Table 3 |
|||||||
|
Comparisons of our algorithm with method of [14]. |
|||||||
|
ID/Size |
ID/Size |
SAMO |
Method in [14] |
||||
|
Score |
rms |
m |
Score |
rms |
m |
||
|
|
|||||||
|
1CHO/238 |
1CHO/238 |
1.00 |
0.00 |
238 |
1.00 |
0. 00 |
238 |
|
1CHO/238 |
2CHA/236 |
0.99 |
0.55 |
236 |
0.99 |
0. 55 |
236 |
|
1CHO/238 |
2PTCE/223 |
0.85 |
0.85 |
212 |
0.84 |
0.85 |
211 |
|
1CHO/238 |
1TPO/223 |
0.82 |
0.80 |
208 |
0.81 |
0. 81 |
207 |
|
1CHO/238 |
1TGSE/225 |
0.78 |
0.88 |
203 |
0.78 |
0.89 |
203 |
|
1CHO/238 |
2PRK/279 |
0.25 |
1.77 |
104 |
0.25 |
1. 67 |
103 |
|
1CHO/238 |
3ACT/218 |
0.26 |
1.69 |
93 |
0.25 |
1.69 |
86 |
|
1CHO/238 |
1SBT/275 |
0.25 |
1.87 |
111 |
0.24 |
1. 76 |
96 |
|
1CHO/238 |
2SECE/274 |
0.27 |
1.90 |
117 |
0.23 |
1. 78 |
95 |
|
1CHO/238 |
1FX1/147 |
0.23 |
1.94 |
80 |
0.23 |
1.69 |
71 |
|
1CHO/238 |
1CSE/274 |
0.26 |
1.89 |
117 |
0.23 |
1.72 |
94 |
|
1CHO/238 |
1TECE/279 |
0.27 |
1.94 |
105 |
0.22 |
1.79 |
94 |
|
1CHO/238 |
9PAP/212 |
0.29 |
1.99 |
102 |
0.22 |
1. 74 |
81 |
|
|
|||||||
|
Chen et al. BMC Structural Biology 2006 6:18 doi:10.1186/1472-6807-6-18 |
|||||||
