Table 4. Comparison of SVM-ESM-1b and PrePS prenylation predictions with empirical observations.
Reporter | Prenylation | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ydj1-Cxxx | SVMa,b | PrePS | Freq | FPB | Observedc |
CAAQ | + | - | + | - | + |
CAHQ | + | - | + | - | + |
CASA | + | - | + | - | + |
CKQH | + | - | + | - | + |
CNLI | + | - | + | - | + |
CSFL | + | - | + | - | + |
CVAA | + | - | + | - | + |
CVFM | + | - | + | - | + |
CKQG | - | + | + | - | + |
CKQL | - | + | + | - | + |
CQTS | - | + | - | - | + |
CQSQd | + | + | - | - | + |
number observed/predicted | 9/12 | 4/12 | 10/12 | 0/12 |
aSigns represent predictions of prenylation and cleavage that were reported as positive (+) or negative (-) by the indicated model.
bSVM–SVM-ESM-1b; PrePS–Prenylation Prediction Suite; Freq–in-house, frequency-based; FPB–FlexPepBind.
cObserved by Ydj1p prenylation gel shift–see Fig 3B.
dObservation previously reported [22].