A comparison of the jackknife test results by iDNA-Prot|dis with the other methods on the benchmark dataset of Eq. 1.

Abstract

a<p>See the footnote c of <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0106691#pone-0106691-t001" target="_blank">Table 1</a>.</p>b<p>Results obtained by in-house implementation from DNAbinder <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0106691#pone.0106691-Kumar2" target="_blank">[96]</a>.</p>c<p>Results obtained by in-house implementation from DNAbinder <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0106691#pone.0106691-Kumar2" target="_blank">[96]</a>.</p>d<p>Results obtained by in-house implementation from DNA-Prot <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0106691#pone.0106691-Kumar1" target="_blank">[14]</a>.</p>e<p>Results obtained by in-house implementation from iDNA-Prot <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0106691#pone.0106691-Lin1" target="_blank">[15]</a>.</p><p>A comparison of the jackknife test results by iDNA-Prot|dis with the other methods on the benchmark dataset of Eq. 1.</p

    Similar works

    Full text

    thumbnail-image