Table 3.
Comparison of quality between our method and IsoRankN
| Datasets | DOMAIN | DIP | BioGRID | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Algorithms | Ours | IsoRankN | Ours | IsoRankN | Ours | IsoRankN |
| Coverage | 8588 | 3372 | 24119 | 19555 | 21385 | 13928 |
| Average similarity score | 237.06 | 174.32 | 0.00509 | 0.00426 | 0.1735 | 0.0834 |
| Conserved edges rate | .260 (6111 of 23507) |
.160 (615 of 3138) |
.2209 (17365 of 78611) |
.086 (4696 of 54364) |
0.1781 (13003 of 72975) |
0.0685 (2586 of 37434) |
| # total enriched GO terms | 1026 | 90 | 3871 | 1893 | 1123 | 523 |
The average similarity scores for DOMAIN dataset are computed by equation 2 and the average similarity scores for DIP and BioGRID datasets are normalized BLAST bit scores, computed by equation 1.