Research Article
Comparative Analysis on Alignment-Based and Pretrained Feature Representations for the Identification of DNA-Binding Proteins
Table 5
Performance comparison of the proposed ensemble FSEiDBP with other predictors validated on the independent dataset PDB186.
| Methods | ACC (%) | MCC | SP (%) | SN (%) |
| DNA-Threader [63] | 59.70 | 0.2790 | 95.70 | 23.70 | DNAbinder [23] | 60.80 | 0.2160 | 64.50 | 57.00 | DNA-Prot [64] | 61.80 | 0.2400 | 53.80 | 69.90 | iDNA-Prot [65] | 67.20 | 0.3440 | 66.70 | 67.70 | DNABIND [66] | 67.70 | 0.3550 | 68.80 | 66.70 | Kmer1+ACC [67] | 71.00 | 0.4310 | 59.10 | 82.80 | iDNAPro-PseAAC [14] | 71.50 | 0.4420 | 60.2 | 82.8 | Wang’s method [68] | 76.30 | 0.5570 | 60.20 | 92.50 | DBPPred [24] | 76.90 | 0.5380 | 74.20 | 79.60 | DPP-PseAAC [20] | 77.40 | 0.5500 | 70.90 | 83.00 | Local-DPP [69] | 79.00 | 0.6250 | 65.60 | 92.50 | iDBP-DEP [41] | 80.10 | 0.6250 | 66.70 | 93.60 | iDNAProt-ES [70] | 80.64 | 0.6130 | 80.00 | 81.30 | FSEiDBP | 83.33 | 0.6733 | 76.34 | 90.32 |
|
|