Open Access

Complete genome sequence of Mycobacterium sp. strain (Spyr1) and reclassification to Mycobacterium gilvum Spyr1

  • Aristeidis Kallimanis1,
  • Eugenia Karabika1,
  • Kostantinos Mavromatis2,
  • Alla Lapidus2,
  • Kurt M. LaButti2,
  • Konstantinos Liolios2,
  • Natalia Ivanova2,
  • Lynne Goodwin2, 3,
  • Tanja Woyke2,
  • Athanasios D. Velentzas4,
  • Angelos Perisynakis1,
  • Christos C. Ouzounis5, 6, 7,
  • Nikos C. Kyrpides2,
  • Anna I. Koukkou1Email author and
  • Constantin Drainas1
Standards in Genomic Sciences20115:5010144

https://doi.org/10.4056/sigs.2265047

Published: 15 October 2011

Abstract

Mycobacterium sp.Spyr1 is a newly isolated strain that occurs in a creosote contaminated site in Greece. It was isolated by an enrichment method using pyrene as sole carbon and energy source and is capable of degrading a wide range of PAH substrates including pyrene, fluoranthene, fluorene, anthracene and acenapthene. Here we describe the genomic features of this organism, together with the complete sequence and annotation. The genome consists of a 5,547,747 bp chromosome and two plasmids, a larger and a smaller one with sizes of 211,864 and 23,681 bp, respectively. In total, 5,588 genes were predicted and annotated.

Keywords

Mycobacterium gilvum PAH biodegradation pyrene degradation

Introduction

Strain Spyr1 (=LMG 24558, =DSM 45189) is a new strain which based on its morphological and genomic features, belongs to the genus Mycobacterium [1]. It was isolated from Perivleptos, a creosote polluted site in Epirus, Greece (12 Km North of the city of Ioannina), where a wood preserving industry was operating for over 30 years. Strain Spyr1 is of particular interest because it is able to utilize a wide range of PAH substrates as sole sources of carbon and energy, including pyrene, fluoranthene, fluorene, anthracene and acenapthene. Microbial degradation is one of the major routes by which Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) can be removed from the environment. Strain Spyr1 metabolizes pyrene to 1-Hydroxy-2-naphthoic acid which subsequently is degraded via o-phthalic acid, a pathway also proposed for other Mycobacterium strains [1] exhibiting desirable PAH degradation properties as follows. Complete degradation of pyrene at concentrations 80 mg/L occurred within eight days of incubation in the dark [1]. The extrapolated degradation rate for the growth-phase can be averaged to 10 gml−1day−1, a value similar to that reported for other Mycobacterium species [2,3]. Addition of vitamins or trace amounts of yeast extract were not required for the growth of Spyr1 on any PAH, unlike other Mycobacterium spp. [4]. Use of free or entrapped cells of strain Spyr1 resulted in total removal of PAH from spiked soil samples [1]. Here a summary classification and a set of features for strain Spyr1, along with the description of the complete genome sequence and annotation are presented.

Classification and Features

The phylogenetic tree of strain Spyr1 according to 16S rDNA sequences is depicted in Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Phylogenetic location of strain Spyr1 among other Mycobacterium species. Corynebacterium glutamicum was used as the outgroup. The scale bar indicates the number of substitutions per nucleotide position (Number of bootstrap analysis: 1000).

The sequence identity of the 16S rRNA genes of strain Spyr1 to those from the two M. gilvum strains is 99%, while the average nucleotide identity (ANI) [5] between strain Spyr1 and M. gilvum PYR-GCK is 98.5. This information indicates that Spyr1 is a strain of M gilvum. Accordingly, we propose the renaming of the Spy1 strain to M. gilvum Spyr1. The ANI values between strain Spyr1 and other sequenced Mycobacteria are depicted in Figure 2.
Figure 2.

ANI values between Mycobacterium sp. Spyr1 and other Mycobacteria. The red line is drawn at ANI 95 a suggested threshold for species.

Strain Spyr1 is an aerobic, non-motile rod, with a cell size of approximately 1.5–2.0 × 3.5–5.0 µm and produces only a weakly positive result under Gram staining. (Figure 3). Colonies were slightly yellowish on Luria agar. The temperature range for growth was 4–37°C with optimum growth at 30–37°C. The pH range was 6.5–8.5 with optimal growth at pH 7.0–7.5. Strain Spyr1 was found to be sensitive to various antibiotics, the minimal inhibitory concentrations were reported as follows: chlorampenicol 10 mgL−1, erythromycin 10 mgL−1, rifampicin 10 mgL−1 and tetracycline 10 mgL−1.
Figure 3.

Scanning electron micrograph of Mycobacterium gilvum strain Spyr1.

Catalase and nitrate reductase tests were positive, whereas arginine dihydrolase, gelatinase, lipase, lysine and ornithine decarboxylase, oxidase, urease, citrate assimilation and H2S production tests were negative. No acid was produced in the presence of glucose, lactose, sucrose, arabinose, galactose, glycerol, myo-inositol, maltose, mannitol, raffinose, sorbitol, sucrose, trehalose and xylose (see also Table 1).
Table 1.

Classification and general features of strain Spyr1 according to the MIGS recommendations [6]

MIGS ID

Property

Term

Evidence code

 

Current classification

Domain Bacteria

TAS [7]

 

Phylum Actinobacteria

TAS [8]

 

Class Actinobacteria

TAS [9]

 

Subclass Actinobacteridae

TAS [9,10]

 

Order Actinomycetales

TAS [912]

 

Suborder Corynebacterineae

TAS [9,10]

 

Family Mycobacteriaceae

TAS [911,13]

 

Genus Mycobacterium

TAS [11,14,15]

 

Species Mycobacterium gilvum

TAS [11,13]

 

strain Spyr1

TAS [1]

 

Gram stain

Weakly positive

TAS [1]

 

Cell shape

irregular rods

TAS [1]

 

Motility

Non motile

TAS [1]

 

Sporulation

nonsporulating

NAS

 

Temperature range

mesophile

TAS [1]

 

Optimum temperature

30°C

TAS [1]

 

Salinity

normal

TAS [1]

MIGS-22

Oxygen requirement

aerobic

TAS [1]

 

Carbon source

Pyrene, fluoranthene, phenanthrene, anthracene, glucose, yeast extract

TAS [1]

 

Energy source

Pyrene, fluoranthene, phenanthrene, anthracene, glucose, yeast extract

TAS [1]

MIGS-6

Habitat

Soil

TAS [1]

MIGS-15

Biotic relationship

Free-living

NAS

MIGS-14

Pathogenicity

none

NAS

 

Biosafety level

1

NAS

 

Isolation

Creosote contaminated soil

TAS [1]

MIGS-4

Geographic location

Perivleptos, Epirus, Greece

TAS [1]

MIGS-5

Sample collection time

April 2000

TAS [1]

MIGS-4.1

Latitude

39.789

NAS

MIGS-4.2

Longitude

20.781

NAS

MIGS-4.3

Depth

10-20 cm

TAS [1]

MIGS-4.4

Altitude

500 m

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 of the Gene Ontology project [16].

Chemotaxonomy

Strain Spyr1 major fatty acids are C16:1 (16.7%), C16:0 (32,9%), C18:1(47.5%), C18:0 (1.0%) and C19:0 cyclo(1.1%). The major phospholipids were phosphatidylethanolamine (PE), phosphatidylglycerol (PG) and diphospatidylglycerol (DPG) (80.4, 4.7 and 15.0% respectively).

Genome sequencing information

Genome project history

This organism was selected for sequencing on the basis of its biodegradation capabilities, i.e. metabolizes phenanthrene as a sole source of carbon and energy. The genome project is deposited in the Genome OnLine Database [17] 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

Tree genomic libraries: Sanger 9 kb pMCL200, fosmids and 454 standard library

MIGS-29

Sequencing platforms

ABI3730, 454 GS FLX

MIGS-31.2

Sequencing coverage

10.26 × Sanger; 43.3 × pyrosequence

MIGS-30

Assemblers

Newbler version 1.1.02.15, Arachne

MIGS-32

Gene calling method

Prodigal 1.4, GenePRIMP

 

Genbank ID

CP002385, CP002386, CP002387

 

Genbank Date of Release

December 21, 2010

 

GOLD ID

Gc01567

 

NCBI project ID

28521

 

Database: IMG

649633070

MIGS-13

Source material identifier

DSM 45189

 

Project relevance

Bioremediation, PAH degradation

Growth conditions and DNA isolation

Mycobacterium gilvum Spyr1, DSM 45189 was grown aerobically at 30°C on MM M9 containing 0.01% (w/v) pyrene. DNA was isolated according to the standard JGI (CA, USA) protocol for bacterial genomic DNA isolation using CTAB.

Genome sequencing and assembly

The genome of Mycobacterium gilvum Spyr1 strain was sequenced using a combination of Sanger and 454 sequencing platforms. All general aspects of library construction and sequencing can be found at the JGI website [18]. Pyrosequencing reads were assembled using the Newbler assembler version 1.1.02.15 (Roche). Large Newbler contigs were broken into 6,290 overlapping fragments of 1,000 bp and entered into assembly as pseudo-reads. The sequences were assigned quality scores based on Newbler consensus q-scores with modifications to account for overlap redundancy and to adjust inflated q-scores. A hybrid 454/Sanger assembly was made using the Arachne assembler [19]. Possible mis-assemblies were corrected and gaps between contigs were closed by editing in Consed, with custom primer walks from sub-clones or PCR products. A total of 346 Sanger finishing reads were produced to close gaps, resolve repetitive regions, and raise the quality of the finished sequence. The error rate of the completed genome sequence is less than 1 in 100,000. Together, the combination of the Sanger and 454 sequencing platforms provided 53.56 x coverage of the genome. The final assembly contains 61,443 Sanger reads and 1,300,893 pyrosequencing reads.

Genome annotation

Genes were identified using Prodigal [20] as part of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory genome annotation pipeline, followed by a round of manual curation using the JGI GenePRIMP pipeline [21]. The predicted CDSs were translated and used to search the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) nonredundant database, UniProt, TIGR-Fam, Pfam, PRIAM, KEGG, COG, and InterPro databases. Comparative analysis was performed within the Integrated Microbial Genomes (IMG) platform [22].

Genome properties

The genome consists of a 5,547,747 bp long circular chromosome with a G+C content of 68% and two plasmids (Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, and Table 3). The larger is 211,864 bp long with 66% G+C content and the smaller 23,681 bp with 64% G+C content. Of the 5,434 genes predicted, 5,379 were protein-coding genes, and 55 RNAs; 30 pseudogenes were also identified. The majority of the protein-coding genes (67.3%) 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 4.

Graphical circular map of the chromosome of strain Spyr1. 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.

Figure 5.

Graphical circular map of first plasmid of strain Spyr1. 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.

Figure 6.

Graphical circular map of second plasmid of strain Spyr1. 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)

5,783,292

100.00%

DNA coding region (bp)

5,256,086

90.88%

DNA G+C content (bp)

3,918,840

67.76%

Number of replicons

1

 

Extrachromosomal elements

2

 

Total genes

5,434

100.00%

RNA genes

55

1.01%

rRNA operons

2

 

Protein-coding genes

5,379

98.99%

Pseudo genes

30

0.55%

Genes with function prediction

3,657

67.30%

Genes in paralog clusters

403

7.42%

Genes assigned to COGs

4,038

74.31%

Genes assigned Pfam domains

4,188

77.07%

Genes with signal peptides

1,617

29.76%

Genes with transmembrane helices

1,185

33.80%

CRISPR repeats

0

 
Table 4.

Number of genes associated with the general COG functional categories

Code

value

%age

Description

J

154

3.4

Translation, ribosomal structure and biogenesis

A

20

0.4

RNA processing and modification

K

398

8.7

Transcription

L

305

6.7

Replication, recombination and repair

B

1

0.0

Chromatin structure and dynamics

D

34

0.7

Cell cycle control, cell division, chromosome partitioning

Y

0

0.0

Nuclear structure

V

46

1.0

Defense mechanisms

T

193

4.2

Signal transduction mechanisms

M

176

3.9

Cell wall/membrane/envelope biogenesis

N

10

0.2

Cell motility

Z

1

0.0

Cytoskeleton

W

0

0.0

Extracellular structures

U

38

0.8

Intracellular trafficking, secretion and vesicular transport

O

132

2.9

Posttranslational modification, protein turnover, chaperones

C

303

6.6

Energy production and conversion

G

198

4.3

Carbohydrate transport and metabolism

E

320

7.0

Amino acid transport and metabolism

F

81

1.8

Nucleotide transport and metabolism

H

170

3.7

Coenzyme transport and metabolism

I

412

9.0

Lipid transport and metabolism

P

216

4.7

Inorganic ion transport and metabolism

Q

362

7.9

Secondary metabolites biosynthesis, transport and catabolism

R

636

14.0

General function prediction only

S

351

7.7

Function unknown

-

1,396

25.7

Not in COGs

Notes

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the program “Pythagoras II” of EPEAEK with 25% National Funds and 75% European Social Funds (ESF) and partly supported by the European Commission FP7 Collaborative Project MICROME (grant agreement number 222886-2). Sequencing and annotation was supported by 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.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Sector of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Ioannina
(2)
DOE Joint Genome Institute
(3)
Bioscience Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory
(4)
Department of Cell Biology and Biophysics, Faculty of Biology, University of Athens
(5)
Centre for Bioinformatics, Department of Informatics, School of Natural & Mathematical Sciences, King’s College London (KCL)
(6)
Computational Genomics Unit, Institute of Agrobiotechnology, Center for Research & Technology Hellas (CERTH)
(7)
Donnelly Centre for Cellular & Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto

References

  1. Karabika E, Kallimanis A, Dados A, Pilidis G, Drainas C, Koukkou AI. Taxonomic identification and use of free and entrapped cells of a new Mycobacterium sp., strain Spyr1 for degradation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). Appl Biochem Biotechnol 2009; 159:155–167. PubMed doi:10.1007/s12010-008-8463-1View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Dean-Ross D, Cerniglia CE. Degradation of pyrene by Mycobacterium flavescens. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 1996; 46:307–312. PubMed doi:10.1007/s002530050822View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Vila J, Lopez Z, Sabate J, Minuillon C, Solanas A, Grifoll M. Identification of a novel metabolite in the degradation of pyrene by Mycobacterium sp. strain AP1: actions of the isolate on two- and three-ring polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Appl Environ Microbiol 2001; 67:5497–5505. PubMed doi:10.1128/AEM.67.12.5497-5505.2001PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Heitkamp MA, Franklin W, Cerniglia CE. Microbial metabolism of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: isolation and characterization of a pyrenedegrading bacterium. Appl Environ Microbiol 1988; 54:2549–2555. PubMedPubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Konstantinidis KT, Tiedje JM. Genomic insights that advance the species definition for prokaryotes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2005; 102:2567–2572. PubMed doi:10.1073/pnas.0409727102PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. Garrity GM, Holt JG. The Road Map to the Manual. In: Garrity GM, Boone DR, Castenholz RW (eds), Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, Second Edition, Volume 1, Springer, New York, 2001, p. 119–169.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Stackebrandt E, Rainey FA, Ward-Rainey NL. Proposal for a new hierarchic classification system, Actinobacteria classis nov. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1997; 47:479–491. doi:10.1099/00207713-47-2-479View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. Chester FD. Report of mycologist: bacteriological work. Delaware Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 1897; 9:38–145.Google Scholar
  14. Lehmann KB, Neumann R. Atlas und Grundriss der Bakteriologie und Lehrbuch der speziellen bakteriologischen Diagnostik, First Edition, J.F. Lehmann, München, 1896, p. 1–448.Google Scholar
  15. Runyon EH, Wayne LG, Kubica GP. Genus I. Mycobacterium Lehmann and Neumann 1896, 363. In: Buchanan RE, Gibbons NE (eds), Bergey’s Manual of Determinative Bacteriology, Eighth Edition, The Williams and Wilkins Co., Baltimore, 1974, p. 682–701.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. The Joint Genome Institute. http://www.jgi.doe.gov
  19. Batzoglou S, Jaffe DB, Stanley K, Butler J, Gnerre S, Mauceli E, Berger B, Mesirov JP, Lander ES. ARACHNE: a whole-genome shotgun assembler. Genome Res 2002; 12:177–189. PubMed doi:10.1101/gr.208902PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hyatt D, Chen GL, Locascio PF, Land ML, Larimer FW, Hauser LJ. Prodigal Prokaryotic Dynamic Programming Genefinding Algorithm. BMC Bioinformatics 2010; 11:119. PubMed doi:10.1186/1471-2105-11-119PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Pati A, Ivanova N, Mikhailova N, Ovchinikova G, Hooper SD, Lykidis A, Kyrpides NC. GenePRIMP: A Gene Prediction Improvement Pipeline for microbial genomes. Nat Methods 2010; 7:455–457. PubMed doi:10.1038/nmeth.1457View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Markowitz VM, Chen IMA, Palaniappan K, Chu K, Szeto E, Grechkin Y, Rather A, Anderson I, Lykidis A, Mavromatis K, et al. The Integrated Microbial Genomes (IMG) system: an expanding comparative analysis resource. Nucleic Acids Res 2010; 38:D382–D390. PubMed doi:10.1093/nar/gkp887PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Pribram E. A contribution to the classification of microorganisms. J Bacteriol 1929; 18:361–394. PubMedPubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Conn HJ, Dimmick I. Soil bacteria similar in morphology to Mycobacterium and Corynebacterium. J Bacteriol 1947; 54:291–303.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Stanford JL, Gunthorpe WJ. A study of some fast-growing scotochromogenic mycobacteria including species descriptions of Mycobacterium gilvum (new species) and Mycobacterium duvalii (new species). Br J Exp Pathol 1971; 52:627–637. PubMedPubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2011