Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 7 Subcellular localization performance achieved by different classifiers. The second column specifies the cleavage site predictors that were used for determining the positions at which the amino sequences were truncated. Notice that TargetP can perform both cleavage site prediction and subcellular localization. For Rows 4 and 5, TargetP was used as a cleavage site predictor, where “TargetP(P)” and “TargetP(N)” mean selecting plant or non-plant option in TargetP, respectively. For Rows 6–8 “CRF” means that conditional random fields were used for cleavage site prediction.

From: Fast subcellular localization by cascaded fusion of signal-based and homology-based methods

Row Cleavage Site Predictor Localization Predictor Classification Accuracy (%) Matthew’s correlation coefficient (MCC)
    Ext Mit Chl Cyt/Nuc Overall Ext Mit Chl Cyt/Nuc Overall
1 SubLoc [7] 51.44 55.83 77.86 66.79
2 TargetP (P) 79.08 88.02 89.19 69.57 73.93 0.79 0.49 0.79 0.64 0.65
3 TargetP (N) 97.40 89.22 0.00 87.82 87.97 0.93 0.58 0.00 0.81 0.84
4 TargetP(N) SVM 97.26 67.07 36.49 95.86 92.63 0.93 0.70 0.53 0.86 0.90
5 TargetP(N) PDA 97.55 61.68 6.76 95.61 91.34 0.91 0.68 0.26 0.84 0.88
6 TargetP(N) PDAproj+SVM 97.26 65.27 37.84 93.57 91.10 0.93 0.64 0.50 0.83 0.88
7 CRF SVM 94.52 63.47 28.38 95.86 91.45 0.90 0.68 0.45 0.84 0.89
8 CRF PDA 94.81 59.28 1.35 95.55 90.24 0.88 0.67 0.11 0.82 0.81
9 CRF PDAproj+SVM 94.66 63.47 25.68 93.63 89.97 0.90 0.60 0.41 0.82 0.87