Open Access

Genome sequence and overview of Oligoflexus tunisiensis Shr3T in the eighth class Oligoflexia of the phylum Proteobacteria

  • Ryosuke Nakai1Email author,
  • Takatomo Fujisawa2,
  • Yasukazu Nakamura2, 3,
  • Tomoya Baba1,
  • Miyuki Nishijima4,
  • Fatma Karray5,
  • Sami Sayadi5,
  • Hiroko Isoda6,
  • Takeshi Naganuma7 and
  • Hironori Niki1, 3
Standards in Genomic Sciences201611:90

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40793-016-0210-6

Received: 3 July 2016

Accepted: 26 November 2016

Published: 13 December 2016

Abstract

Oligoflexus tunisiensis Shr3T is the first strain described in the newest (eighth) class Oligoflexia of the phylum Proteobacteria. This strain was isolated from the 0.2-μm filtrate of a suspension of sand gravels collected in the Sahara Desert in the Republic of Tunisia. The genome of O. tunisiensis Shr3T is 7,569,109 bp long and consists of one scaffold with a 54.3% G + C content. A total of 6,463 genes were predicted, comprising 6,406 protein-coding and 57 RNA genes. Genome sequence analysis suggested that strain Shr3T had multiple terminal oxidases for aerobic respiration and various transporters, including the resistance-nodulation-cell division-type efflux pumps. Additionally, gene sequences related to the incomplete denitrification pathway lacking the final step to reduce nitrous oxide (N2O) to nitrogen gas (N2) were found in the O. tunisiensis Shr3T genome. The results presented herein provide insight into the metabolic versatility and N2O-producing activity of Oligoflexus species.

Keywords

Oligoflexia Proteobacteria RND-type efflux pump Denitrification Nitrous oxide (N2O)

Introductions

The phylum Proteobacteria traditionally comprises five classes of Alphaproteobacteria, Betaproteobacteria , Gammaproteobacteria, Deltaproteobacteria and Epsilonproteobacteria [1, 2], with two additional classes ‘ Zetaproteobacteria ’ and Acidithiobacillia proposed by Emerson et al. [3] and Williams and Kelly [4], respectively. Proteobacteria hosts the greatest number of isolates and sequenced genomes among the prokaryotic phyla [5] and contains members exhibiting extremely diversified metabolisms relevant to global carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur cycles [2]. This phylum recently gained the eighth (or seventh if yet-to-be-validated ‘ Zetaproteobacteria ’ is excluded) class Oligoflexia with the cultured species Oligoflexus tunisiensis type strain Shr3T [6]. The class Oligoflexia includes environmentally-derived 16S rRNA gene sequences, otherwise known as environmental clones or phylotypes, recovered from a variety of habitats including soils, the Taklamakan Desert, glacial ice, lake water, seawater, human skin, and the guts of earthworms [6]. In contrast to their wide distribution, Oligoflexia -affiliated clones have rarely been found in clone libraries [7]; accordingly, it has been suggested that the Oligoflexia members show a small population size, belonging to the so-called rare biosphere [8].

At the time of writing, O. tunisiensis Shr3T was the only cultured species within the class Oligoflexia . Physiological and biochemical features of strain Shr3T could not be fully characterized because of restrictive culture conditions owing to the slow-growing nature of this strain [6]. The phenotypic information is essential for understanding its ecological role and biotechnological potentials. Here, we compensated for the limited knowledge regarding Oligoflexia members by conducting genomic analysis of strain Shr3T.

Organism information

Classification and features

During a study of ultramicro-sized bacteria that could pass through 0.2-μm pore-size filters, which are generally used for sterile filtration to remove microorganisms, we isolated the bacterium designated isolate Shr3 [9]. The isolation source of this bacterium was a 0.2-μm filtrate of the suspension of sand gravels collected in December 2008 in Matmata (33° 31’ N 9° 57’ E) on the eastern margin of the Sahara Desert in the Republic of Tunisia. Isolate Shr3 was thereafter described as the type strain of Oligoflexus tunisiensis , the first cultured representative of the novel class Oligoflexia [6].

Figure 1 shows the phylogenetic position of O. tunisiensis and related environmental clones in a 16S rRNA-based evolutionary tree. The sequence of the three 16S rRNA gene copies in the genome was 100% identical to the previously published 16S rRNA gene sequence (DDBJ/EMBL/GenBank accession no. AB540021 [6]). The database search showed that seven environmental clones had a >97% high similarity with the O. tunisiensis 16S rRNA gene sequence [7]. The seven clones were from rice paddy soil, cyanobacterial blooms in a hypereutrophic lake, a microalgal photobioreactor, a bio-filter, and human skin [7]. Strain Shr3T has been deposited in the Japan Collection of Microorganisms and the National Collection of Industrial, food and Marine Bacteria under accession numbers JCM 16864T  and NCIMB 14846T , respectively. The general features of strain Shr3T are reported in Table 1.
Fig. 1

Phylogenetic relationships between O. tunisiensis Shr3T and related environmental clones in the phylum Proteobacteria based on 16S rRNA gene sequences. At the time of writing, strain Shr3T was the only cultured species within the class Oligoflexia. The tree, generated with MEGA 6.0 [34] using the neighbor-joining method [35], is based on a comparison of approximately 1130 nucleotides. Bootstrap values >50%, expressed as percentages of 1000 replicates, are shown above and below branches. Bar: 0.02 substitutions per nucleotide position

Table 1

Classification and general features of Oligoflexus tunisiensis type strain Shr3T according to MIGS standards [30]

MIGS ID

Property

Term

Evidence codea

 

Classification

Domain Bacteria

TAS [31]

Phylum Proteobacteria

TAS [32]

Class Oligoflexia

TAS [6]

Order Oligoflexales

TAS [6]

Family Oligoflexaceae

TAS [6]

Genus Oligoflexus

TAS [6]

Species Oligoflexus tunisiensis

TAS [6]

Type strain: Shr3T

TAS [6]

Gram stain

negative

TAS [6]

Cell shape

filamentous-shaped

TAS [6, 7]

Motility

non-motile

TAS [6]

Sporulation

none

TAS [6]

Temperature range

20–37 °C

TAS [6]

Optimum temperature

25–30 °C

TAS [6]

pH range; Optimum

7.0–9.5; 7.0–8.0

TAS [6]

Carbon source

heterotrophic

TAS [6]

MIGS-6

Habitat

desert

TAS [6]

MIGS-6.3

Salinity

0–0.5% (w/v) NaCl

TAS [6]

MIGS-22

Oxygen requirement

aerobic

TAS [6]

MIGS-15

Biotic relationship

free-living

TAS [6]

MIGS-14

Pathogenicity

not reported

 

MIGS-4

Geographic location

Matmata, Republic of Tunisia

TAS [6]

MIGS-5

Sample collection

December 2008

TAS [6]

MIGS-4.1

Latitude

33.53

TAS [6]

MIGS-4.2

Longitude

9.96

TAS [6]

MIGS-4.4

Altitude

not determined

 

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 [33]

O. tunisiensis Shr3T is a Gram-negative, aerobic, non-motile, filamentous bacterium of 0.4–0.8 μm in width when cultivated under the experimental culture conditions [6]. Some cells exhibited a spiral, spherical (or curled), or curved rod morphology [7]. Although the factors controlling the cell shapes are still unclear, the morphological flexibility is likely associated with their ability to pass through 0.2-μm filters. Strain Shr3T grows in the R2A medium [6]. The cells showed slow growth, with 3–5 days required before colonies could be seen by the naked eye [6]. The growth occurs at NaCl concentrations <1.0% (w/v), 20–37 °C (optimum 25–30 °C), and pH 7.0–9.5 (optimum pH 7.0–8.0) [6]. Enzyme activities of esterase lipase, leucine arylamidase, trypsin, naphthol-AS-BI-phosphohydrolase and α-mannosidase are positive [6]. Transmission electron microscopy revealed that cells contained many low electron-dense particles (Fig. 2). Some, but not all, particles were stained by Sudan black B upon staining PHB or lipophilic particles. Because cells swollen by accumulated PHB were not observed when grown on PHB-containing medium [6], the particles stained with Sudan black B are likely lipophilic granules.
Fig. 2

Transmission electron micrograph of O. tunisiensis Shr3T. Many low electron-density particles were observed. Cells were grown on R2A medium for 7 days at 25 °C. Scale: 1 μm

Chemotaxonomy

The major respiratory quinone was menaquinone-7 (MK-7) [6]. The dominant cellular fatty acids were C16 : 1 ω5c (65.7%) and C16 : 0 (27.5%), the major hydroxy fatty acid was C12 : 0 3-OH (1.3%), and the minor fatty acids included C10:0, C12:0, C15:0, C17:0, C18:0 and C18:1 ω5c [6]. The fatty acid, C16 : 1 ω5c, was also detected in myxobacteria of Cystobacterineae in the class Deltaproteobacteria , but at only 15–39% [10].

Genome sequencing information

Genome project history

Phenotypic features of strain Shr3T are described above, but could not be fully tested because of restrictive culture conditions [6]. Therefore, this organism was selected for genome sequencing to investigate the basis of its ecological role and biotechnological potentials. The genome project is deposited in the Genomes OnLine Database [11] under the accession number Gp0139475. The information genome sequence is available from the DDBJ/EMBL/GenBank database. A summary of this genome project is shown in Table 2.
Table 2

Project information

MIGS ID

Property

Term

MIGS 31

Finishing quality

High-quality draft

MIGS-28

Libraries used

Pair-end library and mate-pair library

MIGS 29

Sequencing platforms

Illumina HiSeq 2000

MIGS 31.2

Fold coverage

149 ×

MIGS 30

Assemblers

SOAPdenovo version 2.04

MIGS 32

Gene calling method

Prodigal

Locus Tag

Ga0118670 (IMG-ER)

GenBank ID

BDFO01000001

GenBank Date of Release

30 June 2016

GOLD ID

Gp0139475

BIOPROJECT

PRJDB4872

MIGS 13

Source Material Identifier

JCM 16864, NCIMB 14846

Project relevance

ecology, biotechnology

Growth conditions and genomic DNA preparation

A culture of O. tunisiensis Shr3T grown aerobically in R2A broth (DAIGO; Nihon Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) at 30 °C was used to prepare genomic DNA. The genomic DNA was extracted using Qiagen Genomic-Tip 500/G columns according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The quantity and purity of the extracted DNA was checked by spectrophotometric measurement at 260 nm and agarose gel electrophoresis.

Genome sequencing and assembly

The genome sequence was generated using paired-end sequencing (2 × 90 bp) on an Illumina HiSeq 2000 platform at the BGI with the pair-end library and mate-pair library of two different insert sizes, 456 to 496 bp and 6310 to 6350 bp. After trimming of low quality reads, 1130 Mb was obtained and assembled into 19 contigs in one scaffold using SOAPdenovo version 2.04 [12]. The assembly result was locally optimized according to the paired-end and overlap relationship via mapping reads to obtained contigs. A summary of this genome sequence is shown in Table 3.
Table 3

Genome statistics

Attribute

Value

% of Total

Genome size (bp)

7,569,109

100.00

DNA coding (bp)

6,849,121

90.49

DNA G + C (bp)

4,113,347

54.34

DNA scaffolds

1

100.00

Total genes

6,463

100.00

Protein coding genes

6,406

99.12

RNA genes

57

0.88

Pseudogenes

not determined

not determined

Genes in internal clusters

1,494

23.12

Genes with function prediction

4,051

62.68

Genes assigned to COGs

2,938

45.46

Genes with Pfam domains

4,268

66.04

Genes with signal peptides

1,084

16.77

Genes with transmembrane helices

1,393

21.55

CRISPR repeats

8

 

Genome annotation

Gene sequences were identified via the Prodigal V2.6.3 [13] as part of the DOE-JGI genome annotation pipeline in the Integrated Microbial Genomes–Expert Review (IMG-ER) system [14]. Gene functional annotation as well as data visualization was conducted within the IMG-ER [15]. The predicted coding sequences were translated and used to search the National Center for Biotechnology Information non-redundant, UniProt, TIGR-Fam, Pfam, KEGG, COG, and InterPro databases. Identification of RNA gene sequences and miscellaneous features were carried out using HMMER 3.1b2 [16] and INFERNAL 1.0.2 and 1.1.1 [17]. Additional functional prediction was performed with the RAST server [18] under accession number 708132.3. Candidate CRISPR regions were detected using the CRISPRFinder program [19].

Genome Properties

The genome of O. tunisiensis Shr3T consists of a 7,569,109 bp long chromosome with a 54.3% G + C content (Table 3). Of the 6463 predicted genes, 6406 were protein-coding genes and 57 were RNA genes (three rRNA operons, 46 tRNAs, and two miscRNAs). The majority of the protein-coding genes (62.7%) were assigned to a putative function. The remaining ones were annotated as hypothetical proteins. The distribution of genes classified into COGs functional categories is shown in Table 4 and Fig. 3.
Table 4

Number of genes associated with general COG functional categories

Code

Value

%age

Description

J

228

6.91

Translation, ribosomal structure and biogenesis

A

1

0.03

RNA processing and modification

K

154

4.67

Transcription

L

103

3.12

Replication, recombination and repair

B

1

0.03

Chromatin structure and dynamics

D

31

0.94

Cell cycle control, Cell division, chromosome partitioning

V

87

2.64

Defense mechanisms

T

314

9.52

Signal transduction mechanisms

M

229

6.94

Cell wall/membrane biogenesis

N

125

3.79

Cell motility

U

44

1.33

Intracellular trafficking and secretion

O

159

4.82

Posttranslational modification, protein turnover, chaperones

C

172

5.21

Energy production and conversion

G

142

4.30

Carbohydrate transport and metabolism

E

264

8.00

Amino acid transport and metabolism

F

73

2.21

Nucleotide transport and metabolism

H

170

5.15

Coenzyme transport and metabolism

I

193

5.85

Lipid transport and metabolism

P

156

4.73

Inorganic ion transport and metabolism

Q

100

3.03

Secondary metabolites biosynthesis, transport and catabolism

R

337

10.22

General function prediction only

S

153

4.64

Function unknown

-

3,525

54.54

Not in COGs

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

Fig. 3

Graphical circular map of the chromosome of O. tunisiensis Shr3T. From outside to the center: genes on forward strand (color by COG categories), genes on reverse strand (color by COG categories), RNA genes (tRNAs green, rRNAs red, other RNAs black), GC content, GC skew

Insights from the genome sequence

The genome of O. tunisiensis Shr3T encoded genes for ABC transporters of amino acid, oligopeptide/dipeptide, and phosphonate, ammonium and nitrate/nitrite transporters, as well as RND-type efflux pumps. One of the amino acid sequences (Ga0118670_114686) classified as an RND pump showed a high similarity (67% identity and 99% coverage) to sequences of the pathogenic bacteria Achromobacter xylosoxidans and Pseudomonas aeruginosa . The RND-type efflux system is widely distributed in Gram-negative bacteria and known to promote resistance to various kinds of antimicrobial substances, termed as multidrug resistance [20].

In support of its aerobic growth, gene sequences assigned to different terminal oxidases including aa 3- and cbb 3-type cytochrome c oxidases (COG0843 and COG3278) and cytochrome bd-type quinol oxidase (COG1271 and COG1294) were found in the Shr3T genome.

The Shr3T genome contained a nirK gene coding for a copper-dependent nitrite reductase (Nir) (Ga0118670_114712) involved in denitrification, a major component of the nitrogen cycle [21]. Denitrification is the dissimilatory reduction of nitrate or nitrite to nitrogen gas (NO3 → NO2 → NO → N2O → N2) [22] that usually occurs under oxygen-limiting conditions [21]. The key steps releasing gaseous products NO, N2O, and N2 are catalyzed by Nir, nitric-oxide reductase (Nor) and nitrous oxide reductase (Nos), respectively [23, 24]. There are two structurally different nitrite reductases among denitrifiers: a copper-containing type (Cu-Nir) encoded by the nirK gene and a cytochrome cd 1-containg one (cd 1-Nir) encoded by the nirS gene [24]. The nirS gene was absent from the O. tunisiensis Shr3T genome.

The NirK deduced amino acid sequence of O. tunisiensis Shr3T was most closely related to that of Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus of the class Deltaproteobacteria , with 70% identity and 96% coverage. B. bacteriovorus has an incomplete denitrifying pathway with a Cu-Nir, a cytochrome c–dependent Nor (cNor), and no Nos [25, 26]. O. tunisiensis Shr3T also had a partial pathway containing the Cu-Nir described above, a quinol-dependent Nor (qNor), and no Nos inferred from the genome data. Strain Shr3T has two copies of the gene encoding qNor (Ga0118670_112818 and Ga0118670_114769). NorR protein is known to regulate Nor expression in response to NO [27, 28]. The transcription regulator norR gene (Ga0118670_114771) was nearly adjacent to one of two copies of the qNor-encoding gene in the genome.

Our results suggest that the Oligoflexus species has the capability to produce N2O as a final product of the incomplete denitrification lacking the last step (reduction of N2O to N2). N2O is known as a strong greenhouse gas, as well as an ozone-depleting substance [29]. Accordingly, future studies should examine the N2O-producing phenotype of strain Shr3T.

Conclusions

In this study, we characterized the genome of O. tunisiensis Shr3T, the first cultured representative of the novel proteobacterial class Oligoflexia . The genome sequence gives us insight into the metabolic versatility and incomplete denitrification pathway of Oligoflexus species. The genome information will facilitate future systematics and comparative genomics studies within the phylum Proteobacteria .

Abbreviations

PHB: 

Polyhydroxybutyrate

RND: 

Resistance-nodulation-cell division

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The computations for this work were partially performed on the NIG supercomputer at the ROIS National Institute of Genetics.

Funding

This work was supported by a Grant for Basic Science Research Projects from the Sumitomo Foundation (no. 130894 to RN). RN was supported by a Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) Postdoctoral Fellowship for Young Scientists (no. JP13J03441). This work was partially funded by a JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (A) (no. JP15H05620 to RN).

Authors’ contributions

RN coordinated the study, annotated the genome and drafted the manuscript. RN, FK, SS, HI, and TN maintained and cultured the strain. RN conducted the wet-lab work, MN performed the electron microscopy. RN, TF, YN, TB, and HN discussed the bioinformatics analysis. RN, TB, MN, TN, and HN discussed the data. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

None of the authors has any 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)
Genetic Strains Research Center, National Institute of Genetics
(2)
Center for Information Biology, National Institute of Genetics
(3)
Department of Genetics, The Graduate University for Advanced Studies (SOKENDAI)
(4)
Technical Department, TechnoSuruga Laboratory Co., Ltd.
(5)
Centre of Biotechnology of Sfax, University of Sfax
(6)
Alliance for Research on North Africa (ARENA), University of Tsukuba
(7)
Graduate School of Biosphere Science, Hiroshima University

References

  1. Gupta RS. The phylogeny of proteobacteria: relationships to other eubacterial phyla and eukaryotes. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2000;24:367–402.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Kerters K, De Vos P, Gillis M, Swings J, Vandamme P, Stackebrandt E. Introduction to the Proteobacteria. In: Dworkin M, Falkow S, Rosenberg E, Schleifer K-H, Stackebrandt E, editors. The Prokaryotes, A Handbook on the Biology of Bacteria, Volume 5: Proteobacteria: Alpha and Beta Subclasses. 3rd ed. New York: Springer; 2006. p. 3–37.Google Scholar
  3. Emerson D, Rentz JA, Lilburn TG, Davis RE, Aldrich H, Chan C, Moyer CL. A novel lineage of proteobacteria involved in formation of marine Fe-oxidizing microbial mat communities. PLoS One. 2007;2:e667.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Williams KP, Kelly DP. Proposal for a new class within the phylum Proteobacteria, Acidithiobacillia classis nov., with the type order Acidithiobacillales, and emended description of the class Gammaproteobacteria. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2013;63:2901–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Rinke C, Schwientek P, Sczyrba A, Ivanova NN, Anderson IJ, Cheng JF, et al. Insights into the phylogeny and coding potential of microbial dark matter. Nature. 2013;499:431–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Nakai R, Nishijima M, Tazato N, Handa Y, Karray F, Sayadi S, et al. Oligoflexus tunisiensis gen. nov., sp. nov., a Gram-negative, aerobic, filamentous bacterium of a novel proteobacterial lineage, and description of Oligoflexaceae fam. nov., Oligoflexales ord. nov. and Oligoflexia classis nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2014;64:3353–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Nakai R, Nagamura T. Oligoflexia, the newest class of the phylum Proteobacteria, consisting of only one cultured species and uncultured bacterial phylotypes in diverse habitats. J Phylogen Evol Biol. 2015;3:141.Google Scholar
  8. Sogin ML, Morrison HG, Huber JA, Mark Welch D, Huse SM, Neal PR, et al. Microbial diversity in the deep sea and the underexplored “rare biosphere”. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;103:12115–20.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Nakai R, Shibuya E, Justel A, Rico E, Quesada A, Kobayashi F, et al. Phylogeographic analysis of filterable bacteria with special reference to Rhizobiales strains that occur at cryospheric habitats. Antarct Sci. 2013;25:219–28.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Shimkets LJ, Dworkin M, Reichenbach H. The Myxobacteria. In: Dworkin M, Falkow S, Rosenberg E, Schleifer K-H, Stackebrandt E, editors. The Prokaryotes, A Handbook on the Biology of Bacteria, Volume 7: Proteobacteria: Delta and Epsilon Subclasses. Deeply Rooting Bacteria. 3rd ed. New York: Springer; 2006. p. 3–37.Google Scholar
  11. Liolios K, Chen IM, Mavromatis K, Tavernarakis N, Hugenholtz P, Markowitz VM, Kyrpides NC. The Genomes On Line Database (GOLD) in 2009: status of genomic and metagenomic projects and their associated metadata. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010;38:D346–54.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Li R, Zhu H, Ruan J, Qian W, Fang X, Shi Z, et al. De novo assembly of human genomes with massively parallel short read sequencing. Genome Res. 2010;20:265–72.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Hyatt D, Chen GL, Locascio PF, Land ML, Larimer FW, Hauser LJ. Prodigal: prokaryotic gene recognition and translation initiation site identification. BMC Bioinf. 2010;1:119.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Finn DR, Clements J, Eddy SR. HMMER web server: interactive sequence similarity searching. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011;39:W29–37.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Nawrocki EP, Kolbe DL, Eddy SR. Infernal 1.0: inference of RNA alignments. Bioinformatics. 2009;25:1335–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Aziz RK, Bartels D, Best AA, DeJongh M, Disz T, Edwards RA, et al. The RAST Server: Rapid Annotations using Subsystems Technology. BMC Genomics. 2008;9:75–89.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Grissa I, Vergnaud G, Pourcel C. CRISPRFinder: a web tool to identify clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007;35:W52–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Poole K. Multidrug resistance in Gram-negative bacteria. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2001;4:500–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Canfield DE, Glazer AN, Falkowski PG. The evolution and future of Earth’s nitrogen cycle. Science. 2010;330:192–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Knowles R. Denitrification. Microbiol Rev. 1982;46:43–70.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Kraft B, Strous M, Tegetmeyer HE. Microbial nitrate respiration-genes, enzymes and environmental distribution. J Biotechnol. 2011;155:104–17.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Zumft WG. Cell biology and molecular basis of denitrification. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 1997;61:533–616.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Rendulic S, Jagtap P, Rosinus A, Eppinger M, Baar C, Lanz C, et al. A predator unmasked: life cycle of Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus from a genomic perspective. Science. 2004;303:689–92.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Shapleigh JP. Denitrifying Prokaryotes. In: Rosenberg E, DeLong EF, Lory S, Stackebrandt E, Thompson F, editors. The Prokaryotes–Prokaryotic Physiology and Biochemistry. 4th ed. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer; 2013. p. 405–25.Google Scholar
  27. Pohlmann A, Cramm R, Schmelz K, Friedrich B. A novel NO-responding regulator controls the reduction of nitric oxide in Ralstonia eutropha. Mol Microbiol. 2000;38:626–38.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Spiro S. Regulators of bacterial responses to nitric oxide. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2007;31:193–211.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Ravishankara AR, Daniel JS, Portmann RW. Nitrous oxide (N2O): the dominant ozone-depleting substance emitted in the 21st century. Science. 2009;326:123–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Garrity GM, Bell JA, Phylum XIV LT. Proteobacteria phyl. nov. In: Brenner DJ, Krieg NR, Staley JT, Garrity GM, editors. Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, second edition, vol. 2 (The Proteobacteria), part B (The Gammaproteobacteria). New York: Springer; 2005. p. 1.Google Scholar
  33. 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. Nat Genet. 2000;25:25–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Tamura K, Stecher G, Peterson D, Filipski A, Kumar S. MEGA6: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis version 6.0. Mol Biol Evol. 2013;30:2725–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 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

© The Author(s). 2016