Table 11

Comparisons between the different methods on the Consolidated3.19 network

Method

MCL

MCLO

MCL-CAw

CMC

HACO


#Predicted

116

119

122

77

101


Wodak

(#145)

#Matched

70

80

82

67

57

Precision

0.603

0.672

0.672

0.870

0.564

#Derived

79

80

82

67

64

Recall

0.545

0.552

0.566

0.462

0.441


MIPS

(#157)

#Matched

48

65

68

56

40

Precision

0.414

0.546

0.557

0.727

0.396

#Derived

63

65

68

56

57

Recall

0.401

0.414

0.433

0.357

0.363


Aloy

(#76)

#Matched

54

56

57

45

44

Precision

0.466

0.471

0.467

0.584

0.436

#Derived

55

56

57

45

45

Recall

0.724

0.737

0.750

0.592

0.592


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

The Consolidated3.19 network

#Proteins 1622; #Interactions 9704

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

Open Data