. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2012 Jan 1.

Published in final edited form as: Proteins. 2011 Jan;79(1):315–334. doi: 10.1002/prot.22885

Table 8.

Comparison with the other template ranking methods

	Family		Superfamily		Fold
	Top1	Top5	Top1	Top5	Top1	Top5
Length normalized score	82.1 (%)	87.3	48.2	62.4	21.9	50.7
SP4 method ^a)	84.3	89.9	53.0	67.2	24.7	50.3
SUPRB Prob. Contacts ^b) ^c)	84.5	90.5	56.9	69.8	27.4	51.7
SUPRB S_combined Score ^c), ^d)	84.5	90.5	56.2	70.5	27.7	52.6

The raw target-template compatibility score by the probabilistic residue contact strategy of SUPRB is transformed in four different schemes.

^a)

Note that only the template ranking method used in SP4 is applied but not the entire SP4 threading method, to the raw compatibility score by the probabilistic residue contact strategy of SUPRB.

^b)

Eq. 21 is applied.

^c)

These values are copied from Table 6.

^d)

Eq. 23 is applied.