Skip to main content

Table 2 Accuracy on simulated Sanger reads.

From: The effect of sequencing errors on metagenomic gene prediction

 

GeneMark

MetaGene

MGA

Orphelia

ESTScan

Error rate1

Sens.2

Spec.3

Sens.2

Spec.3

Sens.2

Spec.3

Sens.2

Spec.3

Sens.2

Spec.3

0 to 0

91.9 ± 3.2

93.8 ± 4.9

94.4 ± 3.0

93.0 ± 2.9

94.7 ± 2.9

94.1 ± 2.9

89.7 ± 3.5

96.5 ± 1.7

78.9 ± 7.2

98.5 ± 1.2

1 to 2 × 10-5

91.9 ± 3.3

93.7 ± 5.2

94.8 ± 2.8

93.0 ± 3.0

94.8 ± 2.9

94.0 ± 3.1

90.1 ± 3.3

96.7 ± 1.6

79.2 ± 6.5

98.6 ± 1.1

1 to 2 × 10-4

91.8 ± 3.3

93.5 ± 5.2

94.5 ± 2.9

92.6 ± 3.2

94.5 ± 3.0

93.7 ± 3.1

89.6 ± 3.5

96.5 ± 1.7

79.0 ± 7.0

98.4 ± 1.3

1 to 2 × 10-3

90.5 ± 3.2

92.6 ± 4.8

93.3 ± 2.8

92.1 ± 3.0

93.3 ± 3.0

93.3 ± 2.8

87.2 ± 3.6

96.0 ± 1.7

78.0 ± 7.2

98.2 ± 1.2

1 to 2 × 10-2

77.7 ± 4.4

86.6 ± 6.9

79.8 ± 3.6

85.6 ± 3.9

81.2 ± 4.3

87.6 ± 3.1

65.7 ± 6.4

91.9 ± 1.8

66.2 ± 11.1

96.2 ± 1.8

  1. The gene prediction accuracy (mean and standard deviation over all species in the simulated metagenome) results of four metagenomic gene prediction tools GeneMark, MetaGene, MetaGeneAnnotator (MGA) and Orphelia, and of the EST processing tool ESTScan on simulated Sanger reads is shown.