Protein ligand-specific binding residue predictions by an ensemble classifier

BMC Bioinformatics

Table 3 Performance of the proposed combined methods on the 9 types of ligands over five-fold cross-validation and comparison with COACH

Ligand	Method	Accuracy (%)	Sensitivity (%)	Specificity (%)	MCC
CU	TargetCom	99.21	57.94	99.78	0.67
CU	COACH	98.86	61.12	99.39	0.59
FE	TargetCom	98.73	59.73	99.32	0.58
FE	COACH	97.95	66.82	98.42	0.50
FE2	TargetCom	99.27	67.73	99.68	0.70
FE2	COACH	99.20	62.41	99.67	0.66
ZN	TargetCom	98.99	56.18	99.50	0.56
ZN	COACH	98.65	57.38	99.14	0.50
SO4	TargetCom	97.72	15.11	99.48	0.23
SO4	COACH	97.21	19.15	98.87	0.21
PO4	TargetCom	97.99	32.03	99.26	0.37
PO4	COACH	97.52	35.33	98.72	0.34
ATP	TargetCom	97.17	59.26	98.54	0.58
ATP	COACH	96.99	56.27	98.46	0.55
FMN	TargetCom	97.66	79.61	98.58	0.76
FMN	COACH	96.75	70.36	98.11	0.66
HEME	TargetCom	94.96	69.92	97.07	0.66
HEME	COACH	94.48	61.60	97.25	0.60

ISSN: 1471-2105