Fig. 2

Comparative analysis and validation of all the three prediction approaches. The targets used are a) S1 GAGGAGGAT-RDNR RDNR QSNR b) M1 GAGGAAGGG-RDNR QGNR RDHR c) W1 GAAGAGGGT-QGNR RDNR QSHR. Binding affinity of the targets were determined based on the ∆G values owing to which they have been termed as strong, medium and weak binders as reported by Schaal et al. 2002 [38], where S1 is the strongest binder and W1 is the weakest. The predictions made by the three approaches developed, are in sync with the experimental data for the three binders. The trend line for ∆G has maximum resemblance to that of the predictions made by Approach 2, which assumes synergistic mode of binding, hence making it the most reliable of the three