Open Access

Complete genome sequence of Cellulophaga algicola type strain (IC166T)

  • Birte Abt1,
  • Megan Lu2, 3,
  • Monica Misra2, 3,
  • Cliff Han2, 3,
  • Matt Nolan2,
  • Susan Lucas2,
  • Nancy Hammon2,
  • Shweta Deshpande2,
  • Jan-Fang Cheng2,
  • Roxane Tapia2, 3,
  • Lynne Goodwin2, 3,
  • Sam Pitluck2,
  • Konstantinos Liolios2,
  • Ioanna Pagani2,
  • Natalia Ivanova2,
  • Konstantinos Mavromatis2,
  • Galina Ovchinikova2,
  • Amrita Pati2,
  • Amy Chen4,
  • Krishna Palaniappan4,
  • Miriam Land2, 5,
  • Loren Hauser2, 5,
  • Yun-Juan Chang2, 5,
  • Cynthia D. Jeffries2, 5,
  • John C. Detter2, 3,
  • Evelyne Brambilla1,
  • Manfred Rohde6,
  • Brian J. Tindall1,
  • Markus Göker1,
  • Tanja Woyke2,
  • James Bristow2,
  • Jonathan A. Eisen2, 7,
  • Victor Markowitz4,
  • Philip Hugenholtz2, 8,
  • Nikos C. Kyrpides2,
  • Hans-Peter Klenk1 and
  • Alla Lapidus2
Standards in Genomic Sciences20114:4010072

https://doi.org/10.4056/sigs.1543845

Published: 4 March 2011

Abstract

Cellulophaga algicola Bowman 2000 belongs to the family Flavobacteriaceae within the phylum ‘Bacteroidetes’ and was isolated from Melosira collected from the Eastern Antarctic coastal zone. The species is of interest because its members produce a wide range of extracellular enzymes capable of degrading proteins and polysaccharides with temperature optima of 20–30°C. This is the first completed genome sequence of a member of the genus Cellulophaga. The 4,888,353 bp long genome with its 4,285 protein-coding and 62 RNA genes consists of one circular chromosome and is a part of the Genomic Encyclopedia of Bacteria and Archaea project.

Keywords

aerobicmotile by glidingGram-negativeagarolyticchemoorganotrophiccold adapted enzymes Flavobacteriaceae GEBA

Introduction

Strain IC166T (= DSM 14237 = CIP 107446 = LMG 21425) is the type strain of C. algicola, which belongs to the family Flavobacteriaceae within the phylum ‘Bacteroidetes’. The strain was isolated from the surface of the chain-forming sea-ice diatom Melosira collected from the Eastern Antarctic coastal zone, and was described by Bowman in 2000 [1]. Currently, there are six species placed in the genus Cellulophaga, namely C. algicola [1], C. baltica, C. fucicola, C. lytica [2], C. pacifica [3] and C. tyrosinoxydans [4]. C. lytica is the type species of the genus Cellulophaga [2]. The generic name of the genus derives from the Neo Latin word ‘cellulosum’ meaning ‘cellulose’ and the Greek word ‘phagein’ meaning ‘to eat’, referring to an eater of cellulose. Here we present a summary classification and a set of features for C. algicola IC166T, together with the description of the complete genomic sequencing and annotation.

Classification and features

A representative genomic 16S rRNA sequence of C. algicola was compared using NCBI BLAST under default settings (e.g., considering only the high-scoring segment pairs (HSPs) from the best 250 hits) with the most recent release of the Greengenes database [5] and the relative frequencies, weighted by BLAST scores, of taxa and keywords (reduced to their stem [6]) were determined. The five most frequent genera were Cellulophaga (39.5%), Maribacter (7.8%), Flavobacterium (5.6%), Cytophaga (5.4%) and Formosa (4.7%) (135 hits in total). Regarding the 21 hits to sequences from members of the species, the average identity within HSPs was 95.8%, whereas the average coverage by HSPs was 94.9%. Regarding the 16 hits to sequences from other members of the genus, the average identity within HSPs was 94.7%, whereas the average coverage by HSPs was 94.7%. Among all other species, the one yielding the highest score was C. baltica, which corresponded to an identity of 98.1% and a HSP coverage of 97.8%. The highest-scoring environmental sequence was GU452686 (‘sediments coast oil polluted Black Sea coastal sediment clone 70SZ2’), which showed an identity of 96.5% and a HSP coverage of 98.1%. The five most frequent keywords within the labels of environmental samples which yielded hits were ‘marin’ (4.7%), ‘water’ (4.3%), ‘sediment’ (4.3%), ‘sea’ (3.5%) and ‘coastal’ (2.6%) (115 hits in total). Environmental samples which yielded hits of a higher score than the highest scoring species were not found.

The environmental samples database (env_nt) contains the marine metagenome clone ctg_1101667042524 (AACY022635173) isolated from Sargasso Sea near Bermuda, sharing 92% identity with IC166T [7] (as of January 2011).

Figure 1 shows the phylogenetic neighborhood of C. algicola IC166T in a 16S rRNA based tree. The sequences of the five 16S rRNA gene copies in the genome differ from each other by up to two nucleotides, and differ by up to 14 nucleotides from the previously published 16S rRNA sequence (AF001366), which contains nine ambiguous base calls.
Figure 1.

Phylogenetic tree highlighting the position of C. algicola IC166T relative to the other type strains within the family Flavobacteriaceae. The tree was inferred from 1,458 aligned characters [8,9] of the 16S rRNA gene sequence under the maximum likelihood criterion [10] and rooted in accordance with the current taxonomy. The branches are scaled in terms of the expected number of substitutions per site. Numbers above branches are support values from 350 bootstrap replicates [11] if larger than 60%. Lineages with type strain genome sequencing projects registered in GOLD [12] are shown in blue, published genomes in bold.

The cells of C. algicola are generally rod-shaped with rounded or tapered ends with cell lengths and widths ranging from 1.5 to 4 and 0.4 to 0.5 µm, respectively (Figure 2 and Table 1). C. algicola is motile by gliding [1]. Colonies on marine 2216 agar have yellow-orange pigmentation and a compact center, with a spreading edge possessing lighter pigmentation. Their consistency is slimy and they are slightly sunken into the agar [1]. Flexirubin pigments are not formed. C. algicola grows between 0.5 and 10% NaCl, with the best growth in the presence of about 2% NaCl. The temperature range for growth is between -2°C and 28°C, with an optimum between 15–20°C on solid media and at about 20–25°C in liquid media [1]. The optimal pH for growth is about 7.5 [1].
Figure 2.

Scanning electron micrograph of C. algicola IC166T

Table 1.

Classification and general features of C. algicola IC166T according to the MIGS recommendations [13].

MIGS ID

Property

Term

Evidence code

 

Current classification

Domain Bacteria

TAS [14]

 

Phylum Bacteroidetes

TAS [15,16]

 

Class Flavobacteria

TAS [17]

 

Order ‘Flavobacteriales

TAS [15]

 

Family Flavobacteriaceae

TAS [1821]

 

Genus Cellulophaga

TAS [2]

 

Species Cellulophaga algicola

TAS [1]

 

Type strain IC166

TAS [1]

 

Gram stain

negative

TAS [1]

 

Cell shape

rod-shaped

TAS [1]

 

Motility

motile by gliding

TAS [1]

 

Sporulation

none

TAS [1]

 

Temperature range

−2 °C–28°C

TAS [1]

 

Optimum temperature

20°C

TAS [1]

 

Salinity

0.5–10% NaCl

TAS [1]

MIGS-22

Oxygen requirement

aerobic

TAS [1]

 

Carbon source

carbohydrates

TAS [1]

 

Energy source

chemoheterotroph

TAS [1]

MIGS-6

Habitat

sea ice diatoms, macrophyte surfaces

TAS [1]

MIGS-15

Biotic relationship

free-living

NAS

MIGS-14

Pathogenicity

none

NAS

 

Biosafety level

1

TAS [22]

 

Isolation

surfaces of Antarctic algae

TAS [1]

MIGS-4

Geographic location

eastern Antarctic coastal zone

TAS [1]

MIGS-5

Sample collection time

1996

NAS

MIGS-4.1

Latitude

not reported

NAS

MIGS-4.2

Longitude

not reported

NAS

MIGS-4.3

Depth

not reported

NAS

MIGS-4.4

Altitude

not reported

NAS

Evidence codes - IDA: Inferred from Direct Assay (first time in publication); 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 of the Gene Ontology project [23]. If the evidence code is IDA, then the property was directly observed by one of the authors or an expert mentioned in the acknowledgements.

The organism is strictly aerobic and chemoorganotrophic [1]. C. algicola can hydrolyze agar, starch, gelatine, carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), casein, Tween 80, tributyrin and L-tyrosine, but not urate, xanthine or dextran, when grown in presence of 1% L-tyrosine a reddish-brown diffusible pigment is formed [1]. Nitrate reduction is positive, whereas denitrification, H2S production and indole production are negative [1,18]. Acid is formed oxidatively from D-galactose, D-glucose, D-fructose, sucrose, cellobiose, lactose and mannitol. Strain IC166T is sensitive to ampicillin, streptomycin and carbenicillin and shows resistance to tetracycline [3].

Chemotaxonomy

The fatty acid profile of seven Antarctic strains, including strain IC166T, was analyzed by Bowman in 2000 [1]. The hypothetical median representative of the Antarctic isolates was published. The predominant cellular fatty acids of these seven strains were branched-chain saturated and unsaturated fatty acids and straight-chain saturated and mono-unsaturated fatty acids, namely iso-C15:0 (7.5%), iso-C15:1ω10c (7.5%), iso -C17:1ω7c (6.1%), C15:0 (14.3%), C16:1ω7c (19.2%), iso -C15:0 3-OH (8.6%), iso-C16:0 3-OH (6.5%) and iso -C17:0 3-OH (4.5%) [1]. The isoprenoid quinones of C. algicola were not determined, but for C. pacifica the presence of MK-6 as the major lipoquinone was described [3]. Polar lipids not have been studied.

Genome sequencing and annotation

Genome project history

This organism was selected for sequencing on the basis of its phylogenetic position [24], and is part of the Genomic Encyclopedia of Bacteria and Archaea project [25]. The genome project is deposited in the Genomes OnLine Database [12] and the complete genome sequence is deposited in GenBank. Sequencing, finishing and annotation were performed by the DOE Joint Genome Institute (JGI). A summary of the project information is shown in Table 2.
Table 2.

Genome sequencing project information

MIGS ID

Property

Term

MIGS-31

Finishing quality

Finished

MIGS-28

Libraries used

Three genomic libraries: one 454 pyrosequence standard library, one 454 PE library (12 kb insert size), one Illumina library

MIGS-29

Sequencing platforms

Illumina GAii, 454 GS FLX Titanium

MIGS-31.2

Sequencing coverage

146.0 × Illumina; 53.5 × pyrosequence

MIGS-30

Assemblers

Newbler version 2.0.00.20-PostRelease-10-28-2008-g-3.4.6, Velvet version 0.7.63, phrap version SPS D 4.24

MIGS-32

Gene calling method

Prodigal 1.4, GenePRIMP

 

INSDC ID

CP002453

 

Genbank Date of Release

January 18, 2011

 

GOLD ID

Gc01592

 

NCBI project ID

41529

 

Database: IMG-GEBA

2503904003

MIGS-13

Source material identifier

DSM 14237

 

Project relevance

Tree of Life, GEBA

Growth conditions and DNA isolation

C. algicola IC166T, DSM 14237, was grown in DSMZ medium 514 (BACTO marine broth) [26] at 15°C. DNA was isolated from 0.5–1 g of cell paste using MasterPure Gram-positive DNA purification kit (Epicentre MGP04100) following the standard protocol as recommended by the manufacturer with modification st/DL for cell lysis as described in Wu et al. [25]. DNA is available through the DNA Bank Network [27].

Genome sequencing and assembly

The genome was sequenced using a combination of Illumina and 454 sequencing platforms. All general aspects of library construction and sequencing can be found at the JGI website [28]. Pyrosequencing reads were assembled using the Newbler assembler version 2.3-PreRelease-09-14-2009-bin (Roche). The initial Newbler assembly consisting of 128 contigs in two scaffolds was converted into a phrap assembly by [29] making fake reads from the consensus, to collect the read pairs in the 454 paired end library. Illumina GAii sequencing data (710 Mb) was assembled with Velvet [30] and the consensus sequences were shredded into 1.5 kb overlapped fake reads and assembled together with the 454 data. The 454 draft assembly was based on 263.4Mb 454 draft data and all of the 454 paired end data. Newbler parameters are -consed -a 50 -l 350 -g -m -ml 20. The Phred/Phrap/Consed software package [29] was used for sequence assembly and quality assessment in the subsequent finishing process. After the shotgun stage, reads were assembled with parallel phrap (High Performance Software, LLC). Possible mis-assemblies were corrected with gapResolution [28], Dupfinisher [31], or sequencing cloned bridging PCR fragments with subcloning or transposon bombing (Epicentre Biotechnologies, Madison, WI). Gaps between contigs were closed by editing in Consed, by PCR and by Bubble PCR primer walks (J.-F.Chang, unpublished). A total of 1,054 additional reactions and three shatter libraries were necessary to close gaps and to raise the quality of the finished sequence. Illumina reads were also used to correct potential base errors and increase consensus quality using a software Polisher developed at JGI [32]. The error rate of the completed genome sequence is less than 1 in 100,000. Together, the combination of the Illumina and 454 sequencing platforms provided 199.5 × coverage of the genome. The final assembly contained 697,305 pyrosequence and 20,331,123 Illumina reads

Genome annotation

Genes were identified using Prodigal [33] as part of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory genome annotation pipeline, followed by a round of manual curation using the JGI GenePRIMP pipeline [34]. The predicted CDSs were translated and used to search the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) nonredundant database, UniProt, TIGR-Fam, Pfam, PRIAM, KEGG, COG, and InterPro databases. Additional gene prediction analysis and functional annotation was performed within the Integrated Microbial Genomes - Expert Review (IMG-ER) platform [35].

Genome properties

The genome consists of a 4,888,353 bp long chromosome with a GC content of 33.8% (Table 3 and Figure 3). Of the 4,347 genes predicted, 4,285 were protein-coding genes, and 62 RNAs; 122 pseudogenes were also identified. The majority of the protein-coding genes (59.5%) were assigned with a putative function while the remaining ones were annotated as hypothetical proteins. The distribution of genes into COGs functional categories is presented in Table 4.
Figure 3.

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

Table 3.

Genome Statistics

Attribute

Value

% of Total

Genome size (bp)

4,888,353

100.00%

DNA coding region (bp)

4,301,528

88.00%

DNA G+C content (bp)

1,650,610

33.77%

Number of replicons

1

 

Extrachromosomal elements

0

 

Total genes

4,347

100.00%

RNA genes

62

1.43%

rRNA operons

5

 

Protein-coding genes

4,285

98.57%

Pseudo genes

122

2.81%

Genes with function prediction

2,587

59.51%

Genes in paralog clusters

698

16.06%

Genes assigned to COGs

2,539

58.41%

Genes assigned Pfam domains

2,822

64.92%

Genes with signal peptides

1,220

28.07%

Genes with transmembrane helices

1,010

23.23%

CRISPR repeats

0

 
Table 4.

Number of genes associated with the general COG functional categories

Code

value

%age

Description

J

160

5.8

Translation, ribosomal structure and biogenesis

A

0

0.0

RNA processing and modification

K

174

6.3

Transcription

L

147

5.4

Replication, recombination and repair

B

1

0.0

Chromatin structure and dynamics

D

20

0.7

Cell cycle control, cell division, chromosome partitioning

Y

0

0.0

Nuclear structure

V

63

2.3

Defense mechanisms

T

167

6.1

Signal transduction mechanisms

M

239

8.7

Cell wall/membrane/envelope biogenesis

N

7

0.3

Cell motility

Z

0

0.0

Cytoskeleton

W

0

0.0

Extracellular structures

U

41

1.5

Intracellular trafficking, secretion, and vesicular transport

O

99

3.6

Posttranslational modification, protein turnover, chaperones

C

135

4.9

Energy production and conversion

G

172

6.3

Carbohydrate transport and metabolism

E

208

7.6

Amino acid transport and metabolism

F

70

2.6

Nucleotide transport and metabolism

H

131

4.8

Coenzyme transport and metabolism

I

97

3.5

Lipid transport and metabolism

P

174

6.3

Inorganic ion transport and metabolism

Q

52

1.9

Secondary metabolites biosynthesis, transport and catabolism

R

345

12.6

General function prediction only

S

247

9.0

Function unknown

-

1,808

41.6

Not in COGs

Insights from genome sequence

A closer look on the genome sequence of strain IC166T revealed a set of genes which might be responsible for the yellow-orange color of C. algicola cells by encoding enzymes that are involved in the synthesis of carotenoids. Carotenoids are produced by the action of geranylgeranyl pyrophosphate synthase (Celal_1770), phytoene synthase (Celal_2446), phytoene desaturase (Celal_2447), lycopene cyclase (Celal_1771) and carotene hydroxylase (Celal_2445). Geranylgeranyl pyrophosphate synthases start the biosynthesis of carotenoids by combining farnesyl pyrophosphate with C5 isoprenoid units to C20-molecules, geranylgeranyl pyrophosphate. The phytoene synthase catalyzes the condensation of two geranylgeranyl pyrophosphate molecules followed by the removal of diphosphate and a proton shift leading to the formation of phytoene. Sequential desaturation steps are conducted by the phytoene desaturase followed by cyclisation of the ends of the molecules catalyzed by the lycopene cyclase [36].

Strain IC166T produces a wide range of extracellular enzymes degrading proteins and polysaccharides. These enzymes are cold adapted, they have temperature optima between 15–30°C and can tolerate temperatures below 0°C [37]. For that reason they are of special interest for industrial and biotechnical applications. C. algicola like the other members of the genus Cellulophaga, cannot hydrolyze filter paper or cellulose in its crystalline form, though they can hydrolyze the soluble cellulose derivative carboxymethylcellulose (CMC). The genome sequence of strain IC166T revealed the presence of three cellulases (Celal_0025, Celal_2753, Celal_3912), probably responsible for the hydrolysis of CMC. In addition two β-glucosidases (Celal_0470, Celal_1802) were identified in the genome, catalyzing the break down of the glycosidic β-1,4 bond between two glucose molecules in cellobiose.

The IC166T genome contains 22 genes coding for sulfatases, which are located in close proximity to glycoside hydrolase genes suggesting that sulfated polysaccharides may be used as substrates. α-L-fucoidan could be a substrate, as five α-L-fucosidases (Celal_2459, Celal_2466, Celal_2469, Celal_2470, Celal_2473) are located in close proximity to three sulfatases (Celal_2464, Celal_2468, Celal_2472). Sakai and colleagues report the existence of intracellular α-L-fucosidases and sulfatases, which enable ‘Fucophilus fucoidanolyticus’ to degrade fucoidan [38]. This fucoidan degrading ability could be also shared by Coraliomargarita akajimensis, as the annotation of the genome sequence revealed the existence of 49 sulfatases and twelve α-L-fucosidases [39]. In addition, three β-agarases (Celal_2463, Celal_2494, Celal_3979) were identified, with two of them located in the above mentioned region, which is rich in genes encoding glycoside hydrolases and sulfatases.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We would like to gratefully acknowledge the help of Regine Fähnrich (DSMZ) for growing C. algicola cultures. This work was performed under the auspices of the US Department of Energy Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research Program, and by the University of California, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory under contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract No. DE-AC52-07NA27344, and Los Alamos National Laboratory under contract No. DE-AC02-06NA25396, UT-Battelle and Oak Ridge National Laboratory under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725, as well as German Research Foundation (DFG) INST 599/1-2.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
DSMZ - German Collection of Microorganisms and Cell Cultures GmbH
(2)
DOE Joint Genome Institute
(3)
Bioscience Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory
(4)
Biological Data Management and Technology Center, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
(5)
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
(6)
HZI - Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research
(7)
University of California Davis Genome Center
(8)
Australian Centre for Ecogenomics, School of Chemistry and Molecular Biosciences, The University of Queensland

References

  1. Bowman JP. Description of Cellulophaga algicola sp. nov., isolated from the surfaces of Antarctic algae, and reclassification of Cytophaga uliginosa (ZoBell and Upham 1944) Reichenbach 1989 as Cellulophaga uliginosa comb. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2000; 50:1861–1868. PubMedView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Johansen JE, Nielsen P, Sjøholm C. Description of Cellulophaga baltica gen. nov., sp. nov. and Cellulophaga fucicola gen. nov., sp. nov. and reclassification of [Cytophaga] lytica to Cellulophaga lytica gen. nov., comb. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 1999; 49:1231–1240. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Nedashkovskaya OI, Suzuki M, Lysenko AM, Snauwaert C, Vancanneyt M, Swings J, Vysotskii MV, Mikhailov VV. Cellulophaga pacifica sp. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2004; 54:609–613. PubMed doi:10.1099/ijs.0.02737-0View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Kahng HY, Chung BS, Lee DH, Jung JS, Park JH, Joen CO. Cellulophaga tyrosinoxydans sp. nov., a tyrosinase producing bacterium isolated from seawater. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2009; 59:654–657. PubMed doi:10.1099/ijs.0.003210-0View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. DeSantis TZ, Hugenholtz P, Larsen N, Rojas M, Brodie EL, Keller K, Huber T, Dalevi D, Hu P, Andersen GL. Greengenes, a chimera-checked 16S rRNA gene database and workbench compatible with ARB. Appl Environ Microbiol 2006; 72:5069–5072. PubMed doi:10.1128/AEM.03006-05PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Porter MF. An algorithm for suffix stripping. Program: electronic library and information systems 1980; 14:130–137 doi:10.1108/eb046814View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Venter JC, Remington K, Heidelberg JF, Halpern AL, Rusch D, Eisen JA, Wu D, Paulsen I, Nelson KE, Nelson W. Environmental genome shotgun sequencing of the Sargasso Sea. Science 2004; 304:66–74. PubMed doi:10.1126/science.1093857View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Castresana J. Selection of conserved blocks from multiple alignments for their use in phylogenetic analysis. Mol Biol Evol 2000; 17:540–552. PubMedView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Lee C, Grasso C, Sharlow MF. Multiple sequence alignment using partial order graphs. Bioinformatics 2002; 18:452–464. PubMed doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/18.3.452View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Stamatakis A, Hoover P, Rougemont J. A rapid bootstrap algorithm for the RAxML Web servers. Syst Biol 2008; 57:758–771. PubMed doi:10.1080/10635150802429642View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Pattengale ND, Alipour M, Bininda-Emonds ORP, Moret BME, Stamatakis A. How many bootstrap replicates are necessary? Lect Notes Comput Sci 2009; 5541:184–200. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02 008-7 1 3View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Liolios K, Chen IM, Mavromatis K, Tavernarakis N, Hugenholtz P, Markowitz VM, Kyrpides NC. The Genomes On Line Database (GOLD) in 2009: status of genomic and metagenomic projects and their associated metadata. Nucleic Acids Res 2010; 38:D346–D354. PubMed doi:10.1093/nar/gkp848PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Field D, Garrity G, Gray T, Morrison N, Selengut J, Sterk P, Tatusova T, Thomson N, Allen MJ, Angiuoli SV, et al. The minimum information about a genome sequence (MIGS) specification. Nat Biotechnol 2008; 26:541–547. PubMed doi:10.1038/nbt1360PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Woese CR, Kandler O, Wheelis ML. Towards a natural system of organisms: proposal for the domains Archaea, Bacteria, and Eucarya. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1990; 87:4576–4579. PubMed doi:10.1073/pnas.87.12.4576PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Garrity GM, Holt J. Taxonomic outline of the Archaea and Bacteria. In: Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, 2nd ed. vol. 1. The Archaea, Deeply Branchingand Phototrophic Bacteria. Garrity GM, Boone DR and Castenholz RW (eds). 2001; 155–166.Google Scholar
  16. Garrity GM, Holt JG. The Road Map to the Manual. In: Garrity GM, Boone DR, Castenholz RW (eds), Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, Second Edition, Volume 1, Springer, New York, 2001, p. 119–169.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Ludwig W, Euzeby J, Whitman WG. Draft taxonomic outline of the Bacteroidetes, Planctomycetes, Chlamydiae, Spirochaetes, Fibrobacteres, Fusobacteria, Acidobacteria, Verrucomicrobia, Dictyoglomi, and Gemmatimonadetes. http://www.bergeys.org/outlines/Bergeys_Vol_4_Outline.pdf. Taxonomic Outline 2008.
  18. Bernardet JF, Nakagawa Y, Holmes B. Proposed minimal standards for describing new taxa of the family Flavobacteriaceae and emended description of the family. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2002; 52:1049–1070. PubMed doi:10.1099/ijs.0.02136-0PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. List Editor. Validation of the publication of new names and new combinations previously effectively published outside the IJSB. List No. 41. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1992; 42:327–328. doi:10.1099/00207713-42-2-327Google Scholar
  20. Reichenbach H. Order 1. Cytophagales Leadbetter 1974, 99AL. In: Holt JG (ed), Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, First Edition, Volume 3, The Williams and Wilkins Co., Baltimore, 1989, p. 2011–2013.Google Scholar
  21. Bernardet JF, Segers P, Vancanneyt M, Berthe F, Kersters K, Vandamme P. Cutting a Gordian knot: emended classification and description of the genus Flavobacterium, emended description of the family Flavobacteriaceae, and proposal of Flavobacterium hydatis nom. nov. (Basonym, Cytophaga aquatilis Strohl and Tait 1978). Int J Syst Bacteriol 1996; 46:128–148. doi:10.1099/002 07713-46-1-128View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Classification of Bacteria and Archaea in risk groups. http://www.baua.de.
  23. Ashburner M, Ball CA, Blake JA, Botstein D, Butler H, Cherry JM, Davis AP, Dolinski K, Dwight SS, Eppig JT, et al. Gene Ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nat Genet 2000; 25:25–29. PubMed doi:10.1038/75556PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Klenk HP, Goeker M. En route to a genome-based classification of Archaea and Bacteria? Syst Appl Microbiol 2010; 33:175–182. PubMed doi:10.1016/j.syapm.2010.03.003View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Wu D, Hugenholtz P, Mavromatis K, Pukall R, Dalin E, Ivanova NN, Kunin V, Goodwin L, Wu M, Tindall BJ, et al. A phylogeny-driven genomic encyclopaedia of Bacteria and Archaea. Nature 2009; 462:1056–1060. PubMed doi:10.1038/nature08656PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. List of growth media used at DSMZ: http://www.dsmz.de/microorganisms/media_list.php.
  27. Gemeinholzer B, Dröge G, Zetzsche H, Haszprunar G, Klenk HP, Güntsch A, Berendsohn WG, Wägele JW. The DNA Bank Network: the start from a German initiative. Biopreservation and Biobanking (In press).Google Scholar
  28. The DOE Joint Genome Institute. www.jgi.doe.gov
  29. Phrap and Phred for Windows. MacOS, Linux, and Unix. http://www.phrap.com
  30. Zerbino DR, Birney E. Velvet: algorithms for de novo short read assembly using de Bruijn graphs. Genome Res 2008; 18:821–829. PubMed doi:10.1101/gr.074492.107PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Han C, Chain P. 2006. Finishing repeat regions automatically with Dupfinisher. in Proceeding of the 2006 international conference on bioinformatics & computational biology. Edited by Hamid R. Arabnia & Homayoun Valafar, CSREA Press. June 26–29, 2006: 141–146.Google Scholar
  32. Lapidus A, LaButti K, Foster B, Lowry S, Trong S, Goltsman E. POLISHER: An effective tool for using ultra short reads in microbial genome assembly and finishing. AGBT, Marco Island, FL, 2008.Google Scholar
  33. Hyatt D, Chen GL, LoCascio PF, Land ML, Larimer FW, Hauser LJ. Prodigal: prokaryotic gene recognition and translation initiation site identification. BMC Bioinformatics 2010; 11:119. PubMed doi:10.1186/1471-2105-11-119PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Pati A, Ivanova NN, Mikhailova N, Ovchinnikova G, Hooper SD, Lykidis A, Kyrpides NC. GenePRIMP: a gene prediction improvement pipeline for prokaryotic genomes. Nat Methods 2010; 7:455–457. PubMed doi:10.1038/nmeth.1457View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Markowitz VM, Ivanova NN, Chen IMA, Chu K, Kyrpides NC. IMG ER: a system for microbial genome annotation expert review and curation. Bioinformatics 2009; 25:2271–2278. PubMed doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btp393View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Sandmann G. Carotenoid biosynthesis and bio-technological application. Arch Biochem Biophys 2001; 385:4–12. PubMed doi:10.1006/abbi.2000.2170View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Nichols D, Bowman J, Sanderson K, Nichols CM, Lewis T, McMeekin T, Nichols PD. Developments with Antarctic microorganisms: culture collections, bioactivity screening, taxonomy, PUFA production and cold-adapted enzymes. Curr Opin Biotechnol 1999; 10:240–246. PubMed doi:10.1016/S0958-1669(99)80042-1View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Sakai T, Ishizuka K, Kato I. Isolation and characterization of fucoidan-degrading marine bacterium. Mar Biotechnol 2003; 5:409–416. PubMed doi:10.1007/s10126-002-0118-6View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Mavromatis K, Abt B, Brambilla E, Lapidus A, Copeland A, Desphande S, Nolan M, Lucas S, Tice H, Cheng JF. Complete genome sequence of Coraliomargarita akajimensis type strain (04OKA010-24 T). Stand Genomic Sci 2010; 2:290–299. PubMed doi:10.4056/sigs.952166PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2011