Table 3.
Details of prophage detection.
| # | Contig node # | Software | Classification score | Length [bp] | CDS | GC [%] | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R. reptotaenium AO1 | |||||||
| R1 | contig_72 | PHAST | Incomplete | 20 | 7,100 | 8 | 45.1 |
| PHASTER | – | – | – | – | – | ||
| VIRsorter | – | – | – | – | – | ||
| R2 | contig_41 | PHAST | – | – | – | – | – |
| PHASTER | Incomplete | 10 | 103,700 | 15 | 42.2 | ||
| VIRsorter | – | – | – | – | – | ||
| R3 | contig_93 | PHAST | – | – | – | – | – |
| PHASTER | – | – | – | – | – | ||
| VIRsorter | Category 3 | 31,342 | 9 | 44.4 | |||
| Geitlerinema sp. BBD_1991 | |||||||
| G1 | BBD_1000996 | PHAST | Incomplete | 20 | 19,800 | 7 | 53.29 |
| PHASTER | Incomplete | 20 | 19,800 | 7 | 53.21 | ||
| VIRsorter | – | – | – | – | – | ||
| G2 | BBD_1001009 | PHAST | Incomplete | 40 | 9,000 | 10 | 50.07 |
| PHASTER | – | – | – | – | – | ||
| VIRsorter | – | – | – | – | – | ||
| G3 | BBD_1001028 | PHAST | Questionable | 90 | 16.600 | 16 | 51.12 |
| PHASTER | Questionable | 80 | 16.600 | 16 | 51.01 | ||
| VIRsorter | – | – | – | – | |||
| (G4) | BBD_1001072-4 | PHAST | Questionable | 80 | 20,900 | 29 | 49.14 |
| PHASTER | – | – | – | – | – | ||
| VIRsorter | – | – | – | – | – | ||
| G5 | BBD_1001065 | PHAST | – | – | – | – | – |
| PHASTER | – | – | – | – | – | ||
| VIRsorter | Category 3 | 19,845 | 11 | 56.32 | |||
Different tools were used for prophage detection in the draft genome of R. reptotaenium AO1 and Geitlerinema sp. BBD_1991. Gene details in Supplementary Tables S8 and S9. Classifications (PHAST, PHASTER): Intact, questionable or incomplete prophage = scoring from lowest 0 - highest 150, Table 1 in Zhou et al. (2011). VIRsorter category 3 = sequence similar to virus genome structure, but without sequence similarity to known viruses. CDS indicates the number of coding sequences. Overall GC-content R. reptotaenium AO1: 44.81%; Geitlerinema sp. BBD_1991: 50.38%. Annotation details in Supplementary Tables S8 and S9.