Skip to main content

Table 5 Commonalities and differences between TGSO and 13 competing methods based on the top 200 ranked proteins and the DIP database

From: An iteration model for identifying essential proteins by combining comprehensive PPI network with biological information

Different prediction methods (Mi) \(|TGSO\cap Mi|\) \(|TGSO-Mi|\) Percentage of key proteins in \({TGSO-Mi}\) (%) Percentage of key proteins in \({Mi-TGSO}\) (%)
DC 57 143 83.22 23.08
IC 53 147 82.99 23.13
EC 40 160 82.50 25.63
SC 40 160 82.59 25.61
BC 53 147 85.03 23.13
CC 44 156 82.69 25.64
NC 96 104 79.81 39.42
Pec 101 99 79.80 50.51
CoEWC 105 95 78.95 53.68
POEM 101 99 73.74 56.57
TEGS 117 83 73.49 67.47
CVIM 110 90 74.44 70.00
ION 71 129 77.52 63.57
  1. This table shows the commonalities and differences between TGSO and the 13 competitive methods in Table 1 based on the DIP database