Table 1.
Detailed comparison of the various methods used to predict essentiality
| Sr. No. | Coverage | Shortlisted | MA | FBA | PPI | PR | S | G | Z | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1 |
3923 |
2968 |
MA |
2968 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
663 |
319 |
FBA |
256 |
319 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
1240 |
323 |
PPI |
271 |
128 |
323 |
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
3923 |
1902 |
PR |
1490 |
173 |
164 |
1902 |
|
|
|
|
5 |
3923 |
654 |
S |
544
|
160
|
143
|
340
|
654 |
|
|
|
6 |
3923 |
774 |
G |
654
|
200
|
169
|
427
|
464 |
774 |
|
|
7 |
3923 |
688 |
Z |
535
|
167
|
137
|
367
|
390 |
530 |
688 |
|
8 |
3923 |
283 |
Eq 1 |
283 |
195 |
198 |
224 |
127 |
170 |
135 |
|
9 |
3923 |
51 |
Eq 2 |
51 |
51 |
51 |
51 |
31 |
38 |
30 |
|
10 |
3923 |
139 |
Eq 3 |
139 |
51 |
139 |
139 |
55 |
72 |
55 |
| 11 | 3923 | 608 | IS | 556 | 264 | 158 | 498 | 208 | 256 | 211 |
The table indicates comparison between different experimental and theoretical methods used for the study.