2016
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btw348
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Local versus global biological network alignment

Abstract: Motivation: Network alignment (NA) aims to find regions of similarities between species’ molecular networks. There exist two NA categories: local (LNA) and global (GNA). LNA finds small highly conserved network regions and produces a many-to-many node mapping. GNA finds large conserved regions and produces a one-to-one node mapping. Given the different outputs of LNA and GNA, when a new NA method is proposed, it is compared against existing methods from the same category. However, both NA categories have the s… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
107
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 70 publications
(109 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
2
107
0
Order By: Relevance
“…From biological point of view, we observed that AlignMCL, which is a local aligner, has the highest agreement with the GO annotations. This is consistent with the observation of Meng et al [59] reporting that local aligners generally outperform global aligners in their prediction power for GO annotations. On the other hand, four methods with the best topological quality, namely TAME, GHOST, L-GRAAL, and MAGNA++, had the lowest Fscore for predicting GO terms.…”
Section: Alignment Of Human Versus Yeast Interactomessupporting
confidence: 92%
“…From biological point of view, we observed that AlignMCL, which is a local aligner, has the highest agreement with the GO annotations. This is consistent with the observation of Meng et al [59] reporting that local aligners generally outperform global aligners in their prediction power for GO annotations. On the other hand, four methods with the best topological quality, namely TAME, GHOST, L-GRAAL, and MAGNA++, had the lowest Fscore for predicting GO terms.…”
Section: Alignment Of Human Versus Yeast Interactomessupporting
confidence: 92%
“…The dominance of SANA becomes obvious if one creates a score which is the product of topology and functional similarity, since every other algorithm has its score reduced significantly by at least one of the two; this is depicted in Figure 4. It has been observed previously that there is a trade-off between the competing objectives of maximizing topological quality and maximizing sequence and/or functional similarityPatro and Kingsford (2012); ; Meng et al (2015); Clark and Kalita (2015). However, to our knowledge this is the first time that it has been shown that many algorithms are not capable of fully leveraging the trade-off to both ends of the spectrum.…”
Section: Alignments With Known Mapping Inmentioning
confidence: 80%
“…While SPINAL sometimes matches or slightly beats SANA in functional similarity, it does so at a high cost to the topological quality of its alignments ( Figure 3). As pointed out by Meng et al (2015), local alignments tend to perform better than global alignments in functional similarity score, and SANA is no exception to this rule. We hypothesize that this a consequence of most global aligners forcing a globally 1-to-1 mapping on the alignment, thus resulting in suboptimal placement of proteins that may legitimately claim a right to map to more than one location in the other network.…”
Section: Alignments With Known Mapping Inmentioning
confidence: 86%
“…NETAL [42] and MAGNA++ [43] are among the best existing global network alignment methods relying on topological alignment [44], and they have outperformed graph aligner [39] and its variants [40]. NETAL [42] constructs global alignments greedily, and can optionally take node similarity into account.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%