Skip to main content

Table 1 Comparison between eBURST and the proposed implementation.

From: Global optimal eBURST analysis of multilocus typing data using a graphic matroid approach

  # 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
  1. 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.