Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Extended genome report
  • Open Access

Draft genome sequence of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum strain Fito_F321, an endophyte microorganism from Vitis vinifera with biocontrol potential

  • 1, 2,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1, 3,
  • 2,
  • 2 and
  • 1, 3Email author
Standards in Genomic Sciences201813:30

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40793-018-0327-x

  • Received: 15 January 2018
  • Accepted: 24 September 2018
  • Published:

Abstract

Bacillus amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum strain Fito_F321 is a naturally occurring strain in vineyard, with the ability to colonise grapevine and which unveils a naturally antagonistic potential against phytopathogens of grapevine, including those responsible for the Botryosphaeria dieback, a GTD disease. Herein we report the draft genome sequence of B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum Fito_F321, isolated from the leaf of Vitis vinifera cv. Merlot at Bairrada appellation (Cantanhede, Portugal). The genome size is 3,856,229 bp, with a GC content of 46.54% that contains 3697 protein-coding genes, 86 tRNA coding genes and 5 rRNA genes. The draft genome of strain Fito_F321 allowed to predict a set of bioactive compounds as bacillaene, difficidin, macrolactin, surfactin and fengycin that due to their antimicrobial activity are hypothesized to be of utmost importance for biocontrol of grapevine diseases.

Keywords

  • Genome sequencing
  • Bacillus amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum
  • Fito_F321 strain
  • Grapevine-associated microorganism
  • Biocontrol
  • Endophytic microorganism

Introduction

Bacillus amyloliquefaciens is a species from the genus Bacillus , genetically and phenotypically related to B. subtilis , B. vallismortis , B. mojavensis , B. atrophaeus , B. methylotrophicus , B. siamensis , B. velezensis , B. licheniformis , and B. pumilus , which altogether form the B. subtilis group [19]. Taxonomic problems involving the species B. velezensis , B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum, B. methylotrophicus and B. oryzicola had been recently reported [10]. In order to avoid this taxonomic misunderstanding, a more recent study proposed B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum as a later heterotypic synonym of B. velezensis , based on phylogenomic analysis [10]. Another study also reinforced that B. amyloliquefaciens , B. velezensis and B. siamensis should be kept as singular species across their clade however, and due to their close relationship, these species should be included in the “operational group B. amyloliquefaciens within the B. subtilis group [11].

B. amyloliquefaciens is ubiquitously distributed, Gram-positive, rod-shaped, aerobic and endospore-forming bacteria. Together with other different Bacillus species from the Bacillus subtilis group, B. amyloliquefaciens has been reported to develop beneficial relationships with plants by promoting growth, improving resistance to environmental stress or having important biological activities for plant diseases control [1214]. These species produce a variety of antimicrobial compounds, such as bacteriocins, antifungal compounds such as lipopeptides, namely iturins and fengycins, and siderophores [15, 16]. Given its biocontrol potential, aligned with its physiological characteristics, such as UV light and heat resistant spores, long shelf life [17] and their advantageous characteristics for formulation, this microorganism is an environmental-friendly alternative to agrochemicals. Indeed, some of B. amyloliquefaciens strains are commercially available as biological control agents or generic plant growth promoters [18, 19].

Altogether these characteristics prompted us to explore the B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum strain Fito_F321, a naturally occurring strain in vineyards that we have isolated from grapevine leaves in the Bairrada appellation - Portugal. In this study, we have obtained the draft genome sequence of B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum strain Fito_F321, analysed it and compared it with known genome sequences of representative related species, to gain knowledge on the genes involved in plant interaction with grapevine, as well as the genes conferring antimicrobial activity, and thus to evaluate the potential of this strain for further viticulture and agronomic applications.

Organism information

Classification and features

Strain Fito_F321 was isolated from Vitis vinifera cv. Merlot at Bairrada appellation – Cantanhede, Portugal during the 2012 vine cycle. The samples collection was authorized by the private owner, who is fully acknowledged in this paper, and no specific permissions were required for this activity. Briefly, leaf tissues were homogenised in a sterile saline solution (0.85% NaCl) with a sterile pestle. The bacterial isolates were then obtained after plating the homogenised leaves on PDA medium and incubation for 24 h at 28 °C. Sub-cultures were then carried out on the same culture medium until obtaining pure colonies that were further assigned to an isolation code. Microscopic analysis showed that strain Fito_F321 is a Gram-positive and rod shape microorganism (Fig. 1). The classification and general features of strain Fito_F321 are listed in Table 1.
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Transmission electron micrograph of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum strain Fito_F321. Bar: 2 μm

Table 1

Classification and general features of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum strain Fito_F321, according to the MIGS recommendations [69]

MIGS ID

Property

Term

Evidence codea

 

Classification

Domain Bacteria

TAS [70]

  

Phylum Firmicutes

TAS [7173]

  

Class Bacilli

TAS [74, 75]

  

Order Bacillales

TAS [72, 76]

  

Family Bacillaceae

TAS [72, 77]

  

Genus Bacillus

TAS [72, 78]

  

Species Bacillus amyloliquefaciens

TAS [1, 79]

  

Strain: Fito_F321

 
 

Gram stain

Gram-positive

IDA

 

Cell shape

Rod-shaped

IDA

 

Motility

Motile

NAS

 

Sporulation

Spore-forming

NAS

 

Temperature range

unreported

 
 

Optimum temperature

28 °C

IDA

 

pH range; Optimum

6–9, 6.5

IDA

 

Carbon source

Organic carbon compounds

NAS

MIGS-6

Habitat

Leaf, grapevine

IDA

MIGS-6.3

Salinity

0–6% (w/v); salt tolerant

IDA

MIGS-22

Oxygen requirement

Aerobic

NAS

MIGS-15

Biotic relationship

free-living

IDA

MIGS-14

Pathogenicity

Non-pathogen

NAS

MIGS-4

Geographic location

Cantanhede, Portugal

IDA

MIGS-5

Sample collection

2012

IDA

MIGS-4.1

Latitude

40°19′40.11″N

 

MIGS-4.2

Longitude

8°32′59.54″O

 

MIGS-4.4

Altitude

90 m

 

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 [80]

Strain Fito_F321 was taxonomically identified by combining the analysis of the 16S rRNA gene sequence using both SILVA database [20] and EzBioCloud [21], and by genome comparisons. In SILVA the 16S rRNA sequence of strain Fito_F321 showed 99% of similarity to B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum AS43.3 (CP003838) and to Bacillus amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum SQR9 (CP006890), both non-type strains. A last updated available, reclassified these two strains as Bacillus velezensis. In the other hand, results obtained from EzBioCloud showed a 99.93% similarity of strain Fito_F321 to B. velezensis CR-502 (type strain). Given these results, the 16S rRNA gene sequence of strain Fito_F321 and other representative related and type strains species available on GenBank [22] were then selected for phylogenetic analysis (Fig. 2). The phylogenies were generated using the Neighbor-Joining method [23] and evolutionary distances were computed by the Maximum Composite Likelihood method [24] with 1000 bootstrap replicates. Phylogenetic analysis was conducted in MEGA 7.0 [25]. Phylogenetic analysis of the 16S rRNA revealed that strain Fito_F321 is positioned in the same group as B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum FZB42, B. siamensis PD-A10 and B. methylotrophicus CBMB205 and is closest to B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. amyloliquefaciens DSM7 and B. velezensis CR-502. To overcome the difficulties of strain Fito_F321 classification, a comparison of genome sequences between type and other strains of both B. amyloliquefaciens and B. velezensis species was performed according to the methodology proposed by Chun et al. [26] and is fully presented in the section Comparisons with other genomes. Overall, our results showed that strain Fito_F321 is closer to B. amyloliquefaciens subs. plantarum FZB42, with a DDH estimate of 85.90% (> 70%) and an ANI similarity of 98.40% (≥95–96%), than to B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. amyloliquefaciens DSM7 (DDH estimate of 55.30% and ANI similarity of 94.15%). Thus, and according to this data, strain Fito_F321 was classified as a B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2

Phylogenetic tree highlighting the taxonomic relation of B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum strain Fito_F321( ) based on 16S rDNA amplicon within the Bacillus clade. Only type strains are included. The GenBank accession numbers are shown in parentheses. Sequences were aligned using ClustalW 1.6 [81]. The phylogenetic tree was constructed by using the Neighbor-Joining method [23] and evolutionary distances were computed by the Maximum Composite Likelihood method [24] within MEGA 7.0 [25]. There were a total of 1380 positions in the final dataset. Numbers at the nodes are bootstrap values calculated from 1000 replicates; only bootstrap values > 70 are indicated

Extended feature descriptions

The physiological and biochemical features of B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum strain Fito_F321 were analysed to explore the mechanisms behind its antagonistic potential, namely its ability to produce hydrolytic enzymes, presence of siderophores and phosphate solubilization. The tolerance to pH and salinity conditions were also tested. All tests were performed in triplicate. Given the enzymatic production, the amylase, cellulase, lipase, pectinase, protease and urease activity were screened under in vitro conditions by using specific culture media. Results were expressed as positive activity, when a clear halo around strain colony was observed, and the enzymatic index (EI) was calculated through the ration between the average diameter of the degradation halo (clear zone) and the average diameter of the colony growth. The strain Fito_F321 was able to produce all enzymes under in vitro conditions except ureases. Amongst them, cellulases had the higher enzymatic index (10.50 ± 0.20), followed by pectinases (5.44 ± 0.39). This strain was also able to produce siderophores and to solubilise phosphate under in vitro conditions. Overall, these phenotypic features are of high interest, since they are intimately involved in the biocontrol action. Further, this strain was able to grow between pH 6.0–9.0, with an optimal growth at pH 6.5, and grew under up to 6% NaCl. Interestingly, the morphology of Fito_F321 colonies was altered with salt concentration, and colonies became smaller with increasing NaCl concentration in the culture media. It is recognised that excess of soil salinity reduces both plant growth and yield thus, salt tolerant strains may confer plant tolerance against these abiotic stresses [27].

Genome sequencing information

Genome project history

B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum strain Fito_F321 was selected for sequencing as a part of an ongoing project that focuses on the deep characterization of the grapevine-associated microorganisms and their natural antagonistic potential. Thus, its specific antagonistic activity against important grapevine pathogens, such as grey mould or grapevine trunk diseases, together with its physiological and biochemical unique features such as the ability to growth on a range of pHs and salinity conditions, the production of siderophores, the phosphate solubilisation and the high enzymatic activity, were the drivers for its sequencing.

Sequencing of the wild-type B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum strain Fito_F321 genome was performed at Biocant, Portugal and the draft genome sequencing project has been deposited at DDBJ/ENA/GenBank under the Bioproject PRJNA360208, Biosample ID SAMN06205151 and the accession number MSYT00000000. The version described in this paper is version MSYT01000000. A summary of the project is shown in Table 2.
Table 2

Project information

MIGS ID

Property

Term

MIGS 31

Finishing quality

Draft-genome

MIGS-28

Libraries used

Rapid Library Preparation Method GS FLX+ Series XL+

MIGS 29

Sequencing platforms

GS FLX Titanium Sequencing Kit XL+

MIGS 31.2

Fold coverage

41X

MIGS 30

Assemblers

GS Assembler, version 2.9

MIGS 32

Gene calling method

Prodigal, GenePRIMP

 

Locus Tag

BVY13

 

Genbank ID

MSYT00000000

 

Genbank Date of Release

05/01/2018

 

GOLD ID

 

BIOPROJECT

SAMN06205151

MIGS 13

Source Material Identifier

Fito_F321

 

Project relevance

Biocontrol, Grapevine, GTD

Growth conditions and genomic DNA preparation

B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum strain Fito_F321 was grown in Luria-Agar medium at 28 °C for 24 h. The genomic DNA was extracted by using the Wizard Genomic DNA Purification kit (Promega, Madison, USA), following the standard protocol for Gram- positive bacteria. The DNA integrity was checked by 0.8% agarose gel electrophoresis, the concentration was determined by using Quant-iT PicoGreen dsDNA Assay Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and quality assessed with NanoDrop spectrophotometer (Thermo Scientific, USA). Prior to genome sequencing, the quality of the isolated DNA and the molecular identity was confirmed by the sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene.

Genome sequencing and assembly

A DNA library was built from 1 mg of high-quality genomic DNA. Briefly, genomic DNA was fragmented by nebulization and the sequencing adaptors ligated to create double stranded DNA libraries. After quality assessment by using high sensitivity DNA analysis kit (Agilent Technologies) and library titration with KAPA library quantification kit (Kapa Biosystems), the final genome fragments were pyrosequenced in the GS FLX+ system (Roche, 454 Life Sciences), using GS FLX Titanium Sequencing Kit XL+ at Biocant (Cantanhede, Portugal). The sequencing reads were assembled with the GS Assembler, version 2.9 (Roche, 454 Life Sciences) using the default parameters. The sequencing produced 285,879 reads with an average length of 580 bases. The final assembly yielded − 54 contigs, a genome coverage of 41-fold and generated a genome of 3.86 Mb (Table 2).

Genome annotation

The structural and functional annotations were performed using the Prokaryotic Genome Prediction pipeline [28]. Prediction of non-coding RNA genes and miscellaneous features were performed with the PGP pipeline by using tRNAscan-SE [29], RNAMMer [30] and PILERCR [31]. Coding sequences were predicted with Prodigal [32] and automatically corrected by PGP pipeline based on the GenePRIMP algorithm [33]. Functional annotation of protein coding genes was carried out under Prokaryotic Genome Prediction pipeline in InterProScan [34] against Pfam database [35], TIGRFAM [36], Hamap [37], PIRSF [38], PRINTS [39], SMART [40], SUPERFAMILY [41], ProSite [42] databases and RPS-BLAST against Clusters of Orthologous Groups (COG) database [43]. The product name of the identified coding sequences (CDSs) was assigned by using Pfam database, TIGRFAM and COG annotation [44]. The CDSs that were not assigned to a specific product with these databases were named as hypothetical proteins.

Genome properties

The genome statistics are provided in Table 3, and genome visualisation was performed on Artemis version 16.0.0 [45]. The draft genome sequencing of B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum strain Fito_F321 was distributed across 54 contigs with an estimated genome size of 3,856,229 bp and an average of GC content of 46.53%. The genome analysis showed that Fito_F321 strain’ genome contained 3657 protein coding genes predicted, 95 RNAs and without any CRISP elements. The predicted protein encoding genes showed a total length of 3,424,790 bp which represents 88.81% of the total genome size. Of these, 2697 proteins were assigned to a COG functional category across 20 categories (Table 4). The majority of protein-coding genes were assigned as function unknown (264 proteins) and general function prediction only (306 proteins), which all together represents 15.59% of the protein encoding genes (Table 4). The proteins not assigned in COGs (960 proteins) represent 26.25% and the amino acid transport (269 proteins), transcription (227 proteins) and carbohydrate transport and metabolism (191 proteins) were the followed categories with 7.36%, 6.21% and 5.22%, respectively. Interestingly, the defense mechanisms included 43 protein-coding genes, which represent about 1% of the annotated genome, and included β-lactamase (class C), multi-drug efflux pumps as ATP-binding cassette (ABC) transport and the multidrug and toxic compound extrusion (matE), antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) and lanthionine synthetase component C-like protein (LANCL).
Table 3

Genome statistics

Attribute

Value

% of Totala

Genome size (bp)

3,856,229

100

DNA coding (bp)

3,424,790

88.81

DNA G + C (bp)

1,794,204

46.53

DNA scaffolds

54

Total genes

3846

100

Protein coding genes

3657

95.09

RNA genes

95

2.47

Pseudo genes

94

2.44

Genes in internal clusters

NA

Genes with function prediction

2790

72.54

Genes assigned to COGs

2697

70.12

Genes with Pfam domains

3241

84.27

Genes with signal peptides

2,48

6.45

Genes with transmembrane helices

2500

65.00

CRISPR repeats

0

0.00

aThe total is based on either the size of genome in base pairs or the total number of genes in the predicted genome

Table 4

Number of genes associated with general COG functional categories

Code

Value

%agea

Description

J

158

4.32

Translation, ribosomal structure and biogenesis

A

0

0.00

RNA processing and modification

K

227

6.21

Transcription

L

97

2.65

Replication, recombination and repair

B

1

0.03

Chromatin structure and dynamics

D

34

0.93

Cell cycle control, Cell division, chromosome partitioning

V

43

1.18

Defense mechanisms

T

105

2.87

Signal transduction mechanisms

M

136

3.72

Cell wall/membrane biogenesis

N

41

1.12

Cell motility

U

40

1.09

Intracellular trafficking and secretion

O

78

2.13

Posttranslational modification, protein turnover, chaperones

C

156

4.27

Energy production and conversion

G

191

5.22

Carbohydrate transport and metabolism

E

269

7.36

Amino acid transport and metabolism

F

78

2.13

Nucleotide transport and metabolism

H

122

3.34

Coenzyme transport and metabolism

I

117

3.20

Lipid transport and metabolism

P

149

4.07

Inorganic ion transport and metabolism

Q

85

2.32

Secondary metabolites biosynthesis, transport and catabolism

R

306

8.37

General function prediction only

S

264

7.22

Function unknown

960

26.25

Not in COGs

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

Insights from the genome sequence

A total of 111 metabolic pathways were identified using the KEGG annotation and included, several metabolism pathways (as alanine, aspartate and glutamate, fructose, mannose, galactose, glutathione, methane, nitrogen, pyruvate, sulphur, tryptophan or starch and sucrose), glycolysis, TCA cycle, fatty acid biosynthesis, glucosinolate biosynthesis, antibiotic biosynthesis (neomycin, kanamycin, gentamicin, puromycin, streptomycin or tetracycline) or degradation pathways of noxious compounds (atrazine, benzoate, bisphenol, dioxin, ethylbenzene, limonene, pinene, naphthalene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon or toluene). In general, and as previously described, the metabolic pathways identified showed that the majority of protein-coding genes are involved in the amino acid metabolism (7.36%), carbohydrate metabolism (5.22%), energy metabolism (4.27%) and lipid metabolism (3.20%).

Plant-bacteria interactions

The genome of B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum strain Fito_F321 was also analysed for genes contributing directly or indirectly for plant-growth promotion (PGP) and biocontrol activities (Additional file 1: Table S1):

Colonisation, adhesion, and movement of bacteria across plant root

It is recognized that a crucial feature of a successful plant growth promoter microorganism, as well as of a biocontrol agent relies on its competence for plant colonisation, notably at roots level [46]. Overall a colonisation process may involve a plant surface adhesion/attachment and a bacterial biofilm formation [47]. The B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum strain Fito_F321 genome encodes a set of proteins involved in flagella biosynthesis, such as fliZ (BVY13_00370), flgC (BVY13_14075), flhF (BVY13_00340), flhA (BVY13_00345), flhB (BVY13_00350), fliR (BVY13_00355), fliQ (BVY13_00360), fliP (BVY13_00365) or chemotaxis, namely cheA (BVY13_00325), cheD (BVY13_00310), cheV (BVY13_01575) and cheW (BVY13_00320). B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum strain Fito_F321 also displays a swarming motility, which allows a rapid surface colonization [48]. Herein, genes encoding for swrA (BVY13_02415), swrB (BVY13_00300) and swrC (BVY13_18860) were predicted. Overall, the swarming motility requires both flagella biosynthesis and surfactant production [48]. Other genes such as hook-associated proteins - flgK (BVY13_02315), fliD (BVY13_02345), or hag flagellin (BVY13_02340) can be expressed in response to root exudates secreted by plant roots. Bacterial flagellins can interact with host and are involved in elicitation of general plant immune response [49]. Furthermore, this strain may also produce biofilms. Indeed, the sporulation transcription factor spo0A (BVY13_05345) was here identified, and has an important role on biofilm formation, by repressing the expression of AbrB [50, 51]. Spo0A is essential for surface-adhered cells prior to transition to a three-dimensional biofilm structure [50, 51].

Plant-growth promotion

B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum strain Fito_F321 encodes proteins that enhance the plant growth such as those involved in the biosynthesis of indole-3-acetic acid, a plant auxin. Herein, genes encoding for tryptophan, the main precursor of IAA [52], were identified and include trp genes such as trpA (BVY13_06245), trpB (BVY13_06240) or trpE (BVY13_06220). Going forward, the synthesis of volatile compounds, as 2,3-butanediol and acetoin, released by some Bacillus strains, may also enhance the plant growth promotion and be involved in the eliciting induce systemic resistance [53]. Herein, a set of genes that catalyse the 2,3-butanediol pathway, such as butanediol dehydrogenase bdhA gene (BVY13_17360), acetolactate synthase als and alsD (BVY13_14285, BVY13_09195) and acetolactate decarboxylase alsD (BVY13_14290) were identified. Regarding nitrogen fixation, several nif genes were not identified among Fito_F321 genome, though other genes involved in nitrate reduction pathways were predicted. Further, a scaffold protein nifU (BVY13_03720) and a cysteine desulfurase nifS, which are involved in the Fe-S cluster assembly and required for the activation of nitrogenase, where identified. Another feature of B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum strain Fito_F321 is the nirK gene responsible for the nitric oxide synthase, a signalling molecule that protects Gram-positive strains from antibiotics and oxidative stress [54, 55]. Regarding the phosphate solubilisation, no pqq genes were predicted for this bacterial strain. These genes encode a pyrroloquinoline quinine, a PGP agent involved in the phosphate solubilisation process [56]. However, Fito_F321 strain displayed a phytase activity (BVY13_15080) that contributes to the subsequent use of phosphorous by the plant. This activity is important for the plant growth under phosphate limitation [57, 58]. These predictions are in agreement with the in vitro results obtained by using the Pikovskaya culture medium, which unveiled the ability of Fito_F321 strain to solubilise phosphate. Another important feature is that this strain encodes an inositol 2-dehydrogenase (BVY13_11530), important for the inositol catabolism. Inositol or other inositol derivatives are end-products of phytate degradation, abundant in the plant rhizosphere and can be use by microorganisms as carbon sources [57, 59].

An indirect PGP effect can also be mediated through the siderophores production. Siderophores are iron (Fe)- specific chelating small molecules secreted by bacteria and have high affinity with ferric ionic from soils and surrounding environments [60], thus increasing the bioavailability of Fe for plants, by promoting its solubilisation. On other hand, the siderophores production by BCAs may also confer a clear competition for the available carbon sources, allowing for plant colonisation in detriment with other microorganisms. The B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum strain Fito_F321 encodes genes for ABC transporters for iron and iron uptake, which was further supported by the genome analysis using antiSMASH 3.0 [61] that also predicted siderophores.

Biocontrol activity

B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum strain Fito_F321 revealed high potential to produce bioactive secondary metabolites (2.32%) with important biocontrol activities. In agreement with the genome analysis using antiSMASH 3.0 [61], 13 secondary metabolites gene clusters were identified (Additional file 2: Table S2). Amongst them, B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum strain Fito_F321 encoded 4 polyketide synthases clusters, 4 nonribosomal peptides synthases clusters and 1 hybrid PKS-NRPS clusters. Thus, 3 types of antibacterial polyene PKs can be produced, comprising bacillaene, difficidin, macrolactin and butirosin; 2 types of lipopeptides as fengycin, bacilysin, surfactin; as well as siderophore bacillibactin. In addition, the remaining 4 clusters were predicted to produce secondary metabolites including ladderane, lantipeptide or terpene cyclase, namely a putative squalene-hopene cyclase (Additional file 2: Table S2).

Antimicrobial resistance

In the meantime, the strain Fito_F321 encodes antimicrobial resistance genes (Additional file 1: Table S1) such as bacitracin (bcr - BVY13_11500), fosfomycin (fosB - BVY13_12675) and tetracycline (BVY13_08560) [62]. Regarding bacitracin and fosfomycin resistance genes, these are antibiotics that interfere with peptidoglycan synthesis of the bacterial cell wall [63, 64]. Given the bacitracin, herein multiple genes encoding for ABC transporter system were identified, which are associated with bacitracin resistance. Tetracycline antibiotics inhibit the bacterial ribosome, and thus, protein synthesis [65]. In Fito_F321 strain genome, the resistance to tetracycline occurs via active efflux (BVY13_08560).

Comparisons with other genomes

To further characterize the extent of which B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum strain Fito_F321 differentiates from other strains, genome comparisons of strain Fito_F321 were carried out with the genomes of four types trains, namely B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum FZB42, B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. amyloliquefaciens DSM7, B. velezensis KCTC 13012 and B. velezensis NRRL B-41580, and other 23 complete genomes of non- type strains of B. amyloliquefaciens, including related species that show ≥98.7% 16S sequence similarity. For this, both GGDC 2.1 web server [66], using the DSMZ phylogenomics pipeline [67] to estimate the DNA-DNA hybridization, and the JSpecies WS web server [68] to estimate the Average Nucleotide Identity through pairwise comparisons of genomes were applied. The estimate DDH was calculated with the formula two at the GGDC website, which is the recommended for draft genomes and the ANI values were calculated using the MUMmer software (ANIm) as described by Richter and Roselló-Móra (2009) [68]. This analysis allowed for the calculation of the intergenomic distances between genomes and the probability of belonging to the same species. The general comparison is shown in Table 5 and the intergenomic distances, through the DDH estimate and ANI, are in Table 6. Given the analysis with type-strains, results have shown that B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum strain Fito_F321 had a lower distance with B. amyloliquefaciens subs. Plantarum FZB42 with a DDH estimate of 85.90% and a probability to correspond to the same species of 94.14%. These results were also supported by the ANI analysis where both strains reached a similarity of 98.40%, with 95.22% of the genome aligned. Contrary, B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. amyloliquefaciens DSM7 was the strain most distant from strain Fito_F321, with a DDH estimate of 55.30% and a probability to correspond to the same species of 35.90%. The same comparative results were performed for non-type strains. Herein, B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum SQR9 showed the lower intergenomic distance and the higher similarity with B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum strain Fito_F321.
Table 5

Comparative analysis of the genome features of B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum strain Fito_F321 with both B. amyloliquefaciens and B. velezensis. Details for each genome was completed according to the information available at NCBI and EzBioCloud

 

Strain

GB acession number

Isolation source

Country

Genome size (Mb)

G+C content (%)

Protein-coding sequences

tRNA coding genes

rRNA

B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum strain Fito_F321

MSYT00000000

Leaves (vineyard)

Portugal

3.86

46.54%

3.697

86

5

Type-strains

B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum FZB42

CP000560

Soil (sugar beet)

Germany

3.92

46.50%

3.687

89

31

B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. amyloliquefaciens DSM 7

FN597644

Not available/unknown

Germany

3.98

46.10%

3.870

94

30

Bacillus velezensis KCTC 13012

LHCC00000000.1

River velez

Spain

4.04

46.30%

3.806

80

9

Bacillus velezensis NRRL B-41580

LLZC00000000.1

River Velez

Spain

4.03

46.30%

3.790

80

9

Non type-strains

B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum SQR9

CP006890

Cucumber rhizosphere

China

4.12

46.10%

3.902

72

21

Bacillus amyloliquefaciens WS-8

CP018200.1

Soil

China

3.93

46.50%

3.670

86

27

Bacillus amyloliquefaciens CC178

CP006845.1

Cucumber phyllosphere

South Korea

3.92

46.50%

3.702

86

27

Bacillus amyloliquefaciens KHG19

CP007242.1

Fermented soybean paste

South Korea

3.95

46.60%

3.698

89

31

Bacillus amyloliquefaciens Y2

CP003332.1

Wheat rhizosphere

China

4.24

45.90%

4.038

87

31

B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum AS43.3

CP003838

Surface of a wheat spike

USA

3.96

46.60%

3.669

89

31

Bacillus amyloliquefaciens UMAF6614

CP006960.1

Not available/unknown

Not available/unknown

4.01

46.50%

3.754

83

27

Bacillus amyloliquefaciens B15

CP014783.1

Grape skin

China

4.01

46.50%

3.759

90

31

Bacillus amyloliquefaciens UMAF6639

CP006058.1

Not available/unknown

Not available/unknown

4.03

46.30%

3.741

83

27

Bacillus amyloliquefaciens S499

CP014700.1

Soil

Democratic Republic of the Congo

3.93

46.60%

3.720

81

24

Bacillus amyloliquefaciens IT-45

CP004065.1

Not available/unknown

Not available/unknown

3.93

46.60%

3.726

95

30

Bacillus amyloliquefaciens LFB112

CP006952.1

Chinese herbs

China

3.94

46.70%

3.684

94

32

Bacillus amyloliquefaciens Y14

CP017953.1

Rhizosphere of peanut

China

3.96

46.40%

3.741

87

27

Bacillus amyloliquefaciens LM2303

CP018152.1

Wild yak dung

China

3.99

46.70%

3.771

86

27

Bacillus amyloliquefaciens L-S60

CP011278.1

Soil

China

3.90

46.70%

3.662

91

28

Bacillus amyloliquefaciens L-H15

CP010556.1

Cucumber seedlings

China

3.91

46.70%

3.666

84

28

Bacillus amyloliquefaciens MBE1283

CP013727.1

Korean traditional alcoholic beverage

South Korea

3.97

46.50%

3.725

86

27

Bacillus amyloliquefaciens RD7-7

CP016913.1

Fermented soybean paste

South Korea

3.69

46.30%

3.501

87

27

Bacillus amyloliquefaciens MT45

CP011252.1

Daqu

China

3.90

46.10%

3.752

81

24

Bacillus amyloliquefaciens SRCM101267

CP021505.1

Food

South Korea

4.07

45.90%

4.014

87

27

Bacillus amyloliquefaciens LL3

CP002634.1

Fermented food

South Korea

4.00

45.69%

3.935

72

22

Bacillus amyloliquefaciens TA208

CP002627.1

Soil

China

3.94

45.80%

3.891

70

19

Bacillus amyloliquefaciens XH7

CP002927.1

Not available/unknown

Not available/unknown

3.94

45.80%

3.889

75

22

Table 6

Comparative analysis of the in-silico genome distances between B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum strain Fito_F321 withboth B. amyloliquefaciens and B. velezensis, through the DNA-DNA hybridization (DDH method) and average nucleotide identities (ANI)

The nucleotide sequences were download from GenBank and the respective accession numbers are shown in the table. In-silico DNA-DNA hybridization (DDH) was calculated by using the Genome-to-Genome Distance Calculator (GGDC 2.1) [67] and ANI values were computed through pairwise genome comparison by using the MUMmer software [68]. Values with grey colour are of a below cut-off (< 95%)

Conclusions

In this study, we have characterized the genome of B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum strain Fito_F321, a natural grapevine-associated microorganism, which was isolated from grapevine leaves. Given its genomic and physiological characteristics, this microorganism may provide an interesting model to study the plant-microbial interactions and their role in grapevine protection. The intergenomic distances amongst genomes showed that B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum strain Fito_F321 is highly close to type strain B. amyloliquefaciens subs. plantarum FZB42, with a DDH estimate value of 85.90% and a ANIm value of 94.14%, and more distant to the type strain B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. amyloliquefaciens DSM7.

The predicted gene compounds of B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum strain Fito_F321 such as bacillaene, difficidin, macrolactin, surfactin, fengycin and siderophore, together with other protein-coding genes herein presented, are of utmost importance for its biocontrol activities and could explain its positive plant-microbial interactions, as well as its role on the natural protection of vineyard. Thus, these gene clusters suggest that the strain Fito_F321 can produce bioactive compounds of biocontrol value, which represents a source of novel bioactive compounds and that may be essential for the grapevine protection in the pursue of a more sustainable viticulture.

Abbreviations

BCA: 

Biological control agent

GH: 

Glycoside hydrolase

GTD: 

Grapevine Trunk Diseases

PGP: 

Plant growth promoting

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to José Matos for his cooperation and support in the collecting samples from the field, to Cristina Barroso and Diogo Pinho, from Biocant for their support on genome sequencing and to Dr. Mónica Zuzarte, from CNC.IBILI – University of Coimbra, for the analysis TEM of the strain.

Funding

This work has been funded by FCT – “Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia” under the HoliWine project (Ref FCOMP-01-0124-FEDER-02741) and supported by own funding of URVVC from the University of Reims Champagne-Ardenne. Cátia Pinto is supported by a Ph.D grant from FCT with the reference SFRH/BD/84197/2012.

Authors’ contributions

CP, FF and ACG designed research. CP performed the experiments and SS did DNA isolation and purification. CP and HF were evolved on the Bioinformatic analysis. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: SS, CE, CC, FF and ACG. Wrote the paper: CP, FF and ACG. 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)
Biocant - Biotechnology Innovation Center, Cantanhede, Portugal
(2)
SFR Condorcet - FR CNRS 3417, University of Reims Champagne-Ardenne, Induced Resistance and Plant Bioprotection (RIBP)- EA 4707, BP1039, Cedex 2 51687 Reims, France
(3)
Center for Neurosciences and Cell Biology (CNC), Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, Polo I, 1st floor, Rua Larga, 3004-504 Coimbra, Portugal

References

  1. Priest F, Goodfellow M, Shute L, Berkeley R. Bacillus amyloliquefaciens sp. nov., nom. rev. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1987;37:69–71.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Fritze D. Taxonomy of the genus Bacillus and related genera: the aerobic endospore-forming bacteria. Phytopathology. 2004;94:1245–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Madhaiyan M, Poonguzhali S, Kwon SW, Sa TM. Bacillus methylotrophicus sp. nov., a methanol-utilizing, plant-growth-promoting bacterium isolated from rice rhizosphere soil. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2010;60:2490–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Sumpavapol P, Tongyonk L, Tanasupawat S, Chokesajjawatee N, Luxananil P, Visessanguan W. Bacillus siamensis sp. nov., isolated from salted crab (poo-khem) in Thailand. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2010;60:2364–70.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Roberts MS, Nakamura LK, Cohan FM. Bacillus vallismortis sp. nov., a close relative of Bacillus subtilis, isolated from soil in death valley, in California. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 1996;46:470–5.Google Scholar
  6. Roberts MS, Nakamura LK, Frederick MCOW. Bacillus mojavensis sp. nov., distinguishable from Bacillus subtilis by sexual iolation, divergence in DNA sequence, and differences in fatty acid composition. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1994;44:256–64.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Nakamura LK. Taxonomic relationship of black pigmented Bacillus subtilis strains and a proposal for Bacillus atrophaeus sp. nov. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1989;39:295–300.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Ruiz-García C, Béjar V, Martínez-Checa F, Llamas I, Quesada E. Bacillus velezensis sp. nov., a surfactant-producing bacterium isolated from the river Vélez in Málaga, southern Spain. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2005;55:191–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Nakamura LK, Roberts MS, Cohan FM. Relationship of Bacillus subtilis clades associated with strains 168 and W23: a proposal for Bacillus subtilis subsp. subtilis subsp. nov. and Bacillus subtilis subsp. spizizenii subsp. nov. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1999;49:1211–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Dunlap CA, Kim SJ, Kwon SW, Rooney AP. Bacillus velezensis is not a later heterotypic synonym of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens; Bacillus methylotrophicus, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum and “Bacillus oryzicola” are later heterotypic synonyms of Bacillus velezensis based on phylogenomics. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2016;66:1212–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Fan B, Blom J, Klenk HP, Borriss R. Bacillus amyloliquefaciens, Bacillus velezensis, and Bacillus siamensis form an “operational group B. amyloliquefaciens” within the B. subtilis species complex. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:1–15.Google Scholar
  12. Schnepf E, Crickmore N, Van Rie J, Lereclus D, Baum J, Feitelson J, et al. Bacillus thuringiensis and its pesticidal crystal proteins. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 1998;62:775–806.Google Scholar
  13. Boriss R. Use of plant-associated Bacillus strains as biofertilizers and biocontrol agents in agriculture. In: Maheshwari D, editor. Bact. Agrobiol. Plant growth responses. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2011. p. 21–40.Google Scholar
  14. Qiao J-Q, Wu H-J, Huo R, Gao X-W, Borriss R. Stimulation of plant growth and biocontrol by Bacillus amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum FZB42 engineered for improved action. Chem Biol Technol Agric. 2014;1:12.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Baruzzi F, Quintieri L, Morea M, Caputo L. Antimicrobial compounds produced by Bacillus spp . and applications in food. Formatex. 2011;2:1102–11.Google Scholar
  16. Sumi CD, Yang BW, Yeo I-C, Hahm YT. Antimicrobial peptides of the genus Bacillus: a new era for antibiotics. Can J Microbiol. 2015;61:93–103.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. McSpadden Gardener BB. Ecology of Bacillus and Paenibacillus spp. in agricultural systems. Phytopathology. 2004;94:1252–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Choi S, Jeong H, Kloepper JW, Ryu C. Genome sequence of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens GB03, an active ingredient of the first commercial biological control product. Genome Announc. 2014;2:e01092–14.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Chen XH, Koumoutsi A, Scholz R, Eisenreich A, Schneider K, Heinemeyer I, et al. Comparative analysis of the complete genome sequence of the plant growth–promoting bacterium Bacillus amyloliquefaciens FZB42. Nat Biotechnol. 2007;25:1007–14.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Quast C, Pruesse E, Yilmaz P, Gerken J, Schweer T, Yarza P, et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41:D590–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Yoon SH, Ha SM, Kwon S, Lim J, Kim Y, Seo H, et al. Introducing EzBioCloud: a taxonomically united database of 16S rRNA gene sequences and whole-genome assemblies. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2017;67:1613–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Borriss R, Chen XH, Rueckert C, Blom J, Becker A, Baumgarth B, et al. Relationship of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens clades associated with strains DSM 7 T and FZB42 T: a proposal for Bacillus amyloliquefaciens subsp. amyloliquefaciens subsp. nov. and Bacillus amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum subsp. nov. based on complete gen. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2011;61:1786–801.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Saitou N, Nei M. The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol Biol Evol. 1987;4:406–25.Google Scholar
  24. Tamura K, Nei M, Kumar S. Prospects for inferring very large phylogenies by using the neighbor-joining method. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004;101:11030–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Kumar S, Stecher G, Tamura K. MEGA7: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 7.0 for bigger datasets. Mol Biol Evol. 2016;33:1870–4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Chun J, Oren A, Ventosa A, Christensen H, Arahal DR, da Costa MS, et al. Proposed minimal standards for the use of genome data for the taxonomy of prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2018;68:461–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Shrivastava P, Kumar R. Soil salinity: a serious environmental issue and plant growth promoting bacteria as one of the tools for its alleviation. Saudi J Biol Sci King Saud University. 2015;22:123–31.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Egas C, Barroso C, Froufe HJC, Pacheco J, Albuquerque L, da Costa MS. Complete genome sequence of the radiation-resistant bacterium Rubrobacter radiotolerans RSPS-4. Stand Genomic Sci. 2014;9:1062–75.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Schattner P, Brooks AN, Lowe TM. The tRNAscan-SE, snoscan and snoGPS web servers for the detection of tRNAs and snoRNAs. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005;33:686–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Lagesen K, Hallin P, Rødland EA, Stærfeldt HH, Rognes T, Ussery DW. RNAmmer: consistent and rapid annotation of ribosomal RNA genes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007;35:3100–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Edgar RC. PILER-CR: fast and accurate identification of CRISPR repeats. BMC Bioinformatics. 2007;8:1–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Hyatt D, Chen G-L, Locascio PF, Land ML, Larimer FW, Hauser LJ. Prodigal: prokaryotic gene recognition and translation initiation site identification. BMC Bioinformatics. 2010;11:119.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Pati A, Ivanova NN, Mikhailova N, Ovchinnikova G, Hooper SD, Lykidis A, et al. GenePRIMP: a gene prediction improvement pipeline for prokaryotic genomes. Nat Methods. 2010;7:455–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Zdobnov EM, Apweiler R. InterProScan - an integration platform for the signature-recognition methods in InterPro. Bioinformatics. 2001;17:847–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Finn RD, Tate J, Mistry J, Coggill P, Sammut S. The Pfam protein families databse. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008;36:D281–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Haft DH, Selengut JD, White O. The TIGRFAMs database of protein families. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003;31:371–3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Pedruzzi I, Rivoire C, Auchincloss AH, Coudert E, Keller G, De Castro E, et al. HAMAP in 2013, new developments in the protein family classification and annotation system. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41:584–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Wu CH, Nikolskaya A, Huang H, Yeh LS, Natale DA, Vinayaka CR, et al. PIRSF: family classification system at the protein information resource. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32:D112–4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Attwood TK, Coletta A, Muirhead G, Pavlopoulou A, Philippou PB, Popov I, et al. The PRINTS database: a fine-grained protein sequence annotation and analysis resource-its status in 2012. Database. 2012;2012:1–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Letunic I, Doerks T, Bork P. SMART 7: recent updates to the protein domain annotation resource. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40:302–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Wilson D, Pethica R, Zhou Y, Talbot C, Vogel C, Madera M, et al. SUPERFAMILY - sophisticated comparative genomics, data mining, visualization and phylogeny. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009;37:380–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Sigrist CJA, Cerutti L, De Castro E, Langendijk-Genevaux PS, Bulliard V, Bairoch A, et al. PROSITE, a protein domain database for functional characterization and annotation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010;38:161–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Tatusoy R, Koonin E, Lipman D. A genomic perspective on protein families. Science. 1997;278:631–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Mavromatis K, Ivanova NN, Chen I-MA, 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 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Rutherford K, Parkhill J, Crook J, Horsnell T, Rice P, Rajandream MA, et al. Artemis: sequence visualization and annotation. Bioinformatics. 2000;16:944–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Lugtenberg BJJ, Dekkers L, Bloemberg GV. Molecular determinats of rhizosphere colonization by Pseudomonas. Annu. Rev. Phytopathology. 2001;39:461–90.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Bogino PC, Oliva Mde L, Sorroche FG, Giordano W. The role of bacterial biofilms and surface components in plant-bacterial associations. Int. J Mol Sci. 2013;14:15838–59.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Kearns DB, Losick R. Swarming motility in undomesticated Bacillus subtilis. Mol Microbiol. 2003;49:581–90.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Abramovitch RB, Anderson JC, Martin GB. Bacterial elicitation and evasion of plant innate immuity. Nat Rev Mol cell Biol. 2006;7:601–11.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Hamon MA, Lazazzera BA. The sporulation transcription factor Spo0A is required for biofilm development in Bacillus subtilis. Mol Microbiol. 2001;42:1199–209.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Hamon M, Stanley N, Britton R, Grossman A, Lazzazzera B. Identification of AbrB-regulated genes involved in biofilm formation by Bacillus subtilis. Mol Microbiol. 2004;52:847–60.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Spaepen S, Vanderleyden J. Auxin and plant-microbe interactions. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2011;3:a001438.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Ryu C-M, M a F, Hu C-H, Reddy MS, Wei H-X, Paré PW, et al. Bacterial volatiles promote growth in Arabidopsis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100:4927–32.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. Gusarov I, Nudler E. NO-mediated cytoprotection: instant adaptation to oxidative stress in bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102:13855–60.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. Sudhamsu J, Crane BR. Bacterial nitric oxide synthases: what are they good for? Trends Microbiol. 2009;17:212–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Choi O, Kim J, Kim J-G, Jeong Y, Moon JS, Park CS, et al. Pyrroloquinoline quinone is a plant growth promotion factor produced by Pseudomonas fluorescens B16. Plant Physiol. 2007;146:657–68.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  57. Idriss EE, Makarewicz O, Farouk A, Rosner K, Greiner R, Bochow H, et al. Extracellular phytase activity of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens FZB45 contributes to its plant-growth-promoting effect. Microbiology. 2002;148:2097–109.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. Richardson AE, Hadobas PA, Hayes JE, O’hara CP, Simpson RJ. Utilization of phosphorus by pasture plants supplied with myo-inositol hexaphosphate is enhanced by the presence of soil micro-organisms. Plant Soil. 2001;229:47–56.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  59. van Straaten KE, Zheng H, Palmer DRJ, Sanders D a R. Structural investigation of myo-inositol dehydrogenase from Bacillus subtilis: implications for catalytic mechanism and inositol dehydrogenase subfamily classification. Biochem J. 2010;432:237–47.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  60. Alexander DB, Zuberer DA. Use of chrome azurol-S reagents to evaluate siderophore production by rhizosphere bacteria. Biol Fertil Soils. 1991;12:39–45.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  61. 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.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  62. Lakin SM, Dean C, Noyes NR, Dettenwanger A, Ross AS, Doster E, et al. MEGARes: an antimicrobial resistance database for high throughput sequencing. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017;45:D574–80.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  63. Stone KJ, Strominger JL. Mechanism of action of bacitracin: complexation with metal ion and C55-isoprenyl pyrophosphate. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1971;68:3223–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  64. Storm DR. Mechanism of bacitracin action: a specific lipid peptide interaction. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1974;235:387–98.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  65. Chopra I, Roberts M. Tetracycline antibiotics : mode of action , applications , molecular biology, and epidemiology of bacterial resistance. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2001;65:232–60.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  66. Meier-Kolthoff JP, Auch AF, Klenk H-P, Göker M. Genome sequence-based species delimitation with confidence intervals and improved distance functions. BMC Bioinformatics. 2013;14:60.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  67. Meier-Kolthoff JP, Klenk HP, Göker M. Taxonomic use of DNA G+C content and DNA-DNA hybridization in the genomic age. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2014;64:352–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  68. 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 ArticleGoogle 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. Nat. Biotechnol. 2008;26:541–7.Google 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 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  71. Gibbons NE, Murray RGE. Proposals concerning the higher taxa of bacteria. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1978;28:1–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  72. Skerman VBD, McGowan V, Sneath PHA. Approved lists of bacterial names. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1980;30:225–420.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  73. Murray R. The higher taxa, or, a place for everything…? In: Holt JG, editor. Bergey's manual of systematic bacteriology, vol. 1. First ed. Baltimore: The Williams and Wilkins Co.; 1984. p. 31–4.Google Scholar
  74. Euzéby J. Validation list no. 132. List of new names and new combinations previously effectively, but not validly, published. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2010;60:469–72.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  75. Ludwig W, Schleifer KH, Whitman WB. Class I. Bacilli class nov. In: De Vos P, Garrity G, Jones D, Krieg NR, Ludwig W, Rainey FA, Schleifer KH, Whitman WB, (eds). Bergey's manual of systematic bacteriology, Second edition, Volume 3, New York: Springer-Verlag. 2009, p.19–20.Google Scholar
  76. Prévot AR. Dictionaire des bactéries pathogènes. In: Hauderoy P, Ehringer G, Guillot G, Magrou J, Prévot AR, Rosset D, et al., editors. 2nd. Paris: Masson et Cie; 1953. p. 1–692.Google Scholar
  77. Fischer A. Untersuchungen über bakterien. Jahrbücher für Wissenschaftliche Botanik. 1895;27:1–163.Google Scholar
  78. Cohn F. Untersuchungen über bakterien. Beiträge zur Biologie Pflanzen. 1872;1:127–224.Google Scholar
  79. Wang LT, Lee FL, Tai CJ, Kuo HP. Bacillus velezensis is a later heterotypic synonym of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2008;58:671–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  80. Ashburner M, Ball C, Blake J, Botstein D, Butler H, Cherry M, et al. Gene ontologie: tool for the unification of biology. Nat Genet. 2000;25:25–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  81. Thompson JD, Higgins DG, Gibson TJ. CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Res. 1994;22:4673–80.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Advertisement