Skip to main content

Table 3 Methods comparison on G Switch Proteins

From: Protein secondary structure prediction using a small training set (compact model) combined with a Complex-valued neural network approach

Method

Observed j

 

Predicted j

 

Q j (%)

Q 3 (%)

  

H

E

C

  
 

H

680

0

42

94.19

 

SSP 55

E

25

384

137

70.33

80.36

 

C

51

20

61

46.22

 
 

H

665

19

38

92.11

 

FLOPRED

E

41

380

125

69.6

78.72

 

C

49

26

57

43.19

 
 

H

556

50

116

77.01

 

PROTEUS 2

E

17

302

227

55.32

61.72

 

C

2

124

6

4.55

 
 

H

519

99

104

71.89

 

PSIPRED

E

167

243

136

44.51

57.36

 

C

5

86

41

31.07

 
 

H

405

99

218

56.1

 

PORTER 4.0

E

22

267

257

48.91

51.08

 

C

0

89

43

32.58

 
 

H

473

95

154

65.52

 

SPIDER2

E

112

213

221

39.02

50.79

 

C

0

107

25

18.94

 
 

H

368

162

192

50.97

 

SSPRO

E

13

312

221

57.15

50.43

 

C

1

105

26

19.7

 
Back to article page

BMC Bioinformatics

ISSN: 1471-2105

Contact us