Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Extended genome report
  • Open Access

The draft genome sequence of “Nitrospira lenta” strain BS10, a nitrite oxidizing bacterium isolated from activated sludge

Standards in Genomic Sciences201813:32

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40793-018-0338-7

  • Received: 12 June 2018
  • Accepted: 10 November 2018
  • Published:

Abstract

The genus Nitrospira is considered to be the most widespread and abundant group of nitrite-oxidizing bacteria in many natural and man-made ecosystems. However, the ecophysiological versatility within this phylogenetic group remains highly understudied, mainly due to the lack of pure cultures and genomic data. To further expand our understanding of this biotechnologically important genus, we analyzed the high quality draft genome of “Nitrospira lenta” strain BS10, a sublineage II Nitrospira that was isolated from a municipal wastewater treatment plant in Hamburg, Germany. The genome of “N. lenta” has a size of 3,756,190 bp and contains 3968 genomic objects, of which 3907 are predicted protein-coding sequences. Thorough genome annotation allowed the reconstruction of the “N. lenta” core metabolism for energy conservation and carbon fixation. Comparative analyses indicated that most metabolic features are shared with N. moscoviensis and “N. defluvii”, despite their ecological niche differentiation and phylogenetic distance. In conclusion, the genome of “N. lenta” provides important insights into the genomic diversity of the genus Nitrospira and provides a foundation for future comparative genomic studies that will generate a better understanding of the nitrification process.

Keywords

  • Nitrospira lenta
  • Nitrite oxidation
  • Nitrospira
  • Wastewater treatment

Introduction

Nitrification, the two-step oxidation of ammonia to nitrate via nitrite, is a key process of the biogeochemical nitrogen cycle. Nitrite-oxidizing bacteria (NOB) are chemolithoautotrophic microorganisms that catalyze the oxidation of nitrite to nitrate, the second step of the nitrification process. For decades NOB where considered as metabolically restricted microorganisms solely associated with nitrification. However, experimental findings contradict this opinion, indicating a versatile ecophysiology of many NOB [14] and highlighting their important role in and possibly outside of the nitrogen cycle [5].

The genus Nitrospira is the most diverse known NOB genus and is divided in six different phylogenetic sublineages [68]. Members of the genus are ubiquitously present in different natural and engineered ecosystems [5, 911]. Despite their high abundance, only eleven representative species, distributed within the six Nitrospira sublineages, have been obtained in enrichment or pure culture so far [7, 8, 1215]. Sublineage I and II Nitrospira are considered to be the dominant NOB in most wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), playing a key role in the efficient removal of nitrogen via nitrification [6, 16]. Besides their widespread distribution and crucial role, the physiology of Nitrospira species is highly understudied, mainly due to the lack of pure cultures and genomic data [3, 17, 18]. The recent identification of complete ammonia-oxidizing (comammox) Nitrospira [15, 19] not only redefined the nitrification process, but also further indicated the importance of the genus and emphasized our poor understanding of the metabolic versatility present within this phylogenetic group.

Nitrospira lenta” strain BS10 was isolated from a municipal WWTP [13] and it is the fourth isolate belonging to the sublineage II Nitrospira , besides N. moscoviensis [20], “N. japonica” [14], and the comammox organism “N. inopinata” [12]. Thus, insights into the “N. lenta” genome will shed light onto the genomic flexibility and metabolic diversity of the genus Nitrospira and aid further comparative studies between Nitrospira species.

Organism information

Classification and features

N. lenta” strain BS10 is a Gram negative, aerobic NOB isolated from activated sludge of a municipal WWTP in Hamburg, Germany (basic properties are summarized in Table 1) [13]. Based on 16S rRNA gene-based phylogentic analysis, “N. lenta” is affiliated with Nitrospira sublineage II but is only distantly related to the sublineage II type strain, N. moscoviensis (Fig. 1).
Table 1

Classification and general features of “Nitrospira lenta” strain BS10 [34]

MIGS ID

Property

Term

Evidence codea

 

Classification

Domain Bacteria

TAS [35]

  

Phylum Nitrospirae

TAS [36]

  

Class “Nitrospira

TAS [36]

  

Order “Nitrospirales

TAS [36]

  

Family “Nitrospiraceae

TAS [36]

  

Genus Nitrospira

TAS [32]

  

Species Nitrospira lenta

TAS [13]

  

Strain: BS10

TAS [13]

 

Gram stain

Negative

TAS [13]

 

Cell shape

Spiral-shaped rods

TAS [13]

 

Motility

Non-motileb

TAS [13]

 

Sporulation

Not reported

NAS

 

Temperature range

10–32 °C

TAS [13]

 

Optimum temperature

28 °C

TAS [13]

 

pH range; Optimum

7.4–8.0; 7.4–7.6

TAS [13]

 

Carbon source

Carbon dioxide

TAS [13]

MIGS-6

Habitat

Wastewater treatment plant

TAS [13]

MIGS-6.3

Salinity

0,5% w/v

TAS [13]

MIGS-22

Oxygen requirement

Aerobic

TAS [13]

MIGS-15

Biotic relationship

Free-living

TAS [13]

MIGS-14

Pathogenicity

Non-pathogen

NAS

MIGS-4

Geographic location

Germany/Hamburg

TAS [13]

MIGS-5

Sample collection

12/12/2006

TAS [13]

MIGS-4.1

Latitude

53° 31′ 8″ N

TAS [13]

MIGS-4.2

Longitude

9° 54′ 53″E

TAS [13]

MIGS-4.4

Altitude

NAS

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 [37]

bGenes encoding for a flagellum were identified in “N. lenta” BS10 genome

Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Phylogenetic analysis of selected representatives from the genus Nitrospira. A 16S rRNA gene-based maximum likelihood tree is shown. Sequences of cultured representatives are printed in bold, “N. lenta” in red. The tree was constructed using sequences ≥1165 bp and a 50% conservation filter, resulting in 1463 valid alignment positions. Leptospirillum ferriphilum (AF356829) and L. ferrooxidans (X86776) were used as outgroup, which is indicated by the arrow. Scale bar indicates 1% estimated sequence divergence

A pure culture of “N. lenta” was obtained after applying a combination of standard isolation methods (density gradient centrifugation and serial dilutions) with an optical tweezer system for the sorting of single cells [13]. “N. lenta” grows mainly planktonic and forms helical-shaped cells. Cells are 1.0–2.3 μm in length and 0.2–0.3 μm in diameter (Table 1, Fig. 2). As shown by Nowka et al. [13], “N. lenta” is able to grow at lower temperatures (10 °C) than N. moscoviensis . Interestingly, while “N. lenta” is not able to tolerate high concentrations of nitrite, it exhibits a lower affinity for nitrite compared to N. moscoviensis and “N. defluvii”, which indicates a clear niche differentiation among these Nitrospira species [21].
Fig. 2
Fig. 2

Electron micrographs of “N. lenta” strain BS10. The cells, in accordance to most of the bacteria belonging to the genus Nitrospira, feature a characteristic spiral shape and an enlarged periplasm. The individual cell components are indicated. OM, outer membrane; P, periplasm; CM, cytoplasmic membrane; Cyt, cytoplasm

Genome sequencing information

Genome project history

N. lenta” was selected for whole genome sequencing on the basis of its relevance within the nitrogen cycle as well as due to the general lack of genomic information for Nitrospira species. Furthermore, because “N. lenta” was isolated from activated sludge, its genome was expected to yield insights that allow optimization and stabilization of the nitrification process in wastewater treatment. The draft genome sequence of “N. lenta” BS10 was completed on 27/07/2013. The high-quality draft genome is available in the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) under study accession number PRJEB26290. An overview of the genome sequencing project is given in Table 2.
Table 2

Project information

MIGS ID

Property

Term

MIGS 31

Finishing quality

High quality draft

MIGS-28

Libraries used

1

MIGS 29

Sequencing platforms

Roche GS FLX

MIGS 31.2

Fold coverage

40

MIGS 30

Assemblers

GS De Novo Assembler

MIGS 32

Gene calling method

AMIGene [24]

 

Locus Tag

NITLEN

 

GenBank ID

OUNR00000000.1

 

GenBankDate of Release

4 June 2018

 

GOLD ID

 

BioProject

PRJEB26290

MIGS 13

Source Material Identifier

BS10

 

Project relevance

Microbiology, Biotechnology

Growth conditions and genomic DNA extraction

N. lenta” was cultivated as described by Nowka et al. [13] in mineral salt medium amended with 0.02 g L− 1 NaNO2 as energy source. The cultures were incubated in the dark at 28 °C, with moderate stirring (100–300 rpm). The genomic DNA was extracted following the hexadecyltrimethylammoniumbromide (CTAB) protocol provided by the DOE Joint Genome Institute (JGI, https://jgi.doe.gov/user-program-info/pmo-overview/protocols-sample-preparation-information/) as described elsewhere [22].

Genome sequencing and assembly

High-throughput sequencing was performed at GATC Biotech (Constance, Germany) using Roche GS FLX technology. The final draft genome of “N. lenta” was obtained using the GS De Novo Assembler (Newbler) and comprised 3.8 Mb on 22 contigs. Genome completeness was evaluated with CheckM [23]. Similarly to the complete genomes of “N. defluvii” (98% completeness, 2.3% contamination) and N. moscoviensis (96% completeness, 6.6% contamination), the “N. lenta” genome was estimated to be 96% complete with 3.2% contamination.

Genome annotation

The draft genome of “N. lenta” was annotated using the MicroScope platform [24] as described in detail elsewhere [17]. The automatic annotation was manually checked and curated using the MicroScope Web interface MaGe [25]. The genomic features of “N. lenta” were compared to N. moscoviensis and “N. defluvii”, the type strains of the Nitrospira sublineages II and I, respectively, using the OrthoVenn web service [26] for the identification and comparison of orthologous gene groups. Sequence similarities were calculated using an E-value of 1e-05. An inflation value of 1.5 was applied to generate the orthologous clusters.

Genome properties

The “N. lenta” draft genome consists of 22 contigs and has a total size of 3,756,190 bp with an overall G + C content of 57.9% (Fig. 3, Table 3). From a total of 3968 predicted genes, 3907 (98.5%) and 61 (1.5%) are protein and RNA coding sequences, respectively. The genome encodes for 1 complete rRNA operon and 46 tRNAs, with 1 to 5 copies for each tRNA type. Moreover, 66.8% of the predicted genes were assigned into to Clusters of Orthologous Groups (COG) functional categories (Table 4).
Fig. 3
Fig. 3

Circular representation of the “N. lenta” genome. From inside out the circles display: (1) G + C content (red < 50%, green > 50%), (2) CDS on reverse strand, (3) CDS on forward strand, (4) contig organization. The tick marks correspond to 20 kbp. CDS colors indicate COG classification (blue, cellular processes and signaling; green, information storage and processing; red, metabolism, grey; poorly characterized). Contigs are ordered by size, and their arrangement in the figure may not reflect the positions of the respective regions on the chromosome. The graphical circular map of “N. lenta” chromosome was generated using the CIRCOS software [33]

Table 3

Genome statistics

Attribute

Value

Genome size (bp)

3,756,190

DNA coding (bp)

3,487,097

DNA G + C (%)

57.9

DNA scaffolds

22

Total genes

3968

Protein coding genes

3907

RNA genes

61

rRNA genes

3

tRNA genes

46

Pseudo genes

0

Genes in internal clusters

Genes with function prediction

1990

Genes assigned to COGs

2609

Genes with Pfam domains

3868

Genes with signal peptidesa

196

Genes with transmembrane helices

965

CRISPR repeats

0

aOnly signal peptides with a prediction probability greater 70% were taken into consideration

Table 4

Number of genes associated with general COG functional category prediction

Code

Value

%agea

Description

J

163

4.17

Translation, ribosomal structure and biogenesis

A

0

0

RNA processing and modification

K

148

3.79

Transcription

L

142

3.64

Replication, recombination and repair

B

1

0.03

Chromatin structure and dynamics

D

48

1.23

Cell cycle control, Cell division, chromosome partitioning

V

44

1.13

Defense mechanisms

T

256

6.55

Signal transduction mechanisms

M

303

7.76

Cell wall/membrane biogenesis

N

114

2.92

Cell motility

U

119

3.05

Intracellular trafficking and secretion

O

151

3.87

Posttranslational modification, protein turnover, chaperones

C

205

5.25

Energy production and conversion

G

133

3.40

Carbohydrate transport and metabolism

E

198

5.07

Amino acid transport and metabolism

F

59

1.51

Nucleotide transport and metabolism

H

136

3.48

Coenzyme transport and metabolism

I

76

1.95

Lipid transport and metabolism

P

156

3.99

Inorganic ion transport and metabolism

Q

77

1.97

Secondary metabolites biosynthesis, transport and catabolism

R

389

9.96

General function prediction only

S

221

5.66

Function unknown

1298

33.22

Not in COGs

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

Insights from the genome sequence

Nitrospira species belonging to sublineages I and II are the most abundant NOB in many environments and play a key role in N-cycling in engineered ecosystems [6, 10]. Recent experimental data indicates a clear niche differentiation between sublineage I and II Nitrospira [21, 27]. More specifically, “N. lenta”, like other members of sublineage II, exhibits a lower maximum activity [21, 27] and could be outcompeted by sublineage I Nitrospira at higher nitrite concentrations [28]. Despite their ecophysiological differences, sublineage I and II Nitrospira exhibit substantial genomic similarities. More specifically, “N. lenta” shares a core genome including 2223 orthologous protein clusters with N. moscoviensis and “N. defluvii”. This corresponds to 67.3% of the pan-genome of the Nitrospira species included in this analysis (Fig. 4). Moreover, “N. lenta” features the lowest number of unique genes (1100, of which 51 are grouped in 18 paralogous protein clusters). Most of these unique genes lack any function prediction (Fig. 4).
Fig. 4
Fig. 4

Genome comparison of “N. lenta” with representatives of Nitrospira sublineages I and II. (a) Total number of inferred orthologous protein clusters for each species. (b) Venn diagram depicting the distribution of orthologous clusters among the genomes of “N. lenta”, “N. defluvii” and N. moscoviensis. The numbers indicate orthologous protein clusters; numbers in brackets depict the unique, unclustered proteins of each genome

In accordance with its ability to oxidize nitrite to nitrate [13], “N. lenta” encodes all proteins required for nitrite oxidation (Fig. 5), for which the key enzyme is a membrane-associated nitrite oxidoreductase (NXR) [29]. This protein complex belongs to the type II dimethyl sulfoxide reductase family of molybdopterin-binding enzymes and consists of three subunits [17, 29]. The “N. lenta” genome contains two paralogous copies of nxrA and nxrB, encoding the NXR α and β subunits, respectively, and two copies of nxrC for the candidate γ subunit. Like all Nitrospira genomes analyzed to date, the “N. lenta” genome contains nirK, encoding the copper-dependent NO-forming nitrite reductase. While the function of NirK in Nitrospira is still unclear, a role in dissimilatory nitrite reduction is unlikely as no other genes involved in denitrification were identified in “N. lenta” or any other Nitrospira . One cannot exclude the possibility that NO plays a regulatory role in Nitrospira , for example in the regulation of forward versus reverse electron flow as proposed for Nitrobacter [30]. Moreover, “N. lenta” exhibits the genetic capacity for nitrogen assimilation from nitrite as its genome features nirA encoding the ferredoxin-dependent nitrite reductase. Interestingly, NirA is conserved in “N. defluvii”, but not the other genome-sequenced sublineage II Nitrospira , which either encode an octaheme nitrite reductase [3, 18], or, in the case of the comammox Nitrospira , lack assimilatory nitrite reduction pathways [15, 19, 31]. Interestingly, the “N. lenta” BS10 genome also features an ure operon encoding a functional urease (UreC), as well as a complete gene set (urtABCDE) for a high affinity urea ABC transporter. This implies that “N. lenta” is able to hydrolyse urea to ammonium and CO2, facilitating nitrogen and carbon assimilation from urea and reciprocal feeding between “N. lenta” and urease-negative ammonia-oxidizing bacteria [3, 4]. The “N. lenta” urease is closely related to the enzyme of N. moscoviensis , but significantly differs from known ureases of ammonia-oxidizing bacteria [3].
Fig. 5
Fig. 5

Cell metabolic cartoon of “N. lenta” in comparison to N. moscoviensis and “N. defluvii”. CA, carbonic anhydrase; SOD, superoxide dismutase; CLD, chlorite dismutase; CynS, cyanate hydratase (cyanase); MCPs, methyl-accepting chemotaxis proteins; NirA, ferredoxin nitrite reductase; NirK, dissimilatory nitrite reductase. Enzyme complexes of the electron transport chain are labeled by Roman numerals

N. lenta” conserves energy by nitrite oxidation with oxygen as terminal electron acceptor. During nitrite oxidation catalyzed by NXR, two electrons are shuttled (putatively via cytochrome c) towards a putative novel bd-like terminal oxidase [17]. The proton motive force established through active proton pumping by this novel complex IV and/or the release of scalar protons during nitrite oxidation drives ATP synthesis by a FOF1-type ATPase (complex V). The other respiratory complexes (complexes I to III) will not contribute to energy conservation during lithoautotrophic growth on nitrite, but will operate in reverse to provide reducing equivalents for carbon fixation [17]. Moreover, the complete gene repertoire for the oxidative and reductive tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle is present in “N. lenta” for pyruvate oxidation via acetyl-CoA and CO2 fixation, respectively. Moreover, the complete glycolysis/gluconeogenesis and pentose phosphate pathways were identified. The observed presence of glycolysis and the oxidative TCA cycle might indicate that “N. lenta” can benefit from a mixotrophic lifestyle in the presence of organic carbon, as has been reported for other Nitrospira representatives [6, 16, 32].

Finally, the “N. lenta” genome contains various defense mechanisms against heavy metals, antibiotics, and the antibacterial agent acriflavine. “N. lenta” encodes a superoxide dismutase for defense mechanisms against oxidative stress, as well as several bacterioferritins, which can participate in oxidative stress resistance mechanisms [17].

Conclusions

Together with N. moscoviensis and “N. japonica”, “N. lenta” represents only the third cultured species of canonical nitrite-oxidizing Nitrospira from sublineage II. In this study, the genome of “N. lenta” was analyzed, demonstrating that “N. lenta” shares a significant amount of genomic features with other representatives of the genus. However, physiological differences observed by Nowka et al. regarding growth conditions and nitrite affinities [13, 21] clearly suggest a niche differentiation between different species. The “N. lenta” genome will facilitate a better understanding of the metabolic versatility of the genus Nitrospira and will be useful for future comparative studies, especially those with a focus on species obtained from engineered systems.

Abbreviations

NOB: 

Nitrite-oxidizing bacteria

NXR: 

Nitrite oxidoreductase

WWTP: 

Wastewater treatment plant

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Lianna Poghosyan, Jeroen Frank and Maartje van Kessel for helpful discussions. The LABGeM (CEA/IG/Genoscope & CNRS UMR8030) and the France Génomique National infrastructure (funded as part of Investissement d’avenir program managed by Agence Nationale pour la Recherche, contract ANR-10-INBS-09) are acknowledged for support within the MicroScope annotation platform.

Funding

This work was supported by the European Research Council (ERC AG 339880 ECOMOM), the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO; VENI grant 863.14.019), the Vienna Science and Technology Fund (WWTF; grant LS09–40), the Austrian Science Fund (FWF; grants P24101-B22 and P25231-B21), and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation grant SP 667/10–1 + 2).

Authors’ contributions

ES, HD, and SL designed the study, DS, BN, and SL performed research, DS and SL analyzed data, DS, ES, HD and SL wrote the paper, all authors reviewed and agreed with the final version of the 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 Microbiology, IWWR, Radboud University, Heyendaalseweg 135, 6525 AJ Nijmegen, Netherlands
(2)
Department of Microbiology & Biotechnology, University of Hamburg, Ohnhorststr. 18, 22609 Hamburg, Germany
(3)
Division of Microbial Ecology, Department of Microbiology and Ecosystem Science, University of Vienna, Althanstr. 14, 1090 Vienna, Austria

References

  1. Füssel J, Lücker S, Yilmaz P, Nowka B, van Kessel MAHJ, Bourceau P, et al. Adaptability as the key to success for the ubiquitous marine nitrite oxidizer Nitrococcus. Sci Adv. 2017;3(11):e1700807.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Koch H, Galushko A, Albertsen M, Schintlmeister A, Gruber-Dorninger C, Lücker S, et al. Growth of nitrite-oxidizing bacteria by aerobic hydrogen oxidation. Science. 2014;345(6200):1052–4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Koch H, Lücker S, Albertsen M, Kitzinger K, Herbold C, Spieck E, et al. Expanded metabolic versatility of ubiquitous nitrite-oxidizing bacteria from the genus Nitrospira. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(36):11371–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Palatinszky M, Herbold C, Jehmlich N, Pogoda M, Han P, von Bergen M, et al. Cyanate as an energy source for nitrifiers. Nature. 2015;524(7563):105–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Daims H, Lücker S, Wagner M. A new perspective on microbes formerly known as nitrite-oxidizing bacteria. Trends Microbiol. 2016;24(9):699–712.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Daims H, Nielsen JL, Nielsen PH, Schleifer KH, Wagner M. In situ characterization of Nitrospira-like nitrite-oxidizing bacteria active in wastewater treatment plants. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2001;67(11):5273–84.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Lebedeva EV, Alawi M, Maixner F, Jozsa PG, Daims H, Spieck E. Physiological and phylogenetic characterization of a novel lithoautotrophic nitrite-oxidizing bacterium, ‘Candidatus Nitrospira bockiana’. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2008;58(Pt 1):242–50.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Lebedeva EV, Off S, Zumbragel S, Kruse M, Shagzhina A, Lucker S, et al. Isolation and characterization of a moderately thermophilic nitrite-oxidizing bacterium from a geothermal spring. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2011;75(2):195–204.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Freitag TE, Chang L, Clegg CD, Prosser JI. Influence of inorganic nitrogen management regime on the diversity of nitrite-oxidizing bacteria in agricultural grassland soils. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005;71(12):8323–34.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Juretschko S, Timmermann G, Schmid M, Schleifer K-H, Pommerening-Röser A, Koops H-P, et al. Combined molecular and conventional analyses of nitrifying bacterium diversity in activated sludge: Nitrosococcus mobilis and Nitrospira-like bacteria as dominant populations. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1998;64(8):3042–51.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Lebedeva EV, Alawi M, Fiencke C, Namsaraev B, Bock E, Spieck E. Moderately thermophilic nitrifying bacteria from a hot spring of the Baikal rift zone. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2005;54(2):297–306.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Kits KD, Sedlacek CJ, Lebedeva EV, Han P, Bulaev A, Pjevac P, et al. Kinetic analysis of a complete nitrifier reveals an oligotrophic lifestyle. Nature. 2017;549:269–72.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Nowka B, Off S, Daims H, Spieck E. Improved isolation strategies allowed the phenotypic differentiation of two Nitrospira strains from widespread phylogenetic lineages. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2015;91(3):fiu031.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Ushiki N, Fujitani H, Aoi Y, Tsuneda S. Isolation of Nitrospira belonging to sublineage II from a wastewater treatment plant. Microbes Environ. 2013;28(3):346–53.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. van Kessel MA, Speth DR, Albertsen M, Nielsen PH, Op den Camp HJ, Kartal B, et al. Complete nitrification by a single microorganism. Nature. 2015;528(7583):555–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Gruber-Dorninger C, Pester M, Kitzinger K, Savio DF, Loy A, Rattei T, et al. Functionally relevant diversity of closely related Nitrospira in activated sludge. ISME J. 2015;9(3):643–55.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Lücker S, Wagner M, Maixner F, Pelletier E, Koch H, Vacherie B, et al. A Nitrospira metagenome illuminates the physiology and evolution of globally important nitrite-oxidizing bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107(30):13479–84.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Ushiki N, Fujitani H, Shimada Y, Morohoshi T, Sekiguchi Y, Tsuneda S. Genomic Analysis of Two Phylogenetically Distinct Nitrospira Species Reveals Their Genomic Plasticity and Functional Diversity. Front Microbiol. 2018;8:2637.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Daims H, Lebedeva EV, Pjevac P, Han P, Herbold C, Albertsen M, et al. Complete nitrification by Nitrospira bacteria. Nature. 2015;528(7583):504–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Ehrich S, Behrens D, Lebedeva E, Ludwig W, Bock E. A new obligately chemolithoautotrophic, nitrite-oxidizing bacterium, Nitrospira moscoviensis sp. nov. and its phylogenetic relationship. Arch Microbiol. 1995;164(1):16–23.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Nowka B, Daims H, Spieck E. Comparison of oxidation kinetics of nitrite-oxidizing bacteria: nitrite availability as a key factor in niche differentiation. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2015;81(2):745–53.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Lücker S, Nowka B, Rattei T, Spieck E, Daims H. The genome of Nitrospina gracilis illuminates the metabolism and evolution of the major marine nitrite oxidizer. Front Microbiol. 2013;4:27.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Parks DH, Imelfort M, Skennerton CT, Hugenholtz P, Tyson GW. CheckM: assessing the quality of microbial genomes recovered from isolates, single cells, and metagenomes. Genome Res. 2015;25(7):1043–55.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Vallenet D, Belda E, Calteau A, Cruveiller S, Engelen S, Lajus A, et al. MicroScope - an integrated microbial resource for the curation and comparative analysis of genomic and metabolic data. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41(D1):D636–47.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Vallenet D, Labarre L, Rouy Z, Barbe V, Bocs S, Cruveiller S, et al. MaGe: a microbial genome annotation system supported by synteny results. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006;34(1):53–65.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Wang Y, Coleman-Derr D, Chen G, Gu YQ. OrthoVenn: a web server for genome wide comparison and annotation of orthologous clusters across multiple species. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43(W1):W78–84.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Ushiki N, Jinno M, Fujitani H, Suenaga T, Terada A, Tsuneda S. Nitrite oxidation kinetics of two Nitrospira strains: the quest for competition and ecological niche differentiation. J Biosci Bioeng. 2017;123(5):581–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Maixner F, Noguera DR, Anneser B, Stoecker K, Wegl G, Wagner M, et al. Nitrite concentration influences the population structure of Nitrospira-like bacteria. Environ Microbiol. 2006;8(8):1487–95.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Spieck E, Ehrich S, Aamand J, Bock E. Isolation and immunocytochemical location of the nitrite-oxidizing system in Nitrospira moscoviensis. Arch Microbiol. 1998;169(3):225–30.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Starkenburg SR, Arp DJ, Bottomley PJ. Expression of a putative nitrite reductase and the reversible inhibition of nitrite-dependent respiration by nitric oxide in Nitrobacter winogradskyi Nb-255. Environ Microbiol. 2008;10(11):3036–42.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Lawson CE, Lücker S. Complete ammonia oxidation: an important control on nitrification in engineered ecosystems? Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2018;50:158–65.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Watson SW, Bock E, Valois FW, Waterbury JB, Schlosser U. Nitrospira marina gen. Nov. sp. nov.: a chemolithotrophic nitrite-oxidizing bacterium. Arch Microbiol. 1986;144(1):1–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Krzywinski MI, Schein JE, Birol I, Connors J, Gascoyne R, Horsman D, et al. Circos: An information aesthetic for comparative genomics. Genome Research. 2009;19(9):1639–45. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.092759.109.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 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(5):541–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. 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(12):4576–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Garrity GM, Holt JG, Spieck E, Bock E, Johnson DB, Spring S, et al. Phylum BVIII. Nitrospirae phy. nov. In: Boone DR, Castenholz RW, Garrity GM, editors. Bergey’s Manual® of Systematic Bacteriology: Volume One : The Archaea and the Deeply Branching and Phototrophic Bacteria. New York: Springer New York; 2001. p. 451–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-21609-6_25.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Ashburner M, Ball CA, Blake JA, Botstein D, Butler H, Cherry JM, et al. Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nat Genet. 2000;25:25.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Advertisement