Skip to main content

Table 2 Number of predicting high and low connectivity essential proteins by using SON and other nine existing methods

From: Predicting essential proteins based on subcellular localization, orthology and PPI networks

 

K

DC

IC

EC

SC

BC

CC

NC

PeC

ION

SON

degree < =10

1 %

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

17

14

5 %

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

40

66

64

10 %

0

0

0

0

1

0

27

84

108

116

15 %

0

0

8

8

18

7

66

117

146

156

20 %

0

0

28

28

41

20

101

153

188

193

25 %

11

20

73

73

76

55

156

192

253

220

degree > 10

1 %

22

24

24

24

24

24

32

39

24

29

5 %

101

102

96

96

95

104

156

133

122

129

10 %

207

210

195

195

181

193

255

209

223

233

15 %

320

316

271

271

253

277

307

255

299

313

20 %

413

406

349

349

320

344

363

285

359

387

25 %

491

484

394

394

357

393

388

302

381

441

  1. As shown in the top part of Table 2 (degree < = 10), it is weak for eight centrality methods to predict low connectivity essential proteins. When taking the top 20 % proteins ranked in descending order according to their ranking scores computed by DC and IC, the numbers of predicting essential proteins are 0. The performance of SON overall is better than that of eight centrality methods (DC, IC, EC, SC, BC, CC, NC and PeC). When K is 10, 15, 20 %, respectively, the performance of SON is also better than that of ION