Comparison of annotation terms between automated and curated E. coli K12 databases

BMC Bioinformatics

Table 1 Summary of matches and mismatches between databases

Databases	True Positives	False Positives	True Negatives	False Negatives	Correlation Coefficient
TIGRfam	373	1832	2340	3277	- 0.37
HAMAP	192	1629	2592	3458	- 0.39
PRINTS	88	1723	2524	3562	- 0.45
EC: Numbers	288	3369	2382	3362	- 0.51
PROSITE	161	2226	2076	3489	- 0.51
PFAM	305	2729	1329	3345	- 0.60
INTERPRO	502	3758	1095	3148	- 0.63
GO:TERMS	349	7356	1344	3301	- 0.71
COG	71	2095	972	3579	- 0.71
Composite	838	15219	2839	2812	- 0.52

EcoCyc data compared to BASys Database sources was listed in column: 1. Column: 2 to 4 Show the number of matching annotation terms between the databases that were true positives, false positives, true negatives and false negatives. Column: 6 show the correlation coefficient for each of the databases. The composite is the sum of column data.

ISSN: 1471-2105