Comparative analyses of the Hymenoscyphus fraxineus and Hymenoscyphus albidus genomes reveals potentially adaptive differences in secondary metabolite and transposable element repertoires

Table 2 The distributions of TEs, RIP, CRI, and GC percentages

Species	TEs%^a	RIP% (genome)^b	RIP% (TE)^c	mean CRI (RIP)^d	GC% (genome)^e	GC% (TE)^f	GC% ratio^g
H. fraxineus	24.16	40.85	92.91	1.66	37.37	33.87	0.59
H. albidus	10.44	24.28	58.47	1.15	44.58	41.59	0.87
G. lozoyensis	2.17	9.47	87.77	1.75	45.74	35.7	0.75
A. sarcoides	1.48	11.0	79.63	1.25	46.49	41.49	0.48
M. brunnea	39.95	46.31	76.80	1.08	40.99	36.15	0.88
S. borealis	4.66	8.05	40.97	0.63	39.40	35.50	1.06
B. cinerea	1.17	2.87	38.19	0.7	43.07	38.05	1.00
S. sclerotiorum	5.88	6.42	39.00	0.75	41.78	39.10	1.00
B. graminis	43.24	6.98	27.93	0.67	41.88	43.69	0.96

^a the percentage of dispersed repeats (transposable elements) in the genomes; ^b the percentage of detected RIP signatures across the whole genome; ^c the percentage of detected RIP signatures across the TE’s in the genome; ^d mean composite RIP index; ^e the percentage of GC nucletides in the whole genome; ^f the percentage of GC nucleotides in the TE’s and ^g: mean GC% ratio of RIPed to unRIPed TEs across all types

ISSN: 1471-2164