## 4 Materials and Methods
### Thermal and pH Stability Assays  
To determine the thermal stability of phages, one milliliter of each phage (10\({}^{6}\) PFU/mL) in SM buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.5; 8 mM MgSO\({}_{4}\cdot\)7H\({}_{2}\)O; 100 mM NaCl) was incubated at 25 \({}^{\circ}\)C, 35 \({}^{\circ}\)C, 45 \({}^{\circ}\)C, 55 \({}^{\circ}\)C and 65 \({}^{\circ}\)C, for 10 min, and then, the phage suspension was cooled at 4 \({}^{\circ}\)C and phage viability was determined by double agar overlay of decimal serial dilutions [68]. In addition, phage viability was investigated at different pH conditions, in which 10\({}^{4}\) PFU phage particles were resuspended in 1 mL of SM buffer previously adjusted to pH 2, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 12, and incubated at 27 \({}^{\circ}\)C for 24 h. After incubation, phage viability was estimated by double agar overlay [70] and PFU/mL values were transformed to log10 PFU/mL. Thermal and pH stability assays were done in triplicate. Statistical analysis was carried out using two-way ANOVA (general linear model) with Bonferroni post hoc test in Minitab 17 software. Statistical differences were considered for \(p<0.05\).  
**Supplementary Materials:** The following supporting information can be downloaded at: [[https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/antibiotics13070651/s1](https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/antibiotics13070651/s1)]([https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/antibiotics13070651/s1](https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/antibiotics13070651/s1)), Table S1: Genome assembly statistics for _Xanthomonas_ phages; Table S2: Annotation of NaCl phage genome; Table S3: Annotation of XbC2 phage genome; Table S4: Identification of genes encoding tRNAs in XbC2 genome; Table S6: Calculation of codon frequency and codon usage of XaC1 and XbC2 phages; Table S7: Comparison of host usage percentage and the presence of phage-encoded tRNAs in XaC1; Table S8: Comparison of host usage percentage and the presence of phage-encoded tRNAs in XbC2; Table S9: Classification of identified ORFs of XaC1 phage by functional category; Table S10: Classification of identified ORFs of XbC2 phage by functional category; Table S11: Intergenomic similarity using VIRIDIC. Material S1: XaC1 Phage Term analysis;Material S2: Xbc2 Phage Term analysis; Material S3: Restriction profile of XaC1 phage; Material S4: Restriction profile of Xbc2 phage.  
Conceptualization, L.A., J.A.C.-F. and J.L.-F.; Data curation, C.V., L.A. and J.L.-F.; Formal analysis, C.V., L.M.R.-R., L.A. and J.L.-F.; Funding acquisition, L.A.L.-R. and J.L.-F.; Investigation, L.M.R.-R., L.A., J.A.C.-F. and J.L.-F.; Methodology, L.M.R.-R., L.A. and J.L.-F.; Project administration, L.A.L.-R. and J.L.-F.; Resources, L.A.L.-R. and J.A.C.-F.; Software, L.A.; Supervision, J.A.C.-F.; Validation, J.L.-F.; Visualization, L.A.L.-R.; Writing--original draft, C.V.; Writing--review and editing, C.V., L.M.R.-R., L.A.L.-R., J.A.C.-F. and J.L.-F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
This research was funded by CONACYT/PEI, grant number 251516; Lightbour Research, grant number P00477027; Investigadores por Mexico, grant number 784.  
Not applicable.  
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.  
The authors thank [PERSON] for critical technical assistance.  
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.