Skip to main content

Table 11 Comparisons between the different methods on the Consolidated3.19 network

From: MCL-CAw: a refinement of MCL for detecting yeast complexes from weighted PPI networks by incorporating core-attachment structure

   Method
   MCL MCLO MCL-CAw CMC HACO
  #Predicted 116 119 122 77 101
Wodak
(#145)
#Matched 70 80 82 67 57
  Precision 0.603 0.672 0.672 0.870 0.564
  #Derived 79 80 82 67 64
  Recall 0.545 0.552 0.566 0.462 0.441
MIPS
(#157)
#Matched 48 65 68 56 40
  Precision 0.414 0.546 0.557 0.727 0.396
  #Derived 63 65 68 56 57
  Recall 0.401 0.414 0.433 0.357 0.363
Aloy
(#76)
#Matched 54 56 57 45 44
  Precision 0.466 0.471 0.467 0.584 0.436
  #Derived 55 56 57 45 45
  Recall 0.724 0.737 0.750 0.592 0.592
  1. Methods considered: MCL, MCLO, MCL-CAw, CMC and HACO. CMC performed the best in terms of precision, while MCL-CAw performed the best in recall. #Matched: #Predictions matching some benchmark complex(es). #Derived: #Benchmark complexes derived by some predicted complex(es).
  2. The Consolidated 3.19 network
  3. #Proteins 1622; #Interactions 9704