Skip to main content
. 2012 Mar 21;13(Suppl 3):S5. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-13-S3-S5

Table 1.

Benchmarks of BARRIERS, PathwayHunter, Findpath, RNATabuPath, and RNAEAPath for predicting folding pathways between conformational switches on the 18 test cases

Instance BARRIERS PathwayHunter FindPath RNATabuPath RNAEAPath

(n = 1000) (n = 1) (n = 5)
rb1 - - 24.04 24.04 23.2 22
rb2 - 10 8.2 7.25 6.5 6.5
rb3 - - 22.4 17.9 17.5 16.7
rb4 - - 16.9 16.9 16.9 16.9
rb5 - - 24.54 24.54 21.44 21.44
hok - - 28.5 29.66 20.7 20.1
SL 11.80 - 13 12.9 13.0 12.9
attenuator 8.3 - 8.7 8.6 8.7 8.5
s15 6.60 - 7.1 6.6 7.1 7.1
sbox leader - 7.9 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2
thiM leader - - 16.13 14.84 12.3 12.3
ms2 - 11.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6
HDV - 23.53 17.4 17.0 16.8 16.8
dsrA 8.0 - 8.3 8.2 8.0 8.0
ribD leader - - 10.71 9.5 9.5 9.5
amv - 12.2 5.8 5.8 5.74 5.74
alpha operon - 11.8 6.5 6.5 6.1 6.1
HIV-1 leader - 14.3 9.3 11.3 8.9 8.9

Benchmarks of BARRIERS, PathwayHunter, Findpath, RNATabuPath, and RNAEAPath for predicting folding pathways between conformational switches. Energy barriers (measured in kcal/mol) of the best folding pathways over n runs are shown. Boldface numbers are the best energy barriers found by the heuristic algorithms.