Table 1.
Prediction accuracy of ACRF and BRNN on the four datasets α,β,α/β,α+β
| Methods | α | β | α/β | α+β |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LR | 0.821 ±0.005 | 0.801 ±0.004 | 0.808 ±0.003 | 0.809 ±0.005 |
| BRNN | 0.825 ±0.004 | 0.805 ±0.003 | 0.812 ±0.004 | 0.812 ±0.006 |
| ACRF | 0.833 ±0.006 | 0.813 ±0.005 | 0.818 ±0.003 | 0.822 ±0.005 |
| ACRF-CN | 0.806 ±0.006 | 0.785 ±0.004 | 0.787 ±0.003 | 0.794 ±0.006 |
| ACRF-CN-SC | 0.805 ±0.004 | 0.782 ±0.005 | 0.783 ±0.005 | 0.789 ±0.007 |
| ACRF-CN-SC-SS | 0.801 ±0.004 | 0.769 ±0.004 | 0.773 ±0.005 | 0.784 ±0.005 |
For the sake of fair comparison, ACRF and BRNN use identical feature sets. To investigate the effects of different features on prediction accuracy, we evaluated a set of variants of ACRF, including ACRF-CN with contact number removed, ACRF-CN-SC with both contact number and sequence conservation removed, and ACRF-CN-SC-SS with contact number, sequence conservation, and secondary structure information removed from the ACRF model