Although this is the most recent ancestral state we investigate here, gene losses and acquisition of genes via horizontal transfer have led to extensive differences in genome content among descendants of this node with some E. coli strains differing by as much as 25% of their gene content [ 28].
Although some antigens are shared among different parasite isolates, there are extensive differences and no immunodominant antigens, but indications of antigenic drift in the parasites.
Extensive differences in spacer content were detected among strains isolated at the same time from the same site (Additional file 1), suggesting that spatiotemporal encounters with mobile genetic elements (MGEs) may be highly variable.
Comparative genome analysis has revealed extensive differences, including inversions, transpositions, reciprocal translocations and duplications, among genomes of different species, as well as among genomes of different strains within the same species.
Because of the way supertrees summarise taxonomic congruence, they limit the impact of individual genes on the global topology and account for extensive differences in evolutionary rates and substitution patterns among genes in a gene-by-gene manner [ 16].
Binding pocket S2 shows the most extensive differences.
The large number of putative intrachromosomal rearrangements suggests the presence of extensive structural differences among the three subgenomes, at least some of which likely occurred during the production of the aneuploid lines of this hexaploid wheat genotype.
However, no significant and extensive difference was detected among these three regions, which did not support the climate adaptation hypothesis but preferred random genetic drift to be the main factor in shaping the current landscape of human mtDNA, at least those from Asian and Oceanian regions.
High rates of gene exchange due to HGT can lead to extensive gene repertoire differences among otherwise closely related lineages and can result in genes within the same genome having conflicting evolutionary histories (Feil et al. 2001; Gogarten et al. 2002; Ochman et al. 2005; Shapiro et al. 2012).
For a more detailed and extensive discussion of the differences among orthology methodology, we recommend refs. 12, 16, 17.
