Comparative analysis of the quality of a global algorithm and a local algorithm for alignment of two sequences

Table 3 Accuracy and confidence of global and local alignment at symmetrical consoles

Evolutional distance, PAM	Console length, %	Global alignment		Local alignment
		Accuracy, %	Confidence, %	Accuracy, %	Confidence,%
30	0	98.98	98.86	98.19	98.57
30	10	98.90	98.62	98.23	98.20
30	20	98.77	98.38	98.11	97.95
30	50	98.50	97.88	97.91	97.45
30	100	98.47	97.82	97.91	97.36
30	200	98.40	97.61	97.65	96.93
60	0	95.88	95.42	93.19	94.37
60	10	95.89	95.25	93.61	93.91
60	20	95.24	94.38	93.29	93.20
60	50	94.59	93.22	92.92	91.99
60	100	94.65	93.05	92.84	91.46
60	200	94.35	92.77	92.57	91.21
120	0	82.47	81.47	71.76	76.71
120	10	81.13	79.79	71.34	74.16
120	20	79.30	77.59	71.16	72.64
120	50	77.95	75.77	70.51	69.77
120	100	76.70	74.11	69.48	67.78
120	200	76.32	73.34	68.69	66.79
240	0	38.86	38.31	15.14	19.30
240	10	36.80	35.90	15.50	18.12
240	20	33.06	32.05	14.22	15.71
240	50	30.71	29.46	14.22	14.49
240	100	27.93	26.63	12.79	12.43
240	200	25.33	23.90	9.27	8.88

The dependence of Accuracy and Confidence values on the evolutional distance between cores (Evolutional distance, PAM) and relation of the total length of consoles to the core length (Console length, %) is shown. Of notice is the qualitative predominance of the global algorithm at the evolutional distance of 240 PAM.

ISSN: 1748-7188