Skip to main content
. 2013 Jan 4;104(3):360–368. doi: 10.1111/cas.12071

Table 4.

Results of the connectivity scoring analysis using our database

Rank Compound name Connectivity score Up score Down score
(a) Trichostatin A (up, 232; down, 181)
1 Trichostatin A 1.000 0.992 −0.994
2 Vorinostat 0.992 0.987 −0.984
3 Vorinostat 0.976 0.976 −0.964
4 Vorinostat (16 h) 0.921 0.924 −0.906
5 Vorinostat (16 h) 0.906 0.905 −0.893
6 PP242 0.672 0.693 −0.642
7 Doxorubicin 0.667 0.552 −0.773
8 Etoposide (16 h) 0.661 0.732 −0.581
9 Gemicitabine (16 h) 0.658 0.717 −0.591
10 Neocarzinostatin (16 h) 0.647 0.688 −0.597
(b) Vorinostat (up, 233; down, 173)
1 Vorinostat 1.000 0.992 −0.994
2 Trichostatin A 0.988 0.981 −0.982
3 Vorinostat 0.970 0.963 −0.963
4 Vorinostat (16 h) 0.925 0.925 −0.912
5 Vorinostat (16 h) 0.916 0.918 −0.900
6 PP242 0.684 0.698 −0.660
7 Etoposide (16 h) 0.675 0.745 −0.597
8 Doxorubicin 0.658 0.555 −0.752
9 Neocarzinostatin (16 h) 0.658 0.715 −0.591
10 Gemicitabine (16 h) 0.654 0.726 −0.573

The number of up‐ and down‐signatures are shown in parentheses.