Table 1. Performance of different algorithms for pairwise network alignment.

	DMC			DMR			CG
	SPE	CN	MNE	SPE	CN	MNE	SPE	CN	MNE
SMETANA	92.58	5191	6.93	91.48	4933	7.39	94.80	4889	4.81
IsoRankN	82.69	3836	14.13	83.55	3915	13.40	83.16	3868	13.34
NBM	96.55	3185	4.98	96.75	2853	4.02	96.23	4523	4.03
Græmlin 2.0	77.37	2137	15.70	81.03	2322	13.33	90.72	2549	7.96
MI-GRAAL	66.13	3612	35.27	69.97	3852	31.59	79.48	4385	22.76
C-GRAAL	32.12	1779	66.52	43.80	2430	55.74	63.34	3523	37.56
AlignNemo	77.37	2137	15.70	81.03	2322	13.33	90.72	2549	7.96
PINALOG	70.64	3707	30.79	71.57	3735	29.83	71.66	3935	29.84

Performance comparison based on the pairwise alignment of two networks of size 3,000 and 4,000. The performance of each method is assessed using the following metrics: specificity (SP), number of correct nodes (CN), and mean normalized entropy (MNE). In each column, best performance is shown in bold.