Open Access

Complete genome sequence of Treponema succinifaciens type strain (6091T)

  • Cliff Han1, 2,
  • Sabine Gronow3,
  • Hazuki Teshima1, 2,
  • Alla Lapidus1,
  • Matt Nolan1,
  • Susan Lucas1,
  • Nancy Hammon1,
  • Shweta Deshpande1,
  • Jan-Fang Cheng1,
  • Ahmed Zeytun1, 2,
  • Roxanne Tapia1, 2,
  • Lynne Goodwin1, 2,
  • Sam Pitluck1,
  • Konstantinos Liolios1,
  • Ioanna Pagani1,
  • Natalia Ivanova1,
  • Konstantinos Mavromatis1,
  • Natalia Mikhailova1,
  • Marcel Huntemann1,
  • Amrita Pati1,
  • Amy Chen4,
  • Krishna Palaniappan4,
  • Miriam Land1, 5,
  • Loren Hauser1, 5,
  • Evelyne-Marie Brambilla3,
  • Manfred Rohde6,
  • Markus Güker3,
  • Tanja Woyke1,
  • James Bristow1,
  • Jonathan A. Eisen1, 7,
  • Victor Markowitz4,
  • Philip Hugenholtz1, 8,
  • Nikos C. Kyrpides1,
  • Hans-Peter Klenk3 and
  • John C. Detter2
Standards in Genomic Sciences20114:4030361

DOI: 10.4056/sigs.1984594

Published: 1 July 2011

Abstract

Treponema succinifaciens Cwyk and Canale-Parola 1981 is of interest because this strictly anaerobic, apathogenic member of the genus Treponema oxidizes carbohydrates and couples the Embden-Meyerhof pathway via activity of a pyruvate-formate lyase to the production of acetyl-coenzyme A and formate. This feature separates this species from most other anaerobic spirochetes. The genome of T. succinifaciens 6091T is only the second completed and published type strain genome from the genus Treponema in the family Spirochaetaceae. The 2,897,425 bp long genome with one plasmid harbors 2,723 protein-coding and 63 RNA genes and is a part of the Genomic Encyclopedia of Bacteria and Archaea project.

Keywords

anaerobic motile Gram-negative mesophilic chemoorganotrophic Spirochaetaceae GEBA

Introduction

Strain 6091T (= DSM 2489 = ATCC 33096 = JCM 13475) is the type strain of Treponema succinifaciens [1,2]. Currently, there are 25 species placed in the genus Treponema [3]. The species epithet is derived from the Latin noun acidum succinicum meaning succinic acid and the Latin verb facio meaning to make, produce, referring to the succinic acid-producing property of the species [1]. T. succinifaciens was isolated from the colon of swine, and first described as small spirochete by Harris et al. in 1972 [4]. In 1974 it was published that strain 6091T belonged to a group of harmless inhabitants of the intestine of healthy pigs and had no pathogenic potential [5]. No further isolates have been described and strain 6091T was designated the type strain of the new species T. succinifaciens in 1979 [1]. Here we present a summary classification and a set of features for T. succinifaciens 6091T, together with the description of the complete genomic sequencing and annotation.

Classification and features

A representative genomic 16S rRNA sequence of T. succinifaciens was compared using NCBI BLAST [6] 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 [7] and the relative frequencies of taxa and keywords (reduced to their stem [8]) were determined, weighted by BLAST scores. The most frequently occurring genera were Treponema (97.5%) and Spirochaeta (2.5%) (32 hits in total). Regarding the single hit to sequences from members of the species, the average identity within HSPs was 97.7%, whereas the average coverage by HSPs was 96.1%. Regarding the 14 hits to sequences from other members of the genus, the average identity within HSPs was 89.2%, whereas the average coverage by HSPs was 54.1%. Among all other species, the one yielding the highest score was Treponema socranskii (AY369254), which corresponded to an identity of 89.8% and an HSP coverage of 55.7%. (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 EU462604 (‘Evolution mammals and their gut microbes Sumatran orangutan feces clone orang2 aai66a03’), which showed an identity of 99.6% and an HSP coverage of 91.6%. The most frequently occurring keywords within the labels of environmental samples which yielded hits were ‘gut’ (11.2%), ‘evolut, fece, mammal, microb’ (8.2%), ‘baboon, hamadrya’ (6.3%), ‘termit’ (5.1%) and ‘homogen’ (2.2%) (218 hits in total). The most frequently occurring keywords within the labels of environmental samples which yielded hits of a higher score than the highest scoring species were ‘gut’ (12.1%), ‘evolut, fece, mammal, microb’ (11.5%), ‘baboon, hamadrya’ (9.9%), ‘rumen’ (1.3%) and ‘termit’ (1.1%) (77 hits in total). These keywords fit to the ecological and physiological properties reported for strain 6091T in the original description [1].

Figure 1 shows the phylogenetic neighborhood of T. succinifaciens 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 seven nucleotides, and differ by up to 14 nucleotides from the previously published 16S rRNA sequence (M57738), which contains 26 ambiguous base calls.
Figure 1.

Phylogenetic tree highlighting the position of T. succinifaciens relative to the type strains of the other species within the phylum ‘Spirochaetes’. The tree was inferred from 1,350 aligned characters [9,10] of the 16S rRNA gene sequence under the maximum likelihood (ML) criterion [11]. Rooting was done initially using the midpoint method [12] 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 adjacent to the branches are support values from 1,000 ML bootstrap replicates [13] (left) and from 1,000 maximum parsimony bootstrap replicates [14] (right) if larger than 60%. Lineages with type strain genome sequencing projects registered in GOLD [15] are marked with one asterisk, those also listed as ‘Complete and Published’ (as well as the target genome) with two asterisks [16].

The cells of T. succinifaciens are of helical shape (0.3 × 4–8 µm) and usually exhibit irregular coiling (Figure 2). Cells are up to 16 µm long and also chains of cells may occur in culture [1]. T. succinifaciens is a Gram-negative and non spore-forming bacterium (Table 1). The organism displays temperature-dependent motility of translational, rotary and flexing movements; at 23–25°C no translational movement can be observed and rotation is slow, whereas at 37°C cells are very mobile (average velocity: 15µm/s) [1]. T. succinifaciens harbors two periplasmic fibrils inserted near each end of the cell [1]. The genome of T. succinifaciens contains 63 genes involved in motility (see below). The organism is a strictly anaerobic chemoorganotroph [1]. T. succinifaciens requires rumen fluid in media for good growth, replacement with a mixture of short-chain fatty acids leads to reduced growth yields [1]. The temperature range for growth is between 22°C and 43°C, with an optimum between 35°C and 39°C [1]. The organism is catalase-negative and does not grow in the presence of 6.5% NaCl [1]. T. succinifaciens requires CO2 for growth and is able to utilize arabinose, xylose, glucose, mannose, galactose, maltose, lactose, cellobiose, dextrin and starch for fermentation. Sugar alcohols, amino acids and other organic acids cannot be fermented by the organism [1]. Major fermentation products of glucose are acetate, formate, succinate and lactate, whereas pyruvate, acetoin and 2,3-butanediol are formed in minor amounts [1]. Assays of enzymatic activities showed that T. succinifaciens dissimilates glucose via the Embden-Meyerhof pathway [1]. It was shown that pyruvate is metabolized through the activity of pyruvate formate lyase to yield acetyl-coenzyme A and formate, which is in contrast to other spirochetes that degrade pyruvate to acetyl-coenzyme A, CO2 and H2 [1]. Furthermore, T. succinifaciens is capable of CO2 fixation for the production of succinate [1]. Also, the organism possesses enzymatic activity of adenine deaminase, phosphoribosyltransferase (for adenine, guanine and hypoxanthine), nucleotidase (for AMP, IMP and GMP), nucleoside phosphorylase (for adenosine, guanosine and inosine) and nucleoside hydrolase (for inosine and guanosine) [28]. Whether these activities are important for the survival of T. succinifaciens under nutrient deprivation or for adaptation to environmental stress is still unclear. An outer membrane-associated serine protease, which was found in several pathogenic spirochetes and also in T. succinifaciens, might be involved in the survival within the intestine, however, a role in pathogenesis can so far not be excluded [29]. T. succinifaciens is susceptible to penicillin G (4 units/ml), cephalotin (4 µg/ml) and chloramphenicol (4 µg/ml). Growth of the organism is not impaired by erythromycin (4 µg/ml), oxytetracycline (4 µg/ml), polymyxin B (40 units/ml), rifampin (4 µg/ml), streptomycin (4 µg/ml), tetracycline (4 µg/ml) or vancomycin (4 µg/ml) [1].
Figure 2.

Scanning electron micrograph of T. succinifaciens 6091T

Table 1.

Classification and general features of T. succinifaciens 6091T according to the MIGS recommendations [17] and the NamesforLife database [3].

MIGS ID

Property

Term

Evidence code

  

Domain Bacteria

TAS [18]

  

Phylum “Spirochaetae

TAS [19]

  

Class “Spirochaetes

TAS [20]

  

Order Spirochaetales

TAS [21,22]

  

Family Spirochaetaceae

TAS [21,24]

  

Genus Treponema

TAS [21,24,25]

  

Species Treponema succinifaciens

TAS [1,2]

 

Current classification

Type strain 6091

TAS [1,2]

 

Gram stain

negative

TAS [1]

 

Cell shape

helical-shaped

TAS [1]

 

Motility

motile

TAS [1]

 

Sporulation

none

TAS [1]

 

Temperature range

22–43°C

TAS [1]

 

Optimum temperature

35–39°C

TAS [1]

 

Salinity

not reported

 

MIGS-22

Oxygen requirement

anaerobic

TAS [1]

 

Carbon source

carbohydrates

TAS [1]

 

Energy metabolism

chemoorganotroph

TAS [1]

MIGS-6

Habitat

intestine of healthy pigs

TAS [1]

MIGS-15

Biotic relationship

free-living

NAS

MIGS-14

Pathogenicity

none

NAS

 

Biosafety level

1

TAS [26]

 

Isolation

colon of swine

TAS [1]

MIGS-4

Geographic location

USA

TAS [1]

MIGS-5

Sample collection time

1972 or before

TAS [1]

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

Chemotaxonomy

No chemotaxonomic information is currently available for T. succinifaciens.

Genome sequencing and annotation

Genome project history

This organism was selected for sequencing on the basis of its phylogenetic position [30], and is part of the Genomic Encyclopedia of Bacteria and Archaea project [31]. The genome project is deposited in the Genomes On Line Database [15] 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 (10.5 kb insert size), one Illumina library

MIGS-29

Sequencing platforms

Illumina GAii, 454 GS FLX Titanium

MIGS-31.2

Sequencing coverage

960.0 × Illumina; 47.3 × 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

CP002631

 

Genbank Date of Release

April 15, 2011

 

GOLD ID

Gc01722

 

NCBI project ID

50825

 

Database: IMG-GEBA

2504557012

MIGS-13

Source material identifier

DSM 2489

 

Project relevance

Tree of Life, GEBA

Growth conditions and DNA isolation

T. succinifaciens strain 6091T, DSM 2489, was grown anaerobically in DSMZ medium 275 (Treponema succinifaciens medium) [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 with modification st/DL for cell lysis as described in Wu et al. 2009 [31]. 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 (Roche). The initial Newbler assembly consisting of 134 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 sequencing data (3,531 Mb) was assembled with Velvet [36] and the consensus sequences were shredded into 1.5 kb overlapped fake reads and assembled together with the 454 data. The 454 draft assembly was based on 136.1 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 [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 using gapResolution [34], Dupfinisher [37] or sequencing cloned bridging PCR fragments with subcloning. Gaps between contigs were closed by editing in Consed [35], by PCR and by Bubble PCR primer walks (J.-F. Chang, unpublished). A total of 305 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 [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 1,007.3 × coverage of the genome. The final assembly contained 486,725 pyrosequence and 36,577,056 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) non-redundant 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 2,731,853 bp long chromosome and a 165.572 bp long plasmid both with a G+C content of 39.1% (Table 3, Figure 3 and Figure 4). Of the 2,786 genes predicted, 2,723 were protein-coding genes, and 63 RNAs; 115 pseudogenes were also identified. The majority of the protein-coding genes (57.8%) were assigned 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 chromosome (not drawn to scale with plasmid in Figure 4). From bottom to top: 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.

Figure 4.

Graphical map of the plasmid (not drawn to scale with chromosome in Figure 3). From bottom to top: 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)

2,897,425

100.00%

DNA coding region (bp)

2,550,315

88.02%

DNA G+C content (bp)

1,133,894

39.13%

Number of replicons

2

 

Extrachromosomal elements

0

 

Total genes

2,786

100.00%

RNA genes

63

2.26%

rRNA operons

4

 

Protein-coding genes

2,723

97.74%

Pseudo genes

115

4.13%

Genes with function prediction

1,611

57.82%

Genes in paralog clusters

373

13.39%

Genes assigned to COGs

1,674

60.09%

Genes assigned Pfam domains

1,800

64.61%

Genes with signal peptides

812

29.15%

Genes with transmembrane helices

581

20.85%

CRISPR repeats

1

 
Table 4.

Number of genes associated with the general COG functional categories

Code

value

%age

Description

J

142

7.8

Translation, ribosomal structure and biogenesis

A

0

0.0

RNA processing and modification

K

120

6.6

Transcription

L

179

9.8

Replication, recombination and repair

B

0

0.0

Chromatin structure and dynamics

D

24

1.3

Cell cycle control, cell division, chromosome partitioning

Y

0

0.0

Nuclear structure

V

46

2.5

Defense mechanisms

T

103

5.7

Signal transduction mechanisms

M

120

6.6

Cell wall/membrane/envelope biogenesis

N

63

3.5

Cell motility

Z

1

0.0

Cytoskeleton

W

0

0.0

Extracellular structures

U

61

3.3

Intracellular trafficking, secretion, and vesicular transport

O

55

3.0

Posttranslational modification, protein turnover, chaperones

C

74

4.1

Energy production and conversion

G

111

6.1

Carbohydrate transport and metabolism

E

128

7.0

Amino acid transport and metabolism

F

62

3.4

Nucleotide transport and metabolism

H

58

3.2

Coenzyme transport and metabolism

I

34

1.9

Lipid transport and metabolism

P

60

3.3

Inorganic ion transport and metabolism

Q

5

0.3

Secondary metabolites biosynthesis, transport and catabolism

R

240

13.2

General function prediction only

S

138

7.6

Function unknown

-

1,112

39.9

Not in COGs

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We would like to gratefully acknowledge the help of Sabine Welnitz (DSMZ) for growing T. succinifaciens 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)
DOE Joint Genome Institute
(2)
Bioscience Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory
(3)
DSMZ - German Collection of Microorganisms and Cell Cultures GmbH
(4)
Biological Data Management and Technology Center, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
(5)
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
(6)
HZI - Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research
(7)
University of California Davis Genome Center
(8)
Australian Centre for Ecogenomics, School of Chemistry and Molecular Biosciences, The University of Queensland

References

  1. Cwyk WM, Canale-Parola E. Treponema succinifaciens sp. nov., an anaerobic spirochete from the swine intestine. Arch Microbiol 1979; 122:231–239. PubMed doi:10.1007/BF00411285View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Validation list No. 7. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1981; 31:382–383. doi:10.1099/00207713-31-3-382
  3. Garrity G. NamesforLife. BrowserTool takes expertise out of the database and puts it right in the browser. Microbiol Today 2010; 37:9.Google Scholar
  4. Harris DL, Kinyon JM, Mullin MT, Glock RD. Isolation and propagation of spirochetes from the colon of swine dysentery affected pigs. Can J Comp Med 1972; 36:74–76. PubMedPubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Harris DL, Kinyon JM. Significance of anaerobic spirochetes in the intestines of animals. Am J Clin Nutr 1974; 27:1297–1304. PubMedPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ. Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol 1990; 215:403–410. PubMedView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Porter MF. An algorithm for suffix stripping. Program: electronic library and information systems 1980; 14:130–137.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Hess PN, De Moraes Russo CA. An empirical test of the midpoint rooting method. Biol J Linn Soc Lond 2007; 92:669–674. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.2007.00864.xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Swofford DL. PAUP*: Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and Other Methods), Version 4.0 b10. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, 2002.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Seshadri R, Myers GS, Tettelin H, Eisen JA, Heidelberg JF, Dodson RJ, Davidsen TM, DeBoy RT, Fouts DE, Haft DH, et al. Comparison of the genome of the oral pathogen Treponema denticola with other spirochete genomes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2004; 101:5646–5651. PubMed doi:10.1073/pnas.0307639101PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. Garrity G, Holt JG. Phylum B17 Spirochaetes phy. nov. Garrity and Holt. In: Garrity GM, Boone DR, Castenholz RW (eds), Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, Second Edition, Volume 1, Springer, New York, 2001, p. 138.Google Scholar
  20. 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.
  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. Buchanan RE. Studies in the nomenclature and classification of bacteria. II. The primary subdivisions of the Schizomycetes. J Bacteriol 1917; 2:155–164. PubMedPubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Swellengrebel NH. Sur la cytologie comparée des spirochètes et des spirilles. Ann Inst Pasteur (Paris) 1907; 21:562–586.Google Scholar
  24. Schaudinn F. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 1905; 31:1728. doi:10.1055/s-0029-1188418View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Smibert RM. Genus III. Treponema Schaudinn 1905, 1728. In: Buchanan RE, Gibbons NE (eds), Bergey’s Manual of Determinative Bacteriology, Eighth Edition, The Williams and Wilkins Co., Baltimore, 1974, p. 175–184.Google Scholar
  26. BAuA. 2005. Classification of bacteria and archaea in risk groups. TRBA 466 p. 349.
  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. Canale-Parola E, Kidder GW. Enzymatic activities for interconversion of purines in spirochetes. J Bacteriol 1982; 152:1105–1110. PubMedPubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Muniappa N, Duhamel GE. Outer membrane-associated serine protease of intestinal spirochetes. FEMS Microbiol Lett 1997; 154:159–164. PubMed doi:10.1111/J.1574-6968.1997.tb12638.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. 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
  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. http://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. Arabnia 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