Skip to main content
. 2006 Aug 25;188(21):7426–7439. doi: 10.1128/JB.00472-06

TABLE 4.

Summary of strain differences in gene content assessed by microarray comparative genome hybridization and genome structure inferred by PFGE hybridization

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
a

Total number of probes inferred to be absent compared to the Houston-1Ref strain.

b

Total number of regions inferred to be absent compared to the Houston-1Ref strain.

c

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.

d

Total number of rearrangements inferred by comparison to the Houston-1Seq genome.

e

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.

f

MI, multiple inversions. The number of rearrangements could not be estimated due to complex hybridization patterns.