Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Extended genome report
  • Open Access

Complete genome sequence of the Robinia pseudoacacia L. symbiont Mesorhizobium amorphae CCNWGS0123

  • 1,
  • 2,
  • 2,
  • 2,
  • 1 and
  • 1Email author
Standards in Genomic Sciences201813:18

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40793-018-0321-3

  • Received: 19 December 2016
  • Accepted: 11 August 2018
  • Published:

Abstract

Mesorhizobium amorphae CCNWGS0123 was isolated in 2006, from effective nodules of Robinia pseudoacacia L. grown in lead-zinc mine tailing site, in Gansu Province, China. M. amorphae CCNWGS0123 is an aerobic, Gram-negative, non-spore-forming rod strain. This paper characterized M. amorphae CCNWGS0123 and presents its complete genome sequence information and genome annotation. The 7,374,589 bp long genome which encodes 7136 protein-coding genes and 63 RNA coding genes, contains one chromosome and four plasmids. Moreover, a chromosome with no gaps was assembled.

Keywords

  • Rhizobia
  • Symbiosis
  • Nodulation
  • Nitrogen

Introduction

Soil microorganism - rhizobia (root nodule bacteria) could establish a symbiotic relationship with Leguminosae plants, forming a special organ - root nodule, the bacteroid in the root nodules converts atmospheric N2 into ammonium [1, 2]. The ammonium could help the host plants in surviving in N-limited environmental conditions [3]; in turn, host plants could provide the rhizobia with carbon and energy source for their growth and functions [4]. Establishment of this symbiosis requires successful infection in legume roots, and such infection is a multifaceted developmental process driven by the bacteria, but is ultimately under the control of the host [5]. This mutualistic association is highly specific such that each rhizobial species/strain interacts only with a specific group of legumes, and vice versa [6],this phenomenon is termed as symbiosis specificity. Rhizobium leguminosarum bv. trifolii WSM1325 could nodulate a diverse range of annual Trifolium (clover) species [7]. Robinia pseudoacacia L. are nodulated by Mesorhizobium and Sinorhizobium species which shared similar nodulation genes [8].

Mesorhizobium amorphae CCNWGS0123 was isolated from the root nodules of R. pseudoacacia L. grown in lead-zinc mine tailing site in Gansu Province, China [9]. The strain could promote the survival of its host plant in copper-, zinc- and chromium-contaminated environments [10]. The heavy metal tolerance and resistance mechanism of this strain has been investigated in previously studies [9, 11, 12].

In Chen’s study, they found that M. amorphae CCNWGS0123 nodulate with R. pseudoacacia L. [13]. The M. amorphae CCNWGS0123-R. pseudoacacia L. symbiosis system was selected to establish a rhizobium-legume symbiosis signal network. In order to provide some basis for the signal network establishment, the complete genome sequence and annotation of M. amorphae CCNWGS0123 genome were reported in this study.

Organism information

Classification and features

M. amorphae CCNWGS0123 was isolated in 2006, from root nodules collected from R. pseudoacacia L. growing in lead-zinc mine tailing site in Gansu Province, China. M. amorphae CCNWGS0123 is a motile, non-spore forming, non-encapsulated, Gram-negative bacteria in the order Rhizobiales of the class Alphaproteobacteria . The rod-shaped bacterium is 0.41–0.65 μm wide and 0.47–1.68 μm long (Fig. 1a). M. amorphae CCNWGS0123 is nearly morphologically similar to M. amorphae ACCC 19665T (Fig. 1b). Colonies on solid media are circular, and translucent with a diameter of 1 mm growing for 7 days at 28 °C, the generation times range from 6 h to 13 h in YM broth as described by Wang in 1999 [14].
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

SEM (Scanning electron microscope) micrograph of M. amorphae CCNWGS0123 cells (a) and M. amorphae ACCC 19665T (b)

M. amorphae CCNWGS0123 genome contains two (100% identical) copies of 16S rRNA gene. The phylogenetic neighborhood of M. amorphae strain CCNWGS0123 in a 16S rRNA gene sequence-based tree is shown in Fig. 2. Phylogenetic analyses were performed using MEGA version 6 [15]. The evolutionary history was inferred using the Maximum Likelihood method based on the Tamura-Nei model [16]; the percentage of replicate trees to which the associated taxa were clustered in the bootstrap test (500 replicates) are shown next to the branches [17]. M. amorphae CCNWGS0123 is phylogenetically closely related to the type strain- M. amorphae ACCC 19665T, with a 16S rRNA gene sequence identity of 99.93% (1471/1472 bp).
Fig. 2
Fig. 2

Phylogenetic tree showing the relationships of Mesorhizobium amorphae CCNWGS0123 with other root nodule bacteria based on aligned sequences of a 1296 bp internal region of the 16S rRNA gene. All sites were informative and there were no gap-containing sites. Phylogenetic analyses were performed using MEGA, version 6 [15]. The tree was built using the Maximum Likelihood method based on the Tamura-Nei model [16]. Bootstrap analysis [17] with 500 replicates was performed to assess the support of the clusters

The minimum information about the genome sequence (MIGS) is provided in Table 1.
Table 1

Classification and general features of Mesorhizobium amorphae CCNWGS0123

MIGS ID

Property

Term

Evidence codea

 

Classification

Domain: Bacteria

TAS [39]

  

Phylum: Proteobacteria

TAS [39, 40]

  

Class: Alphaproteobacteria

TAS [39, 41, 42]

  

Order: Rhizobiales

TAS [39, 42, 43]

  

Family: Phyllobacteriaceae

TAS [39, 42]

  

Genus: Mesorhizobium

TAS [44, 45]

  

Species: Mesorhizobium amorphae

TAS [14]

  

Stain: CCNWGS0123

 
 

Gram strain

Negative

NAS

 

Cell shape

rod

NAS

 

Motility

motile

NAS

 

Sporulation

None-spore forming

NAS

 

Temperature range

Not reported

 
 

Optimum temperature

28 °C

NAS

 

Carbon source

D xylose, galactose, L-arabinose, D-ribose, rhamnose, mannose, maltose, glucose, saccharose, lactose

TAS

MIGS-6

Habitat

Soil, Host-associated

TAS [13, 39]

MIGS-6.3

Salinity range

Not reported

 

MIGS-22

Oxygen requirement

aerobic

NAS

MIGS-15

Biotic relationship

Free living, Symbiont

NAS

MIGS-14

Pathogenicity

Non-pathogen

NAS

MIGS-4

Geographic location

China: Gansu, Huixian

IDA

MIGS-5

Sample collection

2006

IDA

MIGS-4.1

Latitude

33.8 N

IDA

MIGS-4.2

Longitude

106.1E

IDA

MIGS-4.4

Altitude

1049 m

IDA

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 [27]

Biochemical profiling

For a detailed biochemical characterization of M. amorphae CCNWGS0123, the strain was cultivated for 5 days in 30 ml of Tryptone-Yeast (TY) liquid medium at 28 °C under 200 rpm, and then harvested by centrifugation at 4000 rpm for 5 min. The harvested cells were washed three times by inoculation buffer, resuspended, and diluted in inoculation buffer to reach an optical density of OD600nm = 0.5. The suspension was used for inoculation of Biolog GN2, and GENIII plates (Biolog Inc., USA), and then the plates were incubated for several days at 28 °C. Microtiter plate reader (Bio-Rad, USA) was used for data analysis.

Analyses of the GN2 plates revealed that M. amorphae CCNWGS0123 could utilize the following substrates: β-Methyl-D-glucoside, D-galacturonic acid γ- lactone, D-xylose/aldopentose, D-galacturonic acid, I-erythritol, 2-hydroxybenzoic acid, 4-hydroxybenzoic acid, α- cyclodextrin, itaconic acid and D-malic acid. In GENIII plates, the following substrates were utilized: D-maltose, D-trehalose, D-cellobiose, gentiobiose, sucrose, D-turanose, D-raffinose, α-D-lactose, D-melibiose, β-methyl-D-glucoside, D-salicin, N-acetyl-D-glucosamine, N-acetyl-β-D-mannosamine, N-acetyl-D-galactosamine, α-D-glucose, D-mannose, D-fructose, D-galactose, D-fucose, L-fucose, L-rhamnose, D-sorbitol, D-mannitol, D-arabitol, myo-inositol, lycerol, glycyl-L-proline, L-alanine, L-arginine, L-glutamic acid, L-histidine, quinic acid, L-serine, methyl pyruvate, L-lactic acid, D-malic acid and γ-amino-butryric acid.

Compared with the previously described M. amorphae type strain- ACCC 19665T, M. amorphae CCNWGS0123 could not utilize L- phenylalanine, γ- hydroxybutyrate, L-threonine, glycogen, D- glucose histidine, Α-D-lactose, inosine, L-aspartic acid, mucic acid, L-malic acid, bromo-succinic acid in GN2 and GENIII plates.

Resilience to abiotic factors and antibiotic resistance

M. amorphae CCNWGS0123 could grow on Biolog GenIII plates at an optical density similar to that in positive control at pH 5, pH 6, 1% NaCl, and 1% sodium lactate, and to a lower optical density in lincomycin and nalidixic Acid. This strain could not grow at 4% NaCl or 8% NaCl. Moreover, the growth was inhibited by fusidic acid, D-serine, troleandomycin, rifamycin SV, minocycline, guanidine HCl, Niaproof 4, vancomycin, tetrazolium violet, tetrazolium blue, lithium chloride, potassium tellurite, aztreonam, sodium butyrate and sodium bromate.

Symbiotaxonomy

As shown in Additional file 1: Table S1, according to nodulation test, M. amorphae CCNWGS0123 is an effective microsymbiont only for woody legumes (R. pseudoacacia L. and A. fruticose). But the strain could not nodulate with other genera of legume plants, such as Medicago sativa .

Genome sequencing information

Genome project history

Because of its ability of heavy metal resistance and establishing symbiosis with R. pseudoacacia L., M. amorphae CCNWGS0123 was selected for sequencing. Its draft genome sequence was obtained in 2012 using 454 pyrophosphate sequencing technology [10]. To close the gap and correct some mistakes in annotation, the complete genome sequence of M. amorphae CCNWGS0123 was obtained in 2015 by using Single Molecule Real-Time (SMRT) technology. Sequencing was performed at Beijing Novogene Bioinformatics Technology Co., Ltd. The final genome assembly of M. amorphae CCNWGS0123 is of high quality and completed on five scaffolds (one chromosome and four plasmids) with a sequencing coverage of approximately 134.86 fold. The complete genome sequence of M. amorphae CCNWGS0123 was deposited in GenBank (accession numbers CP015318 - CP015322). The project information was summarized in Table 2.
Table 2

Project information

MIGS ID

Property

Term

MIGS 31

Finishing quality

High-quality,closed genome

MIGS-28

Libraries used

A 10Kb library

MIGS-29

Sequencing platforms

PacBio RS II

MIGS-31.2

Fold coverage

134.86×

MIGS-30

Assemblers

Celera Assembler CA 8.1

MIGS-32

Gene calling method

GeneMarkS

 

Locus Tag

Mea0123

 

Genbank ID

Chromosome CP015318; pM0123a CP015319; pM0123b CP015320; pM0123c CP015321; pM0123d CP015322

 

Genbank date of Release

July 18,2016

 

BIOPROJECT

PRJNA318467

MIGS-13

Source Material Identifier

CCNWGS0123

 

Project relevance

Legume plant symbiosis

Growth conditions and genomic DNA preparation

M. amorphae CCNWGS0123 was cultured in TY extract medium and allowed to grow from a single colony at 28 °C in flask agitated under 200 rpm as described previously [18]. Cells were harvested by centrifugation at 5000 rpm, and total DNA was prepared using a TaKaRa MiniBest Bacterial Genomic DNA Extraction Kit Ver. 3.0 (Dalian, China). Thermo Scientific NanoDrop 2000 was used to quantify the DNA in order to ensure that the quality is suitable for sequencing analyses.

Genome sequencing and assembly

The genome of M. amorphae CCNWGS0123 was sequenced using SMRT technology at the Beijing Novogene Bioinformatics Technology Co., Ltd. A 10 kb library was constructed; SMRT Analysis 2.3.0 was used to filter the low-quality reads; and then the filtered reads were assembled to generate scaffold without gaps. The total genome sequence was 7,343,952 bp long, consisting of one chromosome and four plasmids, and with an average coverage of 134.86 fold. The overview of the genome information is shown in Table 3.
Table 3

Genome statistics

Attribute

Value

% of total

Genome size (bp)

7,343,952

100

DNA coding (bp)

6,378,582

86.85

DNA G + C (bp)

4,670,753

62.87

DNA scaffolds

4

 

Total genes

7378

100

Protein coding genes

7136

96.45

RNA genes

63

0.92

Pseudo genes

179

 

Genes in internal clusters

NA

 

Genes with function prediction

6726

98.62

Genes assigned to COGs

4758

68.34

Genes with Pfam domains

5805

83.38

Genes with signal peptides

2239

35.72

Genes with transmembrane helices

1585

22.77

CRISPR repeats

4

Genome annotation

Gene prediction was performed by using GeneMarkS (http://topaz.gatech.edu/) with integrated model that combine the GeneMarkS generated (native) and Heuristic model parameters [19]. A whole genome Blast search [20] (E-value is less than 1e-5; minimal alignment length percentage is larger than 40%) was performed against six databases, namely, Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes [2123], Clusters of Orthologous Groups [24, 25], Non-Redundant Protein Database databases (NR), SwissProt [26] and Gene Ontology [27] and TrEMBL [26]. Transfer RNA (tRNA) genes were predicted using tRNAscan-SE [28]; rRNA genes were predicted using rRNAmmer [29], and small RNA (sRNA) were predicted by BLAST against Rfam [30] database. PHAST [31] was used for prophage prediction (http://phast.wishartlab.com/) and CRISPR Finder [32] was used for CRISPR identification.

Genome properties

M. amorphae CCNWGS0123 genome was consisted of one 6,268,270 bp circular chromosome, one 948,568 bp circular symbiotic plasmid (pM0123d), and three non-circular plasmids (pM0123a-c), whose length ranged from 7607 bp to 102,093 bp (Table 3, Fig. 3). As shown in Table 3, the genome had an average G + C content of 62.87%. The number of predicted genes is 7136. The chromosome contained 53 tRNAs, 4 sRNAs, two copies of 5S, 16S, and 23S rRNA genes. A total of 4758 (66.68%) protein-coding genes were annotated by COG database. The COG assignment of the functional genes is summarized in Table 4. The genome contained highest number of functional genes participating in amino acid transport and metabolism (765), followed by general function prediction only (734). The gene assignments in the six databases are summarized in Table 5. Ten incomplete prophases were identified in chromosome, and two intact prophases were identified in pM0123d. Only four CRISPRs were identified throughout the genome.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3

Graphical map of Mesorhizobium amorphae CCNWGS0123 genome. From outside to the center: sequence position coordinates, coding gene, COG assignment, KEGG assignment, GO assignment, ncRNA, G + C content and G + C skew

Table 4

Number of genes associated with the general COG functional categories

Code

Value

% of total

Description

J

190

2.64

Translation, ribosomal structure and biogenesis

A

0

0.00

RNA processing and modification

K

467

6.49

Transcription

L

200

2.78

Replication, recombination and repair

B

4

0.06

Chromatin structure and dynamics

D

26

0.36

Cell cycle control, mitosis and meiosis

V

26

0.36

Defense mechanisms

T

19

0.26

Signal transduction mechanisms

M

253

3.51

Cell wall/membrane biogenesis

N

43

0.60

Cell motility

U

101

1.40

Intracellular trafficking and secretion

O

181

2.51

Posttranslational modification, protein turnover, chaperones

C

328

4.56

Energy production and conversion

G

492

6.83

Carbohydrate transport and metabolism

E

765

10.63

Amino acid transport and metabolism

F

66

0.92

Nucleotide transport and metabolism

H

189

2.63

Coenzyme transport and metabolism

I

233

3.24

Lipid transport and metabolism

P

283

3.93

Inorganic ion transport and metabolism

Q

197

2.74

Secondary metabolites biosynthesis, transport and catabolism

R

734

10.20

General function prediction only

S

485

6.74

Function unknown

1690

23.48

Not in COGs

Table 5

Function annotation assignment from different databases

Database

Assigned Number

Percent (%)

COG

4758

66.68

GO

4163

58.34

KEGG

3700

51.85

NR

6726

94.25

Swissprot

2268

31.78

TrEMBL

6096

85.43

Annotated

6962

97.56

Total

7136

100

Extended insights from the genome sequence

Genomic comparison between M. amorphae CCNWGS0123 and other Mesorhizobium species

The genome of M. amorphae CCNWGS0123 was compared with those of four Mesorhizobium strains, including M. huakuii 7653R, M. loti MAFF303099, M. ciceri WSM1271 and M. opportunistum WSM2075. The general features of the five Mesorhizobium genomes were summarized in Table 6. Totally, 6918 orthologous groups of genes were identified in the five Mesorhizobium strains. Among these groups, 1024 groups were conserved among the five genomes, and these orthologous groups were termed as the core genome of the five Mesorhizobium genomes (Fig. 4). Additionally, 2159 orthologous groups were present in four of the five genomes; 1912 orthologous groups were found in three genomes; and the remaining 1833 orthologous groups are present in two genomes. M. amorphae CCNWGS0123 had 1147 strain specific genes, occupied 16.07% of the total coding genes.
Table 6

General Information of five Mesorhizobium genome

 

CCNWGS0123

7653R

MAFF303099

WSM1271

WSM2075

length

7,343,952

6,881,676

7,569,297

6,690,028

6,884,444

G + C%

62.8

62.86

62.51

62.56

62.87

gene

7378

6661

7298

6532

6576

CDS

7136

6235

7076

6264

6418

RNA

63

55

60

62

61

Fig. 4
Fig. 4

Core and accessory genome analysis of five Mesorhizobium strains

Metabolism pathway

A total of 3700 genes could find their corresponding genes in the KEGG database; these genes participate in 132 KEGG metabolism pathways (Additional file 2: Table S2), including amino acid metabolism, carbohydrate metabolism, and nucleotide metabolism pathways. A specific metabolism pathway, namely, Nitrogen metabolism was observed in M. amorphae CCNWGS0123 (Fig. 5), 48 genes participate in nitrogen biosynthesis and degradation (Additional file 3: Table S3). Three genes, nifK, nifD and nifH participate in biosynthesis of the key enzyme- nitrogenase.
Fig. 5
Fig. 5

The pathway of synthesis and degradation of nitrogen

Nitrogen fixation genes

Nitrogen fixation related genes homologous to N2 fixation genes in Klebsiella pneumoniae [33, 34] are referred to as nif genes; the other genes which are also essential in symbiotic N2 fixation but sharing no homology to K. pneumoniae are called fix genes [35]. A total of 29 nif/fix genes were found in M. amorphae CCNWGS0123 genome (Additional file 4: Table S4), and most of these genes display a relatively high similarity with those of other Mesorhizobium species based on amino acid sequences, except for NifV (< 35%).

Nodulation genes

Rhizobia could establish symbiotic interactions with many legume species, and convert atmospheric N2 into ammonium. In rhizobial strains, two cluster genes, namely, nodulation and nitrogen fixation genes, play crucial roles in these processes [2, 36]. Nodulation factors (NFs), as key signals in rhizobia, are encoded by three groups of nodulation genes. The first group contained common nod genes, whose products are required in the backbone of NF structrures (nodABC); these genes are present in nearly all of rhizobia strains. The second group included the host-specific nod genes participating in species-specific modifications of the NF core (nodEF, nodG, nodH, nodPQ and nodRL). The third group included the regulatory genes (nodD, nolR and nodVW) [37, 38].

As shown in Additional file 5: Table S5, M. amorphae CCNWGS0123 genome contained 12 nodulation genes. Compared with the other four Mesorhizobium strains, M. amorphae CCNWGS0123 contained the lowest number of nodulation genes. Moreover, most of the proteins encoded by these genes displayed low sequence similarities with the corresponding proteins in other Mesorhizobium strains based on amino acid sequences, with exceptions of NodF (> 95%) and NodN (> 97%).

Genes related to heavy metal resistance

M. amorphae CCNWGS0123 was isolated from R. pseudoacacia L. nodules who grown in lead-zinc mine tailing site, the strain could help its host plant to survive in copper-, zinc-, and chromium-contaminated environments [9, 10]. The strain possesses multiple heavy metal tolerance and equilibrium ability [9]. Compared with other Mesorhizobium strains, M. amorphae CCNWGS0123 contained more genes participating in heavy metal resistance and transport. As shown in Additional file 6: Table S6, a total of 46 genes participating in heavy mental (Ag, As, Cd, Co, Cu, Hg, Mo or Zn) resistance and transport were identified in M. amorphae CCNWGS0123 genome. Genes participating in heavy mental resistance and transport were also identified in other Mesorhizobium genomes, 32 genes were identified in M. huakuii 7653R genome, 35 genes were identified in M. loti MAFF303099 genome, 28 genes were identified in M. ciceri WSM1271 genome and 26 genes were identified in M. opportunistum WSM2075 genome.

Compared with the other four strains, M. amorphae CCNWGS0123 contained 10 specific genes involved in heavy mental As (mea0123GM001797, mea0123GM002757, mea0123GM004652 and mea0123GM006759), Cd/Zn/Co (mea0123GM001790 and mea0123GM004338), Cu (mea0123GM001765, mea0123GM006395, mea0123GM006849) and Cu/Ag (mea0123GM001789) resistance and transport and one CadZ encoding gene (mea0123GM000975). These genes may play important roles in helping survival in heavy mental-contaminated soil.

Conclusions

The previous study presents the complete genome sequence of M. amorphae CCNWGS0123 which was isolated from R. pseudoacacia L. grown in lead-zinc mine tailing site. A total of 46 genes involved in heavy metal tolerance were identified in the whole genome sequence. As predicted by Wang [14], M. amorphae strains harbor one 0.9 Mb symbiotic plasmid. M. amorphae CCNWGS0123 genome contains a circular symbiotic plasmid with 0.95 Mb. Symbiosis related genes (nodulation and nitrogen fixation genes) were found in the symbiotic plasmid (pM0123d). Compared with other Mesorhizobium stains, M. amorphae CCNWGS0123 contained different number and genetic constitution of symbiosis genes. The complete genome sequence of M. amorphae CCNWGS0123 will provide some bases in studying the heavy metal tolerance mechanism and signal regulation during symbiosis process.

Abbreviations

COG: 

Clusters of Orthologous Groups

GO: 

Gene Ontology

KEGG: 

Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes

NR: 

Non-Redundant Protein Database databases

SEM: 

scanning electron microscope

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Gehong Wei and Minxia Chou from Northwest A&F University, China for their kindly help. This work was funded by the National key Research and Development Program (2016YFD0200308) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (41671261).

Authors’ contributions

YL did the DNA extraction and preparation work for sequencing; DL did the SEM observation; JW performed phylogenetic analysis based on 16S rRNA gene; XW collected the data and draft the paper; WS helped the manuscript revison; LZ performed the five genome sequence comparison and helped the manuscript revision. All authors have 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)
Department of Liquor Making Engineering, Moutai College, 564500 Renhuai, People’s Republic of China
(2)
State Key Laboratory of Crop Stress Biology for Arid Areas, College of Life Science, Northwest A&F University, 712100 Yangling, China

References

  1. Tiwari R, Howieson J, Yates R, Tian R, Held B, Tapia R, et al. Genome sequence of Bradyrhizobium sp. WSM1253; a microsymbiont of Ornithopus compressus from the Greek Island of Sifnos. Standards in genomic sciences. 2015;10(1):1.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Janczarek M, Rachwał K, Marzec A, Grządziel J, Palusińska-Szysz M. Signal molecules and cell-surface components involved in early stages of the legume–rhizobium interactions. Appl Soil Ecol. 2015;85:94–113.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Eshraghi L, De Meyer SE, Tian R, Seshadri R, Ivanova N, Pati A, et al. High-quality permanent draft genome sequence of Bradyrhizobium sp. strain WSM1743-an effective microsymbiont of an Indigofera sp. growing in Australia. Standards in genomic sciences. 2015;10(1):1.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Sulieman S, Tran L-SP. Symbiotic nitrogen fixation in legume nodules: metabolism and regulatory mechanisms. Int J Mol Sci. 2014;15(11):19389–93.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Murray JD. Invasion by invitation: rhizobial infection in legumes. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact. 2011;24(6):631–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Wang D, Yang S, Tang F, Zhu H. Symbiosis specificity in the legume–rhizobial mutualism. Cell Microbiol. 2012;14(3):334–42.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Capela D, Barloy-Hubler F, Gouzy J, Bothe G, Ampe F, Batut J, et al. Analysis of the chromosome sequence of the legume symbiont Sinorhizobium meliloti strain 1021. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2001;98(17):9877–82.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Wei G, Chen W, Zhu W, Chen C, Young JPW, Bontemps C. Invasive Robinia pseudoacacia in China is nodulated by Mesorhizobium and Sinorhizobium species that share similar nodulation genes with native American symbionts. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2009;68(3):320–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Xie P, Hao X, Herzberg M, Luo Y, Nies DH, Wei G. Genomic analyses of metal resistance genes in three plant growth promoting bacteria of legume plants in northwest mine tailings, China. J Environ Sci. 2015;27:179–87.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Hao X, Lin Y, Johnstone L, Baltrus DA, Miller SJ, Wei G, et al. Draft genome sequence of plant growth-promoting rhizobium Mesorhizobium amorphae, isolated from zinc-lead mine tailings. J Bacteriol. 2012;194(3):736–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Mohamad OA, Hao X, Xie P, Hatab S, Lin Y, Wei G. Biosorption of copper (II) from aqueous solution using non-living Mesorhizobium amorphae strain CCNWGS0123. Microbes Environ. 2012;27(3):234.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Xie P, Hao X, Mohamad OA, Liang J, Wei G. Comparative study of chromium biosorption by Mesorhizobium amorphae strain CCNWGS0123 in single and binary mixtures. Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 2013;169(2):570–87.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Chen H, Chou M, Wang X, Liu S, Zhang F, Wei G. Profiling of differentially expressed genes in roots of Robinia pseudoacacia during nodule development using suppressive subtractive hybridization. PLoS One. 2013;8(6):e63930.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Wang E, Van Berkum P, Sui X, Beyene D, Chen W. Martínez-Romero E. Diversity of rhizobia associated with Amorpha fruticosa isolated from Chinese soils and description of Mesorhizobium amorphae sp. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 1999;49(1):51–65.Google Scholar
  15. Tamura K, Stecher G, Peterson D, Filipski A, Kumar S. MEGA6: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 6.0. Mol Biol Evol. 2013;30(12):2725–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Tamura K, Nei M. Estimation of the number of nucleotide substitutions in the control region of mitochondrial DNA in humans and chimpanzees. Mol Biol Evol. 1993;10(3):512–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Felsenstein J. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution. 1985:783–91.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Wang S, Hao B, Li J, Gu H, Peng J, Xie F, et al. Whole-genome sequencing of Mesorhizobium huakuii 7653R provides molecular insights into host specificity and symbiosis island dynamics. BMC Genomics. 2014;15(1):1.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Besemer J, Lomsadze A, Borodovsky M. GeneMarkS: a self-training method for prediction of gene starts in microbial genomes. Implications for finding sequence motifs in regulatory regions. Nucleic Acids Res. 2001;29(12):2607–18.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ. Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol. 1990;215(3):403–10.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Kanehisa M, Goto S, Kawashima S, Okuno Y, Hattori M. The KEGG resource for deciphering the genome. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32(suppl 1):D277–80.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Kanehisa M. A database for post-genome analysis. Trends Genet. 1997;13(9):375.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. 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(suppl 1):D354–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Tatusov RL, Koonin EV, Lipman DJ. A genomic perspective on protein families. Science. 1997;278(5338):631–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. 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(1):1.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Magrane M, Consortium U. UniProt Knowledgebase: a hub of integrated protein data. Database. 2011;2011:bar009.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. 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(1):25–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Lowe TM, Eddy SR. tRNAscan-SE: a program for improved detection of transfer RNA genes in genomic sequence. Nucleic Acids Res. 1997;25(5):955–64.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Lagesen K, Hallin P, Rødland EA, Stærfeldt H-H, Rognes T, Ussery DW. RNAmmer: consistent and rapid annotation of ribosomal RNA genes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007;35(9):3100–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. 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(suppl 1):D136–40.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Zhou Y, Liang Y, Lynch KH, Dennis JJ, Wishart DS. PHAST: a fast phage search tool. Nucleic acids Res. 2011:gkr485.Google Scholar
  32. Grissa I, Vergnaud G, Pourcel C. CRISPRFinder: a web tool to identify clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007;35(suppl 2):W52–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Trevisan V. Caratteri di alcuni nuovi generi di Batteriacee. Atti della Accademia Fisio-Medico-Statistica in Milano. Series. 1885;4(3):92–107.Google Scholar
  34. VBD S, McGowan V, PHA S. Approved lists of bacterial names. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 1980;30(1):225–420.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Megias M, Folch JL, Sousa C. Control of the expression of bacterial genes involved in symbiotic nitrogen-fixation. World J Microbiol Biotechnol. 1993;9(4):444–54.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Masson-Boivin C, Giraud E, Perret X, Batut J. Establishing nitrogen-fixing symbiosis with legumes: how many rhizobium recipes? Trends Microbiol. 2009;17(10):458–66.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Moulin L, Munive A, Dreyfus B, Boivin-Masson C. Nodulation of legumes by members of the β-subclass of Proteobacteria. Nature. 2001;411(6840):948–50.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Giraud E, Moulin L, Vallenet D, Barbe V, Cytryn E, Avarre J-C, et al. Legumes symbioses: absence of nod genes in photosynthetic bradyrhizobia. Science. 2007;316(5829):1307–12.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Berrada H, Fikri-Benbrahim K. Taxonomy of the rhizobia: current perspectives. Br Microbiol Res J. 2014;4(6):616.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Garrity G M, Bell J A, Phylum L T: XIV. Proteobacteria phyl nov. Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, 2: 1.Google Scholar
  41. Garrity GM, Bell JA, Lilburn T. Class I. Alphaproteobacteria class. In: Bergey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology. Second ed. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2005. p. 1.Google Scholar
  42. Garrity A. List of new names and new combinations previously effectively, but not validly, published. Gen. 2006;56(1):1–6.Google Scholar
  43. Kuykendall LD. Order VI. Rhizobiales ord. nov. In: Bergey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology. Second ed. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2005. p. 324.Google Scholar
  44. Novikova NI. Modern concepts of the phylogeny and taxonomy of nodule bacteria. Microbiology. 1996;65(4):383–94.Google Scholar
  45. Jarvis BDW, Van Berkum P, Chen WX, et al. Transfer of Rhizobium loti, Rhizobium huakuii, Rhizobium ciceri, Rhizobium mediterraneum, and Rhizobium tianshanense to Mesorhizobium gen. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 1997;47(3):895–8.Google Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Advertisement