Skip to main content

Table 9 Comparisons between the different methods on the ICD(Gavin+Krogan) 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 136 121 129 171 104
Wodak
(#153)
#Matched 68 73 80 86 68
  Precision 0.500 0.603 0.620 0.503 0.654
  #Derived 76 73 80 86 76
  Recall 0.497 0.477 0.523 0.562 0.497
MIPS'
(#151)
#Matched 47 56 63 65 41
  Precision 0.346 0.463 0.488 0.380 0.394
  #Derived 60 56 63 65 55
  Recall 0.397 0.371 0.417 0.430 0.364
Aloy
(#75)
#Matched 58 56 59 59 53
  Precision 0.426 0.463 0.457 0.345 0.510
  #Derived 56 56 59 59 53
  Recall 0.747 0.747 0.787 0.787 0.707
  1. Methods considered: MCL, MCLO, MCL-CAw, CMC and HACO. HACO performed the best in terms of precision, while CMC performed the best in terms of recall. MCL-CAw was a close second in both precision and recall. #Matched: #Predictions matching some benchmark complex(es). #Derived: #Benchmark complexes derived by some predicted complex(es).
  2. The ICD(Gavin+Krogan) network
  3. #Proteins 1628; #Interactions 8707