Open Access

Whole genome shotgun sequence of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens TF28, a biocontrol entophytic bacterium

  • Shumei Zhang1, 2,
  • Wei Jiang1, 2,
  • Jing Li1, 2,
  • Liqiang Meng1, 2,
  • Xu Cao1, 2,
  • Jihua Hu2,
  • Yushuai Liu1, 2,
  • Jingyu Chen2 and
  • Changqing Sha2, 3Email author
Standards in Genomic Sciences201611:73

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40793-016-0182-6

Received: 15 January 2016

Accepted: 22 August 2016

Published: 21 September 2016

Abstract

Bacillus amyloliquefaciens TF28 is a biocontrol endophytic bacterium that is capable of inhibition of a broad range of plant pathogenic fungi. The strain has the potential to be developed into a biocontrol agent for use in agriculture. Here we report the whole-genome shotgun sequence of the strain. The genome size of B. amyloliquefaciens TF28 is 3,987,635 bp which consists of 3754 protein-coding genes, 65 tandem repeat sequences, 47 minisatellite DNA, 2 microsatellite DNA, 63 tRNA, 7rRNA, 6 sRNA, 3 prophage and CRISPR domains.

Keywords

Genome sequence Bacillus amyloliquefaciens Endophytic bacteriumBiocontrolBroad spectrum

Introduction

Bacillus amyloliquefaciens is ubiquitous in nature. Some strains are used as biocontrol agents because of their ability to produce antagonistic metabolites, plant growth promoters and plant health enhancers [14]. B. amyloliquefaciens is usually divided into two subspecies by genome comparison and classical bacterial taxonomy. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacterial strains are classified as B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum , while other strains are regarded as B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. amyloliquefaciens [5]. B. amyloliquefaciens TF28 is an endophytic bacterium that was isolated from soybean root. Previous studies have shown that B. amyloliquefaciens TF28 could inhibit soil borne and air borne plant pathogenic fungi by competition, synthesizing antifungal metabolites and inducing systemic plant resistance [6, 7]. Based on 16S rRNA, DNA gyrase subunit A (gyrA) and RNA polymerase subunit B (rpoB) gene sequence analysis, B. amyloliquefaciens TF28 was classified as B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum . Here we present a whole-genome shotgun sequence of B. amyloliquefaciens TF28 and its annotation for facilitating its application in the biocontrol of plant diseases.

Organism information

Classification and features

B. amyloliquefaciens TF28 was isolated from soybean root in China. It exhibited an unusual ability to inhibit a wide range of plant pathogenic fungi. The cell morphology of strain TF28 was determined using scanning electron microscopy (Fig. 1). Cells of B. amyloliquefaciens TF28 are Gram-positive, rod shape, aerobic and endospore- forming. Strain TF28 utilizes glucose and lactose to produce acid and hydrolyzed gelatin and starch. Starin TF28 is positive for Vogues-Proskaur and Methyl red reaction, nitrate reduction and citrate utilization. Current taxonomic classification and general features of B. amyloliquefaciens TF28 are provided in Table 1.
Fig. 1

A scanning electron micrograph of B. amyloliquefaciens TF 28 cells

Table 1

Classification and general features of B.amyloliquifaciens TF28 as per MIGS recommendation [26]

MIGS ID

Property

Term

Evidence codea

 

Classification

Domain Bacteria

TAS [27]

  

Phylum Firmicutes

TAS [2830]

  

Class Bacilli

TAS [31, 32]

  

Order Bacillales

TAS [29, 33]

  

Family Bacillaceae

TAS [29, 34]

  

Genus Bacillus

TAS [29, 35]

  

Species Bacillus amyloliquefaciens

TAS [3638]

  

Strain: TF28

TAS [6]

 

Gram stain

Positive

TAS [6]

 

Cell shape

Rod

TAS [6]

 

Motility

Motile

TAS [6]

 

Sporulation

Endospore-forming

TAS [6]

 

Temperature range

15–37 °C

TAS [6]

 

Optimum temperature

30 °C

TAS [6]

 

pH range; Optimum

5–9, 7.5

TAS [6]

 

Carbon source

Glucose, lactose, starch

TAS [6]

MIGS-6

Habitat

Soil, Plant

TAS [6]

MIGS-6.3

Salinity

0–3 % W/V

TAS [6]

MIGS-22

Oxygen requirement

Aerobic

TAS [6]

MIGS-15

Biotic relationship

Free-living

TAS [6]

MIGS-14

Pathogenicity

Non-pathogen

NAS

MIGS-4

Geographic location

China/Heilongjiang

TAS [6]

MIGS-5

Sample collection

2006-06-10

TAS [6]

MIGS-4.1

Latitude

Not reported

 

MIGS-4.2

Longitude

Not reported

 

MIGS-4.4

Altitude

Not reported

 

aEvidence codes - NAS: Non-traceable Author Statement (i.e., not directly observed for the living, isolated sample, but based on a generally accepted property for the species, or anecdotal evidence). These evidence codes are from the Gene Ontology project [39]

The 16S rRNA gene sequence of strain TF28 and other available 16S rRNA gene sequences of closely related species collected from NCBI database were used to construct a phylogenetic tree (Fig. 2, Additional file 1: Table S1). The evolutionary history was inferred using the Neighbour-joining method with MEGA software version 5.10. BLAST analysis showed strain B. amyloliquefaciens TF28 shared 99.3–99.7 % 16S rRNA gene identities with the other 14 type strains of Bacillus species. Taxonomic analysis showed that 14 type strains were divided into two groups. Strain TF28 together with B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum FZB42T, B. methylotrophicus CBMB205T, B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. amyloliquefaciens DSM7Tand B. siamensis PD-A10T were clustered into one group. Other strains ( B. atrophaeus NBRC 15539T , B. vallismortis DSM 11031T , B. tequilensis 10bT, B. subtilis 168T, B. subtilis subsp. subtilis DSM 10T , B. subtilis subsp. inaquosorum BGSC 3A28T , B. subtilis subsp. spizizenii NBRC 101239T , B. mojavensis NBRC 15718T , B. malacitensis CR-95T and B. axarquiensis LMG 22476T ) were clustered into another group. Two type stains of B. amyloliquefaciens subspecies, B. amyloliquefaciens B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum FZB42T and B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. amyloliquefaciens DSM7T were attributed to the different clade. Strain TF28 was most closely related to B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum FZB42T with 99.7 % 16S rRNA gene sequence identity. Strain TF28 was classified as B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum .
Fig. 2

Phylogenetic trees based on 16S rRNA gene sequences highlighting the position of B. amyloliquefaciens TF 28 (shown in bold). The GenBank accession numbers are shown in parentheses. Sequences were aligned using CLUSTALW, and phylogenetic inferences were constructed using the neighbor-joining method within the MEGA 5.10 software (Additional file 7: Table S7). Numbers at the nodes represent percentages of bootstrap values obtained by repeating the analysis 1000 times to generate a majority consensus tree. The scale bar indicates 0.0005 nucleotide change per nucleotide position, respectively

Genome sequencing information

Genome project history

Genome of B. amyloliquefaciens TF28 was sequenced by Huada Gene Technology Co., Ltd, Shenzhen, China. The Whole Genome Shotgun sequence has been deposited in GenBank database under the accession number JUDU00000000. The summary of the project information is shown in Table 2.
Table 2

Project information

MIGS ID

Property

Term

MIGS 31

Finishing quality

High-quality draft

MIGS-28

Libraries used

Illumina Paired-End Library (500 bp insert size) and Mate Pair Library (6,000 bp insert size)

MIGS 29

Sequencing platforms

Illumina Hiseq2000

MIGS 31.2

Fold coverage

150×

MIGS 30

Assemblers

SOAPdenovo software 2.04

MIGS 32

Gene calling method

Glimmer

 

Locus Tag

TH57

 

GenBank ID

JUDU00000000

 

GenBank Date of Release

2015/01/21

 

GOLD ID

-

 

BIOPROJECT

PRJNA268537

MIGS 13

Source Material Identifier

TF28

 

Project relevance

Biocontrol, Agriculture

Growth conditions and genomic DNA preparation

B. amyloliquefaciens TF28 was grown in LB medium at 30 °C for 16 h. One liter cultures at the exponential growth phase was taken and centrifuged at 4 °C, 5000 rpm for 10 min. The pellet was collected and about 5 g cell pellet was used to extract genomic DNA by CTAB method [8]. The quality of DNA was assessed using a Qubit Fluorometer. Total DNA (280.6 μg) was obtained to do genome sequencing.

Genome sequencing and assembly

Genomic DNA was sheared randomly. The required length DNA fragments were retained by electrophoresis and used for construction of a 500 bp and 6000 bp long paired-end library. Sequencing was performed by Illumina HiSeq 2000 sequencing platform. Sequencing of the 500 bp library generated 6,649,820 reads (representing 554 Mbp of sequence information), while sequencing of the 6,000 bp paired-end library generated 3,633,388 reads (290 Mbp). Both libraries achieved a genome coverage of 190× for an estimated genome size of 4.4 Mbp. All generated reads were quality trimmed to obtain clear reads. The trimmed reads were assembled by SOAPdenovo software 2.04 using the available genome sequence of B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum FZB42T(CP000560) as reference-guided assembling. The final assembly yielded 182 contigs and 3 scaffolds representing 3.9 Mbp of sequence information.

Genome annotation

The genome sequence was annotated by a combination of several annotation tools. Genes were identified by Glimmer 3.02 [9]. DNA tandem repeat sequences, minisatellite DNA and microsatellite DNA were found with the Tandem Repeats Finder 4.04 [10]. Prediction of non-coding RNA was performed using rRNA database blasting or rRNAmmer 1.2 for rRNA [11], tRNAscan-SE 1.23 for tRNA and their secondary structure [12], and infernal software and Rfam database for sRNA [13]. Prophage was predicted using PHAST software 2013.03.20 [14]. CRISPR domains were found using CRISPR Finder 0.4 [15]. Functional annotation of protein coding genes was based on gene comparisons with GO database (version 1.419) [16], KEGG database (version 59) [17], Cluster of Orthologous Groups of proteins(COG)(version 20090331) [18], NR database(version 20121005), SwissProt (version 201206) [19] and Pfam databases (version 25) [20].

Genome properties

The genome statistics are provided in Table 3 and Fig. 3. The high quality draft genome of B. amyloliquefaciens TF28 was distributed in 182 contigs with a total size of 3,987,635 bp and an average G + C content of 46.38 %. Genome analysis showed that the genome of strain TF28 contained 3,754 protein coding genes, 65 tandem repeat sequences, 47 minisatellite DNA, 2 microsatellite DNA, 63 tRNA, 7 rRNA, 6 sRNA, 3 prophage and 3 CRISPR domains. The predicted protein coding genes represented 89.57 % of the total genome sequence, with a total length of 3,571,596 bp. The majority of protein coding genes (76.13 %) were assigned to putative functions. The distribution of genes into COG functional categories is presented in Table 4.
Table 3

Genome statistics

Attribute

Value

% of Total

Genome size (bp)

3,987,635

100.00

DNA coding (bp)

3,571,596

89.57

DNA G + C (bp)

1,849,465

46.38

DNA scaffolds

3

-

Total genes

3863

100.00

Protein coding genes

3754

97.18

RNA genes

76

1.97

Pseudo genes

38

0.98

Genes in internal clusters

1554

40.23

Genes with function prediction

2941

76.13

Genes assigned to COGs

3218

83.30

Genes with Pfam domains

3292

85.21

Genes with signal peptides

204

5.28

Genes with transmembrane helices

1041

26.95

CRISPR repeats

3

-

Fig. 3

Circle map of strain TF28 genome. From outer to inner circle, circle 1 shows protein-coding genes colored by COG categories; circle 2 shows G + C% content plot; circle 3 shows GC skew

Table 4

Number of genes associated with general COG functional categories

Code

Value

%age

Description

J

136

3.02

Translation, ribosomal structure and biogenesis

A

0

0

RNA processing and modification

K

269

5.97

Transcription

L

114

2.53

Replication, recombination and repair

B

1

0.02

Chromatin structure and dynamics

D

34

0.75

Cell cycle control, Cell division, chromosome partitioning

V

49

1.09

Defense mechanisms

T

134

2.97

Signal transduction mechanisms

M

170

3.77

Cell wall/membrane biogenesis

N

54

1.19

Cell motility

U

45

0.99

Intracellular trafficking and secretion

O

96

2.13

Posttranslational modification, protein turnover, chaperones

C

178

3.95

Energy production and conversion

G

243

5.39

Carbohydrate transport and metabolism

E

342

7.58

Amino acid transport and metabolism

F

78

1.73

Nucleotide transport and metabolism

H

123

2.73

Coenzyme transport and metabolism

I

116

2.57

Lipid transport and metabolism

P

208

4.61

Inorganic ion transport and metabolism

Q

122

2.71

Secondary metabolites biosynthesis, transport and catabolism

R

429

9.51

General function prediction only

S

277

6.14

Function unknown

-

1291

28.63

Not in COGs

The total % age is based on the total number of protein coding genes in the annotated genome

Insights from the genome sequence

Protein coding genes were mainly classified into 3 parts based on their functions by GO analysis (Fig. 4). 1901, 2993 and 4309 genes participated in cellular component, molecular function and biological process, respectively. The metabolic pathway analysis using KEGG annotation showed that the majority of protein coding genes participated in metabolism, genetic information processing, environmental information processing and cellular processes (Fig. 5). 154 metabolic pathways were found using KEGG orthology, including glycolysis, TCA cycle and pentose phosphate pathways, fructose, mannose and galactose metabolisms pathways, fatty acid biosynthesis and metabolism pathways, ubiquinone and other terpenoid-uquinoid synthesis pathways, bacterial chemotaxis, biosynthsis of siderophore group nonribosomal peptides, antibiotic biosynthesis (tetracycline, penicillin and cephalosporin, streptomycin, novobiocin and vancomycin) as well as noxious substance degradation pathways (caprolactam, atrazine, ethylbenzene, toluene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon, chloroalkane and chloroalkene, bisphenol, naphthalene, aminobenzoate, limonene and pinene), and so on.
Fig. 4

GO annotation of protein-coding genes

Fig. 5

KEGG annotation of protein-coding genes

Genome similarity was detected based on Mummer blast by comparing the genome sequence of strain TF28 with the type strain B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum FZB42Tat amino acid level [21]. The results showed that genome similarity of B. amyloliquefaciens TF28 and B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum FZB42T reached 98.69 %. Core-pan gene was also determined based on NCBI blast and Muscle analysis [22]. 201 strain-specific genes for B. amyloliquefaciens TF28 was observed, which may contribute to species-specific features of this bacterium. Among them, 83 genes are classified into 17 COG functional categories major belonging to carbohydrate transport and metabolism (6.97 %), general function prediction only (4.48 %), defense mechanisms (4.48 %), signal transduction mechanisms (3.48 %), amino acid transport and metabolism (3.98 %). The remaining 116 unique genes (57.71 %) are not classified into any COG categories (Table 5). Comparative genome analysis revealed that B. amyloliquefaciens TF28 possessed the giant gene clusters for non-ribosomal synthesis of the polyketides difficidin (TH57_02955-TH57_03045) and bacillaene (TH57_05575-TH57_05655), the antifungal lipopetides surfactin (TH57_12375-TH57_12430), plipastatin (TH57_04780-TH57_04835), mycosubtilin (TH57-04955-TH57-04980), bacilysin (TH57_15685-TH57_15710) and bacillibactin (TH57_05755-TH57_05800) (Additional file 2: Table S2). The size of these gene clusters accounted for 6.8 % of genome, which was smaller than that of strain FZB42T(8.9 %) [23]. Mycosubtilin and plipastatin synthesis gene clusters were only observed in strain TF28. These gene clusters produce the secondary metabolites like NRPSs, PKS, and peptide antibiotics usually displaying antifungal and antibacterial activities [2325]. The finding of these gene clusters revealed that strain TF28 possessed a high potential to biocontrol. In addition, sporulation genes, spo0ABFJ(TH57_02695,01435,16015and14190),spoVABCDEFKSMRT(TH57_03250,03255,03260,03265,03270,03275,03280),SpoIIBPMERDQSASB(TH57_05470,00570,06315,09520,13850),spoIIIABCDEFGH(TH57_01370,02065,03200,07810,07815,13800,16095,16205and16305),coaX(TH57_01485),YtrIH(TH57_00725,009730),ylbJB(TH57_06685),ydcC(TH57_11735),ydhD(TH57_07580),cse15(TH57_07135), yunB(TH57_18555) and motility genes, motAB (TH57_074157, 07420) and swrABC (TH57_16980,05970 and 10760), were found in the genome.
Table 5

Number of strain-specific genes with general COG functional categories

Code

Value

%age

Description

J

2

0.99

Translation,ribosomal structure and biogenesis

A

0

0

RNA processing and modification

K

5

2.49

Transcription

L

4

1.99

Replication, recombination and repair

D

5

2.49

Cell cycle control, Cell division, chromosome partitioning

V

9

4.48

Defense mechanisms

T

7

3.48

Signal transduction mechanisms

N

1

0.49

Cell motility

C

3

1.49

Energy production and conversion

G

14

6.97

Carbohydrate transport and metabolism

E

8

3.98

Amino acid transport and metabolism

F

4

1.99

Nucleotide transport and metabolism

H

6

2.99

Coenzyme transport and metabolism

I

1

0.49

Lipid transport and metabolism

P

1

0.49

Inorganic ion transport and metabolism

Q

1

0.49

Secondary metabolites biosynthesis, transport and catabolism

R

9

4.48

General function prediction only

S

3

1.49

Function unknown

-

116

57.71

Not in COGs

Comparative genomic analysis of B. amyloliquefaciens TF28 and other 22 strains of B. amyloliquefaciens possessing complete genomic sequences indicated that the genome size of the strain TF28 was somewhat bigger than that of B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum FZB42T and B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. amyloliquefaciens DSM7T . Three strains, B. amyloliquefaciens IT-45, B. amyloliquefaciens NAU-B3 and B. amyloliquefaciens TF28, possessed CRISPR domains by CRISPR Finder on line (Additional file 3: Table S3, Additional file 4: Table S4, Additional file 5: Table S5, Additional file 6: Table S6). B. amyloliquefaciens TF28 possessed 3 CRISPR domains. The CRISPR length is 422 bp with 81 bp direct repeat (DR) sequences be separated by 5 spacers. No CRISPR associated gene was observed due to the incomplete genome sequence. B. amyloliquefaciens NAU-B3 had 1 CRISPR domains. The CRISPR length is 67 bp with 26 bp DR sequences be separated by 1 spacer. B. amyloliquefaciens IT-45 had 2 CRISPR domains. The CRISPR length is 129 bp with 37 bp DR sequences be separated by 1 spacer. The full-length sequence of protein-coding gene, DNA gyrase subunit A (gyrA) and RNA polymerase subunit B (rpoB) derived from 22 strains of B. amyloliquefaciens , were chosen to phylogenetic analysis. The neighbor-joining (NJ) phylogenetic tree revealed that strain TF28 with most of B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum clustered into the same group, which is distinct from the type strain B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. amyloliquefaciens DSM 7T (Fig. 6).
Fig. 6

Phylogenetic trees based on gyrA(a) and rpoB(b). The GenBank accession numbers are shown in parentheses. Sequences were aligned using CLUSTALW, and phylogenetic inferences were constructed using the neighbor-joining method within the MEGA 5.10 software. Numbers at the nodes represent percentages of bootstrap values obtained by repeating the analysis 1000 times to generate a majority consensus tree. The scale bar indicates 0.2 (gyrA) and 0.1 (rpoB) nucleotide change per nucleotide position, respectively

Conclusions

In this study, we characterized the genome of B. amyloliquefaciens TF28 isolated from soybean root. Strain TF28 was classified as B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum on comparative analysis of 16S rRNA sequence, DNA gyrase subunit A (gyrA) and RNA polymerase subunit B (rpoB) gene sequences. The genome of strain TF28 has the giant gene clusters that are linked with biocontrol, including non-ribosomal synthesis of the polyketides difficidin and bacillaene, the antifungal lipopetides surfactin, plipastatin, mycosubtilin, bacilysin and bacillibactin. Mycosubtilin and plipastatin synthesis gene clusters were only observed in strain TF28. Ubiquinone and other terpenoid-uquinoid synthesis, bacterial chemotaxis, biosynthsis of siderophore group nonribosomal peptides, antibiotic biosynthesis and noxious substance degradation pathways were found which reflected a high capacity of strain TF28 to promote plant growth, inhibit pathogens and support environment fitness. 201 specific genes are found in strain TF28 which provides information for further analysis of the strain function. The availability of the genome provides insights to better understand the biocontrol mechanisms and facilitate the utilization of the strain in the future.

Abbreviations

gyrA

DNA gyrase subunit A

rpoB

RNA polymerase subunit B

TCA: 

Tricarboxylic acid cycle

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We appreciate Lu Gao, Shenzhen Huada Gene Technology Co., Ltd. very much for her assistance in bioinformatics analysis. We are also grateful to Xiaoyong Wang, Institute of Microbiology, Heilongjiang Academy of Sciences, for her help in the paper writing.

Funding

This work was supported by the grants from Heilongjiang Academy of Sciences for subject team planning (2014sw09) and subject special planning (YXK14ZSM15).

Authors’ contributions

SZ prepared and wrote the manuscript, JL and CS designed research, WJ characterized strain TF28, LQ performed bioinformatics analysis, XC and JH participated in the statistical analysis, YL and JC participated in the sequence alignment. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

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)
Institute of Microbiology, Heilongjiang Academy of Sciences
(2)
Institute of Advanced Technology, Heilongjiang Academy of Sciences
(3)
Heilongjiang Academy of Sciences

References

  1. Adnan N, Shahid M, Sarosh B, Johan M, Erik BR. Complete genome sequence of plant associated bacterium Bacillus amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum UCMB5033. Stand Genomic Sci. 2014;9:718–25. doi:10.4056/sigs.4758653.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Lefort F, Calmin G, Pelleteret P, Farinelli L, Osteras M, Crovadorea J. Whole-genome shotgun sequence of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain UASWS BA1, a bacterium antagonistic to plant pathogenic fungi. Genome Announcements. 2014;2:1–2. doi:10.1128/genomeA.00016-14.Google Scholar
  3. Qin YX, Han YZ, Yu YQ, Shang QM, Zhang B, Li PL. Complete genome sequence of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens L-S60, a plant growth-promoting and antifungal bacterium. J Biotechnol. 2015;212:67–8. doi:10.1016/j.jbiotenc.2015.08.008.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Qin YX, Han YZ, Shang QM, Zhang B, Li PL. Complete genome sequence of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens L-H15, a plant growth promoting rhizobacteria isolated from cucumber seedling substrate. J Biotechnol. 2015;200:59–60. doi:10.1016/j.jbiotec.2015.02.020.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Borriss R, Chen XH, Ruecert C, Blom J, Becker A, Baumgarth B, et al. Relationship of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens clades associated with strains DSM7T and FZB42T: a proposal for Bacillus amyloliquefaciens subsp. amyloliquefaciens subsp. nov. and Bacillus amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum subsp. nov. based on complete genome sequence comparisions. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2011;61:1786–801. doi:10.1099/ijs.0.02267-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Zhang SM, Sha CQ, Wang YX, Li J, Zhao XY, Zhan XC. Isolation and characterization of antifungal endophytic bacteria from soybean. Microbiol Tong Bao China. 2008;35:1593–9.Google Scholar
  7. Zhang SM, Wang YX, Meng LQ, Li J, Zhao XY, Cao X, et al. Isolation and characterization of antifungal lipopeptides produced by endophytic Bacillus amyloliquefaciens TF28. Afr J Microbiol Res. 2012;6:1747–55. doi:10.5897/AJMR11.1025.Google Scholar
  8. Kammara R, Praveen KS, Rajesh K, Kaneez FS. CTAB-mediated, single-step preparation of competent Escherichia coli, Bifidobacterium sp. and Kluyve romyces lactis cells. Meta Gene. 2014;2:807–18. doi:10.1016/j.mgene.2014.10.002.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Delcher AL, Bratke KA, Powers EC, Salzberg SL. Identifying bacterial genes and endosymbiont DNA with Glimmer. Bioinformatics. 2007;23:673–9. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btm009.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Benson G. Tandem repeats finder: a program to analyze DNA sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 1999;27:573–80.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Lagesen K, Hallin PF, Rødland E, Stærfeldt HH, Rognes T, Ussery DW. RNAmmer: consistent and rapid annotation of ribosomal RNA genes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007;35:3100–8. doi:10.1093/nar/gkm160.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Lowe TM, Eddy SR. tRNAscan-SE: A Program for improved detection of transfer RNA genes in genomic sequence. Nucleic Acids Res. 1997;25:0955–64.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Gardner PP, Daub J, Tate JG, Nawrocki EP, Kolbe DL, Lindgreen S, et al. Rfam: updates to the RNA families database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009;37:D136–40. doi:10.1093/nar/gkn766.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Zhou Y, Liang YJ, Lynch K, Dennis JJ, Wishart DS. PHAST: A fast phage search tool. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011;39:W347–52. doi:10.1093/nar/gkr485.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Grissa I, Vergnaud G, Pourcel C. CRISPRFinder: a web tool to identify clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007;3:W52–7. doi:10.1093/nar/gkm360.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Bard J, Winter R. Gene Ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nat Genet. 2000;25:25–9. doi:10.1038/75556.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Kanehisa M, Goto S, Hattori M, Aoki-Kinoshita KF, Itoh M, Kawashima S, et al. From genomics to chemical genomics: new developments in KEGG. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006;34:D354–7. doi:10.1093/nar/gkj102.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Tatusov RL, Fedorova ND, Jackson JD, Jacobs AR, Kiryutin B, Koonin EV, et al. The COG database: an updated version includes eukaryotes. BMC Bioinformatics. 2003;4:41. doi:10.1186/1471-2105-4-41.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Magrane M. UniProt C. UniProt Knowledgebase: a hub of integrated protein data. Database (Oxford). 2011: bar009. doi:10.1093/database/bar009
  20. Bateman A, Coin L, Durbin R, Finn RD, Hollich V, Griffiths-Jones S, et al. The Pfam protein families database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32:D138–41. doi:10.1093/nar/gkh121.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Kurtz S, Phillippy AL, Delcher AL, Smoot M, Shumway M, Antonescu C, et al. Versatile and open software for comparing large genomes. Genome Biol. 2004;5(2):R12. doi:10.1186/gb-2004-5-2-r12.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Qin J, Li R, Rase J, Arumugam M, Burgdorf KS, Manichanh C, et al. A human gut microbial gene catalogue established by metagenomic sequencing. Nature. 2010;464:59–65. doi:10.1038/nature08821.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Chen XH, Koumoutsi A, Scholz R, Eisenreich A, Schneider K, Heinemeyer I, et al. Comparative analysis of the complete genome sequence of the plant growth–promoting bacterium Bacillus amyloliquefaciens FZB42. Nat Biotechnol. 2007;25:1007–14. doi:10.1038/nbt1325.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hossain MJ, Ran C, Liu K, Ryu CM, Rasmussen-lvy CR, Williams MA, et al. Deciphering the conserved genetic loci implicated in plant disease control through comparative genomics of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum. Front Plant Sci. 2015;6:631. http://www.frontiersin.org. Accessed 17 Aug 2015.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Niazi A, Manzoor S, Asari S, Bejai S, Meijer J, Bongcam-Rudloff E. Genome Analysis of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens Subsp. plantarum UCMB5113: A rhizobacterium that improves plant growth and stress management. PLoS One. 2014;9:1–14. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0104651.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Field D, Garrity G, Gray T, Morrison N, Selengut J, Sterk P, et al. The minimum information about a genome sequence (MIGS) specification. Nature Biotechnol. 2008;26:541–7. doi:10.1038/nbt1360.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. 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. doi:10.1073/pnas.87.12.4576.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Gibbons NE, Murray RGE. Proposals concerning the higher taxa of bacteria. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1978;28:1–6. doi:10.1099/00207713-28-1-1.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Skerman VBD, McGowan V, Sneath PHA. Approved lists of bacterial names. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1980;30:225–420. doi:10.1099/00207713030-1-225.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Murray RGE. The higher taxa, or, a place for everything…? In: Crieg NR, Holt JG, editors. Bergey’s manual of systematic bacteriology, vol. 1. 1st ed. Baltimore: The williams and wilkins co.; 1984. p. 31–4.Google Scholar
  31. Euzéby J. List of new names and new combinations previously effectively, but not validly, published. List no. 132. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2010;60:469–72. doi:10.1099/ijs.0.022855-0.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Ludwig W, Schleifer KH, Whitman WB. Class I. Bacilli class nov. In: De Vos P, Garrity G, Jones D, Krieg NR, Ludwig W, Rainey FA, Schleifer KH, Whitman WB, editors. Bergey’s manual of systematic bacteriology, vol. 3. 2nd ed. New York: Springer; 2009. p. 19–20.Google Scholar
  33. Prévot AR, Hauderoy P, Ehringer G, Guillot G, Magrou J, Prevot AR, et al. editors. Dictionnaire des Bactéries Pathogènes. 2nd ed. Paris: Masson et Cie; 1953. p. 1–692Google Scholar
  34. Fischer A. Untersuchungen über Bakterien. Jahrbücher für Wissens chaftliche Botanik. 1895;27:1–163.Google Scholar
  35. Cohn F. Untersuchungen über Bakterien. Beitr Biol Pflanz. 1872;1:127–224.Google Scholar
  36. Priest FG, Goodfellow M, Shute LA, Berkeley RCW. Bacillus amyloliquefaciens sp. nov., nom. rev. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1987;37:69–71.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Wang LT, Lee FL, Tai CJ, Kuo HP. Bacillus velezensis is a later heterotypic synonym of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2008;58:671–5. doi:10.1099/ijs.0.65191-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Dunlap CA, Kim SJ, Kwon SW, Rooney AP. Phylogenomic analysis shows that Bacillus amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum is a later heterotypic synonym of Bacillus methylotrophicus. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2015;65:2104–9. doi:10.1099/ijs.0.000226.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Ashburner M, Ball CA, Blake JA, Botstein D, Butler H, Cherry JM, et al. Gene Ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nat Genet. 2000;25:25–9. doi:10.1038/75556.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2016