Skip to main content

Table 1 Area under ROC (TPR vs. FPR) and precision-recall (PPV vs. TPR) curves for off-target scoring methods when benchmarked with the Haeussler dataset [11], allowing up to six mismatches, and NGG, NAG, and NGA PAM sequences for off-targeting

From: CRISPR-Cas9 off-targeting assessment with nucleic acid duplex energy parameters

  

Off-target scoring method

Area

 

CRISPRoff

Elevation

CFD

MIT

Cropit

CCTop

VfoldCAS

ROC

 

.98

.96

.96

.96

.91

.88

.80

PR

 

.18

.08

.08

.12

.05

.06

.01

TPR

        

.9

FPR

.06

.11

.11

.13

.27

.34

.44

.95

 

.11

.17

.17

.21

.33

.44

.63

.99

 

.32

.88

.88

.44

.71

.74

.84

1

 

.73

.97

.97

.96

.99

.91

.96

FPR

        

.01

TPR

.67

.52

.52

.59

.36

.31

.18

.05

 

.89

.80

.80

.79

.49

.50

.39

.1

 

.94

.89

.89

.87

.71

.61

.48

  1. Corresponding TPR and FPR performance of the methods are also given for some fixed FPR and TPR values. Best performances are given in bold