TABLE 2.

Comparison of molecular characterization methods for prediction of Salmonella¹ serovars.

Number of isolates tested	Number of serovars tested	Isolate sources	Serovar-prediction accuracy (%)	References
PFGE
80	6	Turkey processing plant	99	Nde et al.,2006
68	10	Swine farms	84	Weigel et al.,2004
674	12	Swine	85	Gaul et al.,2007
866	8	Food animals, production facilities, and clinical samples	96	Zou et al.,2010
1,128	31	Food, animals, humans, natural environment, and processing plants	97	Kerouanton et al.,2007
46	40	Human and cattle	75	Ranieri et al.,2013
1,486	110	New York State Department of Health, isolates received in 2012; human clinics	96	Bopp et al.,2016
1,437	131	New York State Department of Health, isolates received in 2013; human clinics	91	Bopp et al.,2016
1,558	107	New York State Department of Health, isolates received in 2014; human clinics	90	Bopp et al.,2016
Legacy MLST
25	7	Chickens	92	Liu,2010
66	1	Cattle, birds, horses, and other animals	99	Sukhnanand et al.,2005
110	25	Human and veterinary source	98	Torpdahl et al.,2005
152	33	Reference collection	100	Ben-Darif et al.,2010
4,257	554	Reference collection	88	Achtman et al.,2012
46	40	Human and cattle	91	Ranieri et al.,2013
42,400	624	SRA collection	91	Robertson et al.,2018
7,338	263	Human	96	Ashton et al.,2016
WGS-(SeqSero)
308	72	CDC collection	99	Zhang et al.,2015
3,306	228	Genome Trakr collection	93	Zhang et al.,2015
354	44	GenBank collection	92	Zhang et al.,2015
WGS-(SISTR)
4,291	246	SRA and NCBI Assembly collections	95	Yoshida et al.,2016a
42,400	624	SRA collection	97	Robertson et al.,2018

¹This table is revised from the information provided by the review of Shi et al. (2015).