GenomeFingerprinter and universal genome fingerprint
analysis for systematic comparative genomics

Yuncan Ai*, Hannan Ai, Fanmei Meng, Lei Zhao
State Key Laboratory for Biocontrol, School of Life Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University,
Guangzhou 510275, P. R. China
Lssayc@mail.sysu.edu.cn

* Corresponding Author:
Yuncan Ai
Ph.D., Professor, Principal Investigator
Lssayc@mail.sysu.edu.cn
State Key Laboratory for Biocontrol
School of Life Sciences
Sun Yat-sen University
Guangzhou 510275
P. R. China

1

Abstract
Background:
How to compare whole genome sequences at large scale has not been achieved via
conventional methods based on pair-wisely base-to-base comparison; nevertheless,
no attention was paid to handle in-one-sitting a number of genomes crossing genetic
category (chromosome, plasmid, and phage) with farther divergences (much less or
no homologous) over large size ranges (from Kbp to Mbp). It should be a priority to
persue comparative genomics at large scale based on geometrical analysis of
sequence in the post-genomic era. However, even how to simply visualize a DNA
sequence has been challenging for decades; little progress has been made to date.
Results:
We created a new method, GenomeFingerprinter, to unambiguously produce
three-dimensional coordinates from a sequence, followed by one three-dimensional
plot and six two-dimensional trajectory projections to illustrate whole genome
fingerprints. We further developed a set of concepts and tools and thereby established
a new method, universal genome fingerprint analysis. We demonstrated their
applications through case studies on over a hundred of genome sequences.
Particularly, we defined the total genetic component configuration (TGCC) (i.e.,
chromosome, plasmid, and phage) for describing a strain as a system, and the
universal genome fingerprint map (UGFM) of TGCC for differentiating a strain as a
universal system, as well as the systematic comparative genomics (SCG) for
comparing in-one-sitting a number of genomes crossing genetic category in diverse
strains. By using UGFM (I), UGFM-TGCC (II), and UGFM-TGCC-SCG (III), we
compared a number of genome sequences with farther divergences (chromosome,
plasmid, and phage; bacterium, archaeal bacterium, and virus) over large size ranges
2

(6Kbp~5Mbp), giving new insights into critical problematic issues in microbial
genomics in the post-genomic era.
Conclusion:
This paper provided a new method for rapidly computing, geometrically visualizing,
and intuitively comparing genome sequences at fingerprint level, and hence
established a new method of universal genome fingerprint analysis for systematic
comparative genomics.

Keywords
Genome fingerprint, fingerprint analysis, systematic comparative genomics,
computational visualization, geometrical analysis

3

Introduction
By using conventional methods based on pair-wisely base-to-base comparison, how
to compare whole genome sequences at large scale has not been achieved;
nevertheless, no attention was paid to handle in-one-sitting a number of genomes
crossing different genetic category (chromosome, plasmid, and phage) with farther
divergences (less or no homologous among genetic components) over large size
ranges (from Kbp to Mbp per sequence). It should be a priority to persue comparative
genomics at large scale based on geometrical analysis of sequence in the
post-genomic era. However, little progress has been made to date; even how to
simply visualize a DNA sequence has been challenging for decades [1].
Pioneering works in computer reading and geometrical visualizing of DNA
sequence had been tried in one-dimension [2, 3], two-dimensions (Z-curve) [4], and
three-dimensions (H-curve) [5, 6]. However, those were valid only for ‘static’ modeling
and visualizing. The ‘dynamic’ modeling and visualizing in a virtual reality environment
had been studied [7, 8]. A comprehensive example was AND-viewer, which provided a
three-dimensional way to dynamically sense the big picture of a large DNA sequence
in a virtual reality environment by using sensor, instead of mouse or keyboard. This
pioneering effort had made fantastic progress for human to mimic 3D visions to
intuitively sense genome sequences [7, 8], but still there was no possibility of using
the datasets created for visions to further explore real biological contexts.
The post-genomic era promoted demanding of data mining and robust reasoning
with huge amount of genome sequences [1]. Comparative genomics was essential to
retrieve and mine genome sequences, there were numerous conventional methods,
which were divided into two types: algebraic approach [9, 10, 11, 12] and geometrical
approach [13, 14].
4

Algebraic approach means that calculating dissimilarity, or similarity or identity
are based on pair-wisely base-to-base comparison; the outputs of calculation are only
used for visualization through graphic techniques, rather than for robust data mining
and reasoning analysis. Of course, tools for genomic data visualization are still
essential for end-users to explore, interpret, and manipulate data [1]. The most
common tools were BLAST [9] and CLUSTALW [10], which were only for pair-wisely
comparisons among a certain number of short fragments at gene level. Recently, a
BLAST-based visualization tool, BRIG, was constructed for genome-wide comparison
to create images of multiple circular genomes among a number of closely related
bacteria strains [11]. The output image showed BLAST-similarity between a central
reference sequence and other sequences in question as a set of concentric rings,
where BLAST-matches were colored on a sliding scale indicating a defined
percentage of BLAST-identity. It had great advantage over other common tools, like
ACT [12], in terms of the numbers of genomes being handled simultaneously and the
ways of comparing and presenting of images in-one-sitting. These features made it a
versatile approach for visualizing a range of genomic data, but it still was only for
visions. Mauve [14, 15] was widely used for comparing and visualizing a number of
genomes of close relatives in linear forms, which combined algebraic calculation and
graphic display. However, even with close relatives only, the number of genomes
being calculated and displayed dramatically depended on computation constraints
causing too much CPU time (at least O(n2) in time complexity) or memory overflow,
which limited to a fewer genomes of close relatives to be compared at once time.
Geometrical approach means that both calculation and visualization are dynamic
for geometrical analysis with the input and output re-useable. One promising example
was Zplotter (in Z-curve method) calculating three-dimensional coordinates from a
linear genome sequence. Those coordinates were used to create a three-dimensional
5

geometrical vision in a rough manner (as open Z-curve) for a given DNA sequence
[16]. Hundreds of such visions for microbial genomes were collected as a database
[17]. The Z-curve method (based on Zplotter) was not only used for simple
visualization [16, 17], but also for geometrical analysis to further explore real contexts
of biology [18, 19, 20, 21]. For example, two replication ori points in archaeal genomes
were predicted by Z-curve method [22, 23] and confirmed later by wet experiments in
other labs [24, 25], showing its promising. Z-curve method was widely used by
researchers around the world and had promoted the progress in understanding of
genomics, starting a new frontier in geometrical analysis of genome sequences.
However, Zplotter algorithm had an inevitable limitation in mispresentation of a
genome sequence but with different cutting-points (explanations in the main text),
which would not be suitable for creating unique genome fingerprints.
In this paper, we present a new method, called GenomeFingerprinter, to
unambiguously produce three-dimensional coordinates from sequence, followed by
one three-dimensional plot and six two-dimensional trajectory projections to illustrate
whole genome fingerprints. We further develop a set of concepts and tools and
thereby establish a new method called universal genome fingerprint analysis. We
demonstrate their applications through case studies on over a hundred of genome
sequences, giving new insights into critical problematic issues in microbial
comparative genomics. We anticipate that our methods could be widely applicable to
systematic comparative genomics in the post-genomic era [1].

Results
Mathematical model and three-dimensional coordinates

6

For geometrical visualization of a given genome sequence, the key step is how to get
its three dimensional coordinates (xn, yn, zn). To do this, the Z-curve [16] defined a
coordinate (xn, yn, zn) for each base in a linear genome sequence (n=1, 2, …, N; N is
the sequence length) by the equation (0). It defined a unique Z-curve from a given
linear sequence, and vice versa. Note, it was designed for a linear genome sequence
and An, Tn, Gn, Cn were the sum of numbers for each of four base-type (A, T, G, C),
respectively, counting from the first base to other bases before and including the nth
base in a linear sequence (n=1, 2, …, N). The calculations could be performed by
using Zplotter program [16]. The main problem here was the ambiguousness of the
“first base” due to cutting-point errors in deposited genome sequences (see
explanations later).
 x n  (A n  G n )  (Cn  Tn )

 y n  (A n  Cn )  (G n  Tn )
 z  (A  T )  (C  G )
n
n
n
n
 n

(0)

Here, we take the same definition as equation (0), but with different contents of An,
Tn, Gn, Cn. To do that, we thus propose a new mathematic model, called
GenomeFingerprinter, for geometrical visualization of a circular genome sequence. A
circular sequence contains 40-bps (5’-3’):
ACACTGACGCACACTGACGCACACTGACGCACACTGACGC (Figure 1) as an
artificial example will be used to illustrate the conceptual principals of our method.
Firstly, we randomly select a base (nth) as the first target base (TB). For the given
TB (nth), we define its relative distances (RD) (1) to the other moving mth base (as
focusing base, FB) (m=1, 2, …, N).

7

1,
2,

RD mn  ...
 N  1,

 N,

(m  n  1)
(m  n  2)
...
(m  n  n-1)
(m  n  n)

(1)

Here, the RD concept is critical. Once we have selected the given TB (suppose at
position 1, base A) and the other moving FB (suppose at position 20, base C), the RD
value is 19 (Figure 1). Thus, a collection of RD values (m=1, 2, …, N) will be
generated for the given TB. Particularly, the RD formula (1) can virtually treat an
arbitrary linear sequence as a circular one. For example, when the moving mth FB is
located at the position of n+n, the RD is N, which means the RD value now is N, not
zero, when the moving mth FB going over one circle (i.e., starting from the position at
the nth base and finishing at the same position at the nth base).
Secondly, we define the weighted relative distance (WRD) (2) (N is the sequence
length). The example above will have value 19/40. This is simply to reduce memory
burden and thus release computation constraints for larger sequences.
WRDm
n 

RDm
n
N

(2)

Thirdly, for the same chosen TB (nth), we define the sum of the weighted relative
distances (SWRD) (3) from the above collection of WRD (m=1, 2, …, N) for each of
the four base-type (A, G, T, C), respectively.
SWRD An 



A
n
G

[WRD nm ]

SWRD Gn   n [WRD mn ]
SWRD Tn

  n [WRD ]

SWRD Cn



T



C
n

(3)

m
n

[WRD nm ]

Fourthly, we define the coordinate (xn, yn, zn) (4) for the chosen TB (nth). Note,
here we count the sum of the weighted relative distances (SWRD) (unlike Z-curve
method counting the sum of numbers) for each of four base-type (A, T, G, C),
8

respectively. So far, that is only one cycle done for only one chosen TB (nth).
 x n  (SWRDnA  SWRDGn )  (SWRDCn  SWRDTn )

A
G
G
T
 y n  (SWRDn  SWRDn )  (SWRDn  SWRDn )
 z  (SWRDA  SWRDT )  (SWRDG  SWRDG )
n
n
n
n
 n

(4)

Finally, we will repeat the above cycle, i.e., selecting the next TB (e.g., n=2 here)
and repeating the process. We will have total N cycles (n=1, 2, …, N); each cycle has
only one chosen TB and creates only one coordinate (xn, yn, zn) for that chosen TB. All
N bases will have their coordinates (xn, yn, zn) after having finished all of these N
cycles. We have developed in-house script, GenomeFingerprinter.exe, to do all.
As an example, the artificial 40-bps genome sequence (Figure 1) had its
coordinates (xn, yn, zn) (Table 1), which were calculated by using our program
GenomeFingerprinter.exe, giving each base with a coordinate (xn, yn, zn) as a point in
the three-dimensional space, in total 40 points for the whole sequence.
Three-dimensional plot (3D-P) and primary genome fingerprint map (P-GFM)
The three-dimensional coordinates (xn, yn, zn) can be plotted out as a
three-dimensional plot (3D-P) to give a geometrical vision. The artificial 40-bps
sequence had only 40 points (Table 1) hence giving a naive vision. As real examples,
we showed visions for fragmental sequences ranging from tens to hundreds of
kilobases (Table 2) of Escherichia coli strains (Figure 2). Clearly, each vision had its
unique genome fingerprint (GF) both globally and locally. We defined such a GF vision
as genome fingerprint map (GFM). The GFM was an intuitive identity for an individual
genome sequence, and vice versa. Therefore, from now on, we can directly operate
and compare GFM for studying sequence. That is, we compare genome sequences
through genome fingerprints (via geometrical analysis) instead of sequence
base-pairs (via algebraic analysis). For convenience, we further defined the

9

three-dimensional plot vision as the primary genome fingerprint map (P-GFM).
Two-dimensional trajectory projections (2D-TPs) and secondary genome
fingerprint maps (S-GFMs)
To demonstrate sophisticated genome fingerprints, we created six two-dimensional
trajectory projections (2D-TPs) for a given P-GFM by combining different components
from its coordinates, including xn ~ n, yn ~ n, zn ~n, xn ~ yn, xn ~ zn, and yn ~ zn. For
convenience, we defined these six 2D-TPs as the secondary genome fingerprint
maps (S-GFMs). For example, six S-GFMs of Escherichia coli K-12/W3110 genome
sequence clearly showed subtle variations both globally and locally (Figure 3). Note
that S-GFMs of xn ~ zn, yn ~ zn, xn ~ yn beared much more sensitive information
compared to those of xn ~ n, yn ~ n, and zn ~ n, respectively. Generally, S-GFMs can
amplify subtle variations that are insensitive or invisible in P-GFMs. Particularly,
S-GFMs of xn ~ yn, xn ~ zn and yn ~ zn are much more sensitive in differentiating local
subtle variations, intuitively identifying unique genome features; whereas S-GFMs of
xn ~ n, yn ~ n and zn ~ n are relatively less informative but useful when focusing on
global patterns (Figure 3).
Universal genome fingerprint map (UGFM)
P-GFM and S-GFMs can be either separately or sequentially used. For convenience,
we defined the universal genome fingerprint map (UGFM) to unify both of them. By
UGFM, we could compare in-one-sitting a number of sequences and display their
GFMs at once time, on which each GFM could be classified into different groups
solely based on its location (Figure 4).
For example, six archaeal genomes and twelve fragmental sequences from E.coli
strains (Table 2) had complex P-GFMs (Figure 4). Within the species Sulfolobus

10

islandicus, strains M.14.25 and M.16.4 shared global similarity in P-GFM (Figure 4, A),
indicating subtle variations at strain level. However, with farther divergences, strain S.
islandicus Y.N.15.51 globally differed from Methanococcus voltae A3 but locally
shared similar regions in P-GFM (Figure 4, B); whereas S. islandicus Y.G.57.14
completely differed from Methanosphaera stadtmanae 3091 (Figure 4, C), confirming
their farther lineages.
On the other hand, within the species Sulfolobus islandicus, two strains M.14.25
and M.16.4 had only subtle variations (Figure 4, A), how could they be precisely
differentiated by P-GFM? We defined geometrical center ( x , y , z ) as a distinctive
indicator for a single P-GFM to compare individual P-GFMs. For example, two strains
M.14.25 and M.16.4 had different geometrical center values (644.00, -2081.00,
388729.14) and (476.50, -1916.50, 387938.64), respectively, and hence were clearly
distinguishable.
Furthermore, those twelve fragmental sequences from E.coli strains (Table 2,
Figure 4, D) were further enlarged and displayed as a UGFM besides their own
individual P-GFMs (Figure 5). Clearly, there were six groups on UGFM (Figure 5, A, B,
C, D, E, F) solely based on the locations of different P-GFMs. Particularly, different
fragmental sequences either from the same strain (e.g., 91.1.1, 91.1.61, 91.6.59) or
from different strains (e.g., 913.5.57, 4431.1.70, 7946.4.7, 10473.1.74, 10498.4.86,
12947.1.50, 13941.2.60) (Table 2) could be revealed as complicated P-GFM patterns.
Some were similar (91.1.61, 913.1.77 and 10473.1.74 (Figure 5, A); 91.6.59, 913.5.57
and 13941.2.60 (Figure 5, B) ) but most were different (Figure 5, C, D, E, F) no matter
what the lineage was, strongly demonstrating the facts that there were modular
domains in these genomes and such mosaic structures probably remained their
tracking of evolutionary history. Most interestingly, a given P-GFM had quite different

11

views between its own P-GFM and that on UGFM simply because of the scale-down
and view-angle rotation effect in UGFM (Figure 5). This feature would ensure UGFM
as a powerful tool for large-scale global comparison in-one-sitting among a large
number of whole genome sequences, theoretically, as many sequences as possible
as long as the computer memory could allow.
Universal genome fingerprint analysis (UGFA)
Now that we had such a powerful tool, UGFM, based on unambiguous genome
fingerprints, to compare a large number of whole genome sequences in-one-sitting
(Figure 5), we further established a new method called universal genome fingerprint
analysis (UGFA) (Figure 6). We anticipated that UGFA would be effective for
systematic comparative genomics at large scale by expanding the scope of genetic
category in question. Briefly, the UGFA method consisted of three subcategories
(Figure 6): UGFM (I) (Figure 7, 8, 9), UGFM-TGCC (II) (Figure 10), and
UGFM-TGCC-SCG (III) (Figure 11) corresponding to three objects: a genome, a strain,
and a set of strains, respectively. For each subcategory, demonstration with examples
of case studies was described in details below.
UGFM (I): Universal genome fingerprint map (UGFM)
Firstly, UGFM (I) was the foundation and the first major component of our UGFA
method. It was proved powerful in global comparison at large scale for prokaryote
bacteria genomes (Figure 5). More examples were from a number of genomes of
archaeal bacterium (Table 2, Figure 7), phage (Table 3, Figure 8), and virus (Table 3,
Figure 9). Five archaeal bacteria strains (Halomonas elongate DSM 2581,
Halorhodospira halophilia SL1, Halorhabdus utahensis DSM 12940, Halothermothrix
orenii H 168 and Halothiobacillus neapolitanus c2) representing five genera of
halophilic Archaea were displayed as a UGFM (Figure 7) showing larger scale-down
12

and view-angle rotation effect. Clearly, each strain had only one chromosome with
size ranging of 2.6 ~4.1 Mbp; and these five archaeal chromosomes had no close
relationships at all (Figure 7) confirming their farther diverse lineages at genus level
(Table 2,). However, forty seven phages of family Microviridae (Table 3) that were
grouped into two major clusters (Figure 8) and twenty four coronavirus strains (Table 3)
that were classified into seven clusters (Figure 9) perfectly matched to their biological
identities among close relatives. Put together, these fingdings from total eight three
genomes (i.e., twelve bacteria, five archaeal bacteria, forty seven phages, and twenty
four viruses) as good examples demonstrated that UGFM (I) could apply to any
genetic category (bacterium, archaeal bacterium, phage, and virus) no matter how
farther (Figure 7) or closer (Figure 5, 8, 9) divergences of genetic components in
comparison.
UGFM-TGCC (II): Universal genome fingerprint map (UGFM) of total genetic
component configuration (TGCC)
Secondly, how to compare a number of genome sequences crossing different genetic
category (e.g., chromosome, plasmid, and phage) in a strain? Accordingly, we defined
the total genetic component configuration (TGCC) as a set of genomes crossing all
genetic category (chromosome, plasmid, and phage, if applicable) in a strain for
describing a strain as a system. We further defined the universal genome fingerprint
map (UGFM) of total genetic component configuration (TGCC) (UGFM-TGCC) for
differentiating a strain in view of a universal system. Therefore, we could use
UGFM-TGCC (II) to compare in-one-sitting among all genetic components in a strain,
regardless the format of category (chromosome, plasmid, and phage).
For example, four strains crossing four genera in haophilic Archaea (Table 2)
including Halogeometricum boringquense DSM 11551 (one chromosome and five
13

plasmids), Haloterrigena turkmenica DSM 5511 (one chromosome and six plasmids),
Natrialba magadii ATCC 43099 (one chromosome and three plasmids), Natrinema
pellirubrum DSM 15624 (one chromosome and two plasmids) were demonstrated by
UGFM-TGCC (II) (Figure 10) clearly indicating their farther lineages at genus level.
Note that the scale-down and view-angle rotation effect revealed the farther
divergences between one chromosome and multiple plasmids in a certain strain,
suggesting that it would be challenging for conventional methods to compare them
due to much less or no homologous. Specifically, in the same figure (Figure 10, H), the
tiny green spot (plasmid NC_008213) and the giant red vision (chromosome
NC_008212) with farther divergences would not be easily compared by any other
conventional methods.
UGFM-TGCC-SCG (III): UGFM-TGCC-based systematic comparative genomics
(SCG)
Thirdly, how to compare a number of genome sequences both crossing genetic
category in a strain (chromosome, plasmid, and phage) and crossing a number of
strains (a cluster of strains) as a system (i.e., in-one-sitting)? To compare a number of
such diverse genomes in-one-sitting, we defined a concept of UGFM-TGCC-SCG (III),
UGFM-TGCC-based systematic comparative genomics (SCG). Note, here we called it
as “systematic comparative genomics (SCG)“ simply because all genomes crossing
different genetic category (chromosome, plasmid, and phage) among diverse strains
should be much less or even no homologous at all, which would be incredibly
challenging to any known conventional methods that principally based on similarity
analysis of homologous. In other words, to our knowledge to date, no one
conventional method could handle such farther diverse genetic components
in-one-sitting; to which even no attention was paid before. In fact, all of the

14

documented researches on comparative genomics to date were automatically based
on the assumption that there was so-called a reference genome sequence for very
close relatives in question; otherwise, they would not bother to do comparison. But, in
our case, we exactly focused on the opposites that had much less or even no
homologous and compared those diverse genetic components crossing farther
divergences regardless the format of genetic category and regardless the extent of
lineage divergence. Therefore, we called our objects in comparison as the “systematic
comparative genomics” in order to distinguish from other traditional routes. This was
one of the core concepts and aims in the present study.
Indeed, our UGFM-TGCC-SCG (III) subcategory method was powerful to handle
those extraordinary situations. For example, total nineteen genomes including six
chromosomes and thirteen plasmids with larger size ranges (6Kbp ~ 4Mbp) could be,
separately, mapped and analyzed by using UGFM-TGCC-SCG (III) (Figure 11). These
nineteen genomes were from four strains crossing four genera of halophilic Archaea
(Table 2) and analyzed in-one-sitting as two sets of comparison (Figure 11):
Halorubrum lacusprofundii ATCC 49239 (two chromosomes and one plasmid) vs.
Haloarcula marismortui ATCC 43049 (two chromosomes and seven plasmids);
Haloferax vocanii DS2 (one chromosome and four plasmids) vs. Halomicrobium
mukohataei DSM 12286 (one chromosome and one plasmid). Obviously, they were
certainly demonstrated as diverse lineages solely based on genome fingerprints. Most
importantly, note that tiny spots (e.g., corresponding to 6Kbp) and giant ones (e.g.,
corresponding to 4Mbp) were harmoniously existed in the same figures (Figure 10, H,
Figure 11, C), either closely or farther away. Such amazing landscapes could be only
revealed by our unique methods under the notions of so-called “total genetic
component configuration” and “systematic comparative genomics”, particularly, as
UGFM-TGCC and UGFM-TGCC-SCG in these cases. These should be more than
15

enough as representatives to prove UGFM-TGCC-SCG (III) effective and powerful.
Case studies: Applications of universal genome fingerprint analysis (UGFA)
Objectives
As for more specific examples, we chose two archaeal halobacteria strains,
Halobacterium sp. NRC-1 and Halobacterium salinarum R1 (Table 2) [26, 27], to
persue systematic comparative genomics by using our UGFA method. It was not only
because they had incredible microbiological features such as genome-wide evolution
events [28, 29] and multiple replication ori points (unlike the common prokaryotes with
only one replication ori point) that could be easily tracking [23], but also because two
genomes were independently sequenced by two labs [28, 29] and had led to
interesting arguments about critical problematic issues in microbial genomics and
taxonomy, such as whether they were the same species or strain [29] or their genome
sequences were correctly assembled particularly considering of mega-plasmids or
minichromosomes [30, 31], and what might be the mechanism for evolutions [29, 31,
32, 33], even what should be considered for refining a “species” in taxonomy [34]. We
expected that the universal genome fingerprint analysis (UGFA) could provide new
insights into these critical problematic issues that would be crucial and invaluable for
modern microbiology in the post-genomic era.
Genome-wide evolution events
From the sophisticated genome fingerprints in S-GFMs (Figure 12), two deposited
chromosomes NRC-1 (NC_002607) and R1 (NC_010364) were very similar but not
identical having subtle differences at strain level (Figure 12, A, B, E, F), supporting the
claim that two strains were virtually from the same ancestor but had undergone
evolutions [31, 32]. The subtle variations (Figure 12, C, D, G) also indicated the

16

genome-wide evolution events (shown by arrow-markers), causing longer of NRC-1
chromosome. It was coincided with the documented facts that the IS-element-rich
regions [27] shuttled between chromosomes and mega-plasmids [30, 31], but the core
genes conserved [33].
Two replication ori points
Again, from S-GFMs, two replication ori points, oriC1 and oriC2, (Figure 12, E, F, H)
were identified and the replication domains in two genomes were demonstrated
identical, and those evolution events were not located in such replication regions.
These evidences also supported the claim that two strains virtually came from the
same ancestor strain [31, 32]. Most interestingly, two replication ori points in strain
NRC-1 were reported as the first representatives of archaeal bacteria, changing the
traditional definition of only one ori point in prokaryotes. In fact, one of two ori points
was predicted by theoretical Z-curve analysis [22, 23] and confirmed by biological
experiments later [24, 25]. Thus the reproducibility in identification of such two
replication ori points in two sequences has proved that our method is as effective and
sensitive as Z-curve analysis [22, 23].
UGFM-TGCC-SCG for differentiating strains
Two strains NRC-1 and R1 were completely different in terms of the numbers of
plasmids and total base-pairs (Table 4). How to concisely describe their differences in
visualization remained challenging. For example, they had eight genetic components
including two chromosomes and six plasmids (Table 4), which made it ambiguous to
only compare any part of them as traditional comparative genomics did. We thus
should compare all of eight genomes in order to differentiate two strains
unambiguously. By using UGFM-TGCC-SCG (Figure 13), we compared eight genome
sequences with farther divergences crossing different genetic category (i.e.,
17

chromosome and plasmid) over large size ranges (40Kb ~ 3Mb) (Table 4) that would
be challenging for conventional methods. In short, the UGFM-TGCC-SCG vision
clearly confirmed that two strains were completely different and eight components had
farther divergences (Figure 13, B). Particularly, two chromosomes were almost the
same (Figure 13, B) but six plasmids had larger divergences (Figure 13, A), strongly
indicating that plasmids had no close lineages with chromosomes in two strains. In
addition, two mega-plasmids in strain NRC-1 had no close lineages with four plasmids
in strain R1, suggesting there was no possibility to misassemble them due to less
homologous. Most interestingly, even within the same strain, chromosome and
plasmid showed distinctive lineage divergences. In other words, there was no
correlation between chromosome and plasmid within a certain strain (i.e., no binding
to a certain strain), indicating possible independent evolution among chromosomes
and plasmids.
Double-check between UGFM-TGCC-SCG and Mauve
To double-check the lineages revealed by UGFM-TGCC-SCG (Figure 13), we used
progressiveMauve mode [14] analysis to make pair-wisely multiple genome alignment
among eight components (Figure 14, A) showing overall bare homologous although it
took much longer time; whereas Mauve mode [15] analysis failed in such a
comparison because it stopped alignment due to no essential homologous, as we
predicted beforehand. Mauve mode [15] analysis yet worked well, separately, with
subsets of six plasmids (Figure 14, B) and two chromosomes (Figure 14, C),
respectively, and confirmed those partial relationships among six plasmids and
between two chromosomes. We thus concluded that the lineage relationships
revealed by UGFM-TGCC-SCG could be partially confirmed by Mauve method and
confirmed that two strains were completely different and remained as sister-strains

18

within one species. In other words, in this case, progressiveMauve mode [14] could
barely compatible to UGFM-TGCC-SCG (III) whereas Mauve mode [15] did not, but it
could be used to deal with subsets, separately.

Discussion
As mentioned before, how to compare whole genome sequences at large scale has
not been achieved by using conventional methods [11, 14] that based on pair-wisely
base-to-base sequence similarity analysis; even no attention was paid to handle
in-one-sitting a number of genomes crossing different genetic category with farther
divergences (e.g., less or no homologous among crossing genetic components:
chromosome, plasmid, and phage; bacterium, archaeal bacterium, and virus) over
large size ranges (e.g., from Kbp to Mbp per genome sequence). We believe that how
to persue comparative genomics at large scale based on geometrical analysis of
sequence, rather than pair-wisely base-to-base comparison, will be a priority in the
post-genomic era. However, little progress has been made to date, even how to
visualize a DNA sequence has been challenging for decades [1]. To our knowledge to
date, no method for creating “unambiguous genome fingerprint (GF)” was
documented; no concept of “universal genome fingerprint analysis (UGFA)”, or “total
genetic component configuration (TGCC)”, or “systematic comparative genomics
(SCG)“ was proposed. Particularly, note that all sequences of components both
crossing different genetic category (e.g., chromosome, plasmid, and phage;
bacterium, archaeal bacterium, and virus) and crossing a number of diverse strains
in-one-sitting should be much less or no homologous at all, which would be incredibly
challenging to any known conventional methods that principally based on pair-wisely
base-to-base homologous analysis. No conventional method could handle
19

in-one-sitting such farther diverse genetic components. Therefore, it would be
impossible to compare our methods, GenomeFingerprinter and universal genome
fingerprint analysis (UGFA), as a whole system with other documented methods in
terms of advantages and disadvantages. However, in the present study, we tried best
to compare partial features with two programs partly related to ours.
GenomeFingerprinter vs. Zplotter
Validity
Zplotter (in Z-curve method as a geometrical-type approach) was mainly used to
create coordinates for subsequent use by Z-curve analysis, but not used for what we
proposed as creating the “genome fingerprint (GF)” and the “universal genome
fingerprint analysis (UGFA)” in the present study. Although Zplotter’s coordinates were
used to produce hundreds of graphs (as Z-curves) of microbial genomes documented
as a database [17], there were no stable features in terms of so-called fingerprints. In
fact, for example, we re-plotted visions for Halobacterium sp. NRC-1 genome
sequence [NC_002607] by using Zplotter’s coordinates of either zn’ (Figure 15, B) or
zn (Figure 15, C) to present as an open rough Z-curve. Note that those visions
themselves created by using zn’ and zn, respectively, were quite different from each
other due to wavelet transform in the algorithm of Zplotter [16]. In contrast, our
method presented a unique circular vision with accurate and delicate fingerprint for
the same genome (Figure 15, A). Also note that using zn’ (Figure 15, B) showed a
similar frame of vision to ours except that it was in an open rough Z-curve with lesser
features whereas using zn (Figure 15, C) gave a complete different vision from ours.
We thus recommend that our GenomeFingerprinter method could be an alternate of
Zplotter to provide more accurate and delicate coordinates for Z-curve analysis, but
should be aware of choosing whether zn from our method or zn’ from Zplotter, referring
20

to the specific questions for various researches.
Reliability
Furthermore, we had found a major problem when using Zplotter to handle circular
genome sequences with cutting-point errors. In fact, Zplotter was designed for a linear
sequence [16] because its algorithm depends on counting the absolute numbers of
bases starting from the “first” base in a given linear sequence. In fact, when a
deposited sequence as a linear form (i.e., no matter what the original form should be
as either linear or circular), even the same circular sequence with cutting-point errors
changing its real “first” base could be quite different for the input to Zplotter so that the
output visions were differently presented (Figure 15, B, C). In contrast, our method
was initially created for a circular sequence (Figure 1), but it could apply to a linear
form since linear one would be a specific form of circular one and particularly because
our method measured the relative distance in a circular form (as discussed with the
formula (1) before, Figure 1), rather than the absolute numbers of bases counting
from the “first” base in a linear sequence. For example, the same circular sequence
Halobacterium sp. NRC-1 (NC_002607) with different cutting-point (e.g.,
NC_002607_RC re-cut at 700 kbps) were incorrectly presented as different visions by
using Zplotter’s coordinates (Figure 15, B, C), whereas the exact same vision was
shown by our method (Figure 15, A). Thus our method was valid for both circular and
linear forms and no matter where the cutting-point was.
Adaptability
Finally, we would like to address the fundamental scientific principals for why dealing
with circular genomes should be critical for microbes. That was overlooked in
literatures before.

21

Theoretically, the circular form [32] would be much more stable than its linear
form in living cells. In nature, most microbial genomes are in circular double strands,
which protect them from natural degradation because of relatively simple structure.
Also, the circular genomes and their linear forms are usually changing into each other
only when they are living at certain functioning stages, such as rolling-model
replication and plasmid-mediated conjunction. Most importantly, circular and linear
forms are functioning both genetically and physiologically in a coordinated way for a
given genome in a given microbe. In other words, their forms are changeable into
each other only when responding to real living conditions [32, 33]. Anyway, we could
catch up the circular form status in life cycles.
Technically, the techniques and people in different groups were not yet unified to
guarantee all deposited genome sequences in correct forms. In fact, most sequences
deposited in public databases so far were neither in their natural orders of starting
from the real “first” base, nor in the direction from 5’ to 3’. We thus had to tackle with
such cutting-point errors, as illustrated by examples (Figure 15). Fortunately, as
mentioned before, the RD formula (1) in our method could virtually treat an arbitrary
linear sequence as a circular one (Figure 1), avoiding the impact of any possible
cutting-point errors existed in public deposited sequences.
Informatively, the closed (or in circular form) fingerprint beared much more
information, concerning with genome-wide comparative genomics at fingerprint level
(Figure 12, 13). Most importantly, our method was initially designed for circular forms
(Figure 1), but finally was proved not ambiguous for linear forms when dealing with
cutting-point errors (Figure 15). In other words, our method could precisely calculate
the three-dimensional coordinates for a given circular or linear sequence with or
without correct cutting-point, could accordingly present a unique genome fingerprint

22

giving a certain geometrical center ( x , y , z ) (Figure 15), and could consequently
guarantee the subsequent unambiguous trajectory projections. In short, our method
guaranteed the validity of universal genome fingerprint analysis.
To sum up, we conclude that GenomeFingerprinter has advantages over Zplotter
in creating unambiguous coordinates and therefore can be an alternate component of
Z-curve method, which can be widely applicable to all aspects established by Z-curve
method to date [18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23] and beyond.
GenomeFingerprinter vs. Mauve
Efficiency
Mauve (as an typical algebraic-type program), combined computing and plotting
in-one-sitting, is commonly used for pair-wisely comparison and vision [14]. However,
it had difficulty with a number of larger genome sequences due to its inner constraints,
either too slow or memory overflow (MO). In contrast, our method could rapidly
calculate and visualize, separately, tens of large genomes. For example, Mauve had
at least O(n2) whereas our method had O(n) in time complexity (Table 5). By using our
method, only if plotting all larger graphics in-one-sitting would cause memory overflow.
Examples were five bacterial chromosome genomes (Figure 7), forty seven phage
genomes (Figure 8), and twenty four virus genomes (Figure 9), respectively, that
could be easily plotted out in-one-sitting. Particularly, our method calculated and
visualized, separately, and thus not only ensured the higher performance efficiency for
large set of genomes (Table 5) but also offered both inputs and outputs re-usable for
the subsequent processes of universal genome fingerprint analysis and beyond (e.g.,
for Z-curve analysis consequently).
On the other hand, Mauve had two modes: progressiveMauve mode [14] and

23

Mauve mode [15]. As discussed before, only progressiveMauve mode [14] could
partially deal with what we so-called systematic comparative genomics (Figure 14, A)
showing overall bare homologous although it took much longer time; whereas Mauve
mode [15] failed in the comparison because it stopped alignment due to no essential
homologous. Mauve mode [15] analysis yet worked well, separately, with subsets of
six plasmids (Figure 14, B) and two chromosomes (Figure 14, C), respectively, and
confirmed those partial relationships among six plasmids and between two
chromosomes.
Prediction
Mauve [14, 15] can visualize what it is, but can not predict what it should be without a
reference sequence or specific pre-knowledge. In contrast, our method provides
geometrical analysis of genome fingerprints with six trajectory projections, which
intuitively predict unique features such as genome-wide evolution events and
replication ori points (Figure 12), either based on a reference sequence or derived
from common knowledge.
Compatibility
From universal genome fingerprint analysis (UGFA), the subtle variations (Figure 12,
C, D, G) could predict genome-wide evolution events at small scale in chromosomes,
but no direct evidence yet could be drawn. Thus we used Mauve to pair-wisely
compare two genomes and confirmed genome-wide evolution events (Figure 12, C),
demonstrating that our method can rapidly predict evolution events and Mauve can
precisely test and confirm such predictions by showing out the predicted specific
regions (Figure 12, C). The same was true for UGFM-TGCC-SCG by our method
(Figure 13) and the pair-wisely comparison by progressiveMauve (Figure 14, A). Thus,
we recommend that our method and Mauve method are compatible and partners,
24

taking both advantages of our method for rapid and intuitive prediction in general and
Mauve for slow and precise confirmation in details, particularly focusing on the
targeted fragments’ gain, lose, and rearrangement, etc..
To conclude, methodologically, the universal genome fingerprint analysis (UGFA)
through UGFM-TGCC-SCG (Figure 13) and the pair-wisely genome comparison
through Mauve (Figure 14) could be compatible in a manner of sequential operations.
In other words, the UGFM-TGCC-SCG method not only could handle exceptional
situations for a large set of genomes, but also could facilitate the efficiency of
integrating Mauve into performing our so-called systematic comparative genomics,
particularly, in terms of in-one-sitting for a set of sequences with farther divergences
(chromosome, plasmid, and phage, if applicable) over large size ranges (e.g., 6Kbp ~
4Mbp). In other words, any component with too farther divergence could be rapidly
pre-screened out by UGFM-TGCC-SCG, which could guide on the selection of
appropriate subsets of components for subsequent comparison by Mauve.
Prospective in future for universal genome fingerprint analysis
Genome fingerprints and the concepts of strain and species
“Strain” should be the most fundamental unit for taxonomy. The concise definition of
type strain should be crucial for assigning type species, type genus, type family and
beyond. Any deep conflicts in arguable strains would eventually shape the assigned
species or beyond. Unfortunately, it was so critical but had been overlooked by
literatures. To our knowledge to date, no efficient method could provide full description
about a type strain, nor was there common agreement upon how to define a species
[26, 34, 35]. We anticipated that genomics would be the solid foundation for these
issues, as it had re-constructed the concepts of numbers - two or more instead of only
one - of chromosomes and replication ori points. For example, in the present study, by
25

using our method GenomeFingerprinter, we created the whole genome fingerprints
(Figure 12, 13) for all eight genetic components in two arguable strains (Table 4) and
fundamentally demonstrated that they were not identical (Figure 12, 13) and should
probably belong to the same species that needed more characterizations yet. These
findings supported the proposal that genome sequence information should be
considered in refining an arguable “strain” or “species” in the taxonomy of halophilic
Archaea [34]. We agreed with the promotion that in the long run, the definition for a
“species” in modern microbiology needed intensive revisions in light of genomics to
unify inevitable conflicts in nomenclature system, particularly, in halophilic Archaea [34,
35]. We would further recommend that all genetic components should be included
when referring to genomic information for discussing unambiguous taxonomy
although to what extent chromosome, plasmid and phage plays roles, respectively,
still remained unclear and to be negotiated at current knowledge level [26, 34, 35]. We
believed that using UGFM-TGCC-SCG method to concisely resolve the arguments
between closely related strains (Figure 13) as well as among farther divergence
species or genera (Figure 10, 11, 12, 13) would be one of the crucial steps forwarding
to modern microbial nomenclature in the post-genomic era.
Type UGFM-TGCC fingerprint for type strain
We would recommend that any arguable strains should not be judged identical or
different only based upon partial information from bulky traditional features such as
phenotype and genotype including 16S rRNA, AFLP, PCR-RFLP, ISs, MITEs, etc. [26,
27, 31, 34]. It should also be true for defining a type strain. Theoretically, we would
define a type strain or name a new isolate or refine an arguable strain or construct a
refined-version for modern microbial taxonomy based upon all unambiguous
information from total genome sequences (i.e., chromosome, plasmid, and phage, if

26

applicable). Practically, at least, a type strain should have a meaningful genomic
signature. For example, the UGFM-TGCC fingerprint (Figure 10, 11, 12, 13) would be
effective to provide a “type strain” with a “type UGFM-TGCC fingerprint” which is
simple, standard, and meaningful.
Interestingly, to date, the list of genomes sequenced does not include that of the
type strain of Halobacterium salinarum (ATCC 33171), the type species of the type
genus of the family and the order [36]. It is regretted that no genomic information is
available for the nomenclatural type [36]. We expect the community should consider
of sequencing more type strains in order to set up a solid foundation for refining
modern Archaea taxonomy, which would be invaluable for the next generation of
community to understand deeply, research systematically and use efficiently of such
amazing bio-resources. Once the “type genome sequence” for the “type strain” is
available, the “type UGFM-TGCC fingerprint” can be made by using our methods, as
what we did for two related strains Halobacterium NRC-1 and Halobacterium
salinarum R1 (Figure 13) and five diverse strains crossing five genera (Figure 10).
Overall, the family Halobacteriaceae consisted of 36 genera with 129 species
standing in nomenclature (as of November 2011) [26], but only sixteen strains
representing sixteen genera had been sequenced and deposited in GenBank (as of
February 2013), including eighteen chromosomes and thirty-six plasmids (Table 2).
By using our method of UGFM (I), UGFM-TGCC (II), and UGFM-TGCC-SCG (III), we
created the whole genome fingerprints (Figure 10, 11, 12, 13) for all fifty-four genome
sequences. Our results provided new insights into critical problematic issues in
halophilic Archaea genomics, comparative genomics, and taxonomy [26, 34]. That
was a great step on initiatives. We expected more pioneering works to be done. In
short, the present paper provided a new method (GenomeFingerprinter, Figure 1) for

27

rapidly computing, geometrically visualizing, and intuitively comparing sequences at
fingerprint level, and hence established a new method (universal genome fingerprint
analysis (UGFA), Figure 6) for systematic comparative genomics, which would be
invaluable for the first strategic step forwarding to microbial genomics, comparative
genomics, phylogenetics, and taxonomy in the light of post-genomics. We anticipated
that our methods could be widely applicable to systematic comparative genomics.

Conclusions
We created a new method, GenomeFingerprinter, to unambiguously produce
three-dimensional coordinates from a sequence, followed by one three-dimensional
plot and six two-dimensional trajectory projections to illustrate whole genome
fingerprints. We further developed a set of concepts and tools (3D-P, 2D-TP, GF, GFM,
P-GFM, S-GFM, UGFM, TGCC, UGFM-TGCC, SCG, and UGFM-TGCC-SCG), and
thereby established a new method, universal genome fingerprint analysis (UGFA). We
demonstrated their applications through case studies on over a hundred of genome
sequences. Particularly, by using UGFM (I), UGFM-TGCC (II), and
UGFM-TGCC-SCG (III), we compared a number of genome sequences crossing
different genetic category (chromosome, plasmid, and phage; bacterium, archaeal
bacterium, and virus) with farther divergences over large size ranges (6Kbp~5Mbp),
which we called as systematic comparative genomics, giving new insights into critical
problematic issues in microbial genomics. We anticipated that our methods could be
widely applicable to systematic comparative genomics in the post-genomic era.

Materials

28

Genome sequences used in this study were downloaded from NCBI or were derived
from this study were list in Table 2, 3.
Methods
We implemented our method into an in-house script, GenomeFingerprinter.exe. It will
be available upon request to the corresponding author. Zplotter (v1.0) and Mauve
(v2.3.1) used in this study can be downloaded from links: Zplotter.exe at
http://tubic.tju.edu.cn/zcurve/ and Mauve at http://gel.ahabs.wisc.edu/mauve/. To plot
graphics from coordinates, any public graphic tool can be used.
Abbreviations
bps: base pairs; Kbp: kilo-bps; Mbp: Mega-bps; TB: target base; FB: focusing base;
RD: relative distance; WRD: weighted relative distance; SWRD: sum of the weighted
relative distances; 3D-P: three-dimensional plot; 2D-TP: two-dimensional trajectory
projections; GF: genome fingerprint; GFM: genome fingerprint map; P-GFM: primary
genome fingerprint map; S-GFM: secondary genome fingerprint map; UGFM:
universal genome fingerprint map; TGCC: total genetic component configuration;
UGFM-TGCC: universal genome fingerprint map of total genetic component
configuration; SCG: systematic comparative genomics; UGFM-TGCC-SCG: universal
genome fingerprint map of total genetic component configuration based systematic
comparative genomics; UGFA: universal genome fingerprint analysis
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by National High Technology Research & Development
Project (2006AA09Z420), National Science and Technology Major Project of China
(2011ZX08011005) grants to YA. HA was a recipient of Guangzhou Municipal Science
Ambassador Scholarship.

29

Authors’ contributions
Conceived and designed the experiments: YA and FM. Performed experiments: LZ
(Perl) and HA (Perl and Java) initiated models and scripts; HA reconstructed
mathematic models and algorithms, designed, implemented, tested scripts, and
constructed system; YA, FM and HA initiated, developed and confined the conceptual
frameworks for biological research contents; HA and YA performed computing and
collected data. Analyzed the data: HA, YA and FM. Wrote the paper: YA, HA and FM.
Competing interests
The author(s) declare that they have no competing interests.
References
1. Nielsen CB, Cantor M, Dubchak I, Gordon D, Wang T. (2010) Visualizing
genomes: techniques and challenges. Nat Methods 7(Suppl 3): S5-S15.
2. Lathe R, Findlay R. (1984) Machine-readable DNA sequences. Nature 311: 610.
3. Lathe R, Findlay R. (1985) Reply. Nature 314: 585-586.
4. Gates MA. (1986) A simple way to look at DNA. J Theor Biol 119: 319-328.
5. Hamori E, Ruskin J. (1983) H-Curves, a novel method of representation of
nucleotide series especially suited for long DNA sequences. J Biol Chem 258:
1318-1327.
6. Hamori E. (1985) Novel DNA sequence representations. Nature 314: 585.
7. Herisson J, Ferey N, Gros P.E, Gherbi R. (2006) ADN-viewer: A 3D approach for
bioinformatic analyses of large DNA sequences. Cellular Mol Biol 52: 24-31.
8. Herisson J, Payen G, Gherbi R. (2007) A 3D pattern matching algorithm for DNA

30

sequences. Bioinformatics 23: 680-686.
9. Altschul S, Madden TL, Schaffer AA, Zhang J, Zhang Z, Miller W, Lipman DJ.
(1997) Gapped BLAST and Psi-BLAST: A new generation of protein database
search programs. Nucl Acids Res 25: 3389-3402.
10. Thompson JD, Higgins DG, Gibson TJ. (1994) CLUSTALW: improving the
sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence
weighting, positions specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic
Acids Res 22:4673-4680.
11. Alikhan NF, Petty NK, Ben Zakour NL, Beatson SA. (2011) BLAST Ring Image
Generator (BRIG): simple prokaryote genome comparisons. BMC Genomics
12:402.
12. Carver TJ, Rutherford KM, Berriman M, Rajandream MA, Barrell BG, Parkhill J.
(2005) ACT: The artemis comparison tool. Bioinformatics 21: 3422-3423.
13. Lobry JR. (1996) A simple vectorial representation of DNA sequences for the
detection of replication origins in bacteria. Biochimie 78: 323-326.
14. Aaron E, Darling, Bob Mau, Nicole T. Perna. (2010) progressiveMauve: Multiple
genome alignment with gene gain, loss, and rearrangement. PLoS One 5:
e11147.
15. Darling ACE, Mau B, Blatter FR, Perna NT. (2004) Mauve: multiple alignment of
conserved genomic sequence with rearrangements. Genome Research 14:
1394-1403.
16. Zhang R, Zhang CT. (1994) Z Curves, An intuitive tool for visualizing and
analyzing the DNA sequences. J Biomol Struc Dynamics 11: 767-782.

31

17. Zhang CT, Zhang R, Ou HY. (2003) The Z curve database: a graphic
representation of genome sequences. Bioinformatics 19: 593-599.
18. Guo FB, Ou HY, Zhang CT. (2003) ZCURVE: a new system for recognizing
protein-coding genes in bacterial and archaeal genomes. Nucleic Acids Res 31:
1780-1789.
19. Zheng WX, Chen LL, Ou HY, Gao F, Zhang CT. (2005) Coronavirus phylogeny
based on a geometric approach. Mol Phy and Evo 36: 224-232.
20. Zhang CT, Gao F, Zhang R. (2005) Segmentation algorithm for DNA sequences.
Phys Rev E 72: 041917.
21. Gao F, Zhang CT. (2006) GC-Profile: a web-based tool for visualizing and
analyzing the variation of GC content in genomic sequences. Nucleic Acids Res
34(Web Server issue):W686-W691.
22. Zhang R, Zhang CT. (2002) Single replication origin of the archaeon
Methanosarcina mazei revealed by the Z curve method. Biochem Biophys Res
Commun 297: 396-400.
23. Zhang R, Zhang CT. (2003) Multiple replication origins of the archaeon
Halobacterium species NRC-1. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 302: 728-734.
24. Charkowski AO. (2004) Making sense of an alphabet soup: the use of a new
bioinformatics tool for identification of novel gene islands. Physiol Genomics 16:
180-181.
25. Robinson NP, Dionne I, Lundgren M, Marsh VL, Bernander R, Bell SD. (2004)
Identification of two origins of replication in the single chromosome of the
Archaeon Sulfolobus solfataricus. Cell 116: 25-38.

32

26. Oren, A. (2012) Taxonomy of the family Halobacteriaceae: a paradigm for
changing concepts in prokaryote systematics. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol
62:263-271.
27. File´e J, Siguier P, Chandler M. (2007) Insertion sequence diversity in Archaea.
Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 71:121-157.
28. Ng WV, Kennedy SP, Mahairas GG, Berquist B, Pan M, Shukla HD, Lasky SR,
Baliga NS, Thorsson V, Sbrogna J, Swartzell S, Weir D, Hall J, Dahl TA, Welti R,
Goo YA, Cruz R, Danson MJ, Hough DW, Maddocks DG, Jablonski PE, Krebs
MP, Angevine CM, Dale H, Isenbarger TA, Peck RF, Pohlschroder M, Spudich JL,
Jung KW, Alam M, Freitas T, Hou S, Daniels CJ, Dennis PP, Omer AD, Ebhardt
H, Lowe TM, Liang P, Riley M, Hood L, DasSarma S. (2000) Genome sequence
of Halobacterium species NRC-1. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:12176-12181.
29. Pfeiffer F, Schuster SC, Broicher A, Falb M, Palm P, Rodewald K, Ruepp A,
Soppa J, Tittor J, Oesterhelt D. (2008) Evolution in the laboratory: the genome of
Halobacterium salinarum strain R1 compared to that of strain NRC-1. Genomics
91: 335-346.
30. Berquist BR, DasSarma S. (2003) An archaeal chromosomal autonomously
replicating sequence element from an extreme halophile, Halobacterium sp.
strain NRC-1. J Bacteriol 185: 5959-5966.
31. Ng WV, Ciufo SA, Smith TM, Bumgarner RE, Baskin D, Faust J, Hall B, Loretz C,
Seto J, Slagel J, Hood L, DasSarma S. (1998) Snapshot of a large dynamic
replicon in a halophilic archaeon: megaplasmid or minichromosome? Genome
Res 8: 1131-1141.
32. Kennedy SP, Ng WV, Salzberg SL, Hood L, DasSarma S. (2001) Understanding

33

the adaptation of Halobacterium species NRC-1 to its extreme environment
through computational analysis of its genome sequence. Genome Res
11:1641-1650.
33. Capes MD, DasSarma P, DasSarma S. (2012) The core and unique proteins of
haloarchaea. BMC Genomics 13:39.
34. DasSarma P, DasSarma S. (2008) On the origin of prokaryotic "species": the
taxonomy of halophilic Archaea. Saline Systems 4:5.
35. Oren, A. (2008) Nomenclature and taxonomy of halophilic archaea – comments
on the proposal by DasSarma and DasSarma for nomenclatural changes within
the order Halobacteriales. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 58: 2245–2246.
36. Oren A, Arahal DR, Ventosa A. (2009) Emended descriptions of genera of the
family Halobacteriaceae. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 59:637-642.

34

Figures and Legends

Figure 1. A mathematic model for getting coordinates (xn, yn, zn) from a circular
genome sequence. It is arbitrarily starting at the nth base as the chosen target base
(TB) and moving to the mth base as a focusing base (FB).

Figure 2. Three-dimensional plot (3D-P) and primary genome fingerprint map
(P-GFM) of fragmental genome sequences of chromosomes in Escherichia coli
strains. (A). K-12/W3110 [AC_000091]F7; (B). BL21(DE3)pLysS AG [NC_012947]F1;
(C). BL21(DE3)pLysS AG [NC_012947]F5; (D). O55:H7/CB 9615 [NC_013941]F1.

Figure 3. Six two-dimensional trajectory projections (2D-TP) and secondary
genome fingerprint maps (S-GFMs) for E. coli K-12/W3110 chromosome
[AC_000091]. (A). Projection with xn ~ n; (B). Projection with yn ~ n; (C). Projection
with zn ~ n; (D). Projection with xn ~ yn; (E). Projection with xn ~ zn; (F). Projection with
yn ~ zn.

Figure 4. Universal genome fingerprint map (UGFM) for overall comparison of
genome fingerprints. (A). Similar: Sulfolobus islandicus M.14.25 [NC_012588] and
M.16.4 [NC_012726]; (B). Partly similar: S. islandicus Y.N.15.51 [NC_012623] and
Methanococcus voltae A3 [NC_014222]; (C). Different: S. islandicus Y.G.57.14
[NC_012622] and Methanosphaera stadtmanae 3091 [NC_007681]; (D). Mixture:
(total twelve fragmental sequences (Table 2): 91.1.1, 91.1.61, 91.6.59, 913.1.77,
913.5.57, 4431.1.70, 7946.4.7, 10473.1.74, 10473.4.57, 10498.4.86, 12947.1.50,
35

13941.2.60.

Figure 5. Application of universal genome fingerprint map (UGFM) for
comparison among a number of genomes in-one-sitting. The twelve fragmental
genome sequences (list in Table 2) were shown in UGFM. The primary genome
fingerprint map (P-GFM) of each sequence was classified into different groups solely
based upon its location in UGFM: Group (A) (91.1.61, 913.1.77 and 10473.1.74),
Group (B) (91.6.59, 913.5.57 and 13941.2.60), Group (C) (7946.4.7 and 12947.1.50),
Group (D) (10498.4.86), Group (E) (91.1.1), and Group (F) (4431.1.70). Note that
each sequence showed quite different views between its own P-GFM and that in
UGFM simply because of the scale-down and view-angle rotation effect in UGFM,
which ensured for larger number of objects to be compared in-one-sitting.

Figure 6. Diagram of conceptual framework for universal genome fingerprint
analysis (UGFA). Our methods consisted of GenomeFingerprinter and universal
genome fingerprint analysis (UGFA); the former was the fundamental for the latter.
The objects could be a single genome sequence, or a number of genome sequences
crossing different genetic category (e.g., chromosome, plasmid, phage) in a strain, or
a number of sequences of genetic components in a cluster of strains crossing different
genetic category (e.g., bacterium, archaeal bacterium, virus). The UGFA method was
composed by three subcategories of UGFM (I), UGFM-TGCC (II), and
UGFM-TGCC-SCG (III), corresponding to the above three objects, respectively. The
core lied in the systematic concepts and tools, which included 3D-P, 2D-TP, P-GFM,
S-GFM, UGFM, TGCC, UGFM-TGCC, SCG, and UGFM-TGCC-SCG. Abbreviations:
3D-P: three-dimensional plot; 2D-TP: two-dimensional trajectory projections; GF:
36

genome fingerprint; GFM: genome fingerprint map; P-GFM: primary genome
fingerprint map; S-GFM: secondary genome fingerprint map; UGFM: universal
genome fingerprint map; TGCC: total genetic component configuration; UGFM-TGCC:
universal genome fingerprint map of total genetic component configuration; SCG:
systematic comparative genomics; UGFM-TGCC-SCG: universal genome fingerprint
map of total genetic component configuration based systematic comparative
genomics; UGFA: universal genome fingerprint analysis

Figure 7. UGFM (I) of five archaeal strains (each having only one chromosome
with size ranging of 2.6 ~4.1 Mbp) crossing five genera of halophilic Archaea.
Halomonas elongate DSM 2581 [NC_014532], Halorhodospira halophilia SL1
[NC_008789], Halorhabdus utahensis DSM 12940 [NC_013158], Halothermothrix
orenii H 168 [NC_011899] and Halothiobacillus neapolitanus c2 [NC_013422] had no
close lineages confirming their divergences, at genus level.

Figure 8. UGFM (I) of forty seven genomes of phages in the family of
Microviridae. These forty seven phages were close relatives, but most of them were
distinguishable at strain level. They were grouped into two major clusters. Cluster (1)
included twenty nine strains (WA5, ID11, WA3, WA2, ID41, NC10, WA6, ID12, NC13,
NC2, NC6, ID52, ID8, G4, ID2, WA14, ID18, WA45, ID21, NC28, ID62, NC35, NC29,
NC3, alpha3, WA13, phiK, ID32, NC19); Cluster (2) included eighteen strains (NC16,
NC5, NC37, ID1, NC7, NC1, NC11, ID22, S13, phiX174, WA11, WA4, ID34, NC41,
NC56, WA10, NC51, ID45). The details of phage names were list in Table 3.

37

Figure 9. UGFM (I) of twenty four genomes of coronavirus strains. They were
classified into seven clusters. Cluster (1) included the most similar twelve strains of
SARS coronavirus ([AY283796], [AY283797], [AY283798], [AY283794], [AY291451],
[AY278741], [AY283795], [AY278488], [AY278491], [AY278554], [NC_004718],
[AY282752]), tracking with the same UGFM; Cluster (2) included similar four strains of
Murine hepatitis virus ([AF201929], [AF208066], [AF208067], [NC_001846]), tracking
with the similar UGFM; Cluster (3) was a distinctive Porcine epidemic diarrhea virus
strain ([NC_003436]); Cluster (4) was a distinctive Avian infectious bronchitis virus
strain ([NC_001451]); Cluster (5) was a distinctive Feline infectious peritonitis virus
strain ([NC_002306]); Cluster (6) was a distinctive Human coronavirus strain
([NC_002645]); Cluster (7) included four similar strains of Bovine coronavirus
([AF220295], [u00735], [AF391542], [NC_003045]), tracking with the similar UGFM.
These seven clusters were perfectly matched to their biological identity groups (list in
Table 3).

Figure 10. UGFM-TGCC (II) of five archaeal strains crossing four genera of
halophilic Archaea. (A) enlarged vision of those five plasmids and (B)
Halogeometricum boringquense DSM 11551 (one chromosome [NC_014729] and five
plasmids pHBOR02 [NC_014731], pHBOR04 [NC_014732], pHBOR01 [NC_014735],
pHBOR03 [NC_014736], pHBOR05 [NC_014737]); (C) enlarged vision of those six
plasmids and (D) Haloterrigena turkmenica DSM 5511 (one chromosome
[NC_013743] and six plasmids pHTUR01 [NC_013744], pHTUR02 [NC_013745],
pHTUR03 [NC_013746], pHTUR04 [NC_013747], pHTUR05 [NC_013748],
pHTUR06 [NC_013749]); (E) enlarged vision of those three plasmids and (F)
Natrialba magadii ATCC 43099 (one chromosome [NC_013922] and three plasmids

38

pNMAG01 [NC_013923], pNMAG02 [NC_013924], pNMAG03 [NC_013925]; (G)
Natrinema pellirubrum DSM 15624 (one chromosome [NC_019962] and two plasmids
pNATPE02 [NC_019963], pNATPE01 [NC_019967]; (H) Haloquadratum walsbyi DSM
16790 (one chromosome [NC_008212] and one plasmid PL47 [NC_008213]. These
four strains crossing four genera (Table 2) had quite different UGFM-TGCC visions
demonstrating their farther lineages at genus level.

Figure 11. UGFM-TGCC-SCG (III) of four archaeal strains (each having multiple
chromosomes and plasmids) crossing four genera of halophilic Archaea. There
were two sets of in-one-sitting comparison. One set (A-B) : Halorubrum lacusprofundii
ATCC49239 (chromosome I [NC_012029], chromosome II [NC_012028], plasmid
pHLAC01 [NC_012030]) vs. Haloarcula marismortui ATCC43049 (chromosome I
[NC_006396], chromosome II [NC_006397], and seven plasmids pNG100
[NC_006389], pNG200 [NC_006390], pNG300 [NC_006391], pNG400 [NC_006392],
pNG500 [NC_006393], pNG600 [NC_006394], pNG700 [NC_006395]) focusing on
plasmids (A) and a universal system (B); Another set (C-D): Haloferax vocanii DS2
[chromosome [NC_013967], plasmid pHV3 [NC_013964], pHV2 [NC_013965], pHV4
[NC_013966], pHV1 [NC_013968] ) vs. Halomicrobium mukohataei DSM 12286
(chromosome [NC_013202], plasmid pHmuk01[NC_013201] ) focusing on plasmids
(C) and a universal system (D).

Figure 12. Application of universal genome fingerprint analysis (UGFA) for
comparative genomics between two chromosomes of Halobacterium sp. NRC-1
[NC_002607] and Halobacterium salinarum R1 [NC_010364]. Two arguable strains
were compared by using three-dimensional plots (xn~yn~zn) (P-GFM) (A) and
39

two-dimensional trajectory projections (S-GFM) with different combinations of
coordinates: (B) xn~yn; (C) xn~zn; (D) yn~zn; (E) xn~n; (F) yn~n; (G) zn~n; (H) xn~n and
yn~n together. Note two arrows showed replication ori points, oriC1 and ori C2; other
arrows indicated genome-wide evolution events.

Figure 13. Application of universal genome fingerprint analysis (UGFA) for
systematic comparative genomics (SCG). The universal genome fingerprint map
(UGFM) of total genetic component configurations (TGCC) (UGFM-TGCC) was
applied to the systematic comparative genomics (SCG) in-one-sitting. Two strains
Halobacterium sp. NRC-1 and Halobacterium salinarum R1 were compared as a
universal system. (A). UGFM-TGCC-SCG for total six plasmids (Halobacterium sp.
NRC-1 pNRC100 [NC_00001869] and pNRC200 [NC_002608]; Halobacterium
salinarum R1 PHS1 [NC_010366], PHS2 [NC_010369], PHS3 [NC_010368], and
PHS4 [NC_010367]); (B). UGFM-TGCC-SCG for those total six plasmids and two
chromosomes (Halobacterium sp. NRC-1 [NC_002607] and Halobacterium salinarum
R1 [NC_010364]). Note, even within the same strain, chromosome and plasmid
showed distinctive lineage divergences. In other words, there was no correlation
between chromosome and plasmid within a certain strain, i.e., without any binding to a
certain strain, indicating possible independent evolution among chromosomes and
plasmids.

Figure 14. Mauve snapshots for pair-wisely genome comparisons between two
strains Halobacterium sp. NRC-1 and Halobacterium salinarum R1 considering
of TGCC as a universal system. progressiveMauve mode analysis could compare
in-one-sitting all eight components of NRC-1 and R1 strains showing bare
40

homologous (A). Mauve mode analysis failed because it stopped alignment due to no
homologous; but it worked well, separately, with (B) six plasmids (the inner window)
(Halobacterium sp. NRC-1 pNRC100 [NC_00001869] and pNRC200 [NC_002608];
Halobacterium salinarum R1 PHS1 [NC_010366], PHS2 [NC_010369], PHS3
[NC_010368], and PHS4 [NC_010367]), and (C) two chromosomes (Halobacterium
sp. NRC-1 [NC_002607] and Halobacterium salinarum R1 [NC_010364]). Mauve
mode analysis could clearly reveal the relationships among six plasmids and between
two chromosomes, separately.

Figure 15. Comparisons between two chromosomes of Halobacterium sp.
NRC-1 [NC_002607] and its derivative form (NC_002607_RC) with different
cutting-point. (A). Comparison via GenomeFingerprinter; (B). Comparison via
Zplotter with zn’; (C). Comparison via Zplotter with zn.

41

Tables and Captions
Table 1. Coordinates of an artificial sample sequence
# bp / point

xn

yn

zn

1

0.7

8.1

-4.1

2

-0.3

8.7

-4.9

3

0.7

9.3

-3.7

4

-0.3

9.9

-4.5

5

-1.3

8.5

-3.3

6

-0.3

7.1

-4.1

7

0.7

7.7

-2.9

8

-0.3

8.3

-3.7

9

0.7

6.9

-4.5

10

-0.3

7.5

-5.3

11

0.7

8.1

-4.1

12

-0.3

8.7

-4.9

13

0.7

9.3

-3.7

14

-0.3

9.9

-4.5

15

-1.3

8.5

-3.3

16

-0.3

7.1

-4.1

17

0.7

7.7

-2.9

18

-0.3

8.3

-3.7

19

0.7

6.9

-4.5

20

-0.3

7.5

-5.3

21

0.7

8.1

-4.1

22

-0.3

8.7

-4.9

23

0.7

9.3

-3.7

24

-0.3

9.9

-4.5

25

-1.3

8.5

-3.3

26

-0.3

7.1

-4.1

27

0.7

7.7

-2.9

28

-0.3

8.3

-3.7

29

0.7

6.9

-4.5

30

-0.3

7.5

-5.3

31

0.7

8.1

-4.1

32

-0.3

8.7

-4.9

33

0.7

9.3

-3.7

34

-0.3

9.9

-4.5

35

-1.3

8.5

-3.3

36

-0.3

7.1

-4.1

37

0.7

7.7

-2.9

38

-0.3

8.3

-3.7

39

0.7

6.9

-4.5

40

-0.3

7.5

-5.3

42

Table 2. Features of genome sequences from bacteria and archaeal bacteria
used in this study
Species and Strain

Sequence ID

Type

Size (bps)

Downloaded from FTP.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov [GenBank]
Escherichia coli K-12/W3110
Escherichia coli K-12/DH10B
Escherichia coli K-12/MG1655
Escherichia coli BL21 (DE3) pLysSAG
Escherichia coli O55:H7/CB9615
Escherichia coli UTI89
Escherichia coli CFT073
Escherichia coli SMS-3-5
Sulfolobus islandicus M.14.25
Sulfolobus islandicus M.16.4
Sulfolobus islandicus Y.N.15.51
Sulfolobus islandicus Y.G.57.14
Methanococcus voltae A3
Methanosphaera stadtmanae DSM 3091
Halomonas elongate DSM 2581
Halorhodospira halophilia SL1
Halorhabdus utahensis DSM 12940
Halothermothrix orenii H 168
Halothiobacillus neapolitanus c2
Halogeometricum boringquense DSM 11551
Halogeometricum boringquense DSM 11551
Halogeometricum boringquense DSM 11551
Halogeometricum boringquense DSM 11551
Halogeometricum boringquense DSM 11551
Halogeometricum boringquense DSM 11551
Haloterrigena turkmenica DSM 5511
Haloterrigena turkmenica DSM 5511
Haloterrigena turkmenica DSM 5511
Haloterrigena turkmenica DSM 5511
Haloterrigena turkmenica DSM 5511
Haloterrigena turkmenica DSM 5511
Haloterrigena turkmenica DSM 5511
Natrialba magadii ATCC 43099
Natrialba magadii ATCC 43099
Natrialba magadii ATCC 43099
Natrialba magadii ATCC 43099
Natrinema pellirubrum DSM 15624
Natrinema pellirubrum DSM 15624
Natrinema pellirubrum DSM 15624
Haloquadratum walsbyi DSM 16790
Haloquadratum walsbyi DSM 16790
Halorubrum lacusprofundii ATCC49239
Halorubrum lacusprofundii ATCC49239
Halorubrum lacusprofundii ATCC49239
Haloarcula marismortui ATCC43049
Haloarcula marismortui ATCC43049
Haloarcula marismortui ATCC43049
Haloarcula marismortui ATCC43049
Haloarcula marismortui ATCC43049
Haloarcula marismortui ATCC43049
Haloarcula marismortui ATCC43049
Haloarcula marismortui ATCC43049
Haloarcula marismortui ATCC43049
Halomicrobium mukohataei DSM 12286
Halomicrobium mukohataei DSM 12286
Haloferax vocanii DS2
Haloferax vocanii DS2
Haloferax vocanii DS2

AC_000091
NC_007779
NC_010473
NC_000913
NC_012947
NC_013941
NC_007946
NC_004431
NC_010498
NC_012588
NC_012726
NC_012623
NC_012622
NC_014222
NC_007681
NC_014532
NC_008789
NC_013158
NC_011899
NC_013422
NC_014729
NC_014731
NC_014732
NC_014735
NC_014736
NC_014737
NC_013743
NC_013744
NC_013745
NC_013746
NC_013747
NC_013748
NC_013749
NC_013922
NC_013923
NC_013924
NC_013925
NC_019962
NC_019963
NC_019967
NC_008212
NC_008213
NC_012029
NC_012028
NC_012030
NC_006396
NC_006397
NC_006389
NC_006390
NC_006391
NC_006392
NC_006393
NC_006394
NC_006395
NC_013202
NC_013201
NC_013967
NC_013964
NC_013965

Chromosome*

4646332

Chromosome*
Chromosome*
Chromosome*
Chromosome*
Chromosome*
Chromosome*
Chromosome*
Chromosome*
Chromosome*
Chromosome*
Chromosome*
Chromosome*
Chromosome*
a
Chromosome*
a
Chromosome*
a
Chromosome*
a
Chromosome*
a
Chromosome*
b
Chromosome*
b
plasmid pHBOR02
b
plasmid pHBOR04
b
plasmid pHBOR01
b
plasmid pHBOR03
b
plasmid pHBOR05
b
Chromosome*
b
plasmid pHTUR01
b
plasmid pHTUR02
b
plasmid pHTUR03
b
plasmid pHTUR04
b
plasmid pHTUR05
b
plasmid pHTUR06
b
Chromosome*
b
plasmid pNMAG01
b
plasmid pNMAG02
b
plasmid pNMAG03
b
Chromosome*
b
plasmid pNATPE02
b
plasmid pNATPE01
b
Chromosome*
b
plasmid PL47
c
Chromosome I*
c
Chromosome II*
c
plasmid pHLAC01
c
Chromosome I*
c
Chromosome II*
c
plasmid pNG100
c
plasmid pNG200
c
plasmid pNG300
c
plasmid pNG400
c
plasmid pNG500
c
plasmid pNG600
c
plasmid pNG700
c
Chromosome*
c
plasmid pHmuk01
c
Chromosome*
c
plasmid pHV3
c
plasmid pHV2

4686137
4639675
4570938
5386352
5065741
5231428
5068389
2608832
2586647
2812165
2702058
1936387
1767403
4119315
2716716
3161321
2614977
2619785
2860838
343853
197618
367369
213355
17786
3944596
708474
419558
183364
174400
72078
16041
3805456
383753
258593
59323
3844629
279762
291912
3177244
47537
2774371
533457
437500
3176463
292165
33779
33930
40086
50776
134574
157519
416420
3154923
225032
2888440
444162
6450
43

Haloferax vocanii DS2
Haloferax vocanii DS2
Halobacterium sp.NRC-1
Halobacterium sp.NRC-1
Halobacterium sp.NRC-1
Halobacterium salinarum R1
Halobacterium salinarum R1
Halobacterium salinarum R1
Halobacterium salinarum R1
Halobacterium salinarum R1

NC_013966
NC_013968
NC_002607
NC_001869
NC_002608
NC_010364
NC_010366
NC_010369
NC_010368
NC_010367

c

plasmid pHV4
c
plasmid pHV1
d
Chromosome*
d
Plasmid pNRC100
d
Plasmid pNRC200
d
Chromosome*
d
Plasmid PHS1
d
Plasmid PHS2
d
Plasmid PHS3
d
Plasmid PHS4

644869
86308
2014239
191346
365425
2000962
147625
194963
284332
40894

Derivatives created in this study [based on those sequences from GenBank]
Escherichia coli K-12/W3110-91.1.1
Escherichia coli K-12/W3110-91.1.61
Escherichia coli K-12/W3110-91.6.59
Escherichia coli K-12/W3110-91.F7
Escherichia coli K-12/MG1655-913.1.77
Escherichia coli K-12/MG1655-913.5.57
Escherichia coli CFT073-4431.1.70
Escherichia coli UTI89-7946.4.7
Escherichia coli K-12/DH10B -10473.1.74
Escherichia coli K-12/DH10B -10473.4.57
Escherichia coli SMS-3-5-10498.4.86
Escherichia coli BL21 (DE3) pLysSAG-12947.F1
Escherichia coli BL21 (DE3) pLysSAG-12947.1.50
Escherichia coli BL21 (DE3) pLysSAG-12947.F5
Escherichia coli O55:H7/CB9615-13941.F1
Escherichia coli O55:H7/CB9615-13941.2.60

91.1.1
91.1.61
91.6.59
91.7
913.1.77
913.5.57
4431.1.70
7946.4.7
10473.1.74
10473.4.57
10498.4.86
12947.1
12947.1.50
12947.5
13941.1
13941.2.60

Chromosome fragment
Chromosome fragment
Chromosome fragment
Chromosome fragment
Chromosome fragment
Chromosome fragment
Chromosome fragment
Chromosome fragment
Chromosome fragment
Chromosome fragment
Chromosome fragment
Chromosome fragment
Chromosome fragment
Chromosome fragment
Chromosome fragment
Chromosome fragment

227694
324260
410186
953958
331163
408963
401260
518065
325622
412818
331536
1759795
470050
43254
1915479
267039

* 32 chromosomes used for calculations as list in Table 5.
a

UGFM (I): five strains and five genomes (Figure 7)

b

UGFM-TGCC (II): five strains and twenty two genomes (Figure 10)

c

UGFM-TGCC-SCG (III): four strains and nineteen genomes (Figure 11)

d

Case studies: two strains and eight genomes (Figure 12, 13, 14)

44

Table 3. Features of genome sequences from viruses and phages used in this
study
Species and Strain

Sequence ID

Type

Size (bps)

Downloaded from FTP.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov [GenBank]
WA5: Coliphage WA5
ID11: Coliphage ID11
WA3: Coliphage WA3
WA2: Coliphage WA2
ID41: Coliphage ID41
NC10: Coliphage NC10
WA6: Coliphage WA6
ID12: Coliphage ID12
NC13: Coliphage NC13
NC2: Coliphage NC2
NC6: Coliphage NC6
ID52: Coliphage ID52
ID8: Coliphage ID8
G4: Enterobacteria phage G4
ID2: Coliphage ID2
WA14: Coliphage WA14
ID18: Coliphage ID18
WA45: Coliphage WA45
ID21: Coliphage ID21
NC28: Coliphage NC28
ID62: Coliphage ID62
NC35: Coliphage NC35
NC29: Coliphage NC29
NC3: Coliphage NC3
alpha3: Enterobacteria phage alpha3
WA13: Coliphage WA13
phiK: Coliphage phiK
ID32: Coliphage ID32
NC19: Coliphage NC19
NC16: Coliphage NC16
NC5: Coliphage NC5
NC37: Coliphage NC37
ID1: Coliphage ID1
NC7: Coliphage NC7
NC1: Coliphage NC1
NC11: Coliphage NC11
ID22: Coliphage ID22
S13: Enterobacteria phage S13
phiX174: Coliphage phiX174
WA11: Coliphage WA11
WA4: Coliphage WA4
ID34: Coliphage ID34
NC41: Coliphage NC41
NC56: Coliphage NC56
WA10: Coliphage WA10
NC51: Coliphage NC51
ID45: Coliphage ID45
SARS coronavirus TW1
SARS coronavirus Sin2679
SARS coronavirus Sin2748
SARS coronavirus Sin2774

NC_007847
NC_006954
NC_007845
NC_007844
NC_007851
NC_007854
NC_007852
NC_007853
NC_007849
NC_007848
NC_007855
NC_007825
NC_007846
NC_001420
NC_007817
NC_007857
NC_007856
NC_007822
NC_007818
NC_007823
NC_007824
NC_007820
NC_007827
NC_007826
DQ085810
NC_007821
NC_001730
NC_007819
NC_007850
NC_007836
NC_007833
NC_007837
NC_007828
NC_007834
NC_007832
NC_007835
NC_007829
NC_001424
NC_001422
NC_007843
NC_007841
NC_007830
NC_007838
NC_007840
NC_007842
NC_007839
NC_007831
AY283796
AY283797
AY283798
AY283794

a

Phage chromosome
a
Phage chromosome
a
Phage chromosome
a
Phage chromosome
a
Phage chromosome
a
Phage chromosome
a
Phage chromosome
a
Phage chromosome
a
Phage chromosome
a
Phage chromosome
a
Phage chromosome
a
Phage chromosome
a
Phage chromosome
a
Phage chromosome
a
Phage chromosome
a
Phage chromosome
a
Phage chromosome
a
Phage chromosome
a
Phage chromosome
a
Phage chromosome
a
Phage chromosome
a
Phage chromosome
a
Phage chromosome
a
Phage chromosome
a
Phage chromosome
a
Phage chromosome
a
Phage chromosome
a
Phage chromosome
a
Phage chromosome
a
Phage chromosome
a
Phage chromosome
a
Phage chromosome
a
Phage chromosome
a
Phage chromosome
a
Phage chromosome
a
Phage chromosome
a
Phage chromosome
a
Phage chromosome
a
Phage chromosome
a
Phage chromosome
a
Phage chromosome
a
Phage chromosome
a
Phage chromosome
a
Phage chromosome
a
Phage chromosome
a
Phage chromosome
a
Phage chromosome
b
Virus chromosome
b
Virus chromosome
b
Virus chromosome
b
Virus chromosome

5737
5737
5700
5700
5737
5687
5687
5687
5737
5737
5687
5698
5700
5737
5644
5644
5644
6242
6242
6239
6225
6213
6439
6273
6177
6242
6263
6245
5737
5540
5540
5540
5540
5540
5540
5540
5540
5540
5540
5541
5540
5540
5540
5540
5540
5540
5540
30137
30132
30137
30137
45

SARS coronavirus Sin2500
SARS coronavirus Urbani
SARS coronavirus Sin2677
SARS coronavirus BJ01
SARS coronavirus HKU-39849
SARS coronavirus CUHK-W1
SARS coronavirus
SARS coronavirus CUHK-Su10
Murine hepatitis virus strain 2
Murine hepatitis virus strain Penn 97-1
Murine hepatitis virus strain ML-10
Murine hepatitis virus strain A59
Porcine epidemic diarrhea virus
Avian infectious bronchitis virus
Feline infectious peritonitis virus
Human coronavirus 229E
Bovine coronavirus strain Quebec
Bovine coronavirus strain Mebus
Bovine coronavirus isolate BCoV-LUN
Bovine coronavirus

AY291451
AY278741
AY283795
AY278488
AY278491
AY278554
NC_004718
AY282752
AF201929
AF208066
AF208067
NC_001846
NC_003436
NC_001451
NC_002306
NC_002645
AF220295
u00735
AF391542
NC_003045

b

Virus chromosome
b
Virus chromosome
b
Virus chromosome
b
Virus chromosome
b
Virus chromosome
b
Virus chromosome
b
Virus chromosome
b
Virus chromosome
b
Virus chromosome
b
Virus chromosome
b
Virus chromosome
b
Virus chromosome
b
Virus chromosome
b
Virus chromosome
b
Virus chromosome
b
Virus chromosome
b
Virus chromosome
b
Virus chromosome
b
Virus chromosome
b
Virus chromosome

30155
30153
30131
30151
30168
30162
30178
30162
31724
31558
31681
31806
28435
28004
29776
27709
31546
31477
31473
31473

a

UGFM (I): forty seven strains and forty seven genomes in phage (Figure 8)

b

UGFM (I): twenty four strains and twenty four genomes in virus(Figure 9)

46

Table 4. Features of total genetic component configurations of strains NRC-1
and R1
Components
Chromosome
(bp)
Plasmid 1
(bp)
Plasmid 2
(bp)

NRC-1
NC_002607
2014239
pNRC100
NC_001869
191346
pNRC200
NC_002608
365425

Plasmid 3
(bp)

-

Plasmid 4
(bp)

-

Total (bp)

2571010

R1
NC_010364
2000962
PHS1
NC_010366
147625
PHS2
NC_010369
194963
PHS3
NC_010368
284332
PHS4
NC_0103667
40,894
2668776

47

Table 5. GenomeFingerprinter vs. Mauve
Number
1 chr.
2 chr.
4 chr.
8 chr.
16 chr.
32 chr.

GenomeFingerprinter
1 min cal.
1 min plot
2 min cal.
2 min plot
4 min cal.
4 min plot
8 min cal.
8 min plot
16 min cal. 16 min plot
32 min cal. 32 min plot

Mauve
no valid
2 min
8 min
44 min
332 min
MO

* Notes:
1) MO: memory overflow;
2) Samples: 32 chromosomes (chr.) as list (*) in Table 2;
3) Conditions: HP Proliant server DL580-G5 with 16 CPU/8Gb memory.

48

Figure
Click here to download high resolution image

Figure
Click here to download high resolution image

Figure
Click here to download high resolution image

Figure
Click here to download high resolution image

Figure
Click here to download high resolution image

Figure
Click here to download high resolution image

Figure
Click here to download high resolution image

Figure
Click here to download high resolution image

Figure
Click here to download high resolution image

Figure
Click here to download high resolution image

Figure
Click here to download high resolution image

Figure
Click here to download high resolution image

Figure
Click here to download high resolution image

Figure
Click here to download high resolution image

Figure
Click here to download high resolution image

