Figure 4.

Agreement between experimental interfaces and predicted patches. A, Distributions of F1‐scores computed for the union of dynJET² predictions (boxes in light gray), Multi‐VORFFIP predictions (box in light green) and SPPIDER predictions (box in spring green). dynJET² predictions were assessed against the union of ISs from PPI‐262 and of IRs from PPI‐262_ext. Multi‐VORFFIP predictions were assessed against the union of IRs from PPI‐262_ext*, a subset from PPI‐262_ext involving 252 protein chains. SPPIDER predictions were assessed against the union of IRs from PPI‐262_ext. B‐D, Agreement between predicted patches and experimental IRs from PPI‐262_ext. For each IR, the best‐matching patch or combination of patches predicted by the strategies/methods indicated in x‐axis is retained. The performance measures are the following: (B) F1‐score, (C) sensitivity (recall), (D) positive predicted value (precision). The sizes of the gray dots are proportional to the number of IRs that could not be detected at all [Color figure can be viewed at http://wileyonlinelibrary.com]