Table 5.
Comparing the S. cerevisiae enzymatic data published in four different databases with those predicted in FUNGIpath
| Distribution of ID-EC (percentage of larger database content) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Database 1 | Total ID-EC | Database 2 | Total ID-EC | Identical | Specific to database 1 | Specific to database 2 |
| KEGG | 1101 | MetaCyc | 155 | 127 (11%) | 974 (86%) | 28 (2%) |
| KEGG | 1101 | SGD | 527 | 409 (34%) | 692 (57%) | 118 (10%) |
| KEGG | 1101 | Swiss-Prot | 1261 | 889 (60%) | 212 (14%) | 372 (25%) |
| KEGG | 1101 | FUNGIpath | 1261 | 844 (56%) | 417 (27%) | 257 (17%) |
| MetaCyc | 155 | SGD | 527 | 132 (24%) | 23 (4%) | 395 (72%) |
| MetaCyc | 155 | Swiss-Prot | 1261 | 136 (11%) | 19 (1%) | 1125 (88%) |
| MetaCyc | 155 | FUNGIpath | 1261 | 134 (10%) | 21 (2%) | 1127 (88%) |
| SGD | 527 | Swiss-Prot | 1261 | 433 (32%) | 94 (7%) | 828 (61%) |
| SGD | 527 | FUNGIpath | 1261 | 419 (31%) | 842 (62%) | 108 (8%) |
| FUNGIpath | 1261 | Swiss-Prot | 1261 | 1024 (68%) | 237 (16%) | 237 (16%) |