Skip to main content

Table 4 Accuracy by Species.

From: The effect of sequencing errors on metagenomic gene prediction

 

GeneMark

MetaGene

MGA

Orphelia

ESTScan

Species

Sens.2

Spec.3

Sens.2

Spec.3

Sens.2

Spec.3

Sens.2

Spec.3

Sens.2

Spec.3

GC-content 30 - 39%

          

B. aphidicola

81.7

92.6

88.5

88.1

90.1

88.6

66.0

93.5

71.4

98.3

A. laidlawii

86.2

94.6

90.4

89.9

91.9

91.3

75.3

96.2

81.4

97.3

P. marinus

81.8

91.3

84.0

87.1

84.2

87.9

61.9

92.5

69.3

97.3

D. thermophilum

85.1

94.2

84.7

90.5

86.6

91.2

71.8

94.6

70.5

98.5

N. maritimus

85.7

90.4

86.2

86.7

87.7

87.7

68.1

92.4

76.9

96.1

W. endosymbiont

80.1

81.0

83.6

84.0

84.7

85.6

65.2

90.9

67.6

94.5

Hydrogenobaculum sp.

83.9

93.9

84.3

89.9

85.5

90.8

67.2

93.1

73.0

98.1

GC-content 40 - 49%

          

D. kamchatkensis

73.3

94.3

77.1

89.5

79.5

90.4

61.4

93.1

35.0

94.4

E. sibiricum

78.9

90.0

81.7

88.2

81.8

89.4

78.3

93.9

74.4

95.1

GC-content 50 - 59%

          

H. aurantiacus

70.2

80.1

80.2

84.9

78.6

86.1

74.0

92.7

76.4

95.5

C. tepidum

74.0

76.6

78.6

81.0

79.0

83.0

72.7

89.9

72.7

93.7

GC-content 60 - 69%

          

C. jeikeium

77.2

83.7

84.2

83.3

86.6

88.2

79.7

93.2

76.1

96.3

N. pharaonis

77.0

83.5

83.3

81.6

83.9

84.8

72.8

91.3

75.3

94.4

B. pseudomallei

77.7

80.5

85.2

77.6

85.9

83.3

77.0

87.8

84.5

97.7

  1. The gene prediction accuracy (mean and standard deviation over all species in the simulated metagenome) of four metagenomic gene prediction tools GeneMark, MetaGene, MetaGeneAnnotator (MGA) and Orphelia, and of the EST processing tool ESTScan on pyrosequencing reads (450 nt) with 0.49% errors.