Data set | Method | Species | Genus | Family | Order | Class | Phylum |
---|
Edwards et al. [14] | WIsH | 28 | 44 | 50 | 53 | 62 | 70 |
BLAST | 43 | 59 | 71 | 78 | 87 | 96 |
Phirboa | 43 | 59 | 71 | 78 | 87 | 96 |
Phirbo (+viruses)b | 48 | 63 | 75 | 82 | 90 | 97 |
Galiez et al. [17] | WIsH | 21 | 44 | 48 | 53 | 68 | 77 |
BLAST | 31 | 53 | 62 | 68 | 88 | 95 |
Phirboa | 31 | 53 | 62 | 68 | 88 | 95 |
Phirbo (+viruses)b | 35 | 56 | 65 | 72 | 90 | 96 |
- The highest accuracies among the methods for each taxonomic level are in bold
- aPhirbo scores were calculated using rank-biased overlap (RBO) between BLAST lists containing prokaryotic sequences. Specifically, the BLAST database contained 2699 sequences of bacterial genomes in the Edwards et al. data set and 3780 sequences of bacterial and archaeal genomes in the Galiez et al. data set
- bPhirbo scores were calculated using RBO between BLAST lists containing both prokaryotic and viral sequences