le Guilloux et al. BMC Bioinformatics 2009 10:168 doi:10.1186/1471-2105-10-168 |
|||||
