Table 1 Genotype and phenotype information for 38 L.lactis strains that was used in genotype-phenotype matching Strain name Subspecies Isolation origin # present genes (out of 4026) # phenotyping selleck compound experiments (out of 130a) AM2 cremoris dairy 2563 119 ATCC19435T lactis dairy 2047 121 DRA4 lactis dairy 2182 123 E34 lactis plant 2022 123 FG2 cremoris dairy 2301 117 HP cremoris dairy 2307 122 IL1403 lactis dairy 2289
127 K231 lactis plant 2067 124 K337 lactis plant 2002 126 KF134 lactis plant 2039 128 KF146 lactis plant 2087 130 KF147 lactis plant 2472 126 KF196 lactis plant 1978 126 KF201 lactis plant 2020 125 KF24 lactis plant 2119 128 KF282 lactis plant 1937 127 KF67 lactis plant 2096 128 KF7 lactis plant 2109 125 KW10 cremoris plant 2039 126 LMG14418 lactis dairy 2259 113 LMG6897T cremoris dairy 2308 113 LMG8520 hordniae insect 1903 113 LMG8526 lactis find more plant 1985 123 LMG9446 lactis plant 1983 125 LMG9449 lactis plant 2221 125 Li-1 lactis plant 2198 126 M20 lactis plant 2090 121 MG1363 cremoris dairy 2397 125 ML8 lactis dairy 2339 123 N41 cremoris plant 2405 121 N42 lactis plant 2361 125 NCDO763 cremoris dairy 2414 126 NCDO895 lactis dairy 2285 124 P7266 lactis plant 1917 126 P7304 lactis plant 2223 127 SK11 cremoris dairy 2551 119 UC317 lactis dairy 2280 125 V4
cremoris dairy 2313 113 a: In total there are 207 phenotyping experiments (see Additional file 1), but only 130 were usable in our analysis (see Results). Results Strain similarity based on phenotypes A recent extensive genotyping study of L. lactis strains revealed that clustering based on chromosomal genes of these strains shows a high correspondence with the sub-speciation, whereas clustering using plasmid genes reflects niche-adaptation properties [16]. In this study, we Lck also analyzed these strains using only their phenotypic measurements in 207 experiments (Additional file 1). The used phenotypic metrics
differ depending on the type of experiment performed. Using all phenotypic measurements in clustering could result in clusters that consist of phenotypic measurements that are in fact incomparable, for example, phenotypic readout of 2 in an API test indicates no growth, whereas the same value obtained in the GM17 medium shows growth (see Additional file 1). From the phenotype clustering, where pre-processed phenotype data was used, we conclude that only some phenotype types partly co-cluster (for instance metal resistance; bottom part of AZD5363 nmr phenotype-based clustering dendrogram as shown in Additional file 2). However the phenotype grouping is not very apparent from clustering phenotypic measurements only.