Skip to main content
. 2019 Mar 19;10(3):233. doi: 10.3390/genes10030233

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Figure 2

Presence–absence matrix of the 48 candidate RMS cHGs plotted against the reference phylogeny. For most cHGs the pattern of presence–absence does not match the reference phylogeny (compare Figures S2–S5). RMS-candidate cHGs are loosely ordered by system type and with the ambiguously assigned RM candidates at the end. Table 1 gives a key relating the column names to the majority functional annotation.