Open Access

Complete genome sequence of Microbulbifer sp. CCB-MM1, a halophile isolated from Matang Mangrove Forest, Malaysia

  • Tsu Horng Moh1,
  • Nyok-Sean Lau1,
  • Go Furusawa1 and
  • Al-Ashraf Abdullah Amirul1, 2Email author
Standards in Genomic Sciences201712:36

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40793-017-0248-0

Received: 4 October 2016

Accepted: 29 June 2017

Published: 6 July 2017

Abstract

Microbulbifer sp. CCB-MM1 is a halophile isolated from estuarine sediment of Matang Mangrove Forest, Malaysia. Based on 16S rRNA gene sequence analysis, strain CCB-MM1 is a potentially new species of genus Microbulbifer. Here we describe its features and present its complete genome sequence with annotation. The genome sequence is 3.86 Mb in size with GC content of 58.85%, harbouring 3313 protein coding genes and 92 RNA genes. A total of 71 genes associated with carbohydrate active enzymes were found using dbCAN. Ectoine biosynthetic genes, ectABC operon and ask_ect were detected using antiSMASH 3.0. Cell shape determination genes, mreBCD operon, rodA and rodZ were annotated, congruent with the rod-coccus cell cycle of the strain CCB-MM1. In addition, putative mreBCD operon regulatory gene, bolA was detected, which might be associated with the regulation of rod-coccus cell cycle observed from the strain.

Keywords

Complete genome sequence Microbulbifer Halophile Mangrove Estuarine sediment

Introduction

Microbulbifer sp. CCB-MM1 is a halophile isolated from an estuarine sediment sample taken from Matang Mangrove Forest, Malaysia. The genus Microbulbifer was proposed by González [1] with the description of Microbulbifer hydrolyticus which was isolated from marine pulp mill effluent. Microbulbifer are typically found in high-salinity environments including marine sediment [2], salt marsh [3], costal soil [4] as well as mangrove soil [5]. They were known for their capability to degrade a great variety of polysaccharides including cellulose [1, 5], xylan [1, 5, 6], chitin [1, 5, 6], agar [3, 6] and alginate [7]. Microbulbifer strains are potential sources of carbohydrate active enzymes with biotechnological interest. One of the species, Microbulbifer mangrovi had been reported with the ability to degrade more than 10 different polysaccharides [7].

Polysaccharides have a broad range of industrial applications. The most common storage polysaccharide, starch, can be used as food additives [8], excipients [9] and substrates in fermentation process to produce bioethanol [10]. Structural polysaccharides such as cellulose, chitosan and chitin, on the other hand, can be used to develop high-performance materials due to their renewability, biodegradability, biological inertness and low cost [1113]. However, polysaccharides from natural sources are often not suitable for direct application. Chemical modifications involving the reactive groups (carboxyl, hydroxyl, amido, and acetamido groups) on the backbone of polysaccharide are required to alter their chemical and physical properties to suit the application purposes [14]. In the past years, explorations and researches are in favor of enzymatic method using carbohydrate active enzymes [15]. This alternative method offers the advantages of substrate specificity, stereospecificity, and environment friendly [16]. Hence, the discovery of novel carbohydrate active enzymes has great biotechnological interest and Microbulbifer strains are potential sources of these enzymes.

Therefore, we sequenced the genome of Microbulbifer sp. CCB-MM1 with primary objective to identify potential carbohydrate active enzyme coding genes. The genome insights will serve as baseline for downstream analyses including enzyme activity assays and functional elucidation of these genes. To date, there are seven genomes of Microbulbifer publicly available from GenBank, namely Microbulbifer agarilyticus S89 (NZ_AFPJ00000000.1) [17], Microbulbifer variabilis ATCC 700307T (NZ_AQYJ00000000.1), Microbulbifer elongatus HZ11 (NZ_JELR00000000.1) [18], Microbulbifer sp. ZGT114 (LQBR00000000.1), Microbulbifer thermotolerans DAU221 (CP014864.1) [19], Microbulbifer sp. Q7 (LROY00000000.1) and Microbulbifer sp. WRN-8 (LRFG00000000.1). All of the Microbulbifer genomes are assembled to draft assembly only except the Microbulbifer thermotolerans DAU221 genome. Here we present the complete genome of Microbulbifer sp. CCB-MM1 and some insights from comparative analysis with seven other Microbulbifer genomes.

Organism information

Classification and features

Microbulbifer sp. strain CCB-MM1 was isolated from mangrove sediment obtained from Matang Mangrove Forest. The isolation was done using the method previously described [20] with the use of H-ASWM (2.4% artificial sea water, 0.5% tryptone, 10 mM HEPES, pH 7.6) [21]. CCB-MM1 is a Gram-negative, aerobic, non-spore-forming and halophilic bacterium (Table 1). Its shape appears to be associated with its growth phases where it is rod-shaped at exponential phase (Fig. 1a) and cocci-shaped at stationary phase (Fig. 1b). The rod-shaped cell size ranges from approximately 1.3 to 2.5 μm in length and 0.3 μm in width while the diameter of coccus cells is approximately 0.6 μm. The colonies observed on agar plate are white in colour, circular, and raised with entire edge.
Table 1

Classification and general features of Microbulbifer sp. CCB-MM1 [69]

MIGS ID

Property

Term

Evidence codea

 

Classification

Domain Bacteria

TAS [70]

 

Phylum Proteobacteria

TAS [71]

 

Class Gammaproteobacteria

TAS [72]

 

Order Cellvibrionales

TAS [73, 74]

 

Family Microbulbiferaceae

TAS [73, 74]

 

Genus Microbulbifer

TAS [1]

 

Species Unknown

IDA

 

Strain CCB-MM1

IDA

 

Gram stain

Negative

IDA

 

Cell shape

Rod-coccus

IDA

 

Motility

Non-motile

IDA

 

Sporulation

Non-sporulating

NAS

 

Temperature range

Mesophile

NAS

 

Optimum temperature

30 °C

NAS

 

pH range; Optimum

6.0–9.0; 7.0

IDA

 

Carbon source

Not reported

 

MIGS-6

Habitat

Estuarine sediment

IDA

MIGS-6.3

Salinity

Halophile

NAS

MIGS-22

Oxygen

Aerobic

IDA

MIGS-15

Biotic relationship

Free-living

NAS

MIGS-14

Pathogenicity

Non-pathogenic

NAS

MIGS-4

Geographic location

Malaysia: Matang Mangrove Forest

IDA

MIGS-5

Sample collection time

October 1, 2014

IDA

MIGS-4.1

Latitude

4.85228 N

IDA

MIGS-4.2

Longitude

100.55777 E

IDA

MIGS-4.3

Depth

10 cm

IDA

MIGS-4.4

Altitude

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 http://www.geneontology.org/GO.evidence.shtml of the Gene Ontology project [75]

Fig. 1

Scanning electron micrograph of Microbulbifer sp. CCB-MM1 at (a) exponential and (b) stationary phase

The 16S rRNA gene sequence of CCB-MM1 was amplified and sequenced using the universal primer pair 27F and 1492R [22]. The 16S rRNA gene sequence analysis was performed by using BLASTN [23] against NCBI 16S ribosomal RNA (Bacteria and Archaea) database. BLAST report revealed that the closely related strains include Microbulbifer rhizosphaerae Cs16bT (98.1%), Microbulbifer taiwanensis CC-LN1-12T (97.3%), Microbulbifer maritimus TF-17T (97.4%), Microbulbifer pacificus SPO729T (97.3%), and Microbulbifer gwangyangensis GY2T (97.3%). Based on the threshold of Proteobacteria -specific 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity at 98.7% [24], the analysis suggests that CCB-MM1 is a new species belonging to the genus Microbulbifer . To reconstruct a phylogenetic tree of Microbulbifer , the 16S rRNA sequences of other Microbubifer type strains were downloaded from GenBank. Then, these sequences were aligned using MUSCLE [25, 26] and MEGA6 [27] was used to reconstruct a neighbour-joining tree [28] with 1000 replications of bootstrap method test [29]. As shown in Fig. 2, CCB-MM1 formed a cluster with M. rhizosphaerae Cs16bT in the phylogenetic tree.
Fig. 2

Neighbor-joining phylogenetic tree highlighting the position of Microbulbifer sp. CCB-MM1 relative to other type strains within the genus Microbulbifer, built using MEGA6 based on 16S rRNA sequences with their GenBank accession numbers indicated in parentheses

Genome sequencing information

Genome project history

Genome of CCB-MM1 was sequenced in October 2015. The whole genome sequencing and annotation were done by Centre for Chemical Biology (Universiti Sains Malaysia). The complete genome sequence is available in GenBank under the accession number CP014143. The project information is summarized in Table 2.
Table 2

Project information

MIGS ID

Property

Term

MIGS-31

Finishing quality

Complete

MIGS-28

Libraries used

PacBio P6-C4 chemistry, size selected 10 kb library, two SMRT Cells

MIGS-29

Sequencing platform

PacBio RS II

MIGS-31.2

Fold coverage

431×

MIGS-30

Assemblers

HGAP 3, PacBio SMRT Analysis v2.3

MIGS-32

Gene calling method

Prodigal

 

Locus tag

AUP74

 

Genbank ID

CP014143

 

GenBank date of release

September 30, 2016

 

GOLD ID

Gp0156207

 

BIOPROJECT

PRJNA305828

MIGS-13

Source material identifier

SAMN04334609

 

Project relevance

Environmental

Growth conditions and genomic DNA preparation

CCB-MM1 was cultured aerobically in 100 mL of H-ASWM for overnight (16 h) at 30 °C with shaking. The genomic DNA was extracted using modified phenol-chloroform method [30]. The integrity of extracted genomic DNA was assessed by gel electrophoresis using 0.7% agarose gel and the quantification was done using NanoDrop 2000 Spectrophotometer (Thermo Scientific, USA).

Genome sequencing and assembly

The whole genome of CCB-MM1 was sequenced using PacBio RS II platform with P6-C4 chemistry (Pacific Biosciences, USA). Two SMRT Cells were used and 2,674,097,380 pre-filter polymerase read bases were obtained, which was approximately 692X coverage of the genome. The reads were assembled using HGAP3 protocol [31] on SMRT Portal v2.3.0 with reads more than 25,000 bp in length being used as seed bases. The assembly result was a circular chromosome with the size of 3,864,326 bp, average base coverage of 431X and 100% base calling. The assembled sequence was polished twice using the resequencing protocol until the consensus concordance reached 100%.

Genome annotation

The genome was annotated using Prokka 1.11 pipeline [32]. The pipeline uses Prodigal [33], RNAmmer [34], Aragorn [35], SignalP [36] and Infernal [37] to predict the coding sequences (CDS), ribosomal RNA genes, transfer RNA genes, signal leader peptides and non-coding RNAs, respectively. In addition, the translated CDS output by Prokka were used to BLAST against protein databases including non-redundant protein database (nr) from GenBank, Swiss-Prot and TrEMBL from UniProt [38], and KEGG database [39]. COG functional categories assignment was done using RPS-BLAST [40] search against the COG database [41]. In addition, antiSMASH 3.0 [42] was used to identify biosynthetic gene clusters and dbCAN [43] was used to identify carbohydrate active enzymes.

Genome properties

CCB-MM1 only contains one circular chromosome and no plasmid. The size of the chromosome is 3,864,326 bp with an overall of 58.85% G + C content (Table 3). The complete genome consists of 3313 ORFs, 79 tRNA, 12 rRNA and 1 tmRNA genes. Of all the 3313 predicted ORFs, 2030 of them can be assigned with functional prediction and 2563 of them can be assigned to COG functional categories (Table 4). The circular map of the genome generated using CGView Comparison Tool [44] is depicted in Fig. 3.
Table 3

Genome statistics

Attribute

Value

% of Totala

Genome size

3,864,326

100.00

DNA coding (bp)

3,487,727

90.25

DNA G + C (bp)

2,274,198

58.85

DNA scaffolds

1

-

Total genes

3406

100.00

Protein coding genes

3313

97.27

RNA genes

92

2.70

Pseudo genes

1

0.03

Genes in internal clusters

-

-

Genes with function prediction

2030

59.62

Genes assigned to COGs

2563

75.27

Genes with Pfam domains

2856

83.88

Genes with signal peptides

403

11.84

Genes with transmembrane helices

851

24.99

CRISPR repeats

0

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

Table 4

Number of genes associated with general COG functional categories

Code

Value

% agea

Description

J

229

6.9

Translation, ribosomal structure and biogenesis

A

2

0.1

RNA processing and modification

K

127

3.8

Transcription

L

111

3.3

Replication, recombination and repair

B

0

0.0

Chromatin structure and dynamics

D

41

1.2

Cell cycle control, cell division, chromosome partitioning

Y

0

0.0

Nuclear structure

V

64

1.9

Defense mechanisms

T

109

3.3

Signal transduction mechanisms

M

218

6.6

Cell wall/membrane/envelope biogenesis

N

8

0.2

Cell motility

Z

2

0.1

Cytoskeleton

W

3

0.1

Extracellular structures

U

48

1.4

Intracellular trafficking, secretion, and vesicular transport

O

173

5.2

Posttranslational modification, protein turnover, chaperones

X

3

0.1

Mobilome: prophages, transposons

C

180

5.4

Energy production and conversion

G

131

4.0

Carbohydrate transport and metabolism

E

212

6.4

Amino acid transport and metabolism

F

53

1.6

Nucleotide transport and metabolism

H

113

3.4

Coenzyme transport and metabolism

I

133

4.0

Lipid transport and metabolism

P

167

5.0

Inorganic ion transport and metabolism

Q

55

1.7

Secondary metabolites biosynthesis, transport and catabolism

R

226

6.8

General function prediction only

S

224

6.8

Function unknown

-

751

22.7

Not in COGs

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

Fig. 3

Circular map of the genome of Microbulbifer sp. CCB-MM1 generated using CGView Comparison Tool [44]. Circles (from outside) representing the following: 1. COG functional categories for forward coding sequence; 2. Forward sequence features; 3. Reverse sequence features; 4. COG functional categories for reverse coding sequence; 5. GC content; 6. GC skew

Insights from the genome sequence

Comparative genomics

There are seven genomes of Microbulbifer strains publicly available in GenBank to date. To assess the relatedness between CCB-MM1 and publicly available Microbulbifer genomes, ANI values between the genomes were calculated using method based on MUMmer alignment [45]. Based on the results (Table 5), the ANI values ranged from 85.58% ( Microbulbifer sp. ZGT114 and Microbulbifer sp. WRN-8) to 83.45% (Microbublfer thermotolerans DAU221). These ANI values fall below 95% [46], suggesting that CCB-MM1 represents a different species from the other seven sequenced species. Interestingly, the ANI value between genomes of Microbulbifer sp. ZGT114 and Microbulbifer sp. WRN-8 is 99.99%, which suggests that these two strains belong to the same species. The circular map comparing CCB-MM1 genome and seven other Microbulbifer genomes is shown in Fig. 4.
Table 5

ANI value(%) between Microbulbifer sp. CCB-MM1 genome and seven other Microbulbifer genomes calculated using ANIm [45]

 

CCB-MM1

ZGT114

WRN-8

HZ11

S89

Q7

ATCC 700307T

DAU221

CCB-MM1

100.00

85.58

85.58

84.75

84.65

84.61

84.37

83.45

ZGT114

85.58

100.00

99.99

84.65

84.64

84.70

84.29

83.85

WRN-8

85.58

99.99

100.00

84.65

84.70

84.67

84.29

83.87

HZ11

84.75

84.65

84.65

100.00

85.23

85.58

84.68

83.71

S89

84.65

84.64

84.70

85.23

100.00

85.03

84.77

83.66

Q7

84.61

84.70

84.67

85.58

85.03

100.00

84.75

83.77

ATCC 700307

84.37

84.29

84.29

84.68

84.77

84.75

100.00

83.59

DAU221

83.45

83.85

83.87

83.71

83.66

83.77

83.59

100.00

CCB-MM1 = Microbulbifer sp. CCB-MM1; ZGT114 = Microbulbifer sp. ZGT114; WRN-8 = Microbulbifer sp. WRN-8; HZ11 = Microbulbifer elongatus HZ11; S89 = Microbulbifer agarilyticus S89; Q7 = Microbulbifer sp. Q7; ATCC 700307T = Microbulbifer variabilis ATCC 700307T; DAU221 = Microbulbifer thermotolerans DAU221

Fig. 4

Circular map comparing strain CCB-MM1 genome and seven other Microbulbifer genomes generated using CGView Comparison Tool [44]. The two outermost rings represent forward and reverse sequence features respectively. The remaining seven rings show the regions of sequence similarity detected by BLAST comparisons conducted between nucleotide sequences from the CCB-MM1 genome and seven other Microbulbifer genomes with the order (from outside) as follow: Microbulbifer elongatus HZ11, Microbulbifer sp. Q7, Microbulbifer sp. WRN-8, Microbulbifer sp. ZGT114, Microbulbifer agarilyticus S89, Microbulbifer thermotolerans DAU221 and Microbulbifer variabilis ATCC 700307T

Carbohydrate active enzymes

dbCAN [43] was used to predict carbohydrate-active enzyme coding genes present in CCB-MM1 genome, particularly genes belonging to glycoside hydrolase and polysaccharide lyase families that could provide us the insights on carbohydrate degrading capability of CCB-MM1. The analysis was done by running HMMER3 [47] scan using HMMs profile downloaded from dbCAN (version: dbCAN-fam-HMMs.txt.v4) with an e-value cut off of 1e-18 and coverage cut off of 0.35. A total of 71 carbohydrate-active genes were detected and further analysis of these genes using SignalP predicted that 25 of them contain signal peptides. As shown in Table 6, we had found 29 genes associated with GH families including GH3, GH5, GH13, GH16, GH20, GH23, GH31, GH38, GH103 and GH130, however, we found no genes associated with PL families in the genome. Annotation of the GH genes revealed that CCB-MM1 genome possesses genes encoding cellulase (GH5), alpha-amylase, pullulanase (GH13) and beta-glucanase (GH16) with potential interest for biotechnological applications. While gene coding for beta-hexosaminidase, one of the chitinolytic enzymes [48], is present in the genome of CCB-MM1, gene that codes for chitinase was not detected. This suggests that CCB-MM1 lacks the ability to degrade chitin, although further assays are required to confirm the phenotype.
Table 6

GH enzyme coding genes found in CCB-MM1 genome

GH Family

Annotation

Signal peptide

Locus tag

3

Periplasmic beta-glucosidase precursor

Yes

AUP74_01723

Periplasmic beta-glucosidase precursor

No

AUP74_01724

Beta-hexosaminidase

No

AUP74_02396

Beta-hexosaminidase A precursor

Yes

AUP74_02833

5

Cellulase (glycosyl hydrolase family 5)

No

AUP74_03275

hypothetical protein

No

AUP74_03276

13

Pullulanase precursor

Yes

AUP74_00304

Oligo-1,6-glucosidase

No

AUP74_00394

Cyclomaltodextrinase

Yes

AUP74_00399

4-alpha-glucanotransferase

No

AUP74_00401

Alpha-amylase precursor

Yes

AUP74_00413

Sucrose phosphorylase

No

AUP74_03226

16

Glucan endo-1,3-beta-glucosidase A1 precursor

No

AUP74_01725

Beta-glucanase precursor

Yes

AUP74_01727

20

N,N′-diacetylchitobiase precursor

No

AUP74_01890

23

Membrane-bound lytic murein transglycosylase F precursor

Yes

AUP74_00546

Membrane-bound lytic murein transglycosylase F precursor

No

AUP74_01553

Membrane-bound lytic murein transglycosylase F precursor

Yes

AUP74_01554

murein transglycosylase C

Yes

AUP74_01596

Membrane-bound lytic murein transglycosylase D precursor

Yes

AUP74_02266

Soluble lytic murein transglycosylase precursor

Yes

AUP74_02385

Membrane-bound lytic murein transglycosylase F precursor

No

AUP74_03185

Membrane-bound lytic murein transglycosylase F precursor

No

AUP74_03186

Membrane-bound lytic murein transglycosylase F precursor

Yes

AUP74_03326

31

Alpha-xylosidase

Yes

AUP74_00400

38

Mannosylglycerate hydrolase

No

AUP74_01043

103

Membrane-bound lytic murein transglycosylase B precursor

Yes

AUP74_01186

Membrane-bound lytic murein transglycosylase B precursor

Yes

AUP74_01707

130

4-O-beta-D-mannosyl-D-glucose phosphorylase

No

AUP74_03278

Rod-coccus cell cycle

Microbulbifer were found to demonstrate rod-coccus cell cycle, in association with different growth phases [49]. This cell cycle was also observed in CCB-MM1. In CCB-MM1 genome, we found genes which are known to be involved in determining and maintaining the rod shape of bacteria, including mreBCD [50] (AUP74_00016, AUP74_00017 and AUP74_00018), rodA [51] (AUP74_01706) and rodZ [52] (AUP74_01850). BLAST analysis showed that these genes are present in all other Microbulbifer genomes. In addition, we detected the presence of general stress response gene, bolA, in all Microbulbifer genomes. It has been demonstrated that the overexpression of bolA in E.coli inhibited cell elongation and reduced the transcription of mreBCD operon [53]. The gene, mreB, and its product, actin homolog have been studied for their functions in several species of bacteria. This protein lies beneath the cell surface, forming actin-like cables which function as guidance for the synthesis of longitudinal cell wall [54]. While MreB is not essential in E. coli [55], it is found to be essential for Streptomyces coelicolor [56], Rhodobacter sphaeroides [57] and Bacillus subtilis [58]. In E. coli, depletion of MreB caused cells to change from rod-like to spherical shape but these cells were able to survive [59]. In contrast, the spherical-shaped B. subtilis cells eventually lyse. For CCB-MM1, the spherical-shaped cells do not lyse but grow into rod-shaped again after being transferred into fresh medium. We infer that mreB gene may have important functions in determining Microbulbifer cell shape and the rod-coccus cycle of Microbulbifer is likely regulated by BolA through inhibition of mreB transcription when triggered by stress.

Secondary metabolites, ectoine

Ectoine and hydroxyectoine are compatible solutes found primarily in halophilic bacteria. When triggered by osmotic stress, bacteria produce and accumulate them intracellularly to balance the osmotic pressure [60]. Apart from osmotic stress, they were also protectants against temperature stress [61]. A cluster of genes responsible for the biosynthesis of ectoine [62] has been identified in CCB-MM1 genome using antiSMASH 3.0 [42]. These genes encode for aspartate kinase (Ask_Ect) (AUP74_00280), L-ectoine synthase (EctC) (AUP74_00281), diaminobutyrate-2-oxoglutarate transaminase (EctB) (AUP74_00282), L-2,4-diaminobutyric acid acetyltransferase (EctA) (AUP74_00283) and HTH transcriptional regulator (AUP74_00284). The lack of the gene ectD, ectoine hydroxylase, in CCB-MM1 genome suggests that it only has the ability to synthesize ectoine but not hydroxyectoine. By using BLASTP, we searched and found similar gene cluster in other Microbulbifer genomes except Microbulbifer variabilis ATCC 700307 T. While the reason for the absence of these genes in Microbulbifer variabilis ATCC 700307 T is unknown, our findings suggest that Microbulbifer utilized only ectoine instead of ectoine/hydroxyectoine mixture. The transcriptional regulator of ectoine operon, EctR, found in Methylophaga thalassica belongs to MarR family [63]. HTH transcriptional regulator (AUP74_00284) in CCB-MM1 also contains the conserved domain of MarR family. This implies that the HTH transcriptional regulator is likely the putative transcriptional regulator of ectoine operon in Microbulbifer . Ectoine has attracted considerable biotechnological interest due to its stabilizing effects that extend from proteins [64], nucleic acids [65] to whole cells [66]. Such properties allow it to be used in skin care product as cell protectants [66], protein stabilizers [67] and medical application as cryoprotectants in cryopreservation of human cells [68].

Conclusion

In this study we presented the complete genome sequence of Microbulbifer sp. CCB-MM1 with genome size of 3.86 Mb and G + C content of 58.85%. We discussed some insights on its phenotypic characteristics from the genomic perspective, covering carbohydrate active enzymes, rod-coccus cell cycle and secondary metabolite, ectoine. The genome sequence provides valuable information for functional elucidations of novel enzymes for both biotechnological application and fundamental research purposes.

Abbreviations

ANI: 

Average nucleotide identity

antiSMASH: 

Antibiotics & Secondary Metabolite Analysis Shell

CCB: 

Centre for Chemical Biology

dbCAN: 

Database for automated carbohydrate-active enzyme annotation

GH: 

Glycoside hydrolase

H-ASWM: 

High nutrient artificial seawater media

MM: 

Matang Mangrove

PL: 

Polysaccharide lyase

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Balachandra Dinesh for isolating Microbulbifer sp. CCB-MM1 and Ka Kei Sam for extracting the genomic DNA. N.-S. Lau and G. Furusawa gratefully acknowledge the post-doctoral fellowships granted by Universiti Sains Malaysia. T.H. Moh also acknowledges the financial support provided by Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia (MOHE) through MyBrain15 MyMaster scholarship.

Funding

This work was conducted as part of the mangrove project supported by Research University (RU) mangrove project grant (1001/PCCB/870009) to Centre for Chemical Biology, Universiti Sains Malaysia.

Authors’ contributions

TH performed the genome assembly, annotation, bioinformatics analyses and wrote the manuscript. NS and GF designed the experiments and revised the manuscript. AAA coordinated the project and determined the project direction. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

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)
Centre for Chemical Biology, Universiti Sains Malaysia
(2)
School of Biological Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia

References

  1. Gonzalez JM, Mayer F, Moran MA, Hodson RE, Whitman WB. Microbulbifer hydrolyticus gen. nov., sp. nov., and Marinobacterium georgiense gen. nov., sp. nov., two marine bacteria from a lignin-rich pulp mill waste enrichment community. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1997;47:369–76.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Zhang DS, Huo YY, Xu XW, Wu YH, Wang CS, Xu XF, et al. Microbulbifer marinus sp. nov. and Microbulbifer yueqingensis sp. nov., isolated from marine sediment. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2012;62:505–10.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Yoon J-H, Kim I-G, Shin D-Y, Kang KH, Park Y-H. Microbulbifer salipaludis sp. nov., a moderate halophile isolated from a Korean salt marsh. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2003;53:53–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Kampfer P, Arun AB, Young CC, Rekha PD, Martin K, Busse HJ, et al. Microbulbifer taiwanensis sp. nov., isolated from coastal soil. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2012;62:2485–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Baba A, Miyazaki M, Nagahama T, Nogi Y. Microbulbifer chitinilyticus sp. nov. and Microbulbifer okinawensis sp. nov., chitin-degrading bacteria isolated from mangrove forests. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2011;61:2215–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Miyazaki M, Nogi Y, Ohta Y, Hatada Y, Fujiwara Y, Ito S, et al. Microbulbifer agarilyticus sp. nov. and Microbulbifer thermotolerans sp. nov., agar-degrading bacteria isolated from deep-sea sediment. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2008;58:1128–33.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Vashist P, Nogi Y, Ghadi SC, Verma P, Shouche YS. Microbulbifer mangrovi sp. nov., a polysaccharide-degrading bacterium isolated from an Indian mangrove. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2013;63:2532–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Jobling S. Improving starch for food and industrial applications. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2004;7:210–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Avérous L, Halley PJ. Starch polymers: from the field to industrial products. In: Avérous L, Halley PJ, editors. Starch polymers. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2014. p. 3–10.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Bai FW, Anderson WA, Moo-Young M. Ethanol fermentation technologies from sugar and starch feedstocks. Biotechnol Adv. 2008;26:89–105.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Sen G, Sharon A, Pal S. Grafted polysaccharides: smart materials of the future, their synthesis and applications. In: Kalia S, Avérous L, editors. Biopolymers: biomedical and environmental applications. Hoboken: Wiley; 2011. p. 99–127.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Reddy K, Mohan GK, Satla S, Gaikwad S. Natural polysaccharides: versatile excipients for controlled drug delivery systems. Asian J Pharm Sci. 2011;6:275–86.Google Scholar
  13. Tizzotti M, Charlot A, Fleury E, Stenzel M, Bernard J. Modification of polysaccharides through controlled/living radical polymerization grafting—Towards the generation of high performance hybrids. Macromol Rapid Commun. 2010;31:1751–72.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. D’Ayala G, Malinconico M, Laurienzo P. Marine derived polysaccharides for biomedical applications: chemical modification approaches. Molecules. 2008;13:2069.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Karaki N, Aljawish A, Humeau C, Muniglia L, Jasniewski J. Enzymatic modification of polysaccharides: mechanisms, properties, and potential applications: a review. Enzym Microb Technol. 2016;90:1–18.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Gübitz GM, Paulo AC. New substrates for reliable enzymes: enzymatic modification of polymers. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2003;14:577–82.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Oh C, De Zoysa M, Kwon YK, Heo SJ, Affan A, Jung WK, et al. Complete genome sequence of the agarase-producing marine bacterium strain s89, representing a novel species of the genus Alteromonas. J Bacteriol. 2011;193:5538.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Sun C, Chen YJ, Zhang XQ, Pan J, Cheng H, Wu M. Draft genome sequence of Microbulbifer elongatus strain HZ11, a brown seaweed-degrading bacterium with potential ability to produce bioethanol from alginate. Mar Genomics. 2014;18:83–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Lee YS, Choi YL. Complete genome sequence of cold-adapted enzyme producing Microbulbifer thermotolerans DAU221. J Biotechnol. 2016;229:31–2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Dinesh B, Lau N-S, Furusawa G, Kim S-W, Taylor TD, Foong SY, et al. Comparative genome analyses of novel Mangrovimonas-like strains isolated from estuarine mangrove sediments reveal xylan and arabinan utilization genes. Mar Genomics. 2016;25:115–21.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Furusawa G, Lau NS, Shu-Chien AC, Jaya-Ram A, Amirul AAA. Identification of polyunsaturated fatty acid and diterpenoid biosynthesis pathways from draft genome of Aureispira sp. CCB-QB1. Mar Genomics. 2015;19:39–44.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Weisburg WG, Barns SM, Pelletier DA, Lane DJ. 16S ribosomal DNA amplification for phylogenetic study. J Bacteriol. 1991;173:697–703.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ. Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol. 1990;215:403–10.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Meier-Kolthoff JP, Göker M, Spröer C, Klenk H-P. When should a DDH experiment be mandatory in microbial taxonomy? Arch Microbiol. 2013;195:413–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Edgar RC. MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32:1792–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Edgar RC. MUSCLE: a multiple sequence alignment method with reduced time and space complexity. BMC Bioinform. 2004;5:113.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Saitou N, Nei M. The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol Biol Evol. 1987;4:406–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Felsenstein J. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution. 1985;39:783–91.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Fulton J, Douglas T, Young AM. Isolation of viruses from high temperature environments. Methods Mol Biol. 2009;501:43–54.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Chin C-S, Alexander DH, Marks P, Klammer AA, Drake J, Heiner C, et al. Nonhybrid, finished microbial genome assemblies from long-read SMRT sequencing data. Nat Meth. 2013;10:563–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Seemann T. Prokka: rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:2068–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Hyatt D, Chen G-L, LoCascio PF, Land ML, Larimer FW, Hauser LJ. Prodigal: prokaryotic gene recognition and translation initiation site identification. BMC Bioinform. 2010;11:1–11.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Lagesen K, Hallin P, Rodland EA, Staerfeldt HH, Rognes T, Ussery DW. RNAmmer: consistent and rapid annotation of ribosomal RNA genes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007;35:3100–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Laslett D, Canback B. ARAGORN, a program to detect tRNA genes and tmRNA genes in nucleotide sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32:11–6.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Petersen TN, Brunak S, von Heijne G, Nielsen H. SignalP 4.0: discriminating signal peptides from transmembrane regions. Nat Meth. 2011;8:785–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Kolbe DL, Eddy SR. Fast filtering for RNA homology search. Bioinformatics. 2011;27:3102–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Bairoch A, Apweiler R, Wu CH, Barker WC, Boeckmann B, Ferro S, et al. The universal protein resource (UniProt). Nucleic Acids Res. 2005;33:154–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Kanehisa M, Goto S. KEGG: kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2000;28:27–30.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Marchler-Bauer A, Zheng C, Chitsaz F, Derbyshire MK, Geer LY, Geer RC, et al. CDD: conserved domains and protein three-dimensional structure. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41:348–52.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Galperin MY, Makarova KS, Wolf YI, Koonin EV. Expanded microbial genome coverage and improved protein family annotation in the COG database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;43:D261–9.Google Scholar
  42. Weber T, Blin K, Duddela S, Krug D, Kim HU, Bruccoleri R, et al. antiSMASH 3.0—a comprehensive resource for the genome mining of biosynthetic gene clusters. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43:W237–43.Google Scholar
  43. Yin Y, Mao X, Yang J, Chen X, Mao F, Xu Y. dbCAN: a web resource for automated carbohydrate-active enzyme annotation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40:445–51.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Grant JR, Arantes AS, Stothard P. Comparing thousands of circular genomes using the CGView Comparison tool. BMC Genomics. 2012;13:1–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Richter M, Rosselló-Móra R. Shifting the genomic gold standard for the prokaryotic species definition. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106:19126–31.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Kim M, Oh H-S, Park S-C, Chun J. Towards a taxonomic coherence between average nucleotide identity and 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity for species demarcation of prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2014;64:346–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Eddy SR. Accelerated profile HMM searches. PLoS Comput Biol. 2011;7:e1002195.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  48. Patil RS, Ghormade V, Deshpande MV. Chitinolytic enzymes: an exploration. Enzym Microb Technol. 2000;26:473–83.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Nishijima M, Takadera T, Imamura N, Kasai H, An K-D, Adachi K, et al. Microbulbifer variabilis sp. nov. and Microbulbifer epialgicus sp. nov., isolated from Pacific marine algae, possess a rod–coccus cell cycle in association with the growth phase. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2009;59:1696–707.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Levin PA, Margolis PS, Setlow P, Losick R, Sun D. Identification of Bacillus subtilis genes for septum placement and shape determination. J Bacteriol. 1992;174:6717–28.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Henriques AO, Glaser P, Piggot PJ, Moran CP Jr. Control of cell shape and elongation by the rodA gene in Bacillus subtilis. Mol Microbiol. 1998;28:235–47.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Alyahya SA, Alexander R, Costa T, Henriques AO, Emonet T, Jacobs-Wagner C. RodZ, a component of the bacterial core morphogenic apparatus. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106:1239–44.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  53. Freire P, Neves Moreira R, Arraiano CM. BolA inhibits cell elongation and regulates MreB expression levels. J Mol Biol. 2009;385:1345–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Soufo HJ, Graumann PL. Actin-like proteins MreB and Mbl from Bacillus subtilis are required for bipolar positioning of replication origins. Curr Biol. 2003;13:1916–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Kruse T, Bork-Jensen J, Gerdes K. The morphogenetic MreBCD proteins of Escherichia coli form an essential membrane-bound complex. Mol Microbiol. 2005;55:78–89.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Burger A, Sichler K, Kelemen G, Buttner M, Wohlleben W. Identification and characterization of the mre gene region of Streptomyces coelicolor A3(2). Mol Gen Genet. 2000;263:1053–60.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Slovak PM, Wadhams GH, Armitage JP. Localization of MreB in Rhodobacter sphaeroides under conditions causing changes in cell shape and membrane structure. J Bacteriol. 2005;187:54–64.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  58. Jones LJ, Carballido-Lopez R, Errington J. Control of cell shape in bacteria: helical, actin-like filaments in Bacillus subtilis. Cell. 2001;104:913–22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Kruse T, Moller-Jensen J, Lobner-Olesen A, Gerdes K. Dysfunctional MreB inhibits chromosome segregation in Escherichia coli. EMBO J. 2003;22:5283–92.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  60. Louis P, Galinski EA. Characterization of genes for the biosynthesis of the compatible solute ectoine from Marinococcus halophilus and osmoregulated expression in Escherichia coli. Microbiology. 1997;143:1141–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Ofer N, Wishkautzan M, Meijler M, Wang Y, Speer A, Niederweis M, et al. Ectoine biosynthesis in Mycobacterium smegmatis. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2012;78:7483–6.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  62. Peters P, Galinski EA, Trüper HG. The biosynthesis of ectoine. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 1990;71:157–62.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  63. Mustakhimov II, Reshetnikov AS, Fedorov DN, Khmelenina VN, Trotsenko YA. Role of EctR as transcriptional regulator of ectoine biosynthesis genes in Methylophaga thalassica. Biochem Mosc. 2012;77:857–63.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  64. Lippert K, Galinski EA. Enzyme stabilization be ectoine-type compatible solutes: protection against heating, freezing and drying. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 1992;37:61–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  65. Kurz M. Compatible solute influence on nucleic acids: many questions but few answers. Saline Syst. 2008;4:6.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  66. Graf R, Anzali S, Buenger J, Pfluecker F, Driller H. The multifunctional role of ectoine as a natural cell protectant. Clin Dermatol. 2008;26:326–33.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Lentzen G, Schwarz T. Extremolytes: natural compounds from extremophiles for versatile applications. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2006;72:623–34.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Grein TA, Freimark D, Weber C, Hudel K, Wallrapp C, Czermak P. Alternatives to dimethylsulfoxide for serum-free cryopreservation of human mesenchymal stem cells. Int J Artif Organs. 2010;33:370–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 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.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  70. 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
  71. Garrity GM, Bell JA, Lilburn T. Phylum XIV. Proteobacteria phyl. Nov. In: Garrity GM, Brenner DJ, Krieg NR, Staley JT, editors. Bergey’s manual of systematic bacteriology. 2nd Ed. Volume 2, part B. New York: Springer; 2005. p. 1.Google Scholar
  72. Garrity GM, Bell JA, Lilburn T. Class III. Gammaproteobacteria class. nov. In: Garrity GM, Brenner DJ, Krieg NR, Staley JT, editors. Bergey’s manual of systematic bacteriology. 2nd Ed. Volume 2, part B. New York: Springer; 2005. p. 1.Google Scholar
  73. Spring S, Scheuner C, Göker M, Klenk H-P. A taxonomic framework for emerging groups of ecologically important marine gammaproteobacteria based on the reconstruction of evolutionary relationships using genome-scale data. Front Microbiol. 2015;6:281.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  74. Oren A, Garrity GM. Validation list no. 164. List of new names and new combinations previously effectively, but not validly, published. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2015;65:2017–25.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  75. 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

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017