Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 3 Comparison in terms of biological relevance between each pair of conserved protein complexes predicted by each method

From: Detecting conserved protein complexes using a dividing-and-matching algorithm and unequally lenient criteria for network comparison

Methods Yeast-fly
Conserved pairs \(Avg\_mixed\) \(Avg\_yeast\) \(Avg\_fly\) \(Avg\_intra\)
UEDAMAlignCFinder (k = 4) 129 3.96 5.3766 3.4259 3.7503
UEDAMAlignCMC 128 3.5266 4.9468 2.9469 3.3061
UEDAMAlignCoach 725 3.4729 4.4809 2.5707 3.1565
UEDAMAlignKnownComplex 148 4.5041 7.0767 3.7421 3.9779
UEDAMAlignMCL 862 2.3539 3.2412 1.4475 2.3063
AlignMCL 933 2.2563 2.9469 1.255 2.2319
Match-and-Split 27 4.069 5.7868 3.3512 3.614
Mawish 41 4.4942 5.9584 3.7828 4.2566
NetworkBlast 191 2.2865 2.8698 1.8388 2.198
Produles 95 3.4301 6.3427 2.525 2.8541
Methods Human-fly
Conserved pairs \(Avg\_mixed\) \(Avg\_human\) \(Avg\_fly\) \(Avg\_intra\)
UEDAMAlignCFinder (k = 4) 238 3.7826 4.0948 3.7551 3.6892
UEDAMAlignCMC 404 3.5078 4.0341 3.2929 3.3612
UEDAMAlignCoach 1,538 3.5807 4.0532 3.3599 3.4388
UEDAMAlignKnownComplex 515 4.8490 6.1202 4.4131 4.5720
UEDAMAlignMCL 1,453 2.2718 2.4197 1.905 2.2812
AlignMCL 1,117 2.4166 2.5095 1.7317 2.456
Match-and-Split 53 4.0713 4.484 4.6043 3.7865
Mawish 65 4.424 4.8343 4.9263 4.1549
NetworkBlast 164 3.3956 3.7568 3.3467 3.2386
Produles 187 3.8828 4.3098 4.2651 3.7342