Open Access

Complete genome sequence of Desulfarculus baarsii type strain (2st14T)

  • Hui Sun1,
  • Stefan Spring2,
  • Alla Lapidus1,
  • Karen Davenport1, 3,
  • Tijana Glavina Del Rio1,
  • Hope Tice1,
  • Matt Nolan1,
  • Alex Copeland1,
  • Jan-Fang Cheng1,
  • Susan Lucas1,
  • Roxanne Tapia1, 3,
  • Lynne Goodwin1, 3,
  • Sam Pitluck1,
  • Natalia Ivanova1,
  • Ionna Pagani1,
  • Konstantinos Mavromatis1,
  • Galina Ovchinnikova1,
  • Amrita Pati1,
  • Amy Chen1,
  • Krishna Palaniappan4,
  • Loren Hauser1, 5,
  • Yun-Juan Chang1, 5,
  • Cynthia D. Jeffries1, 5,
  • John C. Detter1, 3,
  • Cliff Han1, 3,
  • Manfred Rohde6,
  • Evelyne Brambilla2,
  • Markus Göker2,
  • Tanja Woyke1,
  • Jim Bristow1,
  • Jonathan A. Eisen1, 7,
  • Victor Markowitz4,
  • Philip Hugenholtz1,
  • Nikos C. Kyrpides1,
  • Hans-Peter Klenk2 and
  • Miriam Land1, 5
Standards in Genomic Sciences20103:3030276

https://doi.org/10.4056/sigs.1243258

Published: 31 December 2010

Abstract

Desulfarculus baarsii (Widdel 1981) Kuever et al. 2006 is the type and only species of the genus Desulfarculus, which represents the family Desulfarculaceae and the order Desulfarculales. This species is a mesophilic sulfate-reducing bacterium with the capability to oxidize acetate and fatty acids of up to 18 carbon atoms completely to CO2. The acetyl-CoA/CODH (Wood-Ljungdahl) pathway is used by this species for the complete oxidation of carbon sources and autotrophic growth on formate. The type strain 2st14T was isolated from a ditch sediment collected near the University of Konstanz, Germany. This is the first completed genome sequence of a member of the order Desulfarculales. The 3,655,731 bp long single replicon genome with its 3,303 protein-coding and 52 RNA genes is a part of the Genomic Encyclopedia of Bacteria and Archaea project.

Keywords

obligate anaerobic sulfate reduction Wood-Ljungdahl pathway freshwater sediment Deltaproteobacteria Desulfarculaceae GEBA

Introduction

Most sulfate reducing bacteria, available in pure culture, oxidize organic electron donors incompletely to acetate, whereas species that oxidize acetate and other carbon compounds completely to CO2, using sulfate as an electron acceptor, are less frequently isolated. Sulfate reducers with the latter type of metabolism are of special interest, because it is assumed that they are dominant in anoxic marine sediments [1]. Sulfate reducing prokaryotes with the ability to mineralize organic compounds to CO2 are phylogenetically dispersed and can be found within the Proteobacteria, Firmicutes and Euryarchaeota. At the time of writing, representatives of this type of metabolism, for which a completely sequenced genome exists include Desulfobacterium autotrophicum [2], Desulfotomaculum acetoxidans [3] and Archaeoglobus fulgidus [4]. In the present work, the complete genome sequence of Desulfarculus baarsii a completely oxidizing sulfate reducing bacterium representing the order Desulfarculales within the Deltaproteobacteria, was determined. The original description of D. baarsii was based on strain 1st1 (= “Göttingen”) [5], which was probably subsequently lost and replaced by the designated type strain 2st14T (= “Konstanz”) [6]. Strain 2st14T (= DSM 2075 = ATCC 33931 = LMG 7858) was enriched from anoxic mud from a ditch near the University of Konstanz, Germany, in a medium supplemented with stearate and sulfate and subsequently isolated in an anaerobic agar dilution series with formate plus sulfate [7,8]. D. baarsii strain 2st14T is the first member of the family Desulfarculaceae within the order Desulfarculales with a sequenced genome. The presented sequence data will enable interesting genome comparisons with other sulfate reducing bacteria of the class Deltaproteobacteria.

Classification and features

The species D. baarsii represents a separate lineage within the Deltaproteobacteria which is only distantly related to most other members of this class. The closest relatives based on 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity values are the type strains of Desulfomonile tiedjei (87.6% sequence identity) and Desulfomonile liminaris (87.2%), both belonging to the family Syntrophaceae within the order Syntrophobacterales [9]. The most similar cloned 16S rRNA gene, EUB-42 [10] shared only 95.5% sequence similarity with D. baarsii and was retrieved from anaerobic sludge. Strain 2st14T represents the only strain of this species available from a culture collection, thus far. Currently available data from cultivation independent studies (environmental screening and genomic surveys) did not surpass 86% sequence similarity, indicating that members of this species are restricted to distinct habitats which are currently undersampled in most environments or are in low abundance, (status October 2010). The single genomic 16S rRNA sequence of strain 2st14T was compared using BLAST with the most resent release of the Greengenes database [11] and the relative frequencies of taxa and keywords, weighted by BLAST scores, were determined. The five most frequent genera were Desulfovibrio (43.3%), Syntrophobacter (14.4%), Desulfomonile (11.8%), Desulfarculus (9.6%) and Desulfatibacillum (7.5%). The species yielding the highest score was D. baarsii. The five most frequent keywords within the labels of environmental samples which yielded hits were ‘sediment’ (4.5%), ‘microbial’ (4.5%), ‘lake’ (1.7%), ‘depth’ (1.7%) and ‘sea’ (1.6%). Environmental samples which yielded hits of a higher score than the highest scoring species were not found.

Figure 1 shows the phylogenetic neighborhood of D. baarsii 2st14T in a 16S rRNA based tree. The sequence of the single 16S rRNA gene in the genome differs by one nucleotide from the previously published 16S rRNA gene sequence generated from DSM 2075 (AF418174) which contains five ambiguous base calls. Genbank entry M34403 from 1989 is also annotated as 16S rRNA sequence of strain 2st14T, but differs in 45 positions (3.2%) from the actual sequence. This difference probably reflects more the progress in sequencing technology than biological differences.
Figure 1.

Phylogenetic tree highlighting the position of D. baarsii relative to the other type strains of related genera within the class Deltaproteobacteria. The tree was inferred from 1,465 aligned characters [12,13] of the 16S rRNA gene sequence under the maximum likelihood criterion [14] and rooted in accordance with the current taxonomy. The branches are scaled in terms of the expected number of substitutions per site. Numbers above branches are support values from 1,000 bootstrap replicates [15] if larger than 60%. Lineages with type strain genome sequencing projects registered in GOLD [16] are shown in blue, published genomes [17] and INSDC accession CP000478 for Syntrophobacter fumaroxidans in bold.

The cells of D. baarsii 2st14T are vibrioid, Gram-negative and 0.5–0.7 by 1.5–4 µm in size (Figure 2, Table 1). Motility is conferred by a single polar flagellum (not visible in Figure 2) [5]. The temperature range for growth is 20–39°C with an optimum around 35°C. The pH range for growth is 6.5–8.2, with an optimum at 7.3. The strain grows optimally in the presence of 7–20 g/l NaCl and 1.2–3g/l MgCl2 × 6 H2O, but growth is nearly as rapid at lower concentrations [7]. D. baarsii strain 2st14T is a strictly anaerobic, non-fermentative, chemoorganotrophic sulfate-reducer that oxidizes organic substrates completely to CO2. Sulfate, sulfite and thiosulfate serve as terminal electron acceptors and are reduced to H2S, but sulfur, fumarate and nitrate cannot be utilized. The following compounds are utilized as electron donors and carbon sources: formate, acetate, propionate, butyrate, iso-butyrate, 2-methylbutyrate, valerate, iso-valerate, and higher fatty acids up to 18 carbon atoms. Growth on formate does not require an additional organic carbon source [5,7]. A high activity of carbon monoxide dehydrogenase is observed in D. baarsii, indicating the operation of the anaerobic C1-pathway (Wood-Ljungdahl pathway) for formate assimilation and CO2 fixation or complete oxidation of acetyl-CoA [27].
Figure 2.

Scanning electron micrograph of D. baarsii 2st14T

Table 1.

Classification and general features of D. baarsii strain 2st14T in according to the MIGS recommendations [18].

MIGS ID

Property

Term

Evidence code

 

Current classification

Domain Bacteria

TAS [19]

 

Phylum Proteobacteria

TAS [20]

 

Class Deltaproteobacteria

TAS [21,22]

 

Order Desulfarculales

TAS [21,23]

 

Family Desulfarculaceae

TAS [7,21,23, 24]

 

Genus Desulfarculus

TAS [7,21]

 

Species Desulfarculus baarsii

TAS [6,7,21]

 

Type strain 2st14

TAS [6]

 

Gram stain

negative

TAS [5]

 

Cell shape

vibrio-shaped

TAS [5]

 

Motility

motile (single polar flagellum)

TAS [5]

 

Sporulation

non-sporulating

TAS [5]

 

Temperature range

20–39°C

TAS [5]

 

Optimum temperature

35°C

TAS [5]

 

Salinity

optimum growth at 7–20 g/l NaCl

TAS [5,7]

MIGS-22

Oxygen requirement

strictly anaerobic

TAS [5]

 

Carbon source

CO2, formate, acetate, propionate, butyrate, higher fatty acids

TAS [5]

 

Energy source

formate, acetate, propionate, butyrate, higher fatty acids

TAS [5]

MIGS-6

Habitat

anoxic freshwater or brackish sediments

TAS [5]

MIGS-15

Biotic relationship

free living

NAS

MIGS-14

Pathogenicity

none

TAS [25]

 

Biosafety level

1

TAS [25]

 

Isolation

mud from a ditch

TAS [7]

MIGS-4

Geographic location

Konstanz, Germany

TAS [7]

MIGS-5

Sample collection time

1981 or before

NAS

MIGS-4.1

Latitude

47.7

NAS

MIGS-4.2

Longitude

9.2

MIGS-4.3

Depth

not reported

 

MIGS-4.4

Altitude

about 406 m

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 [26]. If the evidence code is IDA, then the property was directly observed by one of the authors or an expert mentioned in the acknowledgements.

The oxygen detoxification system of D. baarsii was analyzed in some detail. It could be shown that a genomic region encoding a putative rubredoxin oxidoreductase (rbo) and rubredoxin (rub) of D. baarsii is able to suppress deleterious effects of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in Escherichia coli mutants lacking superoxide dismutase [28]. The cloned genes were identified in the whole genome sequence as Deba_2049 (rub) and Deba_2050 (rbo) and found in close proximity to a gene encoding rubrerythrin (Deba_2051), which is supposed to play an important role in the oxygen tolerance of anaerobic bacteria [29]. The product of the recombinant rbo gene of D. baarsii was later further characterized and designated as desulfoferrodoxin (Dfx), because no evidence for a rubredoxin oxidoreductase could be demonstrated. Instead, a function as superoxide reductase was proposed [30].

Chemotaxonomy

The cellular fatty acid pattern of D. baarsii strain 2st14T is dominated by saturated straight chain fatty acids (43.0% C14:0, 9.9% C16:0, and 2.3% C18:0), followed by saturated iso- and anteiso-branched fatty acids (21.3% i-C14:0, 12.3% ai-C15:0, and 2.8% i-C15:0). Occurrence of the dimethylacetal (DMA) derivates C15:0 DMA (1.8%) and i-C15:0 DMA (0.6%) represents a distinctive trait of this strain, because these compounds are rarely found in Desulfovibrio species [31]. A comparison of the fatty acid profiles of D. baarsii and various Gram-negative sulfate-reducers by cluster analysis indicated a separate position of D. baarsii [31], corroborating the distinct phylogenetic position of the species as shown based on the 16S rRNA sequence analysis (Figure 1). Unfortunately, besides the cellular fatty acid composition no further chemotaxonomic data are available for this species.

Genome sequencing and annotation

Genome project history

This organism was selected for sequencing on the basis of its phylogenetic position [32], and is part of the Genomic Encyclopedia of Bacteria and Archaea project [33]. The genome project is deposited in the Genome OnLine Database [16] 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

Two 454 pyrosequence libraries, standard and pairs end (13 kb insert size) and one Illumina standard library

MIGS-29

Sequencing platforms

454 Titanium, Illumina GAii

MIGS-31.2

Sequencing coverage

43.1 × 454 Titanium; 73.2 × Illumina

MIGS-30

Assemblers

Newbler, Velvet, phrap

MIGS-32

Gene calling method

Prodigal

 

INSDC ID

CP002085

 

GenBank Date of Release

August 6, 2010

 

GOLD ID

Gc01335

 

NCBI project ID

37955

 

Database: IMG-GEBA

2502957037

MIGS-13

Source material identifier

DSM 2075

 

Project relevance

GEBA

Growth conditions and DNA isolation

D. baarsii, strain 2st14T, DSM 2075, was grown anaerobically in DSMZ medium 208 (Desulfovibrio baarsii medium) [34] at 37°C. DNA was isolated from 0.5–1 g of cell paste using Jetflex Genomic DNA Purification Kit (GENOMED 600100) following the manufacturer’s instructions, but with 30 min incubation at 58°C with an additional 10 µl proteinase K for cell lysis.

Genome sequencing and assembly

The genome of 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 [35]. Pyrosequencing reads were assembled using the Newbler assembler version 2.1-PreRelease-4-28-2009-gcc-3.4.6-threads (Roche). The initial Newbler assembly consisted of 42 contigs in two scaffolds and was converted into a phrap assembly by making fake reads from the consensus, collecting the read pairs in the 454 paired end library. Illumina GAii sequencing data (267.7Mb) were assembled with Velvet [36] and the consensus sequences were shredded into 1.5 kb overlapped fake reads and assembled together with the 454 data. The 454 draft assembly was based on 157.7 Mb 454 draft 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 [37] was used for sequence assembly and quality assessment in the following finishing process: After the shotgun stage, reads were assembled with parallel phrap (High Performance Software, LLC). Possible mis-assemblies were corrected with gapResolution [35], Dupfinisher, or sequencing cloned bridging PCR fragments with subcloning or transposon bombing (Epicentre Biotechnologies, Madison, WI) [38]. Gaps between contigs were closed by editing in Consed, by PCR and by Bubble PCR primer walks (J.-F.Chang, unpublished). A total of 344 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 [39]. 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 116.3 × coverage of the genome. Final assembly contained 431,804 pyrosequence and 7,436,430 Illumina reads.

Genome annotation

Genes were identified using Prodigal [40] as part of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory genome annotation pipeline, followed by a round of manual curation using the JGI GenePRIMP pipeline [41]. The predicted CDSs were translated and used to search the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) nonredundant database, UniProt, TIGR-Fam, Pfam, PRIAM, KEGG, COG, and InterPro databases. Additional gene prediction analysis and functional annotation was performed within the Integrated Microbial Genomes - Expert Review platform [42].

Genome properties

The genome is 3,655,731 bp long and comprises one main circular chromosome with an overall GC content of 65.7% (Table 3 and Figure 3). Of the 3,355 genes predicted, 3,303 were protein-coding genes, and 52 RNAs; 26 pseudogenes were also identified. The majority of the protein-coding genes (73.4%) were assigned a putative function while those remaining 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)

3,655,731

100.00%

DNA coding region (bp)

3,313,356

90.63%

DNA G+C content (bp)

2,401,943

65.70%

Number of replicons

1

 

Extrachromosomal elements

0

 

Total genes

3,355

100.00%

RNA genes

52

1.55%

rRNA operons

1

 

Protein-coding genes

3,303

98.45%

Pseudo genes

26

0.77%

Genes with function prediction

2,463

73.41%

Genes in paralog clusters

481

14.34%

Genes assigned to COGs

2,466

73.50%

Genes assigned Pfam domains

2,613

77.88%

Genes with signal peptides

686

20.45%

Genes with transmembrane helices

768

22.89%

CRISPR repeats

3

 
Table 4.

Number of genes associated with the general COG functional categories

Code

value

%age

Description

J

155

5.7

Translation, ribosomal structure and biogenesis

A

1

0.0

RNA processing and modification

K

137

5.0

Transcription

L

109

4.0

Replication, recombination and repair

B

3

0.1

Chromatin structure and dynamics

D

32

1.2

Cell cycle control, cell division, chromosome partitioning

Y

0

0.0

Nuclear structure

V

39

1.4

Defense mechanisms

T

260

9.6

Signal transduction mechanisms

M

210

7.7

Cell wall/membrane biogenesis

N

103

3.8

Cell motility

Z

0

0.0

Cytoskeleton

W

0

0.0

Extracellular structures

U

74

2.7

Intracellular trafficking and secretion, and vesicular transport

O

84

3.1

Posttranslational modification, protein turnover, chaperones

C

228

8.4

Energy production and conversion

G

89

3.3

Carbohydrate transport and metabolism

E

180

6.6

Amino acid transport and metabolism

F

62

2.3

Nucleotide transport and metabolism

H

149

5.5

Coenzyme transport and metabolism

I

130

4.9

Lipid transport and metabolism

P

124

4.6

Inorganic ion transport and metabolism

Q

56

2.1

Secondary metabolites biosynthesis, transport and catabolism

R

312

11.5

General function prediction only

S

182

6.7

Function unknown

-

889

26.5

Not in COGs

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We would like to gratefully acknowledge the help of Maren Schröder (DSMZ) for growing cultures of D. baarsii. 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. German Research Foundation (DFG) supported DSMZ under INST 599/1-2.

Authors’ Affiliations

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

References

  1. Jørgensen BB. Mineralization of organic matter in the sea bed — the role of sulphate reduction. Nature 1982; 296:643–645. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/296643a0View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Strittmatter AW, Liesegang H, Rabus R, Decker I, Amann J, Sönke A, Henna A, Fricke WF, Martinez-Arias R, Bartels D, et al. Genome sequence of Desulfobacterium autotrophicum HRM2, a marine sulfate reducer oxidizing organic carbon completely to carbon dioxide. Environ Microbiol 2009; 11:1038–1055. PubMed doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2008.01825.xPubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Spring S, Lapidus A, Schröder M, Gleim D, Sims D, Meincke L, Glavina Del Rio T, Tice H, Copeland A, Cheng JF, et al. Complete genome sequence of Desulfotomaculum acetoxidans type strain (5575T). Stand Genomic Sci 2009; 1:242–253. doi:https://doi.org/10.4056/sigs.39508PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Klenk HP, Clayton RA, Tomb JF, White O, Nelson KE, Ketchum KA, Dodson RJ, Gwinn M, Hickey EK, Peterson JD, et al. The complete genome sequence of the hyperthermophilic, sulphate-reducing archaeon Archaeoglobus fulgidus. Nature 1997; 390:364–370. PubMed doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/37052View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Widdel F. Anaerober Abbau von Fettsäuren und Benzoesäure durch neu isolierte Arten Sulfatreduzierender Bakterien. Dissertation. GeorgAugust-Universität zu Göttingen, Göttingen 1980.Google Scholar
  6. Validation of the publication of new names and new combinations previously effectively published outside the IJSB. Validation List no. 7. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1981; 31:382–383. doi:https://doi.org/10.1099/00207713-313-382
  7. Kuever J, Rainey FA, Widdel F. Genus I. Desulfarculus gen. nov. In: DJ Brenner, NR Krieg, JT Staley and GM Garrity (eds), Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, second edition, vol. 2 (The Proteobacteria), part C (The Alpha-, Beta-, Delta-, and Epsilonproteobacteria), Springer, New York, 2005, p. 1004–1005.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Jansen K, Thauer RK, Widdel F, Fuchs G. Carbon assimilation pathways in sulfate reducing bacteria. Formate, carbondioxide, carbon monoxide, and acetate by Desulfovibrio baarsii. Arch Microbiol 1984; 138:257–262. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00402132View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Chun J, Lee JH, Jung Y, Kim M, Kim S, Kim BK, Lim YW. EzTaxon: a web-based tool for the identification of prokaryotes based on 16S ribosomal RNA gene sequences. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2007; 57:2259–2261. PubMed doi:https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.64915-0View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Xu K, Liu H, Li X, Chen J, Wang A. Typical methanogenic inhibitors can considerably alter bacterial populations and affect the intereaction between fatty acid degraders and homoacetogens. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2010; 87:2267–2279. PubMed doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-010-2708-yView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. DeSantis TZ, Hugenholtz P, Larsen N, Rojas M, Brodie EL, Keller K, Huber T, Dalevi D, Hu P, Andersen GL. Greengenes, a chimera-checked 16S rRNA gene database and workbench compatible with ARB. Appl Environ Microbiol 2006; 72:5069–5072. PubMed doi:https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.03006-05PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Lee C, Grasso C, Sharlow MF. Multiple sequence alignment using partial order graphs. Bioinformatics 2002; 18:452–464. PubMed doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/18.3.452View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Stamatakis A, Hoover P, Rougemont J. A rapid bootstrap algorithm for the RAxML Web servers. Syst Biol 2008; 57:758–771. PubMed doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150802429642View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02008-7_13View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Liolios K, Chen IM, Mavromatis K, Tavernarakis N, Hugenholtz P, Markowitz VM, Kyrpides NC. The Genomes On Line Database (GOLD) in 2009: status of genomic and metagenomic projects and their associated metadata. Nucleic Acids Res 2009; 38:D346–D354. PubMed doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkp848PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. McInerney MJ, Rohlin L, Mouttaki H, Kim U, Krupp RS, Rios-Hernandez L, Sieber J, Struchtemeyer CG, Bhattacharyya A, Campbell JW, Gunsalus RP. The genome of Syntrophus aciditrophus: life at the thermodynamic limit of microbial growth. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2007; 104:7600–7605. PubMed doi:https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0610456104PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 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:https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1360PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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:https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.87.12.4576PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Validation List No. 107. List of new names and new combinations previously effectively, but not validly, published. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2006; 56:1–6. PubMed doi:https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.64188-0
  22. Kuever J, Rainey FA, Widdel F. Class IV. Deltaproteobacteria class. nov. In: Garrity GM, Brenner DJ, Krieg NR, Staley JT (eds), Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, Second Edition, Volume 2, Part C, Springer, New York, 2005, p. 922.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Kuever J, Rainey FA, Widdel F. Order IV. Desulfarcales ord. nov. In: Garrity GM, Brenner DJ, Krieg NR, Staley JT (eds), Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, Second Edition, Volume 2, Part C, Springer, New York, 2005, p. 1003.Google Scholar
  24. Kuever J, Rainey FA, Widdel F. Family I. Desulfarculaceae fam. nov. In: Garrity GM, Brenner DJ, Krieg NR, Staley JT (eds), Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, Second Edition, Volume 2, Part C, Springer, New York, 2005, p. 1003.Google Scholar
  25. Classification of bacteria and archaea in risk groups. http://www.baua.de TRBA 466.
  26. 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:https://doi.org/10.1038/75556PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Schauder R, Eikmanns B, Thauer RK, Widdel F, Fuchs G. Acetate oxidation to CO2 in anaerobic bacteria via a novel pathway not involving reactions of the citric acid cycle. Arch Microbiol 1986; 145:162–172. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00446775View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Pianzzola MJ, Soubes M, Touati D. Overproduction of the rbo gene product from Desulfovibrio species suppresses all deleterious effects of lack of superoxide dismutase in Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol 1996; 178:6736–6742. PubMedPubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Lumppio HL, Shenvi NV, Summers AO, Voordouw G, Kurtz DM, Jr. Rubrerythrin and rubredoxin oxidoreductase in Desulfovibrio vulgaris: a novel oxidative stress protection system. J Bacteriol 2001; 183:101–108. PubMed doi:https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.183.1.101-108.2001PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Lombard M, Fontecave M, Touati D, Niviere V. Reaction of the desulfoferrodoxin from Desulfoarculus baarsii with superoxide anion. Evidence for a superoxide reductase activity. J Biol Chem 2000; 275:115–121. PubMed doi:https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.275.1.115View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Vainshtein M, Hippe H, Kroppenstedt RM. Cellular fatty acid composition of Desulfovibrio species and its use in classification of sulfate-reducing bacteria. Syst Appl Microbiol 1992; 15:554–566.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Klenk HP, Göker M. En route to a genome-based classification of Archaea and Bacteria? Syst Appl Microbiol 2010; 33:175–182. PubMed doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.syapm.2010.03.003View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Wu D, Hugenholtz P, Mavromatis K, Pukall R, Dalin E, Ivanova N, Kunin V, Goodwin L, Wu M, Tindall BJ, et al. A phylogeny-driven genomic encyclopedia of Bacteria and Archaea. Nature 2009; 462:1056–1060. PubMed doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08656PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. List of growth media used at DSMZ: http://www.dsmz.de/microorganisms/media_list.php
  35. DOE Joint Genome Institute. http://www.jgi.doe.gov
  36. Zerbino DR, Birney E. Velvet: algorithms for de novo short read assembly using de Bruijn graphs. Genome Res 2008; 18:821–829. PubMed doi:https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.074492.107PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Phrap and Phred for Windows, MacOS, Linux, and Unix. http://www.phrap.com
  38. Sims D, Brettin T, Detter JC, 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:https://doi.org/10.4056/sigs.761PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 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
  40. 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 doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-11-119PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 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; 7:455–457. PubMed doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.1457View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 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:https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp393View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2010