Skip to main content

Table 1 Link-specific ChIP evaluation bootstrap results

From: Identifying targets of multiple co-regulating transcription factors from expression time-series by Bayesian model comparison

Predicting regulation by single TFs
Top 50 Top 100 Top 200
  P32 P2 ML Inf   P32 P2 ML Inf   P32 P2 ML Inf
P32    *** * P32    ** ** P32    ** **
P2    *** ** P2 +   *** *** P2    *** **
ML      ML      ML     
Inf      Inf      Inf     
Top 400 Top 800 Top 1600
  P32 P2 ML Inf   P32 P2 ML Inf   P32 P2 ML Inf
P32    * *** P32    + *** P32    * ***
P2    ** *** P2    * *** P2    * ***
ML     * ML     *** ML     ***
Inf      Inf      Inf     
  Top 3200  
       P32 P2 ML Inf      
      P32   *** *** ***      
      P2    * ***      
      ML     ***      
      Inf          
Predicting regulation by TF pairs
Top 50 Top 100 Top 200
  P32 P4 ML Inf   P32 P4 ML Inf   P32 P4 ML Inf
P32    ** + P32    * . P32    + *
P4    ** + P4    * + P4    + *
ML      ML      ML     
Inf    .   Inf      Inf     
Top 400 Top 800 Top 1600
  P32 P4 ML Inf   P32 P4 ML Inf   P32 P4 ML Inf
P32    * ** P32    + *** P32     **
P4    + ** P4    * *** P4 **   * ***
ML      ML     . ML     +
Inf      Inf      Inf     
  Top 3200  
       P32 P4 ML Inf      
      P32     *      
      P4 ***   ** ***      
      ML *    ***      
      Inf          
  1. The results of 100,000-fold bootstrap resampling of the data set of observed genes to assess significance of differences in ranking method performance. The methods studied are: P32 = Posterior-32 method, P2 = Posterior-2 method, P4 = Posterior-4 method, ML = ML Baseline method, Inf = Inferelator. For each pair of methods, the marks in the tables show how often the method on the corresponding row dominated the one on the corresponding column. The marks are interpreted as follows: ‘.’: >80% dominance, ‘+’: >90% dominance, ‘*’: > 95% dominance, ‘**’: >99% dominance, ‘***’: >99.9% dominance, ‘-’: comparison not applicable.