Table 1 Comparison of LAST and LASTM
From: A simple and economical method for improving whole genome alignment
Human vs mouse | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Alignment method | Time (hours) | No. of alignments | Ave length | Ave similarity |
 LAST with D | 3.04 | 2,521,923 | 842 | 61.29% |
 LAST with 0.9D | 6.19 | 2,616,550 | 837 | 61.03% |
 LAST with 0.85D | 11.85 | 2,665,216 | 834 | 60.95% |
 Our method | 3.72 | 2,642,403 | 838 | 60.99% |
Human vs dog | ||||
 Alignment method | Time (hours) | No. of alignments | Ave length | Ave similarity |
 LAST with D | 3.18 | 4,533,937 | 905 | 62.99% |
 LAST with 0.9D | 6.65 | 4,640,443 | 898 | 62.85% |
 LAST with 0.85D | 12.30 | 4,640,877 | 895 | 62.78% |
 Our method | 3.87 | 4,657,968 | 899 | 62.84% |
Human vs cat | ||||
 Alignment method | Time (hours) | No. of alignments | Ave length | Ave similarity |
 LAST with D | 4.36 | 4,431,635 | 908 | 62.62% |
 LAST with 0.9D | 7.84 | 4,526,245 | 901 | 62.51% |
 LAST with 0.85D | 13.26 | 4,571,706 | 899 | 62.46% |
 Our method | 5.29 | 4,541,363 | 902 | 62.51% |
Human vs cow | ||||
 Alignment method | Time (hours) | No. of alignments | Ave length | Ave similarity |
 LAST with D | 4.59 | 6,437,907 | 785 | 61.65% |
 LAST with 0.9D | 7.83 | 6,724,264 | 775 | 61.47% |
 LAST with 0.85D | 12.78 | 6,875,343 | 770 | 61.38% |
 Our method | 5.34 | 6,770,810 | 778 | 61.44% |
Human vs rat | ||||
 Alignment method | Time (hours) | No. of alignments | Ave length | Ave similarity |
 LAST with D | 4.16 | 8,055,476 | 505 | 62.29% |
 LAST with 0.9D | 7.78 | 8,563,474 | 504 | 62.07% |
 LAST with 0.85D | 13.27 | 8,836,291 | 503 | 61.96% |
 Our method | 4.86 | 8,595,871 | 509 | 62.07% |