Cryptosporidium meleagridis DNA did amplify 8/10 loci tested, however, for 2 loci (Cgd8_2370 and Chro.50330 genes) the generated sequences

were not of high quality and were not used for analysis. Therefore, the differences between A-1210477 datasheet this strain and the other isolates were based only on 2853 bp comparisons for 7 genetic loci. The phylogenetic tree with C. meleagridis as the out group also allowed discrimination of Cryptosporidium species and subtypes in a similar manner than the tree presented in Figure 2A. The two phylogenetic trees showed similar bootstrap values (Figure 2A and 2B). Figure 2 Phylogenetic Tree based on the gene sequences of 10 new loci and the COWP gene sequence. The trees were constructed using Neighbour-Joining algorithm of MEGA software. A: Phylogenetic tree constructed using C. parvum, C. hominis and C. cuniculus sequences. B: Phylogenetic tree with C. meleagridis as an out-group. Discussion In this study, comparative genomic tools were used to identify putative species-specific genes for C. hominis and C. parvum based on published genome sequences. The initial bioinformatics XAV-939 nmr primary and secondary screening allowed the identification of 93 and 211 genes for C. hominis and C. parvum, respectively. This finding is somewhat lower

than the number of orthologous gene clusters for C. parvum and C. hominis reported previously in a study of the Apicomplexa [19]. Repotrectinib Initially, 10 of these genes were tested by PCR in a collection of Cryptosporidium clinical isolates and

reference strains. PCR screening of the predicted putative species-specific genes showed that the majority of the genes were not as predicted. In fact, 90% of the genes tested were present in both C. hominis and C. parvum isolates. This would suggest caution when using lineage-specific genes for taxonomic analysis at least until published genomes are known to be complete [19]. The discrepancy between bioinformatics tuclazepam and PCR is likely to be caused, at least in part, by the fact that the C. hominis TU502 genome is neither completed nor fully assembled, which is consistent with the smaller number of putative C. hominis specific genes as compared to those specific to C. parvum. However, this seems to be in disagreement with the finding that the C. hominis genome has 42 genes more than the C. parvum genome. Nevertheless, it is plausible that the status of the C. hominis genome had hindered the accuracy of the initial comparative genomic analysis because the selected genes may correspond to sequence gaps reported by the authors [15]. Further testing of an additional ten predicted putative specific genes for each species confirmed the general trend of similar amplification from both species. Therefore, the majority of the genes seem to be common to both species. However, an improved comparative genomic analysis has been made possible by the fast progress made towards the completion of C. muris genome.