Skip to main content

Table 5 Validation of selection strategy using a variety of prediction tools

From: In Silico screening for functional candidates amongst hypothetical proteins

Group Resulting proteins Hypothetical proteins Characterized proteins Removed proteins Characterized mitochondrial proteins
TargetP + SMART
(Grp I)
20 30%
(6 of 20)
65%
(13 of 20)
5%
(1 of 20)
85%
(11 of 13)
TargetP + SMART
(Grp III)
100 36%
(36 of 100)
53%
(53 of 100)
11%
(11 of 100)
45%
(24 of 53)
MITOPRED + SMART 198 34%
(68 of 198)
57%
(113 of 198)
8%
(16 of 198)
25%
(28 of 113)
WoLF PSORT + SMART 154 31%
(48 of 154)
61%
(94 of 154)
7%
(11 of 154)
28%
(26 of 94)
TargetP + Prosite
(Reliability class A)
9 11%
(1 of 9)
89%
(8 of 9)
0% 100%
(8 of 8)
2006 dataset - 25%
(1455 of 5860)
21%
(1215 of 5860)
54%
(3190 of 5860)
6%
(67 of 1215)
  1. Different combinations of prediction tools were used on either the whole 2006 dataset or parts of it, to demonstrate that our selection strategy can use a variety of prediction tools and is neither dependent on TargetP nor the SMART program.