Table 2.

Comparison of UTRme predictions against experimentally defined processing sites.

Site	Gene	UTRme 5′ enriched	UTRme Li	UTRme Pastro	SlaP mapper pastro	Exp.	Article
5′	TcCLB.509147.50	48	51	51	54	55	Di Noia et al., 2000
5′	TcCLB.511679.10	51	51	51	54	51	Di Noia et al., 2000
3′	TcCLB.506533.142	786	786	764	–	789	Di Noia et al., 2000
3′	TcCLB.511679.10	–	375	–	–	~353	Di Noia et al., 2000
5′	TcCLB.507485.140	–	140	137	–	137	Teixeira et al., 1999
5′	TcCLB.506407.10	93	102	101	718	103	Vandersall-Nairn et al., 1998
5′	TcCLB.509123.10	–	33	–	–	33	García et al., 2010
5′	TcCLB.505931.50	43	76	72	43	76	Bontempi et al., 1994
5′	TcCLB.507093.220	68	66	68	–	68	D'Orso and Frasch, 2001
5′	TcCLB.507639.30	42	42	42	42	42	Coelho et al., 2006
5′	TcCLB.507511.81	–	41	41	–	41	Di Noia et al., 1998
5′	TcCLB.510241.70	–	144	144	144	142	Bhatia et al., 2004
5′	TcCLB.506925.300	60	60	58	63	60	Búa et al., 2001
5′	TcCLB.506563.40	110	110	110	113	110	Bartholomeu et al., 2002

For UTRme predictions the best scoring site using T. cruzi epimastigote data is shown. UTRme 5′ enriched: UTRme predictions using In-house low pass sequencing of 5′ UTR enriched library. UTRme Li: UTRme predictions using Li et al. (2009) data. UTRme Pastro: UTRme predictions using Pastro et al. (2017) data. SLaP mapper Pastro: SLaP mapper predictions using Pastro et al. (2017) data. Exp., Experimentally defined sites. Article: Reference where the experimental prediction was described.