Skip to main content
. 2006 Mar 23;34(6):1692–1699. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkl091

Table 1.

The first column lists the individual methods used

Alignment method Default %CS VarCov weight THG weight ALT weight ACC weight No weight
CLUSTALW v1.83* 61.15 1.77 1.41 1.86 1.01 1.00
DIALIGN 55.71 1.31 1.33 1.83 0.92 1.00
DIALIGN-T* 57.92 1.34 1.33 1.83 0.95 1.00
FFTNS1 58.27 0.81 0.74 0.64 0.96 1.00
FFTNS2 60.47 0.40 0.64 0.44 1.00 1.00
FFTNSI 63.07 0.17 0.64 0.44 1.04 1.00
FINSI* 64.22 0.79 0.74 0.38 1.06 1.00
GINSI 63.43 0.50 0.74 0.38 1.04 1.00
Muscle v3.52 64.49 1.02 0.85 0.54 1.06 1.00
Muscle v6.0* 66.04 0.78 0.56 0.24 1.09 1.00
PCMA* 63.73 1.41 0.94 0.75 1.05 1.00
POA-global* 51.90 1.37 1.87 2.51 0.85 1.00
POA-local 49.28 1.42 1.87 2.51 0.81 1.00
ProbCons v1.09* 66.41 0.73 0.56 0.24 1.09 1.00
T-Coffee v2.03* 65.37 1.18 0.78 0.42 1.08 1.00
%CS for M-Coffee15 67.33 66.96 65.79 67.16 67.11
%CS for M-Coffee8 67.32 66.33 64.89 67.85 67.75

Methods in boldface marked with an asterisk are part of the M-Coffee8 selection of methods. Column 2 indicates the average performance of each individual method on HOMSTRAD. Columns 3–7 are the weights for each method as calculated by the indicated weighting schemes. The last two lines show the average score of M-Coffee15 and M-Coffee8, using all the indicted weighting schemes.