Table 1 |
|||||||
|
Performance of the different module finding algorithms on the S. cerevisiae osmotic shock data |
|||||||
|
Solution |
No. of modules |
Total nodes |
Average size |
Expression homogeneity |
Clustering coefficient |
Edge density |
No. of connected components |
|
|
|||||||
|
MATISSE |
20 |
2107 |
105.35 |
0.361 |
0.073 |
0.035 |
1.00 |
|
Co-clustering |
19 |
1991 |
104.79 |
0.354 |
0.035 |
0.010 |
89.67 |
|
CLICK |
20 |
1988 |
99.40 |
0.438 |
0.030 |
0.011 |
77.61 |
|
Random connected |
20 |
2107 |
105.35 |
0.063 |
0.050 |
0.036 |
1.00 |
|
Random |
20 |
2105 |
105.35 |
0.033 |
0.004 |
0.003 |
89.78 |
|
|
|||||||
|
Numbers in columns 4–8 are averages over all the modules in each solution. |
|||||||
|
Ulitsky and Shamir BMC Systems Biology 2007 1:8 doi:10.1186/1752-0509-1-8 |
|||||||