. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 Mar 23.

Published in final edited form as: Environ Microbiol. 2016 Jan 21;18(4):1187–1199. doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.13138

Table 2.

Sequence comparisons of groundwater aquifer RubisCO sequences obtained from functional selection with RubisCO scaffolds obtained from deep sequencing.

	Scaffold GWB2_18588		Scaffold GWD2_39307		Scaffold GWA2_17992
	(7.1 Kb)		(2.3 Kb)		(9 Kb)
	No. of identical residues/total no.	% identity	No. of identical residues/total no.	% identity	No. of identical residues/total no.	% identity

Entire fragment^a
GWS1B 3 Kb	3054/3239	94.3	1629/1689	96.4	2229/2654^c	84
GWS6B 4.5 Kb	4093/4324	94.7	2301/2563	90	2973/3571^c	83
GWS6D 6 Kb	4088/4336	94.3	1881/2138	88	2533/3096^c	82
ORFs^b
GWS1B CbbM	458/460	99.6	442/460	96.3	455/460	99.1
GWS6B/D CbbM	458/460	99.6	440/460	96	455/460	99.1
GWS1B CbbR	301/306	98.4	n/a^d	n/a^d	270/306	90.6
GWS6B/D CbbR	303/306	99	n/a^d	n/a^d	268/306	89.9

^a.

nt sequence comparisons.

^b.

aa sequence comparisons; note that GWS6B and 6D are identical aa sequences for CbbM and CbbR.

^c.

Excluding PilYI signal peptide and peptide chain release factor nt regions in alignment comparisons.

^d.

Scaffold ends ~200 bp upstream of the cbbM gene and thus does not have a cbbR gene for comparison.