Open Access

Complete genome sequence of Rhizobium leguminosarum bv. trifolii strain WSM1325, an effective microsymbiont of annual Mediterranean clovers

  • Wayne Reeve1,
  • Graham O’Hara1,
  • Patrick Chain2, 3,
  • Julie Ardley1,
  • Lambert Bräu1,
  • Kemanthi Nandesena1,
  • Ravi Tiwari1,
  • Alex Copeland2,
  • Matt Nolan2,
  • Cliff Han2, 4,
  • Thomas Brettin5,
  • Miriam Land2, 5,
  • Galina Ovchinikova2,
  • Natalia Ivanova2,
  • Konstantinos Mavromatis2,
  • Victor Markowitz6,
  • Nikos Kyrpides2,
  • Vanessa Melino1,
  • Matthew Denton7,
  • Ron Yates1, 8 and
  • John Howieson1, 8
Standards in Genomic Sciences20102:2030347

DOI: 10.4056/sigs.852027

Published: 30 June 2010

Abstract

Rhizobium leguminosarum bv trifolii is a soil-inhabiting bacterium that has the capacity to be an effective nitrogen fixing microsymbiont of a diverse range of annual Trifolium (clover) species. Strain WSM1325 is an aerobic, motile, non-spore forming, Gram-negative rod isolated from root nodules collected in 1993 from the Greek Island of Serifos. WSM1325 is produced commercially in Australia as an inoculant for a broad range of annual clovers of Mediterranean origin due to its superior attributes of saprophytic competence, nitrogen fixation and acid-tolerance. Here we describe the basic features of this organism, together with the complete genome sequence, and annotation. This is the first completed genome sequence for a microsymbiont of annual clovers. We reveal that its genome size is 7,418,122 bp encoding 7,232 protein-coding genes and 61 RNA-only encoding genes. This multipartite genome contains 6 distinct replicons; a chromosome of size 4,767,043 bp and 5 plasmids of size 828,924 bp, 660,973 bp, 516,088 bp, 350,312 bp and 294,782 bp.

Keywords

microsymbiont non-pathogenic aerobic Gram-negative rod root-nodule bacteria nitrogen fixation Alphaproteobacteria

Introduction

The productivity of agricultural systems is heavily dependent on nitrogen (N) [1]. The requirement for N-input can be met by the application of exogenous N-fertilizer manufactured through the Haber-Bosch process, but as the cost of fossil fuel-derived energy increases, so does the cost to manufacture and apply such fertilizer. Furthermore, there are inherent issues with the synthesis and application of N-fertilizer, including greenhouse gas emissions and run-off causing eutrophication. Alternatively, N can be obtained from symbiotic nitrogen fixation (SNF) by root nodule bacteria (rhizobia) on nodulated legumes [2]; this is a key biological process in natural and agricultural environments driven by solar radiation and utilizing atmospheric CO2. The commonly accepted figure for global SNF in agriculture is 50–70 million metric tons annually, worth in excess of U.S. $10 billion [3]. Rhizobia are applied across 400 million ha of agricultural land per annum to improve legume forage and crop production through symbiotic N-fixation [3].

The clover (Trifolium) nodulating Rhizobium R. leguminosarum bv. trifolii is amongst the most exploited species of root-nodule bacteria in world agriculture. Clovers are widely grown pasture legumes and include both annual species (e.g. T. subterraneum) and perennial species (e.g. T. pratense, T. repens and T. polymorphum). Clovers are adapted to a wide range of environments, from sub-tropical to moist Mediterranean systems, and thus are important nitrogen-fixing legumes in many natural and agricultural regions of North and South America, Europe, Africa and Australasia [4].

Rhizobium leguminosarum bv. trifolii strain WSM1325 was isolated from a nodule recovered from the roots of an annual clover plant growing near Livadi beach on the Greek Cyclades island of Serifos in 1993 [5]. Strain WSM1325 is of particular interest because it is a highly effective nitrogen-fixing microsymbiont of a broad range of annual clovers of Mediterranean origin [5] and is also saprophytically competent in acid, infertile soils of both Uruguay and southern Australia [6]. Strain WSM1325 is an effective microsymbiont under competitive conditions for nodulation in what appears to be a host-mediated selection process [7].

As well as being a highly effective inoculant strain for annual Trifolium spp., strain WSM1325 is compatible with key perennial clovers of Mediterranean origin used in farming, such as T. repens and T. fragiferum, and is therefore one of the most important clover inoculants used in agriculture. However, WSM1325 is incompatible with American and African clovers, sometimes nodulating but never fixing N [5]. This is in contrast to other Rhizobium leguminosarum bv. trifolii strains, such as WSM2304, which are effective at N-fixation with some perennial American clovers, but ineffective with the Mediterranean clovers [57].

Here we present a summary classification and a set of features for R. leguminosarum bv. trifolii strain WSM1325 (Table 1), together with the description of a complete genome sequence and annotation.
Table 1.

Classification and general features of R. leguminosarum bv. trifolii WSM1325 according to the MIGS recommendations [8].

MIGS ID

Property

Term

Evidence code

 

Current classification

Domain Bacteria

TAS [9]

 

Phylum Proteobacteria

TAS [10,11]

 

Class Alphaproteobacteria

TAS [12,13]

 

Order Rhizobiales

TAS [13,14]

 

Family Rhizobiaceae

TAS [15,16]

 

Genus Rhizobium

TAS [1719]

 

Species Rhizobium leguminosarum

TAS [18,20]

 

Biovar trifolii Strain WSM1325

 
 

Gram stain

negative

TAS [17]

 

Cell shape

rod

TAS [17]

 

Motility

motile

TAS [17]

 

Sporulation

non-sporulating

TAS [17]

 

Temperature range

mesophile

TAS [17]

 

Optimum temperature

28°C

TAS [17]

 

Salinity

unknown

TAS [17]

MIGS-22

Oxygen requirement

aerobic

TAS [17]

 

Carbon source

glucose, mannitol, glutamate

TAS [57]

 

Energy source

chemoorganotroph

 

MIGS-6

Habitat

Soil, root nodule, host

TAS [57]

MIGS-15

Biotic relationship

Free living, Symbiotic

TAS [57]

MIGS-14

Pathogenicity

none

NAS [17]

 

Biosafety level

1

TAS [21]

 

Isolation

Root nodule

TAS [22]

MIGS-4

Geographic location

Livadi beach, Serifos, Cyclades, Greece

TAS [22]

MIGS-5

Nodule collection date

April 1993

TAS [22]

MIGS-4.1

Longitude

24.518901

 

MIGS-4.2

Latitude

37.147034

TAS [22]

MIGS-4.3

Depth

not reported

NAS

MIGS-4.4

Altitude

2m

TAS [22]

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 http://www.geneontology.org/GO.evidence.shtml of the Gene Ontology project [23]. If the evidence code is IDA, then the property was directly observed by one of the authors or an expert mentioned in the acknowledgements.

Classification and features

R. leguminosarum bv. trifolii WSM1325 is a motile, Gram-negative, non-spore-forming rod (Figure 1A, B) in the Rhizobiaceae family of the class Alphaproteobacteria that forms mucoid colonies (Figure 1C) on solid media [24]. It has a mean generation time of 3.9 h in rich medium at the optimal growth temperature of 28°C [7].
Figure 1.

Images of R. leguminosarum bv. trifolii strain WSM1325 using scanning (A) and transmission (B) electron microscopy and the appearance of colony morphology on solid media (C).

Figure 2 shows the phylogenetic neighborhood of R. leguminosarum bv. trifolii strain WSM1325 in a 16S rRNA-based tree. An intragenic fragment of 1,440 bp was chosen since the 16S rRNA gene has not been completely sequenced in many type strains. A comparison of the entire 16S rRNA gene of WSM1325 to completely sequenced 16S rRNA genes of other rhizobia revealed 100% gene sequence identity to the same gene of R. leguminosarum bv. trifolii strain WSM2304 but revealed a 1 bp difference to the same gene of R. leguminosarum bv. viciae strain 3841.
Figure 2.

Phylogenetic tree showing the relationships of R. leguminosarum bv trifolii strain WSM1325 with the type strains of Rhizobiaceae based on aligned sequences of the 16S rRNA gene (1,440 bp internal region). All sites were informative and there were no gap-containing sites. Phylogenetic analyses were performed using MEGA, version 3.1 [25]. Kimura two-parameter distances were derived from the aligned sequences [26] and a bootstrap analysis [27] as performed with 500 replicates in order to construct a consensus unrooted tree using the neighbor-joining method [28] for each gene alignment separately. B.-Bradyrhizobium; M.-Mesorhizobium; R.-Rhizobium; S-Ensifer (Sinorhizobium). Type strains are indicated with a superscript T. Strains with a genome sequencing project registered in GOLD [22] are in bold red print. Published genomes are designated with an asterisk.

Symbiotaxonomy

R. leguminosarum bv. trifolii WSM1325 nodulates (Nod+) and fixes nitrogen effectively (Fix+) with a wide range of annual clovers of Mediterranean origin which are in commercial agriculture, globally. Examples of these clover species include T. subterraneum, T. vesiculosum, T. purpureum T. glanduliferum, T. resupinatum, T. michellianum and T. incarnatum. An illustration of the ability of WSM1325 to fix nitrogen effectively across a range of annual clover species is displayed in Figure 3. Additionally, WSM1325 is Fix+ with some Mediterranean perennial clovers such as T. repens and T. fragiferum, but is inconsistently Nod+, and consistently Fix- with clovers of African and American origin [5,30]. Under conditions of competitive nodulation, WSM1325 may preferentially nodulate T. purpureum even when outnumbered 100:1 by WSM2304 [7].
Figure 3.

An illustration of the N-fixing capacity of R. leguminosarum bv. trifolii WSM1325 with four annual Trifolium spp. (T. vesiculosum, T. dasyurum (pots with orange tags), T. isthmocarpum and T. spumosum (pots with blue tags) in four replicates, front to back), compared with superseded Australian inoculants; far left WU95 (1968 to 1994), middle WSM409 (1994 to 2004) and right, WSM1325 (Australian commercial inoculant strain 2004 to present [29]).

Genome sequencing and annotation

Genome project history

This organism was selected for sequencing on the basis of its environmental and agricultural relevance to issues in global carbon cycling, alternative energy production, and biogeochemical importance, and is part of the Community Sequencing Program at the US Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute (JGI) for projects of relevance to agency missions. The genome project is deposited in the Genomes OnLine Database [22] and the complete genome sequence 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 for R. leguminosarum bv trifolii WSM1325.

MIGS ID

Property

Term

MIGS-31

Finishing quality

Finished

MIGS-28

Libraries used

Four genomic libraries: three Sanger libraries - 2 kb pTH1522, 8 kb pMCL200 and fosmid pcc1Fos and one 454 pyrosequence standard library

MIGS-29

Sequencing platforms

ABI3730xl, 454 GS FLX

MIGS-31.2

Sequencing coverage

16× Sanger; 20× pyrosequence

MIGS-30

Assemblers

Newbler version 1.1.02.15, phrap

MIGS-32

Gene calling method

Prodigal

 

Genbank ID

CP001622 (Chomosome)

 

CP001623 (pR132501)

 

CP001624 (pR132502)

 

CP001625 (pR132503)

 

CP001626 (pR132504)

 

CP001627 (pR132505)

 

Genbank Date of Release

May 7, 2009

 

GOLD ID

Gc01039

 

NCBI project ID

20097

 

Database: IMG

641736174 (draft)

 

Project relevance

Symbiotic nitrogen fixation, agriculture

Growth conditions and DNA isolation

R. leguminosarum bv. trifolii WSM1325 was grown to mid logarithmic phase in TY medium (a rich medium) [31] on a gyratory shaker at 28°C. DNA was isolated from 60 mL of cells using a CTAB (Cetyl trimethylammonium bromide) bacterial genomic DNA isolation method.

Genome sequencing and assembly

The genome was sequenced using a combination of Sanger and 454 sequencing platforms. All general aspects of library construction and sequencing performed at the JGI can be found at http://www.jgi.doe.gov/. 454 Pyrosequencing reads were assembled using the Newbler assembler, version 1.1.02.15 (Roche). Large Newbler contigs were broken into 6,084 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 parallel phrap assembler (High Performance Software, LLC). Possible mis-assemblies were corrected with Dupfinisher or transposon bombing of bridging clones [32]. Gaps between contigs were closed by editing in Consed, custom primer walk or PCR amplification. A total of 2,155 Sanger finishing reads were produced to close gaps, to resolve repetitive regions, and to raise the quality of the finished sequence. Together, all sequence types provided 36× coverage of the genome. The error rate of the completed genome sequence is less than 1 in 100,000.

Genome annotation

Genes were identified using Prodigal [33] as part of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory genome annotation pipeline, followed by a round of manual curation using the JGI GenePrimp pipeline [34]. 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. Additional gene prediction analyses and functional annotation were performed within the Integrated Microbial Genomes (IMG-ER) platform (http://img.jgi.doe.gov/er) [35].

Genome properties

The genome is 7,418,122 bp long with a 60.77% GC content (Table 3) and comprised of 6 replicons; one circular chromosome of size 4,767,043 bp and five circular plasmids of size 828,924 bp, 660,973 bp, 516,088 bp, 350,312 bp and 294,782 bp (Figure 4). Of the 7293 genes predicted, 7,232 were protein coding genes, and 61 RNA only encoding genes. Two hundred and thirty one pseudogenes were also identified. The majority of genes (74.21%) were assigned a putative function whilst the remaining genes were annotated as hypothetical proteins. The distribution of genes into COGs functional categories is presented in Table 4.
Figure 4.

Graphical circular maps of the chromosome and plasmids of R. leguminosarum bv trifolii WSM1325. From outside to the center: Genes on forward strand (color by COG categories as denoted by the IMG platform), Genes on reverse strand (color by COG categories), RNA genes (tRNAs green, sRNAs red, other RNAs black), GC content, GC skew. Chromosome and plasmids are not drawn to scale.

Table 3.

Genome Statistics for R. leguminosarum bv trifolii WSM1325.

Attribute

Value

% of Total

Genome size (bp)

7,418,122

100.00

DNA coding region (bp)

6,485,014

87.42

DNA G+C content (bp)

4,507,991

60.77

Number of replicons

6

 

Extrachromosomal elements

5

 

Total genes

7,293

100.00

RNA genes

61

0.84

rRNA operons

3

 

Protein-coding genes

7,232

99.16

Pseudo genes

231

3.17

Genes with function prediction

5,412

74.21

Genes in paralog clusters

1,947

26.70

Genes assigned to COGs

5,453

74.77

Genes assigned Pfam domains

5,497

75.37

Genes with signal peptides

1,554

21.31

Genes with transmembrane helices

1,629

22.34

CRISPR repeats

0

 
Table 4.

The number of predicted protein-coding genes of R. leguminosarum bv trifolii WSM1325 associated with the 21 general COG functional categories.

Code

value

% age

Description

J

195

2.70

Translation, ribosomal structure and biogenesis

A

1

0.01

RNA processing and modification

K

610

8.43

Transcription

L

180

2.49

Replication, recombination and repair

B

2

0.03

Chromatin structure and dynamics

D

35

0.48

Cell cycle control, mitosis and meiosis

Y

0

0.00

Nuclear structure

V

69

0.95

Defense mechanisms

T

358

4.95

Signal transduction mechanisms

M

323

4.47

Cell wall/membrane biogenesis

N

89

1.23

Cell motility

Z

1

0.01

Cytoskeleton

W

0

0.00

Extracellular structures

U

83

1.15

Intracellular trafficking and secretion

O

191

2.64

Posttranslational modification, protein turnover, chaperones

C

316

4.37

Energy production and conversion

G

688

9.51

Carbohydrate transport and metabolism

E

644

8.90

Amino acid transport and metabolism

F

108

1.49

Nucleotide transport and metabolism

H

190

2.63

Coenzyme transport and metabolism

I

227

3.14

Lipid transport and metabolism

P

322

4.45

Inorganic ion transport and metabolism

Q

160

2.21

Secondary metabolites biosynthesis, transport and catabolism

R

777

10.74

General function prediction only

S

586

8.10

Function unknown

-

1,779

24.60

Not in COGs

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This work was performed under the auspices of the US Department of Energy’s 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. We thank Gordon Thompson (Murdoch University) for the preparation of SEM and TEM photos. We gratefully acknowledge the funding received from Murdoch University Strategic Research Fund through the Crop and Plant Research Institute (CaPRI), and the Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC), to support the National Rhizobium Program (NRP) and the Centre for Rhizobium Studies (CRS) at Murdoch University.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Centre for Rhizobium Studies, Murdoch University
(2)
DOE Joint Genome Institute
(3)
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
(4)
Bioscience Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory
(5)
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
(6)
Biological Data Management and Technology Center, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
(7)
Department of Primary Industries
(8)
Department of Agriculture and Food

References

  1. Peoples MB, Hauggaard-Nielsen H, Jensen ES. Chapter 13. The potential environmental benefits and risks derived from legumes in rotations. In: Emerich, DW & Krishnan HB (Eds.), Agronomy Monograph 52. Nitrogen Fixation in Crop Production Am Soc Agron, Crop Sci Soc Am & Soil Sci Soc Am 2009, pp. 349–385 Madison, Wisconsin, USA.Google Scholar
  2. Sprent JI. Legume nodulation: a global perspective. 2009. Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Herridge DF, Peoples MB, Boddey RM. Global inputs of biological nitrogen fixation in agricultural systems. Marschner Review. Plant Soil 2008; 311:1–18. doi:10.1007/s11104-008-9668-3View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Zohary M, Heller D. The Genus Trifolium. The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Ahva Printing Press 1984, Jerusalem.Google Scholar
  5. Howieson JG, Yates RJ, O’Hara GW, Ryder M, Real D. The interactions of Rhizobium leguminosarum biovar trifolii in nodulation of annual and perennial Trifolium spp from diverse centres of origin. Aust J Exp Agric 2005; 45:199–207. doi:10.1071/EA03167View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Yates RJ, Howieson JG, Real D, Reeve WG, Vivas-Marfisi A, O’Hara GW. Evidence of selection for effective nodulation in the Trifolium spp. symbiosis with Rhizobium leguminosarum biovar trifolii. Aust J Exp Agric 2005; 45:189–198. doi:10.1071/EA03168View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Yates RJ, Howieson JG, Reeve WG, Brau L, Speijers J, Nandasena K, Real D, Sezmis E, O’Hara GW. Host-strain mediated selection for an effective nitrogen-fixing symbiosis between Trifolium spp. and Rhizobium leguminosarum biovar trifolii. Soil Biol Biochem 2008; 40:822–833. doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.11.001View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Field D, Garrity G, Gray T, Morrison N, Selengut J, Sterk P, Tatusova T, Thomson N, Allen MJ, Angiuoli SV. Towards a richer description of our complete collection of genomes and metagenomes: the “Minimum Information about a Genome Sequence” (MIGS) specification. Nat Biotechnol 2008; 26:541–547. PubMed doi:10.1038/nbt1360PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Woese CR, Kandler O, Wheelis ML. Towards a natural system of organisms: proposal for the domains Archaea, Bacteria, and Eucarya. [2112744]. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1990; 87:4576–4579. PubMed doi:10.1073/pnas.87.12.4576PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Editor L. Validation of publication of new names and new combinations previously effectively published outside the IJSEM. List no. 106. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2005; 55:2235–2238;. doi:10.1099/ijs.0.64108-0Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 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 doi:10.1099/ijs.0.64188-0View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Kuykendall LD. Order VI. Rhizobiales 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. 324.Google Scholar
  15. Kuykendall LD. Order VI. Rhizobiales 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. 324.Google Scholar
  16. Conn HJ. Taxonomic relationships of certain non-sporeforming rods in soil. J Bacteriol 1938; 26:320–321.Google Scholar
  17. Kuykendall LD, Hashem F, Wang ET. Genus VII. Rhizobium, 2005, pp 325–340. In: Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology. Second Edition. Volume 2 The Proteobacteria. Part C The Alpha-, Delta-, and Epsilonproteobacteria. Brenner DJ, Krieg NR, Staley JT (Eds.), Garrity GM (Editor in Chief) Springer Science and Business Media Inc, New York, USA.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Jordan DC, Allen ON. Genus I. Rhizobium Frank 1889, 338; Nom. gen. cons. Opin. 34, Jud. Comm. 1970, 11. In: Buchanan RE, Gibbons NE (eds), Bergey’s Manual of Determinative Bacteriology, Eighth Edition, The Williams and Wilkins Co., Baltimore, 1974, p. 262–264.Google Scholar
  20. Dangeard PA. Recherches sur les tubercles radicaux des Légumineuses. Botaniste, Paris 1926; 16:1–275.Google Scholar
  21. Biological Agents. Technical rules for biological agents http://www.baua.de TRBA 466.
  22. Liolios K, Mavromatis K, Tavernarakis N, Kyrpides NC. The Genomes OnLine Database (GOLD) in 2007: status of genomic and metagenomic projects and their associated metadata. Nucleic Acids Res 2008; 36:D475–D479. PubMed doi:10.1093/nar/gkm884PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Ashburner M, Ball CA, Blake JA, Botstein D, Butler H, Cherry JM, Davis AP, Dolinski K, Dwight SS, Eppig JT, et al. The Gene Ontology Consortium. Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nat Genet 2000; 25:25–29. PubMed doi:10.1038/75556PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Howieson JG, Ewing MA, D’Antuono MF. Selection for acid tolerance in Rhizobium meliloti. Plant Soil 1988; 105:179–188. doi:10.1007/BF02376781View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Kumar S, Tamura K, Nei M. MEGA3: integrated software for molecular evolutionary genetics analysis and sequence alignment. Brief Bioinform 2004; 5:150–163. PubMed doi:10.1093/bib/5.2.150View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Kimura M. A simple model for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. J Mol Evol 1980; 16:111–120. PubMed doi:10.1007/BF01731581View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Felsenstein J. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 1985; 39:783–791. doi:10.2307/2408678View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Saitou N, Nei M. Reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol Biol Evol 1987; 4:406–425. PubMedPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Bullard GK, Roughley RJ, Pulsford DJ. The legume inoculant industry and inoculant quality control in Australia: 1953–2003. Aust J Exp Agric 2005; 45:127–140. doi:10.1071/EA03159View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Centre for Rhizobium Studies. Annual Report. 2001. JG Howieson (Ed). Murdoch University Print, Perth, Australia.Google Scholar
  31. Reeve WG, Tiwari RP, Worsely PS, Dilworth MJ, Glenn AR, Howieson JG. Constructs for insertional mutagenesis, transcriptional signal localisation and gene regulation studies in root nodule and other bacteria. Microbiology 1999; 145:1307–1316. PubMed doi:10.1099/13500872-145-6-1307View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Sims D, Brettin T, Detter JC, Han C, Lapidus A, Copeland A, Glavina Del Rio T, Nolan M, Chen F, Lucas S, et al. Complete genome of Kytococcus sedentarius type strain (strain 541T). Stand Genomic Sci 2009; 1:12–20. doi:10.4056/sigs.761PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. http://compbio.ornl.gov/prodigal/
  34. http://geneprimp.jgi-psf.org/
  35. Markowitz VM, Mavromatis K, 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

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2010