Fig. 4.

Comparison of NetPhorest to other motif resources. We compared NetPhorest to Scansite (13) and the sequence patterns of ELM (14), PROSITE (19), and HPRD (18) using the entire compilation of phosphorylation sites. For NetPhosK (20), GPS (22), and KinasePhos (24), we used only the subset of sites that was dissimilar in sequence to those used to train classifiers of NetPhorest (see Methods for details). When at least five positive examples were left, the AROC was calculated. Subsequently, we tested how many of the predictors from each method performed no better than random, better than random but significantly poorer than NetPhorest, or comparable to NetPhorest. No predictor from any of the tested methods performed significantly better than the corresponding NetPhorest classifier. The number on each pie chart specifies how many predictors were tested from the method in question (see table S2 for details). Because classifiers from NetPhosK and Scansite were included in NetPhorest, those two resources are shown above the dotted line.