Fair evaluation of global network aligners

Abstract

Analogous to genomic sequence alignment, biological network alignment identifies conserved regions between networks of different species. Then, function can be transferred from well- to poorly-annotated species between aligned network regions. Network alignment encompasses two algorithmic components: node cost function (NCF), which measures similarities between nodes in different networks, and alignment strategy (AS), which uses these similarities to rapidly identify high-scoring alignments. Different methods use both different NCFs and different ASs. Thus, it is unclear whether the superiority of a method comes from its NCF, its AS, or both. We already showed on state-of-the-art methods, MI-GRAAL and IsoRankN, that combining NCF of one method and AS of another method can lead to a new superior method. Here, we evaluate MI-GRAAL against a newer approach, GHOST, by mixing-and-matching the methods' NCFs and ASs to potentially further improve alignment quality. While doing so, we approach several important questions that have not been asked systematically thus far. First, we ask how much of the node similarity information within NCF should come from protein sequence data compared to network topology data. Existing methods determine this parameter more-less arbitrarily, which could significantly affect the resulting alignment(s). Second, when topological information is used in NCF, we ask how large the size of the neighborhoods of the compared nodes should be. Existing methods assume that the larger the neighborhood size, the better.