Author's Correction for You et al., J. Virol. 79 (19) 12477-12486.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by You, L.
Right arrow Articles by Rögnvaldsson, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by You, L.
Right arrow Articles by Rögnvaldsson, T.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Virology, April 2006, p. 4205, Vol. 80, No. 8
0022-538X/06/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/JVI.80.8.4205.2006

AUTHOR'S CORRECTION

Comprehensive Bioinformatic Analysis of the Specificity of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Protease

Liwen You, Daniel Garwicz, and Thorsteinn Rögnvaldsson

School of Information Science, Computer and Electrical Engineering, Halmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden, and Division of Hematology and Transfusion Medicine, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden, and Division of Molecular Toxicology, Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

Volume 79, number 19, p. 12477-12486, 2005. Page 12480: Figure 3 and its legend should appear as shown below. The out-of sample prediction performance for the Gaussian support vector machine (GSVM) algorithm was overestimated due to a computational mistake. As a result, the GSVM algorithm with hydrophobicity and size coding does not outperform the linear algorithms with sparse orthogonal coding. However, the two physicochemical parameters hydrophobicity and size are still the best pair of properties for predicting cleavage by the HIV-1 protease. As previously stated, there is no statistically significant difference (at the 95% level) in prediction performance between the best method using sparse orthogonal coding and the GSVM model with property coding. None of the other results or conclusions in the original paper are affected by the computational mistake.


Figure 3
View larger version (33K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 3. The best predictors’ out-of-sample performances, estimated using cross-validation. There is no statistically significant difference (at the 95% level) between the best linear and the best nonlinear predictors. The two bottom curves are both for property-coded data, but the upper one represents the case when care is not taken to avoid sequence bias in the testing (shown here to illustrate the importance of avoiding such bias and overly optimistic results). Here S denotes small property and H denotes hydrophobicity.

Journal of Virology, April 2006, p. 4205, Vol. 80, No. 8
0022-538X/06/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/JVI.80.8.4205.2006





This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by You, L.
Right arrow Articles by Rögnvaldsson, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by You, L.
Right arrow Articles by Rögnvaldsson, T.

Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology.   For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»