Table 9

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

Method

MCL

MCLO

MCL-CAw

CMC

HACO


#Predicted

136

121

129

171

104


Wodak

(#153)

#Matched

68

73

80

86

68

Precision

0.500

0.603

0.620

0.503

0.654

#Derived

76

73

80

86

76

Recall

0.497

0.477

0.523

0.562

0.497


MIPS'

(#151)

#Matched

47

56

63

65

41

Precision

0.346

0.463

0.488

0.380

0.394

#Derived

60

56

63

65

55

Recall

0.397

0.371

0.417

0.430

0.364


Aloy

(#75)

#Matched

58

56

59

59

53

Precision

0.426

0.463

0.457

0.345

0.510

#Derived

56

56

59

59

53

Recall

0.747

0.747

0.787

0.787

0.707


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

The ICD(Gavin+Krogan) network

#Proteins 1628; #Interactions 8707

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

Open Data