D 
only if none of the secreted MedChemExpress Tetracosactrin proteins and non-secreted proteins are 
mispredicted, i.e., mz m{ 0 and Lz L{ 1, we have the overall success rate L 1. Otherwise, the overall success rate would be smaller than 1. It is instructive to point out that the following equation is often used in literatures for examining the performance quality of a predictor 8 > Sn TP > > > TPzFN > > > > > > Sp TN > < TNzFP TPzTN > Acc > > > TPzTNzFPzFN > > > > > (TP|TN){(FP|FN) > MCC pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi > : (TPzFP)(TPzFN)(TNzFP)(TNzFN)?6?where TP represents the true positive; TN, the true negative; FP, the false positive; FN, the false negative; Sn, the sensitivity; Sp, the specificity; Acc, the accuracy; MCC, the Mathew’s 58-49-1 site correlation coefficient. The relations between the symbols in Eq.15 and those in Eq.16 are given byPredicting Secretory Proteins of Malaria ParasiteFigure 1. A semi-screenshot to show the top page of the iSMP-Grey web-server. Its web-site address is at http://www.jci-bioinfo.cn/iSMPGrey. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0049040.g8 z z > TP N {m > > < TN N { {m{ > FP m{ > > : FN mz?7?It follows by substituting Eq.17 into Eq.16 and noting Eq.15 8 z > Sn 1{ m > > > Nz > > { > > > Sp 1{ m > > > N{ > > < mz zm{ Acc L 1{ z > N zN { > > z > > m m{ > 1{ N z z N { > > > > MCC 1662274 r ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi > > > { {mz z {m{ > : 1z m N { 1z m N z?8?have the overall accuracy Acc L 1; while mz N z and m{ N { meaning that all the secreted proteins in the dataset z and all the non-secreted proteins in { were incorrectly predicted, we have the overall accuracy Acc L 0. The MCC correlation coefficient is usually used for measuring the quality of binary (two-class) classifications. When mz m{ 0 meaning that none of the secreted proteins in the dataset z and none of the non-secreted proteins in { was incorrectly predicted, we have Mcc 1; when mz N z =2 and m{ N { =2 we have Mcc 0 meaning no better than random prediction; when mz N z and m{ N { we have MCC {1 meaning total disagreement between prediction and observation. As we can see from the above discussion, it is much more intuitive and easier-tounderstand when using Eq.18 to examine a predictor for its sensitivity, specificity, overall accuracy, and Mathew’s correlation coefficient.Results and DiscussionThe results obtained with iSMP-Grey on the benchmark dataset Bench of Eq.1 by the jackknife test are given in Table 1, where for facilitating comparison the results obtained by the KMID predictor [4] on the same benchmark dataset with the same test method are also given. As we can see from Table 1, the overall success rate by iSMP-Grey was 94.84 with MCC 0:90, which are remarkably higher than those by the KMID predictor [4]. Moreover, a comparison was also made with the PSEApred predictor [2]. Although the results by PSEApred as reported by Verma et al. [2] were also based on the same benchmark dataset P Bench of Eq.1, the test method used by these authors for PSEApred was 5-fold cross-validation. As elaborated in [34], this would make the test without a unique result as demonstrated below. For the current case, B.D only if none of the secreted proteins and non-secreted proteins are mispredicted, i.e., mz m{ 0 and Lz L{ 1, we have the overall success rate L 1. Otherwise, the overall success rate would be smaller than 1. It is instructive to point out that the following equation is often used in literatures for examining the performance quality of a predictor 8 > Sn TP > > > TPzFN > > > > > > Sp TN > < TNzFP TPzTN > Acc > > > TPzTNzFPzFN > > > > > (TP|TN){(FP|FN) > MCC pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi > : (TPzFP)(TPzFN)(TNzFP)(TNzFN)?6?where TP represents the true positive; TN, the true negative; FP, the false positive; FN, the false negative; Sn, the sensitivity; Sp, the specificity; Acc, the accuracy; MCC, the Mathew’s correlation coefficient. The relations between the symbols in Eq.15 and those in Eq.16 are given byPredicting Secretory Proteins of Malaria ParasiteFigure 1. A semi-screenshot to show the top page of the iSMP-Grey web-server. Its web-site address is at http://www.jci-bioinfo.cn/iSMPGrey. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0049040.g8 z z > TP N {m > > < TN N { {m{ > FP m{ > > : FN mz?7?It follows by substituting Eq.17 into Eq.16 and noting Eq.15 8 z > Sn 1{ m > > > Nz > > { > > > Sp 1{ m > > > N{ > > < mz zm{ Acc L 1{ z > N zN { > > z > > m m{ > 1{ N z z N { > > > > MCC 1662274 r ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi > > > { {mz z {m{ > : 1z m N { 1z m N z?8?have the overall accuracy Acc L 1; while mz N z and m{ N { meaning that all the secreted proteins in the dataset z and all the non-secreted proteins in { were incorrectly predicted, we have the overall accuracy Acc L 0. The MCC correlation coefficient is usually used for measuring the quality of binary (two-class) classifications. When mz m{ 0 meaning that none of the secreted proteins in the dataset z and none of the non-secreted proteins in { was incorrectly predicted, we have Mcc 1; when mz N z =2 and m{ N { =2 we have Mcc 0 meaning no better than random prediction; when mz N z and m{ N { we have MCC {1 meaning total disagreement between prediction and observation. As we can see from the above discussion, it is much more intuitive and easier-tounderstand when using Eq.18 to examine a predictor for its sensitivity, specificity, overall accuracy, and Mathew’s correlation coefficient.Results and DiscussionThe results obtained with iSMP-Grey on the benchmark dataset Bench of Eq.1 by the jackknife test are given in Table 1, where for facilitating comparison the results obtained by the KMID predictor [4] on the same benchmark dataset with the same test method are also given. As we can see from Table 1, the overall success rate by iSMP-Grey was 94.84 with MCC 0:90, which are remarkably higher than those by the KMID predictor [4]. Moreover, a comparison was also made with the PSEApred predictor [2]. Although the results by PSEApred as reported by Verma et al. [2] were also based on the same benchmark dataset P Bench of Eq.1, the test method used by these authors for PSEApred was 5-fold cross-validation. As elaborated in [34], this would make the test without a unique result as demonstrated below. For the current case, B.