Skip to main content

Table 4 Performance of the various functional site prediction schemes across all functional sites.1

From: Assessing the ability of sequence-based methods to provide functional insight within membrane integral proteins: a case study analyzing the neurotransmitter/Na+ symporter family

Method

Binding sites

Cytoplasmic gate

Extracellular gate

(a.) Unique methods

Phylogenetic motif

0.68; 0.18; 0.38

0.00; 0.00; 0.00

1.00; 0.06; 0.33

False positive expectation

0.63; 0.29; 0.43

0.00; 0.00; 0.00

0.60; 0.06; 0.28

Site conservation

0.46; 0.19; 0.31

1.00; 0.09; 0.93

0.80; 0.07; 0.33

Rate4Site

0.54; 0.28 0.39

0.20; 0.02; 0.10

0.60; 0.07; 0.28

ET

0.38; 0.16; 0.26

0.60; 0.05; 0.27

0.60; 0.05; 0.27

SDPpred

0.21; 0.56; 0.36

0.00; 0.00; 0.00

0.00; 0.00; 0.00

(b.) Hybrid methods

Union (PM + FPE)

0.88; 0.18; 0.41

0.00; 0.00; 0.00

1.00; 0.04; 0.32

Intersect_2

0.71; 0.20; 0.40

0.60; 0.04; 0.26

0.80; 0.05; 0.31

Intersect_3

0.42; 0.35; 0.38

0.20; 0.02; 0.10

0.60; 0.07; 0.28

Intersect_4

0.33; 0.36; 0.34

0.00; 0.00; 0.00

0.60; 0.14; 0.33

Intersect_5

0.13; 0.33; 0.22

0.00; 0.00; 0.00

0.60; 0.33; 0.45

  1. 1 Each cell of the table includes: coverage; accuracy; and overall performance of the method on each subset of the complete benchmark dataset. The three subsets are defined in Table 2.