Table 6.
Pairwise comparison of Drancourtella massiliensis (upper right) with eight other species using GGDC, formula 2 (DDH estimates based on identities/HSP length)a
| Dorea formicigenerans | Eubacterium ventriosum | Coprococcus comes | Ruminococcus gnavus | Clostridium scindens | Drancourtella massiliensis | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D. formicigenerans | 100% ± 00 | 32.8% ± 2.56 | 39.4% ± 2.70 | 25.6% ± 2.59 | 22.8% ± 2.62 | 22.9% ± 2.56 |
| E. ventriosum | 100% ± 00 | 38.9% ± 2.56 | 32.2% ± 2.55 | 28% ± 2.54 | 25.5% ± 2.53 | |
| C. comes | 100% ± 00 | 23.1% ± 2.58 | 22.5% ± 2.56 | 21.5% ± 2.56 | ||
| R. gnavus | 100% ± 00 | 25.7% ± 2.58 | 22.2% ± 2.56 | |||
| C. scindens | 100% ± 00 | 22.2% ± 2.57 | ||||
| D. massiliensis | 100% ± 00 |
DDH, DNA-DNA hybridization; GGDC, Genome-to-Genome Distance Calculator; HSP, high-scoring segment pairs.
a
Confidence intervals indicate inherent uncertainty in estimating DDH values from intergenomic distances based on models derived from empirical test data sets (which are always limited in size). These results are in accordance with 16S rRNA (Fig. 3) and phylogenomic analyses as well as GGDC results.