The phrase "alignment scores for" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in contexts related to data analysis, machine learning, or any field where scores are assigned to measure alignment or compatibility.
Example: "The alignment scores for the different models were compared to determine which one performed best."
Alternatives: "alignment metrics for" or "alignment ratings for".
The alignment scores for internal duplication of pairings of the three homology units of ceruloplasmin exceed the scores yet reported for contiguous internal duplication of any other protein.
As expected, the performance can be improved by features describing the active site of the kinases by local alignment scores for C5 or position specific features for SVMs.
E-values for the traditional structural alignment are derived by using the background information, i.e., the distribution of alignment scores for random proteins that are structurally dissimilar to the query protein.
To identify good matches between the EST and individual contigs, individual pairwise alignment scores for each EST-contig alignment within the global alignment were divided by the maximum EST-contig alignment score in that group, and all contigs with a normalized pairwise alignment score less than 0.7 were eliminated from further clustering.
Weighted alignment scores for BLASR and LAST alignments.
This resulted in significant alignment scores for 45 query transcripts in each population.
The alignment score for each species' eBLAT alignments shows the total number of aligning bases in the input reference DNA.
The ClustalW [40] sequence alignment score for c-Src (PDB ID 2H8H) and c-Abl (PDB ID 2FO0) is 38.
FastBLAST computes a BLAST-like alignment score for the pairwise alignments between the query and its homologs that are implied by the families' alignments, and it selects the top 2.5h homologs, where h is the desired number of top homologs and 2.5 is an arbitrary safety factor.
The FFAS03 structural alignment score for the ZIP10 PL domain (murine ZIP10 residues 285 395 achieved statistical significance for an alignment with the structure of Xenopus laevis PrP (PDB entry: 1xu0) [25] with a value of −9.6 (and a threshold of −9.5 indicating less than 3% false positives).
The best alignment score for the current population is used as the criterion for this purpose.
