Skip to content


Standards in Genomic Sciences

Open Access

Genome sequence of Bradyrhizobium sp. WSM1253; a microsymbiont of Ornithopus compressus from the Greek Island of Sifnos

  • Ravi Tiwari1,
  • John Howieson1,
  • Ron Yates1, 2,
  • Rui Tian1,
  • Britanny Held3,
  • Roxanne Tapia3,
  • Cliff Han3,
  • Rekha Seshadri4,
  • T. B. K. Reddy4,
  • Marcel Huntemann4,
  • Amrita Pati4,
  • Tanja Woyke4,
  • Victor Markowitz5,
  • Natalia Ivanova4,
  • Nikos Kyrpides4, 6 and
  • Wayne Reeve1Email author
Standards in Genomic Sciences201510:113

Received: 10 December 2014

Accepted: 25 November 2015

Published: 30 November 2015


Bradyrhizobium sp. WSM1253 is a novel N2-fixing bacterium isolated from a root nodule of the herbaceous annual legume Ornithopus compressus that was growing on the Greek Island of Sifnos. WSM1253 emerged as a strain of interest in an Australian program that was selecting inoculant quality bradyrhizobial strains for inoculation of Mediterranean species of lupins (Lupinus angustifolius, L. princei, L. atlanticus, L. pilosus). In this report we describe, for the first time, the genome sequence information and annotation of this legume microsymbiont. The 8,719,808 bp genome has a G + C content of 63.09 % with 71 contigs arranged into two scaffolds. The assembled genome contains 8,432 protein-coding genes, 66 RNA genes and a single rRNA operon. This improved-high-quality draft rhizobial genome is one of 20 sequenced through a DOE Joint Genome Institute 2010 Community Sequencing Project.


root-nodule bacterianitrogen fixationrhizobia Ornithopus


Root nodule bacteria are soil microorganisms that can establish a symbiotic relationship with hosts from the legume plant family Leguminosae. In this intimate relationship the bacteria fix atmospheric nitrogen into ammonia for the legume, in exchange for nutrients. With the continued discovery of a large number of organisms with this capability through the last century, the slow growing, non-acid producing root nodule bacteria were separated from the fast growing acid-producing forms and designated the bradyrhizobia [1]. The initial interest in the bradyrhizobia arose from the ability of strains to nodulate agriculturally important crops such as soybean and groundnut. Today the bradyrhizobia are known to nodulate a wide variety of legumes such as Arachis hypogaea , Adenocarpus spp., Beta vulgaris , Chamaecytisus spp., Cytisus villosus , Entada koshunensis, Glycine spp., Dolichos lablab , Lespedeza spp., Lupinus spp., Ornithopus spp., Pachyrhizus erosus , Spartocytisus spp. and Teline spp. [29].

Two agriculturally important legume genera form a symbiosis with Bradyhizobium [10], the subject of this manuscript. Lupinus which is a large and diverse genus, and Ornithopus , which is a smaller forage legume genus, both nodulate and fix nitrogen with this bacterium. Lupinus angustifolius is commonly known as lupin in Europe and Australia, and lupine in North America, and its grain is widely used as an animal or human food. Lupins are either annual or perennial herbs, shrubs or trees [11]. Ornithopus is commonly known as serradella, and was originally confined to the Iberian peninsula and the Mediterranean basin, however it has become a valuable grazing plant adapted to low rainfall, acidic and infertile soils world-wide [12]. Hence, appropriate Bradyrhizobium inoculants are of particular value for the establishment of effective nitrogen-fixing symbioses with these legume genera.

In Australia, the challenge was to select inoculant strains that were optimal for N fixation in symbiosis with Lupinus angustifolius and several species of Ornithopus . These are all very important legumes in farming systems of Western Australia. They are cultivated on the same acid and sandy soils, and share microsymbionts [13]. Thus, it was important that any inoculant strain released for an individual legume species did not compromise the potential nitrogen fixation from the other legumes. Bradyrhizobium sp. WSM1253 emerged as a strain of interest in an Australian program that was selecting inoculant strains for Mediterranean species of lupins. Strain WSM1253 was isolated from a nodule of the herbaceous annual legume Ornithopus compressus in 1991 collected 2.5 km near of Kastro, towards Faros, on the Greek Island of Sifnos. This strain was found to be capable of high levels of nitrogen fixation across many species in the cross-nodulation complex of lupins and Ornithopus , being particularly effective on L. princei [14]. Here we present a preliminary description of the general features of the Ornithopus compressus microsymbiont Bradyrhizobium sp. WSM1253, together with the description of the complete genome sequence and its annotation.

Organism information

Classification and features

Bradyrhizobium sp. WSM1253 is a motile, non-sporulating, non-encapsulated, Gram-negative rod in the order Rhizobiales of the class Alphaproteobacteria . The rod shaped form varies in size and dimensions of approximately 0.25 μm in width and 1.5-2.0 μm in length (Fig. 1 Left and Center). It is relatively slow growing, forming colonies after 6–7 days when grown on ½LA [15], TY [16] or YMA [17] at 28 °C. Colonies on ½LA are opaque, slightly domed and moderately mucoid with smooth margins (Fig. 1 Right).
Fig. 1

Images of Bradyrhizobium sp. WSM1253 using scanning (Left) and transmission (Center) electron microscopy as well as light microscopy to visualize colony morphology on solid media (Right)

Minimum Information about the Genome Sequence (MIGS) is provided in Table 1 and Additional file 1: Table S1. Strain WSM1253 shares 100 % (1369/1369 bp), 99.85 % (1367/1369 bp) and 99.48 % (1362/1369 bp) 16S rRNA sequence identity with Bradyrhizobium sp. WSM1417, Bradyrhizobium sp. BTA-1T and Bradyrhizobium japonicum USDA 6T , respectively as determined using NCBI BLAST analysis [18]. Figure 2 shows the phylogenetic neighbor-hood of Bradyrhizobium sp. WSM1253 in a 16S rRNA sequence based tree.
Table 1

Classification and general features of Bradyrhizobium sp. WSM1253 [44, 45]




Evidence codea



Domain Bacteria

TAS [45]


Phylum Proteobacteria

TAS [46]


Class Alphaproteobacteria

TAS [47, 48]


Order Rhizobiales

TAS [49]


Family Bradyrhizobiaceae

TAS [50, 51]


Genus Bradyrhizobium

TAS [1]


Species sp.



Strain: WSM1253

TAS [14]


Gram stain




Cell shape












Temperature range




Optimum temperature

28 °C



pH range; Optimum

5-9; 7



Carbon source





Soil, root nodule, on plant host

TAS [14]






Oxygen requirement


TAS [14]


Biotic relationship

free-living, symbiont

TAS [14]






Geographic location

Greek Island of Sifnos

TAS [14]


Nodule collection date













Not reported


aEvidence 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 [52]

Fig. 2

Phylogenetic tree showing the relationship of Bradyrhizobium sp. WSM1253 (shown in bold print) to other root nodule bacteria based on aligned sequences of a 1,012 bp internal region the 16S rRNA gene. All sites were informative and there were no gap-containing sites. Phylogenetic analyses were performed using MEGA [41], version 5. The tree was built using the Maximum-Likelihood method with the General Time Reversible model [42]. Bootstrap analysis [43] with 500 replicates was performed to assess the support of the clusters. Type strains are indicated with a superscript T. Brackets after the strain name contains a DNA database accession number and/or a GOLD ID (beginning with the prefix G) for a sequencing project registered in GOLD [22]. Published genomes are indicated with an asterisk


Few of the legumes of the Mediterranean basin introduced to agriculture elsewhere are nodulated by bacteria in the genus Bradyrhizobium [19]. Amongst the notable exceptions are Lupinus and Ornithopus , which are legume genera adapted specifically to conditions of acidity and infertility [20]. Further, these two quite different legumes share a common species of Bradyrhizobium , although their modes of infection and nodule structure differ substantially [21]. WSM1253 is unusual in being a highly effective microsymbiont for many species in the two legume genera discussed, including, L. angustifolius, L. princei, L. atlanticus, L. pilosus, O. compressus, O. sativus Brot. and O. pinnatus (Table 2). WSM1253 will therefore be a valuable strain to study the genetics of nodulation and nitrogen fixation in legumes of vastly differing physiology.
Table 2

Compatibility of Bradyrhizobium sp. WSM1253 [14] with different wild and cultivated legume species

Species name


Common name

Habit/Growth type



Lupinus atlanticus


Atlas Lupin/Moroccan Lupin

Annual herbaceous



Lupinus pilosus


Mountain blue lupin

Annual herbaceous



Lupinus princei



Annual herbaceous



Ornithopus pinnatus


Sand Bird’s-foot

Annual herbaceous



Ornithopus sativus Brot.


common bird’s-foot

Annual herbaceous



Ornithopus compressus


Yellow serradella

Annual herbaceous



+, nodulation/fixation observed

Genome sequencing information

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 U.S. Department of Energy, Joint Genome Institute for projects of relevance to agency missions. The genome project is deposited in the Genomes OnLine Database [22] and the improved-high-quality draft genome sequence in IMG. Sequencing, finishing and annotation were performed by the JGI. A summary of the project information is shown in Table 3.
Table 3

Project information





Finishing quality

Improved-high-quality draft


Libraries used

Illumina GAii and 454 FLX libraries


Sequencing platforms

Illumina and 454

MIGS 31.2

Fold coverage

659.4 × Illumina; 8.4 × 454



Velvet 1.0.13; Newbler 2.3


Gene calling methods

Prodigal 1.4


Locus Tag


GenBank ID



Genbank Date of Release

May 4, 2012








Project relevance

Symbiotic N2 fixation, agriculture


Source Material Identifier


Growth conditions and genomic DNA preparation

Bradyrhizobium sp. WSM1253 was grown on TY solid medium for 10 days, a single colony was selected and used to inoculate 5 ml TY broth medium. The culture was grown for 96 h on a gyratory shaker (200 rpm) at 28 °C [23]. Subsequently 1 ml was used to inoculate 60 ml TY broth medium and grown on a gyratory shaker (200 rpm) at 28 °C until OD 0.6 was reached. DNA was isolated from 60 ml of cells using a CTAB bacterial genomic DNA isolation method [24]. The quality of DNA was checked by 0.5 % agarose gel electrophoresis and its quantity by a NanoDrop ND-1000 Spectrophotometer (Nano Drop Technologies, Wilmington, USA). A DNA concentration of 500 ng/μl and OD 260/OD 280 of 1.90 was obtained.

Genome sequencing and assembly

The draft genome of Bradyrhizobium sp. WSM1253 was generated at the DOE Joint Genome Institute using a combination of Illumina [25] and 454 technologies [26]. For this genome, we constructed and sequenced an Illumina GAii shotgun library which generated 77,541,190 reads totaling 5,893.1 Mbp, a 454 Titanium paired end library with an average insert size of 12 Kbp which generated 615,580 reads totaling 123.4 Mbp of 454 data. All general aspects of library construction and sequencing performed at the JGI [27]. The initial draft assembly contained 274 contigs in 2 scaffolds. The 454 Titanium standard data and the 454 paired end data were assembled together with Newbler, version 2.3-PreRelease-6/30/2009. The Newbler consensus sequences were computationally shredded into 2 Kbp overlapping fake reads (shreds). Illumina sequencing data was assembled with VELVET, version 1.0.13 [28], and the consensus sequence was computationally shredded into 1.5 Kbp overlapping fake reads (shreds). We integrated the 454 Newbler consensus shreds, the Illumina VELVET consensus shreds and the read pairs in the 454 paired end library using parallel phrap, version SPS - 4.24 (High Performance Software, LLC). The software Consed [2931] was used in the following finishing process. Illumina data was used to correct potential base errors and increase consensus quality using the software Polisher developed at JGI (Alla Lapidus, unpublished). Possible mis-assemblies were corrected using gapResolution (Cliff Han, unpublished), Dupfinisher [32], or sequencing cloned bridging PCR fragments with subcloning. Gaps between contigs were closed by editing in Consed, by PCR and by Bubble PCR (J-F Cheng, unpublished) primer walks. A total of 226 additional reactions were necessary to close gaps and to raise the quality of the finished sequence. The estimated genome size is 8.7 Mbp and the final assembly is based on 72.7 Mbp of 454 draft data which provides an average 8.4× coverage of the genome and 5,736.7 Mbp of Illumina draft data which provides an average 659.4× coverage of the genome.

Genome annotation

Genes were identified using Prodigal [33], as part of the DOE-JGI genome annotation pipeline [34, 35] followed by a round of manual curation using GenePRIMP [36] for finished genomes and Draft genomes in fewer than 10 scaffolds. The predicted CDSs were translated and used to search the National Center for Biotechnology Information non-redundant database, UniProt, TIGRFam, Pfam, KEGG, COG, and InterPro databases. The tRNAScanSE tool [37] was used to find tRNA genes, whereas ribosomal RNA genes were found by searches against models of the ribosomal RNA genes built from SILVA [38]. Other non–coding RNAs such as the RNA components of the protein secretion complex and the RNase P were identified by searching the genome for the corresponding Rfam profiles using INFERNAL [39]. Additional gene prediction analysis and manual functional annotation was performed within the Integrated Microbial Genomes-Expert Review system [40] developed by the Joint Genome Institute, Walnut Creek, CA, USA.

Genome properties

The genome is 8,719,808 nucleotides with 63.09 % GC content (Table 4) and comprised of 2 scaffolds (Fig. 3). From a total of 8,498 genes, 8,432 were protein encoding and 66 RNA only encoding genes. The majority of genes (66.86 %) were assigned a putative function whilst the remaining genes were annotated as hypothetical. The distribution of genes into COGs functional categories is presented in Table 5.
Table 4

Genome statistics for Bradyhizobium sp. WSM1253



% of Total

Genome size (bp)



DNA coding (bp)



DNA G + C (bp)



DNA scaffolds



Total genes



Protein coding genes



RNA genes



Pseudo genes



Genes in internal clusters



Genes with function prediction



Genes assigned to COGs



Genes with Pfam domains



Genes with signal peptides



Genes with transmembrane helices



CRISPR repeats



Fig. 3

Graphical map of the two scaffolds from the genome of Bradyhizobium sp. WSM1253. From bottom to the top of each scaffold: Genes on forward strand (color by COG categories), Genes on reverse strand (color by COG categories), RNA genes (tRNAs green, sRNAs red, other RNAs black), GC content, GC skew

Table 5

Number of genes associated with general COG functional categories



% age

COG Category




Translation, ribosomal structure and biogenesis




RNA processing and modification








Replication, recombination and repair




Chromatin structure and dynamics




Cell cycle control, cell division, chromosome partitioning




Defense mechanisms




Signal transduction mechanisms




Cell wall/membrane/envelope biogenesis




Cell motility




Intracellular trafficking, secretion, and vesicular transport




Posttranslational modification, protein turnover, chaperones




Energy production and conversion




Carbohydrate transport and metabolism




Amino acid transport and metabolism




Nucleotide transport and metabolism




Coenzyme transport and metabolism




Lipid transport and metabolism




Inorganic ion transport and metabolism




Secondary metabolite biosynthesis, transport and catabolism




General function prediction only




Function unknown




Not in COGS


Bradyrhizobium sp. WSM1253 was isolated from a nodule of the herbaceous annual legume Ornithopus compressus that was collected on the Greek Island of Sifnos. WSM1253 is rather unusual for a Bradyrhizobium strain in that it is highly efficient in nitrogen fixation for many species of Lupinus and Ornithopus , including L. angustifolius, L. princei, L. atlanticus, L. pilosus, O. compressus, O. sativus Brot. and O. pinnatus.

Phylogenetic analysis revealed that WSM1253 is most closely related to Bradyrhizobium sp. WSM1417. Strain WSM1417 was obtained from a Lupinus sp. nodule from Chile and differs from WSM1253 in that it cannot form an effective nitrogen-fixing symbiosis with L. angustifolius. The genomes of both of these strains have now been sequenced and this brings the total number of Bradyrhizobium genome depositions in IMG to 54; of these, strains which can symbiotically fix nitrogen have the nitrogenase-RXN MetaCyc pathway that is characterized by the multiprotein nitrogenase complex. However, strain WSM1253 is unique amongst these in that it can effectively fix nitrogen with many species of Lupinus (including L. angustifolius, L. princei, L. atlanticus, L. pilosus) and Ornithopus compressus . The genome attributes of Bradyrhizobium sp. WSM1253, in conjunction with other Bradyrhizobium genomes, will be important resources with which to build an understanding of interactions required for the successful establishment of effective symbioses with different species of Lupinus and Ornithopus .



half strength Lupin Agar


Yeast Mannitol Agar


Tryptone Yeast extract Agar


Genomes OnLine Database


Cetyl trimethyl ammonium bromide



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 gratefully acknowledge funding received from the Australian Government for an Australia India Senior Visiting Fellowship for Ravi Tiwari.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, 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 ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

Centre for Rhizobium Studies, Murdoch University, Murdoch, Australia
Department of Agriculture and Food, South Perth, Australia
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Bioscience Division, Los Alamos, USA
DOE Joint Genome Institute, Walnut Creek, USA
Biological Data Management and Technology Center, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, USA
Department of Biological Sciences, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia


  1. Jordan DC. Transfer of Rhizobium-japonicum Buchanan 1980 to Bradyrhizobium Gen-Nov, a genus of slow-growing, root nodule bacteria from leguminous plants. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1982;32:136–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Chahboune R, Carro L, Peix A, Barrijal S, Velazquez E, Bedmar EJ. Bradyrhizobium cytisi sp nov., isolated from effective nodules of Cytisus villosus. Int J Syst Evol Micr. 2011;61:2922–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Chang YL, Wang JY, Wang ET, Liu HC, Sui XH, Chen WX. Bradyrhizobium lablabi sp nov., isolated from effective nodules of Lablab purpureus and Arachis hypogaea. Int J Syst Evol Micr. 2011;61:2496–502.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Islam MS, Kawasaki H, Muramatsu Y, Nakagawa Y, Seki T. Bradyrhizobium iriomotense sp nov., isolated from a tumor-like root of the legume Entada koshunensis from Iriomote Island in Japan. Biosci Biotech Bioch. 2008;72:1416–29.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Kuykendall LD, Saxena B, Devine TE, Udell SE. Genetic diversity in Bradyrhizobium-japonicum Jordan 1982 and a proposal for Bradyrhizobium-elkanii Sp-Nov. Can J Microbiol. 1982;1992(38):501–5.Google Scholar
  6. Ramirez-Bahena MH, Peix A, Rivas R, Camacho M, Rodriguez-Navarro DN, Mateos PF, et al. Bradyrhizobium pachyrhizi sp nov and Bradyrhizobium jicamae sp nov., isolated from effective nodules of Pachyrhizus erosus. Int J Syst Evol Micr. 2009;59:1929–34.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Rivas R, Willems A, Palomo JL, Garcia-Benavides P, Mateos PF, Martinez-Molina E, et al. Bradyrhizobium betae sp nov., isolated from roots of Beta vulgaris affected by tumour-like deformations. Int J Syst Evol Micr. 2004;54:1271–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Vinuesa P, Leon-Barrios M, Silva C, Willems A, Jarabo-Lorenzo A, Perez-Galdona R, et al. Bradyrhizobium canariense sp nov., an acid-tolerant endosymbiont that nodulates endemic genistoid legumes (Papilionoideae : Genisteae) from the Canary Islands, along with Bradyrhizobium japonicum bv. genistearum, Bradyrhizobium genospecies alpha and Bradyrhizobium genospecies beta. Int J Syst Evol Micr. 2005;55:569–75.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Yao ZY, Kan FL, Wang ET, Wei GH, Chen WX. Characterization of rhizobia that nodulate legume species of the genus Lespedeza and description of Bradyrhizobium yuanmingense sp nov. Int J Syst Evol Micr. 2002;52:2219–30.Google Scholar
  10. Stępkowski T, Żak M, Moulin L, Króliczak J, Golińska B, Narożna D, et al. Bradyrhizobium canariense and Bradyrhizobium japonicum are the two dominant rhizobium species in root nodules of lupin and serradella plants growing in Europe. Syst Appl Microbiol. 2011;34:368–75.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Ainouche AK, Bayer RJ. Phylogenetic relationships in Lupinus (Fabaceae : Papilionoideae) based on internal transcribed spacer sequences (ITS) of nuclear ribosomal DNA. Am J Bot. 1999;86:590–607.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Howieson JG, O’Hara GW, Carr SJ. Changing roles for legumes in Mediterranean agriculture: developments from an Australian perspective. Field Crop Res. 2000;65:107–22.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Nutt B. Serradella for acid soils in Western Australia. In: Michalk DL, Craig A, Collins WJ, editors. 2nd national Alternative Pasture Legumes Workshop; Coonawarra. 1994. p. 50–2.Google Scholar
  14. Howieson JG, Reeve N, Yates RJ. The selection of effective Bradyrhizobium sp. (Lupinus) for new lupin and serradella species. In: Dracup M, Palta J, editors. Proceedings of the First Australian Lupin Technical Symposium. Perth: Department of Agriculture; 1994. p. 270–3.Google Scholar
  15. Howieson JG, Ewing MA, D’antuono MF. Selection for acid tolerance in Rhizobium meliloti. Plant Soil. 1988;105:179–88.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Beringer JE. R factor transfer in Rhizobium leguminosarum. J Gen Microbiol. 1974;84:188–98.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Terpolilli JJ. Why are the symbioses between some genotypes of Sinorhizobium and medicago subotimal for N2 fixation? PhD Thesis, Murdoch University, Murdoch. 2009.Google Scholar
  18. NCBI BLAST. []. Accessed 12 March 2012.
  19. Howieson JG, Fillery I, Legocki AB, Sikorski MM, Stepkowski T, Minchin FR, et al. Nodulation, nitrogen fixation and nitrogen balance. In: Gladstones J, Hamblin J, Atkins C, editors. Lupins: production and utilisation. U.K.: CAB International; 1998. p. 149–80.Google Scholar
  20. Gladstones JS. Observations on the environment and ecology of some annual legumes in southern Italy. Plant Introduction Rev, Div Plant Industry, CSIRO. 1973;9:9.Google Scholar
  21. Dilworth MJ. The plant as the genetic determinant of leghaemoglobin production in the legume root nodule. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta. 1969;184:432–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Liolios K, Mavromatis K, Tavernarakis N, Kyrpides NC. The Genomes On Line Database (GOLD) in 2007: status of genomic and metagenomic projects and their associated metadata. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008;36:D475–479.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Reeve WG, Tiwari RP, Worsley PS, Dilworth MJ, Glenn AR, Howieson JG. Constructs for insertional mutagenesis, transcriptional signal localization and gene regulation studies in root nodule and other bacteria. Microbiology. 1999;145:1307–16.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Protocols and sample preparation information. []
  25. Bennett S. Solexa Ltd. Pharmacogenomics. 2004;5:433–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Margulies M, Egholm M, Altman WE, Attiya S, Bader JS, Bemben LA, et al. Genome sequencing in microfabricated high-density picolitre reactors. Nature. 2005;437:376–80.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. JGI:Joint Genome Institute. []
  28. Zerbino DR. Using the Velvet de novo assembler for short-read sequencing technologies. Curr Protoc Bioinformatics. 2010;Chapter 11:Unit 11–15.Google Scholar
  29. Ewing B, Green P. Base-calling of automated sequencer traces using phred. II. Error probabilities. Genome Res. 1998;8:186–94.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Ewing B, Hillier L, Wendl MC, Green P. Base-calling of automated sequencer traces using phred. I. Accuracy assessment. Genome Res. 1998;8:175–85.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Gordon D, Abajian C, Green P. Consed: a graphical tool for sequence finishing. Genome Res. 1998;8:195–202.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Han C, Chain P. Finishing repeat regions automatically with Dupfinisher. In Proceeding of the 2006 international conference on bioinformatics & computational biology. Edited by Valafar HRAH. Las Vegas, Nevada, USA: CSREA Press; 2006. p. 141–46.Google Scholar
  33. Hyatt D, Chen GL, Locascio PF, Land ML, Larimer FW, Hauser LJ. Prodigal: prokaryotic gene recognition and translation initiation site identification. BMC Bioinformatics. 2010;11:119.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Mavromatis K, Ivanova NN, Chen IM, Szeto E, Markowitz VM, Kyrpides NC. The DOE-JGI Standard operating procedure for the annotations of microbial genomes. Stand Genomic Sci. 2009;1:63–7.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Chen IM, Markowitz VM, Chu K, Anderson I, Mavromatis K, Kyrpides NC, et al. Improving microbial genome annotations in an integrated database context. Plos One. 2013;8:e54859.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Pati A, Ivanova NN, Mikhailova N, Ovchinnikova G, Hooper SD, Lykidis A, et al. GenePRIMP: a gene prediction improvement pipeline for prokaryotic genomes. Nat Methods. 2010;7:455–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Lowe TM, Eddy SR. tRNAscan-SE: a program for improved detection of transfer RNA genes in genomic sequence. Nucleic Acids Res. 1997;25:955–64.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Pruesse E, Quast C, Knittel K, Fuchs BM, Ludwig W, Peplies J, et al. SILVA: a comprehensive online resource for quality checked and aligned ribosomal RNA sequence data compatible with ARB. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007;35:7188–96.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Infernal: inference of RNA alignments. []
  40. Markowitz VM, Mavromatis K, Ivanova NN, Chen IM, Chu K, Kyrpides NC. IMG ER: a system for microbial genome annotation expert review and curation. Bioinformatics. 2009;25:2271–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 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;28:2731–9.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Nei M, Kumar S. Molecular Evolution and Phylogenetics. New York: Oxford University Press; 2000.Google Scholar
  43. Felsenstein J. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution. 1985;39:783–91.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Field D, Garrity G, Gray T, Morrison N, Selengut J, Sterk P, et al. Towards a richer description of our complete collection of genomes and metagenomes “Minimum Information about a Genome Sequence ” (MIGS) specification. Nature Biotechnol. 2008;26:541–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Woese CR, Kandler O, Wheelis ML. Towards a natural system of organisms: proposal for the domains Archaea, Bacteria, and Eucarya. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA. 1990;87:4576–9.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Garrity GM, Bell JA, Lilburn T. Phylum XIV. Proteobacteria. In: Garrity GM, Brenner DJ, Kreig NR, Staley JT, editors. Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology. Volume 2. 2nd ed. New York: Springer - Verlag; 2005. p. 1.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Garrity GM, Bell JA, Lilburn T. Class I. Alphaproteobacteria. In: Garrity GM, Brenner DJ, Kreig NR, Staley JT, editors. Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology. 2nd ed. New York: Springer - Verlag; 2005.Google Scholar
  48. Validation of publication of new names and new combinations previously effectively published outside the IJSEM. List no. 106. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2006; 56:1–6.Google Scholar
  49. Kuykendall LD. Order VI. Rhizobiales ord. nov. In: Garrity GM, Brenner DJ, Kreig NR, Staley JT, editors. Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology. 2nd ed. New York: Springer - Verlag; 2005. p. 324.Google Scholar
  50. Garrity GM, Bell JA, Lilburn T. Family VII. Bradyrhizobiaceae. In: Brenn DJ, editor. Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology. Volume 2. 2nd ed. 2005. p. 438.Google Scholar
  51. 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.Google Scholar
  52. 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 Consortium. Nature Genet. 2000;25:25–9.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar


© Tiwari et al. 2015