Table 1

Summary of matches and mismatches between databases

Databases

True Positives

False Positives

True Negatives

False Negatives

Correlation Coefficient


TIGRfam

373

1832

2340

3277

- 0.37

HAMAP

192

1629

2592

3458

- 0.39

PRINTS

88

1723

2524

3562

- 0.45

EC: Numbers

288

3369

2382

3362

- 0.51

PROSITE

161

2226

2076

3489

- 0.51

PFAM

305

2729

1329

3345

- 0.60

INTERPRO

502

3758

1095

3148

- 0.63

GO:TERMS

349

7356

1344

3301

- 0.71

COG

71

2095

972

3579

- 0.71

Composite

838

15219

2839

2812

- 0.52


EcoCyc data compared to BASys Database sources was listed in column: 1. Column: 2 to 4 Show the number of matching annotation terms between the databases that were true positives, false positives, true negatives and false negatives. Column: 6 show the correlation coefficient for each of the databases. The composite is the sum of column data.

Marpuri and Rinehart BMC Bioinformatics 2009 10(Suppl 7):A10   doi:10.1186/1471-2105-10-S7-A10

Open Data