Open Access

Complete genome sequence of Polynucleobacter necessariussubsp. asymbioticus type strain (QLW-P1DMWA-1T)

  • Linda Meincke1, 2,
  • Alex Copeland1,
  • Alla Lapidus1,
  • Susan Lucas1,
  • Kerrie W. Berry1,
  • Tijana Glavina Del Rio1,
  • Nancy Hammon1,
  • Eileen Dalin1,
  • Hope Tice1,
  • Sam Pitluck1,
  • Paul Richardson1,
  • David Bruce1, 2,
  • Lynne Goodwin1, 2,
  • Cliff Han1, 2,
  • Roxanne Tapia1, 2,
  • John C. Detter1, 2,
  • Jeremy Schmutz2,
  • Thomas Brettin1, 3,
  • Frank Larimer1, 3,
  • Miriam Land1, 3,
  • Loren Hauser1, 3,
  • Nikos C. Kyrpides1,
  • Natalia Ivanova1,
  • Markus Göker4,
  • Tanja Woyke1,
  • Qinglong L. Wu5,
  • Matthias Pöckl5,
  • Martin W. Hahn5Email author and
  • Hans-Peter Klenk4
Standards in Genomic Sciences20126:6010074

DOI: 10.4056/sigs.2395367

Published: 19 March 2012

Abstract

Polynucleobacter necessarius subsp. asymbioticus strain QLW-P1DMWA-1T is a planktonic freshwater bacterium affiliated with the family Burkholderiaceae (class Betaproteobacteria). This strain is of interest because it represents a subspecies with cosmopolitan and ubiquitous distribution in standing freshwater systems. The 16S-23S ITS genotype represented by the sequenced strain comprised on average more than 10% of bacterioplankton in its home habitat. While all strains of the subspecies P. necessarius asymbioticus are free-living freshwater bacteria, strains belonging to the only other subspecies, P. necessarius subsp. necessarius are obligate endosymbionts of the ciliate Euplotes aediculatus. The two subspecies of P. necessarius are the instances of two closely related subspecies that differ in their lifestyle (free-living vs. obligate endosymbiont), and they are the only members of the genus Polynucleobacter with completely sequenced genomes. Here we describe the features of P. necessarius subsp. asymbioticus, together with the complete genome sequence and annotation. The 2,159,490 bp long chromosome with a total of 2,088 protein-coding and 48 RNA genes is the first completed genome sequence of the genus Polynucleobacter to be published and was sequenced as part of the DOE Joint Genome Institute Community Sequencing Program 2006.

Keywords

aerobic chemoorganotrophic Gram-negative non-motile free-living planktonic freshwater habitats Burkholderiaceae Betaproteobacteria CSP2006

Introduction

Strain QLW-P1DMWA-1T (= DSM 18221 = CIP 10981) is the type strain of Polynucleobacter necessarius subsp. asymbioticus [1], which is one of two subspecies in the species P. necessarius [1]. The genus was first named by Heckmann and Schmidt in 1987 [2] in which ‘omicron from stock 15 of Euplotes aediculatus’ was designated as the type species [2]. The genus name was derived from the Greek words polys, numerous, bactrum, rod, and the Latin word nucleus, nut. The species epithet originated from the Latin adjective necessarius, indispensible [2]. ‘Omicron’-like symbionts were known for some time since their isolation from several freshwater Euplotes spp. [3], and are also known to be essential for the host cells [2]. Only 22 years later, Hahn et al. described a closely related free-living strain, QLW-P1DMWA-1T, which they considered to be another member of the species P. necessarius [1]. The description of P. necessarius subsp. asymbioticus followed several years after the observation that these free-living planktonic bacteria are closely related to P. necessarius and are cosmopolitan in freshwater habitats, occurring in different climatic zones in Europe, Asia and Africa [4]. This observation was confirmed by several cultivation-independent investigations of freshwater bacterioplankton diversity (for review see Newton et al., 2011 [5]). Furthermore, a systematic survey of almost all stagnant freshwater habitats of a 2000 km2 area located in Central Europe by specific fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) probes revealed ubiquity (i.e. presence in all investigated habitats) of free-living P. necessarius [6]. Meanwhile, three more members of the genus were described; P. cosmopolitanus from freshwater lakes and rivers [7], P. rarus from an acidic lake located in Wisconsin, USA [8], and P. acidiphobus from a freshwater rock pool located on the Mediterranean island Corsica (France) [9]. Furthermore, the establishment of a fifth Polynucleobacter species, P. difficilis, was recently proposed [10]. Strain QLW-P1DMWA-1T was isolated from a small acidic pond located at an altitude of 1,300 meters in the Austrian Alps near the city of Salzburg [11]. The strain represents a group of closely related strains sharing identical 16S rRNA, 16S-23S ITS and glutamine synthetase (glnA) genes. The group is persistent in the pond and comprises approximately 11% to total bacterioplankton [12]. Here we present a summary classification and a set of features for P. necessarius subsp. asymbioticus QLW-P1DMWA-1T, together with the description of the complete genomic sequencing and annotation.

Classification and features

The single genomic 16S rRNA sequence of P. necessarius subsp. asymbioticus QLW-P1DMWA-1T was compared using NCBI BLAST [13] 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 [14] and the relative frequencies of taxa and keywords (reduced to their stem [15]) were determined, weighted by BLAST scores. The most frequently occurring genera were Polynucleobacter (99.1%) and Polaromonas (0.9%) (103 hits in total). Regarding the 19 hits to sequences from members of the species, the average identity within HSPs was 99.7%, whereas the average coverage by HSPs was 97.8%. No hits to sequences associated with other species names were found. (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 DQ234242 (‘determined library mangrove clone DS160’), which showed an identity of 99.9% and an HSP coverage of 99.3%. The most frequently occurring keywords within the labels of environmental samples which yielded hits were ‘aquat, bai, rank’ (9.9%), ‘chesapeak’ (5.3%), ‘delawar’ (4.6%), ‘river’ (4.4%) and ‘freshwat’ (3.1%) (147 hits in total). The most frequently occurring keywords within the labels of environmental samples which yielded hits of a higher score than the highest scoring species were ‘freshwat’ (9.7%), ‘belong, climat, cosmopolitan, habitat, isol, locat, necessariu, polynucleobact, three, zone’ (8.1%), ‘determin, librari, mangrov’ (1.6%) and ‘cultur, lake, watercolumn’ (1.6%) (7 hits in total). Those keywords that refer to habitats fit well with the ecological properties reported for strain QLW-P1DMWA-1T in the original description [1], whereas others reflect technical information of the studies from which the sequences were generated.

Figure 1 shows the phylogenetic neighborhood of P. necessarius subsp. asymbioticus 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 (AJ879783).
Figure 1.

Phylogenetic tree highlighting the position of P. necessarius subsp. asymbioticus relative to the type strains of the genus and the type species of the other closely related genera within the family Burkholderiaceae. The tree was inferred from 1,483 aligned characters [16,17] of the 16S rRNA gene sequence under the maximum likelihood (ML) criterion [18]. Rooting was done initially using the midpoint method [19] 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 150 ML bootstrap replicates [20] (left) and from 1,000 maximum-parsimony bootstrap replicates [21] (right) if larger than 60%. Lineages with type strain genome sequencing projects registered in GOLD [22] are labeled with one asterisk, those also listed as ‘Complete and Published’ (as well as the target genome) with two asterisks (see Burkholderia cepacia, CP000151).

Cells of P. necessarius subsp. asymbioticus strain QLW-P1DMWA-1T are straight rods, 0.7–1.2 by 0.4–0.5 µm in size [1]. The multiple nucleoid-like structures, which were originally considered to be typical for the cells of members of the genus, are absent in this strain but were observed rarely in some elongated cells of other strains of this subspecies [1]. QLW-P1DMWA-1T cells stain Gram-negative, are catalase- and oxidase-positive, chemoorganotrophic, non-motile, facultatively anaerobic, and non-spore-forming [1]. Cells grow at salt concentrations of up to 0.5% (w/v) NaCl [1]. The pH range for growth was not reported, neither an optimal growth temperature, only a growth range of 5–34°C [1]. The substrate spectrum and biochemistry are reported in detail by Hahn et al. [1], however, weak growth in complex media and poor growth in media containing a single carbon source hampered more extensive physiological analysis [1].

Chemotaxonomy

Data on the structure of the cell wall, quinones and polar lipids are not available for strain QLW-P1DMWA-1T. Major cellular fatty acids are C16:1 ω7c (41.3%), C16:0 (22.2%), C18:1 ω7c (12.9%), summed feature 2 including C14:0 3-OH (9.6%), C12:0 (3.4%), and 11-methyl C18:1 ω7c (3.1%) [1]. All members of P. necessarius lack 2-hydroxylated fatty acids other than C12:0, which can be used for differentiation from members of the genera Ralstonia and Cupriavidus.

Genome sequencing and annotation

Genome project history

This organism was selected for sequencing on the basis of the DOE Joint Genome Institute Community Sequencing Program 2006. The genome project is deposited in the Genomes On Line Database [22] 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

A culture of DSM 18221 grown aerobically in NSY medium [1] at room temperature was used to prepare genomic DNA (gDNA) for sequencing. Genomic DNA was extracted by following the CTAB protocol recommended by JGI [33]. The purity, quality and size of the bulk gDNA preparation were assessed by JGI according to DOE-JGI guidelines.
Table 1.

Classification and general features of P. necessarius subsp. asymbioticus according to the MIGS recommendations [23] and the NamesforLife database [24].

MIGS ID

Property

Term

Evidence code

  

Domain Bacteria

TAS [25]

  

Phylum Proteobacteria

TAS [26]

  

Class Betaproteobacteria

TAS [27,28]

  

Order Burkholderiales

TAS [28,29]

  

Family Burkholderiaceae

TAS [28,30]

  

Genus Polynucleobacter

TAS [1,2]

  

Species Polynucleobacter necessarius

TAS [1]

 

Current classification

Subspecies asymbioticus

TAS [1]

  

Type strain QLW-P1DMWA-1

TAS [1]

 

Gram stain

negative

TAS [1]

 

Cell shape

rod-shaped

TAS [1]

 

Motility

non-motile

TAS [1]

 

Sporulation

none

TAS [1]

 

Temperature range

mesophile, 5–34°C

TAS [1]

 

Optimum temperature

not reported

 
 

Salinity

0–0.5% (w/v) NaCl

TAS [1]

MIGS-22

Oxygen requirement

aerobic, facultatively anaerobic

TAS [1]

 

Carbon source

various organic acids, sugars and amino acids

TAS [1]

 

Energy metabolism

chemoorganotroph

TAS [1]

MIGS-6

Habitat

fresh water

TAS [4]

MIGS-15

Biotic relationship

obligately free living

TAS [1]

MIGS-14

Pathogenicity

none

NAS

 

Biosafety level

1

TAS [31]

 

Isolation

acidic freshwater pond

TAS [1]

MIGS-4

Geographic location

Austrian Alps

TAS [1]

MIGS-5

Sample collection time

October 15, 2003

NAS

MIGS-4.1

Latitude

47.7398

TAS [11,12]

MIGS-4.2

Longitude

13.3017

TAS [11,12]

MIGS-4.3

Depth

0.3 m

NAS

MIGS-4.4

Altitude

1300 m

TAS [1]

Evidence codes - 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 [32].

Table 2.

Genome sequencing project information

MIGS ID

Property

Term

MIGS-31

Finishing quality

Finished

MIGS-28

Libraries used

Three genomic Sanger libraries: 4 kb pUC, 8 kb pMCL200 and fosmid pcc1Fos libraries.

MIGS-29

Sequencing platforms

ABI3730

MIGS-31.2

Sequencing coverage

12.0 × Sanger

MIGS-30

Assemblers

phrap

MIGS-32

Gene calling method

Critica complemented with the output of Glimmer

 

INSDC ID

CP000655

 

GenBank Date of Release

April 23, 2007

 

GOLD ID

Gc00537

 

NCBI project ID

16679

 

Database: IMG-GEBA

640427129

MIGS-13

Source material identifier

DSM 18221

 

Project relevance

Ecology, Biotechnology

Genome sequencing and assembly

The genome was sequenced using a combination of 4 kb, 8 kb and fosmid DNA libraries. All general aspects of library construction and sequencing can be found at the JGI website [33]. Draft assemblies were based on 28,841 total reads and contained 14 contigs in one scaffold. The Phred/Phrap-/Consed software package was used for sequence assembly and quality assessment [34]. Possible mis-assemblies were corrected with Dupfinisher [35]. Gaps between contigs were closed by editing in Consed, custom priming, or PCR amplification. A total of 1,238 additional reactions were needed to close gaps and to raise the quality of the finished sequence. The error rate of the completed genome sequence is less than 1 in 100,000. Together all libraries provided 12.0 × coverage of the genome.

Genome annotation

Genes were identified using two gene modeling programs, Glimmer [36] and Critica [37] as part of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory genome annotation pipeline. The two sets of gene calls were combined using Critica as the preferred start call for genes with the same stop codon. Genes with less than 80 amino acids, which were predicted by only one of the gene callers and had no Blast hit in the KEGG database at 1e-05, were deleted. This was followed by a round of manual curation to eliminate obvious overlaps. The predicted CDSs were translated and used to search the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) nonredundant database, UniProt, TIGRFam, Pfam, PRIAM, KEGG, COG, and InterPro databases. These data sources were combined to assert a product description for each predicted protein. Non-coding genes and miscellaneous features were predicted using tRNAscan-SE [38], TMHMM [39], and signalP [40].

Genome properties

The genome consists of a 2,159,490 bp long chromosome with a 44.8% G+C content (Table 3 and Figure 2). Of the 2,136 genes predicted, 2,088 were protein-coding genes, and 48 RNAs; 11 pseudogenes were also identified. The majority of the protein-coding genes (76.7%) 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 2.

Graphical circular map of the chromosome. 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)

2,159,490

100.00%

DNA coding region (bp)

2,011,351

93.14%

DNA G+C content (bp)

968,188

44.83%

Number of replicons

1

 

Extrachromosomal elements

0

 

Total genes

2,136

100.00%

RNA genes

48

2.25%

rRNA operons

1

 

Protein-coding genes

2,088

97.75%

Pseudo genes

11

0.51%

Genes with function prediction

1,639

76.73%

Genes in paralog clusters

183

8.57%

Genes assigned to COGs

1,719

80.48%

Genes assigned Pfam domains

1,772

82.96%

Genes with signal peptides

480

22.47%

Genes with transmembrane helices

535

25.05%

CRISPR repeats

0

 
Table 4.

Number of genes associated with the general COG functional categories

Code

value

%age

Description

J

155

8.3

Translation, ribosomal structure and biogenesis

A

1

0.1

RNA processing and modification

K

68

3.6

Transcription

L

101

5.4

Replication, recombination and repair

B

2

0.1

Chromatin structure and dynamics

D

19

1.0

Cell cycle control, cell division, chromosome partitioning

Y

0

0.0

Nuclear structure

V

18

1.0

Defense mechanisms

T

54

2.9

Signal transduction mechanisms

M

153

8.2

Cell wall/membrane biogenesis

N

9

0.5

Cell motility

Z

0

0.0

Cytoskeleton

W

0

0.0

Extracellular structures

U

44

2.3

Intracellular trafficking and secretion, and vesicular transport

O

99

5.3

Posttranslational modification, protein turnover, chaperones

C

156

8.3

Energy production and conversion

G

77

4.1

Carbohydrate transport and metabolism

E

161

8.6

Amino acid transport and metabolism

F

47

2.5

Nucleotide transport and metabolism

H

111

5.9

Coenzyme transport and metabolism

I

88

4.7

Lipid transport and metabolism

P

86

4.6

Inorganic ion transport and metabolism

Q

46

2.5

Secondary metabolites biosynthesis, transport and catabolism

R

208

11.1

General function prediction only

S

174

9.3

Function unknown

-

417

19.5

Not in COGs

Insights into the genome

P. necessarius, initially described as a taxon exclusively harboring obligate endosymbionts of E. aediculatus [2], is one of a small number of bacterial species with a validly published name for which an axenic culture of a type strain does not exist in a public strain collections [1], all of which predate the introduction of the Candidatus concept [41]. Interestingly, the genome of P. necessarius subsp. necessarius STIR1, the endosymbiont of the ciliate E. aediculatus STIR1 [42,43] has been sequenced under the same JGI Community Sequencing Program 2006 as the genome of the free-living strain QLW-P1DMWA-1T, and was deposited in the INSDC databases as CP001010. As for taxonomic purposes, however, it is important to note that the endosymbiotic strain STIR1 has not been proposed as the type strain of P. necessarius [2]. Today, P. necessaries would have been designated as Candidatus.

At the time P. necessarius subsp. asymbioticus was described [1], it was not possible to perform a DNA-DNA hybridization to evaluate the degree of relatedness between the two subspecies, because it was not possible to obtain enough DNA of endosymbionts contained in the ciliate culture used for description of P. necessarius. There was insufficient pure genomic DNA obtainable from the type strain of P. necessarius. However, it is now possible to perform a digital DNA-DNA hybridization of the two completed genome sequences of representatives of the two subspecies by means of genome-to-genome sequence comparison [4446].

The 2,159,490 bp long genome sequence of P. necessarius subsp. asymbioticus QLW-P1DMWA-1T (CP000655, NC_009379) and the 1,560,469 bp long genome sequence of P. necessarius subsp. necessarius STIR1 (CP001010, NC_010531) were used for digital DNA-DNA hybridization via the gbdb-Server [44]. Just like in the conventional wet lab DNA-DNA hybridizations [47] digital DDH values ≤70% are considered as an indication that the tested organisms belong to a different species [47]. When analyzed with NCBI-BLAST using the three formulas described in [45,46] for the estimation of digital DDH values, the resulting DDH values for strains QLW-P1DMWA-1T and STIR1 were: 40.8% (formula 1), 11.4% (formula 2) and 43.3% (formula 3).

Given the low degree of DNA-DNA similarity between the two strains it appears justified to assume that these strains represent different species. However, additional investigations comparing the phylogenetic relationship between the type strain of P. necessarius subsp. necessarius (i.e. the symbionts contained in the E. aediculatus ‘stock 15’ culture [2]) and the genome-sequenced strain STIR1 are required before a separation of the two subspecies into two different species can be proposed.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The work conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute was supported by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231, and was also supported by grant FWF-P19853 to M.W.H.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
DOE Joint Genome Institute
(2)
Bioscience Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory
(3)
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
(4)
Leibniz Institute DSMZ - German Collection of Microorganisms and Cell Cultures
(5)
Institute for Limnology, Austrian Academy of Sciences

References

  1. Hahn MW, Lang E, Brandt U, Wu QL, Scheuerl T. Emended description of the genus Polynucleobacter and the species Polynucleobacter necessarius and proposal of two subspecies, P. necessarius subsp. necessarius subsp. nov. and P. necessarius subsp. asymbioticus subsp. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2009; 59:2002–2009. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.005801-0PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Heckmann K, Schmidt HJ. Polynucleobacter necessarius gen. nov., sp. nov., an obligately endosymbiotic bacterium living in the cytoplasm of Euplotes aediculatus. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1987; 37:456–457. http://dx.doi.org/10.1099/00207713-37-4-456View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Fauré-Fremiet E. Symbiontes bactérienes des ciliés du genre Euplotes. [In French]. CR Acad Sci 1952; 235:402–403.Google Scholar
  4. Hahn MW. Isolation of strains belonging to the cosmopolitan Polynucleobacter necessarius cluster from freshwater habitats in three climatic zones. Appl Environ Microbiol 2003; 69:52485254. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AEM.69.9.5248-5254.2003Google Scholar
  5. Newton RJ, Jones SE, Eiler A, McMahon KD, Bertilsson S. A guide to the natural history of freshwater lake bacteria. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 2011; 75:14–49. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.00028-10PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Jezberová J, Jezbera J, Brandt U, Lindström ES, Langenheder S, Hahn MW. Ubiquity of Polynucleobacter necessarius ssp. asymbioticus in lentic freshwater habitats of a heterogeneous 2000 km2 area. Environ Microbiol 2010; 12:658–669. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.14622920.2009.02106.xPubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Hahn MW, Lang E, Brandt U, Lünsdorf H, Wu QL, Stackebrandt E. Polynucleobacter cosmopolitanus sp. nov., free-living planktonic bacteria inhabiting freshwater lakes and rivers. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2010; 60:166–173. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.010595-0PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Hahn MW, Lang E, Tarao M, Brandt U. Polynucleobacter rarus sp. nov., a free-living planktonic bacterium isolated from an acidic lake. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2011; 61:781–787. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.017350-0PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Hahn MW, Lang E, Brandt U, Spröer C. Polynucleobacter acidiphobus sp. nov., a representative of an abundant group of planktonic freshwater bacteria. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2011; 61:788–794. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.023929-0PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Hahn MW, Minasyan A, Lang E, Koll U, Spröer C. Polynucleobacter difficilis sp. nov., a planktonic freshwater bacterium affiliated with subcluster B1 of the genus Polynucleobacter. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol (In press). PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Hahn MW, Pöckl M, Wu QL. Low intraspecific diversity in a Polynucleobacter subcluster population numerically dominating bacterioplankton of a freshwater pond. Appl Environ Microbiol 2005; 71:4539–4547. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AEM.7L8.45394547.2005PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hahn MW, Scheuerl T, Jezberova J, Koll U, Jezbera J, Simek K, Vannini C, Petroni G, Wu QL. The passive yet successful way of planktonic life: genomic and experimental analysis of the ecology of a planctonic Polynucleobacter population. PLoS ONE (In press).Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 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 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AEM.03006-05PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Porter MF. An algorithm for suffix stripping. Program: electronic library and information systems 1980; 14:130–137.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Lee C, Grasso C, Sharlow MF. Multiple sequence alignment using partial order graphs. Bioinformatics 2002; 18:452–464. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/18.3.452View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Stamatakis A, Hoover P, Rougemont J. A rapid bootstrap algorithm for the RAxML web servers. Syst Biol 2008; 57:758–771. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10635150802429642View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hess PN, De Moraes Russo CA. An empirical test of the midpoint rooting method. Biol J Linn Soc Lond 2007; 92:669–674. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.10958312.2007.00864.xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02008-7_13View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Swofford DL. PAUP*: Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and Other Methods), Version 4.0 b10. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, 2002.Google Scholar
  22. Liolios K, Chen IM, Mavromatis K, Tavernarakis N, 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 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkp848PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 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 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt1360PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Garrity G. NamesforLife. BrowserTool takes expertise out of the database and puts it right in the browser. Microbiol Today 2010; 37:9.Google Scholar
  25. Woese CR, Kandler O, Wheelis ML. Towards a natural system of organisms. Proposal for the domains Archaea and Bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1990; 87:4576–4579. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.87.12.4576PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Garrity GM, Bell JA, Lilburn T. Phylum XIV. Proteobacteria phyl. 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
  27. Garrity GM, Bell JA, Lilburn T. Class II. Betaproteobacteria class. nov. In: Garrity GM, Brenner DJ, Krieg NR, Staley JT (eds), Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, Second Edition, Volume 2, Part C, Springer, New York, 2005, p. 575.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Editor L. Validation List No. 107. List of new names and new combinations previously effectively, but not validly, published. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2006; 56:1–6. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.64188-0
  29. Garrity GM, Bell JA, Lilburn T. Order I. Burkholderiales ord. nov. In: Garrity GM, Brenner DJ, Krieg NR, Staley JT (eds), Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, Second Edition, Volume 2, Part C, Springer, New York, 2005, p. 575.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Garrity GM, Bell JA, Lilburn T. Family I. Burkholderiaceae fam. nov. In: Garrity GM, Brenner DJ, Krieg NR, Staley JT (eds), Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, Second Edition, Volume 2, Part C, Springer, New York, 2005, p. 575.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. BAuA. Classification of bacteria and archaea in risk groups. http://www.baua.de. TRBA 2010; 466:172.Google Scholar
  32. 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 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/75556PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. The DOE Joint Genome Institute. www.jgi.doe.gov
  34. Phrap and Phred for Windows. MacOS, Linux, and Unix. http://www.phrap.com
  35. Cliff S. Han, Patrick Chain. 2006. Finishing repeat regions automatically with Dupfinisher. Proceeding of the 2006 international conference on bioinformatics & computational biology. Edited by Hamid R. Arabnia & Homayoun Valafar, CSREA Press. June 26–29, 2006: 141–146.Google Scholar
  36. Delcher AL, Bratke K, Powers E, Salzberg S. Identifying bacterial genes and endosymbiont DNA with Glimmer. Bioinformatics 2007; 23:673–679. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btm009PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Badger JH, Olsen GJ. CRITICA: Coding region identification tool invoking comparative analysis. Mol Biol Evol 1999; 16:512–524. PubMedView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 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 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/25.5.955PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Krogh A, Larsson B, von Heijne G, Sonnhammer ELL. Predicting transmembrane protein topology with a hidden Markov model: Application to complete genomes. J Mol Biol 2001; 305:567–580. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jmbi.2000.4315View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Bendtsen JD, Nielsen H, von Heijne G, Brunak S. Improved prediction of signal peptides: SignalP 3.0. J Mol Biol 2004; 340:783–795. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2004.05.028View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Murray RGE, Stackebrandt E. Taxonomic note: implementation of the provisional status Candidatus for incompletely described procaryotes. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1995; 45:186–187. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1099/00207713-45-1-186View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Petroni G, Dini F, Verni F, Rosati G. A molecular approach to the tangled intrageneric relationships underlying phylogeny in Euplotes (Ciliophora, Spirotrichea). Mol Phylogenet Evol 2002; 22:118–130. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/mpev.2001.1030View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Vannini C, Pöckl M, Petroni G, Wu QL, Lang E, Stackebrandt E, Schrallhammer M, Richardson PM, Hahn MW. Endosymbiosis in statu nascendi: close phylogenetic relationship between obligately endosymbiotic and obligately free-living Polynucleobacter strains (Betaproteobacteria). Environ Microbiol 2007; 9:347–359. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.14622920.2006.01144.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. genome-to-genome distance calculator. http://ggdc.gbdp.org
  45. 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 http://dx.doi.org/10.4056/sigs.541628PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 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 http://dx.doi.org/10.4056/sigs.531120PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Wayne LG, Brenner DJ, Colwell RR, Grimont PAD, Kandler O, Krichevsky MI, Moore LH, Moore WEC, Murray RGE, Stackebrandt E, et al. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Reconciliation of Approaches to Bacterial Systematics. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1987; 37:463–464. http://dx.doi.org/10.1099/00207713-37-4-463View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2012