Skip to main content

Table 5 Comparative performance of DBNN and consensus methods against other leading methods tested on EVAc6.

From: A dynamic Bayesian network approach to protein secondary structure prediction

Method Q3 (%) SOV (%) C H C E C C
Subset 1 (80 chains)
Prospect 71.1 68.7 0.59 0.69 0.49
DBNN/ErrSig 78.8/1.34 74.8/1.74 0.72/0.03 0.64/0.04 0.62/0.02
Subset 2 (175 chains)
PROF_king 71.7 66.9 0.62 0.68 0.49
DBNN/ErrSig 77.3/0.86 71.9/1.27 0.71/0.02 0.64/0.03 0.57/0.02
Subset 3 (179 chains)
SAM-T99 77.1 74.4 0.66 0.68 0.53
DBNN/ErrSig 77.3/0.86 71.9/1.28 0.71/0.02 0.64/0.02 0.57/0.02
Subset 4 (212 chains)
PSIPRED 77.8 75.4 0.69 0.74 0.56
PROFsec 76.7 74.8 0.68 0.72 0.56
PHDpsi 75.0 70.9 0.66 0.69 0.53
DBNN/ErrSig 77.8/0.79 72.4/1.16 0.71/0.02 0.65/0.02 0.58/0.01
Subset 5 (73 chains)
SAM-T99 76.3 72.9 0.71 0.64 0.56
PSIPRED 75.8 72.1 0.70 0.64 0.57
PROFsec 75.3 73.0 0.68 0.61 0.54
PHDpsi 73.3 69.2 0.66 0.56 0.52
PROF_king 70.7 64.9 0.63 0.57 0.50
DBNN/ErrSig 76.4/1.48 72.4/2.06 0.73/0.04 0.67/0.04 0.59/0.03
CM1/ErrSig 77.2/1.14 73.2/1.87 0.73/0.04 0.66/0.04 0.58/0.02
CM2/ErrSig 77.7/1.17 73.4/1.78 0.74/0.04 0.67/0.04 0.60/0.02
CM3/ErrSig 78.1/1.17 74.4/1.76 0.75/0.04 0.67/0.04 0.60/0.02
  1. DBNN and the three consensus methods (CM1, CM2, and CM3) developed in this work are compared with other leading methods on five subsets of EVAc6; each comparison is carried out with maximum number of common sequences. The results of the six existing methods, Prospect, PROF_king, SAM-T99, PROFsec, PHDpsi, and PSIPRED, are obtained directly from the EVA website.