Table 3 |
||||||
|
Case study results of TransportTP on five plant organisms. |
||||||
|
Organism |
Curated |
Predicted |
Matches |
Recall (%) |
Precision (%) |
Potential rate(%) |
|
|
||||||
|
S. Bicolor |
1918 |
1960 |
1485 |
77.4 |
75.8 |
7.7 |
|
P. trichocarpa |
2512 |
2889 |
1936 |
77.1 |
67.0 |
14.4 |
|
V. vinifera |
2188 |
2002 |
1540 |
70.4 |
76.9 |
5.5 |
|
P. patens |
1388 |
1380 |
1019 |
73.4 |
73.8 |
6.8 |
|
average |
74.6 |
73.4 |
8.6 |
|||
|
|
||||||
|
C. reinhardtii |
979 |
770 |
554 |
56.6 |
71.9 |
7.7 |
|
|
||||||
|
The manual curation and automatic prediction by TransportTP were compared in five plant organisms at the e-value threshold of 10. The column of curated is the number of transporters manually curated with confidence level 1 or level 2. The fourth column corresponds to the number of predictions matched the curation with confidence levels 1 and 2. The last column is the proportion of predictions matched the curation with confidence level 3. |
||||||
|
Li et al. BMC Bioinformatics 2009 10:418 doi:10.1186/1471-2105-10-418 |
||||||