Skip to main content
. 2020 Jul 2;21:455. doi: 10.1186/s12864-020-06819-0

Table 4.

Comparison of CRISPR/Cas systems, anti-CRISPR genes, and prophage regions amongst the selected L. monocytogenes strains

Strain Average reduction of log10 (cfu/ml) at 400 MPa CRISPR/Cas systems Number of spacers Self-targeting spacer predicted anti-CRISPR gene predicted Number of prophage predicted
RO15 0.05 RliB-CRISPR, CRISPR I 64 yes AcrIIA1, A2 5
2HF33 0.15 RliB-CRISPR, CRISPR I, CRISPR II 62 yes AcrIIA1, A2, A3, A4 5
MB5 0.22 RliB-CRISPR, CRISPR II 39 yes AcrIIA1, A2, A3 5
AB199 0.26 RliB-CRISPR 3 no no 1
AB120 0.35 RliB-CRISPR 3 no no 1
C7 0.37 RliB-CRISPR 7 no no 6
F2365 0.47 RliB-CRISPR 3 no no 1
ScottA 0.68 RliB-CRISPR 3 no no 3
RO4 1.00 RliB-CRISPR 5 no AcrIIA1, A2, A3 1
EGD-e 2.07 RLIB-CRISPR 4 no AcrIIA1, A2, A3 2