Table 10

Comparisons between the different methods on the FSW(Gavin+Krogan) network

Method

MCL

MCLO

MCL-CAw

CMC

HACO


#Predicted

120

108

117

176

99


Wodak

(#153)

#Matched

69

61

72

76

68

Precision

0.575

0.564

0.615

0.432

0.687

#Derived

78

72

83

84

77

Recall

0.510

0.471

0.542

0.549

0.503


MIPS

(#151)

#Matched

46

42

48

49

42

Precision

0.383

0.388

0.410

0.278

0.424

#Derived

61

55

66

65

56

Recall

0.404

0.364

0.437

0.430

0.371


Aloy

(#75)

#Matched

57

56

60

59

53

Precision

0.475

0.518

0.513

0.335

0.535

#Derived

57

56

60

57

53

Recall

0.760

0.747

0.800

0.760

0.707


Methods considered: MCL, MCLO, MCL-CAw, CMC and HACO. HACO performed the best in terms of precision, while MCL-CAw and CMC performed the best in terms of recall. MCL-CAw was a close second in terms of precision. #Matched: #Predictions matching some benchmark complex(es). #Derived: #Benchmark complexes derived by some predicted complex(es).

The FSW(Gavin+Krogan) network

#Proteins 1628; #Interactions 8688

Srihari et al. BMC Bioinformatics 2010 11:504   doi:10.1186/1471-2105-11-504

Open Data