Open Access

High-quality permanent draft genome sequence of the Lebeckia ambigua-nodulating Burkholderia sp. strain WSM4176

  • Sofie E. De Meyer1,
  • Rui Tian1,
  • Rekha Seshadri2,
  • TBK Reddy2,
  • Victor Markowitz3,
  • Natalia Ivanova2,
  • Amrita Pati2,
  • Tanja Woyke2,
  • Nikos Kyrpides2, 4,
  • Ron Yates1, 5,
  • John Howieson1 and
  • Wayne Reeve1Email author
Standards in Genomic Sciences201510:79

DOI: 10.1186/s40793-015-0072-3

Received: 26 November 2014

Accepted: 8 October 2015

Published: 16 October 2015

Abstract

Burkholderia sp. strain WSM4176 is an aerobic, motile, Gram-negative, non-spore-forming rod that was isolated from an effective N2-fixing root nodule of Lebeckia ambigua collected in Nieuwoudtville, Western Cape of South Africa, in October 2007. This plant persists in infertile, acidic and deep sandy soils, and is therefore an ideal candidate for a perennial based agriculture system in Western Australia. Here we describe the features of Burkholderia sp. strain WSM4176, which represents a potential inoculant quality strain for L. ambigua, together with sequence and annotation. The 9,065,247 bp high-quality-draft genome is arranged in 13 scaffolds of 65 contigs, contains 8369 protein-coding genes and 128 RNA-only encoding genes, and is part of the GEBA-RNB project proposal (Project ID 882).

Keywords

Root-nodule bacteria Nitrogen fixation Rhizobia Betaproteobacteria GEBA-RNB

Introduction

Leguminous pasture species are important in Western Australian agriculture because the soils are inherently infertile. Together with changing patterns of rainfall, this agricultural system cannot continue to rely on the current commercially used annual legumes. Deep-rooted herbaceous perennial legumes including Rhynchosia and Lebeckia species from the Cape Floristic Region in South Africa have been investigated because of their adaptation to acid and infertile soils [13]. These plants naturally occur in the CFR, which is one of the richest areas for plants in the world and covers 553,000 ha of land protected by the UNESCO as important world heritage. Elevations in this area range from 2077 m in the Groot Winterhoek to sea level in the De Hoop Nature Reserve. Moreover, a great part of the area is characterized by mountains, rivers, waterfalls and pools. In areas where Lebeckia ambigua is native, rainfall ranges between 150 and 400 mm annually. Parts of the CFR have thus similar soil and climate conditions to Western Australia.

In four expeditions to the Western Cape of South Africa, held between 2002 and 2007, nodules and seeds were collected and stored as previously described [4]. The isolation of bacteria from these nodules gave rise to a collection of 23 strains that were identified as Burkholderia . Unlike most of the previously studied rhizobial Burkholderia strains, this South African group appears to associate with papilionoid forage legumes, rather than Mimosa species. WSM4176 belongs to a subgroup of strains that were isolated in 2004 from Lebeckia ambigua nodules collected near Nieuwoudtville in the Western Cape of South Africa [3]. The site of collection was moderately grazed rangeland field owned by the Louw family, and the soil was composed of stony-sand with a pH of 6. Burkholderia sp. strain WSM4176 is highly effective at fixing nitrogen with Lebeckia ambigua , with which it forms crotaloid, indeterminate, nodules [3].

WSM4176 represents thus a potential inoculant quality strain for Lebeckia ambigua , which is being developed as a grazing legume adapted to infertile soils that receive 250–400 mm annual rainfall, where climate change has necessitated the domestication of agricultural species with altered characteristics. Therefore, this strain is of special interest to the IMG/GEBA project. Here we present a summary classification and a set of general features for Burkholderia sp. strain WSM4176 together with the description of the complete genome sequence and annotation.

Organism information

Classification and features

Burkholderia sp. strain WSM4176 is a motile, Gram-negative, non-spore-forming rod (Fig. 1 Left, Center) in the order Burkholderiales of the class Betaproteobacteria . The rod-shaped form varies in size with dimensions of 0.1–0.2 μm in width and 2.0–3.0 μm in length (Fig. 1 Left). It is fast growing, forming 0.5–1 mm diameter colonies after 24 h when grown on half Lupin Agar [5] and TY [6] at 28 °C. Colonies on ½LA are white-opaque, slightly domed, moderately mucoid with smooth margins (Fig. 1 Right).
Fig. 1

Images of Burkholderia sp. strain WSM4176 using scanning (Left) and transmission (Center) electron microscopy and the appearance of colony morphology on solid media (Right)

Figure 2 shows the phylogenetic relationship of Burkholderia sp. strain WSM4176 in a 16S rRNA gene sequence based tree. This strain clusters closest to Burkholderia tuberum STM678T and Burkholderia phenoliruptrix AC1100T with 99.86 and 97.28 % sequence identity, respectively. Minimum Information about the Genome Sequence is provided in Table 1.
Fig. 2

Phylogenetic tree highlighting the position of Burkholderia sp. strain WSM4176 (shown in blue print) relative to other type and non-type strains in the Burkholderia genus (1322 bp internal region). Cupriavidus taiwanensis LMG 19424T was used as outgroup. All sites were informative and there were no gap-containing sites. Phylogenetic analyses were performed using MEGA, version 5.05 [27]. The tree was build using the maximum likelihood method with the General Time Reversible model. Bootstrap analysis with 500 replicates was performed to assess the support of the clusters. Type strains are indicated with a superscript T. Strains with a genome sequencing project registered in GOLD [9] are in bold print and the GOLD ID is mentioned after the NCBI accession number. Published genomes are designated with an asterisk

Table 1

Classification and general features of Burkholderia sp. strain WSM4176 in accordance with the MIGS recommendations [28] published by the Genome Standards Consortium [29]

MIGS ID

Property

Term

Evidence code

 

Classification

Domain Bacteria

TAS [30]

  

Phylum Proteobacteria

TAS [31, 32]

  

Class Betaproteobacteria

TAS [33]

  

Order Burkholderiales

TAS [34]

  

Family Burkholderiaceae

TAS [35]

  

Genus Burkholderia

TAS [36]

  

Species Burkholderia sp.

TAS [3]

  

(Type) strain WSM4176

TAS [3]

 

Gram stain

Negative

IDA [36]

 

Cell shape

Rod

IDA

 

Motility

Motile

IDA

 

Sporulation

Non-sporulating

IDA [36]

 

Temperature range

Not reported

 
 

Optimum temperature

28 °C

IDA

 

pH range; Optimum

Not reported

 
 

Carbon source

Not reported

 

MIGS-6

Habitat

Soil, root nodule on host

TAS [3]

MIGS-6.3

Salinity

Not reported

 

MIGS-22

Oxygen requirement

Aerobic

IDA

MIGS-15

Biotic relationship

Free living, symbiotic

TAS [3]

MIGS-14

Pathogenicity

Non-pathogenic

NAS

MIGS-4

Geographic location

South Africa

TAS [3]

MIGS-5

Sample collection

2007

TAS [3]

MIGS-4.1

Latitude

−31.381

TAS [3]

MIGS-4.2

Longitude

19.30

TAS [3]

MIGS-4.4

Altitude

789 m

IDA

Evidence codes – IDA inferred from direct assay, TAS traceable author statement (i.e., a direct report exists in the literature), NAS non-traceable author statement (i.e., not directly observed for the living, isolated sample, but based on a generally accepted property for the species, or anecdotal evidence). These evidence codes are from the Gene Ontology project [37]

Symbiotaxonomy

Burkholderia sp. strain WSM4176 belongs to a group of Burkholderia strains that nodulate papilionoid forage legumes rather than the classical Burkholderia hosts Mimosa spp. (Mimosoideae) [7]. Burkholderia sp. strain WSM4176 was assessed for nodulation and nitrogen fixation on three separate L. ambigua genotypes (CRSLAM-37, CRSLAM-39 and CRSLAM-41) [3]. Strain WSM4176 could nodulate and fix effectively on CRSLAM-39 and CRSLAM-41 but was partially effective on CRSLAM-37 [3].

Genome sequencing information

Genome project history

This organism was selected for sequencing on the basis of its environmental and agricultural relevance to issues in global carbon cycling, alternative energy production, and biogeochemical importance, and is part of the Genomic Encyclopedia of Bacteria and Archaea, The Root Nodulating Bacteria chapter project at the U.S. Department of Energy, Joint Genome Institute for projects of relevance to agency missions [8]. The genome project is deposited in the Genomes OnLine Database [9] and the high-quality permanent draft genome sequence in IMG [10]. Sequencing, finishing and annotation were performed by the JGI using state of the art sequencing technology [11]. A summary of the project information is shown in Table 2.
Table 2

Genome sequencing project information for Burkholderia sp. strain WSM4176

MIGS ID

Property

Term

MIGS-31

Finishing quality

High-quality-permanent-draft

MIGS-28

Libraries used

Illumina CLIP PE and Illumina Std PE Unamplified

MIGS-29

Sequencing platforms

Illumina HiSeq 2000

MIGS-31.2

Fold coverage

361 × Illumina

MIGS-30

Assemblers

ALLPATHS V.r41554

MIGS-32

Gene calling methods

Prodigal 1.4, GenePRIMP

 

Locus Tag

B014

 

Genbank ID

ARCY00000000

 

Genbank Date of Release

July 11, 2014

 

GOLD ID

Gi08873

 

BIOPROJECT

PRJNA169686

MIGS-13

Source Material Identifier

WSM4176

 

Project relevance

Symbiotic N2fixation, agriculture

Growth conditions and genomic DNA preparation

Burkholderia sp. strain WSM4176 was grown to mid logarithmic phase in TY rich media [6] on a gyratory shaker at 28 °C. DNA was isolated from 60 mL of cells using a CTAB bacterial genomic DNA isolation method [12].

Genome sequencing and assembly

The genome of Burkholderia sp. strain WSM4176 was sequenced at the DOE Joint Genome Institute (JGI) using Illumina data [13]. For this genome, we constructed and sequenced an Illumina short-insert paired-end library with an average insert size of 270 bp which generated 7,496,994 reads and an Illumina long-insert paired-end library with an average insert size of 6899.89 +/− 882.09 bp which generated 11,773,350 reads totaling 2891 Mbp of Illumina data (unpublished, Feng Chen). All general aspects of library construction and sequencing performed at the JGI can be found at the JGI’s web site [11]. The initial draft assembly contained 66 contigs in eight scaffold(s). The initial draft data was assembled with Allpaths, version r41554 [14], and the consensus was computationally shredded into 10 Kbp overlapping fake reads (shreds). The Illumina draft data was also assembled with Velvet, version 1.1.05 [15], and the consensus sequences were computationally shredded into 1.5 Kbp overlapping fake reads (shreds). The Illumina draft data was assembled again with Velvet using the shreds from the first Velvet assembly to guide the next assembly. The consensus from the second Velvet assembly was shredded into 1.5 Kbp overlapping fake reads. The fake reads from the Allpaths assembly and both Velvet assemblies and a subset of the Illumina CLIP paired-end reads were assembled using parallel phrap, version 4.24 (High Performance Software, LLC). Possible mis-assemblies were corrected with manual editing in Consed [1618]. Gap closure was accomplished using repeat resolution software (Wei Gu, unpublished), and sequencing of bridging PCR fragments with Sanger and/or PacBio (unpublished, Cliff Han) technologies. For improved high quality draft and non-contiguous finished projects, one round of manual/wet lab finishing may have been completed. Primer walks, shatter libraries, and/or subsequent PCR reads may also be included for a finished project. A total of 11 PCR PacBio consensus sequences were completed to close gaps and to raise the quality of the final sequence. The total size of the genome is 9.1 Mb and the final assembly is based on 2891 Mbp of Illumina draft data, which provides an average 318× coverage of the genome.

Genome annotation

Genes were identified using Prodigal [19] as part of the DOE-JGI Annotation pipeline [17], followed by a round of manual curation using the JGI GenePRIMP pipeline [20]. The predicted CDSs were translated and used to search the National Center for Biotechnology Information nonredundant database, UniProt, TIGRFam, Pfam, PRIAM, KEGG, COG, and InterPro databases. These data sources were combined to assert a product description for each predicted protein. Non-coding genes and miscellaneous features were predicted using tRNAscan-SE [21], RNAMMer [22], Rfam [23], TMHMM [24] and SignalP [23]. Additional gene prediction analyses and functional annotation were performed within the Integrated Microbial Genomes platform [24].

Genome properties

The genome is 9,065,247 nucleotides with 62.89 % GC content (Table 3) and comprised of 13 scaffolds and 65 contigs (Fig. 3). From a total of 8497 genes, 8369 were protein encoding and 128 RNA only encoding genes. The majority of genes (75.46 %) were assigned a putative function whilst the remaining genes were annotated as hypothetical. The distribution of genes into COGs functional categories is presented in Table 4.
Table 3

Genome statistics for Burkholderia sp. strain WSM4176

Attribute

Value

% of total

Genome size (bp)

9,065,247

100.00

DNA coding (bp)

7,632,174

84.19

DNA G+C (bp)

5,701,432

62.89

DNA scaffolds

13

 

Total genes

8497

100.00

Protein-coding genes

8369

98.49

RNA genes

128

1.51

Pseudo genes

0

0.00

Genes in internal clusters

648

7.63

Genes with function prediction

6412

75.46

Genes assigned to COGs

5491

64.62

Genes with Pfam domains

6766

79.63

Genes with signal peptides

738

8.69

Genes with transmembrane helices

1865

21.95

CRISPR repeats

0

0.00

Fig. 3

Graphical map of the genome of Burkholderia sp. strain WSM4176. First four large scaffolds are shown according to size. From the bottom to the top of each scaffold: Genes on forward strand (color by COG categories as denoted by the IMG platform), Genes on reverse strand (color by COG categories), RNA genes (tRNAs green, sRNAs red, other RNAs black), GC content, GC skew

Table 4

Number of protein coding genes of Burkholderia sp. strain WSM4176 associated with the general COG functional categories

Code

Value

% age

COG category

J

200

3.21

Translation

A

1

0.02

RNA processing and modification

K

596

9.55

Transcription

L

299

4.79

Replication, recombination and repair

B

1

0.02

Chromatin structure and dynamics

D

38

0.61

Cell cycle control, mitosis and meiosis

V

74

1.19

Defense mechanisms

T

270

4.33

Signal transduction mechanisms

M

389

6.23

Cell wall/membrane biogenesis

N

105

1.68

Cell motility

U

146

2.34

Intracellular trafficking and secretion

O

172

2.76

Posttranslational modification, protein turnover, chaperones

C

461

7.39

Energy production conversion

G

495

7.93

Carbohydrate transport and metabolism

E

611

9.79

Amino acid transport metabolism

F

101

1.62

Nucleotide transport and metabolism

H

210

3.37

Coenzyme transport and metabolism

I

323

5.18

Lipid transport and metabolism

P

317

5.08

Inorganic ion transport and metabolism

Q

225

3.61

Secondary metabolite biosynthesis, transport and catabolism

R

727

11.65

General function prediction only

S

479

7.68

Function unknown

-

3006

35.38

Not in COGS

The total is based on the total number of protein coding genes in the genome

Conclusion

Burkholderia sp. WSM4176 belongs to a group of Beta-rhizobia isolated from Lebeckia ambigua from the fynbos biome in South Africa [3]. WSM4176 is phylogeneticaly most closely related to Burkholderia tuberum STM678T. Both STM678T and WSM4176 have comparable genome sizes, 8.3–9.1 respectively. Recently, two more genomes from strains originating from Lebeckia ambigua were investigated, Burkholderia dilworthii WSM3556T and Burkholderia sprentiae WSM5005T [25]. Both of these strains have a genome size of 7.7 Mbp, which is considerably smaller than WSM4176. All four strains, STM678T, WSM3556T , WSM4176 and WSM5005T , contain a large number of genes assigned to transport and metabolism of amino acids (9.79–10.94 %) and carbohydrates (7.93–8.38 %), and transcription (9.55–9.94 %). Interestingly, STM678T was initially isolated from Aspalathus species but does not nodulate this host, however it has been shown to nodulate Cyclopia species from the same fynbos biome in South Africa as Lebeckia ambigua [26]. Considering the ability of these strains to nodulate and fix nitrogen effectively with legumes, they share in common many of the genes responsible for the nitrogenase pathway (IMG pathway number 798). The genome sequence of WSM4176 provides thus an unprecedented opportunity to study the host range and nitrogen fixation capacities of these fynbos bacteria.

Abbreviations

GEBA-RNB: 

Genomic encyclopedia of bacteria and archaea – root nodule bacteria

JGI: 

Joint genome institute

TY: 

Trypton yeast

CTAB: 

Cetyl trimethyl ammonium bromide

WSM: 

Western Australian soil microbiology

BNF: 

Biological nitrogen fixation

CFR: 

Cape floristic region

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This work was performed under the auspices of the US Department of Energy Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research Program, and by the University of California, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory under contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract No. DE-AC52-07NA27344, and Los Alamos National Laboratory under contract No. DE-AC02-06NA25396. We gratefully acknowledge the funding received from the Murdoch University Strategic Research Fund through the Crop and Plant Research Institute (CaPRI) and the Centre for Rhizobium Studies (CRS) at Murdoch University.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Centre for Rhizobium Studies, Murdoch University
(2)
DOE Joint Genome Institute
(3)
Biological Data Management and Technology Center, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
(4)
Department of Biological Sciences, King Abdulaziz University
(5)
Department of Agriculture and Food

References

  1. Howieson JG, Yates RJ, Foster K, Real D, Besier B. Prospects for the future use of legumes. In: Dilworth MJ, James EK, Sprent JI, Newton WE, editors. Leguminous nitrogen-fixing symbioses. London: Elsevier; 2008. p. 363–94.Google Scholar
  2. Garau G, Yates RJ, Deiana P, Howieson JG. Novel strains of nodulating Burkholderia have a role in nitrogen fixation with papilionoid herbaceous legumes adapted to acid, infertile soils. Soil Biol Biochem. 2009;41:125–34.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Howieson JG, De Meyer SE, Vivas-Marfisi A, Ratnayake S, Ardley JK, Yates RJ. Novel Burkholderia bacteria isolated from Lebeckia ambigua - a perennial suffrutescent legume of the fynbos. Soil Biol Biochem. 2013;60:55–64.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Yates RJ, Howieson JG, Nandasena KG, O’Hara GW. Root-nodule bacteria from indigenous legumes in the north-west of Western Australia and their interaction with exotic legumes. Soil Biol Biochem. 2004;36:1319–29.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Howieson JG, Ewing MA, D’antuono MF. Selection for acid tolerance in Rhizobium meliloti. Plant Soil. 1988;105:179–88.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Beringer JE. R factor transfer in Rhizobium leguminosarum. J Gen Microbiol. 1974;84:188–98.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Elliott GN, Chou J-H, Chen W-M, Bloemberg GV, Bontemps C, Martínez-Romero E, et al. Burkholderia spp. are the most competitive symbionts of Mimosa, particularly under N-limited conditions. Environ Microbiol. 2009;11:762–78.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Reeve W, Ardley J, Tian R, Eshraghi L, Yoon J, Ngamwisetkun P, et al. A genomic encyclopedia of the root nodule bacteria: assessing genetic diversity through a systematic biogeographic survey. Stand Genomic Sci. 2015;10:14.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Pagani I, Liolios K, Jansson J, Chen IM, Smirnova T, Nosrat B, et al. The Genomes OnLine Database (GOLD) v.4: status of genomic and metagenomic projects and their associated metadata. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40:D571–579.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Markowitz VM, Chen I-MA, Palaniappan K, Chu K, Szeto E, Pillay M, et al. IMG 4 version of the integrated microbial genomes comparative analysis system. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42:D560–7.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. JGI Website. [http://www.jgi.doe.gov]
  12. CTAB DNA extraction protocol. [http://jgi.doe.gov/collaborate-with-jgi/pmo-overview/protocols-sample-preparation-information/]
  13. Mavromatis K, Land ML, Brettin TS, Quest DJ, Copeland A, Clum A, et al. The fast changing landscape of sequencing technologies and their impact on microbial genome assemblies and annotation. PLoS ONE. 2012;7, e48837.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Gnerre S, MacCallum I, Przybylski D, Ribeiro FJ, Burton JN, Walker BJ, et al. High-quality draft assemblies of mammalian genomes from massively parallel sequence data. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108:1513–8.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Zerbino D, Birney E. Velvet: algorithms for de novo short read assembly using de Bruijn graphs. Genome Res. 2008;18:821–9.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Ewing B, Green P. Base-calling of automated sequencer traces using phred. II. Error probabilities. Genome Res. 1998;8:186–94.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Ewing B, Hillier L, Wendl MC, Green P. Base-calling of automated sequencer traces using phred. I. Accuracy assessment. Genome Res. 1998;8:175–85.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Gordon D, Abajian C, Green P. Consed: a graphical tool for sequence finishing. Genome Res. 1998;8:195–202.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hyatt D, Chen GL, Locascio PF, Land ML, Larimer FW, Hauser LJ. Prodigal: prokaryotic gene recognition and translation initiation site identification. BMC Bioinformatics. 2010;11:119.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Pati A, Ivanova NN, Mikhailova N, Ovchinnikova G, Hooper SD, Lykidis A, et al. GenePRIMP: a gene prediction improvement pipeline for prokaryotic genomes. Nat Methods. 2010;7:455–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Lowe TM, Eddy SR. tRNAscan-SE: a program for improved detection of transfer RNA genes in genomic sequence. Nucleic Acids Res. 1997;25:955–64.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Krogh A, Larsson B, von Heijne G, Sonnhammer EL. Predicting transmembrane protein topology with a hidden Markov model: application to complete genomes. J Mol Biol. 2001;305:567–80.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Bendtsen JD, Nielsen H, von Heijne G, Brunak S. Improved prediction of signal peptides: SignalP 3.0. J Mol Biol. 2004;340:783–95.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Markowitz VM, Mavromatis K, Ivanova NN, Chen IM, Chu K, Kyrpides NC. IMG ER: a system for microbial genome annotation expert review and curation. Bioinformatics. 2009;25:2271–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Reeve W, De Meyer S, Terpolilli J, Melino V, Ardley J, Rui T, et al. Genome sequence of the Lebeckia ambigua - nodulating Burkholderia sprentiae strain WSM5005T. Stand Genomic Sci. 2013;9:385–94.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Elliott GN, Chen WM, Bontemps C, Chou JH, Young JPW, Sprent JI, et al. Nodulation of Cyclopia spp. (Leguminosae, Papilionoideae) by Burkholderia tuberum. Ann Bot. 2007;100:1403–11.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Tamura K, Peterson D, Peterson N, Stecher G, Nei M, Kumar S. MEGA5: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis using maximum likelihood, evolutionary distance, and maximum parsimony methods. Mol Biol Evol. 2011;28:2731–9.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Field D, Garrity G, Gray T, Morrison N, Selengut J, Sterk P, et al. Towards a richer description of our complete collection of genomes and metagenomes “Minimum Information about a Genome Sequence” (MIGS) specification. Nat Biotechnol. 2008;26:541–7.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Field D, Amaral-Zettler L, Cochrane G, Cole JR, Dawyndt P, Garrity GM, et al. The genomic standards consortium. PLoS Biol. 2011;9, e1001088.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Woese CR, Kandler O, Wheelis ML. Towards a natural system of organisms: proposal for the domains Archaea, Bacteria, and Eucarya. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1990;87:4576–9.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Chen WX, Wang ET, Kuykendall LD. The Proteobacteria. New York: Springer - Verlag; 2005.Google Scholar
  32. Validation of publication of new names and new combinations previously effectively published outside the IJSEM. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2005;55:22352238.
  33. Garrity GM, Bell JA, Lilburn TE. Class II. Betaproteobacteria. In: Garrity GM, Brenner DJ, Krieg NR, Staley JT, editors. Bergey’s manual of systematic bacteriology. Volume 2. Second edition. New York: Springer - Verlag; 2005.Google Scholar
  34. Garrity GM, Bell JA, Lilburn TE. Order 1. Burkholderiales. In: Garrity GM, Brenner DJ, Krieg NR, Staley JT, editors. Bergey’s manual of systematic bacteriology. Volume 2. Second edition. New York: Springer - Verlag; 2005.Google Scholar
  35. Garrity GM, Bell JA, Liburn T. Family I. Burkholderiaceae. In: Brenner DJ, Krieg NR, Staley JT, editors. Bergey’s manual of systematic bacteriology. Volume 2 part C. New York: Springer; 2005. p. 438–75.Google Scholar
  36. Palleroni NJ. Genus I. Burkholderia. In: Garrity GM, Brenner DJ, Krieg NR, Staley JT, editors. Bergey’s manual of systematic bacteriology. Volume 2. Second edition. New York: Springer - Verlag; 2005.Google Scholar
  37. Ashburner M, Ball CA, Blake JA, Botstein D, Butler H, Cherry JM, et al. Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. The Gene Ontology Consortium. Nat Genet. 2000;25:25–9.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© De Meyer et al. 2015