Open Access

High quality draft genomic sequence of Flavobacterium enshiense DK69T and comparison among Flavobacterium genomes

Standards in Genomic Sciences201510:92

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40793-015-0084-z

Received: 13 November 2014

Accepted: 19 October 2015

Published: 10 November 2015

Abstract

Flavobacterium enshiense DK69T is a Gram-negative, aerobic, rod-shaped, non-motile and non-flagellated bacterium that belongs to the family Flavobacteriaceae in the phylum Bacteroidetes. The high quality draft genome of strain DK69T was obtained and has a 3,375,260 bp genome size with a G + C content of 37.7 mol % and 2848 protein coding genes. In addition, we sequenced five more genomes of Flavobacterium type strains and performed a comparative genomic analysis among 12 Flavobacterium genomes. The results show some specific genes within the fish pathogenic Flavobacterium strains which provide information for further analysis the pathogenicity.

Keywords

Flavobacterium Flavobacterium enshiense Comparative genomics Genome sequence Pathogenicity

Introduction

Flavobacterium enshiense DK69T (= CCTCC AB2011144T = KCTC 23775T ) is a type strain that belongs to the genus Flavobacterium of the family Flavobacteriaceae [1]. In recent years, members of Flavobacterium were identified and widely distributed in soil, fresh water, marine water, sediment, microbial mat, and glaciers [25]. Some Flavobacterium strains are fish pathogens including Flavobacterium columnare ATCC 49512T causing columnaris disease [6], Flavobacterium psychrophilum JIP02/86T causing cold-water disease [7] and Flavobacterium branchiophilum FL-15T causing bacterial gill disease [8].

The common characters of Flavobacterium strains are Gram-negative, non-spore-forming, yellow-pigmented, rod-shaped, aerobic and with a low DNA G + C content (30–41 mol %) [212]. The Flavobacterium strains contained iso-C15:0 as the major fatty acid, phosphatidylethanolamine as the major polar lipid and menaquinone-6 as the major respiratory quinone [912].

In order to provide genome information of Flavobacterium species, we sequenced six Flavobacterium strains including F. enshiense DK69T [1], Flavobacterium beibuense F44-8T [13], Flavobacterium cauense R2A-7T [14], Flavobacterium rivuli WB 3.3-2T [15], Flavobacterium subsaxonicum WB 4.1-42T [15] and Flavobacterium suncheonense GH29-5T [2]. In this study, we compared 12 genomes including the six strains that we sequenced and other six available Flavobacterium genomes in the NCBI, Flavobacterium indicum GPTSA100-9T [16], Flavobacterium frigoris PS1T [17], Flavobacterium sp. F52 [18], Flavobacterium columnare ATCC 49512T , Flavobacterium psychrophilum JIP02/86T and Flavobacterium branchiophilum FL-15T. Here, we present the description of the non-contiguous finished genomic sequencing of F. enshiense DK69T and the comparative genome analysis of the 12 Flavobacterium genomes.

Organism information

Classification and features

F. enshiense DK69T is a Gram-negative, strictly aerobic, yellow-pigmented rod shaped bacterium isolated from soil collected at a pharmaceutical company in Enshi, Hubei province, China. The total soil C, N, P, S and Fe concentrations were 39.83, 3.34, 0.68, 0.36, 33.80 g kg−1, respectively, and the pH was 6.97 [1]. A neighbor-joining phylogenetic tree based on the 16S rRNA gene sequences was built using MEGA 6 [19] and showed that strain DK69T was clustered within a branch containing other species in the genus Flavobacterium (Fig. 1). In addition, the sequence of F. enshiense DK69T was compared with other sequenced strains of the family Flavobacteriaceae use BioLinux [20], and a total of 24 core protein sequences were obtained with 50 % identity and E-value exponent of e−10. A phylogenetic tree based on the 24 core protein sequences of the core genome (Fig. 2) is similar to the 16S rRNA gene based tree.
Fig. 1

A NJ phylogenetic tree of the strains within family Flavobacteriaceae based on 16S rRNA gene sequence comparisons. GenBank accession numbers are shown in parentheses. The sequences were aligned using CLUSTALX, and the phylogenetic tree was obtained using MEGA 6 [19] software of neighbor-joining method [39], with the bootstrap values of 500 replicates. *represents the strains sequenced by us

Fig. 2

A NJ phylogenetic tree of the strains within family Flavobacteriaceae based on core-protein sequence comparisons. GenBank accession numbers are shown in parentheses. *represents the strains sequenced by us

The colonies of F. enshiense DK69T are smooth with regular edges, circular, yellowish and about 1 mm in diameter after grown on R2A agar at 28 °C for 48 h. Growth occurs at 4–32 °C, pH 6.0–8.0 on R2A and TSA, but not on NA or LB media, and NaCl is not required [1]. Cells are non-flagellated, non-spore-forming, non-motile, rod-shaped (Fig. 3). Oxidase- and catalase- positive. The DNA G + C content is 34.4 mol% [1]. The general description of this strain is shown in Table 1.
Fig. 3

A transmission electron micrograph of F. enshiense DK69T cells

Table 1

Classification and general features of F. enshiense DK69T according to the MIGS recommendations [21]

MIGS ID

Property

Term

Evidence code

MIGS-6

Classification

Domain Bacteria

TAS [22]

Phylum Bacteroidetes

TAS [23]

Class Flavobacteriia

TAS [24]

Order Flavobacteriales

TAS [24]

Family Flavobacteriaceae

TAS [25]

Genus Flavobacterium

TAS [5, 26]

Species Flavobacterium enshiense

TAS [1]

Type strain: DK69 T (=CCTCC AB 2011144 T = KCTC 23775 T)

TAS [1]

Gram stain

negative

TAS [1]

Cell shape

Rod

TAS [1]

Motility

non-motile

TAS [1]

Sporulation

non-sporulating

TAS [1]

Temperature range

4-32 °C

TAS [1]

Optimum temperature

28 °C

TAS [1]

pH range; Optimum

6.0-8.0; 7.0

TAS [1]

Carbon source

casein, gelatin, egg yolk, tyrosine, sucrose, D-mannitol

TAS [1]

Habitat

soil

TAS [1]

MIGS-6.3

Salinity

0 % NaCl (w/v)

TAS [1]

MIGS-22

Oxygen requirement

aerobic

TAS [1]

MIGS-15

Biotic relationship

free-living

NAS

MIGS-14

Pathogenicity

non-pathogen

NAS

MIGS-4

Geographic location

Enshi city, Hubei Province, China

TAS [1]

MIGS-5

Sample collection

2010

TAS [1]

MIGS-4.1

Latitude

not reported

 

MIGS-4.2

Longitude

not reported

 

MIGS-4.4

Altitude

not reported

 

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 [27]

Chemotaxonomic data

The major cellular fatty acids of F. enshiense DK69T were iso-C15:0, iso-C17:1 ω9c, C15:0, iso-C17:0 3-OH and iso-C15:0 3-OH. The major polar lipids were phosphatidylethanolamine, one unidentified aminolipid and one unidentified lipid. F. enshiense DK69T contained menaquinone 6 as the major quinone [1].

Genome sequencing information

Genome project history

Genome of F. enshiense DK69T was sequenced by Majorbio Bio-pharm Technology Co., Ltd, Shanghai, China. The high-quality draft genome sequence was deposited in the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Contigs less than 200 bp were not included. The GenBank accession number is JRLZ00000000. The summary of the genome sequencing project information is shown in Table 2.
Table 2

Project information of F. enshiense DK69T

MIGS ID

Property

Term

MIGS 31

Finishing quality

High-quality draft

MIGS-28

Libraries used

Illumina Paired-End library (300 bp insert size)

MIGS 29

Sequencing platforms

Illumina Hiseq2000

MIGS 31.2

Fold coverage

487.4 x

MIGS 30

Assemblers

SOAPdenovo v1.05

MIGS 32

Gene calling method

GeneMarkS+

Locus Tag

Q767

Genbank ID

JRLZ00000000

Genbank Date of Release

October 28, 2014

BIOPROJECT

PRJNA221771

Project relevance

Genome comparison

MIGS 13

Source Material Identifier

DK69T

Growth conditions and genomic DNA preparation

F. enshiense DK69T was grown on R2A medium at 28 °C for 2 d with 160 rpm shaking. Cells in late-log-phase growth were harvested and lysed by EDTA, lysozyme, and detergent treatment, followed by proteinase K and RNase digestion. The DNA was extracted and purified using the QiAamp kit according to the manufacturer’s instruction (Qiagen, Germany). The quantity of DNA was measured by the NanoDrop Spectrophotometer to ensure that the DNA concentration is greater than 20 ng/μl, then 5 μg of DNA was sent to Majorbio (Shanghai, China) for sequencing.

Genome sequencing and assembly

The Illumina Hiseq2000 with the Paired-End library strategy was used to determine the whole-genome sequence of F. enshiense DK69T . TruSeq DNA Sample Preparation Kits are used to prepare DNA libraries with insert sizes of 300–500 bp for single, paired-end, and multiplexed sequencing. The protocol used 1 μg of DNA sheared by either sonication or nebulization [28]. The genome raw data of F. enshiense DK69T generated 8,329,997 x 2 reads totaling 1,682,659,394 bp data with an average coverage of 498.4 x. Then SOAPdenovo v1.05 [29] was used to perform the following steps to assemble the sequencing data: (1) removing the adapter sequences in the reads; (2) cutting the 5’ end bases without clear A, T, C and G; (3) trimming the quality read scores lower than 20; (4) removing the reads containing more than 10 % Ns; (5) removing the reads which the length were less than 25 bp. A total of 8,217,761 x 2 high quality reads totaling 1,645,393,073 bp data with an average coverage 487.4 × was generated. The assembled sequence contained 67 scaffolds with a genome size of 3.38 Mbp.

Genome annotation

The annotation of the genomic sequences was completed using the NCBI Prokaryotic Genome Annotation Pipeline which was combined using Best-placed reference protein set and the gene caller GeneMarkS+. SignalP [30] and SOSUI [31] were used to predict signal peptides and transmembrane helices. The predicted CDSs were also used to search against the Pfam protein family database [32]. The GenBank database [33] and the COG databases [34] BLASTP search were used to predict protein sequences.

Genome properties

The genome statistics are provided in Table 3 and Fig. 4. After genome annotation, the genome of F. enshiense DK69T was found to have a total length of 3,375,260 bp, a G + C content of 1,273,385 bp (37.7 mol %) and 74 contigs. From a total of 3,054 genes predicted, 2,848 genes are protein-coding genes, 50 are RNA genes, 57.9 % are assigned with putative functions and the remaining are annotated as hypothetical proteins or proteins of unknown functions. The distribution of genes into COGs functional categories is shown in Table 4.
Table 3

Genome statistics of F. enshiense DK69T

Attribute

Value

% of Totala

Genome size (bp)

3,375,260

100.00

DNA coding (bp)

2,808,588

83.21

DNA G + C (bp)

1,273,385

37.73

DNA scaffolds

67

-

Total genes

3054

100.00

Protein coding genes

2848

93.25

RNA genes

50

1.64

Pseudo genes

156

44.67

Genes in internal clusters

1113

3908

Genes with function prediction

1649

57.90

Genes assigned to COGs

1718

60.32

Genes with Pfam domains

2495

87.61

Genes with signal peptides

735

25.81

Genes with transmembrane helices

651

22.86

CRISPR repeats

0

-

aThe 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

Fig. 4

A graphical circular map of F. enshiense DK69T. From outside to inside, 1, 4 circles show forward strand or reverse strand protein-coding genes according to COG categories; 2, 3 circles show forward strand or reverse strand genes; ring 5 shows G + C% content, ring 6 shows GC skew

Table 4

Number of genes in F. enshiense DK69T associated with general COG functional categories

Code

Value

% agea

Description

J

142

4.99

Translation, ribosomal structure and biogenesis

A

0

0.00

RNA processing and modification

K

76

2.67

Transcription

L

93

3.27

Replication, recombination and repair

B

1

0.04

Chromatin structure and dynamics

D

20

0.70

Cell cycle control, Cell division, chromosome partitioning

V

56

1.97

Defense mechanisms

T

67

2.35

Signal transduction mechanisms

M

176

6.18

Cell wall/membrane biogenesis

N

4

0.14

Cell motility

U

29

1.02

Intracellular trafficking and secretion

O

75

2.63

Posttranslational modification, protein turnover, chaperones

C

100

3.51

Energy production and conversion

G

54

1.90

Carbohydrate transport and metabolism

E

158

5.55

Amino acid transport and metabolism

F

60

2.11

Nucleotide transport and metabolism

H

108

3.79

Coenzyme transport and metabolism

I

69

2.42

Lipid transport and metabolism

P

81

2.84

Inorganic ion transport and metabolism

Q

39

1.37

Secondary metabolites biosynthesis, transport and catabolism

R

192

6.74

General function prediction only

S

118

4.14

Function unknown

-

1130

39.68

Not in COGs

aThe total is based on the total number of protein coding genes in the annotated genome

Insights from the genome sequences

Profiles of metabolic network and pathway

The metabolic network and pathways of F. enshiense DK69T (Fig. 5) were predicted using the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes [35]. The metabolic network showed that F. enshiense DK69T possesses glycolysis, TCA cycle and pentose phosphate pathways and could utilize casein, tyrosine, sucrose and D-mannitol. The genome analysis results are in agreement with the phenotypes [1].
Fig. 5

Metabolic network and pathways of Flavobacterium enshiense DK69T as predicted using KEGG [35]. Green lines indicate pathways that are possessed by this strain

Comparison of the 12 Flavobacterium genomes

The genomic information of the 12 Flavobacterium genomes are summarized in Table 5. OrthoMCL [36] analysis was performed to identify the set of orthologs among the 12 Flavobacterium genomes. F. enshiense DK69T shared 1,190 genes with the other 11 Flavobacterium strains, and had 437 strain-specific genes which may contribute to the species-specific features (Fig. 6).
Table 5

General features of the twelve Flavobacterium genomes

Strains

Size (Mp)

G + C %

Total genes

CDSs

Contigs

References

F. enshiense DK69T

3.4

37.7 %

3,054

2,848

74

This study

F. beibuense F44-8T

3.8

37.7 %

3,460

3,264

61

This study

F. cauense R2A-7T

3.1

38.2 %

2,910

2,723

61

This study

F. rivuli WB 3.3-2T

4.5

39.6 %

3,975

3,691

63

This study

F. subsaxonicum WB 4.1-42T

4.6

41.6 %

4,052

3,785

80

This study

F. suncheonense GH29-5T

2.9

40.5 %

2,769

2,594

105

This study

F. frigoris PS1T

3.9

34.4 %

3,640

3,590

52

[17]

Flavobacterium sp. F52

5.3

34.4 %

4,601

4,549

54

[18]

F. indicum GPTSA100-9T

3.0

31.4 %

2,787

2,671

1

[16]

F. columnare ATCC 49512T

3.2

31.5 %

2,731

2,642

1

[6]

F. psychrophilum JIP02/86T

2.9

32.5 %

2,556

2,446

1

[7]

F. branchiophilum FL-15T

3.6

32.9 %

3,087

2,872

1

[8]

Fig. 6

A venn diagram indicates the twelve genomes of Flavobacterium analyzed by OrthoMCL [36] illustrate the number of the unique proteins and the common proteins among them

Three of the 12 Flavobacterium strains are fish pathogenic bacteria [68]. Using OrthoMCL [36] analysis, a total of ten proteins we found to be unique in the three fish-pathogenic species. Three of the putative proteins were reported to be related to the pathogenicity of pathogenic bacteria including polysaccharide deacetylase [37], ABC transporter ATPase and ABC transporter permease [38] (Table 6).
Table 6

Specific proteins of three pathogenic bacteria, F. branchiophilum FL-15T, F. columnare ATCC 49512T and F. psychrophilum JIP02/86T

Strains

Accession

Putative protein

F. branchiophilum FL-15 T

WP_014083310.1

SNF2_N, HepA, PLN03142

F. columnare ATCC 49512 T

WP_014165166.1

F. psychrophilum JIP02/86 T

WP_011962958.1

F. branchiophilum FL-15 T

WP_014083635.1

hypothetical protein

F. columnare ATCC 49512 T

WP_014164281.1

F. psychrophilum JIP02/86 T

WP_011962863.1

F. branchiophilum FL-15 T

WP_014082960.1

Hexameric tyrosine-coordinated heme protein

F. columnare ATCC 49512 T

WP_014165359.1

F. psychrophilum JIP02/86 T

WP_011963152.1

F. branchiophilum FL-15 T

WP_014084059.1

polysaccharide deacetylase

F. columnare ATCC 49512 T

WP_014165336.1

F. psychrophilum JIP02/86 T

WP_011963745.1

F. branchiophilum FL-15 T

WP_014084057.1

membrane protein

F. columnare ATCC 49512 T

WP_014165338.1

F. psychrophilum JIP02/86 T

WP_011963747.1

F. branchiophilum FL-15 T

WP_014084692.1

PepSY-associated TM helix

F. columnare ATCC 49512 T

WP_014166184.1

F. psychrophilum JIP02/86 T

WP_011963892.1

F. branchiophilum FL-15 T

WP_014082991.1

S-adenosylmethionine protein

F. columnare ATCC 49512 T

WP_014164416.1

F. psychrophilum JIP02/86 T

WP_011963983.1

F. branchiophilum FL-15 T

WP_014082768.1

ABC transporter permease

F. columnare ATCC 49512 T

WP_014165791.1

F. psychrophilum JIP02/86 T

WP_011964188.1

F. branchiophilum FL-15 T

WP_014082767.1

ABC transporter ATPase

F. columnare ATCC 49512 T

WP_014165790.1

F. psychrophilum JIP02/86 T

WP_011964189.1

F. branchiophilum FL-15 T

WP_014083276.1

Transposase

F. columnare ATCC 49512 T

WP_014165862.1

F. psychrophilum JIP02/86 T

WP_011964284.1

Conclusions

The genomic results of F. enshiense DK69T and related strains reveled useful information. (1) The genome based phylogenetic analysis results is in agreement with the 16S rRNA gene based one; (2) The genomic data are correlated with some phenotypes of strain DK69T; (3) Compared to the three fish pathogenic Flavobacterium strains, no pathogenic related genes was detected in the environmental strain DK69T which indicated its non-pathogenicity; and (4) Some specific genes were found within the three fish pathogenic Flavobacterium strains which provides information for further analysis the pathogenicity.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31470226).

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
State Key Laboratory of Agricultural Microbiology, College of Life Sciences and Technology, Huazhong Agricultural University

References

  1. Dong K, Chen F, Du Y, Wang G. Flavobacterium enshiense sp. nov., isolated from soil, and emended descriptions of the genus Flavobacterium and Flavobacterium cauense, Flavobacterium saliperosum and Flavobacterium suncheonense. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2013;63:886–92. doi:https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.039974-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Kim BY, Weon HY, Cousin S, Yoo SH, Kwon SW, Go SJ, et al. Flavobacterium daejeonense sp. nov. and Flavobacterium suncheonense sp. nov., isolated from greenhouse soils in Korea. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2006;56:1645–9. doi:https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.64243-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Yoon JH, Kang SJ, Oh TK. Flavobacterium soli sp. nov., isolated from soil. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2006;56:997–1000. doi:https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.64119-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Yoon JH, Kang SJ, Lee JS, Oh TK. Flavobacterium terrigena sp. nov., isolated from soil. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2007;57:947–50. doi:https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.64776-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernardet JF, Bowman JP. Genus I. Flavobacterium Bergey et al. 1923. In: W. Whitman, editor. Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology. 2nd edn, vol. 4. Baltimore: The Williams & Wilkins Co, Baltimore; 2011. p. 112–54.Google Scholar
  6. Tekedar HC, Karsi A, Gillaspy AF, Dyer DW, Benton NR, Zaitshik J, et al. Genome sequence of the fish pathogen Flavobacterium columnare ATCC 49512. J Bacteriol. 2012;194(10):2763–4. doi:https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.00281-12.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Duchaud E, Boussaha M, Loux V, Bernardet JF, Michel C, Kerouault B, et al. Complete genome sequence of the fish pathogen Flavobacterium psychrophilum. Nat Biotechnol. 2007;25(7):763–9. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1313.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Touchon M, Barbier P, Bernardet JF, Loux V, Vacherie B, Barbe V, et al. Complete genome sequence of the fish pathogen Flavobacterium branchiophilum. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2011;77(21):7656–62. doi:https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.05625-11.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Park M, Lu S, Ryu SH, Chung BS, Park W, Kim CJ, et al. Flavobacterium croceum sp. nov., isolated from activated sludge. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2006;56:2443–7. doi:https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.64436-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Ryu SH, Park JH, Moon JC, Sung Y, Lee SS, Jeon CO. Flavobacterium resistens sp. nov., isolated from stream sediment. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2008;58:2266–70. doi:https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.65720-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Sheu SY, Chiu TF, Young CC, Arun AB, Chen WM. Flavobacterium macrobrachii sp. nov., isolated from a freshwater shrimp culture pond. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2011;61:1402–7. doi:https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.025403-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Xu M, Xin Y, Tian J, Dong K, Yu Y, Zhang J, et al. Flavobacterium sinopsychrotolerans sp. nov., isolated from a glacier. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2011;61:20–4. doi:https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.014126-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Fu Y, Tang X, Lai Q, Zhang C, Zhong H, Li W, et al. Flavobacterium beibuense sp. nov., isolated from marine sediment. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2011;61(Pt 1):205–9. doi:https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.018846-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Qu JH, Yuan HL, Li HF, Deng CP. Flavobacterium cauense sp. nov., isolated from sediment of a eutrophic lake. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2009;59(Pt 11):2666–9. doi:https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.009688-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Ali Z, Cousin S, Frühling A, Brambilla E, Schumann P, Yang Y, et al. Flavobacterium rivuli sp. nov., Flavobacterium subsaxonicum sp. nov., Flavobacterium swingsii sp. nov. and Flavobacterium reichenbachii sp. nov., isolated from a hard water rivulet. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2009;59(Pt 10):2610–7. doi:https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.008771-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Barbier P, Houel A, Loux V, Poulain J, Bernardet JF, Touchon M, et al. Complete genome sequence of Flavobacterium indicum GPSTA100-9 T, isolated from warm spring water. J Bacteriol. 2012;194(11):3024–5. doi:https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.00420-12.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Van Trappen S, Vandecandelaere I, Mergaert J, Swings J. Flavobacterium degerlachei sp. nov., Flavobacterium frigoris sp. nov., and Flavobacterium micromati sp. nov., novel psychrophilic bacteria isolated from microbial mats in Antarctic lakes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2004;54(Pt 1):85–92. doi:https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.02857-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Kolton M, Green SJ, Harel YM, Sela N, Elad Y, Cytryn E. Draft genome sequence of Flavobacterium sp. strain F52, isolated from the rhizosphere of bell pepper (Capsicum annuum L. cv. Maccabi). J Bacteriol. 2012;194(19):5462–3. doi:https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.01249-12.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Tamura K, Stecher G, Peterson D, Filipski A, Kumar S. MEGA6: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 6.0. Mol Biol Evol. 2013;30(12):2725–9. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mst197.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Krampis K, Booth T, Chapman B, Tiwari B, Bicak M, Field D, et al. Cloud BioLinux: pre-configured and on-demand bioinformatics computing for the genomics community. BMC Bioinformatics. 2012;13:42. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-13-42.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Field D, Garrity G, Gray T, Morrison N, Selengut J, Sterk P, et al. The minimum information about a genome sequence (MIGS) specification. Nat Biotechnol. 2008;26:541–7. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1360.PubMed 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 U S A. 1990;87:4576–9.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Gherna R, Woese CR. A partial phylogenetic analysis of the “flavobacter-bacteroides” phylum: basis for taxonomic restructuring. Syst Appl Microbiol. 1992;15:513–21. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0723-2020(11)80110-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Berbardet JF, Krieg NR, Staley JT, Brown DR, Hedlund BP, Paster BJ, et al. Class II. Flavobacteriia class. nov. In: Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, The Bacteroidetes, Spirochaetes, Tenericutes (Mollicutes), Acidobacteria, Fibrobacteres, Fusobacteria, Dictyglomi, Gemmatimonadetes, Lentisphaerae, Verrumicrobia, Chlamydiae, and Planctomycetes, vol. 4. 2nd ed. New York: Springer; 2011. p. 105.Google Scholar
  25. Bernardet JF, Segers P, Vancanneyt M, Berthe F, Kersters K, Vandamme P. Cutting a Gordian knot: emended classification and description of the genus Flavobacterium, emended description of the family Flavobacteriaceae, and proposal of Flavobacterium hydatis nom. nov. (Basonym, Cytophaga aquatilis Strohl and Tait 1978). Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1996;46:128–48.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Bergey DH, Harrison FC, Breed RS, Hammer BW, Huntoon FM. Bergey’s Manual of Determinative Bacteriology. 1st ed. The Williams and Wilkins Co: Baltimore; 1923. p. 1–442.Google Scholar
  27. Ashburner M, Ball CA, Blake JA, Botstein D, Butler H, Cherry JM, et al. Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. The Gene Ontology Con-sortium. Nat Genet. 2000;25:25–9. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/75556.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Illumina official website [www.illumina.com.cn].
  29. Xie Y, Wu G, Tang J, Luo R, Patterson J, Liu S, et al. SOAPdenovo-Trans: de novo transcriptome assembly with short RNA-Seq reads. Bioinformatics. 2014;30(12):1660–6. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btu077.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Petersen TN, Brunak S, von Heijne G, Nielsen H. SignalP 4.0: discriminating signal peptides from transmembrane regions. Nat Methods. 2011;8:785–6. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.1701.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Hirokawa T, Boon-Chieng S, Mitaku S. SOSUI: classification and secondary structure prediction system for membrane proteins. Bioinformatics. 1998;14:378–9. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/14.4.378.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Finn RD, Bateman A, Clements J, Coggill P, Eberhardt RY, Eddy SR, et al. The Pfam protein families database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;Database Issue 42(D):222–30.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. GenBank database. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank. Accessed 2 Oct 2014.
  34. Tatusov RL, Galperin MY, Natale DA, Koonin EV. The COG database: a tool for genome-scale analysis of protein functions and evolution. Nucleic Acids Res. 2000;28:33–6. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/28.1.33.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Kanehisa M, Goto S, Sato Y, Kawashima M, Furumichi M, Tanabe M. Data, information, knowledge and principle: back to metabolism in KEGG. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42:D199–205. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkt1076.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Li L, Stoeckert Jr CJ, Roos DS. OrthoMCL: identification of ortholog groups for eukaryotic genomes. Genome Res. 2003;13(9):2178–89. doi:https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.1224503.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Milani CJ, Aziz RK, Locke JB, Dahesh S, Nizet V, Buchanan JT. The novel polysaccharide deacetylase homologue Pdi contributes to virulence of the aquatic pathogen Streptococcus iniae. Microbiol. 2010;156(Pt 2):543–54. doi:https://doi.org/10.1099/mic.0.028365-0.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Zhang M, Han X, Liu H, Tian M, Ding C, Song J, et al. Inactivation of the ABC transporter ATPase gene in Brucella abortus strain 2308 attenuated the virulence of the bacteria. Vet Microbiol. 2013;164(3–4):322–9. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2013.02.017.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Saitou N, Nei M. The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol Biol Evol. 1987;4:406–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Zeng et al. 2015