Skip to main content

Table 1 Prediction results of TFs with good PBM quality by using BayesPI2 energy-independent model and energy-dependent model including dinucleotide interactions

From: Quality versus accuracy: result of a reanalysis of protein-binding microarrays from the DREAM5 challenge by using BayesPI2 including dinucleotide interdependence

 

TF family

Rank

CorrCoef (Ind)

Length (Ind)

Number (Ind)

CorrCoef (Dep)

Length (Dep)

Number (Dep)

TF_7

bHLH

1

0.78

13

1

0.786

10

1

TF_26

bHLH

2

0.66

10

1

0.67

13

1

TF_56

C2H2 Z F(4)

3

0.76

12

1

0.788

13

1

TF_55

AT hook

4

0.8

8

1

0.8

9

1

TF_17

NR

5

0.76

9

1

0.757

8

1

TF_11

NR

6

0.826

10

1

0.833

10

1

TF_16

Myb/SANT

7

0.808

10

1

0.817

9

1

TF_31

C2H2 ZF (13)

8

0.585

12

1

0.59

11

1

TF_15

Pou + Homeo

9

0.62

11

1

0.655

11

1

TF_45

Myb/SANT

11

0.8

12

1

0.78

11

1

TF_42*

Forkhead

12

0.75

12

1

0.805

13

1

TF_64

C2H2 ZF (3)

13

0.75

8

1

0.75

10

1

TF_52

NR

14

0.807

12

1

0.79

10

1

TF_3*

Forkhead

16

0.67

10

1

0.724

11

1

TF_27*

bZIP

17

0.526

9

1

0.635

11

1

TF_18

Sox

18

0.638

8

1

0.677

8

1

TF_22*

T-box

19

0.675

9

1

0.746

12

1

TF_47

Homeo

21

0.726

12

1

0.767

11

1

TF_44

GATA

22

0.633

12

1

0.68

10

1

TF_28

C2H2 ZF (8)

23

0.58

11

1

0.6

11

1

TF_13*

Pou + Homeo

24

0.584

9

1

0.675

13

1

TF_5

C2H2 ZF (3)

25

0.59

10

1

0.618

11

1

TF_43

Forkhead

27

0.577

10

1

0.614

12

1

TF_19

Sox

29

0.559

8

1

0.59

11

1

TF_39

C2H2 ZF (3)

30

0.63

11

1

0.668

13

1

TF_51*

Pou + Homeo

31

0.615

12

1

0.67

13

1

TF_23

T-box

33

0.64

12

1

0.66

13

1

TF_12*

NR

35

0.55

13

1

0.606

13

1

TF_49

NR

34

0.675

10

1

0.676

11

1

TF_53*

RFX

39

0.696

12

1

0.77

13

1

TF_14

Myb/SANT

40

0.6

8

1

0.62

9

1

TF_48

NR

43

0.755

12

1

0.78

12

1

TF_38

DM

45

0.67

9

1

0.689

8

1

TF_32

C2H2 ZF (6)

55

0.587

9

1

0.62

8

1

  1. In the table, the 34 TFs were classified by applying fuzzy neuronal gas algorithm on the paired PBM quality-control parameters (i.e. the length of the major and minor axes of the PCA ellipses), where a good agreement between training and testing PBMs indicates good PBM data quality; Rank means TFs are sorted in decreasing order of their final performance score across all tested algorithms in Figure 2 of original publication [1]; CorrCoef , Length, and Number are Pearson correlation between predicted intensities and testing probe intensities, the length of motif, the first or second motif, respectively; (Ind) and (Dep) represent BayesPI2 energy-independent model and energy-dependent model including dinucleotide interaction, respectively; TFs marked by star and bold text indicate that the increase in Pearson correlation coefficient is greater than 0.05 by using BayesPI2 energy-dependent model including dinucleotide interaction energies.