Open Access

Complete genome sequence of Nitratifractor salsuginis type strain (E9I37-1T)

  • Iain Anderson1,
  • Johannes Sikorski2,
  • Ahmet Zeytun1, 3,
  • Matt Nolan1,
  • Alla Lapidus1,
  • Susan Lucas1,
  • Nancy Hammon1,
  • Shweta Deshpande1,
  • Jan-Fang Cheng1,
  • Roxanne Tapia1, 3,
  • Cliff Han1, 3,
  • Lynne Goodwin1, 3,
  • Sam Pitluck1,
  • Konstantinos Liolios1,
  • Ioanna Pagani1,
  • Natalia Ivanova1,
  • Marcel Huntemann1,
  • Konstantinos Mavromatis1,
  • Galina Ovchinikova1,
  • Amrita Pati1,
  • Amy Chen4,
  • Krishna Palaniappan4,
  • Miriam Land1, 5,
  • Loren Hauser1, 5,
  • Evelyne-Marie Brambilla2,
  • Olivier D. Ngatchou-Djao6,
  • Manfred Rohde6,
  • Brian J. Tindall2,
  • Markus Göker2,
  • John C. Detter1, 3,
  • Tanja Woyke1,
  • James Bristow1,
  • Jonathan A. Eisen1, 7,
  • Victor Markowitz4,
  • Philip Hugenholtz1, 8,
  • Hans-Peter Klenk2 and
  • Nikos C. Kyrpides1
Standards in Genomic Sciences20114:4030322

https://doi.org/10.4056/sigs.1844518

Published: 1 July 2011

Abstract

Nitratifractor salsuginis Nakagawa et al. 2005 is the type species of the genus Nitratifractor, a member of the family Nautiliaceae. The species is of interest because of its high capacity for nitrate reduction via conversion to N2 through respiration, which is a key compound in plant nutrition. The strain is also of interest because it represents the first mesophilic and facultatively anaerobic member of the Epsilonproteobacteria reported to grow on molecular hydrogen. This is the first completed genome sequence of a member of the genus Nitratifractor and the second sequence from the family Nautiliaceae. The 2,101,285 bp long genome with its 2,121 protein-coding and 54 RNA genes is a part of the Genomic Encyclopedia of Bacteria and Archaea project.

Keywords

anaerobic microaerobic non-motile Gram-negative mesophilic strictly chemolithoautotroph Nautiliaceae GEBA

Introduction

Strain E9I37-1T (= DSM 16511 = JCM 12458) is the type strain of Nitratifractor salsuginis, which in turn is the type and currently only species of the genus Nitratifractor [1]. The genus name is derived from the Neo-Latin word nitras meaning nitrate and the Latin word fractor meaning breaker, yielding the Neo-Latin word Nitratifractor meaning nitrate-breaker [1]. N. salsuginis strain E9I37-1T was isolated from a deep-sea hydrothermal vent chimney at the Iheya North hydrothermal field in the Mid-Okinawa Trough in Japan [1,2]. No further isolates of N. salsuginis have been obtained so far. Here we present a summary classification and a set of features for N. salsuginis E9I37-1T, together with the description of the complete genomic sequencing and annotation.

Classification and features

A representative genomic 16S rRNA sequence of strain E9I37-1T 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 [3] and the relative frequencies, weighted by BLAST scores, of taxa and keywords (reduced to their stem [4]) were determined. The four most frequent genera were Nitratiruptor (48.5%), Nitratifractor (20.7%), Hydrogenimonas (15.7%) and Alvinella (15.1%) (eleven hits in total). Regarding the single hit to sequences from members of the species, the average identity within HSPs was 100.0%, whereas the average coverage by HSPs was 95.6%. Among all other species, the one yielding the highest score was Hydrogenimonas thermophila, which corresponded to an identity of 88.5% and an HSP coverage of 67.2%. (Note that the Greengenes database uses the INSDC (= EMBL/NCBI/DDBJ) annotation, which is not an authoritative source for nomenclature or classification.) The highest-scoring environmental sequence was AF420348 (‘hydrothermal sediment clone AF420348’) [5], which showed an identity of 96.7% and an HSP coverage of 97.8%. The five most frequent keywords within the labels of environmental samples which yielded hits were ‘cave’ (7.2%), ‘biofilm’ (5.7%), ‘sulfid’ (5.3%), ‘spring’ (4.8%) and ‘structur’ (3.1%) (239 hits in total). The five most frequent keywords within the labels of environmental samples which yielded hits of a higher score than the highest scoring species were ‘hydrotherm’ (8.6%), ‘vent’ (7.5%), ‘pacif’ (4.0%), ‘microbi’ (3.7%) and ‘mat’ (3.0%) (37 hits in total). These keywords are in accordance with the origin of the strain N. salsuginis E9I37-1T from a deep-sea hydrothermal vent chimney at the summits of the sulfide mounds in the sediment-hosted back-arc hydrothermal system Iheya North [1,2].

The 16S rRNA based tree in Figure 1 shows the phylogenetic neighborhood of N. salsuginis E9I37-1T. The sequences of the two identical 16S rRNA gene copies in the genome do not differ from the previously published 16S rRNA sequence (AB175500).
Figure 1.

Phylogenetic tree highlighting the position of N. salsuginis strain E9I37-1T relative to the other type strains within the family Nautiliaceae. The tree was inferred from 1,356 aligned characters [6,7] of the 16S rRNA gene sequence under the maximum likelihood criterion [8] and rooted in accordance with the current taxonomy. The branches are scaled in terms of the expected number of substitutions per site. Numbers to the right of bifurcations are support values from 200 bootstrap replicates [9] if larger than 60%. Lineages with type strain genome sequencing projects registered in GOLD [10] are labeled with an asterisk when unpublished, and with two asterisks when published [11]. The closest BLAST hit to N. salsuginis (see above) does not belong to Nautiliaceae, and this family does not appear as monophyletic in the last version of the 16S rRNA phylogeny from the All-Species-Living-Tree Project [12]. The species selection for Figure 1 was based on the current taxonomic classification (Table 1). However, an analysis including the type strains of Nautiliaceae and its neighboring families Campylobacteraceae, Helicobacteraceae and Hydrogenimonaceae (data not shown) did not provide evidence for the non-monophyly for any of these families.

The cells of strain E9I37-1T are generally rod-shaped of 2.5 µm in length and 0.6 µm in width (Figure 2) and usually occur singly or in pairs (Figure 2) [1]. Strain E9I37-1T is a Gram-negative, non-motile and non spore-forming bacterium (Table 1). The organism is anaerobic to microaerophilic (0.09-0.55% O2 (v/v)) and chemolithoautotrophic, growing by respiratory nitrate reduction with H2 as the electron donor, forming N2 as a metabolic end product [1]. The main electron acceptors are NO3- or O2 [1]. Strain E9I37-1T uses S0 as a source of sulfur [1]. The doubling time of strain E9I37-1T was about 2.5 h [1]. The NaCl range for growth is between 1.5% and 3.5%, with an optimum at 3%; no growth was observed below 1.0% NaCl or above 4.0% NaCl [1]. The temperature range for growth is between 28ºC and 40ºC, with an optimum at 37ºC [1]. The pH range for growth is between 5.6 and 7.6, with an optimum at pH 7; no growth could be detected below pH 5.2 or above pH 8.1 [1]. Strain E9I37-1T was unable to use any organic compounds as energy or carbon sources [1]. The organism was sensitive to ampicillin, rifampicin, streptomycin, chloramphenicol (each at 50 µg ml-l) and kanamycin (200 µg ml-1), and insensitive to approximately 150 µg ml-1 kanamycin [1]. Enzymatic and genetic analyses demonstrated that strain E9I37-1T uses the reductive TCA (rTCA) cycle for carbon assimilation [21]. This was confirmed by the presence of all genes encoding the three key rTCA cycle enzymatic activities, namely ATP-dependent citrate lyase, pyruvate:ferredoxin oxidoreductase, and 2-oxoglutarate:ferredoxin oxidoreductase [21], but it was found to lack the gene for ribulose 1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase (RubisCO) activity, the key enzyme in the Calvin-Benson cycle [21].
Figure 2.

Scanning electron micrograph of N. salsuginis E9I37-1T

Table 1.

Classification and general features of N. salsuginis E9I37-1T according to the MIGS recommendations [13].

MIGS ID

Property

Term

Evidence code

 

Current classification

Domain Bacteria

TAS [14]

 

Phylum Proteobacteria

TAS [15]

 

Class Epsilonproteobacteria

TAS [16,17]

 

Order Nautiliales

TAS [18]

 

Family Nautiliaceae

TAS [18]

 

Genus Nitratifractor

TAS [1]

 

Species Nitratifractor salsuginis

TAS [1]

 

Type strain E9I37-1

TAS [1]

 

Gram stain

negative

TAS [1]

 

Cell shape

rod shaped, occurring singly or in pairs

TAS [1]

 

Motility

non-motile

TAS [1]

 

Sporulation

none

TAS [1]

 

Temperature range

28–40°C

TAS [1]

 

Optimum temperature

37°C

TAS [1]

 

Salinity

1.5–3.5% NaCl

TAS [1]

MIGS-22

Oxygen requirement

anaerobic and microaerobic

TAS [1]

 

Carbon source

probably CO2

NAS

 

Energy metabolism

strictly chemolithoautotrophic

TAS [1]

MIGS-6

Habitat

deep-sea hydrothermal vent chimneys

TAS [1]

MIGS-15

Biotic relationship

not reported

NAS

MIGS-14

Pathogenicity

not reported

NAS

 

Biosafety level

1

TAS [19]

 

Isolation

deep-sea hydrothermal vent water of ‘E9’ chimney (inside part)

TAS [1,2]

MIGS-4

Geographic location

Iheya North hydrothermal field in the Mid-Okinawa Trough in Japan

TAS [1,2]

MIGS-5

Sample collection time

2002 or before

TAS [1,2]

MIGS-4.1

Latitude

27.78

TAS [1,2]

MIGS-4.2

Longitude

126.88

TAS [1,2]

MIGS-4.3

Depth

984 m

TAS [1,2]

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 [20]. If the evidence code is IDA, the property was directly observed by one of the authors or an expert mentioned in the acknowledgements.

Chemotaxonomy

The major cellular fatty acids of strain E9I37-1Tare C18:1 (42.3% of the total fatty acid), C16:1 (30.7%) and C16:0 (24.3%), C14:0 3-OH (1.1%), C14:0 (0.9%) and C18:0 (0.7%) [1]. It should be noted that no information is given on the position of double bonds in the unsaturated fatty acids. No attempt has been made to examine the type strain for the presence of respiratory lipoquinones or to determine the polar lipid composition.

Genome sequencing and annotation

Genome project history

This organism was selected for sequencing on the basis of its phylogenetic position [22], and is part of the Genomic Encyclopedia of Bacteria and Archaea project [23]. The genome project is deposited in the Genome On Line Database [10] 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

75.2 × Illumina; 31.5 × pyrosequence

MIGS-30

Assemblers

Newbler version 2.4, Velvet, phrap

MIGS-32

Gene calling method

Prodigal 1.4, GenePRIMP

 

INSDC ID

CP002452

 

Genbank Date of Release

January 24, 2011

 

GOLD ID

Gc01594

 

NCBI project ID

46883

 

Database: IMG-GEBA

2503538035

MIGS-13

Source material identifier

DSM 16511

 

Project relevance

Tree of Life, GEBA

Growth conditions and DNA isolation

N. salsuginis E9I37-1T, DSM 16511, was grown anaerobically in DSMZ medium 1024 (Nitratiruptor and Nitratifractor medium) [24] at 37°C. DNA was isolated from 0.5–1 g of cell paste using Jetflex Genomic DNA Purification Kit (GENOMED 600100) following the standard protocol as recommended by the manufacturer. Cell lysis was enhanced by adding 20 µl proteinase K for two hours at 58°C. DNA is available through the DNA Bank Network [25].

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 [26]. Pyrosequencing reads were assembled using the Newbler assembler (Roche). The initial Newbler assembly consisting of 42 contigs in five scaffolds was converted into a phrap [27] assembly by making fake reads from the consensus, to collect the read pairs in the 454 paired end library.

Illumina GAii sequencing data (158.03 Mb) was assembled with Velvet [28] 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 60.3 Mb 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 [27] 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 [26], Dupfinisher [29], or sequencing clones bridging PCR fragments with subcloning. Gaps between contigs were closed by editing in Consed, by PCR and by Bubble PCR primer walks (J.-F. Chang, unpublished). A total of 135 additional reactions 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 [30]. 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 106.7 × coverage of the genome. The final assembly contained 274,574 pyrosequence and 2,079,398 Illumina reads.

Genome annotation

Genes were identified using Prodigal [31] as part of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory genome annotation pipeline, followed by a round of manual curation using the JGI GenePRIMP pipeline [32]. The predicted CDSs were translated and used to search the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) non-redundant 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 [33].

Genome properties

The genome consists of a 2,101,285 bp long chromosome with a G+C content of 53.9% (Table 3 and Figure 3). Of the 2,175 genes predicted, 2,121 were protein-coding genes, and 54 RNAs; 33 pseudogenes were also identified. The majority of the protein-coding genes (66.9%) 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)

2,101,285

100.00%

DNA coding region (bp)

1,916,093

91.19%

DNA G+C content (bp)

1,132,843

53.91%

Number of replicons

1

 

Extrachromosomal elements

0

 

Total genes

2,175

100.00%

RNA genes

54

2.48%

rRNA operons

2

 

Protein-coding genes

2,121

97.52%

Pseudo genes

33

1.52%

Genes with function prediction

1,456

66.94%

Genes in paralog clusters

144

6.62%

Genes assigned to COGs

1,525

70.11%

Genes assigned Pfam domains

1,616

74.30%

Genes with signal peptides

411

18.90%

Genes with transmembrane helices

501

23.03%

CRISPR repeats

2

 
Table 4.

Number of genes associated with the general COG functional categories

Code

value

%age

Description

J

149

9.0

Translation, ribosomal structure and biogenesis

A

0

0.0

RNA processing and modification

K

64

3.9

Transcription

L

114

6.9

Replication, recombination and repair

B

0

0.0

Chromatin structure and dynamics

D

20

1.2

Cell cycle control, cell division, chromosome partitioning

Y

0

0.0

Nuclear structure

V

25

1.5

Defense mechanisms

T

69

4.2

Signal transduction mechanisms

M

133

8.1

Cell wall/membrane/envelope biogenesis

N

15

0.9

Cell motility

Z

0

0.0

Cytoskeleton

W

0

0.0

Extracellular structures

U

43

2.6

Intracellular trafficking, secretion, and vesicular transport

O

89

5.4

Posttranslational modification, protein turnover, chaperones

C

131

8.0

Energy production and conversion

G

58

3.5

Carbohydrate transport and metabolism

E

136

8.3

Amino acid transport and metabolism

F

50

3.0

Nucleotide transport and metabolism

H

97

5.9

Coenzyme transport and metabolism

I

37

2.3

Lipid transport and metabolism

P

81

4.9

Inorganic ion transport and metabolism

Q

18

1.1

Secondary metabolites biosynthesis, transport and catabolism

R

183

11.1

General function prediction only

S

136

8.3

Function unknown

-

650

29.9

Not in COGs

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We would like to gratefully acknowledge the help of Andrea Schütze (DSMZ) for growing N. salsuginis 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)
DOE Joint Genome Institute
(2)
DSMZ - German Collection of Microorganisms and Cell Cultures GmbH
(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. Nakagawa S, Takai K, Inagaki F, Horikoshi K, Sako Y. Nitratiruptor tergarcus gen. nov., sp. nov. and Nitratifractor salsuginis gen. nov., sp. nov., nitrate-reducing chemolithoautotrophs of the epsilon-Proteobacteria isolated from a deep-sea hydrothermal system in the Mid-Okinawa Trough. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2005; 55:925–933. PubMed doi:10.1099/ijs.0.63480-0View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Takai K, Inagaki F, Nakagawa S, Hirayama H, Nunoura T, Sako Y, Nealson KH, Horikoshi K. Isolation and phylogenetic diversity of members of previously uncultivated ε-Proteobacteria in deep-sea hydrothermal fields. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2003; 218:167–174. PubMedPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. DeSantis TZ, Hugenholtz P, Larsen N, Rojas M, Brodie E, Keller K, Huber T, Dalevi D, Hu P, Andersen G. 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
  4. Porter MF. An algorithm for suffix stripping. Program: electronic library and information systems. 1980; 14:130–137.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Teske A, Hinrichs KU, Edgcomb VP, Gomez AD, Kysela DT, Sogin ML, Jannasch HW. Microbial diversity of hydrothermal sediments in the Guaymas Basin: evidence for anaerobic methanotrophic communities. Appl Environ Microbiol 2002; 68:1994–2007. PubMed doi:10.1128/AEM.68.4.1994-2007.2002PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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:10.1007/978-3-642-02008-7_13View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 2009; 38:D346–D354. PubMed doi:10.1093/nar/gkp848PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Campbell BJ, Smith JL, Hanson TE, Klotz MG, Stein LY, Lee CK, Wu D, Robinson JM, Khouri HM, Eisen JA, et al. Adaptations to submarie hydrothermal environments exemplified by the genome of Natilia profundicola. PLoS Genet 2009; 5:e1000362. PubMed doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000362PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Yarza P, Ludwig W, Euzéby J, Amman R, Schleifer KH, Glöckner FO, Rosselló-Mora R. Updates of the All-Species-Living-Tree Project based on 16S and 23S rRNA sequence analyses. Syst Appl Microbiol 2010; 33:291–299. PubMed doi:10.1016/j.syapm.2010.08.001View 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, Bell JA, Lilburn T. Phylum XIV. Proteobacteria phyl. nov. In: Garrity GM, Brenner DJ, Krieg NR, Staley JT (eds), Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, Second Edition, Volume 2, Part B, Springer, New York, 2005, p. 1.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Validation List No. 107. List of new names and new combinations previously effectively, but not validly, published. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2006; 56:1–6. PubMed doi:10.1099/ijs.0.64188-0Google Scholar
  17. Garrity GM, Bell JA, Lilburn T. Class V. Epsilonproteobacteria class. nov. In: Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, 2nd edn, vol. 2 (The Proteobacteria), part C (The Alpha-, Beta-, Delta-, and Epsilonproteobacteria), p. 1145. Edited by D. J. Brenner, N. R. Krieg, J. T. Staley & G. M. Garrity. New York: Springer. 2005.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Miroshnichenko ML, L’Haridon S, Schumann P, Spring S, Bonch-Osmolovskaya EA, Jeanthon C, Stackebrandt E. Caminibacter profundus sp. nov., a novel thermophile of Nautiliales ord. nov. within the class ‘Epsilonproteobacteria’, isolated from a deep-sea hydrothermal vent. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2004; 54:41–45. PubMed doi:10.1099/ijs.0.02753-0View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. BAuA. Classification of bacteria and archaea in risk groups. TRBA 2010; 466:150.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Takai K, Campbell BJ, Cary SC, Suzuki M, Oida H, Nunoura T, Hirayama H, Nakagawa S, Suzuki Y, Inagaki F, et al. Enzymatic and genetic characterization of carbon and energy metabolisms by deep-sea hydrothermal chemolithoautotrophic isolates of Epsilonproteobacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 2005; 71:7310–7320. PubMed doi:10.1128/AEM.71.11.7310-7320.2PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Klenk HP, Göker 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
  23. 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
  24. List of growth media used at DSMZ: http://www.dsmz.de/microorganisms/media_list.php.
  25. 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 2011; 9:51–55. doi:10.1089/bio.2010.0029View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. JGI website. http://www.jgi.doe.gov
  27. The Phred/Phrap/Consed software package. http://www.phrap.com
  28. 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
  29. Han C, Chain P. Finishing repeat regions automatically with Dupfinisher. In: Proceeding of the 2006 international conference on bioinformatics & computational biology. Arabnia HR, Valafar H (eds), CSREA Press. June 26–29, 2006: 141–146.Google Scholar
  30. 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, 2008Google Scholar
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. 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

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2011