Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 6 Comparison in terms of biological relevance between each pair of conserved protein complexes predicted by each method based one AlignNemo’s dataset

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) 126 2.669 4.9984 1.8629 2.5173
UEDAMAlignCMC 127 2.3109 4.669 1.661 2.223
UEDAMAlignCoach 1,019 2.0566 3.784 1.5193 2.0422
UEDAMAlignKnownComplex 160 2.7962 7.16 1.7741 2.4475
UEDAMAlignMCL 697 1.9411 3.0208 1.3032 1.6191
AlignNemo 248 1.7501 3.5919 0.916 1.3803
AlignMCL 683 1.2522 2.283 1.019 1.4451
Methods Human-fly
Conserved pairs \(Avg\_mixed\) \(Avg\_human\) \(Avg\_fly\) \(Avg\_intra\)
UEDAMAlignCFinder (k = 4) 116 3.7834 4.0505 3.583 3.7361
UEDAMAlignCMC 288 3.7938 4.2582 3.6216 3.6653
UEDAMAlignCoach 2,978 3.6269 3.9705 3.4952 3.5129
UEDAMAlignKnownComplex 333 4.8623 5.9331 4.5124 4.5783
UEDAMAlignMCL 679 2.3677 2.3178 2.1294 2.3791
AlignNemo 114 2.7493 2.9498 2.7695 2.5799
AlignMCL 732 2.2485 2.2044 1.7298 2.2649