A protein-protein interaction network aligner study in the multi-objective domain.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The protein-protein interaction (PPI) network alignment has proven to be an efficient technique in the diagnosis and prevention of certain diseases. However, the difficulty in maximizing, at the same time, the two qualities that measure the goodness of alignments (topological and biological quality) has led aligners to produce very different alignments. Thus making a comparative study among alignments of such different qualities a big challenge. Multi-objective optimization is a computer method, which is very powerful in this kind of contexts because both conflicting qualities are considered together. Analysing the alignments of each PPI network aligner with multi-objective methodologies allows you to visualize a bigger picture of the alignments and their qualities, obtaining very interesting conclusions. This paper proposes a comprehensive PPI network aligner study in the multi-objective domain.

METHODS

Alignments from each aligner and all aligners together were studied and compared to each other via Pareto dominance methodologies. The best alignments produced by each aligner and all aligners together for five different alignment scenarios were displayed in Pareto front graphs. Later, the aligners were ranked according to the topological, biological, and combined quality of their alignments. Finally, the aligners were also ranked based on their average runtimes.

RESULTS

Regarding aligners constructing the best overall alignments, we found that SAlign, BEAMS, SANA, and HubAlign are the best options. Additionally, the alignments of best topological quality are produced by: SANA, SAlign, and HubAlign aligners. On the contrary, the aligners returning the alignments of best biological quality are: BEAMS, TAME, and WAVE. However, if there are time constraints, it is recommended to select SAlign to obtain high topological quality alignments and PISwap or SAlign aligners for high biological quality alignments.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the SANA aligner is recommended for obtaining the best alignments of topological quality, BEAMS for alignments of the best biological quality, and SAlign for alignments of the best combined topological and biological quality. Simultaneously, SANA and BEAMS have above-average runtimes. Therefore, it is suggested, if necessary due to time restrictions, to choose other, faster aligners like SAlign or PISwap whose alignments are also of high quality.