Open Access

Complete genome sequence of the hyperthermophilic chemolithoautotroph Pyrolobus fumarii type strain (1AT)

  • Iain Anderson1,
  • Markus Göker2,
  • Matt Nolan1,
  • Susan Lucas1,
  • Nancy Hammon1,
  • Shweta Deshpande1,
  • Jan-Fang Cheng1,
  • Roxanne Tapia1, 3,
  • Cliff Han1, 3,
  • Lynne Goodwin1, 3,
  • Sam Pitluck1,
  • Marcel Huntemann1,
  • Konstantinos Liolios1,
  • Natalia Ivanova1,
  • Ioanna Pagani1,
  • Konstantinos Mavromatis1,
  • Galina Ovchinikova1,
  • Amrita Pati1,
  • Amy Chen4,
  • Krishna Palaniappan4,
  • Miriam Land1, 5,
  • Loren Hauser1, 5,
  • Evelyne-Marie Brambilla2,
  • Harald Huber6,
  • Montri Yasawong7,
  • Manfred Rohde7,
  • Stefan Spring2,
  • Birte Abt2,
  • Johannes Sikorski2,
  • Reinhard Wirth6,
  • John C. Detter1, 3,
  • Tanja Woyke1,
  • James Bristow1,
  • Jonathan A. Eisen1, 8,
  • Victor Markowitz4,
  • Philip Hugenholtz1, 9,
  • Nikos C. Kyrpides1,
  • Hans-Peter Klenk2 and
  • Alla Lapidus1
Standards in Genomic Sciences20114:4030381

DOI: 10.4056/sigs.2014648

Published: 1 July 2011

Abstract

Pyrolobus fumarii Blöchl et al. 1997 is the type species of the genus Pyrolobus, which belongs to the crenarchaeal family Pyrodictiaceae. The species is a facultatively microaerophilic non-motile crenarchaeon. It is of interest because of its isolated phylogenetic location in the tree of life and because it is a hyperthermophilic chemolithoautotroph known as the primary producer of organic matter at deep-sea hydrothermal vents. P. fumarii exhibits currently the highest optimal growth temperature of all life forms on earth (106°C). This is the first completed genome sequence of a member of the genus Pyrolobus to be published and only the second genome sequence from a member of the family Pyrodictiaceae. Although Diversa Corporation announced the completion of sequencing of the P. fumarii genome on September 25, 2001, this sequence was never released to the public. The 1,843,267 bp long genome with its 1,986 protein-coding and 52 RNA genes is a part of the Genomic Encyclopedia of Bacteria and Archaea project.

Keywords

hyperthermophile chemolithoautotroph facultative microaerophilic non-motile hydrothermal solfataric vents black smoker Pyrodictiaceae GEBA

Introduction

Strain 1AT (= DSM 11204) is the type strain of the species Pyrolobus fumarii, which is the type and only species of its genus Pyrolobus [1]. The generic name derives from the Greek word pyr meaning fire and the Greek word lobos meaning lobe, referring to fire lobe. The species epithet is derived from the Latin word fumarii meaning of the chimney, referring to its black smoker biotope [1]. Strain 1AT was isolated from a black smoker wall, TAG site, Mid Atlantic Ridge [2], effectively published in 1997 [1] and validly published in 1999 [3]. It is thus far the most heat-tolerant, and also most heat-requiring of all validly named prokaryotic species. P. fumarii appears to be the primary producer of organic material in such deep-sea hydrothermal vent habitats [1]. At the time of its discovery, P. fumarii extended the upper temperature limit for life to 113°C [1]. A more recent report on a not yet validly named and incompletely characterized iron-reducing archaeon, known only as ‘Strain 121’ appears to extend the upper growth temperature to 121°C, which is well within standard autoclaving temperatures [4]. Here we present a summary classification and a set of features for P. fumarii strain 1AT, together with the description of the complete genomic sequencing and annotation.

Classification and features

The single genomic 16S rRNA sequence of strain 1AT was compared using NCBI BLAST [5] 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 of taxa and keywords (reduced to their stem [7]) were determined, weighted by BLAST scores. The most frequently occurring genera were Aeropyrum (18.1%), Desulfurococcus (11.1%), Ignicoccus (9.8%), Vulcanisaeta (7.8%) and Staphylothermus (7.0%) (68 hits in total). Regarding the single hit to sequences from members of the species, the average identity within HSPs was 99.0%, whereas the average coverage by HSPs was 46.1%. Among all other species, the one yielding the highest score was Hyperthermus butylicus (NC_008818), which corresponded to an identity of 99.2% and an HSP coverage of 46.1%. (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 AB293243 (‘Microbial structures around area Southern Mariana Trough hydrothermal sulfide structure clone Pcsc3A31’), which showed an identity of 96.9% and an HSP coverage of 44.7%. The most frequently occurring keywords within the labels of environmental samples which yielded hits were ‘spring’ (12.0%), ‘hot’ (7.5%), ‘microbi’ (7.0%), ‘nation, park, yellowston’ (6.2%) and ‘geochem’ (3.7%) (181 hits in total). Environmental samples which yielded hits of a higher score than the highest scoring species were not found. These keywords reflect some of the ecological features and properties reported for strain 1AT in the original description [1].

Figure 1 shows the phylogenetic neighborhood of P. fumarii in a 16S rRNA based tree. The sequence of the single 16S rRNA gene copy in the genome does not differ from the previously published 16S rRNA sequence (X99555), which contains eleven ambiguous base calls.
Figure 1.

Phylogenetic tree highlighting the position of P. fumarii relative to the type strains of the other species within the order Desulfurococcales. The tree was inferred from 1,333 aligned characters [8,9] of the 16S rRNA gene sequence under the maximum likelihood (ML) criterion [10]. Rooting was done initially using the midpoint method [11] 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 [12] (left) and from 1,000 maximum parsimony bootstrap replicates [13] (right) if larger than 60%. Lineages with type strain genome sequencing projects registered in GOLD [14] are labeled with one asterisk, those also listed as ‘Complete and Published’ with two asterisks (see [1521], and CP002051 for Staphylothermus hellenicus).

Cells of strain 1AT are regularly to irregularly lobed cocci with a diameter of approximately 0.7–2.5 µm (Figure 2) [1]. The strain is non-motile, non-spore-forming and facultatively microaerophilic (Table 1). Strain 1AT has a temperature range for growth between 90°C and 113°C (optimum 106°C) and is unable to propagate at a temperature of 90°C or below [1,32]. Exponentially growing cultures of P. fumarii survive even autoclaving at 121°C for one hour [1]. At the optimum growth temperature, doubling time of P. fumarii is 60 minutes [1]. The pH range for growth is 4.0–6.5, with an optimum pH of 5.5 [1]. The strain forms white colonies (1 mm in diameter) on Gelrite-containing media [1]. Like in Hyperthermus, no cell-to-cell network is formed and the S-layer exhibits a central depression, most likely a pore [1,32]. Such networks of extracellular tubules appear to be characteristic for members of the genus Pyrodictium. P. fumarii strain 1AT is able to grow on medium that contains 1%-4% NaCl, with an optimum salinity at 1.7% [1]. The organism uses CO2 as the single carbon source and H2 as the obligate electron donor [1]. The organism is tolerant to high pressure condition (25,000 kPa) [1]. Under anaerobic and microaerophilic conditions, P. fumarii is obligately chemolithoautotroph and is able to oxidize H2 coupled with NO3-, S2O32- and O2 as electron acceptors [1]. Nitrate is reduced to ammonia [1]. Organic compounds do not stimulate the growth of P. fumarii [1]. P. fumarii does not grow in media containing acetate, pyruvate, glucose, starch and elementary sulfur [1]. A highly selective enrichment method for P. fumarii in comparison to other members of the family Pyrodictiaceae is based on the use of nitrate as the sole electron acceptor [32]. Crude extracts of P. fumarii strain 1AT cells show a strong cross-reaction with antibodies prepared against the thermosome of Pyrodictium occultum [32], which could suggest highly similar chaperonin protein complexes. Furthermore, a membrane-associated hydrogenase with an optimum reaction temperature of 119°C is found in cells grown on molecular hydrogen and nitrate [32]. Interestingly, succinyl-CoA reduction in P. fumarii is not NAD(P)H-dependent, but requires reduced methyl viologen as in Ignicoccus hospitalis [33,34]. In the RNA of hyperthermophiles, posttranscriptional modification has been identified as a leading mechanism of structure stabilization [3539]. Twenty-six modified nucleosides of P. fumarii are detected, 11 of which are methylated in ribose [38]. P. fumarii exhibits a novel RNA nucleosides characterized as 1,2′-O-dimethylguanosine (m1Gm) [38].
Figure 2.

Scanning electron micrograph of P. fumarii 1AT

Table 1.

Classification and general features of P. fumarii 1AT according to the MIGS recommendations [22] and the NamesforLife database [23].

MIGS ID

Property

Term

Evidence code

  

Domain Archaea

TAS [24]

  

Phylum Crenarchaeota

TAS [25]

  

Class Thermoprotei

TAS [26,27]

  

Order Desulfurococcales

TAS [26,28]

  

Family Pyrodictiaceae

TAS [29]

  

Genus Pyrolobus

TAS [1,3]

  

Species Pyrolobus fumarii

TAS [1,3]

 

Current classification

Type strain 1A

TAS [1]

 

Gram stain

“negative”

TAS [1]

 

Cell shape

regularly to irregularly lobed cocci, occurring singly and in short chains

TAS [1]

 

Motility

none

TAS [1]

 

Sporulation

none

TAS [1]

 

Temperature range

90–113°C

TAS [1]

 

Optimum temperature

106°C

TAS [1]

 

Salinity

1%–4% (w/v) NaCl (optimum 1.7%)

TAS [1]

MIGS-22

Oxygen requirement

facultatively microaerophilic

TAS [1]

 

Carbon source

CO2

TAS [1]

 

Energy metabolism

chemolithoautotrophic

TAS [1]

MIGS-6

Habitat

abyssal deep-sea hydrothermal systems

TAS [1]

MIGS-15

Biotic relationship

free-living

NAS

MIGS-14

Pathogenicity

none

NAS

 

Biosafety level

1

TAS [30]

 

Isolation

rock samples from wall of a black smoker

TAS [1]

MIGS-4

Geographic location

Mid Atlantic Ridge

TAS [1]

MIGS-5

Sample collection time

1993

NAS

MIGS-4.1

Latitude

26

TAS [1]

MIGS-4.2

Longitude

− 45

TAS [1]

MIGS-4.3

Depth

3,650 m

TAS [1]

MIGS-4.4

Altitude

− 3,650 m

TAS [1]

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 [31]. If the evidence code is IDA, the property should have been directly observed by one of the authors or an expert mentioned in the acknowledgements

Chemotaxonomy

The S-layer of strain 1AT exhibits p4 symmetry with a lattice of 18.5 nm that encloses a 40-nm-wide ‘quasi-periplasmic space’ [1]. The major core lipids of strain 1AT are uncyclized glycerol-dialkyl-glycerol-tetraether (GDGT) and traces of 2,3-di-O-phytanyl-sn-glycerol (diether) [1]. Cells of strain 1AT do not contain C20 C25 diethers and cyclized GDGT [1]. Non-hydrolyzed lipids contain a main spot on TLC staining blue (instead of violet) by anisaldehyde [1]. The major organic solute of strain 1AT is di-myo-inositol phosphate (DIP) [40]. DIP and its derivatives are consistently associated with the heat stress response and therefore, are probably involved in the thermoprotection [15]. UDP-sugars are present in cells of strain 1AT [40]. The structures of the two major UDP-sugars are identified as UDP-α-GlcNAc3NAc and UDP-α-GlcNAc3NAc-(4←1)-β-GlcpNAc3NAc [40]. UDP-sugars are intermediates of an N-linked glycosylation pathway of strain 1AT [40]. Strain 1AT performs a posttranscriptional modification of transfer RNA [38].

Genome sequencing and annotation

Genome project history

This organism was selected for sequencing on the basis of its phylogenetic position [41], and is part of the Genomic Encyclopedia of Bacteria and Archaea project [42]. The genome project is deposited in the Genome On Line Database [14] 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 (6 kb insert size), one Illumina library

MIGS-29

Sequencing platforms

Illumina GAii, 454 GS FLX Titanium

MIGS-31.2

Sequencing coverage

1,753.4 × Illumina; 60.4 × pyrosequence

MIGS-30

Assemblers

Newbler version 2.5, Velvet 0.7.63, phrap SPS - 4.24

MIGS-32

Gene calling method

Prodigal 1.4, GenePRIMP

 

INSDC ID

CP002838

 

Genbank Date of Release

pending

 

GOLD ID

Gi02934

 

NCBI project ID

48579

 

Database: IMG-GEBA

2505679005

MIGS-13

Source material identifier

DSM 11204

 

Project relevance

Tree of Life, GEBA

Growth conditions and DNA isolation

P. fumarii 1AT, DSM 11204, was grown anaerobically in DSMZ medium 792 (Pyrolobus fumarii medium) [43] at 103°C. DNA was isolated from 0.5–1 g of cell paste using Qiagen Genomic 500 DNA Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) following the standard protocol as recommended by the manufacturer.

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 [44]. Pyrosequencing reads were assembled using the Newbler assembler (Roche). The initial Newbler assembly consisting of ten contigs in one scaffold was converted into a phrap [45] assembly by making fake reads from the consensus, to collect the read pairs in the 454 paired end library. Illumina sequencing data (3,232.0 Mb) was assembled with Velvet [46] 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 79.2 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 [45] 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 [44], Dupfinisher, or sequencing cloned bridging PCR fragments with subcloning or transposon bombing (Epicentre Biotechnologies, Madison, WI) [47]. Gaps between contigs were closed by editing in Consed, by PCR and by Bubble PCR primer walks (J.-F. Chang, unpublished). A total of 12 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 [48]. 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 1,813.8 × coverage of the genome. The final assembly contained 431,902 pyrosequence and 44,889,308 Illumina reads.

Genome annotation

Genes were identified using Prodigal [49] as part of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory genome annotation pipeline, followed by a round of manual curation using the JGI GenePRIMP pipeline [50]. The predicted CDSs were translated and used to search the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) non-redundant database, UniProt, TIGRFam, 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 [51].

Genome properties

The genome consists of a 1,843,267 bp long chromosome with a 54.9% G+C content (Table 3 and Figure 3). Of the 2,038 genes predicted, 1,986 were protein-coding genes, and 52 RNAs; 19 pseudogenes were also identified. The majority of the protein-coding genes (54.9%) 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 circular map of the genome. From outside to the center: Genes on forward strand (color by COG categories), Genes on reverse strand (color by COG categories), RNA genes (tRNAs green, rRNAs red, other RNAs black), GC content, GC skew.

Table 3.

Genome Statistics

Attribute

Value

% of Total

Genome size (bp)

1,843,267

100.00%

DNA coding region (bp)

1,616,680

87.71%

DNA G+C content (bp)

1,012,030

54.90%

Number of replicons

1

 

Extrachromosomal elements

0

 

Total genes

2,038

100.00%

RNA genes

52

2.55%

rRNA operons

1

 

Protein-coding genes

1,986

97.45%

Pseudo genes

19

0.93%

Genes with function prediction

1,119

54.91%

Genes in paralog clusters

82

4.02%

Genes assigned to COGs

1,325

65.01%

Genes assigned Pfam domains

1,283

62.95%

Genes with signal peptides

207

10.16%

Genes with transmembrane helices

368

18.06%

CRISPR repeats

0

 
Table 4.

Number of genes associated with the general COG functional categories

Code

value

%age

Description

J

178

12.5

Translation, ribosomal structure and biogenesis

A

2

0.1

RNA processing and modification

K

84

5.9

Transcription

L

72

5.1

Replication, recombination and repair

B

3

0.2

Chromatin structure and dynamics

D

16

1.1

Cell cycle control, cell division, chromosome partitioning

Y

0

0.0

Nuclear structure

V

10

0.7

Defense mechanisms

T

31

2.2

Signal transduction mechanisms

M

27

1.9

Cell wall/membrane/envelope biogenesis

N

10

0.7

Cell motility

Z

0

0.0

Cytoskeleton

W

0

0.0

Extracellular structures

U

19

1.3

Intracellular trafficking and secretion

O

60

4.2

Posttranslational modification, protein turnover, chaperones

C

97

6.8

Energy production and conversion

G

36

2.5

Carbohydrate transport and metabolism

E

120

8.5

Amino acid transport and metabolism

F

51

3.6

Nucleotide transport and metabolism

H

99

7.0

Coenzyme transport and metabolism

I

18

1.3

Lipid transport and metabolism

P

54

3.8

Inorganic ion transport and metabolism

Q

11

0.8

Secondary metabolites biosynthesis, transport and catabolism

R

260

18.1

General function prediction only

S

162

11.4

Function unknown

-

713

35.0

Not in COGs

Insights from the genome sequence

Table 5 shows the whole-genome distances between P. fumarii and the other type strains within the order Desulfurococcales [1521] as calculated using the genome-to-genome distance calculator [5254]. As expected, the distances to the only other member of the family Pyrodictiaceae, H. butylicus, are lower than those to the members of the Desulfurococcaceae. This does not hold for formula 2, which is affected by saturation: if only HSPs of more strongly conserved genes are obtained, these contain, on average, a higher proportion of identical base pairs [52].
Table 5.

Genome-to-genome distances between P. fumarii and the genomes of other type strains within the order*

Reference genome

Formula

Distance

Aeropyrum pernix BA000002

1

0.9809

 

2

0.1414

 

3

0.9836

Desulfurococcus kamchatkensis CP001140

1

0.9889

 

2

0.1194

 

3

0.9903

Desulfurococcus mucosus CP002363

1

0.9836

 

2

0.1321

 

3

0.9857

Hyperthermus butylicus CP000493

1

0.9514

 

2

0.1632

 

3

0.9593

Ignicoccus hospitalis CP000816

1

0.9777

 

2

0.1410

 

3

0.9808

Ignisphaera aggregans CP002098

1

0.9940

 

2

0.1062

 

3

0.9946

Staphylothermus hellenicus CP002051

1

0.9909

 

2

0.1167

 

3

0.9920

Staphylothermus marinus CP000575

1

0.9916

 

2

0.1121

 

3

0.9925

Thermosphaera aggregans CP001939

1

0.9883

 

2

0.1215

 

3

0.9897

Genome-to-genome distances between P. fumarii and the genomes of other type strains within the order. The formulas are: 1 - HSP length/total length; 2 - identities/HSP length; 3 - identities/total length [52,53].

Figure 4 shows a neighbor-joining tree inferred with PAUP* [13] from the logarithmized version of distance 3. The tree differs from the 16S rRNA-based tree (Figure 1) regarding the position of Ignisphaera aggregans, which is placed as sister group of all other Desulfurococcaceae by the 16S rRNA, but of Staphylothermus in the whole-genome tree.
Figure 4.

GGDC NJ tree inferred from the type strain genomes within the order Desulfurococcales.

The fraction of shared genes in the genomes of P. fumarii, its closest neighbor H. butylicus, and as an outgroup I. aggregans (see Figure 1) is shown in a Venn diagram (Figure 5). The numbers of pairwise shared genes were calculated with the phylogenetic profiler function of the IMG-ER platform [51]. The homologous genes within the genomes were detected with a maximum E-value of 10-5 and a minimum identity of 30%. 719 genes (39%) are shared by P. fumarii, I. aggregans and H. butylicus. P. fumarii and H. butylicus share 410 genes, whereas I. aggregans shares only 89 and 177 with H. butylicus and P. fumarii, respectively, corroborating with the larger phylogenetic distance. With only 398 genes (25%) H. butylicus contains the smallest fraction of unique genes (and the smallest genome, 1,616 genes), while I. aggregans has not only the largest genome (1,992 genes), but also the highest fraction of unique genes (51%) in this set of organisms.
Figure 5.

Venn diagram depicting the intersections of protein sets (total numbers in parentheses) of P. fumarii, I. aggregans and H. butylicus.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

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 599/1-1 and SI 1352/1-2 and Thailand Research Fund Royal Golden Jubilee Ph.D. Program No. PHD/0019/2548’ for MY.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
DOE Joint Genome Institute
(2)
DSMZ - German Collection of Microorganisms and Cell Cultures GmbH
(3)
Bioscience Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory
(4)
Biological Data Management and Technology Center, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
(5)
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
(6)
Microbiology - Archaeenzentrum, University of Regensburg
(7)
HZI - Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research
(8)
University of California Davis Genome Center
(9)
Australian Centre for Ecogenomics, School of Chemistry and Molecular Biosciences, The University of Queensland

References

  1. Blöchl E, Rachel R, Burggraf S, Hafenbradl D, Jannasch HW, Stetter KO. Pyrolobus fumarii, gen. and sp. nov., represents a novel group of archaea, extending the upper temperature limit for life to 113 degrees C. Extremophiles 1997; 1:14–21. PubMed doi:10.1007/s007920050010View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Rainey FA, Oren A. 2006. Extremophiles. In: Rainey FA, Oren A (eds), Methods in Microbiology, vol. 35. Elsevier, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Validation List No. 71. Validation of publication of new names and new combinations previously effectively published outside the IJSB. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1999; 49:1325–1326. doi:10.1099/00207713-49-4-1325
  4. Kashefi K, Lovley DR. Extending the upper temperature limit for life. Science 2003; 301:934. PubMed doi:10.1126/science.1086823View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ. Bascic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol 1990; 215:403–410. PubMedView ArticlePubMedGoogle 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. 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
  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. 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. 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
  12. 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
  13. Swofford DL. PAUP*: Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and Other Methods), Version 4.0 b10. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, 2002.Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Ravin NV, Mardanov AV, Beletsky AV, Kublanov IV, Kolganova TV, Lebedinsky AV, Chernyh NA, Bonch-Osmolovskaya EA, Skryabin KG. Complete genome sequence of the anaerobic, protein-degradinghyperthermophilic crenarchaeon Desulfurococcus kamchatkensis. J Bacteriol 2009; 191:2371–2379. PubMed doi:10.1128/B.01525-08PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Wirth R, Chertkov O, Held B, Lapidus A, Nolan M, Lucas S, Hammon N, Deshpande S, Cheng JF, Tapia R, et al. Complete genome sequence of Desulfurococcus mucosus type strain (07/1T). Stand Genomic Sci 2011; 4:173–182. PubMed doi:10.4056/sigs.1644004PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Spring S, Rachel R, Lapidus A, Davenport K, Tice H, Copeland A, Cheng JF, Lucas S, Chen F, Nolan M, et al. Complete genome sequence of Thermosphaera aggregans type strain (M11TLT). Stand Genomic Sci 2010; 2:245–259. PubMed doi:10.4056/sigs.821804PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Kawarabayasi Y, Hino Y, Horikawa H, Yamazaki S, Haikawa Y, Jinno K, Takahashi M, Sekine M, Baba S, Ankai A, et al. Complete genome sequence of an aerobic hyper-thermophilic crenarchaeon, Aeropyrum pernix K1. DNA Res 1999; 6:83–101. PubMed doi:10.1093/dnares/6.2.83View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Podar M, Anderson I, Makarova KS, Elkins JG, Ivanova N, Wall MA, Lykidis A, Mavromatis K, Sun H, Hudson ME, et al. A genomic analysis of the archaeal system Ignicoccus hospitalis-Nanoarchaeum equitans. Genome Biol 2008; 9:R158. PubMed doi:10.1186/gb-2008-9-11-rPubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Göker M, Held B, Lapidus A, Nolan M, Spring S, Yasawong M, Lucas S, Glavina Del Rio T, Tice H, Cheng JF, et al. Complete genome sequence of Ignisphaera aggregans type strain (AQ1.S1T). Stand Genomic Sci 2010; 3:66–75. PubMed doi:10.4056/sigs.1072907PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Brügger K, Chen L, Stark M, Zibat A, Redder P, Ruepp A, Awayez M, She Q, Garrett RA, Klenk HP. The genome of Hyperthermus butylicus: a sulfur-reducing, peptide fermenting, neutrophilic crenarchaeote growing up to 108°C. Archaea 2008; 2:127–135. PubMed doi:10.1155/2007/745987View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Garrity G. NamesforLife. BrowserTool takes expertise out of the database and puts it right in the browser. Microbiol Today 2010; 37:9.Google Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Garrity GM, Holt JG. 2001. Phylum AI. Crenarchaeota phy. nov., In: Boone DR, Castenholz RW, Garrity GM (eds), Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, 2nd ed, vol. 1. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  26. Validation List No. 85. Validation of publication of new names and new combinations previously effectively published outside the IJSEM. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2002; 52:685–690. PubMed doi:10.1099/ijs.0.02358-0
  27. Reysenbach AL. 2001. Class I. Thermoprotei class. nov., In: Boone DR, Castenholz RW, Garrity GM (eds), Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, 2nd ed, vol. 1. p. 169–210 Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  28. Huber H, Stetter O. 2001. Order II. Desulfurococcales ord. nov., In: Garrity GM, Boone DR, Castenholz RW (eds), Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, 2nd ed, vol. 1. p. 179–180 Springer, New York.Google Scholar
  29. Burggraf S, Huber H, Stetter KO. Reclassification of the crenarchaeal orders and families in accordance with 16S rRNA sequence data. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1997; 47:657–660. PubMed doi:10.1099/00207713-47-3-657View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. BauA 2005. Classification of bacteria and archaea in risk groups. http://www.baua.de TRBA 466 p. 286.
  31. 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
  32. Huber H, Stetter KO. 2006. Archaea. Bacteria: Firmicutes, Actinomycetes, In: Dworkin M, Falkow S, Rosenberg E, Schleifer KH, Stackebrandt E (eds), The Prokaryotes. A Handbook on the Biology of Bacteria, 3rd ed, vol. 3. p. 106–114 Springer, New York.Google Scholar
  33. Berg IA, Ramos-Vera WH, Petri A, Huber H, Fuchs G. Study of the distribution of autotrophic CO2 fixation cycles in Crenarchaeota. Microbiology 2010; 156:256–269. PubMed doi:10.1099/mic.0.034298-0View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Huber H, Gallenberger M, Jahn U, Eylert E, Berg IA, Kockelkorn D, Eisenreich W, Fuchs G. A dicarboxylate/4-hydroxybutyrate autotrophic carbon assimilation cycle in the hyperthermophilic archaeum Ignicoccus hospitalis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2008; 105:7851–7856. PubMed doi:10.1073/pnas.0801043105PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Agris PF. The importance of being modified: roles of modified nucleosides and Mg2+ in RNA structure and function. Prog Nucleic Acid Res Mol Biol 1996; 53:79–129. PubMed doi:10.1016/S0079-6603(08)60143-9View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Davis DR. 1998. Modification and editing of RNA. ASM Press, Washington.Google Scholar
  37. Derrick WB, Horowitz J. Probing structural differences between native and in vitro transcribed Escherichia coli valine transfer RNA: evidence for stable base modification-dependent conformers. Nucleic Acids Res 1993; 21:4948–4953. PubMed doi:10.1093/nar/21.21.4948PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. McCloskey JA, Liu XH, Crain PF, Bruenger E, Guymon R, Hashizume T, Stetter KO. Posttranscriptional modification of transfer RNA in the submarine hyperthermophile Pyrolobus fumarii. Nucleic Acids Symp Ser 2000; 44:267–268. PubMedView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Sampson JR, Uhlenbeck OC. Biochemical and physical characterization of an unmodified yeast phenylalanine transfer RNA transcribed in vitro. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1988; 85:1033–1037. PubMed doi:10.1073/pnas.85.4.1033PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Gonçalves LG, Lamosa P, Huber R, Santos H. Dimyo-inositol phosphate and novel UDP-sugars accumulate in the extreme hyperthermophile Pyrolobus fumarii. Extremophiles 2008; 12:383–389. PubMed doi:10.1007/s00792-008-0143-0View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. List of growth media used at DSMZ: http://www.dsmz.de/microorganisms/media_list.php.
  44. The DOE Joint Genome Institute. http://www.jgi.doe.gov.
  45. Phrap and Phred for Windows. MacOS, Linux, and Unix. http://www.phrap.com.
  46. 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
  47. 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.
  48. 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
  49. 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
  50. 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
  51. 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
  52. Auch AF, Klenk HP, Göker M. Standard operating procedure for calculating genome-to-genome distances based on high-scoring segment pairs. Stand Genomic Sci 2010; 2:142–148. PubMed doi:10.4056/sigs.541628PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Auch AF, von Jan M, Klenk HP, Göker M. Digital DNA-DNA hybridization for microbial species delineation by means of genome-to-genome sequence comparison. Stand Genomic Sci 2010; 2:117–134. PubMed doi:10.4056/sigs.531120PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. genome-to-genome distance calculator. http://ggdc.gbdp.org

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2011