Open Access

High quality draft genome sequence of Segniliparus rugosus CDC 945T= (ATCC BAA-974T)

  • Ashlee M. Earl1,
  • Christopher A. Desjardins1,
  • Michael G. Fitzgerald1,
  • Harindra M. Arachchi1,
  • Qiandong Zeng1,
  • Teena Mehta1,
  • Allison Griggs1,
  • Bruce W. Birren1,
  • Nadege C. Toney3,
  • Janice Carr3,
  • James Posey2 and
  • W. Ray Butler2
Standards in Genomic Sciences20115:5030389

DOI: 10.4056/sigs.2255041

Published: 31 December 2011

Abstract

Segniliparus rugosus represents one of two species in the genus Segniliparus, the sole genus in the family Segniliparaceae. A unique and interesting feature of this family is the presence of extremely long carbon-chain length mycolic acids bound in the cell wall. S. rugosus is also a medically important species because it is an opportunistic pathogen associated with mammalian lung disease. This report represents the second species in the genus to have its genome sequenced. The 3,567,567 bp long genome with 3,516 protein-coding and 49 RNA genes is part of the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research, Human Microbiome Project.

Keywords

Segniliparaceae genome sequencing Human Microbiome Project

Introduction

Strain CDC 945T (= ATCC BAA-974T = CIP 10838T = DSM 45345 = CCUG 50838T = JCM 13579T) is the type strain of the species Segniliparus rugosus in the Segniliparaceae family [1]. The genus name was created to acknowledge the presence of novel long carbon-chain fatty acids (mycolic acids) detected using the Mycobacterium species identification method with high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) [2]. The name was formed from the Latin adjective ‘segnis’, meaning ‘slow’ and combined with the Greek adjective ‘liparos’ for ‘fatty’, to indicate the ‘one with slow fats’. The name relates to the late elution of the apolar, alpha-mycolic acids (fatty acids) during HPLC analysis [1]. The specific epithet for the taxon name is from the Latin adjective ‘rugosus’, referring to the formation of wrinkled, rough colony morphology [1]. The type strain of S. rugosus, CDC 945T, was isolated from a human sputum specimen collected in Alabama, USA [1]. S. rugosus has been isolated from multiple patients with cystic fibrosis in the U.S. and Australia and appears to be a respiratory opportunistic pathogen [3,4]. A recent isolation from a 1 year old sea lion showing third-stage malnutrition with a 30% loss of body weight, moderate bradycardia and severe hypothermia, suggests a possible aquatic or marine niche for the species [5]. The only other validly named species of the genus is Segniliparus rotundus (CDC 1076T), which is the type strain of this species. S. rotundus. CDC 1076 shares 98.9% 16S rRNA sequence identity with S. rugosus CDC 945T, although the DNA-DNA hybridization is less than 28% [1]. The complete genome of S. rotundus was recently reported and has 3,157,527 bp with 3,081 protein-coding and 52 RNA genes [6]. Here we present a summary classification and a set of features for S. rugosus CDC 945T, together with the description of the high quality draft genomic sequencing and annotation.

Classification and features

The cells of CDC 945T are irregular rods ranging in length and width from 0.55–0.90 µm by 1.9–4.5 µm (Table 1 and Figure 1). Colonies are wrinkled, rough and form in less than 7 days on 7H10 and 7H11 agar at an optimal temperature of 33oC [1]. CDC 945T is aerobic, non-motile, asporogenous, and stains bright red with acid alcohol stain [1]. It is mesophilic and demonstrates a temperature range for growth between 22 and 42 oC [1]. Colonies grown for < 4 weeks are non-pigmented, nonphotochromogenic and do not produce a diagnostic odor [1]. They do not produce aerial mycelium, spores or demonstrate true branching. Young colonies are creamy and smear easily when disturbed. Cell growth at 4 weeks on Löwenstein-Jensen (LJ) medium produces a diffusible pink color in the agar at the leading edges of mature growth. Aged colonies on LJ develop a light buff pigment and demonstrate ‘greening’ from uptake of malachite green [1]. CDC 945T is weakly positive for arylsulfatase at 7 days but is strongly positive in 14 days. No growth on MacConkey agar not containing crystal violet. CDC 945T grows in the presence of 5% sodium chloride at 7 days, in lysozyme at 21 days. Positive for iron uptake, nitrate reduction, tellurite reduction and tween opacity. Negative for tween hydrolysis [1].
Figure 1.

Scanning electron micrograph of S. rugosus CDC 945T. The scale bar is 667nm.

Table 1.

Classification and general features of S. rugosus CDC 945T according to the MIGS recommendations [25].

MIGS ID

Property

Term

Evidence code

 

Current classification

Domain Bacteria

TAS [26]

 

Phylum Actinobacteria

TAS [27]

 

Class Actinobacteria

TAS [28]

 

Subclass Actinobacteridae

TAS [28]

 

Order Actinomycetales

TAS [28,29]

 

Suborder Corynebacterineae

TAS [28,29]

 

Family Segniliparaceae

TAS [1,29]

 

Genus Segniliparus

TAS [1]

 

Species Segniliparus rugosus

TAS [1]

 

Type strain CDC 945

TAS [1]

 

Gram stain

not reported

 
 

Cell shape

rods, irregular

TAS [1]

 

Motility

nonmotile

TAS [1]

 

Sporulation

non-sporulating

TAS [1]

 

Temperature range

mesophile, 22–42 °C

TAS [1]

 

Optimum temperature

33°C

TAS [1]

 

Salinity

unknown

 

MIGS-22

Oxygen requirement

aerobic

TAS [1]

 

Carbon source

D-glucose, glycerol, maltose, mannitol, D-sorbitol and trehalose

TAS [1]

 

Energy source

chemoorganotroph

TAS [1]

MIGS-6

Habitat

environmental water suggested

TAS [5]

MIGS-15

Biotic relationship

likely free-living

NAS [5]

MIGS-14

Pathogenicity

opportunistic pathogen

TAS [1,3]

 

Biosafety level

2

TAS [1,3,30]

 

Isolation

sputum, human

TAS [1,3]

MIGS-4

Geographic location

Alabama, USA

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

 

MIGS-5

Sample collection time

1998

TAS [1]

Evidence codes - 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 the Gene Ontology project [31].

Results with the API CORYNE test kit shows CDC 945T is positive for β-glucosidase, and pyrazinamidase activities and negative for alkaline phosphatase, β-galactosidase, β-glucuronidase, α-glucosidase, N-acetyl-β-glucosaminidase and pyrrolidonyl arylamidase activity at 33oC [1]. It is susceptible to imipenem 4ug/ml, moxifloxacin 0.5 µg/ml, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole < 4.8 ug/ml, intermediate to cefoxitan 64 ug/ml and resistant to amikacin >128 ug/ml, clarithromycin 32 ug/ml, ciprofloxacin 16 ug/ml, ethambutol >16 ug/ml and tobramycin >64 ug/ml. [1,3]. Strain CDC 945T uses D-glucose, glycerol, maltose, mannitol, D-sorbitol and trehalose as sole carbon sources with the production of acid. No growth on adonitol, L-arabinose, cellobiose, citrate, dulcitol, i-erythriol, galactose, i-myo-inositol, lactose, mannose, melibiose, raffinose, L-rhamnose, salicin or sodium citrate [1]. The strain hydrolyzes urea but not acetamide adenine, casein, aesculin, hypoxanthine, tyrosine or xanthine [1].

Chemotaxonomy

The cell wall of strain CDC 945T contains mycolic acids and meso-diaminopimelic acid [1]. The mycolic acid pattern developed with HPLC is a double cluster of peaks emerging at 7.24 min and the last peak group is unresolved and elutes slightly before the 110 carbon chain length, high molecular weight internal standard [1,2]. Thin layer chromatography confirms 2 groups of apolar, α- and α’-alpha-mycolic acids lacking oxygen function, other than the hydroxyl group [1]. The HPLC and TLC results indicate that this strain produces a unique homologous subclass of long, alpha-mycolic acids with additional 90 to 110 carbons [1]. The fatty acid profile by gas-liquid chromatography is C10:0 (8.65%), C12:0 (1.33%), C14:0 (8.49%), C16:0 (18.34%), C18:1ω9c (8.93%), C18:010-methyl (tuberculostearic acid, 21.62%), and C20 (28.51%) [1].

The phylogenetic association of Segniliparus species is shown in Figure 2 in a 16S rRNA based tree. The genus forms a distinct lineage relative to the other mycolic acid containing Actinobacteria. The positioning of Segniliparus in this phylogenetic analysis is consistent with its positioning in the “All-Species Living Tree Project” LTP release 106, August 2011, which is similarly based on 16S rRNA. [11].
Figure 2.

Maximum likelihood phylogenetic tree was generated using PHYML v2.2.4 [7] based on 16S rRNA sequences highlighting the position of S. rugosus CDC 945T relative to the other type strains of mycolic acid containing genera in the suborder Corynebacterineae. GenBank accession numbers are listed after the name. The tree was inferred from 1,468 bp positions aligned using Clustal W [8] in MEGA v4 [9]. Numbers at the branch nodes are support values from 1,000 bootstrap replicates if equal to or greater than 70%. The scale bar indicates substitutions per site. The tree was rooted with Streptomyces coelicolor. Lineages with type strain genome sequencing projects registered in GOLD [10] are shown in blue, published genomes in bold.

Genome sequencing and annotation

Genome project history

This organism was selected for sequencing on the basis of its association with respiratory lung disease and is part of the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research, Human Microbiome Project (HMP) [12]. The HMP presents reference genomes in Genome Online Database (GOLD) [10], the Human Microbiome Project Data Analysis and Coordination Center Project Catalog [13] and the complete high quality draft genome sequence is deposited in GenBank [14]. The Broad Institute performed the sequencing and annotation of this high quality draft genome [15]. A summary of the project is given in Table 2.
Table 2.

Genome sequencing project information

MIGS ID

Property

Term

MIGS-31

Finishing quality

High Quality Draft

MIGS-28

Libraries used

Two 454 pyrosequence libraries, one standard 0.6kb fragment library and one 2.5kb jump library

MIGS-29

Sequencing platforms

454 Titanium

MIGS-31.2

Sequencing coverage

13×

MIGS-30

Assemblers

Newbler Assembler version 2.3 PostRelease-11/19/2009

MIGS-32

Gene calling method

Glimmer; Metagene; PFAM; BLAST to non-redundant protein database; manual curation

 

Genbank ID

ACZI01000000

 

Genbank Date of Release

November 10, 2010

 

GOLD ID

Gi05259

 

NCBI project ID

40685

MIGS-13

Source material identifier

ATCC BAA-974T

 

Project relevance

Human Microbiome Project

Growth conditions and DNA isolation

Strain CDC 945T was grown statically in Middlebrook 7H9 medium at 33oC until late log. DNA was isolated from whole cells after a chloroform/methanol wash with a disruption solution of guanidine thiocyamate, sarkosyl and mercaptoethanol as described in Mve-Obiang et al. [16]. The purity of DNA was assessed by The Broad Institute using the Quant-iT™ dsDNA Assay High Sensitivity Kit (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) and according to the manufacturer’s protocol.

Genome sequencing and assembly

The genome of Segniliparus rugosus ATCC BAA-974 was sequenced using 454 pyrosequence fragment and jump libraries [17]. We assembled the 454 data, consisting of 135,510 fragment reads and 112,271 jump reads, using Newbler Assembler version 2.3 PostRelease-11/19/2009. The assembly is considered High-Quality Draft and consists of 262 contigs arranged in 30 scaffolds with a total size of 3,567,567 bases. The error rate of this draft genome sequence is less than 1 in 10,000 (accuracy of Q40). Average sequence coverage is 13×. Assessment of coverage, GC content, contig BLAST and 16S contig classification were consistent with the species Segniliparus.

Genome annotation

Protein-coding genes were predicted using four ORF-finding tools: GeneMark [18], Glimmer3 [19], Metagene [20], and findBlastOrfs (unpublished). This latter tool builds genes by extending whole-genome blast alignments, in-frame, to include start and stop codons. The final set of non-overlapping ORFs was selected from the output of these tools using an in-house gene-caller, which uses dynamic programming to score candidate gene models based on strength of similarity to entries in UniRef90, then selects non-overlapping genes that, combined, have the highest overall score. In cases where predictions overlapped non-coding RNA features (see below), the genes were manually inspected and removed when necessary. Finally, the gene set was reviewed using both the NCBI discrepancy report and the internal Broad annotation metrics. Ribosomal RNAs (rRNAs) were identified with RNAmmer [21]. The tRNA features were identified using tRNAScan [22]. Other non-coding features were identified with RFAM [23]. The gene product names were assigned based on Hmmer equivalogs from TIGRfam and Pfam, and blast hits to KEGG and SwissProt protein sequence databases. This was done using the naming tool “Pidgin” [24].

Genome properties

This 3,567,567 bp draft genome has high G+C content (Table 3 and Figure 3) and is predicted to encode 3,571 genes, 98% of which are protein coding. Nearly 70% of predicted proteins have a functional prediction and COG functional categories have been assigned to 53% of predicted proteins (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), GC content, GC skew.

Table 3.

Genome Statistics

Attribute

Value

% of Total

Genome size (bp)

3,647,826

100.00%

DNA coding region (bp)

3,156,492

86.35%

DNA G+C content (bp)

2,484,899

68.12%

Number of replicons

unknown

 

Extrachromosomal elements

unknown

 

Total genes

3,571

100.0%

tRNA genes

46

1.28%

rRNA genes

3

0.08%

rRNA operons

1

0.03%

CRISPR repeats

0

 

Protein-coding genes

3,522

98.62%

Pseudo genes (partial genes)

6 (233)

0.17% (6.52%)

Genes with function prediction

2,486

69.62%

Genes in paralog clusters

194

5.43%

Genes assigned to COGS

1,897

53.12%

Genes assigned Pfam domains

2,451

68.64%

Genes with signal peptides

412

11.54%

Genes with transmembrane helices

590

16.52%

Table 4.

Number of genes associated with the general COG functional categories

Code

Value

%age

Description

J

121

3.4

Translation, ribosomal structure and biogenesis

A

1

0.0

RNA processing and modification

K

89

2.5

Transcription

L

84

2.4

Replication, recombination and repair

B

0

0.0

Chromatin structure and dynamics

D

18

0.5

Cell cycle control, cell division, chromosome partitioning

Y

0

0.0

Nuclear structure

V

22

0.6

Defense mechanisms

T

51

1.4

Signal transduction mechanisms

M

85

2.4

Cell wall/membrane/envelope biogenesis

N

3

0.1

Cell motility

Z

0

0.0

Cytoskeleton

W

0

0.0

Extracellular structures

U

11

0.3

Intracellular trafficking and secretion, and vesicular transport

O

77

2.2

Posttranslational modification, protein turnover, chaperones

C

140

4.0

Energy production and conversion

G

100

2.8

Carbohydrate transport and metabolism

E

225

6.4

Amino acid transport and metabolism

F

74

2.1

Nucleotide transport and metabolism

H

102

2.9

Coenzyme transport and metabolism

I

120

3.4

Lipid transport and metabolism

P

110

3.1

Inorganic ion transport and metabolism

Q

92

2.6

Secondary metabolites biosynthesis, transport and catabolism

R

246

7.0

General function prediction only

S

126

3.6

Function unknown

-

1625

46.1

Not in COGs

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the Broad Genome Sequencing Platform, Lucia Alvarado-Balderrama for data submission and Susanna G. Hamilton for project management. We also acknowledge NIH for funding this project with grants to the Broad Institute (grants HHSN272200900017C and U54-HG004969).

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Genome Sequencing and Analysis Program, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard
(2)
Division of Tuberculosis Elimination, Laboratory Branch, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(3)
Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, Clinical and Environmental Microbiology Branch, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

References

  1. Butler WR, Floyd MM, Brown JM, Toney SR, Daneshvar MI, Cooksey RC, Carr J, Steigerwalt AG, Charles N. Novel mycolic acid-containing bacteria in the family Segniliparaceae fam. nov., including the genus Segniliparus gen. nov., with descriptions of Segniliparus rotundus sp. nov. and Segniliparus rugosus sp. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2005; 55:1615–1624. PubMed doi:10.1099/ijs.0.63465-0View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Butler WR, Guthertz LS. Mycolic acid analysis by high-performance liquid chromatography for identification of Mycobacterium species. Clin Microbiol Rev 2001; 14:704–726. PubMed doi:10.1128/CMR.14.4.704-726.2001PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Butler WR, Sheils CA, Brown-Elliott BA, Charles N, Colin AA, Gant MJ, Goodill J, Hindman D, Toney SR, Wallace RJ, Jr., et al. First isolations of Segniliparus rugosus from patients with cystic fibrosis. J Clin Microbiol 2007; 45:3449–3452. PubMed doi:10.1128/JCM.00765-07PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Hansen T, Van-Kerckhof J, Jelfs P, Wainwright C, Ryan P, Coulter C. Segniliparus rugosus infection, Australia. Emerg Infect Dis 2009; 15:611–613. PubMed doi:10.3201/eid1504.081479PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Evans RH. Segniliparus rugosus-associated bronchiolitis in California sea lion. Emerg Infect Dis 2011; 17:311–312. PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Sikorski J, Lapidus A, Copeland A, Misra M, Glavina Del Rio T, Nolan M, Lucas S, Chen F, Tice H, Cheng JF, et al. Complete genome sequence of Segniliparus rotundus type strain (CDC 1076). Stand Genomic Sci 2010; 2:203–211. PubMed doi:10.4056/sigs.791633PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Guindon S, Gascuel O. A simple, fast, and accurate algorithm to estimate large phylogenies by maximum likelihood. Syst Biol 2003; 52:696–704. 54QHX07WB5K5XCX4 [pii]View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Thompson JD, Higgins DG, Gibson TJ. CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Res 1994; 22:4673–4680. PubMed doi:10.1093/nar/22.22.4673PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Tamura K, Dudley J, Nei M, Kumar S. MEGA4: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis (MEGA) software version 4.0. Mol Biol Evol 2007; 24:1596–1599. PubMed doi:10.1093/molbev/msm092View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 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:D346–3D354.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Yarza P, Ludwig W, Euzeby J, Amann R, Schleifer KH, Glockner FO, Rossello-Mora R. Update of the All-Species Living Tree Project based on 16S and 23S rRNA sequence analyses. Syst Appl Microbiol 2010; 33:291–299. PubMed doi:10.1016/j.syapm.2010.08.001View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Peterson J, Garges S, Giovanni M, McInnes P, Wang L, Schloss JA, Bonazzi V, McEwen JE, Wetterstrand KA, Deal C, et al. The NIH Human Microbiome Project. Genome Res 2009; 19:2317–2323. PubMed doi:10.1101/gr.096651.109PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. The National Institutes of Health. Data Analysis and Coordination Center for Human Microbiome Project. http://www.hmpdacc.org.
  14. Benson DA, Karsch-Mizrachi I, Lipman DJ, Ostell J, Sayers EW. GenBank. Nucleic Acids Res 2011; 39:D32–D37. PubMed doi:10.1093/nar/gkq1079PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. The Broad Institute. http://www.broadinstitute.org.
  16. Mve-Obiang A, Mestdagh M, Portaels F. DNA isolation from chloroform/methanol-treated mycobacterial cells without lysozyme and proteinase K. Biotechniques 2001; 30:272–274, 276. PubMedPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Lennon NJ, Lintner RE, Anderson S, Alvarez P, Barry A, Brockman W, Daza R, Erlich RL, Giannoukos G, Green L, et al. A scalable, fully automated process for construction of sequence-ready barcoded libraries for 454. Genome Biol 2010; 11:R15. PubMed doi:10.1186/gb-2010-11-2-r15PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Borodovsky M, McIninch J. GENMARK: Parallel gene recognition for both DNA strands. Comput Chem 1993; 17:123–133. doi:10.1016/0097-8485(93)85004-VView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Delcher AL, Harmon D, Kasif S, White O, Salzberg SL. Improved microbial gene identification with GLIMMER. Nucleic Acids Res 1999; 27:4636–4641. PubMed doi:10.1093/nar/27.23.4636PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Noguchi H, Park J, Takagi T. MetaGene: prokaryotic gene finding from environmental genome shotgun sequences. Nucleic Acids Res 2006; 34:5623–5630. PubMed doi:10.1093/nar/gkl723PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Lagesen K, Hallin P, Rodland EA, Staerfeldt HH, Rognes T, Ussery DW. RNAmmer: consistent and rapid annotation of ribosomal RNA genes. Nucleic Acids Res 2007; 35:3100–3108. PubMed doi:10.1093/nar/gkm160PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Lowe TM, Eddy SR. tRNAscan-SE: a program for improved detection of transfer RNA genes in genomic sequence. Nucleic Acids Res 1997; 25:955–964. PubMed doi:10.1093/nar/25.5.955PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Griffiths-Jones S, Moxon S, Marshall M, Khanna A, Eddy SR, Bateman A. Rfam: annotating non-coding RNAs in complete genomes. Nucleic Acids Res 2005; 33:D121–D124. PubMed doi:10.1093/nar/gki081PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. The Broad Institute. Automated gene naming tool. http://genepidgin.sourceforge.net.
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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. New York: Springer; 2001. p119–169.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Stackebrandt E, Rainey FA, Ward-Rainey NL. Proposal for a New Hierarchic Classification System, Actinobacteria classic nov. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1997; 47:479–491. doi:10.1099/00207713-47-2-479View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Zhi XY, Li WJ, Stackebrandt E. An update of the structure and 16S rRNA gene sequence-based definition of higher ranks of the class Actinobacteria, with the proposal of two new suborders and four new families and emended descriptions of the existing higher taxa. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2009; 59:589–608. PubMed doi:10.1099/ijs.0.65780-0View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Chosewood L, Wilson D, eds. Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories (BMBL). 5th ed. rev. Dec. 2009 ed. Washington D.C.: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute of Health; 2009. pnas.050566797. 8. Ironside JW and JE Bell.Google Scholar
  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. The Gene Ontology Consortium. Nat Genet 2000; 25:25–29. PubMed doi:10.1038/75556PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2011