Table 1.
Comparison of SP and SN in CDSs
| Method | Exon–intron boundaryb |
Intronb |
All intronsb |
Entire CDS |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SP | SN | SP | SN | SP | SN | SP | SN | |
| This study | 94.6 | 75.5 | 92.6 | 74.2 | 58.5 | 49.5 | 55.5 | 44.4 |
| GeneSeqer | 87.9 | 77.9 | 83.7 | 75.5 | 42.3 | 38.9 | 3.3 | 2.8 |
| Sim4cca | 90.8 | 74.3 | 87.9 | 73.0 | 40.5 | 47.2 | –c | –c |
| GeneMark.hmm | 87.6 | 87.6 | 76.2 | 80.7 | 22.1 | 25.6 | 24.0 | 25.1 |
| GeneZilla | 87.4 | 77.0 | 76.4 | 68.3 | 29.9 | 30.7 | 31.8 | 35.1 |
| GlimmerHMM | 91.3 | 75.5 | 81.7 | 69.1 | 36.3 | 35.8 | 39.4 | 38.7 |
All values are expressed as percentages (%).
aSim4cc does not report a representative transcript in a single locus, so each mapping result was evaluated separately.
bCDS regions of the reference set were evaluated.
cSim4cc does not predict CDS regions.