Skip to main content

Table 6 Commonalities and differences between TGSO and 13 competing methods based on the top 200 ranked proteins and the Krogan 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 80 120 79.17 32.50
IC 83 117 78.63 29.06
EC 67 133 81.20 24.06
SC 64 136 81.17 24.05
BC 67 133 80.45 30.08
CC 59 141 81.56 23.40
NC 106 94 71.28 42.55
Pec 94 106 69.81 44.34
CoEWC 95 105 69.52 47.62
POEM 98 102 68.63 51.96
TEGS 108 92 63.04 55.43
CVIM 138 62 64.52 54.84
ION 69 131 70.23 59.54
  1. This table shows the commonalities and differences between TGSO and the 13 competitive methods in Table 1 based on the Krogan database