Skip to main content
. 2013 Nov 11;8(11):e79728. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079728

Table 1. Comparative overview of other antimicrobial peptide studies.

Study Method Accuracy Features Positive set Negative set Validation set
CAMP SVMRandom Forests 91.50%93.2% 64 (after recursive feature elimination on initial set of 257) physicochemical properties (composition), dipeptide & tripeptide frequencies, distribution & transition of some features along sequences 2578 experimentally validated CAMP peptides 4011 random proteins from UniProt, synthesized sequences using random numbers, experimentally verified non-antimicrobial peptides (25) 30% of positive & negative sets
Fjell et al Quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR) 80.00% 44 QSAR descriptors 1433 synthesized peptides, 9 amino-acids long(antibacterial acitivity measured experimentally) ∼100000 synthesized peptides
Torrent et al ANNSVM 90%75% 8 physicochemical & structural properties (50 hidden neurons) 1157 CAMP antimicrobial peptides 991 randomly selected UniProt protein fragments 290 antimicrobial peptides from CAMEL and RANDOM databases
Porto et al SVM 83.02% 4 physicochemical properties 199 peptides from APD 199 proteins predicted to be transmembrane 106 sequences from positive & negative training sets
Wang et al BLASTP & Nearest-Neighbour Algorithm (NNA) 93.31% 25 composition & pseudo-amino acid composition features from initial set of 270 (for NNA) 870 peptides from CAMP (including some predicted) 8661 protein fragments randomly selected from UniProt 1136 predicted peptides from CAMP