Open Access

Draft genome sequence of Gluconobacter thailandicus NBRC 3257

  • Minenosuke Matsutani1,
  • Haruo Suzuki2,
  • Toshiharu Yakushi1 and
  • Kazunobu Matsushita1Email author
Standards in Genomic Sciences20149:9030614

DOI: 10.4056/sigs.4778605

Published: 15 June 2014

Abstract

Gluconobacter thailandicus strain NBRC 3257, isolated from downy cherry (Prunus tomentosa), is a strict aerobic rod-shaped Gram-negative bacterium. Here, we report the features of this organism, together with the draft genome sequence and annotation. The draft genome sequence is composed of 107 contigs for 3,446,046 bp with 56.17% G+C content and contains 3,360 protein-coding genes and 54 RNA genes.

Keywords

Acetic acid bacteria Gluconobacter

Introduction

Acetic acid bacteria (AAB) are strictly aerobic Alphaproteobacteria. AAB are well known for their potential to incompletely oxidize a wide variety of sugars and alcohols. The genus Gluconobacter oxidizes a wide range of sugars, sugar alcohols, and sugar acids, and can accumulate a large amount of the corresponding oxidized products in the culture medium [1]. Thus, Gluconobacter strains are widely used for the industrial production of pharmaceutical intermediates, such as L-sorbose (vitamin C synthesis), 6-amino-L-sorbose (synthesis of the antidiabetic drug miglitol), and dihydroxyacetone (cosmetics for sunless tanning) [1]. Furthermore, the genera Acetobacter and Gluconacetobacter are widely used for the industrial production of vinegar because of their high ethanol oxidation ability [2].

To date, six genome sequences of Gluconobacter strains (Gluconobacter oxydans 621H, Gluconobacter oxydans H24, Gluconobacter oxydans WSH-003, Gluconobacter thailandicus NBRC 3255, Gluconobacter frateurii NBRC 101659, and Gluconobacter frateurii NBRC 103465) are available in the public databases [38]. These genomic data are useful for the experimental identification of unique proteins or estimation of the phylogenetic relationship among the related strains [911].

Gluconobacter thailandicus NBRC 3257 was isolated from downy cherry (Prunus tomentosa) in Japan [12], and identified based on its 16S rRNA sequence [13]. Here, we present a summary of the classification and a set of features of G. thailandicus NBRC 3257, together with a description of the draft genome sequencing and annotation.

Classification and features

A representative genomic 16S rRNA sequence of G. thailandicus NBRC 3257 was compared to the 16S rRNA sequences of all known Gluconobacter species type strains. The 16S rRNA gene sequence identities between G. thailandicus NBRC 3257 and all other type strains of genus Gluconobacter species were 97.58-99.85%. Gluconobacter species (type strains) exhibiting the highest sequence identities to NBRC 3257 were Gluconobacter frateurii NBRC 3264T and Gluconobacter japonicas NBRC 3271T. Figure 1 shows the phylogenetic relationships of G. thailandicus NBRC 3257 to other Gluconobacter species in a 16S rRNA based tree. All the type strains and ten strains of G. thailandicus including NBRC 3257 were used for the analysis [13,17]. Based on this tree, genus Gluconobacter is divided into two sub-groups. Gluconobacter wanchamiae, Gluconobacter cerinus, G. frateurii, G. japonicas, Gluconobacter nephelli, and G. thailandicus are classified as clade 1. On the other hand, Gluconobacter kondonii, Gluconobacter sphaericus, Gluconobacter albidus, Gluconobacter kanchanaburiensis, Gluconobacter uchimurae, Gluconobacter roseus, and Gluconobacter oxydans belong to the clade 2. All ten G. thailandicus strains are closely related to each other, and the 16S rRNA sequences have 100% identities.
Figure 1.

Phylogenetic tree highlighting the phylogenetic position of Gluconobacter thailandicus NBRC 3257 relative to other type strains within the Gluconobacter. To construct the phylogenetic tree, these sequences were collected and nucleotide sequence alignment was carried out using CLUSTALW [14]. We used the MEGA version 5.05 package to generate phylogenetic trees based on 16S rRNA genes with the neighbor-joining (NJ) approach and 1,000 bootstrap replicates [15,16]. Acetobacter aceti NBRC14818 (X74066) was used as the outgroup.

Although ethanol oxidation ability is a typical feature of AAB, it is a critical feature that NBRC 3257 lacks the ability to oxidize ethanol because it is missing the cytochrome subunit of the alcohol dehydrogenase complex that functions as the primary dehydrogenase in the ethanol oxidase respiratory chain [18]. Despite its inability to oxidize ethanol, NBRC 3257 can efficiently oxidize many unique sugars and sugar alcohols, such as pentitols, D-sorbitol, D-mannitol, glycerol, meso-erythritol, and 2,3-butanediol [19]. Thus, G. thailandicus NBRC 3257 has unique characteristic features and the potential for the industrial production of many different oxidized products useful as drug intermediates or commodity chemicals.

G. thanilandicus NBRC 3257 is a strictly aerobic, mesophilic (temperature optimum ≈ 30°C) organism. Differential interference contrast image of G. thailandicus NBRC 3257 cells grown on mannitol medium (25 g of D-manntiol, 5 g of yeast extract, and 3 g of polypeptone per liter) are shown in Figure 2 (A). The cells have short-rod shape with 2.6 ± 0.6 (mean ± SD, n = 10) µm in cell length and 1.2 ± 0.1 (mean ± SD, n = 10) µm in cell width. The flagella stained by the modified Ryu method are shown in Figure 2 (B) and Figure 2 (C) [20]. Singly and multiply flagellated cells were observed frequently. The characteristic features are shown in Table 1.
Figure 2.

Cell morphology and flagella of G. thailandicus NBRC 3257. (A) Differential interference contrast image of G. thailandicus NBRC 3257 grown on mannitol medium. Bar, 5 µm. (B and C) Microscopic images of flagella stained by the modified Ryu method. Singly (B) and multiply (C) flagellated cells were observed. Bars, 5 µm.

Table 1.

Classification and general features of Gluconobacter thailandicus NBRC 3257 according to the MIGS recommendations [21]

MIGS ID

Property

Term

Evidence codea

 

Current classification

Domain Bacteria

TAS [22]

 

Phylum Proteobacteria

TAS [23]

 

Class Alphaproteobacteria

TAS [24,25]

 

Order Rhodospirillales

TAS [26,27]

 

Family Acetobacteraceae

TAS [28,29]

 

Genus Gluconobacter

TAS [27,30,31]

 

Species Gluconobacter thailandicus

TAS [17,32]

 

Strain NBRC 3257

TAS [23]

 

Gram stain

Negative

IDA

 

Cell shape

Rod-shaped

IDA

 

Motility

Motile

NAS

 

Sporulation

Not report

NAS

 

Temperature range

Mesophilic

IDA

 

Optimum temperature

30°C

IDA

 

Carbon source

Glucose and/or glycerol

IDA

 

Energy source

Glucose and/or glycerol

NAS

MIGS-6

Habitat

Free living

NAS

MIGS-6.3

Salinity

Not report

NAS

MIGS-22

Oxygen

Strict aerobes

IDA

MIGS-15

Biotic relationship

Fruits and Flower

IDA

MIGS-14

Pathogenicity

Non-pathogenic

IDA

MIGS-4

Geographic location

Japan

NAS

MIGS-5

Sample collection time

1954

NAS

MIGS-4.1

Latitude

Not report

NAS

MIGS-4.2

Longitude

Not report

NAS

MIGS-4.3

Depth

Not report

NAS

MIGS-4.4

Altitude

Not report

NAS

a Evidence codes - IDA: Inferred from Direct Assay; 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 [33]. If the evidence code is IDA, then the property should have been directly observed, for the purpose of this specific publication, for a live isolate by one of the authors, or an expert or reputable institution mentioned in the acknowledgements.

Genome sequencing information

Genome project history

This genome was selected for sequencing on the basis of its phylogenetic position and 16S rRNA similarity to other members of the Gluconobacter genus. This Whole Genome Shotgun project has been deposited at DDBJ/EMBL/GenBank under the accession BASM00000000. The version described in this paper is the first version, BASM01000000, and the sequence consists of 107 contigs. Table 2 presents the project information and its association with MIGS version 2.0 compliance [34].
Table 2.

Project information

MIGS ID

Property

Term

MIGS-31

Finishing quality

Draft

MIGS-28

Libraries used

Illumina Paired-End library

MIGS-29

Sequencing platforms

Illumina Hiseq 2000

MIGS-31.2

Fold coverage

358 ×

MIGS-30

Assemblers

Velvet ver. 1.2.07

MIGS-32

Gene calling method

Glimmer ver. 3.02

 

DDBJ ID

BASM00000000

 

DDBJ Date of Release

August 08, 2013

 

Project relevance

Industrial

Growth conditions and DNA isolation

The culture of strain NBRC 3257 used to prepare genomic DNA for sequencing was a laboratory stock and grown on ΔP medium [35] at 30°C with vigorous shaking. The genomic DNA was isolated as described in [36] with some modifications [35]. Three ml of culture broth was used to isolate DNA, and the final DNA preparation was dissolved in 10 mM Tris-HCl (pH 8.0) and 1 mM ethylendiamine tetraacetic acid solution. The purity, quality, and size of the genomic DNA preparation were analyzed by Hokkaido System Science Co., Ltd. (Japan) using spectrophotometer, agarose gel electrophoresis, and Qubit (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) according to the their guidelines.

Genome sequencing and assembly

The genome of G. thailandicus NBRC 3257 was sequenced using the Illumina Hiseq 2000 sequencing platform by the paired-end strategy (2×100 bp). Paired-end genome fragments were annealed to the flow-cell surface in a cluster station (Illumina). A total of 100 cycles of sequencing-by-synthesis were performed and high-quality sequences were retained for further analysis. The final coverage reached 358-fold for an estimated genome size of 3.44 Mb. The sequence data from Illumina HiSeq 2000 were assembled with Velvet ver. 1.2.07 [37]. The final assembly yielded 107 contigs generating a genome size of 3.44 Mb. The contigs were ordered against the complete genome of G. oxydans 621H [3] using Mauve [3840].

Genome annotation

Protein-coding genes (ORFs) of draft genome assemblies were predicted using Glimmer version 3.02 with a self-training dataset [41,42]. tRNAs and rRNAs were predicted using ARAGORN and RNAmmer, respectively [43,44]. Functional assignments of the predicted ORFs were based on a BLASTP homology search against two genome sequences, G. thailandicus NBRC 3255 and G. oxydans 621H, and the NCBI nonredundant (NR) database [45]. Functional assignment was also performed with a BLASTP homology search against Clusters of Orthologous Groups (COG) databases [46].

Genome properties

The genome of G. thailandicus NBRC 3257 is 3,446,046 bp long (107 contigs) with a 56.17% G + C content (Table 3). Of the 3,414 predicted genes, 3,360 were protein coding genes, and 54 were RNAs (3 rRNA genes, and 51 tRNA genes). A total of 2,249 genes (66.93%) were assigned a putative function. The remaining genes were annotated as hypothetical genes. The properties and statistics of the genome are summarized in Table 3. The distribution of genes into COG functional categories is presented in Table 4. Of the 3,360 proteins, 2,669 (79%) were assigned to COG functional categories. Of these, 245 proteins were assigned to multiple COG categories. The most abundant COG category was “General function prediction only” (342 proteins) followed by “Amino acid transport and metabolism” (247 proteins), “Function unknown” (232 proteins), “Cell wall/membrane/envelope biogenesis” (220 proteins), “Inorganic ion transport and metabolism” (210 proteins), and “Replication, recombination and repair” (201 proteins). The genome map of G. thailandicus NBRC 3257 is illustrated in Figure 3, which demonstrates that the pattern of GC skew shifts from negative to positive along an ordered set of contigs with some exceptions. This suggests that the draft genome sequences were ordered almost exactly.
Figure 3.

Graphical circular map of a simulated draft Gluconobacter thailandicus NBRC 3257 genome. The simulated genome is a set of contigs ordered against the complete genome of G. oxydans 621H [3] using Mauve [3840]. The circular map was generated using CGview [47]. From the outside to the center: genes on forward strand, genes on reverse strand, GC content, GC skew.

Table 3.

Nucleotide content and gene count levels of the genome

Attribute

Value

% of totala

Genome size (bp)

3,446,046

-

DNA coding region (bp)

3,118,161

90.48

DNA G+C content (bp)

1,935,814

56.17

Total genesb

3,414

100

RNA genes

54

1.58

Protein-coding genes

3,360

98.42

Genes assigned to COGs

2,669

78.17

a) The total is based on either the size of the genome in base pairs or the total number of protein coding genes in the annotated genome.

Table 4.

Number of genes associated with the 25 general COG functional categories

Code

Value

%agea

Description

J

157

4.67

Translation, ribosomal structure and biogenesis

A

0

0.00

RNA processing and modification

K

190

5.65

Transcription

L

201

5.98

Replication, recombination and repair

B

0

0.00

Chromatin structure and dynamics

D

28

0.83

Cell cycle control, cell division, chromosome partitioning

Y

0

0.00

Nuclear structure

V

44

1.31

Defense mechanisms

T

92

2.74

Signal transduction mechanisms

M

220

6.55

Cell wall/membrane/envelope biogenesis

N

43

1.28

Cell motility

Z

0

0.00

Cytoskeleton

W

2

0.06

Extracellular structures

U

95

2.83

Intracellular trafficking, secretion, and vesicular transport

O

120

3.57

Posttranslational modification, protein turnover, chaperones

C

170

5.06

Energy production and conversion

G

194

5.77

Carbohydrate transport and metabolism

E

247

7.35

Amino acid transport and metabolism

F

89

2.65

Nucleotide transport and metabolism

H

129

3.84

Coenzyme transport and metabolism

I

91

2.71

Lipid transport and metabolism

P

210

6.25

Inorganic ion transport and metabolism

Q

64

1.90

Secondary metabolites biosynthesis, transport and catabolism

R

342

10.18

General function prediction only

S

232

6.90

Function unknown

-

691

20.57

No COG assignment

-

245

7.29

Multiple COG assignment

a) The total is based on the total number of protein coding genes in the annotated genome.

Gene repertoire of G. thailandicus NBRC 3257 genome

Annotation of the genome indicated that NBRC 3257 has membrane-bound PQQ-dependent alcohol dehydrogenase, adhAB operon (locus_tag NBRC3257_1377 and NBRC3257_1378) and adh subunit III (NBRC3257_1024). A unique orphan gene of adh subunit I was also identified (NBRC3257_3117). The gene repertories of other membrane-bound PQQ dependent proteins were investigated. Homologous proteins of membrane-bound PQQ-dependent dehydrogenase (NBRC3257_0292), membrane-bound glucose dehydrogenase (PQQ) (NBRC3257_0371), PQQ-dependent dehydrogenase 4 (NBRC3257_0662), and PQQ-dependent dehydrogenase 3 (NBRC3257_1743), were identified. In addition, two paralogous copies of the PQQ-glycerol dehydrogenase sldAB operon (NBRC3257_0924 to NBRC3257_0925 and NBRC3257_1134 to NBRC3257_1135) were identified.

It has been thought that the respiratory chains of Gluconobacter species play key roles in respiratory energy metabolism [4851]. Therefore, the gene repertoires of respiratory chains of NBRC 3257 were also investigated. Besides two type II NADH dehydrogenase homologs (NBRC3257_1995 and NBRC3257_2785) [51], a proton-pumping NADH:ubiquinone oxidoreductase operon (type I NADH dehydrogenase complex) (NBRC3257_2617 to NBRC3257_2629), a cytochrome o ubiquinol oxidase cyoBACD operon (NBRC3257_2304 to NBRC3257_2307), and a cyanide-insensitive terminal oxidase cioAB operon (NBRC3257_0388 to NBRC3257_0389) [48,49], were identified.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This work was financially supported by the Advanced Low Carbon Technology Research and Development Program (ALCA).

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Biological Chemistry, Faculty of Agriculture, Yamaguchi University
(2)
Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Yamaguchi University

References

  1. Deppenmeier U, Hoffmeister M, Prust C. Biochemistry and biotechnological applications of Gluconobacter strains. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2002; 60:233–242. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00253-002-1114-5View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Sievers M, Teuber M. The microbiology and taxonomy of Acetobacter europaeus in commercial vinegar production. J Appl Microbiol 1995; 79:84–95.Google Scholar
  3. Prust C, Hoffmeister M, Liesegang H, Wiezer A, Fricke WF, Ehrenreich A, Gottschalk G, Deppenmeier U. Complete genome sequence of the acetic acid bacterium Gluconobacter oxydans. Nat Biotechnol 2005; 23:195–200. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt1062View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Ge X, Zhao Y, Hou W, Zhang W, Chen W, Wang J, Zhao N, Lin J, Wang W, Chen M and others. Complete Genome Sequence of the Industrial Strain Gluconobacter oxydans H24. Genome Announc 2013;1(1).
  5. Gao L, Zhou J, Liu J, Du G, Chen J. Draft genome sequence of Gluconobacter oxydans WSH-003, a strain that is extremely tolerant of saccharides and alditols. J Bacteriol 2012; 194:4455–4456. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JB.00837-12PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Matsutani M, Kawajiri E, Yakushi T, Adachi O, Matsushita K. Draft Genome Sequence of Dihydroxyacetone-Producing Gluconobacter thailandicus Strain NBRC 3255. Genome Announc 2013; 1:e0011813. PubMedPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Hattori H, Yakushi T, Matsutani M, Moonmangmee D, Toyama H, Adachi O, Matsushita K. High-temperature sorbose fermentation with thermotolerant Gluconobacter frateurii CHM43 and its mutant strain adapted to higher temperature. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2012; 95:1531–1540. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00253-012-4005-4View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Sato S, Umemura M, Koike H, Habe H. Draft Genome Sequence of Gluconobacter frateurii NBRC 103465, a Glyceric Acid-Producing Strain. Genome Announc 2013; 1(4).
  9. Matsutani M, Hirakawa H, Yakushi T, Matsushita K. Genome-wide phylogenetic analysis of Gluconobacter, Acetobacter, and Gluconacetobacter. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2011; 315:122–128. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6968.2010.02180.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Matsutani M, Hirakawa H, Saichana N, Soemphol W, Yakushi T, Matsushita K. Genome-wide phylogenetic analysis of differences in thermotolerance among closely related Acetobacter pasteurianus strains. Microbiology 2012; 158:229–239. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1099/mic0.052134-0View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Peters B, Mientus M, Kostner D, Junker A, Liebl W, Ehrenreich A. Characterization of membranebound dehydrogenases from Gluconobacter oxydans 621H via whole-cell activity assays using multideletion strains. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2013; 97:6397–6412. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00253-013-4824-yView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kondo K, Ameyama M. Carbohydrate metabolism by Acetobacter species. Part I. Oxidative activity for various carbohydrates. Bull Agric Chem Soc Jpn 1958; 22: 369–372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1271/bbb1924.22.369View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Takahashi M, Yukphan P, Yamada Y, Suzuki K, Sakane T, Nakagawa Y. Intrageneric structure of the genus Gluconobacter analyzed by the 16S rRNA gene and 16S-23S rRNA gene internal transcribed spacer sequences. J Gen Appl Microbiol 2006; 52:187–193. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.2323/jgam.52.187View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Larkin MA, Blackshields G, Brown NP, Chenna R, McGettigan PA, McWilliam H, Valentin F, Wallace IM, Wilm A, Lopez R, et al. Clustal W and Clustal X version 2.0. Bioinformatics 2007; 23:2947–2948. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btm404View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Tamura K, Peterson D, Peterson N, Stecher G, Nei M, Kumar S. MEGA5: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis using maximum likelihood, evolutionary distance, and maximum parsimony methods. Mol Biol Evol 2011; 28:2731–2739. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msr121PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msm092View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Tanasupawat S, Thawai C, Yukphan P, Moonmangmee D, Itoh T, Adachi O, Yamada Y. Gluconobacter thailandicus sp. nov., an acetic acid bacterium in the alpha-Proteobacteria. J Gen Appl Microbiol 2004; 50:159–167. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.2323/jgam.50.159View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Matsushita K, Nagatani Y, Shinagawa E, Adachi O, Ameyama M. Reconstitution of the ethanol oxidase respiratory chain in membranes of quinoprotein alcohol dehydrogenase-deficient Gluconobacter suboxydans subsp. alpha strains. J Bacteriol 1991; 173:3440–3445. PubMedPubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Adachi O, Fujii Y, Ghaly MF, Toyama H, Shinagawa E, Matsushita K. Membrane-bound quinoprotein D-arabitol dehydrogenase of Gluconobacter suboxydans IFO 3257: a versatile enzyme for the oxidative fermentation of various ketoses. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem 2001; 65:2755–2762. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1271/bbb.65.2755View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Kodaka H, Armfield AY, Lombard GL, Dowell VR, Jr. Practical procedure for demonstrating bacterial flagella. J Clin Microbiol 1982; 16:948–952. PubMedPubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. 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 http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.87.12.4576PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. Garrity GM, Bell JA, Lilburn T. Class I. Alphaproteobacteria 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. 1.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Pfennig N, Truper HG. Higher taxa of the phototrophic bacteria. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1971; 21:17–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1099/00207713-21-1-17View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Skerman VBD, McGowan V, Sneath PHA. Approved Lists of Bacterial Names. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1980; 30:225–420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1099/00207713-30-1-225View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Gillis M, De Ley J. Intra- and intergeneric similarities of the ribosomal ribonucleic acid cistrons of Acetobacter and Gluconobacter. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1980; 30:7–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1099/00207713-30-1-7View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Henrici AT. The Biology of Bacteria. In: Henrici AT (ed), The Biology of Bacteria, Second Edition, Heath and Co., Chicago, 1939, p. 1–494.Google Scholar
  30. Asai T. Taxonomic studies on acetic acid bacteria and allied oxidative bacteria isolated from fruits. A new classification of the oxidative bacteria. Nippon Nogeikagaku Kaishi 1935; 11:674–708. http://dx.doi.org/10.1271/nogeikagaku1924.11.8674View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. De Ley J, Frateur J. Genus IV. Gluconobacter Asai 1935, 689; emend. mut. char. Asai, Iizuka and Komagata 1964, 100. In: Buchanan RE, Gibbons NE (eds), Bergey’s Manual of Determinative Bacteriology, Eighth Edition, The Williams and Wilkins Co., Baltimore, 1974, p. 251–253.Google Scholar
  32. Validation List No. 103. Validation of publication of new names and new combinations previously effectively published outside the IJSEM. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2005; 55:983–985. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.63767-0
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. Kawai S, Goda-Tsutsumi M, Yakushi T, Kano K, Matsushita K. Heterologous overexpression and characterization of a flavoprotein-cytochrome c complex fructose dehydrogenase of Gluconobacter japonicus NBRC3260. Appl Environ Microbiol 2013; 79:1654–1660. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AEM.03152-12PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Marmur J. A procedure for the isolation of deoxyribonucleic acid from microorganisms. Methods Enzymol 1963; 6:726–738. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0076-6879(63)06240-6View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Zerbino DR, Birney E. Velvet: algorithms for de novo short read assembly using de Bruijn graphs. Genome Res 2008; 18:821–829. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/gr.074492.107PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Darling AC, Mau B, Blattner FR, Perna NT. Mauve: multiple alignment of conserved genomic sequence with rearrangements. Genome Res 2004; 14:1394–1403. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/gr.2289704PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Rissman AI, Mau B, Biehl BS, Darling AE, Glasner JD, Perna NT. Reordering contigs of draft genomes using the Mauve aligner. Bioinformatics 2009; 25:2071–2073. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp356PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Darling AE, Mau B, Perna NT. progressiveMauve: multiple genome alignment with gene gain, loss and rearrangement. PLoS ONE 2010; 5:e11147. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011147PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Delcher AL, Bratke KA, Powers EC, Salzberg SL. 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
  42. Salzberg SL, Delcher AL, Kasif S, White O. Microbial gene identification using interpolated Markov models. Nucleic Acids Res 1998; 26:544–548. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/26.2.544PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Laslett D, Canback B. ARAGORN, a program to detect tRNA genes and tmRNA genes in nucleotide sequences. Nucleic Acids Res 2004; 32:11–16. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkh152PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 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 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkm160PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Altschul SF, Madden TL, Schaffer AA, Zhang J, Zhang Z, Miller W, Lipman DJ. Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res 1997; 25:3389–3402. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/25.17.3389PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Tatusov RL, Natale DA, Garkavtsev IV, Tatusova TA, Shankavaram UT, Rao BS, Kiryutin B, Galperin MY, Fedorova ND, Koonin EV. The COG database: new developments in phylogenetic classification of proteins from complete genomes. Nucleic Acids Res 2001; 29:22–28. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/29.1.22PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Stothard P, Wishart DS. Circular genome visualization and exploration using CGView. Bioinformatics 2005; 21:537–539. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bti054View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Mogi T, Ano Y, Nakatsuka T, Toyama H, Muroi A, Miyoshi H, Migita CT, Ui H, Shiomi K, Omura S, et al. Biochemical and spectroscopic properties of cyanide-insensitive quinol oxidase from Gluconobacter oxydans. J B iochem 2009; 146:263–271. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jb/mvp067Google Scholar
  49. Miura H, Mogi T, Ano Y, Migita CT, Matsutani M, Yakushi T, Kita K, Matsushita K. Cyanideinsensitive quinol oxidase (CIO) from Gluconobacter oxydans is a unique terminal oxidase subfamily of cytochrome bd. J Biochem 2013; 153:535–545. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jb/mvt019View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Richhardt J, Luchterhand B, Bringer S, Buchs J, Bott M. Evidence for a key role of cytochrome bo3 oxidase in respiratory energy metabolism of Gluconobacter oxydans. J Bacteriol 2013; 195:4210–4220. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JB.00470-13PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Matsushita K, Ohnishi T, Kaback HR. NADH-ubiquinone oxidoreductases of the Escherichia coli aerobic respiratory chain. Biochemistry 1987; 26:7732–7737. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/bi00398a029View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2014