|
IN-LSCC
|
LSCC
|
OUT-LSCC
|
SIMPLE
|
SSCC
|
INT
|
EXCP
|
---|
|
Luscombe
|
actual
|
9
|
25
|
68
|
38
|
2
|
0
|
2
|
average
|
17.1
|
42.3
|
43.2
|
33.8
|
1.00
|
2.8
|
2.8
|
p-value
|
0.02
|
0.025
|
0.001
|
0.062
|
0.6
|
0.097
|
0.58
|
|
Yu
|
actual
|
20
|
63
|
114
|
77
|
5
|
6
|
5
|
average
|
32.5
|
69.5
|
102.8
|
69.6
|
0.44
|
6.3
|
4.2
|
p-value
|
0.001
|
0.002
|
0.020
|
0.22
|
0.01
|
0.32
|
0.34
|
|
Balaji
|
actual
|
21
|
60
|
58
|
14
|
0
|
3
|
1
|
average
|
20.9
|
74.4
|
45.6
|
14.3
|
0.2
|
1.2
|
0.5
|
p-value
|
0.53
|
0.002
|
0.002
|
0.57
|
0.92
|
0.14
|
0.35
|
- We use Sscc to denote small cyclic scc's. The TFs that are neither in LSCC nor in its in- or out-components are classified according to MPL, the maximal path length for a path that includes a given TF; when MPL is 1 or 2, TF is in SIMPLE, if MPL is more than 3, TF is in EXCP, and if MPL is 3, we could make either decision, so here we inluded intermediate class INT.
- Random graphs were produced to get a uniform distribution among graphs in which TFs have the same in-and out- degrees as in the original network, without changing the TF-TT connections.