Table 3.

Comparison between the results of SAlign (SA) and existing techniques on network pairs which have low percentage of proteins with experimentally resolved structures on the basis of average AFS and average percentage of aligned nodes w.r.t MF and BP

Pairs	Evaluation criteria	Alignment algorithms
		SA	${\text{SA}}^{\mathrm{mc}}$	HA	MA	IBN	NET	M++	PRO
Mouse fly	AFS${}_{\mathit{MF}}$	0.50	0.49	0.42	0.36	0.33	0.32	0.37	0.55*
	AFS${}_{\mathit{BP}}$	0.37	0.36	0.31	0.28	0.24	0.23	0.28	0.40*
	Nodes${}_{\mathit{MF}}$	73	72	67	66	58	57	63	61
	Nodes${}_{\mathit{BP}}$	80	80	76	74	58	60	62	56
Mouse worm	AFS${}_{\mathit{MF}}$	0.56*	0.54	0.49	0.41	0.30	0.29	0.31	0.52
	AFS${}_{\mathit{BP}}$	0.41*	0.40	0.37	0.30	0.25	0.24	0.25	0.39
	Nodes${}_{\mathit{MF}}$	76	74	73	71	62	62	64	64
	Nodes${}_{\mathit{BP}}$	70	68	67	66	70	72	76	73
Avg.	AFS${}_{\mathit{MF}}$	0.53	0.52	0.46	0.39	0.32	0.31	0.34	0.53
	AFS${}_{\mathit{BP}}$	0.39	0.38	0.34	0.29	0.25	0.24	0.27	0.40
	Nodes${}_{\mathit{MF}}$	74	73	70	69	60	59	64	63
	Nodes${}_{\mathit{BP}}$	75	74	72	70	66	66	69	65

The particular results of the best aligners are differentiated from other aligners by italic text

SAlign performs well in terms of average AFS w.r.t MF and BP and it also outperforms existing aligners in terms of average percentage of align nodes. ‘*’ shows that the results are statistically significant