Skip to main content
. 2002 Nov;11(11):2606–2621. doi: 10.1110/ps.0215902

Table 1.

Comparison of structural alignments obtained with MAMMOTH and with other methods

Protein 1 Protein 2 MAMMOTH SHEBA OTHERS
1acx 1cob_B 77 69 90 (1)
1acx 1tmf−A 25 80 (1)
1pts_A 1mup 75 72 76 (1)
2gbl 1ubq 45 44 42 (2)
2gb1 4fxc 42 44 39 (2)
1ubq 4fxc 60 54 48 (2)
1plc 2rhe 64 49 50 (2)
1plc 1acx 51 57 48 (2)
1acx 1rbe 62 59 49 (2)
1aba 1trs 65 64 60 (3)
1aba 1dsb_A 36 52 47 (3)
1aba 1pbf 47 51 36 (4)
1mjc 5tss_A 42 54 50 (4)
1pgb 5tss_A 45 43 43 (4)
2tmv_P 256b_A 68 68 64 (4)
1tnf_A 1bmv_I 54 80 71 (4)
1ubq 1frd 60 56 48 (4)
2rsl_C 3chy 55 59 56 (4)
3chy 1rcf 99 89 75 (4)

This set is taken from Jung and Lee. Table 2 (Jung & Lee, 2000). For each pair, the number of aligned residues after optimal structural alignment, as obtained with the different programs, is shown.

(1) Dali (Holm & Sander, 1993); (2) MLC (Boutonnet et al., 1995); (3) VAST (Madej et al., 1995; Gibrat et al., 1996); (4) ProSup (Lackner et al., 2000)