Open Access

Genome sequence of the filamentous, gliding Thiothrix nivea neotype strain (JP2T)

  • Alla Lapidus1,
  • Matt Nolan1,
  • Susan Lucas1,
  • Tijana Glavina Del Rio1,
  • Hope Tice1,
  • Jan-Fang Cheng1,
  • Roxanne Tapia1, 2,
  • Cliff Han1, 2,
  • Lynne Goodwin1, 2,
  • Sam Pitluck1,
  • Konstantinos Liolios1,
  • Ioanna Pagani1,
  • Natalia Ivanova1,
  • Marcel Huntemann1,
  • Konstantinos Mavromatis1,
  • Natalia Mikhailova1,
  • Amrita Pati1,
  • Amy Chen3,
  • Krishna Palaniappan3,
  • Miriam Land1, 4,
  • Evelyne-Marie Brambilla5,
  • Manfred Rohde6,
  • Birte Abt5,
  • Susanne Verbarg5,
  • Markus Göker5,
  • James Bristow1,
  • Jonathan A. Eisen1, 7,
  • Victor Markowitz4,
  • Philip Hugenholtz1, 8,
  • Nikos C. Kyrpides1,
  • Hans-Peter Klenk5 and
  • Tanja Woyke1
Standards in Genomic Sciences20115:5030398

DOI: 10.4056/sigs.2344929

Published: 31 December 2011

Abstract

Thiothrix nivea (Rabenhorst 1865) Winogradsky 1888 (Approved Lists 1980) emend. Larkin and Shinabarger 1983 is the type species of the genus Thiothrix in the family Thiotrichaceae. The species is of interest not only because of its isolated location in the yet to be genomically characterized region of the tree of life, but also because of its life-style with gliding gonidia, the multilayer sheath, rosettes, and the embedded sulfur granules. Strain JP2T is the neotype strain of the species which was first observed by Rabenhorst in 1865 and later reclassified by Winogradsky in 1888 into the then novel genus Thiothrix. This is the first completed (improved-high-quality-draft) genome sequence to be published of a member of the family Thiotrichaceae. The genome in its current assembly consists of 15 contigs in four scaffolds with a total of 4,691,711 bp bearing 4,542 protein-coding and 52 RNA genes and is a part of the Genomic Encyclopedia of Bacteria and Archaea project.

Keywords

strictly aerobic gliding motility Gram-negative mesophile sheath filaments sulfur granules Thiotrichaceae GEBA

Introduction

Strain JP2T (= DSM 5205 = ATCC 35100) is the type strain of Thiothrix nivea [1,2] which is the type species of the genus Thiothrix [1,2]. Cultures of the species were first observed and classified as “Beggiatoa nivea” in 1865 by Rabenhorst [3] and later (1888) placed into the novel genus Thiothrix by Winogradsky [2]. The species was included on the Approved List of Bacterial Names Amended edition in 1980 [4]. Axenic cultures isolated from sulfide-containing well water became available in 1980 through the work of J. M. Larkin [5], with the formal description of strain JP2T as the neotype strain of the species T. nivea in 1983 [1], as well as strain JP1 as a reference strain within the species [1]. The generic name derives from the Neo-Greek words theion, sulfur, and thrix, hair [6]. The species epithet is derived from the Latin word nivea snow-white [6]. The species became well known for its sulfur granules, the gliding motility and the typical rosettes [1], which were first observed by Winogradsky [2]. Here we present a summary classification and a set of features for T. nivea JP2T, together with the description of the complete genomic sequencing and annotation.

Classification and features

A representative genomic 16S rRNA sequence of T. nivea JP2T was compared using NCBI BLAST [7] 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 [8] and the relative frequencies of taxa and keywords (reduced to their stem [9]) were determined, weighted by BLAST scores. The most frequently occurring genus was Thiothrix (100.0%, 12 hits in total). Regarding the single hit to sequences from members of the species, the average identity within HSPs was 99.5%, whereas the average coverage by HSPs was 99.4%. Regarding the four hits to sequences from other members of the genus, the average identity within HSPs was 94.2%, whereas the average coverage by HSPs was 96.0%. Among all other species, the one yielding the highest score was, Thiothrix fructosivorans (GU269554) which corresponded to an identity of 94.5% and an HSP coverage of 100.0%. (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 AM490765 (‘Linking and functional nutrient spiraling mats (USA) microbial mat sulfidic cave spring Lower Kane Cave Big Horn LKC22 clone SS LKC22 UB32’), which showed an identity of 96.7% and an HSP coverage of 100.0%. The most frequently occurring keywords within the labels of environmental samples which yielded hits were ‘sulfid’ (4.2%), ‘microbi’ (4.0%), ‘biofilm’ (3.4%), ‘cave’ (2.8%) and ‘karst’ (2.7%) (238 hits in total). Environmental samples which yielded hits of a higher score than the highest scoring species were not found. These keywords reflect the ecological properties reported for the species and strain JP2T in the original description [1,2].

Figure 1 shows the phylogenetic neighborhood of T. nivea in a 16S rRNA based tree. The sequences of the two identical 16S rRNA gene copies in the genome do not differ from the previously published 16S rRNA sequence (L40993), which contains six ambiguous base calls.
Figure 1.

Phylogenetic tree highlighting the position of T. nivea relative to the other type strains within the family Thiotrichaceae. The tree was inferred from 1,332 aligned characters [10,11] of the 16S rRNA gene sequence under the maximum likelihood (ML) criterion [12]. Rooting was done initially using the midpoint method [13] 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 200 ML bootstrap replicates [14] (left) and from 1,000 maximum parsimony bootstrap replicates [15] (right) if larger than 60%. Lineages with type strain genome sequencing projects registered in GOLD [16] are labeled with one asterisk, those also listed as ‘Complete and Published’ with two asterisks.

Cells of strain JP2T are rod shaped with various lengths (Figure 2). Cultures of T. nivea contain gliding gonidia, filaments and rosettes (= aggregations of gonidial cells, not visible in Figure 2) [1]. The presence of a sheath was first reported in the 19th century [2] and later confirmed for the neotype strain [1]. The sheath contains several separate layers [1] of so far unknown structure. Motility was observed, but no flagella [1]. Numerous genes allocated to the functional role category motility were identified in the genome (see below). Many of these genes might be involved in the formation of the polar located fimbriae [32]. The typical rosettes generated by T. nivea are known from sulfide-containing waters [1,2]. Sulfur granules are invaginated by the cells, as reported in detail by Larkin and Shinabarger [1]. Strain JP2T stains Gram-negative, and grows only aerobically, best within a temperature range of 20–30°C [1]. Both the neotype strain and reference strain JP1 produce oxidase, but not catalase. The strains also produce poly-β-hydroxybutyrate [1]. Strain JP2T uses only four carbon sources; acetate, malate, pyruvate and oxalacetate [1]. Ammonia and nitrate (but not nitrite) are used as sole nitrogen sources [1]. The sole sulfur sources are sulfide and thiosulfate. What remains unresolved, based on the literature is whether or not T. nivea is autotrophic, obtaining carbon from CO2 and energy via oxidation of sulfide as reported by Winogradsky [13] or not, as reported by Larkin and Shinabarger [1]. In the case in which strain JP2T could use CO2 as a carbon source as well as acetate, malate, pyruvate and oxalacetate, while oxidizing the reduced sulfur compounds, it could be considered to be a mixotroph [1].
Figure 2.

Scanning electron micrograph of T. nivea JP2T

Genome sequencing and annotation

Genome project history

This organism was selected for sequencing on the basis of its phylogenetic position [33], and is part of the Genomic Encyclopedia of Bacteria and Archaea project [34]. The genome project is deposited in the Genome On Line Database [16] 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.

Growth conditions and DNA isolation

T. nivea JP2T, DSM 5205, was grown in DSMZ medium 1300 (Thiothrix Medium) [35] at 25°C. DNA was isolated from 0.5–1 g of cell paste using Jetflex Genomic DNA Purification Kit (GENOMED 600100) following the standard protocol as recommended by the manufacturer, but adding 10µl proteinase K for one hour extended lysis at 58°C. DNA is available through the DNA Bank Network [36].

Chemotaxonomy

There are no chemotaxonomic data on cell wall structure, cellular lipids, quinones or polar lipids of strain JP2T.
Table 1.

Classification and general features of T. nivea JP2T according to the MIGS recommendations [17] and the NamesforLife database [18].

MIGS ID

Property

Term

Evidence code

 

Current classification

Domain Bacteria

TAS [19]

 

Phylum “Proteobacteria

TAS [20,21]

 

Class Gammaproteobacteria

TAS [22]

 

Order Thiotrichales

TAS [22,23]

 

Family Thiotrichaceae

TAS [22,24]

 

Genus Thiothrix

TAS [2,4,2527]

 

Species Thiothrix nivea

TAS [1,5]

 

Type strain JP2

TAS [1]

 

Gram stain

negative

TAS [1]

 

Cell shape

rod-shaped, filaments with a sheath, rosettes

TAS [1]

 

Motility

gliding

TAS [1]

 

Sporulation

not reported

 
 

Temperature range

mesophilic, 6–34°C

TAS [1]

 

Optimum temperature

25–30°C

TAS [1]

 

Salinity

not reported

 

MIGS-22

Oxygen requirement

strictly aerobic

TAS [1]

 

Carbon source

acetate, malate, pyruvate, oxalacetate

TAS [1]

 

Energy metabolism

chemolithotroph

NAS

MIGS-6

Habitat

spring-generated, flowing, H2S-enriched waters, deep sea hydrothermal vents

TAS [28,29]

MIGS-15

Biotic relationship

free-living

TAS [1]

MIGS-14

Pathogenicity

none

TAS [1]

 

Biosafety level

1

TAS [30]

 

Isolation

H2S-enriched well water

TAS [1]

MIGS-4

Geographic location

John Pennycamp State Park, Key Largo, FL, USA

TAS [1]

MIGS-5

Sample collection time

1983 or before

NAS

MIGS-4.1

Latitude

25.13

NAS

MIGS-4.2

Longitude

−80.41

NAS

MIGS-4.3

Depth

not reported

 

MIGS-4.4

Altitude

not reported

 

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 [31].

Table 2.

Genome sequencing project information

MIGS ID

Property

Term

MIGS-31

Finishing quality

Improved-high-quality-draft

MIGS-28

Libraries used

Three genomic libraries: one 454 pyrosequence standard library, one 454 PE library (12 kb insert size), one Illumina library

MIGS-29

Sequencing platforms

Illumina GAii, 454 GS FLX Titanium

MIGS-31.2

Sequencing coverage

111.5 × Illumina; 28.9 × pyrosequence

MIGS-30

Assemblers

Newbler version 2.3-PreRelease-6/30/2009, Velvet version 1.0.13, phrap SPS-4.24

MIGS-32

Gene calling method

Prodigal 1.4, GenePRIMP

 

INSDC ID

Not yet available

 

Genbank Date of Release

Not yet available

 

GOLD ID

Gi03023

 

NCBI project ID

51139

 

Database: IMG-GEBA

2506520049

MIGS-13

Source material identifier

DSM 5205

 

Project relevance

Tree of Life, GEBA

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 [37]. Pyrosequencing reads were assembled using the Newbler assembler (Roche). The initial Newbler assembly consisting of 269 contigs in four scaffolds was converted into a phrap assembly by [38] making fake reads from the consensus to collect the read pairs in the 454 paired end library. Illumina GAii sequencing data (518.8 Mb) was assembled with Velvet [39], 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 162.5 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 [38] 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 [37], Dupfinisher, or sequencing cloned bridging PCR fragments with subcloning or transposon bombing (Epicentre Biotechnologies, Madison, WI). Gaps between contigs were closed by editing in Consed, by PCR and by Bubble PCR primer walks (J.-F. Chang, unpublished). A total of 632 additional reactions were necessary to close gaps and to raise the quality of the final sequence. Illumina reads were also used to correct potential base errors and increase consensus quality using a software Polisher developed at JGI [40]. This genome is not finished. The improved high quality draft consists of 15 contigs in four scaffolds. Some mis-assemblies are possible in the final assembly. Together, the combination of the Illumina and 454 sequencing platforms provided 140.4 × coverage of the genome. The final assembly contained 444,417 pyrosequence and 14,381,947 Illumina reads.

Genome annotation

Genes were identified using Prodigal [41] as part of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory genome annotation pipeline, followed by a round of manual curation using the JGI GenePRIMP pipeline [42]. 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 [43].

Genome properties

The genome consists in the current assembly of 15 contigs in four scaffolds with a length of 5,599 bp, 7,015 bp, 40,927 bp, and 4,638,170 bp, respectively, and a G+C content of 54.9% (Table 3). Of the 4,594 genes predicted, 4,542 were protein-coding genes, and 52 RNAs; 213 pseudogenes were also identified. The majority of the protein-coding genes (98.8%) were annotated as hypothetical proteins. The distribution of genes into COGs functional categories is presented in Table 4.
Table 3.

Genome Statistics

Attribute

Value

% of Total

Genome size (bp)

4,691,711

100.00%

DNA coding region (bp)

4,147,061

88.39%

DNA G+C content (bp)

2,573,778

54.87%

Number of scaffolds

4

 

Number of contigs

15

 

Total genes

4,594

100.00%

RNA genes

52

1.15%

rRNA operons

2

 

Protein-coding genes

4,542

98.85%

Pseudo genes

213

4.64%

Genes with function prediction

2,918

63.52%

Genes in paralog clusters

2,282

49.67%

Genes assigned to COGs

3,275

71.29%

Genes assigned Pfam domains

3,338

72.66%

Genes with signal peptides

971

21.14%

Genes with transmembrane helices

1,027

22.36%

CRISPR repeats

4

 
Table 4.

Number of genes associated with the general COG functional categories

Code

value

%age

Description

J

168

4.7

Translation, ribosomal structure and biogenesis

A

3

0.1

RNA processing and modification

K

211

5.9

Transcription

L

276

7.7

Replication, recombination and repair

B

1

0.0

Chromatin structure and dynamics

D

48

1.3

Cell cycle control, cell division, chromosome partitioning

Y

0

0.0

Nuclear structure

V

70

2.0

Defense mechanisms

T

208

5.8

Signal transduction mechanisms

M

266

7.4

Cell wall/membrane/envelope biogenesis

N

56

1.6

Cell motility

Z

0

0.0

Cytoskeleton

W

0

0.0

Extracellular structures

U

102

2.9

Intracellular trafficking, secretion, and vesicular transport

O

162

4.5

Posttranslational modification, protein turnover, chaperones

C

289

8.1

Energy production and conversion

G

127

3.6

Carbohydrate transport and metabolism

E

210

5.9

Amino acid transport and metabolism

F

59

1.7

Nucleotide transport and metabolism

H

143

4.0

Coenzyme transport and metabolism

I

82

2.3

Lipid transport and metabolism

P

196

5.5

Inorganic ion transport and metabolism

Q

58

1.6

Secondary metabolites biosynthesis, transport and catabolism

R

407

11.4

General function prediction only

S

437

12.2

Function unknown

-

1,319

28.7

Not in COGs

Insight into the genome sequence

The genomic basis for gliding motility is not yet completely resolved, but the requirement of the genes gldA, gldF and gldG was described [44]. Genes gldA, gldF and gldG exhibit a high degree of sequence similarity to components of ABC transporters [44]. A closer examination of the JP2T genome revealed a region of three genes (Thini_0004.00016790, Thini_0004.00016780, Thini_0004.00016770, currently annotated as ABC-type uncharacterized transport system), for which the derived protein sequences show high similarity to GldA, GldF and GldG of Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus HD100 (Bd1023, Bd1024 and Bd1025) [45]. The requirement of gldA for gliding motility was experimentally shown for Flavobacterium johnsoniae. A non-motile mutant lacking the intact gldA gene was complemented by a vector carrying an intact gldA gene. The motility of the mutant was restored [46].

While we were able to locate a phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase gene in the genome, (Thini_0004.00035050), we could not identify a gene for malate dehydrogenase. Unless T. nivea encodes a malate dehydrogenase that is not homologous to other malate dehydrogenases, we can not confirm for the neotype strain the genomic basis for the speculation that the original T. nivea culture can fix CO2 as reported by Winogradsky [13] and is a mixotroph [1].

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We would like to gratefully acknowledge the help of Anja Frühling (DSMZ) for growing T. nivea 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 599/1-1.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
DOE Joint Genome Institute
(2)
Bioscience Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory
(3)
Biological Data Management and Technology Center, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
(4)
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
(5)
Leibniz Institute DSMZ - German Collection of Microorganisms and Cell Cultures
(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. Larkin JM, Shinabarger DL. Characterization of Thiothrix nivea. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1983; 33:841–846. doi:10.1099/00207713-33-4-841View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Winogradsky S. Beiträge zur Morphologie und Physiologie der Bakterien. In: Zur Morphologie und Physiologie der Schwefelbakterien. Felix A (ed) Leipzig 1888; 1:1–120.Google Scholar
  3. Rabenhorst L. Flora Europa algarum aquae dulcis et submarinae, sect II. E. Kummer, Leipzig 1865.Google Scholar
  4. Skerman VBD, McGowan V, Sneath PHA, eds. Approved Lists of Bacterial Names. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1980; 30:225–420. doi:10.1099/00207713-30-1-225Google Scholar
  5. Larkin JM. Isolation of Thiothrix in pure culture and observation of a filamentous epiphyte on Thiothrix. Curr Microbiol 1980; 4:155–158. doi:10.1007/BF02602820View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Euzéby JP. List of Bacterial Names with Standing in Nomenclature: a folder available on the Internet. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1997; 47:590–592. PubMed doi:10.1099/00207713-47-2-590View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. Porter MF. An algorithm for suffix stripping. Program: electronic library and information systems 1980; 14:130–137.View ArticleGoogle 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. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. Swofford DL. PAUP*: Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and Other Methods), Version 4.0 b10. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, 2002.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  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. Garrity G. NamesforLife. BrowserTool takes expertise out of the database and puts it right in the browser. Microbiol Today 2010; 37:9.Google Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Garrity GM, Bell JA, Lilburn T. Phylum XIV. Proteobacteria phyl. nov. In: Garrity GM, Brenner DJ, Krieg NR, Staley JT (eds), Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, Second Edition, Volume 2, Part B, Springer, New York, 2005, p. 1.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Garrity GM, Bell JA, Lilburn T. Class III. Gammaproteobacteria class. nov. In: Brenner DJ, Krieg NR, Staley JT, Garrity GM (eds), Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, second edition, vol. 2 (The Proteobacteria), part B (The Gammaproteobacteria), Springer, New York, 2005, p. 1.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Validation list No. 106. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2005; 55:2235–2238. doi:10.1099/ijs.0.64108-0Google Scholar
  23. Garrity GM, Bell JA, Lilburn T. Order V. Thiotrichales ord. nov. In: Brenner DJ, Krieg NR, Staley JT, Garrity GM (eds), Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, second edition, vol. 2 (The Proteobacteria), part B (The Gammaproteobacteria), Springer, New York, 2005, p. 131.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Garrity GM, Bell JA, Lilburn T. Family I. Thiotrichaceae fam. nov. In: Brenner DJ, Krieg NR, Staley JT, Garrity GM (eds), Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, second edition, vol. 2 (The Proteobacteria), part B (The Gammaproteobacteria), Springer, New York, 2005, p. 131.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Brock TD. Genus II. Thiothrix Winogradsky 1888, 39. In: Buchanan RE, Gibbons NE (eds), Bergey’s Manual of Determinative Bacteriology, Eighth Edition, The Williams and Wilkins Co., Baltimore, 1974, p. 119–120.Google Scholar
  26. Howarth R, Unz RF, Seviour EM, Seviour RJ, Blackall LL, Pickup RW, Jones JG, Yaguchi J, Head IM. Phylogenetic relationships of filamentous sulfur bacteria (Thiothrix spp. and Eikelboom type 021N bacteria) isolated from wastewater-treatment plants and description of Thiothrix ei-kelboomii sp. nov., Thiothrix unzii sp. nov., Thiothrix fructosivorans sp. nov. and Thiothrix defluvii sp. nov. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1999; 49:1817–1827. PubMed doi:10.1099/00207713-49-4-1817View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Aruga S, Kamagata Y, Kohno T, Hanada S, Nakamura K, Kanagawa T. Characterization of filamentous Eikelboom type 021N bacteria and description of Thiothrix disciformis sp. nov. and Thiothrix flexilis sp. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2002; 52:1309–1316. PubMed doi:10.1099/ijs.0.02177-0PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Bland JA, Staley JT. Observations on the biology of Thiothrix. Arch Microbiol 1978; 117:79–87. doi:10.1007/BF00689355View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Lackey JB. ELackey EW, Morgan GB. Taxonomy and ecology of the sulfur bacteria. Eng Prog Univ Fla Bull Ser 1965; 199:3–23.Google Scholar
  30. BAuA. 2010, Classification of Bacteria and Archaea in risk groups. http://www.baua.de TRBA 466, p. 241.
  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. Larkin JM, Nelson R. Mechanism of attachment of swarm cells ot Thiothrix nivea. J Bacteriol 1987; 169:5877–5879. PubMedPubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. List of growth media used at DSMZ: http://www.dsmz.de/catalogues/catalogue-microorganisms/culture-technology/list-of-media-for-microorganisms.html.
  36. 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. Biopreserv Biobank 2011; 9:51–55. doi:10.1089/bio.2010.0029View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. The DOE Joint Genome Institute. http://www.jgi.doe.gov
  38. Phrap and Phred for Windows. MacOS, Linux, and Unix. http://www.phrap.com
  39. 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
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. McBride MJ. Bacterial gliding motility: Multiple mechanisms for cell movement over surfaces. Annu Rev Microbiol 2001; 55:49–75. PubMed doi:10.1146/annurev.micro.55.1.49View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Rendulic S, Jagtap P, Rosinus A, Eppinger M, Baar C, Lanz C, Keller H, Lambert C, Evans KJ, Goesmann A, et al. A Predator Unmasked: Life Cycle of Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus from a Genomic Perspective. Science 2004; 303:689–692. PubMed doi:10.1126/science.1093027View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Agarwal S, Hunnicutt DW, McBride MJ. Cloning and characterization of the Flavobacterium johnsoniae (Cytophaga johnsonae) gliding motility gene, gldA. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1997; 94:12139–12144. PubMed doi:10.1073/pnas.94.22.12139PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2011