Skip to main content
. 2001 Feb 6;98(4):1699–1704. doi: 10.1073/pnas.041593198

Figure 3.

Figure 3

(A) Pairwise comparison between the consensus sequences of the two subfamilies of TA-I-Ag: TA-Iα-Ag and TA-Iβ-Ag. Multiple sequence alignments of the full-length elements used to create the two consensus sequences were deposited in the EMBL database (accession nos. DS43384 and DS43385). The two consensus sequences were aligned by using gap of GCG (Genetics Computer Group, Madison, WI, Version 10, 1999) with gap weight = 30 and gap length weight = 1. Thick arrows mark the TIRs, and thin arrows mark the subterminal repeats. Flanking TA target duplications are not shown. D = A, G, T; H = A, C, T; K = G, T; M = A, C; N = A, C, G, T; R = A, G; S = G, C; V = G, A, C; W = A, T; Y = C, T. (B) Pairwise comparison between the consensus sequences of the two subfamilies of TA-II-Ag: TA-IIα-Ag and TA-IIβ-Ag. Multiple sequence alignments used to create the consensus sequences were deposited in the EMBL database (accession nos. DS43376 and DS43377). The two consensus sequences were aligned by using gap as described in A. All symbols are as in A.