Table 6.
Performance comparison of different existing tools for pS/pT/pY site prediction
| Phosphorylation site | Methods | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | MCC | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Serine | PhosPred-RF | 79.70 | 75.00 | 0.54 | 0.85 |
| PhosphoSVM | 44.43 | 94.04 | 0.29 | 0.84 | |
| PPRED | 32.27 | 91.6 | 0.16 | 0.75 | |
| iPhos-PseEn | 79.64 | 79.78 | 0.39 | – | |
| Our RF model | 89.4 | 88.9 | 0.78 | 0.95 | |
| Threonine | PhosPred-RF | 73.80 | 72.60 | 0.46 | 0.81 |
| PhosphoSVM | 37.31 | 94.99 | 0.25 | 0.81 | |
| PPRED | 34.32 | 83.65 | 0.09 | 0.65 | |
| iPhos-PseEn | 71.51 | 80.68 | 0.34 | – | |
| Our RF model | 97.8 | 74.4 | 0.77 | 0.97 | |
| Tyrosine | PhosPred-RF | 72.70 | 64.00 | 0.36 | 0.76 |
| PhosphoSVM | 41.92 | 87.34 | 0.20 | 0.73 | |
| PPRED | 43.04 | 82.65 | 0.16 | 0.70 | |
| iPhos-PseEn | 76.18 | 76.29 | 0.32 | – | |
| Our RF model | 100 | 63.5 | 0.57 | 0.99 |
Performance metrics for best results are highlighted in bold