Table 5

Comparative performance of DBNN and consensus methods against other leading methods tested on EVAc6.

Method

Q3 (%)

SOV (%)

CH

CE

CC


Subset 1 (80 chains)

Prospect

71.1

68.7

0.59

0.69

0.49

DBNN/ErrSig

78.8/1.34

74.8/1.74

0.72/0.03

0.64/0.04

0.62/0.02

Subset 2 (175 chains)

PROF_king

71.7

66.9

0.62

0.68

0.49

DBNN/ErrSig

77.3/0.86

71.9/1.27

0.71/0.02

0.64/0.03

0.57/0.02

Subset 3 (179 chains)

SAM-T99

77.1

74.4

0.66

0.68

0.53

DBNN/ErrSig

77.3/0.86

71.9/1.28

0.71/0.02

0.64/0.02

0.57/0.02

Subset 4 (212 chains)

PSIPRED

77.8

75.4

0.69

0.74

0.56

PROFsec

76.7

74.8

0.68

0.72

0.56

PHDpsi

75.0

70.9

0.66

0.69

0.53

DBNN/ErrSig

77.8/0.79

72.4/1.16

0.71/0.02

0.65/0.02

0.58/0.01

Subset 5 (73 chains)

SAM-T99

76.3

72.9

0.71

0.64

0.56

PSIPRED

75.8

72.1

0.70

0.64

0.57

PROFsec

75.3

73.0

0.68

0.61

0.54

PHDpsi

73.3

69.2

0.66

0.56

0.52

PROF_king

70.7

64.9

0.63

0.57

0.50

DBNN/ErrSig

76.4/1.48

72.4/2.06

0.73/0.04

0.67/0.04

0.59/0.03

CM1/ErrSig

77.2/1.14

73.2/1.87

0.73/0.04

0.66/0.04

0.58/0.02

CM2/ErrSig

77.7/1.17

73.4/1.78

0.74/0.04

0.67/0.04

0.60/0.02

CM3/ErrSig

78.1/1.17

74.4/1.76

0.75/0.04

0.67/0.04

0.60/0.02


DBNN and the three consensus methods (CM1, CM2, and CM3) developed in this work are compared with other leading methods on five subsets of EVAc6; each comparison is carried out with maximum number of common sequences. The results of the six existing methods, Prospect, PROF_king, SAM-T99, PROFsec, PHDpsi, and PSIPRED, are obtained directly from the EVA website.

Yao et al. BMC Bioinformatics 2008 9:49   doi:10.1186/1471-2105-9-49

Open Data