Skip to main content
. 2019 Dec 18;7:e8311. doi: 10.7717/peerj.8311

Table 6. Coding schemes for translating DNA characters in numerical representations. Adapted from (Yu, Yu & Pan, 2017).

Encoding schemes Codebook References
DAX {‘C’:0, ‘T’:1, ‘A’:2, ‘G’:3} Yu et al. (2015)
EIIP {‘C’:0.1340, ‘T’:0.1335, ‘A’:0.1260, ‘G’:0.0806} Nair & Sreenadhan (2006)
Complementary {‘C’:-1, ‘T’:-2, ‘A’:2, ‘G’:1} Akhtar et al. (2008)
Enthalpy {‘CC’:0.11, ‘TT’:0.091, ‘AA’:0.091, ‘GG’:0.11, ‘CT’:0.078, ‘TA’:0.06, ‘AG’:0.078, ‘CA’:0.058, ‘TG’:0.058, ‘CG’:0.119, ‘TC’:0.056, ‘AT’:0.086, ‘GA’:0.056, ‘AC’:0.065, ‘GT’:0.065, ‘GC’:0.1111} Kauer & Blöcker (2003)
Galois (4) {‘CC’:0.0, ‘CT’:1.0, ‘CA’:2.0, ‘CG’:3.0, ‘TC’:4.0, ‘TT’:5.0, ‘TA’:6.0, ‘TG’:7.0, ‘AC’:8.0, ‘AT’:9.0, ‘AA’:1.0, ‘AG’:11.0, ‘GC’:12.0, ‘GT’:13.0, ‘GA’:14.0, ‘GG’:15.0} Rosen (2006)
Orthogonal (one-hot) Encoding {‘A’: [1, 0, 0, 0], ‘C’: [0, 1, 0, 0], ‘T’: [0, 0, 1, 0], ‘G’: [0, 0, 0, 1]} Baldi et al. (2001)