Table 7.
Pairwise comparison of strain ES3T with other species using GGDC, formula 2 (DDH estimates based on identities/HSP length)
| BE | BM | PS | PT | HH | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BS | 23.20 ± 2.38% | 19.0 ± 2.30% | 30.50 ± 2.45% | 22.00 ± 2.39% | 20.40 ± 2.32% |
| BE | 26.50 ± 2.42% | 29.20 ± 2.44% | 28.50 ± 2.44% | 29.80 ± 2.45% | |
| BM | 28.90 ± 2.44% | 28.50 ± 2.44% | 22.70 ± 2.37% | ||
| PS | 26.00 ± 2.41% | 29.40 ± 2.44% | |||
| PT | 28.70 ± 2.44% |
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. 1) and phylogenomic analyses as well as GGDC results.
BE, Bacillus endophyticus strain Hbe603; BM, Bacillus marisflavi strain JCM 11544; BS, Bacillus salis strain ES3T; DDH, DNA-DNA hybridization; GGDC, Genome-to-Genome Distance Calculator; HH, Halobacillus halophilus strain DSM 2266; HSP, high-scoring segment pairs; PS, Paenibacillus sabinae strain T27; PT, Paenibacillus terrae strain HPl-003.