Performance comparison of methods on different dynamic PPI networks constructed from the DIP data set using CYC2008 as reference set
| Networka, b . | # predicted complexes . | Identifying method . | DIP version . | Precision . | Recall . | F-measure . | Sn . | PPV . | ACC . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TC-PINs [143] | 2063 | MCL [127, 128] | 10 October 2010 | 0.215 | 0.569 | 0.312 | – | – | – |
| DPINs [28] | 1289 | CPM [144] | 28 February 2012 | 0.328 | 0.507 | 0.399 | – | – | – |
| Zhang et al. [52] | – | Zhang et al. [52] | – | 0.483 | 0.471 | 0.477 | 0.373 | 0.694 | 0.509 |
| ST-APIN [46] | 1761 | MCL [127, 128] | 10 October 2010 | 0.339 | 0.605 | 0.435 | – | – | – |
| WDPIN [45] | 550 | TP-WDPIN [45] | 14 January 2016 | 0.466 | 0.436 | 0.451 | – | – | – |
| CPredictor2.0 [55] | 636a | MCL [127, 128] | 13 February 2017 | 0.552 | 0.542 | 0.547 | 0.397 | 0.711 | 0.531 |
| Networka, b . | # predicted complexes . | Identifying method . | DIP version . | Precision . | Recall . | F-measure . | Sn . | PPV . | ACC . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TC-PINs [143] | 2063 | MCL [127, 128] | 10 October 2010 | 0.215 | 0.569 | 0.312 | – | – | – |
| DPINs [28] | 1289 | CPM [144] | 28 February 2012 | 0.328 | 0.507 | 0.399 | – | – | – |
| Zhang et al. [52] | – | Zhang et al. [52] | – | 0.483 | 0.471 | 0.477 | 0.373 | 0.694 | 0.509 |
| ST-APIN [46] | 1761 | MCL [127, 128] | 10 October 2010 | 0.339 | 0.605 | 0.435 | – | – | – |
| WDPIN [45] | 550 | TP-WDPIN [45] | 14 January 2016 | 0.466 | 0.436 | 0.451 | – | – | – |
| CPredictor2.0 [55] | 636a | MCL [127, 128] | 13 February 2017 | 0.552 | 0.542 | 0.547 | 0.397 | 0.711 | 0.531 |
aThe predicted result of CPredictor2.0 is obtained by reruning the method, while the predicted results on other dynamic PPI networks are adopted from the origin papers and then transformed by us.
bThe best performance is highlighted with bold font.
Performance comparison of methods on different dynamic PPI networks constructed from the DIP data set using CYC2008 as reference set
| Networka, b . | # predicted complexes . | Identifying method . | DIP version . | Precision . | Recall . | F-measure . | Sn . | PPV . | ACC . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TC-PINs [143] | 2063 | MCL [127, 128] | 10 October 2010 | 0.215 | 0.569 | 0.312 | – | – | – |
| DPINs [28] | 1289 | CPM [144] | 28 February 2012 | 0.328 | 0.507 | 0.399 | – | – | – |
| Zhang et al. [52] | – | Zhang et al. [52] | – | 0.483 | 0.471 | 0.477 | 0.373 | 0.694 | 0.509 |
| ST-APIN [46] | 1761 | MCL [127, 128] | 10 October 2010 | 0.339 | 0.605 | 0.435 | – | – | – |
| WDPIN [45] | 550 | TP-WDPIN [45] | 14 January 2016 | 0.466 | 0.436 | 0.451 | – | – | – |
| CPredictor2.0 [55] | 636a | MCL [127, 128] | 13 February 2017 | 0.552 | 0.542 | 0.547 | 0.397 | 0.711 | 0.531 |
| Networka, b . | # predicted complexes . | Identifying method . | DIP version . | Precision . | Recall . | F-measure . | Sn . | PPV . | ACC . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TC-PINs [143] | 2063 | MCL [127, 128] | 10 October 2010 | 0.215 | 0.569 | 0.312 | – | – | – |
| DPINs [28] | 1289 | CPM [144] | 28 February 2012 | 0.328 | 0.507 | 0.399 | – | – | – |
| Zhang et al. [52] | – | Zhang et al. [52] | – | 0.483 | 0.471 | 0.477 | 0.373 | 0.694 | 0.509 |
| ST-APIN [46] | 1761 | MCL [127, 128] | 10 October 2010 | 0.339 | 0.605 | 0.435 | – | – | – |
| WDPIN [45] | 550 | TP-WDPIN [45] | 14 January 2016 | 0.466 | 0.436 | 0.451 | – | – | – |
| CPredictor2.0 [55] | 636a | MCL [127, 128] | 13 February 2017 | 0.552 | 0.542 | 0.547 | 0.397 | 0.711 | 0.531 |
aThe predicted result of CPredictor2.0 is obtained by reruning the method, while the predicted results on other dynamic PPI networks are adopted from the origin papers and then transformed by us.
bThe best performance is highlighted with bold font.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only
View Article Abstract & Purchase OptionsFor full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.
