Table 1.
Distribution of tfs3 and tfs4 ICE in DU, NCGC, and CG patients.
| Type of T4SS | DU (%), n = 46 | NCGC (%), n = 51 | CG (%), n = 39 | Total (%), n = 136 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| tfs negative | 6 (13.0) | 1 (0.2) | 6 (15.3) | 13 (9.6) | ||||
| tfs positive | 40 (87.0) | 50 (98.0) | 33 (84.6) | 123 (90.4) | ||||
| Incomplete tfs | Complete tfs* | 21 (45.6) | 19 (41.3) | 35 (68.6) | 15 (29.4) | 19 (48.7) | 14 (35.9) | 75 (55.1) | 48 (35.3) |
| Single tfs | ||||||||
| tfs3 | 2 (4.3) | 7 (15.2) | 2 (3.9) | 3 (5.8) | 4 (10.2) | 0 | 8 (5.8) | 10 (7.3) |
| tfs4 | 13 (28.2) | 4 (8.7) | 20 (39.2) | 9 (17.6) | 8 (20.5) | 7 (17.9) | 41 (30.1) | 20 (14.7) |
| Double tfs** | ||||||||
| Incomplete tfs3 and tfs4 | Complete tfs3/tfs4 | 6 (13.0) | 8 (17.4) | 13 (25.5) | 3 (5.8) | 7 (17.9) | 7 (17.9) | 26 (19.1) | 18 (13.2) |
| tfs4 module | ||||||||
| L1 | 10 (21.0) | 18 (35.3) | 13 (33.3) | 41 (30.1) | ||||
| L2 | 21 (45.6) | 27 (52.9) | 16 (41.0) | 64 (47.0) | ||||
| C1 | 9 (19.5) | 16 (31.3) | 15 (38.4) | 40 (29.4) | ||||
| C2 | 2 (4.3) | 0 | 2 (5.1) | 4 (2.9) | ||||
| R1 | 4 (8.7) | 13 (25.5)a | 10 (25.6)b | 27 (19.8) | ||||
| R2 | 14 (30.4) | 14 (27.4) | 10 (25.6) | 38 (27.9) | ||||
| Other T4SS | ||||||||
| cagPAI | 45 (97.8) | 51 (100) | 34 (87.1) | 130 (96.1) | ||||
| comB*** | 46 (100) | 51 (100) | 39 (100) | 136 (100) | ||||
80% < Identity of gene only counted.
Complete tfs harbored 11 vir genes (virB2, virB3, virB4, virB6, virB7, virB8, virB9, virB10, virB11, virD4, and virD2)
** Double tfs were divided into: both of complete tfs, one of complete tfs, and both of tfs incomplete form cagPAI harbored all ten vir genes (virB2, virB3, virB4, virB6, virB7, virB8, virB9, virB10, virB11, and virD4).
***comB harbored all seven vir genes (virB2, virB3, virB4, virB7, virB8, virB9, and virB10).
aIndicated the significant different between NCGC to DU at P < 0.05.
bIndicated the significant different between CG to DU at P < 0.05.