Table 1.
Common and different genes predicted by RWHN and other competing methods ranked in top 200 proteins
| Centrality measures (Mi) | |RWHN∩Mi| | |Mi − RWHN | | Non-essential proteins in {Mi − RWHN} | Percentage of non-essential proteins in {Mi − RWHN} with low RWHN value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DC | 27 | 173 | 118 | 83.90% |
| IC | 26 | 174 | 118 | 84.75% |
| SC | 24 | 176 | 120 | 87.50% |
| BC | 23 | 177 | 118 | 89.83% |
| CC | 23 | 177 | 110 | 89.09% |
| NC | 44 | 156 | 73 | 86.30% |
| PeC | 68 | 132 | 53 | 79.25% |
| CoEWC | 69 | 131 | 51 | 76.47% |
| POEM | 69 | 131 | 46 | 71.74% |
| ION | 110 | 90 | 40 | 82.50% |
This table shows the common and the difference between RWHN and the ten other competing methods (DC, IC, SC, BC, CC, NC, PeC, CoEWC, POEM and ION) when predicting top 200 proteins. |RWHN∩Mi | denotes the number of proteins identified by both RWHN and one of the ten other methods Mi. {Mi − RWHN} represents the set of proteins detected by Mi while ignored by RWHN. |Mi − RWHN| is the number of proteins in set {Mi − RWHN}. The last column describes the percentages of different nonessential proteins with low RWHN scores (less than 0.2) in top 200 proteins