Open Access

Complete genome sequence of Bacteroides salanitronis type strain (BL78T)

  • Sabine Gronow1,
  • Brittany Held2, 3,
  • Susan Lucas2,
  • Alla Lapidus2,
  • Tijana Glavina Del Rio2,
  • Matt Nolan2,
  • Hope Tice2,
  • Shweta Deshpande2,
  • Jan-Fang Cheng2,
  • Sam Pitluck2,
  • Konstantinos Liolios2,
  • Ioanna Pagani2,
  • Natalia Ivanova2,
  • Konstantinos Mavromatis2,
  • Amrita Pati2,
  • Roxane Tapia2, 3,
  • Cliff Han2, 3,
  • Lynne Goodwin2, 3,
  • Amy Chen4,
  • Krishna Palaniappan4,
  • Miriam Land2, 5,
  • Loren Hauser2, 5,
  • Yun-Juan Chang2, 5,
  • Cynthia D. Jeffries2, 5,
  • Evelyne-Marie Brambilla1,
  • Manfred Rohde6,
  • Markus Göker1,
  • John C. Detter2, 3,
  • Tanja Woyke2,
  • James Bristow2,
  • Victor Markowitz4,
  • Philip Hugenholtz2, 8,
  • Nikos C. Kyrpides2,
  • Hans-Peter Klenk1 and
  • Jonathan A. Eisen2, 7
Standards in Genomic Sciences20114:4020191

DOI: 10.4056/sigs.1704212

Published: 29 April 2011

Abstract

Bacteroides salanitronis Lan et al. 2006 is a species of the genus Bacteroides, which belongs to the family Bacteroidaceae. The species is of interest because it was isolated from the gut of a chicken and the growing awareness that the anaerobic microflora of the cecum is of benefit for the host and may impact poultry farming. The 4,308,663 bp long genome consists of a 4.24 Mbp chromosome and three plasmids (6 kbp, 19 kbp, 40 kbp) containing 3,737 protein-coding and 101 RNA genes and is a part of the Genomic Encyclopedia of Bacteria and Archaea project.

Keywords

strictly anaerobic non-motile rod-shaped Gram-negative mesophilic cecum poultry chemoorganotrophic Bacteroidaceae GEBA

Introduction

Strain BL78T (= DSM 18170 = CCUG 54637 = JCM 13657) is the type strain of Bacteroides salanitronis which belongs to the large genus Bacteroides [1,2]. Currently, there are 88 species placed in the genus Bacteroides. The species epithet is derived from the name of Joseph P. Salanitro, an American microbiologist. B. salanitronis strain BL78T was isolated among other Bacteroides strains from the cecum of a healthy chicken. No other strain belonging to the same species has been identified [2]. Many Bacteroides species are common inhabitants of the intestine where they help to degrade complex molecules such as polysaccharides or transform steroids [3,4]. They also play a role as beneficent protectors of the gut against pathogenic microorganisms [5]. Here we present a summary classification and a set of features for B. salanitronis BL78T, together with the description of the complete genomic sequencing and annotation.

Classification and features

A representative genomic 16S rRNA sequence of strain BL78T was compared using NCBI BLAST under default settings (e.g., considering only the high-scoring segment pairs (HSPs) from the best 250 hits) with the most recent release of the Greengenes database [6] and the relative frequencies, weighted by BLAST scores, of taxa and keywords (reduced to their stem [7]) were determined. The single most frequent genus was Bacteroides (100.0%) (1 hit in total). Regarding the single hit to sequences from members of the species, the average identity within HSPs was 99.7%, whereas the average coverage by HSPs was 96.2%. No hits to sequences with (other) species names were found. The highest-scoring environmental sequence was DQ456041 (‘pre-adolescent turkey cecum clone CFT112F11’), which showed an identity of 96.8% and an HSP coverage of 63.9%. The five most frequent keywords within the labels of environmental samples which yielded hits were ‘fecal’ (9.3%), ‘microbiota’ (7.5%), ‘human’ (7.1%), ‘antibiot, effect, gut, pervas’ (7.1%) and ‘anim, beef, cattl, coli, escherichia, feedlot, habitat, synecolog’ (2.2%) (249 hits in total).

Figure 1 shows the phylogenetic neighborhood of B. salanitronis in a 16S rRNA based tree. The sequences of the six 16S rRNA gene copies in the genome differ from each other by up to 26 nucleotides, and differ by up to 26 nucleotides from the previously published 16S rRNA sequence (AB253731).
Figure 1.

Phylogenetic tree highlighting the position of V. tubiashii NCIMB 1337 relative to other Vibrio strains. The tree was inferred from 1,159 aligned characters of the 16S rRNA gene sequence under the neighborhood joining criterion. Numbers above the branches are support values from 1,000 bootstrap replicates if greater than 60%.

The cells of B. salanitronis are generally rod-shaped (0.4–0.7 × 0.8–5.6 µm) with rounded ends (Figure 2). The cells are usually arranged singly or in pairs [2]. B. salanitronis is a Gram-negative, non-spore-forming bacterium (Table 1) that is described as non-motile, with only five genes associated with motility having been found in the genome (see below). The temperature optimum for strain BL78T is 37°C. B. salanitronis is a strictly anaerobic chemoorganotroph and is able to ferment glucose, mannose, sucrose, maltose, arabinose, cellobiose, lactose, xylose and raffinose [2]. The organism hydrolyzes esculin but does not liquefy gelatin, and neither reduces nitrate nor produces indole from tryptophan [2]. B. salanitronis does not utilize trehalose, glycerol, mannitol, sorbitol or melezitose; rhamnose and salicin are fermented weakly [2]. Growth is possible in the presence of bile [2]. Major fermentation products from broth (1% peptone, 1% yeast extract, and 1% glucose each (w/v)) are acetic acid and succinic acid, whereas isovaleric acid is produced in small amounts [2]. B. salanitronis shows activity for alkaline phosphatase, α- and β-galactosidases, α- and β-glucosidases, α-arabinosidase, leucyl glycine arylamidase, alanine arylamidase and glutamyl glutamic acid arylamidase but no activity for urease, catalase, glutamic acid decarboxylase, arginine dihydrolase, β-galactosidase 6-phosphate, β-glucuronidase, N-acetyl-β-glucosaminidase, α-fucosidase and arginine, proline, leucine, phenylalanine, pyroglutamic acid, tyrosine, glycine, histidine and serine arylamidase [2].
Figure 2.

Scanning electron micrograph of B. salanitronis BL78T

Table 1

Classification and general features of B. salanitronis BL78T according to the MIGS recommendations [16].

MIGS ID

Property

Term

Evidence code

 

Current classification

Domain Bacteria

TAS [17]

 

Phylum ‘Bacteroidetes

TAS [18]

 

Class ‘Bacteroidia

TAS [19]

 

Order ‘Bacteroidales

TAS [20]

 

Family Bacteroidaceae

TAS [21,22]

 

Genus Bacteroides

TAS [21,2326]

 

Species Bacteroides salanitronis

TAS [2]

 

Type strain BL78

TAS [2]

 

Gram stain

negative

TAS [2]

 

Cell shape

rod-shaped

TAS [2]

 

Motility

non-motile

TAS [2]

 

Sporulation

none

TAS [2]

 

Temperature range

mesophile

TAS [2]

 

Optimum temperature

37°C

TAS [2]

 

Salinity

normal

NAS

MIGS-22

Oxygen requirement

strictly anaerobic

TAS [2]

 

Carbon source

carbohydrates

TAS [2]

 

Energy metabolism

chemoorganotroph

TAS [2]

MIGS-6

Habitat

chicken

TAS [2]

MIGS-15

Biotic relationship

free-living

NAS

MIGS-14

Pathogenicity

none

NAS

 

Biosafety level

1

TAS [27]

 

Isolation

chicken cecum

TAS [2]

MIGS-4

Geographic location

Japan

TAS [2]

MIGS-5

Sample collection time

November 2005

IDA

MIGS-4.1

Latitude

not reported

 

MIGS-4.2

Longitude

not reported

 

MIGS-4.3

Depth

not reported

 

MIGS-4.4

Altitude

not reported

 

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 [28]. 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

B. salanitronis strain BL78T contains menaquinones MK-11 and MK-12 as principal respiratory quinones (43% each), small amounts of MK-10 (5%) and MK-13 (7%) are found as minor components [2]. The major fatty acids found were anteiso-C15:0 (32%), iso-C15:0 (14%), 3-hydroxy C16:0 (12%) and 3-hydroxy iso-C17:0 (10%). Fatty acids C14:0 (4%), C15:0 (2%), C16:0 (8%), C18:1 (2%), C18:2 (2%) and iso-C14:0 (2%) were found in minor amounts [2].

Genome sequencing and annotation

Genome project history

This organism was selected for sequencing on the basis of its phylogenetic position [29], and is part of the Genomic Encyclopedia of Bacteria and Archaea project [30]. The genome project is deposited in the Genomes On Line Database [31] 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

Three genomic libraries: one 454 pyrosequence standard library, one 454 PE library (7 kb insert size), one Illumina library

MIGS-29

Sequencing platforms

Illumina GAii, 454 GS FLX Titanium

MIGS-31.2

Sequencing coverage

283.0 × Illumina; 37.7 × pyrosequence

MIGS-30

Assemblers

Newbler version 2.3-PreRelease-09-14-2009-bin, Velvet, phrap version SPS 4.24

MIGS-32

Gene calling method

Prodigal 1.4, GenePRIMP

 

INSDC ID

CP002530 (chromosome)

 

CP002531 (plasmid 1)

 

CP002532 (plasmid 2)

 

CP002533 (plasmid 3)

 

Genbank Date of Release

February 28, 2011

 

GOLD ID

Gc001665

 

NCBI project ID

40066

 

Database: IMG-GEBA

2503754023

MIGS-13

Source material identifier

DSM 18170

 

Project relevance

Tree of Life, GEBA

Growth conditions and DNA isolation

B. salanitronis BL78T, DSM 18170, was grown anaerobically in DSMZ medium 104 (Peptone-Yeast extract-Glucose broth) [32] at 37°C. DNA was isolated from 0.5–1 g of cell paste using MasterPure Gram-positive DNA purification kit (Epicentre MGP04100) following the standard protocol as recommended by the manufacturer, adding 20 µL lysozyme (100mg/µl), and 10 µL mutanolysin, achromopeptidase, and lysostaphine, each, for 40 min lysis at 37ºC followed by one hour incubation on ice. DNA is available through the DNA Bank Network [33].

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 [34]. Pyrosequencing reads were assembled using the Newbler assembler version 2.3-PreRelease-09-14-2009-bin (Roche). The initial Newbler assembly consisting of 100 contigs in two scaffolds was converted into a phrap assembly [35] by making fake reads from the consensus, to collect the read pairs in the 454 paired-end library. Illumina GAii sequencing data (920.8 Mb) was assembled with Velvet, version 0.7.63 [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 109.0 Mb of 454 standard 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 [35] 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 [34], Dupfinisher [37], or sequencing cloned bridging PCR fragments with subcloning or transposon bombing (Epicentre Biotechnologies, Madison, WI). Gaps between contigs were closed by editing in Consed, by PCR and by Bubble PCR primer walks (J.-F.Chang, unpublished). A total of 193 additional reactions and four shatter libraries 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 [38]. 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 320.7 × coverage of the genome. The final assembly contained 393,135 pyrosequence and 25,576,764 Illumina reads.

Genome annotation

Genes were identified using Prodigal [39] as part of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory genome annotation pipeline, followed by a round of manual curation using the JGI GenePRIMP pipeline [40]. 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 [41].

Genome properties

The genome consists of a 4,242,803 bp long chromosome with a G+C content of 47%, as well as three plasmids of 6,277 bp, 18,280 bp and 40,303 bp length (Table 3 and Figure 3). Of the 3,838 genes predicted, 3,737 were protein-coding genes, and 101 RNAs; 96 pseudogenes were also identified. The majority of the protein-coding genes (57.3%) 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 chromosome (plasmid maps not shown). 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)

4,308,663

100.00%

DNA coding region (bp)

3,759,354

87.25%

DNA G+C content (bp)

2,003,128

46.49%

Number of replicons

4

 

Extrachromosomal elements

3

 

Total genes

3,838

100.00%

RNA genes

101

2.63%

rRNA operons

6

 

Protein-coding genes

3,737

97.37%

Pseudo genes

96

2.50%

Genes with function prediction

2,200

57.32%

Genes in paralog clusters

876

22.82%

Genes assigned to COGs

2,013

52.45%

Genes assigned Pfam domains

2,269

59.12%

Genes with signal peptides

918

23.92%

Genes with transmembrane helices

794

20.69%

CRISPR repeats

0

 
Table 4.

Number of genes associated with the general COG functional categories

Code

value

%age

Description

J

147

6.8

Translation, ribosomal structure and biogenesis

A

0

0.0

RNA processing and modification

K

143

6.6

Transcription

L

194

9.0

Replication, recombination and repair

B

0

0.0

Chromatin structure and dynamics

D

31

1.4

Cell cycle control, cell division, chromosome partitioning

Y

0

0.0

Nuclear structure

V

63

2.9

Defense mechanisms

T

85

3.9

Signal transduction mechanisms

M

193

8.9

Cell wall/membrane/envelope biogenesis

N

5

0.2

Cell motility

Z

0

0.0

Cytoskeleton

W

0

0.0

Extracellular structures

U

61

2.8

Intracellular trafficking, secretion, and vesicular transport

O

61

2.8

Posttranslational modification, protein turnover, chaperones

C

105

4.9

Energy production and conversion

G

174

8.0

Carbohydrate transport and metabolism

E

134

6.2

Amino acid transport and metabolism

F

68

3.1

Nucleotide transport and metabolism

H

98

4.5

Coenzyme transport and metabolism

I

62

2.9

Lipid transport and metabolism

P

104

4.8

Inorganic ion transport and metabolism

Q

29

1.3

Secondary metabolites biosynthesis, transport and catabolism

R

285

13.2

General function prediction only

S

125

5.8

Function unknown

-

1,825

47.6

Not in COGs

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We would like to gratefully acknowledge the help of Sabine Welnitz (DSMZ) for growing cultures of B. salanitronis. 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)
DOE Joint Genome Institute
(3)
Bioscience Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory
(4)
Biological Data Management and Technology Center, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
(5)
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
(6)
HZI - Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research
(7)
University of California Davis Genome Center
(8)
Australian Centre for Ecogenomics, School of Chemistry and Molecular Biosciences, The University of Queensland

References

  1. Garrity G. NamesforLife. BrowserTool takes expertise out of the database and puts it right in the browser. Microbiol Today 2010; 7:1.Google Scholar
  2. Lan PTN, Sakamoto M, Sakata S, Benno Y. Bacteroides barnesiae sp. nov., Bacteroides salanitronis sp. nov. and Bacteroides gallinarum sp. nov., isolated from chicken caecum. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2006; 56:2853–2859. PubMed doi:10.1099/ijs.0.64517-0View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Comstock LE. Importance of glycans to the hostbacteroides mutualism in the mammalian intestine. Cell Host Microbe 2009; 5:522–526. PubMed doi:10.1016/j.chom.2009.05.010View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bäckhed F, Ley RE, Sonnenburg JL, Peterson DA, Gordon JI. Host-bacterial mutualism in the human intestine. Science 2005; 307:1915–1920. PubMed doi:10.1126/science.1104816View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Hentges DJ. Role of the intestinal flora in host defense against infection. In Human Intestinal Microflora in Health and Disease 1983; pp. 311–331. Edited by D. J. Hentges. New York: Academic Press.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. 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:10.1128/AEM.03006-05PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Porter MF. An algorithm for suffix stripping. Program: electronic library and information systems 1980; 14:130–137.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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:10.1007/978-3-642-02008-7_13View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 2010; 38:D346–D354. PubMed doi:10.1093/nar/gkp848PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Cerdeño-Tárraga AM, Patrick S, Crossman LC, Blakely G, Abratt V, Lennard N, Poxton I, Duerden B, Harris B, Quail MA, et al. Extensive DNA inversions in the B. fragilis genome control variable gene expression. Science 2005; 307:1463–1465. PubMed doi:10.1126/science.1107008View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Xu J, Bjursell MK, Himrod J, Deng S, Carmichael LK, Chiang HC, Hooper LV, Gordon JI. A genomic view of the human Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron symbiosis. Science 2003; 299:2074–2076. PubMed doi:10.1126/science.1080029View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Land M, Held B, Gronow S, Abt B, Lucas S, Glavina Del Rio T, Nolan M, Tice H, Cheng JF, Pitluck S, et al. Non-contiguous finished genome sequence of Bacteroides coprosuis type strain (PC 139T). Stand Genomic Sci 2011; 4
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. Ludwig W, Euzeby J, Whitman WG. Draft taxonomic outline of the Bacteroidetes, Planctomycetes, Chlamydiae, Spirochaetes, Fibrobacteres, Fusobacteria, Acidobacteria, Verrucomicrobia, Dictyoglomi, and Gemmatimonadetes. http://www.bergeys.org/outlines/Bergeys_Vol_4_Outline.pdf. Taxonomic Outline 2008
  20. Garrity GM, Holt JG. 2001. Taxonomic outline of the Archaea and Bacteria, p. 155–166. In G. M. Garrity, D. R. Boone, and R. W. Castenholz (ed.), Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, 2nd ed, vol. 1. Springer, New York.Google Scholar
  21. Skerman VBD, McGowan V, Sneath PHA. Approved Lists of Bacterial Names. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1980; 30:225–420. doi:10.1099/00207713-30-1-225View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Pribram E. Klassification der Schizomyceten. Klassifikation der Schizomyceten (Bakterien), Franz Deuticke, Leipzig, 1933, p. 1–143.Google Scholar
  23. Castellani A, Chalmers AJ. Genus Bacteroides Castellani and Chalmers, 1918. Manual of Tropical Medicine, Third Edition, Williams, Wood and Co., New York, 1919, p. 959–960.Google Scholar
  24. Holdeman LV, Moore WEC. Genus I. Bacteroides Castellani and Chalmers 1919, 959. In: Buchanan RE, Gibbons NE (eds), Bergey’s Manual of Determinative Bacteriology, Eighth Edition, The Williams and Wilkins Co., Baltimore, 1974, p. 385–404.Google Scholar
  25. Cato EP, Kelley RW, Moore WEC, Holdeman LV. Bacteroides zoogleoformans, Weinberg, Nativelle, and Prévot 1937) corrig. comb. nov.: emended description. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1982; 32:271–274. doi:10.1099/00207713-32-3-271View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Shah HN, Collins MD. Proposal to restrict the genus Bacteroides (Castellani and Chalmers) to Bacteroides fragilis and closely related species. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1989; 39:85–87. doi:10.1099/00207713-39-1-85View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Classification of bacteria and archaea in risk groups. http://www.baua.de TRBA 466.
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. List of growth media used at DSMZ: http://www.dsmz.de/microorganisms/media_list.php
  33. Gemeinholzer B, Dröge G, Zetzsche H, Haszprunar G, Klenk HP, Güntsch A, Berendsohn WG, Wägele JW. The DNA Bank Network: the start from a German initiative. Biopreservation and Biobanking 2011; 9:51–55. doi:10.1089/bio.2010.0029View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. The DOE Joint Genome Institute. http://www.jgi.doe.gov/
  35. Phrap and Phred for Windows. MacOS, Linux, and Unix. www.phrap.com
  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:10.1101/gr.074492.107PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Han C, Chain P. 2006. Finishing repeat regions automatically with Dupfinisher. In: Proceeding of the 2006 international conference on bioinformatics & computational biology. Arabina HR, Valafar H (eds), CSREA Press. June 26–29, 2006: 141–146.
  38. 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
  39. 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:10.1186/1471-2105-11-119PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 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:10.1038/nmeth.1457View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 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) 2011