Skip to main content

Table 2 Comparison between methods.

From: ModuleDigger: an itemset mining framework for the detection of cis-regulatory modules

A

Method

Clover

ModuleSearcher(A*)

ModuleDigger

Running time

1.6 min

0.5 min

10 s

 

NM

SRR

Sn

NM

SRR

Sn

NM

SRR

Sn

OCT4, SOX2, NANOG

0

0

0

2.4

10

1.1%

6

10

27.6%

OCT4, SOX2

3.9

10

45.3%

0

0

0

2

10

49.1%

OCT4, NANOG

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

10

42.2%

SOX2, NANOG

0

0

0

2.4

10

0.9%

9

10

28.4%

B

         

Method

Clover

ModuleSearcher (A*)

ModuleDigger

Running time

4 min

0.5 min

20 s

 

NM

SRR

Sn

NM

SRR

Sn

NM

SRR

Sn

OCT4, SOX2, NANOG

0

0

0

0

0

0

5

10

28%

OCT4, SOX2

6.8

10

45.3%

21

5

2.8%

18

10

49%

OCT4, NANOG

0

0

0

0

0

0

23

10

42%

SOX2, NANOG

0

0

0

21

4

0.5%

20

10

9%

  1. (A) For all algorithms we used as input the benchmark set, the PWMs of OCT4, SOX2, NANOG and one random PWM. NM: number of modules present in the output for those runs where the RR = 1 (average over runs where RR = 1). SRR (summation of recovery rate): number of runs for which the output contained a module corresponding to the valid modules (OCT4, SOX2, NANOG or combinations thereof). Sn: number of genes containing the valid module in the output (average of runs for which RR was 1). (B) Similar to (A) but using OCT4, SOX2, NANOG in combination with 7 randomly selected PWMs.