Table 1

Comparison between eBURST and the proposed implementation.

# diffs

Group

Ties

Links

Dataset

founder

size

#

breaker

created

deleted

Enterococcus faecium

1

17

268

3

SLV

50–177

50–204

Streptococcus

3

124

78

3

SLV

392–2803

440–2803

pneumoniae

138

189

14

SLV

171–361

338–3163

217

33

2

SLV

618–3577

1325–1331

Burkholderia

4

48

348

3

SLV

435–667

116–435

pseudomallei

48

348

53

DLV

211–300

56–99

48

348

3

SLV

70–290

66–67

48

348

4

DLV

24–643

570–643

Campylobacter

5

21

849

29

SLV

104–492

474–577

jejuni

21

849

14

SLV

353–462

2395–2517

21

849

2

SLV

2141–2842

1076–2951

21

849

4

SLV

824–2141

878–2141

177

53

2

SLV

1022–1503

1387–2162

Neisseria

7

11

296

18

SLV

8–1058

66–1058

spp.

11

296

1

SLV

10–2174

10–5091

22

344

23

SLV

23–1062

1062–1625

60

164

9

SLV

1157–1421

1421–1649

269

322

21

SLV

275–352

352–1163

1583

67

1

SLV

1905–6717

1579–1901

1583

67

4

SLV

1590–1928

1599–1903

The following data sets presented no differences: Helicobacter pylori, Streptococcus pyogenes, Staphylococcus aureus, Bacillus cereus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterococcus faecalis, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Campylobacter upsaliensis, Streptococcus suis, Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus uberis, Staphylococcus epidermidis and Streptococcus agalactiae.

Francisco et al. BMC Bioinformatics 2009 10:152   doi:10.1186/1471-2105-10-152