Table 1 |
||||||||
|
Performance of indel annotation tools compared by different measures (ICA, IRA, IAC) on five-species alignments. |
||||||||
|
ICAa |
IRAb |
IACc (sensitivity) |
IACc (specificity) |
|||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Species |
Indelign |
sbInfer |
Indelign |
sbInfer |
Indelign |
sbInfer |
Indelign |
sbInfer |
|
|
||||||||
|
D. sim |
0.06 |
0.06 |
1.00 |
1.01 |
0.97 |
0.96 |
0.99 |
0.99 |
|
|
||||||||
|
D. mel |
0.04 |
0.04 |
1.00 |
1.01 |
0.99 |
0.99 |
0.99 |
0.98 |
|
|
||||||||
|
D. yak |
0.06 |
0.05 |
1.00 |
1.01 |
0.98 |
0.97 |
0.97 |
0.98 |
|
|
||||||||
|
D. ana |
0.08 |
0.07 |
1.00 |
1.00 |
0.93 |
0.91 |
0.93 |
0.96 |
|
|
||||||||
|
D. pse |
0.24 |
0.27 |
1.02 |
1.03 |
0.94 |
0.96 |
0.79 |
0.79 |
|
|
||||||||
|
aIndel Count Agreement (optimal value = 0) bIndel Ratio Agreement (optimal value = 1) cIndel Annotation Coverage (optimal value = 1) |
||||||||
|
Kim and Sinha BMC Bioinformatics 2010 11:54 doi:10.1186/1471-2105-11-54 |
||||||||
