Sentence examples for genus database from inspiring English sources

Currently these strains comprise 19.4% (n = 195) of the Cronobacter genus database.

Most of species were the unique representative of their genus and the database corresponded to 633 genera.

Another strain-, species- and genus-specific genes database, CUPID, developed by our group [ 32] has been used by us and others to identify pathogens and related organisms from NGS data.

To identify the genomic region, two primers (F1, 5′-AAGGCCATGGGGCGTTAGAGCACCGCAGCTAAT-3′ and R1, 5′-ACAGCATATGACCTAGCGGGCGGCCGCGACCCG-3′) were designed on the basis of the more conserved sequences between the alkB gene cluster of different bacteria belonging to the Rhodococcus genus deposited in Genbank DataBase.

They created a huge new database (Global Expanded Nutrient Supply, GENuS) that combines the FAO food balance sheets with production and trade data, as well as food group intake by age and sex, to estimate edible supplies and consumption patterns for 225 foods, and then to estimate nutritional availability and vulnerability.

Sequences longer then 100bp were taxonomically annotated to the level of genus using the Ribosomal Database Project Classifier tool [30] with a bootstrap cutoff of 50%.

16S rRNA gene sequences belonging to the genus Streptococcus from RDP database http://rdp.cme.msu.edu/[ 41] were analysed in the present study.

We performed this analysis for the 53 draft genomes for which we could identify at least five genomes belonging to the same genus in the NCBI database.

Taxa that were only novel at low ranks (e.g. species-level novelty; having members of the same genus in the reference database) had higher accuracy than taxa novel at higher ranks.

Only sequences that met the following criteria were kept: (i) sequence length is between 1200 and 1600 nucleotides, (ii) sequence is assigned to the genus level in EMBL database, (iii) the percentage of ambiguous nucleotides is <1% and (iv) the maximum number of consecutive unknown bases must not exceed five.

Scores <1.7 were considered to unreliable, scores ≥1.7 × <2 were considered to be reliable to the genus level; however, if database match number 1 and 2 resulted in the same strain name, it was considered correct to the species level, and scores ≥2 were considered to be reliable to the species level.