Table 4.
Results of 5-node biological network motifs in the Y2k network
| Algorithm | Motif included in | GO Clustering score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Complex | function | BP | MF | CC | |
| ESU | .281 | .083 | .69 | .17 | .76 |
| RAND-ESU | .305 | .090 | .71 | .17 | .77 |
| MFINDER | .431 | .096 | .73 | .21 | .80 |
| EDGEGO-BNM | .362 | .376 | .99 | .24 | .96 |
| EDGEBETWEENNESS-BNM | .814 | .087 | .89 | .13 | .91 |
| NMFGO-BNM | .445 | .257 | .98 | .18 | .96 |
| NMF-BNM | .643 | .073 | .80 | .18 | .83 |
| VOLTAGE-BNM | .665 | .089 | .82 | .19 | .85 |
EDGEBETWEENNESS-BNM performs best in 'motif included in complex' measure while EDGEGO-BNM performs best in other measures.