Open Access

Complete genome sequence of Methanoplanus petrolearius type strain (SEBR 4847T)

  • Evelyne Brambilla1,
  • Olivier Duplex Ngatchou Djao2,
  • Hajnalka Daligault3,
  • Alla Lapidus4,
  • Susan Lucas4,
  • Nancy Hammon4,
  • Matt Nolan4,
  • Hope Tice4,
  • Jan-Fang Cheng4,
  • Cliff Han3,
  • Roxanne Tapia3, 4,
  • Lynne Goodwin3, 4,
  • Sam Pitluck4,
  • Konstantinos Liolios4,
  • Natalia Ivanova4,
  • Konstantinos Mavromatis4,
  • Natalia Mikhailova4,
  • Amrita Pati4,
  • Amy Chen5,
  • Krishna Palaniappan5,
  • Miriam Land4, 6,
  • Loren Hauser4, 6,
  • Yun-Juan Chang4, 6,
  • Cynthia D. Jeffries4, 6,
  • Manfred Rohde2,
  • Stefan Spring1,
  • Johannes Sikorski1,
  • Markus Göker1,
  • Tanja Woyke4,
  • James Bristow4,
  • Jonathan A. Eisen4, 7,
  • Victor Markowitz5,
  • Philip Hugenholtz4,
  • Nikos C. Kyrpides4 and
  • Hans-Peter Klenk4
Standards in Genomic Sciences20103:3020203

DOI: 10.4056/sigs.1183143

Published: 31 October 2010

Abstract

Methanoplanus petrolearius Ollivier et al. 1998 is the type strain of the genus Methanoplanus. The strain was originally isolated from an offshore oil field from the Gulf of Guinea. Members of the genus Methanoplanus are of interest because they play an important role in the carbon cycle and also because of their significant contribution to the global warming by methane emission in the atmosphere. Like other archaea of the family Methanomicrobiales, the members of the genus Methanoplanus are able to use CO2 and H2 as a source of carbon and energy; acetate is required for growth and probably also serves as carbon source. Here we describe the features of this organism, together with the complete genome sequence and annotation. This is the first complete genome sequence of a member of the family Methanomicrobiaceae and the sixth complete genome sequence from the order Methanomicrobiales. The 2,843,290 bp long genome with its 2,824 protein-coding and 57 RNA genes is a part of the Genomic Encyclopedia of Bacteria and Archaea project.

Keywords

obligately anaerobic mesophilic hydrogen methane Gram-negative Methanomicrobiaceae Euryarchaeota GEBA

Introduction

Strain SEBR 4847T (= DSM 11571 = OCM 486) is the type strain of Methanoplanus petrolearius [1]. This strain was isolated from an offshore oil-producing well in the Gulf of Guinea, Africa [1]. Currently, the genus Methanoplanus contains three species: M. petrolearius, the type species M. limicola (isolated from an Italian swamp containing drilling waste near Baia in the Naples Area), and M. endosymbiosus (isolated from the marine ciliate Metopus contortus) [1]. The genus name derived from the Latin word “methanum”, and the adjective “planus”, meaning a flat plate, which refers to its flat cell morphology [1,2]. Methanoplanus therefore means “methane (-producing) plate”. The species epithet petrolearius derives from the Latin word “petra”, rock and the adjective “olearius”, which relates to vegetable oil [1]. “Petrolearius” means therefore related to mineral oil, referring to its origin of isolation [1]. No additional cultivated strains belonging to the species M. petrolearius have been described thus far. M. petrolearius SEBR 4847T is like other methanogens, strictly anaerobic. Here we present a summary classification and a set of features for M. petrolearius strain SEBR 4847T, together with the description of the complete genomic sequencing and annotation.

Classification and features

The type strains of the two other species in the genus Methanoplanus share an average of 93.5% 16S rRNA gene sequence identity with strain SEBR 4847T [1,2]. The 16S rRNA gene sequence of the strain SEBR 4847T shows 99% identity with an uncultured environmental 16S rRNA gene sequence of the clone KO-Eth-A (AB236050) obtained from the marine sediment [3]. The 16S rRNA gene sequences similarities of the strain SEBR 4847T to metagenomic libraries (env_nt) were all 83% or less, (status August 2010), indicating that members of the species, genus and even family are poorly represented in the habitats screened thus far.

Figure 1 shows the phylogenetic neighborhood of M. petrolearius SEBR 4847T in a 16S rRNA based tree. The sequences of the two identical 16S rRNA gene copies in the genome do not differ from the previously published 16S rRNA sequence generated from DSM 11571 (U76631), which contained four ambiguous base calls.
Figure 1.

Phylogenetic tree highlighting the position of M. petrolearius SEBR 4847T relative to the other type strains within the order Methanomicrobiales. The tree was inferred from 1,275 aligned characters [4,5] of the 16S rRNA gene sequence under the maximum likelihood criterion [6] and rooted with Methanocellales [7]. The branches are scaled in terms of the expected number of substitutions per site. Numbers above branches are support values from 350 bootstrap replicates [8] if larger than 60%. Lineages with type strain genome sequencing projects registered in GOLD [9] are shown in blue, published genomes in bold [10,11] and GenBank accessions CP001338 (for Methanosphaera palustris E1-9c) and AP011532 (for Methanocella paludicola).

The cells of strain SEBR 4847T stain Gram-negative, but archaea do not have a Gram-negative type of cell wall with an outer envelope. Cells occur singly or in pairs and are irregularly disc-shaped of 1 to 3 µm size (Figure 2 and Table 1). A similar shape was found for two other strains of the genus Methanoplanus [1,2,24]. Strain SEBR 4847T was originally described as non-motile [1], however, in samples of this strain kept in the DSMZ culture collection motile cells were frequently detected in young cultures (H. Hippe, personal communication). The genome sequence of SEBR 4847T contains numerous genes encoding flagellins (Mpet_2052–Mpet_2054, Mpet_2057) and chemotaxis proteins (Mpet_2064–Mpet_2069), which is in line with the observation of motility in this species. Round colonies of 1–2 mm are observed after three weeks of incubation on solid agar medium. The generation time of strain SEBR 4847T is about 10 hours under optimal conditions [1]. Strain SEBR 4847T grows optimally at 37°C, the temperature range for growth being 28–43°C. No growth was observed at 25°C or 45°C [1]. The optimum pH is 7.0; growth occurs from pH 5.3 to 8.4. The optimum NaCl concentration for growth is between 1 and 3% NaCl with growth occurring at NaCl concentrations ranging from 0 to 5% [1]. Substrates for growth of strain SEBR 4847T are H2 + CO2, formate and CO2 + 2-propanol [1]. Strain SEBR 4847T does not utilize methanol, trimethylamine, lactate, glucose, CO2 + 1-propanol, CO2 + 1-butanol and isobutyrate [1]. Acetate is required for growth as carbon source and yeast extract is stimulatory [1]. Addition of acetate reduces the lag time [25]. The addition of acetate slightly increases the amount of H2 available, theoretically [26,27]. When H2 is limiting and sulfate is in excess, sulfate reducers compete with methanogens and homoacetogens for the available H2 [27]. The sulfate reducers can out-compete hydrogenotrophic methanogens, due to a higher affinity [28] and higher activity of hydrogenase and the energetically more favorable reduction of sulfate [29]. Similar features were observed for M. limicola and M. endosymbiosus [1,2,24].
Figure 2.

Scanning electron micrograph of M. petrolearius SEBR 4847T

Table 1.

Classification and general features of M. petrolearius SEBR 4847T according to the MIGS recommendations [12]

MIGS ID

Property

Term

Evidence code

 

Current classification

Domain Archaea

TAS [13]

 

Phylum Euryarchaeota

TAS [14,15]

 

Class Methanomicrobia

TAS [16]

 

Order Methanomicrobiales

TAS [1719]

 

Family Methanomicrobiaceae

TAS [17,18]

 

Genus Methanoplanus

TAS [2,20]

 

Species Methanoplanus petrolearius

TAS [1,21]

 

Type strain SEBR 4847

TAS [1]

 

Gram stain

negative

TAS [2]

 

Cell shape

disc-shaped, irregular single or in pairs

TAS [1]

 

Motility

motile

IDA

 

Sporulation

not reported

NAS

 

Temperature range

28–43°C

TAS [1]

 

Optimum temperature

37°C

TAS [1]

 

Salinity

1–3% NaCl

TAS [1]

MIGS-22

Oxygen requirement

anaerobic obligate

TAS [1]

 

Carbon source

acetate, CO2, formate

TAS [1]

 

Energy source

H2 + CO2, formate and CO2 + 2-propanol

TAS [1]

MIGS-6

Habitat

offshore oil field

TAS [1]

MIGS-15

Biotic relationship

not reported

NAS

MIGS-14

Pathogenicity

not reported

NAS

 

Biosafety level

1

TAS [22]

 

Isolation

subsurface ecosystem

TAS [1]

MIGS-4

Geographic location

offshore oil field, Gulf of Guinea, West Africa

TAS [1]

MIGS-5

Sample collection time

1997 or before

TAS [1]

MIGS-4.1

Latitude

not reported

NAS

MIGS-4.2

Longitude

MIGS-4.3

Depth

not reported

NAS

MIGS-4.4

Altitude

not reported

NAS

Evidence codes - IDA: Inferred from Direct Assay (first time in publication); 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 of the Gene Ontology project [23]. If the evidence code is IDA, then the property was directly observed by one of the authors or an expert mentioned in the acknowledgements

Chemotaxonomy

At the time of writing, no reports have been published describing the composition of the cell envelope of the strain SEBR 4847T. However, for the two other species in the genus Methanoplanus, M. limicola and M. endosymbiosus, several chemotaxonomic features have been reported [2,24]. Preparations of the cell envelope from M. limicola and M. endosymbiosius revealed the presence of a dominant band that appeared to be a glycoprotein when cells were disrupted in 2% SDS [2,24]. Methanoplanus spp. possesses a mixture of C20C20 and C40C40 core ethers [30]. For comparison, similar mixtures were also detected in other members of the family Methanomicrobiaceae: Methanogenium cariaci, Methanogenium marisnigri and Methanogenium thermophilicum, while C20C25 was absent in these species [30].

Genome sequencing and annotation

Genome project history

This organism was selected for sequencing on the basis of its phylogenetic position [31], and is part of the Genomic Encyclopedia of Bacteria and Archaea project [32]. The genome project is deposited in the Genome OnLine Database [9] and the complete genome sequence is deposited in GenBank. Sequencing, finishing and annotation were performed by the DOE Joint Genome Institute (JGI). A summary of the project information is shown in Table 2.
Table 2.

Genome sequencing project information

MIGS ID

Property

Term

MIGS-31

Finishing quality

Finished

MIGS-28

Libraries used

Tree genomic libraries: 454 pyrosequence standard library, paired end 454 library (9.5 kb insert size), Illumina GAii shotgun library

MIGS-29

Sequencing platforms

454 GS FLX Titanium, Illumina GAii

MIGS-31.2

Sequencing coverage

67.9 × pyrosequence, 52.2 × Illumina

MIGS-30

Assemblers

Newbler version 2.3-PreRelease-09-14-2009, Velvet, phrap

MIGS-32

Gene calling method

Prodigal 1.4, GenePRIMP

 

INSDC ID

CP002117

 

Genbank Date of Release

September 17, 2010

 

NCBI project ID

40773

 

GOLD ID

Gc01372

 

Database: IMG-GEBA

2503128011

MIGS-13

Source material identifier

DSM 11571

 

Project relevance

Tree of Life, GEBA

Growth conditions and DNA isolation

M. petrolearius SEBR 4847T, DSM 11571, was grown anaerobically in DSMZ medium 141 (Methanogenium medium) [33] at 37°C. DNA was isolated from 0.2 g of cell paste using a phenol/chloroform extraction after cell lysis with a mixture of lysozyme and mutanolysin.

Genome sequencing and assembly

The genome was sequenced using a combination of Illumina and 454 sequencing platforms. All general aspects of library construction and sequencing can be found at the JGI website. Pyrosequencing reads were assembled using the Newbler assembler Version 2.3 Pre-Release-09-14-2009 (Roche). The initial Newbler assembly consisted of 21 contigs in one scaffold that was converted into a phrap assembly by making fake reads from the consensus sequence. Illumina GAii sequencing data (148.5Mb) was assembled with Velvet [34] and the consensus sequences were shredded into 1.5 kb overlapped fake reads and assembled together with the 454 data. The draft assembly was based on 173.4 Mb of 454 data and all of the 454 paired end data. Newbler parameters are -consed -a 50 -l 350 -g -m -ml 20. The Phred/Phrap/Consed software package was used for sequence assembly and quality assessment of the genome sequence. After the shotgun stage, reads were assembled with parallel phrap (High Performance Software, LLC). Possible mis-assemblies were corrected with gapResolution, Dupfinisher, or sequencing cloned bridging PCR fragments with subcloning or transposon bombing (Epicentre Biotechnologies, Madison, WI) [35]. Gaps between contigs were closed by editing in Consed, by PCR and by Bubble PCR primer walks (J.-F.Chang, unpublished). A total of 139 additional reactions were necessary to close gaps and to raise the quality of the finished sequence. Illumina reads were also used to correct potential base errors and increase consensus quality using a software Polisher developed at JGI [36]. The error rate of the completed genome sequence is less than 1 in 100,000. Together, the combination of the Illumina and 454 sequencing platforms provided 120.1× coverage of the genome. The final assembly of the genoe contains 590,575 pyrosequences and 4,125,153 Illumina reads.

Genome annotation

Genes were identified using Prodigal [37] as part of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory genome annotation pipeline, followed by a round of manual curation using the JGI GenePRIMP pipeline [38]. 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. Additional gene prediction analysis and functional annotation was performed within the Integrated Microbial Genomes - Expert Review (IMG-ER) platform [39].

Genome properties

The genome consists of a 2,843,290 bp long chromosome with a 47.4% GC content (Table 3 and Figure 3). Of the 2,881 genes predicted, 2,825 were protein-coding genes, and 57 RNAs; thirty nine pseudogenes were also identified. The majority of the protein-coding genes (61.2%) were assigned a putative function while the remaining ones were annotated as hypothetical proteins. The distribution of genes into COGs functional categories is presented in Table 4.
Figure 3.

Graphical circular map of the genome. From outside to the center: Genes on forward strand (color by COG categories), Genes on reverse strand (color by COG categories), RNA genes (tRNAs green, rRNAs red, other RNAs black), GC content, GC skew.

Table 3.

Genome Statistics

Attribute

Value

% of Total

Genome size (bp)

2,843,290

100.00%

DNA coding region (bp)

2,501,893

87.99%

DNA G+C content (bp)

1,347,696

47.40%

Number of replicons

1

 

Extrachromosomal elements

0

 

Total genes

2,881

100.00%

RNA genes

57

1.98%

rRNA operons

2

 

Protein-coding genes

2,824

98.02%

Pseudo genes

39

1.35%

Genes with function prediction

1,793

62.24%

Genes in paralog clusters

550

19.10%

Genes assigned to COGs

1,939

67.30%

Genes assigned Pfam domains

2,000

69.42%

Genes with signal peptides

492

17.10%

Genes with transmembrane helices

886

30.75%

CRISPR repeats

0

 
Table 4.

Number of genes associated with the general COG functional categories

Code

value

%age

Description

J

150

7.1

Translation, ribosomal structure and biogenesis

A

0

0.0

RNA processing and modification

K

106

5.0

Transcription

L

80

3.8

Replication, recombination and repair

B

2

0.1

Chromatin structure and dynamics

D

18

0.9

Cell cycle control, cell division, chromosome partitioning

Y

0

0.0

Nuclear structure

V

28

1.3

Defense mechanisms

T

136

6.5

Signal transduction mechanisms

M

67

3.2

Cell wall/membrane/envelope biogenesis

N

54

2.6

Cell motility

Z

1

0.0

Cytoskeleton

W

0

0.0

Extracellular structures

U

32

1.5

Intracellular trafficking and secretion, and vesicular transport

O

80

3.8

Posttranslational modification, protein turnover, chaperones

C

185

8.8

Energy production and conversion

G

70

3.3

Carbohydrate transport and metabolism

E

155

7.4

Amino acid transport and metabolism

F

61

2.9

Nucleotide transport and metabolism

H

162

7.7

Coenzyme transport and metabolism

I

22

1.1

Lipid transport and metabolism

P

143

6.8

Inorganic ion transport and metabolism

Q

7

0.3

Secondary metabolites biosynthesis, transport and catabolism

R

278

13.2

General function prediction only

S

267

12.7

Function unknown

-

942

32.7

Not in COGs

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We would like to gratefully acknowledge the help of Maren Schröder (DSMZ) for growing cultures of M. petrolearius. 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, UT-Battelle and Oak Ridge National Laboratory under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725, as well as German Research Foundation (DFG) INST 599/1-2.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
DSMZ - German Collection of Microorganisms and Cell Cultures GmbH
(2)
HZI - Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research
(3)
Bioscience Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory
(4)
DOE Joint Genome Institute
(5)
Biological Data Management and Technology Center, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
(6)
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
(7)
University of California Davis Genome Center

References

  1. Ollivier B, Cayol JL, Patel BKC, Magot M, Fardeau ML, Garcia JL. Methanoplanus petrolearius sp. nov., a novel methanogenic bacterium from an oil-producing well. FEMS Microbiol Lett 1997; 147:51–56. PubMed doi:10.1111/j.1574-6968.1997.tb10219.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Wildgruber G, Thomm M, König H, Ober K, Ricchiuto T, Stetter KO. Methanoplanus limicola, a plate-shaped methanogen representing a novel family, the Methanoplanaceae. Arch Microbiol 1982; 132:31–36. doi:10.1007/BF0069View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Sakai S, Imachi H, Sekiguchi Y, Tseng IC, Ohashi A, Harada H, Kamagata Y. Cultivation of methanogens under low-hydrogen conditions by using the coculture method. Appl Environ Microbiol 2009; 75:4892–4896. PubMed doi:10.1128/AEM.02835-08PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Castresana J. Selection of conserved blocks from multiple alignments for their use in phylogenetic analysis. Mol Biol Evol 2000; 17:540–552. PubMedView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Lee C, Grasso C, Sharlow MF. Multiple sequence alignment using partial order graphs. Bioinformatics 2002; 18:452–464. PubMed doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/18.3.452View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Stamatakis A, Hoover P, Rougemont J. A rapid bootstrap algorithm for the RAxML Web Servers. Syst Biol 2008; 57:758–771. PubMed doi:10.1080/10635150802429642View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Yarza P, Richter M, Peplies J, Euzeby J, Amann R, Schleifer KH, Ludwig W, Glöckner FO, Rosselló-Móra R. The all-species living tree project: A 16S rRNA-based phylogenetic tree of all sequenced type strains. Syst Appl Microbiol 2008; 31:241–250. PubMed doi:10.1016/j.syapm.2008.07.001View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Pattengale ND, Alipour M, Bininda-Emonds ORP, Moret BME, Stamatakis A. How many bootstrap replicates are necessary? Lect Notes Comput Sci 2009; 5541:184–200. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02008-713View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Liolios K, Mavromatis K, Tavernarakis N, Kyrpides NC. The genomes on line database (GOLD) in 2007: status of genomic and metagenomic projects and their associated metadata. Nucleic Acids Res 2008; 36:D475–D479. PubMed doi:10.1093/nar/gkm884PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Anderson IJ, Sieprawska-Lupa M, Lapidus A, Nolan M, Copeland A, Glavina del Rio T, Tice H, Dalin E, Barry K, Saunders E, et al. Complete genome sequence of Methanoculleus marisnigri Romesser et al. 1981 type strain JR1. Stand Genomic Sci 2009; 1:189–196. doi:10.4056/sigs.32535PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Anderson IJ, Sieprawska-Lupa M, Goltsman E, Lapidus A, Copeland A, Glavina del Rio T, Tice H, Dalin E, Barry K, Pitluck S, et al. Complete genome sequence of Methanocorpusculum labreanum type strain Z. Stand Genomic Sci 2009; 1:197–203. doi:10.4056/sigs.35575PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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; 26:541–547. PubMed doi:10.1038/nbt1360PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Woese CR, Kandler O, Wheelis ML. Towards a natural system of organisms: proposal for the domains Archaea, Bacteria, and Eucarya. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1990; 87:4576–4579. PubMed doi:10.1073/pnas.87.12.4576PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. List Editor. Validation List no. 85. Validation of publication of new names and new combinations previously effectively published outside the IJSEM. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2002; 52:685–690. PubMed doi:10.1099/ijs.0.02358-0
  15. Garrity GM, Holt JG. The Road Map to the Manual. In: Garrity GM, Boone DR, Castenholz RW (eds), Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, Second Edition, Volume 1, Springer, New York, 2001, p. 119–169.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Garrity GM, Bell JA, Lilburn T. Taxonomic Outline of the Procaryotes., Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, Second Edition. Release 4.0, Fourth Edition, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2003. p. 1–39.Google Scholar
  17. List 6. Validation of the publication of new names and new combinations previously effectively published outside the IJSB. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1981; 31:215–218. doi:10.1099/00207713-31-2-215
  18. Balch WE, Fox GE, Magrum LJ, Woese CR, Wolfe RS. Methanogens: Reevaluation of a unique biological group. Microbiol Rev 1979; 43:260–296. PubMedPubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Judicial Commission of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes. The nomenclatural types of the orders Acholeplasmatales, Halanaerobiales, Halobacteriales, Methanobacteriales, Methanococcales, Methanomicrobiales, Planctomycetales, Prochlorales, Sulfolobales, Thermococcales, Thermoproteales and Verrucomicrobiales are the genera Acholeplasma, Halanaerobium, Halobacterium, Methanobacterium, Methanococcus, Methanomicrobium, Planctomyces, Prochloron, Sulfolobus, Thermococcus, Thermoproteus and Verrucomicrobium, respectively. Opinion 79. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2005; 55:517–518. PubMed doi:10.1099/ijs.0.63548-0View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. List 14. Validation of the publication of new names and new combinations previously effectively published outside the IJSB. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1984; 34:270–271. doi:10.1099/00207713-34-2-270
  21. List Editor. Validation list 67. Validation of publication of new names and new combinations previously effectively published outside the IJSB. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1998; 48:1083–1084. doi:10.1099/00207713-48-4-1083
  22. Classification of bacteria and archaea in risk groups. http://www.baua.de TRBA 466.
  23. 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; 25:25–29. PubMed doi:10.1038/75556PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Bruggen JJA, Zwart KB, Hermans JGF, VanHove EM, Stumm CK, Vogels GD. Isolation and characterization of Methanoplanus endosymbiosus sp. nov., an endosymbiont of the marine sapropelic ciliate Metopus contortus Quennerstedt. Arch Microbiol 1986; 144:367–374. doi:10.1007/BF00409886View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Wu SY, Chen SC, Lai MC. Methanofollis formosanus sp. nov., isolated from a fish pond. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2005; 55:837–842. PubMed doi:10.1099/ijs.0.63475-0View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. He J, Sung Y, Dollhopf ME, Fatherpure BZ, Tiedje JM, Löffler FE. Acetate versus hydrogen as direct electron donors to stimulate the microbial reductive dechlorination process at chloroethene-contaminated sites. Environ Sci Technol 2002; 36:3945–3952. PubMed doi:10.1021/es025528dView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Weijma J, Gubbels F, Hulshoff LW, Stams AJM, Lens P, Lettinga G. Competition for H2 between sulfate reducers, methanogens and homoacetogens in a gas-lift reactor. Water Sci Technol 2002; 45:75–80. PubMedPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Boone DR, Bryant MP. Proprionate-degrading bacterium, Syntrophobacter wolinii sp.nov. gen.nov., from methanogenic ecosystems. Appl Environ Microbiol 1980; 40:626–632. PubMedPubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Lupton FS, Zeikus JG. Physiological basis for sulfate-dependent hydrogen competition between sulfidogens and methanogens. Curr Microbiol 1984; 11:7–11. doi:10.1007/BF01567568View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Grant WD, Pinch G, Harris JE, Rosa MD, Gambacorta A. Polar lipids in methanogen taxonomy. J Gen Microbiol 1985; 131:3277–3286.Google Scholar
  31. Klenk HP, Göker M. En route to a genome-based classification of Archaea and Bacteria? Syst Appl Microbiol 2010; 33:175–182. PubMed doi:10.1016/j.syapm.2010.03.003View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Wu D, Hugenholtz P, Mavromatis K, Pukall R, Dalin E, Ivanova NN, Kunin V, Goodwin L, Wu M, Tindall BJ, et al. A phylogeny-driven genomic encyclopaedia of Bacteria and Archaea. Nature 2009; 462:1056–1060. PubMed doi:10.1038/nature08656PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. List of growth media used at DSMZ: http://www.dsmz.de/microorganisms/media_list.php
  34. Zerbino DR, Birney E. Velvet: algorithms for de novo short read assembly using de Bruijn graphs. Genome Res 2008; 18:821–829. PubMed doi:10.1101/gr.074492.107PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Sims D, Brettin T, Detter J, Han C, Lapidus A, Copeland A, Glavina Del Rio T, Nolan M, Chen F, Lucas S, et al. Complete genome sequence of Kytococcus sedentarius type strain (541T). Stand Genomic Sci 2009; 1:12–20. doi:10.4056/sigs.761PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Lapidus A, LaButti K, Foster B, Lowry S, Trong S, Goltsman E. POLISHER: An effective tool for using ultra short reads in microbial genome assembly and finishing. AGBT, Marco Island, FL, 2008.Google Scholar
  37. Hyatt D, Chen GL, Locascio PF, Land ML, Larimer FW, Hauser LJ. Prodigal Prokaryotic Dynamic Programming Genefinding Algorithm. BMC Bioinformatics 2010; 11:119. PubMed doi:10.1186/1471-2105-11-119PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Pati A, Ivanova N, Mikhailova N, Ovchinikova G, Hooper SD, Lykidis A, Kyrpides NC. GenePRIMP: A gene prediction improvement pipeline for microbial genomes. Nat Methods 2010; 7:455–457. PubMed doi:10.1038/nmeth.1457View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Markowitz VM, Ivanova NN, Chen IMA, Chu K, Kyrpides NC. IMG ER: a system for microbial genome annotation expert review and curation. Bioinformatics 2009; 25:2271–2278. PubMed doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btp393View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2010