ii) Genera-excluded database, in which sequences with the same genus as query dataset were removed.
When the query dataset is analysed using all three different programs with the Species-excluded and Genera-excluded databases, it is shown that lower sensitivity scores are obtained in higher order taxonomic levels, namely in the order and family levels.
For each of the other 209 'target' plant genera in the database, we then recorded whether the genus was listed in the database as susceptible or not and the phylogenetic distance from source to target genus.
All sequences for which the ITS1 and ITS2 regions matched unrelated sequences (i.e., different genera) from the database with an alignment score ≥200 were assumed to be chimeric sequences resulting from PCR recombination.
We also recorded the total number of known host genera in the database for that pest species.
We used Phylomatic version included in Phylocom v4.1 (Webb et al. #b 501) to create a pruned ultrametric tree of all 210 Angiosperm genera in the database, with branch lengths that reflected the estimated time between branching events.
L29-30 – how is a genera "unknown in databases", I think you meant to say they are novel?
We use North American and European occurrences of marine genera from the Paleobiology Database and the areal extent of marine sedimentary cover in North America to show that endemic and cosmopolitan fossil marine genera have significantly different range-duration relationships and that broad geographic range and longevity are both predicted by regional environmental breadth.
Of the 257 genera represented in the database most include only a few hydrolases.
We retrieved 16S rDNA sequences of all Ralstonia spp. and representatives of related genera from the GenBank database, using the MegAlign software package (DNASTAR Inc., Madison, WI) to align the sequences.
Sequence similarity searches of this novel repeat against consensus sequences of Trichomonas and Entamoeba genera stored in Repbase database, ~55 repeat families identified in the T. vaginalis genome [ 9] and Genbank showed no significant matches.
