Table 9

Performance of BioHEL for the compared reduced alphabets in the CN and RSA datasets.

Alphabet

% Acc. on CN dataset

% Acc. on RSA dataset

AA

74.0 ± 0.6

70.7 ± 0.4

DualRMI

73.3 ± 0.5

70.3 ± 0.4

WW5

73.1 ± 0.7

69.6 ± 0.4•

SR5

73.1 ± 0.7

69.6 ± 0.4•

MU4

72.6 ± 0.7•

69.4 ± 0.4•▼

MM5

73.1 ± 0.6

69.3 ± 0.3•▼

HD1

72.9 ± 0.6

69.3 ± 0.4•▼

HD2

73.0 ± 0.6

69.3 ± 0.4•▼

HD3

73.2 ± 0.6

69.9 ± 0.4•

A • marks reduced datasets where BioHEL performs significantly worse than the AA type dataset according to the t-tests with a 99% confidence level. A ▼ marks the alphabets that performed significantly worse than the DualRMI strategy.

Bacardit et al. BMC Bioinformatics 2009 10:6   doi:10.1186/1471-2105-10-6