Open Access

Complete genome sequence of the thermophilic sulfur-reducer Hippea maritima type strain (MH2T)

  • Marcel Huntemann1,
  • Megan Lu2, 3,
  • Matt Nolan2,
  • Alla Lapidus2,
  • Susan Lucas2,
  • Nancy Hammon2,
  • Shweta Deshpande2,
  • Jan-Fang Cheng2,
  • Roxanne Tapia2, 3,
  • Cliff Han2, 3,
  • Lynne Goodwin2, 3,
  • Sam Pitluck2,
  • Konstantinos Liolios2,
  • Ioanna Pagani2,
  • Natalia Ivanova2,
  • Galina Ovchinikova2,
  • Amrita Pati2,
  • Amy Chen1,
  • Krishna Palaniappan1,
  • Miriam Land2, 4,
  • Loren Hauser2, 4,
  • Cynthia D. Jeffries2, 4,
  • John C. Detter2, 3,
  • Evelyne-Marie Brambilla5,
  • Manfred Rohde6,
  • Stefan Spring5,
  • Markus Göker5,
  • Tanja Woyke2,
  • James Bristow2,
  • Jonathan A. Eisen2, 7,
  • Victor Markowitz1,
  • Philip Hugenholtz2, 8,
  • Nikos C. Kyrpides2,
  • Hans-Peter Klenk5 and
  • Konstantinos Mavromatis2
Standards in Genomic Sciences20114:4030303

DOI: 10.4056/sigs.1814460

Published: 1 July 2011

Abstract

Hippea maritima (Miroshnichenko et al. 1999) is the type species of the genus Hippea which belongs to the family Desulfurellaceae within the class Deltaproteobacteria. The anaerobic, moderately thermophilic marine sulfur-reducer was first isolated from shallow-water hot vents in Matipur Harbor, Papua New Guinea. H. maritima was of interest for genome sequencing because of its isolated phylogenetic location, as a distant next neighbor of the genus Desulfurella. Strain MH2T is the first type strain from the order Desulfurellales with a completely sequenced genome. The 1,694,430 bp long linear genome with its 1,723 protein-coding and 57 RNA genes consists of one circular chromosome and is a part of the Genomic Encyclopedia of Bacteria and Archaea project.

Keywords

anaerobic motile rod-shaped Gram-negative marine moderately thermophilic sulfur-reducer Desulfurellaceae GEBA

Introduction

Strain MH2T (DSM 10411 = ATCC 700847) is the type strain of the species Hippea maritima, which is the type species of its genus Hippea [1]. The genus currently contains no other validly named species [2], but two other strains belonging to the species were isolated from shallow-water hot vents in New Zealand and Papua New Guinea [1]. The type strain was isolated during a cruise of the Russian scientific vessel A. Nesmeyanov through shallow-water hot vents of the south-western Pacific Ocean, environments that are typical for anaerobic, thermophilic, sulfur-reducing bacteria [1]. The genus is named after the German microbiologist Hans Hippe, in recognition of his significant contribution to the characterization of novel, obligately anaerobic prokaryotes and the understanding of their physiology. The species epithet is derived from the Latin word maritima (inhabiting marine environments) [2]. Here we present a summary classification and a set of features for H. maritima strain MH2T, together with the description of the complete genomic sequencing and annotation.

Classification and features

A representative genomic 16S rRNA sequence of strain MH2T 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 [3] and the relative frequencies, of taxa and keywords (reduced to their stem [4]) were determined, weighted by BLAST scores. The most frequently occurring genera were Desulfurella (38.7%), Desulfovibrio (15.2%), Deferribacter (10.8%), Thermotoga (10.8%) and Hippea (8.6%) (44 hits in total). Regarding the single hit to sequences from members of the species, the average identity within HSPs was 99.9%, whereas the average coverage by HSPs was 82.7%. Among all other species, the one yielding the highest score was Desulfurella multipotens, which corresponded to an identity of 89.6% and an HSP coverage of 82.6%. (Note that the Greengenes database uses the INSDC (= EMBL/NCBI/DDBJ) annotation, which is not an authoritative source for nomenclature or classification.) The highest-scoring environmental sequence was AF232926 (‘United Kingdom: Montserrat geothermal springs clone MS10 proteobacterium’), which showed an identity of 88.9% and a HSP coverage of 73.0%. The most frequently occurring keywords within the labels of environmental samples which yielded hits were ‘microbi’ (5.0%), ‘spring’ (2.9%), ‘sediment’ (2.4%), ‘soil’ (2.3%) and ‘industri’ (2.2%) (206 hits in total). Environmental samples which yielded hits of a higher score than the highest scoring species were not found.

The 16S rRNA based tree in Figure 1 shows the phylogenetic neighborhood of H. maritima. The sequence of the two identical 16S rRNA genes differs by one nucleotide from the previously published 16S rRNA sequence (Y18292).
Figure 1.

Phylogenetic tree highlighting the position of H. maritima relative to the other type strains within the family Desulfurellaceae. The tree was inferred from 1,526 aligned characters [5,6] of the 16S rRNA gene sequence under the maximum likelihood criterion [7] and rooted in accordance to the current taxonomy. The branches are scaled in terms of the expected number of substitutions per site. Numbers next to bifurcations are support values from 700 bootstrap replicates [8] if larger than 60%. Lineages with type strain genome sequencing projects registered in GOLD [9] are shown with an asterisk, those also listed as ‘Complete and Published’ with two asterisks.

The cells of H. maritima are short rods ranging from 1–3 x 0.4–0.8 µm (Figure 2 and Table 1) that occur singly or in pairs [1]. H. maritima is motile by one polar flagellum [1] (not visible in Figure 2). Colonies are whitish-gray with diameters up to 0.5 mm [1]. H. maritima cultures require 2.5–3% NaCl and 0.02% (w/v) yeast extract for growth [1]. The temperature range for growth is between 40°C and 65°C, with an optimum at 52–54°C [1]. Growth was observed over a pH range of 5.7 to 6.5 with an optimum around 6.0 [1].
Figure 2.

Scanning electron micrograph of H. maritima MH2T

Table 1.

Classification and general features of H. maritima MH2 T according to the MIGS recommendations [10].

MIGS ID

Property

Term

Evidence code

 

Current classification

Domain Bacteria

TAS [11]

 

Phylum Proteobacteria

TAS [12]

 

Class Deltaproteobacteria

TAS [13,14]

 

Order Desulfurellales

TAS [13,14]

 

Family Desulfurellaceae

TAS [14,15]

 

Genus Hippea

TAS [1]

 

Species Hippea maritima

TAS [1]

 

Type strain MH2

TAS [1]

 

Gram stain

negative

TAS [1]

 

Cell shape

short rods

TAS [1]

 

Motility

motile, one polar flagellum

TAS [1]

 

Sporulation

never observed

TAS [1]

 

Temperature range

40–56°C

TAS [1]

 

Optimum temperature

52–54°C

TAS [1]

 

Salinity

2.5–3% NaCl

TAS [1]

MIGS-22

Oxygen requirement

anaerobic

TAS [1]

 

Carbon source

saturated fatty acids (stearate, palmitate)

TAS [1]

 

Energy metabolism

acetate, long-chain saturated fatty acids; lithotrophic growth with H2 and S0

TAS [1]

MIGS-6

Habitat

submarine hot vents

TAS [1]

MIGS-15

Biotic relationship

free-living

NAS

MIGS-14

Pathogenicity

none

NAS

 

Biosafety level

1

TAS [16]

 

Isolation

hot vents in tidal zone

TAS [1]

MIGS-4

Geographic location

Matupi Harbour, Papua New Guinea

TAS [1]

MIGS-5

Sample collection time

1999

TAS [1,17]

MIGS-4.1

Latitude

−4.23

NAS

MIGS-4.2

Longitude

152.2

NAS

MIGS-4.3

Depth

not reported

 

MIGS-4.4

Altitude

approximately sea level

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

All H. maritima strains can grow on molecular hydrogen, acetate, and saturated fatty acids and require elemental sulfur as the only known electron acceptor [1]. Strain MH3, isolated from Matupi Harbor, was the only H. maritima strain growing on ethanol in the presence of elemental sulfur [1]. Fumarate supported only weak growth for all three known strains [1], whereas formate, propionate, butyrate, pyruvate, lactate, succinate, glucose, starch, peptone, methanol did not support growth [1]. CO2 and H2S were the only detected end products [1].

Chemotaxonomy

No chemotaxonomical data were reported in the initial description of the organism [1] nor elsewhere, subsequently.

Genome sequencing and annotation

Genome project history

This organism was selected for sequencing on the basis of its phylogenetic position [19], and is part of the Genomic Encyclopedia of Bacteria and Archaea project [20]. The genome project is deposited in the Genomes On Line Database [9] and the complete genome sequence is deposited in GenBank. Sequencing, finishing and annotation were performed by the DOE Joint Genome Institute (JGI). A summary of the project information is shown in Table 2.
Table 2.

Genome sequencing project information

MIGS ID

Property

Term

MIGS-31

Finishing quality

Finished

MIGS-28

Libraries used

Three genomic libraries: one 454 pyrosequence standard library, one 454 PE library (7.3 kb insert size), one Illumina library

MIGS-29

Sequencing platforms

Illumina GAii, 454 GS FLX Titanium

MIGS-31.2

Sequencing coverage

1,213 × Illumina; 29.6 × pyrosequence

MIGS-30

Assemblers

Newbler version 2.3, Velvet version 0.7.63, phrap version SPS-4.24

MIGS-32

Gene calling method

Prodigal 1.4, GenePRIMP

 

INSDC ID

CP002606

 

Genbank Date of Release

March 29, 2011

 

GOLD ID

Gc01705

 

NCBI project ID

48195

 

Database: IMG-GEBA

2504136000

MIGS-13

Source material identifier

DSM 10411

 

Project relevance

Tree of Life, GEBA

Growth conditions and DNA isolation

H. maritima MH2T, DSM 10411, was grown anaerobically in medium 554 (HIPPEA medium) [21] at 55°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 with the following modification to improve cell lysis: additional 20µl lysozyme (100mg/µl) and 10µl mutalysin were used for 30 min incubation at 37°C, followed by three hours incubation at 58°C with 20µl proteinase K. DNA is available through the DNA Bank Network [22].

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 [23]. Pyrosequencing reads were assembled using the Newbler assembler (Roche). The initial Newbler assembly, consisting of 70 contigs in one scaffold, was converted into a phrap [24] assembly by making fake reads from the consensus to collect the read pairs in the 454 paired end library. Illumina GAii sequencing data (4,403.8 Mb) was assembled with Velvet [25] 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 66.2 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 [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 [23], Dupfinisher [26], 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 357 additional reactions and one shatter library 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 [27]. 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 1,241.6 × coverage of the genome. The final assembly contained 112,403 pyrosequence and 57,283,044 Illumina reads.

Genome annotation

Genes were identified using Prodigal [28] as part of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory genome annotation pipeline, followed by a round of manual curation using the JGI GenePRIMP pipeline [29]. The predicted CDSs were translated and used to search the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) non-redundant database, UniProt, TIGR-Fam, Pfam, PRIAM, KEGG, COG, and InterPro databases. Additional gene prediction analysis and functional annotation were performed within the Integrated Microbial Genomes - Expert Review (IMG-ER) platform [30].

Genome properties

The genome consists of a 1,694,430 bp long linear chromosome with a G+C content of 37.5% (Table 3 and Figure 3). Of the 1,780 genes predicted, 1,723 were protein-coding genes, and 57 RNAs; 46 pseudogenes were also identified. The majority of the protein-coding genes (76.4%) 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 map of the linear chromosome. From left to right: 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)

1,694,430

100.00%

DNA coding region (bp)

1,580,424

93.27%

DNA G+C content (bp)

634,975

37.47%

Number of replicons

1

 

Extrachromosomal elements

0

 

Total genes

1,780

100.00%

RNA genes

57

3.20%

rRNA operons

2

 

Protein-coding genes

1,723

96.80%

Pseudo genes

46

2.58%

Genes with function prediction

1,360

76.40%

Genes in paralog clusters

182

10.22%

Genes assigned to COGs

1,414

79.44%

Genes assigned Pfam domains

1,485

83.43%

Genes with signal peptides

261

14.66%

Genes with transmembrane helices

423

23.76%

CRISPR repeats

0

 
Table 4.

Number of genes associated with the general COG functional categories

Code

value

% age

Description

J

133

8.5

Translation, ribosomal structure and biogenesis

A

0

0.0

RNA processing and modification

K

45

2.9

Transcription

L

119

7.6

Replication, recombination and repair

B

0

0.0

Chromatin structure and dynamics

D

19

1.2

Cell cycle control, cell division, chromosome partitioning

Y

0

0.0

Nuclear structure

V

11

0.7

Defense mechanisms

T

78

5.0

Signal transduction mechanisms

M

110

7.1

Cell wall/membrane/envelope biogenesis

N

69

4.4

Cell motility

Z

0

0.0

Cytoskeleton

W

0

0.0

Extracellular structures

U

59

3.8

Intracellular trafficking, secretion, and vesicular transport

O

68

4.4

Posttranslational modification, protein turnover, chaperones

C

107

6.9

Energy production and conversion

G

62

4.0

Carbohydrate transport and metabolism

E

147

9.4

Amino acid transport and metabolism

F

46

3.0

Nucleotide transport and metabolism

H

108

6.9

Coenzyme transport and metabolism

I

52

3.3

Lipid transport and metabolism

P

66

4.2

Inorganic ion transport and metabolism

Q

22

1.4

Secondary metabolites biosynthesis, transport and catabolism

R

146

9.4

General function prediction only

S

93

6.0

Function unknown

-

366

20.6

Not in COGs

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We would like to gratefully acknowledge the help of Maren Schröder (DSMZ) for growing H. maritima 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)
Biological Data Management and Technology Center, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
(2)
DOE Joint Genome Institute
(3)
Bioscience Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory
(4)
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
(5)
DSMZ - German Collection of Microorganisms and Cell Cultures GmbH
(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. Miroshnichenko ML, Rainey FA, Rohde M. Bonch-Osmolovskaya. Hippea maritima gen. nov, sp. nov., a new genus of thermophilic, sulphurreducing bacterium from submarine hot vents. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1999; 49:1033–1038. PubMed doi:10.1099/00207713-49-3-1033View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Euzéby JP. List of bacterial names with standing in nomenclature: A folder available on the Internet. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1997; 47:590–592. PubMed doi:10.1099/00207713-47-2-590View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Porter MF. An algorithm for suffix stripping. Program: electronic library and information systems 1980; 14:130–137.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Lee C, Grasso C, Sharlow MF. Multiple sequence alignment using partial order graphs. Bioinformatics 2002; 18:452–464. PubMed doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/18.3.452View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. Pattengale ND, Alipour M, Bininda-Emonds ORP, Moret BME, Stamatakis A. How many bootstrap replicates are necessary? Lect Notes Comput Sci 2009; 5541:184–200. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02008-7_13View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Garrity GM, Bell JA, Lilburn T. Phylum XIV. Proteobacteria phyl. nov. In: Brenner DJ, Krieg NR, Staley JT, Garrity GM (eds), Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, second edition, vol. 2 (The Proteobacteria), part B (The Gammaproteobacteria), Springer, New York, 2005, p. 1.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Kuever J, Rainey FA, Widdel F. Class VI. Deltaproteobacteria class nov. In: Brenner DJ, Krieg NR, Staley JT Garrity GM (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. 922View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Validation list No. 107. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2006; 56:1–6. PubMed doi:10.1099/ijs.0.64188-0Google Scholar
  15. Kuever J, Rainey FA, Widdel F. Family I. Desulfurellaceae fam. nov. In: Brenner DJ, Krieg NR, Staley JT Garrity GM (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. 923.Google Scholar
  16. BAuA. Classification of bacteria and archaea in risk groups. TRBA 2005; 466:205.Google Scholar
  17. Miroshnichenko ML, Gongadze GM, Rainey FA, Kostyukova AS, Lysenko AM, Chernyhl NA, Bonch-Osmolovskaya EA. Thermococcus gorgonarius sp. nov. and Thermococcus pacificus sp. nov.: heterotrophic extremely thermophilic archaea from New Zealand submarine hot vents. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1998; 48:23–29. PubMed doi:10.1099/00207713-48-1-23View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. List of growth media used at DSMZ: http://www.dsmz.de/microorganisms/media_list.php.
  22. 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
  23. The DOE Joint Genome Institute. http://www.jgi.doe.gov
  24. Phrap and Phred for Windows. MacOS, Linux, and Unix. http://www.phrap.com
  25. 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
  26. Han C, Chain P. Finishing repeat regions automatically with Dupfinisher. in Proceeding of the 2006 international conference on bioinformatics & computational biology. Arabnia HR, Valafar H (eds), CSREA Press. June 26–29, 2006: 141–146.Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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