Table 8.
Summary of comparisons to Rockhopper’s operon identifications
| Genome | Dataset | Replicates |
Confirmed |
Tot. Confirmed |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R | P | R | P | |||
|
P. gingivalis |
PG1 |
1 |
85% |
49% |
94% |
57% |
| |
PG2 |
1 |
85% |
53% |
|
|
| |
PG3 |
1 |
85% |
56% |
|
|
|
H. somni |
HS |
1 |
NA |
43% |
NA |
43% |
|
E. coli |
EC1 |
3 |
79% |
79% |
90% |
80% |
| |
EC2 |
3 |
79% |
73% |
|
|
|
S. enterica |
SE1 |
1 |
83% |
73% |
91% |
76% |
| SE2 | 1 | 83% | 72% | |||
The table summarizes the comparisons concerning the confirmed condition-dependent operon predictions obtained using the proposed approach (P) and Rockhopper (R). We run ROCKHOPPER on each condition separately and then we run Rockhopper on each set of conditions for each bacterial organism. The available format of the raw data for H. somni is not supported in Rockhopper.