Table 2.
AUC on beta-barrel superfamilies
| HMMER | RAPTOR | HHPred | SMURF-Lite 1 | SMURF-Lite 1, SimEv | SMURF-Lite 2 | SMURF-Lite 2, SimEv | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SMURFLite performs best | |||||||
| Translation proteins | – | – | 0.66 | 0.93 | 0.92 | 0.93 | 0.93 |
| Barwin-like endoglucanases | – | – | 0.75 | – | 0.77 | – | 0.63 |
| Cyclophilin-like | 0.67 | 0.61 | 0.7 | 0.82 | 0.85 | 0.82 | 0.83 |
| Sm-like ribonucleoproteins | 0.73 | 0.71 | 0.77 | 0.76 | 0.71 | 0.76 | 0.85 |
| Prokaryotic SH3-related domain | 0.81 | – | – | 0.83 | 0.82 | 0.83 | 0.83 |
| Tudor/PWWP/MBT | 0.78 | 0.74 | 0.67 | 0.83 | 0.77 | 0.83 | 0.79 |
| Nucleic acid-binding proteins | 0.75 | – | 0.67 | 0.76 | 0.89 | 0.76 | 0.92 |
| HHPred performs best | |||||||
| Translation proteins SH3-like | 0.83 | 0.81 | 0.86 | 0.62 | – | 0.62 | – |
| RAPTOR performs best | |||||||
| PDZ domain-like | 0.96 | 1.0 | 0.99 | 0.97 | 0.97 | 0.97 | 0.97 |
| FMN-binding split barrel | 0.62 | 0.82 | 0.61 | – | – | – | – |
| HMMER performs best | |||||||
| Electron Transport accessory proteins | 0.84 | – | 0.77 | 0.63 | – | 0.63 | 0.66 |
Note: for SmurfLite, the number (1,2) indicates the interleave threshold, and SimEv is simulated evolution. A dash (‘–’) in a result entry indicates the method failed on these structures, i.e. an AUC of <0.6.