Table 2

Comparison of performance as a function of window size for the Mus musculus organism.

Organism: Mus musculus


Window size

Ac

Pr

Se

Sp

Adj


Evaluation of windows of symmetric size


-8+8

87,77 (1,50)

22,46 (2,41)

79,82 (9,16)

88,11 (1,69)

83,97 (4,25)

-12+12

91,35 (1,15)

29,91 (3,87)

81,13 (7,56)

91,77 (1,11)

86,45 (3,90)

-20+20

94,03 (0,69)

39,08 (4,15)

81,06 (5,96)

94,58 (0,66)

87,82 (3,03)

-30+30

96,42 (0,61)

54,08 (5,68)

81,99 (9,10)

97,03 (0,63)

89,51 (4,48)

-40+40

97,49 (0,55)

66,18 (7,68)

77,06 (6,66)

98,32 (0,63)

87,69 (3,22)

-50+50

98,21 (0,41)

77,95 (6,78)

74,17 (8,29)

99,16 (0,30)

86,66 (4,15)

-60+60

98,27 (0,53)

82,74 (4,66)

68,20 (11,75)

99,45 (0,18)

83,83 (5,86)


Evaluation of windows of asymmetric size


Evaluation of upstream region


-8+30

94,35 (0,89)

41,07 (5,44)

82,03 (8,65)

94,87 (0,96)

88,45 (4,22)

-10+30

95,23 (1,09)

46,44 (9,42)

82,13 (8,94)

95,79 (1,12)

88,96 (4,48)

-12+30

94,77 (0,89)

43,99 (10,75)

81,28 (9,13)

95,29 (1,19)

88,28 (4,44)

-30+30

96,42 (0,61)

54,08 (5,68)

81,99 (9,10)

97,03 (0,63)

89,51 (4,48)

-50+30

97,39 (0,60)

63,65 (10,54)

78,45 (8,34)

98,14 (0,67)

88,30 (4,08)


Evaluation of downstream region


-10+10

89,96 (1,35)

27,01 (3,19)

82,80 (7,96)

90,26 (1,60)

86,53 (3,51)

-10+20

92,44 (1,25)

33,49 (4,60)

81,85 (8,79)

92,90 (1,43)

87,37 (4,13)

-10+30

95,23 (1,09)

46,44 (9,42)

82,13 (8,94)

95,79 (1,12)

88,96 (4,48)

-10+50

96,29 (0,98)

54,67 (10,78)

78,77 (7,13)

97,04 (1,09)

87,90 (3,47)


These results were obtained using class balancing and the M-Clus method. No features were considered and the method of including acquired knowledge, InAKnow, was not used.

Silva et al. BMC Genomics 2011 12(Suppl 4):S9   doi:10.1186/1471-2164-12-S4-S9

Open Data