Table 3.

Distance matrix based on 16S rRNA comparisons

Taxon% Differencea
H. acinonychisH. pyloriH. nemestrinaeH. bizzozeroniiH. salomonisH. felisH. heilmanniiH. mustelaeH. suncusH. mesocricetorumH. rodentiumH. cholecystusH. pamatensisH. canadensisH. pullorumH. cinaediH. westmeadii“Helicobacter sp. flexispira”H. bilisH. canisH. hepaticusH. typhlonicusH. trogontumH. muridarumH. fennelliaeH. mainz“Helicobacter sp. cottontop”Candidatus H. bovis
H. acinonychis
H. pylori
H. nemestrinae b
H. bizzozeronii
H. salomonis
H. felis 6.310.210.511.
H. heilmannii10.
H. mustelae
H. suncus6.
H. mesocricetorum3.
H. rodentium
H. cholecystus
H. pamatensis
H. canadensis2.
H. pullorum
H. cinaedi
H. westmeadii2.
“Helicobacter sp. flexispira”c
H. bilis
H. canis
H. hepaticus
H. typhlonicus3.
H. trogontum
H. muridarum
H. fennelliae 5.46.613.6
H. mainz4.711.2
“Helicobacter sp. cottontop”10.1
Candidatus H. bovis
  • a Sequences from strains shown in Tables1 and 2 were aligned with PILEUP and compared with DISTANCES (Wisconsin Sequence Analysis Package; Genetics Computer Group). Only sequence positions for which data were available for at least 90% of strains were included in the analysis (E. coli positions 28 to 1473). Intervening sequences were removed from H. bilis, H. typhlonicus, and Helicobactersp. cottontop. Percentages of difference were corrected for multiple base changes by the method of Jukes and Cantor.

  • b Unpublished data sugggest that H. nemestrinae may be identical to H. pylori.

  • c Taxon 5.