Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Short genome report
  • Open access
  • Published:

Complete genome sequence of Pseudomonas stutzeri strain RCH2 isolated from a Hexavalent Chromium [Cr(VI)] contaminated site

Standards in Genomic Sciences volume 12, Article number: 23 (2017) Cite this article

Abstract

Hexavalent Chromium [Cr(VI)] is a widespread contaminant found in soil, sediment, and ground water in several DOE sites, including Hanford 100 H area. In order to stimulate microbially mediated reduction of Cr(VI) at this site, a poly-lactate hydrogen release compound was injected into the chromium contaminated aquifer. Targeted enrichment of dominant nitrate-reducing bacteria post injection resulted in the isolation of Pseudomonas stutzeri strain RCH2. P. stutzeri strain RCH2 was isolated using acetate as the electron donor and is a complete denitrifier. Experiments with anaerobic washed cell suspension of strain RCH2 revealed it could reduce Cr(VI) and Fe(III). The genome of strain RCH2 was sequenced using a combination of Illumina and 454 sequencing technologies and contained a circular chromosome of 4.6 Mb and three plasmids. Global genome comparisons of strain RCH2 with six other fully sequenced P. stutzeri strains revealed most genomic regions are conserved, however strain RCH2 has an additional 244 genes, some of which are involved in chemotaxis, Flp pilus biogenesis and pyruvate/2-oxogluturate complex formation.

Introduction

Hexavalent Cr(VI) is a highly toxic and mobile contaminant in the environment. At the DOE site in Hanford, WA, Cr(VI) concentrations reached as high as 50 ppm as a result of nuclear weapon production waste released into the groundwater and soil. In order to reduce Cr(VI) to non-toxic immobilized Cr(III), the bioremediative strategy at the site has been to stimulate indigenous microorganisms [1] by injecting environmentally safe, food quality polylactate ester Hydrogen Release Compound. The slow release electron donor induced biologically mediated reduction of Cr(VI) to Cr(III) by indigenous microorganisms, and as a result, Cr(IV) concentrations were reduced to below 50 ppb in all parts of the Hanford 100 H site [1]. Some group of organisms including Pseudomonadaceae were enriched concomitant to decrease in Cr(VI) concentrations after HRC injection, and continued to remain high [1]. Pseudomonas stutzeri strain RCH2, was isolated from a monitoring well post injection.

Pseudomonas spp. are well-characterized heterotrophs known to degrade several hydrocarbons [2,3,4,5], and reduce metals such as Cr(VI) [6,7,8,9]. They have commonly been detected in several DOE contaminated sites [10,11,12,13] including Uranium contaminated Oakridge Field Research Center [14, 15]. Prolific cultivation of Pseudomonas spp. from such unique contaminated environments is imperative in elucidating the metabolic potential, biochemical and physiological characteristics and the genetic determinants of key pathways of this ubiquitous group of bacteria in the environment. The genome sequence of RCH2 allows for detailed examination of this and closely related microbes in response to environmental perturbations at the genetic level, and provides a basis for investigating response, adaptation and evolution in presence of metal contaminants [16].

Organism features

Classification and features

Enrichments were initiated in Minimal Fresh Water medium [17] with 10 mM acetate as the sole electron donor and 10 mM nitrate as the electron acceptor. All enrichments were incubated in the dark at 30 °C. Periodic transfers of positive enrichments as identified by microscopy or visual turbidity, were made into fresh media. After 5 such transfers, a pure culture of strain RCH2 was obtained by the agar shake tube method [18, 19]. For routine culturing, strain RCH2 was grown in MFW medium under anaerobic conditions, using either lactate or acetate as electron donor and nitrate as electron acceptor. All culturing was done in sealed serum vials with N2:CO2 gas (80:20) in the headspace, as the medium contained 30 mM bicarbonate buffer.

For initial genotyping, gDNA was extracted using the MoBio UltraClean Microbial DNA Isolation Kit (MoBio Inc, Carlsbad, CA). PCR amplification was carried out using universal bacterial 16S ribosomal RNA gene (16S rRNA) primers 1492R and 27 F in 50 μl reactions. The small subunit ribosomal RNA gene was sequenced by Sanger sequencing using universal primers 8 F and 1492R [25] at University of California, Berkeley sequencing facility. 16S rRNA sequence analysis places strain RCH2 in the family Pseudomonadaceae .

Cells in exponential phase of strain RCH2 are rod shaped, approximately 2 μm long and 0.25-0.3 μm wide (Figs. 1 and 2). Anaerobically, P. stutzeri strain RCH2 grew optimally in MFW medium at 37 °C. While best growth was observed at pH 7.2, strain RCH2 could grow at pH between 6.5–8.0. Growth was observed to decrease with increasing salinity of the medium. Strain RCH2 was tested with and can utilize 10 mM acetate, lactate, fumarate, succinate, pyruvate, glucose and sucrose as electron donors and carbon source while grown under nitrate-reducing conditions. Strain RCH2 can also grow under aerobic conditions as is typical of Pseudomonas spp. Strain RCH2 could also grow in complex media such as LB and R2A broth under aerobic conditions. Strain RCH2 reduced Cr(VI) when tested with washed cell suspension. Briefly, strain RCH2 was grown in MFW medium to mid-log phase (optical density of 0.2–0.3 at 600 nm), with lactate as electron donor and nitrate as electron acceptor. Cells were collected by centrifugation, and the cell pellet washed with 30 mM phosphate buffer. Centrifugation and washing were repeated to minimize potential carryover of nitrate in the Cr(VI) reduction experiments. The cell pellet was then resuspended in phosphate buffer and sealed in anaerobic serum vials. To all the vials, 200 μM potassium dichromate was added as electron acceptor, and 10 mM lactate was added as the electron donor. Electron donor addition was left out of the control treatments. The vials were incubated in the dark at 32 °C. Samples were withdrawn periodically for analysis of Cr(VI). Changes in Cr(VI) concentration was determined colorimetrically at 540 nm using the diphenyl carbazide (DPC) assay [24]. The cell suspension experiment demonstrated that after 5 hours, almost 135 μM Cr(VI) was readily reduced by the active cells of strain RCH2 (Fig. 3). In the absence of lactate as the electron donor in the controls, almost no Cr(VI) reduction occurred after 30 min. The reduction of Cr(VI) in the initial period of time could be attributed to abiotic Cr(VI) reduction or carry over lactate from the growth culture despite the washing of the cell pellet.

Fig. 1
figure 1

A scanning electron micrograph of P. stutzeri strain RCH2 in exponential phase. Scale bar, 1 μm

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Sequence data were aligned using the Clustal W program [20] with Pseudomonas spp. downloaded with strain and accession numbers from the RDP [21] database were sequence identity was 97–100% to P. stutzeri strain RCH2. SeaView v4.0 [22] was used to reconstruct the phylogenetic position of P. stutzeri strain RCH2 within the genus Psuedomonas based on 16S rRNA gene sequence by maximum likelihood following a Tamura-Nei, 93 model and the phylogeny was tested using Approximate Likelihood-Ratio Test (aLRT) (given as a percentage) [23], only values greater than 60% are shown. Azotobacter species were included for comparison and Cellvibrio species were used for the out-group

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Chromium(VI) reduction by cell suspension of P. stutzeri strain RCH2

Full size image

Genome sequencing information

Genome project history

The genome was selected based on the isolate’s ability to thrive in a chromium contaminated aquifer at Hanford 100 H and its ability to reduce toxic Cr(VI). The genome sequence was submitted to NCBI and released on September 6, 2011. Finishing was completed at Los Alamos National Laboratory. A summary of the project information is shown in Tables 1 and 2, which also presents the project information and its association with MIGS version 2.0 compliance.

Table 1 Classification and general features of Pseudomonas stutzeri strain RCH2 according to the MIGS recommendations [25]
Full size table
Table 2 Genome sequencing project information for Pseudomonas stutzeri strain RCH2
Full size table

Growth conditions and genomic DNA preparation

P. stutzeri strain RCH2 was grown under anaerobic conditions at 37 °C in basal medium containing 20 mM lactate as the sole electron donor and carbon source and 10 mM nitrate as the terminal electron acceptor. Cells were harvested for DNA extraction when they reached mid-log phase of growth.

Genomic DNA was extracted from a 50 ml culture using the CTAB extraction method recommended by JGI, USA [35]. JGI DNA mass standards were used to ascertain the quantity and quality of the extracted gDNA. JGI protocol for running the gel electrophoresis was followed.

Genome sequencing and assembly

The genome of P. stutzeri strain RCH2 was generated at the DOE JGI using a combination of Illumina [36] and 454 technologies [37]. For this genome we constructed and sequenced an Illumina GAii shotgun library which generated 16,378,443 reads totaling 589.6 Mb, a 454 Titanium standard library which generated 255,080 reads and 2 paired end 454 libraries with an average insert size of 9 kb, and 19 kb which generated 582,773 reads totaling 216.3 Mb of 454 data. All general aspects of library construction and sequencing performed at the JGI [35]. The initial draft assembly contained 32 contigs in 1 scaffold. The 454 Titanium standard data and the 454 paired end data were assembled together with Newbler, version 2.3. The Newbler consensus sequences were computationally shredded into 2 kb overlapping fake reads (shreds). Illumina sequencing data were assembled with VELVET, version 1.0.13 [38], and the consensus sequence were computationally shredded into 1.5 kb overlapping fake reads (shreds). We integrated the 454 Newbler consensus shreds, the Illumina VELVET consensus shreds and the read pairs in the 454 paired end library using parallel phrap, version SPS −4.24 (High Performance Software, LLC). The software Consed [39,40,41] was used in the following finishing process. Illumina data were used to correct potential base errors and increase consensus quality using the software Polisher developed at Joint Genome Institute (JGI) (Alla Lapidus, unpublished). Possible mis-assemblies were corrected using gap Resolution (Cliff Han, unpublished), Dupfinisher [42], or sequencing cloned bridging PCR fragments with subcloning. Gaps between contigs were closed by editing in Consed, by PCR and by Bubble PCR (J-F Cheng, unpublished) primer walks. A total of 68 additional reactions were necessary to close gaps and to raise the quality of the finished sequence. The total size of the genome is 4,600,489 bp and the final assembly is based on 148 Mb of 454 draft data which provides an average 32.2x coverage of the genome and 584.6 Mb of Illumina draft data which provides an average 127.1x coverage of the genome.

Genome annotation

Genes were identified using Prodigal [43] as part of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory genome annotation pipeline, followed by a round of manual curation using the JGI GenePRIMP pipeline [44]. The predicted CDSs were translated and used to search the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) 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 [45], RNAMMer [46], Rfam [47], TMHMM [48], and signalP [49].

Genome properties

The genome consists of one circular chromosome of 4,575,057 bp (62.49% GC content) and includes 3 circular plasmids of 12,763 bp, 9,865 bp and 2,804 bp for a total genome size of 4,600,489 bp. There are 4322 protein-coding genes of which 3593 genes were assigned to a putative function and the 729 remaining genes were annotated as hypothetical proteins. The properties and the statistics of the genome are summarized in Tables 3, 4 and 5 and Fig. 4.

Table 3 Summary of genome: 1 chromosome and 3 plasmids
Full size table
Table 4 Genome statistics for Pseudomonas stutzeri strain RCH2
Full size table
Table 5 Number of genes associated with the general COG functional categories
Full size table
Fig. 4
figure 4

Graphical map of the chromosome and plasmids of P. stuzeri strain RCH2. From outside to center of each map: Genes on forward strand (color by COG categories as denoted by the JGI Integrated Microbial Genomes (IMG) platform), Genes on reverse strand (color by COG categories), RNA genes (tRNAs green, sRNAs red, other RNAs black), GC content, GC skew

Full size image

Insights from the genome sequence

Global genomic comparison of six fully sequenced P. stutzeri strains (RCH2, A1501, ATCC 17588, CCUG 29243, DSM 4166, DSM 10701) demonstrated that most of the genomic regions are conserved but there are some differences between genome of RCH2 and other genomes (Fig. 5). We identified genes that are differentially present in RCH2 and other fully sequenced P. stutzeri strains by using “Compare two proteomes” tool of DOE Systems Biology Knowledgebase [www.kbase.us]. For 4231 proteins encoded by chromosomal genes of RCH2 strain, there are 3696, 3677, 3534, 3526 and 3199 orthologous genes in CCUG 29243, DSM 4166, A1501, ATCC 17588 and DSM 10701 strains, respectively. No orthologs for plasmid genes of RCH2 were found in five other P. stutzeri strains. We identified 244 P. stutzeri genes that are present in RCH2 chromosome but absent in all other fully sequenced strains. Approximately 48% of those genes encode hypothetical proteins. Particularly noticeable are RCH2-specific gene clusters encoding chemotaxis (Psest_0653-Psest_0662), pyruvate/2-oxoglutarate complex (Psest_2217-Psest_2220) and Flp pilus biogenesis (Psest_2616-Psest_2630) proteins (Fig. 5). We identified 18 strain-specific genes encoding transcriptional regulators, thus the regulatory network of P. stutzeri RCH2 may differ significantly from closely related bacteria.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Global comparison of six P. stutzeri strains with reference to the RCH2 strain chromosome sequence. We aligned each of the individual genome sequences against the RCH2 chromosome sequence using Basic Local Alignment Search Tool BLASTN [51]. The innermost ring indicates the genomic position. The next ring is a plot of G + C content. Next five rings indicate the presence or absence of BLAST hits in that position, with each ring corresponding to one of P. stutzeri strains. The outermost ring indicates positions of RCH2-specific genes, with clusters of chemotaxis, pyruvate dehydrogenase and Flp pili genes marked orange, purple and green, respectively. The graphical view of the alignments was rendered using BLAST Ring Image Generator [52]

Full size image

Extended insights

We searched for regulatory interactions in P. stutzeri strain RCH2 using an automated conservative propagation procedure described earlier [50]. By comparison with the RegPrecise database, this procedure identified 27 regulons in P. stutzeri RCH2 genome. Of those regulons, 11 contain genes for central carbon metabolism and utilization of various carbon sources. Other regulatory systems control metabolism of amino acids (MetR, PhhR), nitrogen (NtrC) and phosphonate (PhnF), biosynthesis of biotin (BirA), lipopolysaccharide (GlmR) and nucleotides (NrdR, RutR), metal homeostasis (CadR, CueR, Zur), DNA repair (LexA) and biogenesis of iron-sulfur clusters (IscR). At the same time, P. stutzeri strain RCH2 lacks several transcription factors conserved in various Gammaproteobacteria , like PdxR (regulator of pyridoxine biosynthesis), FabR (regulator of fatty acid biosynthesis) and SoxR (regulator of superoxide stress response).

Conclusion

Pseudomonas stutzeri strain RCH2 isolated from chromium-contaminated aquifer, is a complete denitrifier that can couple nitrate reduction to oxidation of several organic carbon. When supplemented with lactate, robust culture of strain RCH2 reduces Cr(VI) rapidly and this feature contributes to the versatility of this organism to survive in such chromium(VI) contaminated areas. The genome of strain RCH2 reveals differences when compared to closely related strains, and contains an additional 244 genes, mostly of unknown function. Clusters that are specific to strain RCH2 include chemotaxis and Flp pilus biogenesis and these clusters are absent from the five closely related strains examined. The genome sequence of strain RCH2 will assist in further research into the underlying mechanisms of adaption and persistence in metal and/or nitrate contaminated sites.

Abbreviations

DOE:

Department of Energy

gDNA:

Genomic DNA

JGI:

Joint Genome Institute

NCBI:

National Center for Biotechnology Information (Bethesda, MD, USA)

RDP:

Ribosomal Database Project (East Lansing, MI, USA)

References

  1. Faybishenko B, Hazen TC, Long PE, Brodie EL, Conrad ME, Hubbard SS, Christensen JN, Joyner D, Borglin SE, Chakraborty R, et al. In situ long-term reductive bioimmobilization of Cr(VI) in groundwater using hydrogen release compound. Environ Sci Technology. 2008;42(22):8478–85.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Barathi S, Vasudevan N. Utilization of petroleum hydrocarbons by Pseudomonas fluorescens isolated from a petroleum-contaminated soil. Environ Int. 2001;26(5–6):413–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Foght JM, Westlake DWS. Degradation of polycyclic aromatic-hydrocarbons and aromatic heterocycles by a Pseudomonas species. Can J Microbiol. 1988;34(10):1135–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ramos JL, Duque E, Huertas MJ, Haidour A. Isolation and expansion of the catabolic potential of a Pseudomonas putida strain able to grow in the presence of high-concentrations of aromatic-hydrocarbons. J Bacteriol. 1995;177(14):3911–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Whyte LG, Bourbonniere L, Greer CW. Biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbons by psychrotrophic Pseudomonas strains possessing both alkane (alk) and naphthalene (nah) catabolic pathways. Appl Environ Microb. 1997;63(9):3719–23.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Han R, Geller JT, Yang L, Brodie EL, Chakraborty R, Larsen JT, Beller HR. Physiological and transcriptional studies of Cr(VI) reduction under aerobic and denitrifying conditions by an aquifer-derived Pseudomonad. Environ Sci Technology. 2010;44(19):7491–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Zawadzka AM, Crawford RL, Paszczynski AJ. Pyridine-2,6-bis(thiocarboxylic acid) produced by Pseudomonas stutzeri KC reduces chromium (VI) and precipitates mercury, cadmium, lead and arsenic. Biometals. 2007;20:145–8.

  8. Ishibashi Y, Cervantes C, Silver S. Chromium reduction in Pseudomonas putida. Appl Environ Microb. 1990;56(7):2268–70.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Park CH, Keyhan M, Wielinga B, Fendorf S, Matin A. Purification to homogeneity and characterization of a novel Pseudomonas putida chromate reductase. Appl Environ Microb. 2000;66(5):1788–95.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Benyehuda G, Coombs J, Ward PL, Balkwill D, Barkay T. Metal resistance among aerobic chemoheterotrophic bacteria from the deep terrestrial subsurface. Can J Microbiol. 2003;49(2):151–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Brodie EL, Joyner DC, Faybishenko B, Conrad ME, Rios-Velazquez C, Malave J, Martinez R, Mork B, Willett A, Koenigsberg S, et al. Microbial community response to addition of polylactate compounds to stimulate hexavalent chromium reduction in groundwater. Chemosphere. 2011;85(4):660–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Jimenez L. Molecular analysis of deep-subsurface bacteria. Appl Environ Microb. 1990;56(7):2108–13.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Liu P, Meagher RJ, Light YK, Yilmaz S, Chakraborty R, Arkin AP, Hazen TC, Singh AK. Microfluidic fluorescence in situ hybridization and flow cytometry (mu FlowFISH). Lab Chip. 2011;11(16):2673–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Cardenas E, Wu W-M, Leigh MB, Carley J, Carroll S, Gentry T, Luo J, Watson D, Gu B, Ginder-Vogel M, et al. Microbial communities in contaminated sediments, associated with bioremediation of uranium to submicromolar levels. Appl Environ Microb. 2008;74(12):3718–29.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Fields MW, Yan TF, Rhee SK, Carroll SL, Jardine PM, Watson DB, Criddle CS, Zhou JZ. Impacts on microbial communities and cultivable isolates from groundwater contaminated with high levels of nitric acid-uranium waste. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2005;53(3):417–28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Han R, Qin L, Brown ST, Christensen JN, Beller HR. Differential isotopic fractionation during Cr(VI) reduction by an aquifer-derived bacterium under aerobic versus denitrifying conditions. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2012;78(7):2462–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Coates JD, Achenbach LA. The microbiology of perchlorate reduction and its bioremediative application. In: Gu B, Coates JD, editors. PERCHLORATE: environmental ocurrence, interactions and treatment. New York: Springer; 2006. p. 279–95.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Bruce RA, Achenbach LA, Coates JD. Reduction of (per)chlorate by a novel organism isolated from paper mill waste. Environ Microbiol. 1999;1(4):319–29.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Coates JD, Cole KA, Chakraborty R, O’Connor SM, Achenbach LA. Diversity and ubiquity of bacteria capable of utilizing humic substances as electron donors for anaerobic respiration. Appl Environ Microb. 2002;68(5):2445–52.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Larkin MA, Blackshields G, Brown NP, Chenna R, McGettigan PA, McWilliam H, Valentin F, Wallace IM, Wilm A, Lopez R, et al. Clustal W and Clustal X version 2.0. Bioinformatics. 2007;23(21):2947–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cole JR, Wang Q, Fish JA, Chai B, McGarrell DM, Sun Y, Brown CT, Porras-Alfaro A, Kuske CR, Tiedje JM. Ribosomal database project: data and tools for high throughput rRNA analysis. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42(D1):D633–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Gouy M, Guindon S, Gascuel O. SeaView version 4: a multiplatform graphical user interface for sequence alignment and phylogenetic tree building. Mol Biol Evol. 2010;27(2):221–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. ElAnisimova M, Gascuel O. Approximate likelihood-ratio test for branches: a fast, accurate, and powerful alternative. Systematic Biol. 2006;55(4):539–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Pattanapipitpaisal P, Brown NL, Macaskie LE. Chromate reduction by Microbacterium liquefaciens immobilised in polyvinyl alcohol. Biotechnol Lett. 2001;23(1):61–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Field D, Garrity G, Gray T, Morrison N, Selengut J, Sterk P, Tatusova T, Thomson N, Allen MJ, Angiuoli SV, et al. The minimum information about a genome sequence (MIGS) specification. Nat Biotechnol. 2008;26(5):541–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. 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(12):4576–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Garrity GM, Bell JA, Lilburn T. Phylum XIV. Proteobacteria phyl. nov. Bergey’s Manual Systematic Bacteriology. 2005;2(Part B):1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Garrity GM, Bell JA, Lilburn T. Class III. Gammaproteobacteria class. nov. Bergey’s Manual Systematic Bacteriology. 2005;2(Part B):1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Skerman VBD, McGowan V, Sneath PHA. Approved lists of bacterial names. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1980;30:225–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Orla-Jensen S. The main lines of the natural bacterial system. J Bacteriol. 1921;6:263–73.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Winslow CEA, Broadhurst J, Buchanan RE, Krumwiede C, Rogers LA, Smith GH. The families and genera of the bacteria: preliminary report of the committee of the society of american bacteriologists on characterization and classification of bacterial types. J Bacteriol. 1917;2:505–66.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Migula W. Über ein neues system der bakterien. Arbeiten aus dem Bakteriologischen Institut der Technischen Hochschule zu Karlsruhe. 1894;1:235–8.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Sijderius R. Dissertation: Heterotrophe bacterien, die thiosulfaat oxydeeren. University Amsterdam. 1946;1–146.

  34. Ashburner M, Ball CA, Blake JA, Botstein D, Butler H, Cherry JM, Davis AP, Dolinski K, Dwight SS, Eppig JT, et al. Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nat Genet. 2000;25(1):25–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Joint Genome Institute. http://www.jgi.doe.gov. Accessed 3 Jan 2016

  36. Bennett S. Solexa Ltd. Pharmacogenomics. 2004;5(4):433–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Margulies M, Egholm M, Altman WE, Attiya S, Bader JS, Bemben LA, Berka J, Braverman MS, Chen YJ, Chen ZT, et al. Genome sequencing in microfabricated high-density picolitre reactors. Nature. 2005;437(7057):376–80.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Zerbino DR, Birney E. Velvet: algorithms for de novo short read assembly using de Bruijn graphs. Genome Res. 2008;18(5):821–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Ewing B, Green P. Base-calling of automated sequencer traces using phred. II. Error probabilities. Genome Res. 1998;8(3):186–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Ewing B, Hillier L, Wendl MC, Green P. Base-calling of automated sequencer traces using phred. I. Accuracy assessment. Genome Res. 1998;8(3):175–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Gordon D, Abajian C, Green P. Consed: a graphical tool for sequence finishing. Genome Rese. 1998;8(3):195–202.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Han CS, Chain P. Finishing repetitive regions automatically with dupfinisher. In: Proceeding of the 2006 international conference on bioinformatics & computational biology: June 26–29 2006. CSREA Press: 141–146.

  43. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Pati A, Ivanova NN, Mikhailova N, Ovchinnikova G, Hooper SD, Lykidis A, Kyrpides NC. GenePRIMP: a gene prediction improvement pipeline for prokaryotic genomes. Nat Methods. 2010;7(6):455–U462.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Lowe TM, Eddy SR. tRNAscan-SE: a program for improved detection of transfer RNA genes in genomic sequence. Nucleic Acids Res. 1997;25(5):955–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Lagesen K, Hallin P, Rodland EA, Staerfeldt HH, Rognes T, Ussery DW. RNAmmer: consistent and rapid annotation of ribosomal RNA genes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007;35(9):3100–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Griffiths-Jones S, Bateman A, Marshall M, Khanna A, Eddy SR. Rfam: an RNA family database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003;31(1):439–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Krogh A, Larsson B, von Heijne G, Sonnhammer ELL. Predicting transmembrane protein topology with a hidden Markov model: application to complete genomes. J Mol Biol. 2001;305(3):567–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Bendtsen JD, Nielsen H, von Heijne G, Brunak S. Improved prediction of signal peptides: SignalP 3.0. J Mol Biol. 2004;340(4):783–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Novichkov PS, Kazakov AE, Ravcheev DA, Leyn SA, Kovaleva GY, Sutormin RA, Kazanov MD, Riehl W, Arkin AP, Dubchak I, et al. RegPrecise 3.0: a resource for genome-scale exploration of transcriptional regulation in bacteria. BMC Genomics. 2013;14:745.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Camacho C, Coulouris G, Avagyan V, Ma N, Papadopoulos J, Bealer K, Madden TL. BLAST+: architecture and applications. BMC Bioinformatics. 2009;10:421.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Alikhan N-F, Petty NK, Ben Zakour NL, Beatson SA. BLAST Ring Image Generator (BRIG): simple prokaryote genome comparisons. BMC Genomics. 2011;12.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The work conducted at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab by ENIGMA- Ecosystems and Networks Integrated with Genes and Molecular Assemblies (http://enigma.lbl.gov), a Scientific Focus Area Program) and at the Joint Genome Institute was supported by the Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH1123. The work conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute is supported by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

Authors’ contributions

RC isolated the organism and performed laboratory experiments. RC, HW and RW drafted the manuscript. RC, HW, PD, LG, AK, PN, RW, APA, TCH sequenced, assembled and annotated the genome. MZ and MA performed the SEM studies. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA

    Romy Chakraborty, Paramvir Dehal, Robert Walker, Marcin Zemla, Manfred Auer, Alexey Kazakov, Pavel Novichkov, Adam P. Arkin & Terry C. Hazen

  2. University Of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA

    Hannah Woo & Terry C. Hazen

  3. Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute, Walnut Creek, CA, USA

    Lynne A. Goodwin

Authors
  1. Romy Chakraborty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hannah Woo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paramvir Dehal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Robert Walker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marcin Zemla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Manfred Auer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Lynne A. Goodwin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Alexey Kazakov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Pavel Novichkov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Adam P. Arkin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Terry C. Hazen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Romy Chakraborty.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This 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.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chakraborty, R., Woo, H., Dehal, P. et al. Complete genome sequence of Pseudomonas stutzeri strain RCH2 isolated from a Hexavalent Chromium [Cr(VI)] contaminated site. Stand in Genomic Sci 12, 23 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40793-017-0233-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40793-017-0233-7

Keywords

Environmental Microbiome

ISSN: 2524-6372