Open Access

Non-contiguous finished genome sequence of Aminomonas paucivorans type strain (GLU-3T)

  • Sam Pitluck1,
  • Montri Yasawong2,
  • Brittany Held1, 3,
  • Alla Lapidus1,
  • Matt Nolan1,
  • Alex Copeland1,
  • Susan Lucas1,
  • Tijana Glavina Del Rio1,
  • Hope Tice1,
  • Jan-Fang Cheng1,
  • Olga Chertkov1, 3,
  • Lynne Goodwin1, 3,
  • Roxane Tapia1, 3,
  • Cliff Han1, 3,
  • Konstantinos Liolios1,
  • Natalia Ivanova1,
  • Konstantinos Mavromatis1,
  • Galina Ovchinnikova1,
  • Amrita Pati1,
  • Amy Chen4,
  • Krishna Palaniappan4,
  • Miriam Land1, 5,
  • Loren Hauser1, 5,
  • Yun-Juan Chang1, 5,
  • Cynthia D. Jeffries1, 5,
  • Rüdiger Pukall6,
  • Stefan Spring6,
  • Manfred Rohde2,
  • Johannes Sikorski6,
  • Markus Göker6,
  • Tanja Woyke1,
  • James Bristow1,
  • Jonathan A. Eisen1, 7,
  • Victor Markowitz4,
  • Philip Hugenholtz1,
  • Nikos C. Kyrpides1 and
  • Hans-Peter Klenk6
Standards in Genomic Sciences20103:3030285

https://doi.org/10.4056/sigs.1253298

Published: 31 December 2010

Abstract

Aminomonas paucivorans Baena et al. 1999 is the type species of the genus Aminomonas, which belongs to the family Synergistaceae. The species is of interest because it is an asaccharolytic chemoorganotrophic bacterium which ferments quite a number of amino acids. This is the first finished genome sequence (with one gap in a rDNA region) of a member of the genus Aminomonas and the third sequence from the family Synergistaceae. The 2,630,120 bp long genome with its 2,433 protein-coding and 61 RNA genes is a part of the Genomic Encyclopedia of Bacteria and Archaea project.

Keywords

strictly anaerobic obligate amino-acid-degrading Gram-negative nonmotile asaccharolytic mesophilic chemoorganotrophic Synergistaceae Synergistetes GEBA

Introduction

Strain GLU-3T (= DSM 12260 = ATCC BAA-6) is the type strain of the species Aminomonas paucivorans, which in turn is the type and only species of the genus Aminomonas [1,2]. The generic name derives from the Latin word ‘aminum’ meaning ‘amine’ and the Greek word ‘monas’ meaning ‘a unit or monad’, referring to amine-degrading monads [2]. The species epithet is derived from the Latin word ‘paucus’ meaning ‘few or little’ and the Latin word ‘vorans’ meaning ‘digesting’, referring to digesting little [2]. Strain GLU-3T was isolated from anaerobic sludge of a dairy wastewater treatment plant in SantaFe de Bogota, Colombia [2]. So far, no further isolates have been obtained for A. paucivorans. Here we present a summary classification and a set of features for A. paucivorans GLU-3T, together with the description of the non-contiguous finished genomic sequencing and annotation.

Classification and features

The 16S rRNA gene of A. paucivorans GLU-3T shares 96% sequence identity with that of the type strain of Thermanaerovibrio acidaminovorans, which was isolated from an upflow anaerobic sludge bed reactor of a sugar refinery, Breda, the Netherlands [3] (Figure 1), and 82.2-96.4% sequence identity with the type strains from the other members of the family Synergistaceae [11]. The sequences of four marine metagenomic clones in the env_nt database, 1096626071844 (AACY020063505), 1096626840052 (AACY020539193), 1096626748225 (AACY020105546) and 1096626774924 (AACY020274567) share 96% sequence identity with A. paucivorans GLU-3T (as of October 2010). A representative genomic 16S rRNA sequence of A. paucivorans was compared using NCBI BLAST under default values with the most recent release of the Greengenes database [12] and the relative frequencies of taxa and keywords, weighted by BLAST scores, were determined. The four most frequent genera were Thermanaerovibrio (65.5%), Aminomonas (18.0%), Anaerobaculum (9.0%) and Aminiphilus (7.6%). The species yielding the highest score was T. acidaminovorans. The five most frequent keywords within the labels of environmental samples which yielded hits were ‘anaerobic’ (7.2%), ‘sludge’ (6.9%), ‘wastewater’ (6.8%), ‘municipal’ (6.8%) and ‘digester’ (6.7%). These keywords corroborate the physiological and ecological features on strain GLU-3T as depicted in the original description [2].The single most frequent keyword within the labels of environmental samples which yielded hits of a higher score than the highest scoring species was ‘harbor/sediment’ (50.0%).
Figure 1.

Phylogenetic tree highlighting the position of A. paucivorans GLU-3T relative to the other type strains within the family Synergistaceae. The tree was inferred from 1,347 aligned characters [4,5] of the 16S rRNA gene sequence under the maximum likelihood criterion [6] 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 [7] if larger than 60%. Lineages with type strain genome sequencing projects registered in GOLD [8] are shown in blue, published genomes in bold [3,9,10].

Figure 1 shows the phylogenetic neighborhood of A. paucivorans GLU-3T in a 16S rRNA based tree. The sequences of the three 16S rRNA gene copies in the genome of A. paucivorans differ from each other by up to one nucleotide, and differ by up to eleven nucleotides from the previously published 16S rRNA sequence (AF072581), which contains 59 ambiguous base calls (ambiguous bases not count as differences).

Genome sequencing and annotation

Genome project history

This organism was selected for sequencing on the basis of its phylogenetic position [18], and is part of the Genomic Encyclopedia of Bacteria and Archaea project [19]. The genome project is deposited in the Genome OnLine Database [8,20] and the non-contiguous finished genome sequence has been deposited in DDBJ/EMBL/GenBank under the accession AEIV00000000. The version described in this paper is the first version, AEIV01000000. Sequencing, finishing and annotation were performed by the DOE Joint Genome Institute (JGI). A summary of the project information is shown in Table 2.

A. paucivorans GLU-3T is described as Gram-negative, slightly curved, rod-shaped bacterium (0.3 × 4.0–6.0 µm), which occurs singly or in pairs (Figure 2 and Table 1). Colonies of strain GLU-3T are round, smooth and white, with a diameter up to 1 mm [2]. Strain GLU-3T does not produce endospores [2]. The organism does not have flagella and motility is not observed [2], although plenty of motility genes are present in the genome. Strain GLU-3T is a strictly anaerobic, mesophilic, chemoorganotrophic and asaccharolytic bacterium [2]. The temperature range for growth is 20–40°C, with an optimum at 35°C [2]. The pH range for growth is 6.7–8.3, with an optimum at 7.5 [2]. The organism does not require NaCl for growth but tolerates up to 2.0% [2]. The optimum growth occurs in media with 0.05–0.5% of NaCl [2]. The species requires yeast extract for growth [2]. The organism is able to ferment arginine, histidine, glutamine, threonine, and glycine [2]. Arginine is fermented to acetate, formate and ornithine [2]. Histidine is fermented to acetate and formate [2]. Glutamate is fermented to acetate, formate and trace amounts of propionate [2]. Threonine and glycine are fermented to acetate [2]. Casamino acid, peptone and cysteine are only poorly used by the strain GLU-3T, and acetate is the end-product of the amino acid metabolism [2]. A mixed culture of strain GLU-3T and Methanobacterium formicicum does not extend the range of substrate utilization [2], as is observed for, e.g., Aminobacterium colombiense - [9]. Methane is not detectable in mixed cultures, when grown in glycine and threonine [2], however, the end-product profiles are the same as in pure culture [2]. The major end-product is shifted from acetate to propionate, when strain GLU-3T was grown together with M. formicicum on arginine, histidine and glutamate [2]. Ornithine is not accumulated during arginine degradation in mixed culture [2]. Strain GLU-3T does not degrade alanine and branched-chain amino acids, valine, leucine and isoleucine either in pure culture or in syntrophic growth with M. formicicum [2]. Also, the range of amino acid utilization is not increased in co-culture with M. formicicum [2]. Strain GLU-3T does not grow on carbohydrates, gelatin, casein, pyruvate, succinate, malate, fumarate, α-ketoglutarate, mesaconate, β-methylaspartate, oxaloacetate, glycerol, ethanol, acetate, propionate, butyrate, lactate, citrate, leucine, lysine, alanine, valine, proline, serine, methionine, asparagines, phenylalanine and aspartate [2]. The organism does not utilize sulfate, thiosulfate, elemental sulfur, sulfite, nitrate and fumarate as electron acceptors [2].
Figure 2.

Scanning electron micrograph of A. paucivorans GLU-3T

Chemotaxonomy

No chemotaxonomic data are currently available for A. paucivorans or for other members of the genus Aminomonas.
Table 1.

Classification and general features of A. paucivorans GLU-3T according to the MIGS recommendations [13].

MIGS ID

Property

Term

Evidence code

 

Current classification

Domain Bacteria

TAS [14]

 

Phylum “Synergistetes

TAS [15]

 

Class Synergistia

TAS [15]

 

Order Synergistales

TAS [15]

 

Family Synergistaceae

TAS [15]

 

Genus Aminomonas

TAS [2]

 

Species Aminomonas paucivorans

TAS [2]

 

Type strain GLU-3

TAS [2]

 

Gram stain

negative

TAS [2]

 

Cell shape

slightly curved rods occurring singly or in pairs

TAS [2]

 

Motility

none

TAS [2]

 

Sporulation

none

TAS [2]

 

Temperature range

20°C–40°C

TAS [2]

 

Optimum temperature

35°C

TAS [2]

 

Salinity

0–2% NaCl (optimum 0.05–0.50%)

TAS [2]

MIGS-22

Oxygen requirement

strictly anaerobic

TAS [2]

 

Carbon source

amino acids

TAS [2]

 

Energy source

chemoorganotroph

TAS [2]

MIGS-6

Habitat

wastewater

TAS [2]

MIGS-15

Biotic relationship

free-living

NAS

MIGS-14

Pathogenicity

none

NAS

 

Biosafety level

1

TAS [16]

 

Isolation

anaerobic sludge of a dairy wastewater treatment plant

TAS [2]

MIGS-4

Geographic location

SantaFe de Bogota, Colombia

TAS [2]

MIGS-5

Sample collection time

1996

NAS

MIGS-4.1

Latitude

4.60

NAS

MIGS-4.2

Longitude

74.08

NAS

MIGS-4.3

Depth

not reported

 

MIGS-4.4

Altitude

2620 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 [17]. If the evidence code is IDA, then the property was directly observed by one of the authors or an expert mentioned in the acknowledgements.

Table 2.

Genome sequencing project information

MIGS ID

Property

Term

MIGS-31

Finishing quality

Non-contiguous finished

MIGS-28

Libraries used

Three genomic libraries: one 454 pyrosequence standard library, 454 PE library (12 kb insert size), one Illumina standard library

MIGS-29

Sequencing platforms

454 GS FLX Titanium, Illumina GAii

MIGS-31.2

Sequencing coverage

202.0 × Illumina; 72.4 × pyrosequence

MIGS-30

Assemblers

Newbler version 2.0.00.20-PostRelease-11-05-2008-gcc-3.4.6, phrap

MIGS-32

Gene calling method

Prodigal 1.4, GenePRIMP

 

INSDC ID

CM001022, AEIV00000000

 

Genbank Date of Release

November 2, 2010

 

GOLD ID

Gi02542

 

NCBI project ID

33371

 

Database: IMG-GEBA

2502790015

MIGS-13

Source material identifier

DSM 12260

 

Project relevance

Tree of Life, GEBA

Growth conditions and DNA isolation

A. paucivorans GLU-3T, DSM 12260, was grown anaerobically in DSMZ medium 846 (Anaerobic Serine/Arginine medium) [21] at 37°C. DNA was isolated from 0.5–1 g of cell paste using the MasterPure Gram-positive DNA purification kit (Epicentre MGP04100) following the standard protocol as recommended by the manufacturer, with modification st/LALM for cell lysis as described in Wu et al. [19].

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 [22]. Pyrosequencing reads were assembled using the Newbler assembler version 2.0.00.20-PostRelease-11-05-2008-gcc-3.4.6 (Roche). The initial Newbler assembly consisted of 126 contigs in 103 scaffolds and was converted into a phrap assembly by making fake reads from the consensus for collecting the read pairs in the 454 paired end library. Illumina GAii sequencing data (525.3 Mb) was assembled with Velvet [23] 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 190.7 Mb 454 draft data and all of the 454 paired end data. Newbler parameters were -consed -a 50 -l 350 -g -m -ml 20.

The Phred/Phrap/Consed software package [24] was used for sequence assembly and quality assessment in the subsequent finishing process. After the shotgun stage, reads were assembled with parallel phrap (High Performance Software, LLC). Possible mis-assemblies were corrected with gapResolution (http://www.jgi.doe.gov/), Dupfinisher, or sequencing cloned bridging PCR fragments with subcloning or transposon bombing (Epicentre Biotechnologies, Madison, WI) [25]. Gaps between contigs were closed by editing in Consed, by PCR and by Bubble PCR primer walks (J.-F.Chang, unpublished). A total of 259 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 [26]. 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 274.4× coverage of the genome. The final assembly contained 535, 052 pyrosequences and 15,007,632 Illumina reads.

Genome annotation

Genes were identified using Prodigal [25] as part of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory genome annotation pipeline, followed by a round of manual curation using the JGI GenePRIMP pipeline [26]. 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 (IMG-ER) platform [27].

Genome properties

The genome consists of a 2,630,120 bp long chromosome with an overall GC content of 67.6% (Table 3 and Figure 3). Of the 2,494 genes predicted, 2,433 were protein-coding genes, and 61 RNAs; 34 pseudogenes were also identified. The majority of the protein-coding genes (77.2%) were assigned with 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)

2,630,120

100.00%

DNA Coding region (bp)

2,411,389

91.68%

DNA G+C content (bp)

1,777,554

67.59%

Number of replicons

1

 

Extrachromosomal elements

0

 

Total genes

2,494

100.00%

RNA genes

61

2.45%

rRNA operons

3

 

Protein-coding genes

2,433

97.55%

Pseudo genes

34

1.36%

Genes with function prediction

1,926

77.23%

Genes in paralog clusters

338

13.55%

Genes assigned to COGs

1,988

79.71%

Genes assigned Pfam domains

2,047

82.08%

Genes with signal peptides

446

17.88%

Genes with transmembrane helices

588

23.58%

CRISPR repeats

4

 
Table 4.

Number of genes associated with the general COG functional categories

Code

value

%age

Description

J

158

7.2

Translation, ribosomal structure and biogenesis

A

0

0.0

RNA processing and modification

K

138

6.3

Transcription

L

107

4.9

Replication, recombination and repair

B

0

0.0

Chromatin structure and dynamics

D

29

1.3

Cell cycle control, cell division, chromosome partitioning

Y

0

0.0

Nuclear structure

V

33

1.5

Defense mechanisms

T

154

7.0

Signal transduction mechanisms

M

123

5.6

Cell wall/membrane/envelope biogenesis

N

90

4.1

Cell motility

Z

0

0.0

Cytoskeleton

W

0

0.0

Extracellular structures

U

48

2.2

Intracellular trafficking, secretion, and vesicular transport

O

64

2.9

Posttranslational modification, protein turnover, chaperones

C

161

7.3

Energy production and conversion

G

104

4.7

Carbohydrate transport and metabolism

E

251

11.4

Amino acid transport and metabolism

F

71

3.2

Nucleotide transport and metabolism

H

111

5.0

Coenzyme transport and metabolism

I

35

1.6

Lipid transport and metabolism

P

102

4.6

Inorganic ion transport and metabolism

Q

25

1.1

Secondary metabolites biosynthesis, transport and catabolism

R

236

10.7

General function prediction only

S

166

7.5

Function unknown

-

506

20.3

Not in COGs

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We would like to gratefully acknowledge the help of Katja Steenblock for growing A. paucivorans cultures and Susanne Schneider for DNA extraction and quality analysis (both at DSMZ). 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 and Thailand Research Fund Royal Golden Jubilee Ph.D. Program No. PHD/0019/2548 for MY.

Authors’ Affiliations

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

References

  1. Garrity G. NamesforLife. BrowserTool takes expertise out of the database and puts it right in the browser. Microbiol Today 2010; 37:9.Google Scholar
  2. Baena S, Fardeau ML, Ollivier B, Labat M, Thomas P, Garcia JL, Patel BK. Aminomonas paucivorans gen. nov., sp. nov., a mesophilic, anaerobic, amino-acid-utilizing bacterium. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1999; 49:975–982. PubMed doi:https://doi.org/10.1099/00207713-49-3-975View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Chovatia M, Sikorski J, Schröder M, Lapidus A, Nolan M, Tice H, Glavina Del Rio T, Copeland A, Cheng JF, Lucas S, et al. Complete genome sequence of Thermanaerovibrio acidaminovorans type strain (Su883T). Stand Genomic Sci 2009; 1:254–261. doi:https://doi.org/10.4056/sigs.40645PubMed 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:https://doi.org/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:https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150802429642View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. Chertkov O, Sikorski J, Brambilla E, Lapidus A, Copeland A, Glavina Del Rio T, Nolan M, Lucas S, Tice H, Cheng JF, et al. Complete genome sequence of Aminobacterium colombiense type strain (ALA-1T). Stand Genomic Sci 2010; 2:280–289. doi:https://doi.org/10.4056/sigs.902116PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. LaButti K, Mayilraj S, Clum A, Lucas S, Glavina Del Rio T, Nolan M, Tice H, Cheng JF, Pitluck S, Liolios K, et al. Permanent draft genome sequence of Dethiosulfovibrio peptidovorans type strain (SEBR 4207T). Stand Genomic Sci 2010; 3:85–92. doi:https://doi.org/10.4056/sigs.1092865PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. Jumas-Bilak E, Roudiere L, Marchandin H. Description of ‘Synergistetes’ phyl. nov. and emended description of the phylum ‘Deferribacteres’ and of the family Syntrophomonadaceae, phylum ‘Firmicutes’. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2009; 59:1028–1035. PubMed doi:https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.006718-0View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Biological Agents. Classification of Bacteria and Archaea in risk groups. www.baua.de TRBA 466
  17. 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
  18. Klenk HP, Goeker M. En route to a genome-based classification of Archaea and Bacteria? Syst Appl Microbiol 2010; 33:1 75–182. PubMed doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.syapm.2010.03.003Google Scholar
  19. 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:https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08656PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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:https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkm884PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. List of growth media used at DSMZ: http://www.dsmz.de/microorganisms/media_list.php.
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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