Open Access

Complete genome sequence of Odoribacter splanchnicus type strain (1651/6T)

  • Markus Göker1,
  • Sabine Gronow1,
  • Ahmet Zeytun2, 3,
  • Matt Nolan2,
  • Susan Lucas2,
  • Alla Lapidus2,
  • Nancy Hammon2,
  • Shweta Deshpande2,
  • Jan-Fang Cheng2,
  • Sam Pitluck2,
  • Konstantinos Liolios2,
  • Ioanna Pagani2,
  • Natalia Ivanova2,
  • Konstantinos Mavromatis2,
  • Galina Ovchinikova2,
  • Amrita Pati2,
  • Roxane Tapia2, 3,
  • Cliff Han2, 3,
  • Lynne Goodwin2, 3,
  • Amy Chen4,
  • Krishna Palaniappan4,
  • Miriam Land2, 5,
  • Loren Hauser2, 5,
  • Cynthia D. Jeffries2, 5,
  • Evelyne-Marie Brambilla1,
  • Manfred Rohde6,
  • John C. Detter2, 3,
  • Tanja Woyke2,
  • James Bristow2,
  • Victor Markowitz4,
  • Philip Hugenholtz2, 7,
  • Jonathan A. Eisen2, 8,
  • Nikos C. Kyrpides2 and
  • Hans-Peter Klenk1
Standards in Genomic Sciences20114:4020200

DOI: 10.4056/sigs.1714269

Published: 29 April 2011

Abstract

Odoribacter splanchnicus (Werner et al. 1975) Hardham et al. 2008 is the type species of the genus Odoribacter, which belongs to the family Porphyromonadaceae in the order ‘Bacteroidales’. The species is of interest because members of the Odoribacter form an isolated cluster within the Porphyromonadaceae. This is the first completed genome sequence of a member of the genus Odoribacter and the fourth sequence from the family Porphyromonadaceae. The 4,392,288 bp long genome with its 3,672 protein-coding and 74 RNA genes and is a part of the Genomic Encyclopedia of Bacteria and Archaea project.

Keywords

strictly anaerobic non-motile Gram-negative opportunistic pathogen mesophilic chemoorganotrophic Porphyromonadaceae GEBA

Introduction

Strain 1651/6T (= DSM 20712 = ATCC 29572 = JCM 15291) is the type strain of Odoribacter splanchnicus [1,2]. Currently, there are three species placed in the genus Odoribacter [1]. The generic name derives from the Latin noun odor meaning smell and the Neo-Latin word bacter meaning a rod, referring to a rod of (bad) smell [2]. The species epithet is derived from the Greek plural noun splanchna meaning innards, referring to the internal organs as the site of isolation [2]. O. splanchnicus strain 1651/6T was isolated as Bacteroides splanchnicus from a human, abdominal abscess by Werner and Reichertz in 1971 [3] and described in 1975 [4]. The species was first validly published as B. splanchnicus due to a number of shared characteristics with the members of the genus Bacteroides. However, the organism differs from other Bacteroides species in a number of important biochemical characteristics [5] and shows less than 20% relatedness in the homology of 16S rRNA genes compared to the B. fragilis group [6]. In 1994, through further studies of the phylogenetic structure of the bacteroides subgroup it became clear that B. splanchnicus did not belong to the genera Bacteroides, Prevotella or Porphyromonas, but fell just outside these three major clusters [7]. Finally, in 2008, the new genus Odoribacter was described and B. splanchnicus was reclassified as its new type species [2]. Additional isolates of O. splanchnicus have been obtained from stool specimens and surgically removed appendices [2]; in one case of pelviperitonitis the organism was isolated from a blood sample and peritoneal pus [8]. In general, O. splanchnicus can be described as an inhabitant of the human intestine that has the potential to become an opportunistic pathogen. Here we present a summary classification and a set of features for O. splanchnicus 1651/6T, together with the description of the complete genomic sequencing and annotation.

Classification and features

A representative genomic 16S rRNA sequence of strain 1651/6T 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 [9] and the relative frequencies of taxa and keywords (reduced to their stem [10]) were determined, weighted by BLAST scores. The most frequently occurring genera were Bacteroides (43.5%), Odoribacter (37.9%), Alistipes (15.2%) and Brumimicrobium (3.4%) (21 hits in total). Regarding the two hits to sequences from members of the species, the average identity within HSPs was 99.7%, whereas the average coverage by HSPs was 97.9%. Regarding the two hits to sequences from other members of the genus, the average identity within HSPs was 93.4%, whereas the average coverage by HSPs was 42.5%. The highest-scoring environmental sequence was EF401000 (‘human fecal clone SJTU D 04 48’), which showed an identity of 99.8% and an HSP coverage of 98.2%. The most frequently occurring keywords within the labels of environmental samples which yielded hits were ‘human’ (13.4%), ‘biopsi’ (7.4%), ‘mucos’ (7.1%), ‘fecal’ (6.1%) and ‘colon’ (5.3%) (229 hits in total). The most frequently occurring keyword within the labels of environmental samples which yielded hits of a higher score than the highest scoring species was ‘fecal/human’ (50.0%) (27 hits in total).

Figure 1 shows the phylogenetic neighborhood of O. splanchnicus in a 16S rRNA based tree. The sequences of the four 16S rRNA gene copies in the genome differ from each other by up to eight nucleotides, and differ by up to nine nucleotides from the previously published 16S rRNA sequence (L16496), which contains nine ambiguous base calls.
Figure 1.

Phylogenetic tree highlighting the position of O. splanchnicus relative to the other type strains within the family Porphyromonadaceae. The tree was inferred from 1,401 aligned characters [11,12] of the 16S rRNA gene sequence under the maximum likelihood criterion [13]. Rooting was done initially using the midpoint method [14] and then checked for its agreement with the current classification (Table 1). The branches are scaled in terms of the expected number of substitutions per site. Numbers to the right of bifurcations are support values from 250 bootstrap replicates [15] if larger than 60%. Lineages with type strain genome sequencing projects registered in GOLD [16] are labeled by one asterisk, published genomes by two asterisks [1719].

The cells of O. splanchnicus generally have the shape of short rods (0.7 × 1.0–5.0 µm) which occur singly or in lightly associated groups (Figure 2). They can also be pleomorphic. O. splanchnicus is a Gram-negative, non-pigmented and non spore-forming bacterium (Table 1). The organism is described as non-motile and only ten genes associated with motility have been found in the genome (see below). O. splanchnicus grows well at 37°C, is strictly anaerobic, chemoorganotrophic and is able to ferment glucose, fructose, galactose, arabinose, lactose and mannose but does not utilize sucrose, rhamnose, trehalose or salicin [4,5]. The organism does not reduce nitrate but it produces indole from tryptophan and hydrolyzes esculin [28]. O. splanchnicus does not require hemin for growth but is highly stimulated by its presence and does not show hemolysis on blood agar. Growth is enhanced by the addition of 20% bile. Major fermentation products are acetic acid, propionic acid and succinic acid; butyric acid, isovaleric acid and isobutyric acid are produced in small amounts [4,29]. When amino acids are used as carbon sources, only lysine enables butyrate production [4]. It is known that O. splanchnicus possesses highly active pentose phosphate pathway enzymes such as glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase and 6-phosphogluconate dehydrogenase as well as active malate dehydrogenase and glutamate dehydrogenase [30]. The organism produces large amounts of hydrogen and H2S. Strain 1651/6T is phosphatase, α- and β-galactosidase, α-fucosidase, N-acetylglucosaminidase and glutamic acid decarboxylase active and urease and catalase inactive [2]. The organism produces arginine arylamidase, leucyl glycine arylamidase, leucine arylamidase, alanine arylamidase (own, unpublished data) and glycylprolyl arylamidase [31]. O. splanchnicus is reported to grow in the presence of aminoglycosides and polymyxins (minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) value greater than 60 µg/ml); chloramphenicol, penicillins and cephalosporins show bacteriostatic activity (5-40 µg/ml). The organism is susceptible to tetracyclines, lincomycin, clindamycin, rifampicin and erythromycin (MIC values less than 0.5 µg/ml) [4,28].
Figure 2.

Scanning electron micrograph of O. splanchnicus 1651/6T

Table 1.

Classification and general features of O. splanchnicus 1651/6T according to the MIGS recommendations [20].

MIGS ID

Property

Term

Evidence code

  

Domain Bacteria

TAS [21]

  

Phylum ‘Bacteroidetes

TAS [22]

  

Class ‘Bacteroidia

TAS [23,24]

  

Order ‘Bacteroidales

TAS [25]

  

Family ‘Porphyromonadaceae

TAS [25]

  

Genus Odoribacter

TAS [2]

  

Species Odoribacter splanchnicus

TAS [2]

 

Current classification

Type strain 1651/6

TAS [4]

 

Gram stain

negative

TAS [4]

 

Cell shape

rod-shaped

TAS [4]

 

Motility

non-motile

TAS [4]

 

Sporulation

none

TAS [4]

 

Temperature range

mesophile

TAS [4]

 

Optimum temperature

37°C

TAS [4]

 

Salinity

normal

TAS [4]

MIGS-22

Oxygen requirement

strictly anaerobic

TAS [4]

 

Carbon source

carbohydrates; nitrogenous substrates

TAS [4]

 

Energy metabolism

chemoorganotroph

TAS [4]

MIGS-6

Habitat

Homo sapiens, gastrointestinal tract

TAS [4]

MIGS-15

Biotic relationship

free-living

NAS

MIGS-14

Pathogenicity

opportunistic pathogen

TAS [4]

 

Biosafety level

2

TAS [26]

 

Isolation

abdominal abscess

TAS [3]

MIGS-4

Geographic location

Germany

TAS [3]

MIGS-5

Sample collection time

1971 or before

TAS [3]

MIGS-4.1

Latitude

not reported

NAS

MIGS-4.2

Longitude

not reported

NAS

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 [27]. 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

Little chemotaxonomic information is available for strain 1651/6T. It possesses meso-diaminopimelic acid in its peptidoglycan [30], sphingophospholipids as polar lipids [32] and the sole menaquinone present is MK-9 [30]. The major fatty acids found are iso-C15:0, C14:0, anteiso-C15:0 and C16:03-OH [30].

Genome sequencing and annotation

Genome project history

This organism was selected for sequencing on the basis of its phylogenetic position [33], and is part of the Genomic Encyclopedia of Bacteria and Archaea project [34]. The genome project is deposited in the Genomes On Line 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

Three genomic libraries: one 454 pyrosequence standard library, one 454 PE library (8 kb insert size), one Illumina library

MIGS-29

Sequencing platforms

Illumina GAii, 454 GS FLX Titanium

MIGS-31.2

Sequencing coverage

521.0 × Illumina; 31.5 × pyrosequence

MIGS-30

Assemblers

Newbler version 2.3-PreRelease-10-21-2009, Velvet version 0.7.63, phrap version 4.24

MIGS-32

Gene calling method

Prodigal 1.4, GenePRIMP

 

INSDC ID

CP002544

 

Genbank Date of Release

February 28, 2011

 

GOLD ID

Gc01667

 

NCBI project ID

43469

 

Database: IMG-GEBA

2503754021

MIGS-13

Source material identifier

DSM 20712

 

Project relevance

Tree of Life, GEBA

Growth conditions and DNA isolation

O. splanchnicus 1651/6T, DSM 20712, was grown anaerobically in DSMZ medium 110 (Chopped meat medium with carbohydrates) [35] at 37°C. DNA was isolated from 0.5–1 g of cell paste using Jetflex Genomic DNA Purification kit (GENOMED 600100) following the standard protocol as recommended by the manufacturer, but adding 20 µL proteinase K for 45 min lysis at 58ºC. DNA is available through the DNA Bank Network [36].

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 [37]. Pyrosequencing reads were assembled using the Newbler assembler version 2.3-PreRelease-10-21-2009 (Roche). The initial Newbler assembly consisting of 57 contigs in eight scaffolds was converted into a phrap [38] assembly by making fake reads from the consensus, to collect the read pairs in the 454 paired end library. Illumina GAii sequencing data (2,241.8 Mb) was assembled with Velvet, version 0.7.63 [39] 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 138 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 [38] 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 [37], Dupfinisher, or sequencing cloned bridging PCR fragments with subcloning or transposon bombing (Epicentre Biotechnologies, Madison, WI) [40]. Gaps between contigs were closed by editing in Consed, by PCR and by Bubble PCR primer walks (J.-F.Chang, unpublished). A total of 65 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 [41]. 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 552.5 × coverage of the genome. The final assembly contained 389,415 pyrosequence and 33,128,505 Illumina reads.

Genome annotation

Genes were identified using Prodigal [42] as part of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory genome annotation pipeline, followed by a round of manual curation using the JGI GenePRIMP pipeline [43]. 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 [44].

Genome properties

The genome consists of a 4,392,288 bp long chromosome with a G+C content of 43.4% (Table 3 and Figure 3). Of the 3,746 genes predicted, 3,672 were protein-coding genes, and 74 RNAs; 175 pseudogenes were also identified. The majority of the protein-coding genes (61.2%) 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 chromosome. 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)

4,392,288

100.00%

DNA coding region (bp)

3,824,553

87.07%

DNA G+C content (bp)

1,904,432

43.36%

Number of replicons

1

 

Extrachromosomal elements

0

 

Total genes

3,746

100.00%

RNA genes

74

1.98%

rRNA operons

4

 

Protein-coding genes

3,672

98.02%

Pseudo genes

175

4.67%

Genes with function prediction

2,291

61.16%

Genes in paralog clusters

734

19.59%

Genes assigned to COGs

2,252

60.12%

Genes assigned Pfam domains

2,523

67.35%

Genes with signal peptides

909

24.27%

Genes with transmembrane helices

823

21.97%

CRISPR repeats

1

 
Table 4.

Number of genes associated with the general COG functional categories

Code

value

%age

Description

J

149

5.9

Translation, ribosomal structure and biogenesis

A

0

0.0

RNA processing and modification

K

188

7.5

Transcription

L

161

6.4

Replication, recombination and repair

B

0

0.0

Chromatin structure and dynamics

D

23

0.9

Cell cycle control, cell division, chromosome partitioning

Y

0

0.0

Nuclear structure

V

67

2.7

Defense mechanisms

T

144

5.7

Signal transduction mechanisms

M

215

8.6

Cell wall/membrane/envelope biogenesis

N

10

0.4

Cell motility

Z

0

0.0

Cytoskeleton

W

0

0.0

Extracellular structures

U

48

2.1

Intracellular trafficking, secretion, and vesicular transport

O

134

5.3

Posttranslational modification, protein turnover, chaperones

C

164

6.5

Energy production and conversion

G

111

4.4

Carbohydrate transport and metabolism

E

175

7.0

Amino acid transport and metabolism

F

62

2.5

Nucleotide transport and metabolism

H

126

5.2

Coenzyme transport and metabolism

I

62

2.5

Lipid transport and metabolism

P

216

8.6

Inorganic ion transport and metabolism

Q

24

1.0

Secondary metabolites biosynthesis, transport and catabolism

R

280

11.2

General function prediction only

S

149

5.9

Function unknown

-

1,494

39.9

Not in COGs

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We would like to gratefully acknowledge the help of Sabine Welnitz (DSMZ) for growing O. splanchnicus cultures. 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)
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
(6)
HZI - Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research
(7)
Australian Centre for Ecogenomics, School of Chemistry and Molecular Biosciences, The University of Queensland
(8)
University of California Davis Genome Center

References

  1. Garrity G. Names for Life. Browser Tool takes expertise out of the database and puts it right in the browser. Microbiol Today 2010; 7:1.Google Scholar
  2. Hardham JM, King KW, Dreier K, Wong J, Strietzel C, Eversole RR, Sfintescu C, Evans RT. Transfer of Bacteroides splanchnicus to Odoribacter gen. nov. as Odoribacter splanchnicus comb. nov., and description of Odoribacter denticanis sp. nov., isolated from the crevicular spaces of canine periodontitis patients. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2008; 58:103–109. PubMed doi:10.1099/ijs.0.63458-0View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Werner H, Reichertz C. Buttersäurebildende Bacteroides-Kulturen. Zentralbl Bakteriol Parasitenkd Infektionskr Hyg Abt 1 Orig Reihe A 1971; 217:206–216.Google Scholar
  4. Werner H., Rintelen G, Kunstek-Santos H. A new butyric acid-producing Bacteroides species: B. splanchnicus n. sp. Zentralbl Bakteriol Parasitenkd Infektionskr Hyg Abt 1 Orig Reihe A 1975; 231:133–144.Google Scholar
  5. Shah HN. 1992. The genus Bacteroides and related species, p.3593–3607. In Balows A, Trüper HG, Dworkin M, Harder W, Schleifer K.-H (ed.), The prokaryotes, 2nd ed. Springer, New York.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Johnson JL, Harich B. Ribosomal ribonucleic acid homology among species of the genus Bacteroides. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1986; 36:71–79. doi:10.1099/00207713-36-1-71View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Paster BJ, Dewhirst FE, Olsen I, Fraser GJ. Phylogeny of Bacteroides, Prevotella, and Porphyromonas spp. and related bacteria. J Bacteriol 1994; 176:725–732. PubMedPubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Labbe M, Mertens A, Schoutens E. Pelviperitonitis and bacteremia due to Bacteroides splanchnicus. Report of a case. Zentralbl Bakteriol Orig A 1977; 238:251–254. PubMedPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Porter MF. An algorithm for suffix stripping. Program: electronic library and information systems 1980; 14:130–137.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  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. 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
  14. Hess PN, De Moraes Russo CA. An empirical test of the midpoint rooting method. Biol J Linn Soc Lond 2007; 92:669–674. doi:10.1095-8312.2007.00864.xView ArticleGoogle 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: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 2010; 38:D346–D354. PubMed doi:10.1093/nar/gkp848PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Xu J, Mahowald MA, Ley RE, Lozupone CA, Hamady M, Martens EC, Henrissat B, Coutinho PM, Minx P, Latreille P, et al. Evolution of symbiotic bacteria in the distal human intestine. PLoS Biol 2007; 5:e156. PubMed doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050156PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Naito M, Hirakawa H, Yamashita A, Ohara N, Shoji M, Yukitake H, Nakayama K, Toh H, Yoshimura F, Kuhara S, et al. Determination of the genome sequence of Porphyromonas gingivalis strain ATCC 33277 and genomic comparison with strain W83 revealed extensive genome rearrangements in P. gingivalis. DNA Res 2008; 15:215–225. PubMed doi:10.1093/dnares/dsn013PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Gronow S, Munk C, Lapidus A, Nolan M, Lucas S, Hammon N, Deshpande S, Cheng JF, Tapia R, Han C, et al. Complete genome sequence of Paludibacter propionicigenes type strain (WB4T). Stand Genomic Sci 2011; 4:36–44. PubMed doi:10.1038/nbt1360PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. Abt B, Tashima H, Lucas S, Lapidus A, Glavina Del Rio T, Nolan M, Tice H, Cheng JF, Pitluck S, Liolios K, et al. Complete genome sequence of Leadbetterella byssophila type strain (4M15T). Stand Genomic Sci 2011; 4:2–12. PubMed doi:10.4056/sigs.1413518PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Garrity GM, Holt JG. Taxonomic outline of the Archaea and Bacteria, In: Garrity GM, Boone DR, Castenholz RW (eds), Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, 2nd ed, vol. 1. Springer, New York, 2001, p. 155–166.Google Scholar
  26. Classification of bacteria and archaea in risk groups. http://www.baua.de TRBA 466.
  27. 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
  28. Holdeman LV, Kelley RW, Moore WEC. Anaerobic Gram-negative straight, curved and helical rods. In: Krieg NR, Holt JG (eds), Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, 1st ed, vol. 1 Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, USA,1984, p. 602–662.Google Scholar
  29. Holdeman LV, Cato EP, Moore WEC. 1974. Anaerobe laboratory manual, 4th ed, Southern Printing Co., Blacksburg, Virginia, USA.Google Scholar
  30. Shah HN, Collins MD. Genus Bacteroides. A chemotaxonomical perspective. J Appl Bacteriol 1983; 55:403–416. PubMedView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. MacFarlane S, Macfarlane GT. Formation of a dipeptidyl arylamidase by Bacteroides splanchnicus NCTC 10825 with specificities towards glycylprolyl-x and valylalanine-x substrates. J Med Microbiol 1997; 46:547–555. PubMed doi:10.1099/00222615-46-7-547View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Miyagawa T, Azuma R, Suto T. Distribution of sphingolipids in Bacteroides species. J Gen Appl Microbiol 1978; 24:341–348. doi:10.2323/jgam.24.341View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Klenk HP, Goeker 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
  34. 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
  35. List of growth media used at DSMZ: http://www.dsmz.de/microorganisms/media_list.php
  36. 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
  37. DOE Joint Genome Institute. http://www.jgi.doe.gov
  38. Phrap and Phred for Windows. MacOS, Linux, and Unix. http://www.phrap.com
  39. 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
  40. 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. PubMed doi:10.4056/sigs.761PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. 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