TABLE 4.
Strain | No. of probes absenta | Total no. of regions absentb | No. of regions absent (≥2 absent probes)c | No. of rearrangementsd |
---|---|---|---|---|
CA-1 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 1 |
CA-8 | 16 | 14 | 5 | 2 |
Cheetah | 75 | 34 | 20 | 1 |
FR96/BK3 | 36 | 22 | 14 | 2 |
GA-1 | 40 | 21 | 9 | 2 |
Goldie-1 | 31 | 13 | 7 | 2 |
GreekCat-1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
GreekCat-9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
GreekCat-23 | 67 | 29 | 17 | 1 |
GreekCat-25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
GreekCat-34 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
Houston-1980517 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Houston-1Ref | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
Houston-2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
IndoCat-2 | 19 | 13 | 7 | 1 |
IndoCat-5 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
IndoCat-11 | 14 | 10 | 6 | 2 |
Marseille | 60 | 28 | 16 | 3 |
MO-2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
SA-1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
SA-3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
SD-2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
Tiger-2 | 24 | 19 | 9 | 2 |
Tx-4 | 50 | 25 | 11 | 2 |
UGA-3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | NDe |
UGA-6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
UGA-7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
UGA-8 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
UGA-9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | NDe |
UGA-10 | 36 | 16 | 12 | 2 |
UGA-11 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 |
UGA-12 | 36 | 17 | 8 | 3 |
UGA-13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
UGA-14 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
UGA-23 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
UGA-24 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
UGA-26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | NDe |
UGA-28 | 35 | 17 | 8 | MIf |
ZimCat | 86 | 31 | 22 | 3 |
Total number of probes inferred to be absent compared to the Houston-1Ref strain.
Total number of regions inferred to be absent compared to the Houston-1Ref strain.
Number of regions inferred to be absent compared to the Houston-1Ref strain, counting only regions comprising at least two absent probes in at least one strain and for which results were retrieved for all strains.
Total number of rearrangements inferred by comparison to the Houston-1Seq genome.
ND, not determined. The PFGE banding pattern of UGA-3 is similar to that of UGA-6, and the patterns of UGA-9 and UGA-26 resemble those of UGA-7 and UGA-23.
MI, multiple inversions. The number of rearrangements could not be estimated due to complex hybridization patterns.