Table 3

Comparison of performance as a function of window size for the Rattus novergicus organism.

Organism: Rattus novergicus


Window size

Ac

Pr

Se

Sp

Adj


Evaluation of windows of symmetric size


-8+8

92,28 (0,85)

7,77 (1,69)

84,17 (15,04)

92,34 (0,88)

88,25 (7,39)

-12+12

94,27 (1,09)

9,75 (1,67)

79,09 (15,84)

94,39 (1,16)

86,74 (7,58)

-20+20

96,99 (0,97)

19,06 (9,96)

76,11 (21,38)

97,16 (1,10)

86,63 (10,39)

-30+30

98,95 (0,28)

39,69 (10,19)

72,05 (17,56)

99,15 (0,32)

85,60 (8,72)

-40+40

99,56 (0,20)

72,17 (16,36)

71,21 (12,16)

99,76 (0,18)

85,49 (6,07)

-50+50

99,67 (0,18)

89,40 (11,72)

62,75 (17,34)

99,94 (0,06)

81,35 (8,66)

-60+60

99,70 (0,12)

94,67 (8,19)

59,54 (11,39)

99,97 (0,04)

79,76 (5,70)


Evaluation of windows of asymmetric size


Evaluation of upstream region


-8+30

97,07 (0,97)

20,40 (6,78)

83,17 (11,21)

95,15 (0,98)

89,16 (5,56)

-10+30

97,14 (0,76)

19,35 (4,36)

82,09 (14,05)

97,26 (0,79)

89,67 (6,91)

-12+30

98,70 (0,52)

24,72 (7,45)

76,47 (16,50)

98,70 (0,43)

87,58 (8,05)

-30+30

98,95 (0,28)

39,69 (10,19)

72,05 (17,56)

99,15 (0,32)

85,60 (8,72)

-50+30

99,65 (0,18)

84,63 (11,14)

64,00 (16,81)

99,91 (0,08)

81,95 (8,39)


Evaluation of downstream region


-10+10

93,76 (1,16)

8,94 (1,45)

78,09 (14,08)

93,88 (1,22)

85,99 (6,73)

-10+20

95,21 (0,85)

11,75 (2,11)

80,09 (11,04)

95,32 (0,87)

87,70 (5,46)

-10+30

97,14 (0,76)

19,35 (4,36)

82,09 (14,05)

97,26 (0,79)

89,67 (6,91)

-10+50

98,80 (0,27)

37,76 (7,45)

78,09 (17,84)

98,97 (0,24)

88,53 (8,92)


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