Skip to main content
. 2010 Aug 12;38(22):7927–7942. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkq714

Table 3.

Pairwise comparisons of different mouse HD classifications: purity scores

SCI-PHYEntropy mH178 SCI-PHYEntropy H559 CD-HIT OSLPID OSLTRE mH178 OSLTRE H559 OSLEval mH178 OSLEval H559
SCI- PHYEntropy mH178 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
SCI- PHYEntropy H559 0.53 1.00 0.91 0.96 0.98 0.93 0.98 0.98
CD-HIT 0.53 0.92 1.00 0.96 0.98 0.91 0.98 0.98
OSLPID 0.56 0.94 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00
OSLTRE mH178 0.50 0.85 0.85 0.89 1.00 0.82 0.95 0.95
OSLTRE H559 0.56 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
OSLEval mH178 0.50 0.79 0.80 0.84 0.91 0.77 1.00 1.00
OSLEval H559 0.50 0.79 0.80 0.82 0.89 0.77 0.98 1.00

Summary of the pairwise Purity scores (as defined in ‘Materials and Methods’ section) between the seven different fine-grained sequence-based classifications. Classifications listed along columns were considered as ‘target’ partitions, whereas those listed along rows were used as ‘reference’ partitions. See Table 2 for information on these classifications.

Low Purity values, underlined (column 2), indicate a poor correspondence between the target classifications in columns 1 and the SCI-PHYentropy mH178 classification used as reference.

In all other cases, the target classifications represent near perfect subdivisions of the reference partitions.