Table 3.
Performance comparison of different approaches using cross-validation for the benchmark data sets.
| PS1302 | ||||||||||
| Localization | HYBRID | CELLO | PSORTb v.1.1 | PSLpred | P-CLASSIFIER | |||||
| Acc (%) | MCC | Acc (%) | MCC | Acc (%) | MCC | Acc (%) | MCC | Acc (%) | MCC | |
| CP | 95.6 | 0.90 | 90.7 | 0.85 | 69.4 | 0.79 | 90.7 | 0.86 | 94.6 | 0.85 |
| IM | 93.3 | 0.94 | 88.4 | 0.92 | 78.7 | 0.85 | 86.8 | 0.88 | 87.1 | 0.92 |
| PP | 91.4 | 0.88 | 86.9 | 0.80 | 57.6 | 0.69 | 90.3 | 0.90 | 85.9 | 0.81 |
| OM | 96.3 | 0.96 | 94.6 | 0.90 | 90.3 | 0.93 | 95.2 | 0.95 | 93.6 | 0.90 |
| EC | 90.0 | 0.89 | 78.9 | 0.82 | 70.0 | 0.79 | 90.6 | 0.84 | 86.0 | 0.89 |
| Overall | 93.7 | - | 88.9 | - | 74.8 | - | 91.2 | - | 89.8 | - |
| PS1444 | ||||||||||
| Localization | HYBRID | CELLO II | PSORTb v.2.0 | PSLpred | P-CLASSIFIER | |||||
| Acc (%) | MCC | Acc (%) | MCC | Acc (%) | MCC | Acc (%) | MCC | Acc (%) | MCC | |
| CP | 95.0 | 0.91 | 95.3 | 0.89 | 70.1 | 0.77 | - | - | - | - |
| IM | 93.5 | 0.94 | 90.0 | 0.91 | 92.6 | 0.92 | - | - | - | - |
| PP | 90.2 | 0.86 | 87.7 | 0.82 | 69.2 | 0.78 | - | - | - | - |
| OM | 96.7 | 0.96 | 92.8 | 0.90 | 94.9 | 0.95 | - | - | - | - |
| EC | 87.4 | 0.87 | 79.5 | 0.82 | 78.9 | 0.86 | - | - | - | - |
| Overall | 93.2 | - | 90.0 | - | 82.6 | - | - | - | - | - |
§ The best performance of overall and individual localization sites is underlined.