Skip to main content
. 2012 Dec 7;13(Suppl 7):S19. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-S7-S19

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Comparison of performance of SMAT80 with that of BLOSUM62. We carried out BLAST searches for all the proteins of 15 apicomplexan parasites using SMAT80 and BLOSUM62 matrices against SwissProt database. An identical hit (best non-self) was assigned to one of the eight categories (1) better or similar E-values, better or similar scores and better or similar % identity with SMAT80 compared to BLOSUM62, (2) better or similar E-values, better or similar scores and poor % identity, (3) better or similar E-values, poor scores and better or similar % identity, (4) better or similar E-values, poor scores and poor % identity, (5) poor E-values, better or similar scores and better or similar % identity, (6) poor E-values, better or similar scores and poor % identity, (7) poor E-values, poor scores and better or similar % identity and (8) poor E-values, poor scores and poor % identity. As evident in the figure, most apicomplexan proteins fall in 1 & 7 categories i.e. SMAT80 performs better.