Table 3.

Proportions of Correctly Matched Bases From MCALIGN and Other Alignment Methods Compared by Simulation


Simulated

Proportion of matched bases
t
θ
DIALIGN
LAGAN
AVID
CLUSTAL
HANDEL
MCALIGN
0.05 0.225 0.986 (0.0014) 0.987 (0.0014) 0.990 (0.0011) 0.983 (0.0022) 0.969 (0.0015) 0.991 (0.00085)
0.10 0.225 0.963 (0.0023) 0.966 (0.0023) 0.977 (0.0016) 0.960 (0.0035) 0.944 (0.0022) 0.980 (0.0015)
0.15 0.225 0.925 (0.0036) 0.932 (0.0037) 0.949 (0.0029) 0.913 (0.0058) 0.874 (0.0033) 0.954 (0.0026)
0.20 0.225 0.892 (0.0044) 0.901 (0.0046) 0.928 (0.0035) 0.871 (0.0078) 0.820 (0.0043) 0.935 (0.0033)
0.25 0.225 0.839 (0.0050) 0.848 (0.0053) 0.887 (0.0042) 0.812 (0.0079) 0.776 (0.0039) 0.894 (0.0046)
0.30 0.225 0.776 (0.0058) 0.792 (0.0066) 0.838 (0.0055) 0.751 (0.0096) 0.702 (0.0047) 0.844 (0.0057)
0.15 0.1 0.973 (0.0019) 0.978 (0.0020) 0.984 (0.0015) 0.973 (0.0029) 0.948 (0.0034) 0.986 (0.0012)
0.15 0.3 0.903 (0.0041) 0.909 (0.0043) 0.933 (0.0032) 0.894 (0.0062) 0.854 (0.0036) 0.944 (0.0027)
0.15
0.4
0.863 (0.0041)
0.902 (0.0037)
0.902 (0.0037)
0.822 (0.0085)
0.800 (0.0035)
0.916 (0.0031)

[i] Data are from 200 replicates per parameter value combination, with sequences of length 200 base pairs. Standard error of the mean is shown in parentheses.