Table 6 Genome annotation comparison results for six genomes
From: A semi-automated genome annotation comparison and integration scheme
Organism | Paired comparison | Baseline | Our method | Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
eco | IGS vs IMG | 52% | 86% | 34% |
IGS vs RAST | 37% | 68% | 31% | |
IMG vs RAST | 32% | 66% | 34% | |
ctr | IGS vs IMG | 55% | 79% | 24% |
IGS vs RAST | 40% | 61% | 21% | |
IMG vs RAST | 50% | 73% | 23% | |
hpy | IGS vs IMG | 49% | 79% | 30% |
IGS vs RAST | 38% | 64% | 26% | |
IMG vs RAST | 46% | 72% | 26% | |
mge | IGS vs IMG | 81% | 93% | 12% |
IGS vs RAST | 82% | 91% | 9% | |
IMG vs RAST | 82% | 90% | 8% | |
myt | IGS vs IMG | 43% | 72% | 29% |
IGS vs RAST | 35% | 56% | 21% | |
IMG vs RAST | 39% | 62% | 23% | |
rpr | IGS vs IMG | 54% | 77% | 23% |
IGS vs RAST | 32% | 59% | 27% | |
IMG vs RAST | 40% | 67% | 27% |