Stand. Genomic Sci. 2011 4:2
doi:10.4056/sigs.1704212
Complete genome sequence of Bacteroides salanitronis type strain (BL78T)

Sabine Gronow1, Brittany Held2,3, Susan Lucas2, Alla Lapidus2, Tijana Glavina Del Rio2, Matt Nolan2, Hope Tice2, Shweta Deshpande2, Jan-Fang Cheng2, Sam Pitluck2, Konstantinos Liolios2, Ioanna Pagani2, Natalia Ivanova2, Konstantinos Mavromatis2, Amrita Pati2, Roxane Tapia2,3, Cliff Han2,3, Lynne Goodwin2,3, Amy Chen4, Krishna Palaniappan4, Miriam Land2,5, Loren Hauser2,5, Yun-Juan Chang2,5, Cynthia D. Jeffries2,5, Evelyne-Marie Brambilla1, Manfred Rohde6, Markus Göker1, John C. Detter2,3, Tanja Woyke2, James Bristow2, Victor Markowitz4, Philip Hugenholtz2,8, Nikos C. Kyrpides2, Hans-Peter Klenk1, Jonathan A. Eisen2,7*

1 DSMZ - German Collection of Microorganisms and Cell Cultures GmbH, Braunschweig, Germany
2 DOE Joint Genome Institute, Walnut Creek, California, USA
3 Los Alamos National Laboratory, Bioscience Division, Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA
4 Biological Data Management and Technology Center, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, USA
5 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California, USA
6 HZI – Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research, Braunschweig, Germany
7 University of California Davis Genome Center, Davis, California, USA
8 Australian Centre for Ecogenomics, School of Chemistry and Molecular Biosciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

* Corresponding author: Jonathan A. Eisen

Electronic publication date: April 29, 2011.

Abstract

Bacteroides salanitronis Lan et al. 2006 is a species of the genus Bacteroides, which belongs to the family Bacteroidaceae. The species is of interest because it was isolated from the gut of a chicken and the growing awareness that the anaerobic microflora of the cecum is of benefit for the host and may impact poultry farming. The 4,308,663 bp long genome consists of a 4.24 Mbp chromosome and three plasmids (6 kbp, 19 kbp, 40 kbp) containing 3,737 protein-coding and 101 RNA genes and is a part of the Genomic Encyclopedia of Bacteria and Archaea project.

Keywords: strictly anaerobic, non-motile, rod-shaped, Gram-negative, mesophilic, cecum, poultry, chemoorganotrophic, Bacteroidaceae, GEBA.

Gronow et al.
Introduction

Strain BL78T (= DSM 18170 = CCUG 54637 = JCM 13657) is the type strain of Bacteroides salanitronis which belongs to the large genus Bacteroides [1,2]. Currently, there are 88 species placed in the genus Bacteroides. The species epithet is derived from the name of Joseph P. Salanitro, an American microbiologist. B. salanitronis strain BL78T was isolated among other Bacteroides strains from the cecum of a healthy chicken. No other strain belonging to the same species has been identified [2]. Many Bacteroides species are common inhabitants of the intestine where they help to degrade complex molecules such as polysaccharides or transform steroids [3,4]. They also play a role as beneficent protectors of the gut against pathogenic microorganisms [5]. Here we present a summary classification and a set of features for B. salanitronis BL78T, together with the description of the complete genomic sequencing and annotation.

Classification and features

A representative genomic 16S rRNA sequence of strain BL78T 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 [6] and the relative frequencies, weighted by BLAST scores, of taxa and keywords (reduced to their stem [7]) were determined. The single most frequent genus was Bacteroides (100.0%) (1 hit in total). Regarding the single hit to sequences from members of the species, the average identity within HSPs was 99.7%, whereas the average coverage by HSPs was 96.2%. No hits to sequences with (other) species names were found. The highest-scoring environmental sequence was DQ456041 ('pre-adolescent turkey cecum clone CFT112F11'), which showed an identity of 96.8% and an HSP coverage of 63.9%. The five most frequent keywords within the labels of environmental samples which yielded hits were 'fecal' (9.3%), 'microbiota' (7.5%), 'human' (7.1%), 'antibiot, effect, gut, pervas' (7.1%) and 'anim, beef, cattl, coli, escherichia, feedlot, habitat, synecolog' (2.2%) (249 hits in total).

Figure 1 shows the phylogenetic neighborhood of B. salanitronis in a 16S rRNA based tree. The sequences of the six 16S rRNA gene copies in the genome differ from each other by up to 26 nucleotides, and differ by up to 26 nucleotides from the previously published 16S rRNA sequence (AB253731).

Figure 1
Figure 1
Figure 1

Phylogenetic tree highlighting the position of B. salanitronis relative to a selection of other type strains within the genus. The tree was inferred from 1,412 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 to the right of bifurcations are support values from 1,000 bootstrap replicates [11] if larger than 60%. Lineages with type strain genome sequencing projects registered in GOLD [12] but unpublished are labeled with one asterisk, published genomes with two asterisks [13-15].


The cells of B. salanitronis are generally rod-shaped (0.4-0.7 × 0.8-5.6 µm) with rounded ends (Figure 2). The cells are usually arranged singly or in pairs [2]. B. salanitronis is a Gram-negative, non-spore-forming bacterium (Table 1) that is described as non-motile, with only five genes associated with motility having been found in the genome (see below). The temperature optimum for strain BL78T is 37°C. B. salanitronis is a strictly anaerobic chemoorganotroph and is able to ferment glucose, mannose, sucrose, maltose, arabinose, cellobiose, lactose, xylose and raffinose [2]. The organism hydrolyzes esculin but does not liquefy gelatin, and neither reduces nitrate nor produces indole from tryptophan [2]. B. salanitronis does not utilize trehalose, glycerol, mannitol, sorbitol or melezitose; rhamnose and salicin are fermented weakly [2]. Growth is possible in the presence of bile [2]. Major fermentation products from broth (1% peptone, 1% yeast extract, and 1% glucose each (w/v)) are acetic acid and succinic acid, whereas isovaleric acid is produced in small amounts [2]. B. salanitronis shows activity for alkaline phosphatase, α- and β-galactosidases, α- and β-glucosidases, α-arabinosidase, leucyl glycine arylamidase, alanine arylamidase and glutamyl glutamic acid arylamidase but no activity for urease, catalase, glutamic acid decarboxylase, arginine dihydrolase, β-galactosidase 6-phosphate, β-glucuronidase, N-acetyl-β-glucosaminidase, α-fucosidase and arginine, proline, leucine, phenylalanine, pyroglutamic acid, tyrosine, glycine, histidine and serine arylamidase [2].

Figure 2
Figure 2
Figure 2

Scanning electron micrograph of B. salanitronis BL78T


Table 1: Classification and general features of B. salanitronis BL78T according to the MIGS recommendations [16].
MIGS ID    Property     Term     Evidence code
   Current classification     Domain Bacteria     TAS [17]
    Phylum 'Bacteroidetes'     TAS [18]
    Class 'Bacteroidia'     TAS [19]
    Order 'Bacteroidales'     TAS [20]
    Family Bacteroidaceae     TAS [21,22]
    Genus Bacteroides     TAS [21,23-26]
    Species Bacteroides salanitronis     TAS [2]
    Type strain BL78     TAS [2]
   Gram stain     negative     TAS [2]
   Cell shape     rod-shaped     TAS [2]
   Motility     non-motile     TAS [2]
   Sporulation     none     TAS [2]
   Temperature range     mesophile     TAS [2]
   Optimum temperature     37°C     TAS [2]
   Salinity     normal     NAS
MIGS-22    Oxygen requirement     strictly anaerobic     TAS [2]
   Carbon source     carbohydrates     TAS [2]
   Energy metabolism     chemoorganotroph     TAS [2]
MIGS-6    Habitat     chicken     TAS [2]
MIGS-15    Biotic relationship     free-living     NAS
MIGS-14    Pathogenicity     none     NAS
   Biosafety level     1     TAS [27]
   Isolation     chicken cecum     TAS [2]
MIGS-4    Geographic location     Japan     TAS [2]
MIGS-5    Sample collection time     November 2005     IDA
MIGS-4.1    Latitude     not reported
MIGS-4.2    Longitude     not reported
MIGS-4.3    Depth     not reported
MIGS-4.4    Altitude     not reported

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

Chemotaxonomy

B. salanitronis strain BL78T contains menaquinones MK-11 and MK-12 as principal respiratory quinones (43% each), small amounts of MK-10 (5%) and MK-13 (7%) are found as minor components [2]. The major fatty acids found were anteiso-C15:0 (32%), iso-C15:0 (14%), 3-hydroxy C16:0 (12%) and 3-hydroxy iso-C17:0 (10%). Fatty acids C14:0 (4%), C15:0 (2%), C16:0 (8%), C18:1 (2%), C18:2 (2%) and iso-C14:0 (2%) were found in minor amounts [2].

Genome sequencing and annotation
Genome project history

This organism was selected for sequencing on the basis of its phylogenetic position [29], and is part of the Genomic Encyclopedia of Bacteria and Archaea project [30]. The genome project is deposited in the Genomes On Line Database [31] 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 (7 kb insert size), one Illumina library
MIGS-29    Sequencing platforms    Illumina GAii, 454 GS FLX Titanium
MIGS-31.2    Sequencing coverage    283.0 × Illumina; 37.7 × pyrosequence
MIGS-30    Assemblers    Newbler version 2.3-PreRelease-09-14-2009-bin, Velvet, phrap version SPS 4.24
MIGS-32    Gene calling method    Prodigal 1.4, GenePRIMP
   INSDC ID    CP002530 (chromosome)
   CP002531 (plasmid 1)
   CP002532 (plasmid 2)
   CP002533 (plasmid 3)
   Genbank Date of Release    February 28, 2011
   GOLD ID    Gc001665
   NCBI project ID    40066
   Database: IMG-GEBA    2503754023
MIGS-13    Source material identifier    DSM 18170
   Project relevance    Tree of Life, GEBA
Growth conditions and DNA isolation

B. salanitronis BL78T, DSM 18170, was grown anaerobically in DSMZ medium 104 (Peptone-Yeast extract-Glucose broth) [32] at 37°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, adding 20 µL lysozyme (100mg/µl), and 10 µL mutanolysin, achromopeptidase, and lysostaphine, each, for 40 min lysis at 37ºC followed by one hour incubation on ice. DNA is available through the DNA Bank Network [33].

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 [34]. Pyrosequencing reads were assembled using the Newbler assembler version 2.3-PreRelease-09-14-2009-bin (Roche). The initial Newbler assembly consisting of 100 contigs in two scaffolds was converted into a phrap assembly [35] by making fake reads from the consensus, to collect the read pairs in the 454 paired-end library. Illumina GAii sequencing data (920.8 Mb) was assembled with Velvet, version 0.7.63 [36] 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 109.0 Mb of 454 standard 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 [35] 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 [34], Dupfinisher [37], 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 193 additional reactions and four 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 [38]. 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 320.7 × coverage of the genome. The final assembly contained 393,135 pyrosequence and 25,576,764 Illumina reads.

Genome annotation

Genes were identified using Prodigal [39] as part of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory genome annotation pipeline, followed by a round of manual curation using the JGI GenePRIMP pipeline [40]. 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 [41].

Genome properties

The genome consists of a 4,242,803 bp long chromosome with a G+C content of 47%, as well as three plasmids of 6,277 bp, 18,280 bp and 40,303 bp length (Table 3 and Figure 3). Of the 3,838 genes predicted, 3,737 were protein-coding genes, and 101 RNAs; 96 pseudogenes were also identified. The majority of the protein-coding genes (57.3%) 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.

Table 3: Genome Statistics
Attribute    Value   % of Total
Genome size (bp)    4,308,663   100.00%
DNA coding region (bp)    3,759,354   87.25%
DNA G+C content (bp)    2,003,128   46.49%
Number of replicons    4
Extrachromosomal elements    3
Total genes    3,838   100.00%
RNA genes    101   2.63%
rRNA operons    6
Protein-coding genes    3,737   97.37%
Pseudo genes    96   2.50%
Genes with function prediction    2,200   57.32%
Genes in paralog clusters    876   22.82%
Genes assigned to COGs    2,013   52.45%
Genes assigned Pfam domains    2,269   59.12%
Genes with signal peptides    918   23.92%
Genes with transmembrane helices    794   20.69%
CRISPR repeats    0
Figure 3
Figure 3
Figure 3

Graphical circular map of the chromosome (plasmid maps not shown). 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 4: Number of genes associated with the general COG functional categories
Code    value   %age    Description
J    147   6.8    Translation, ribosomal structure and biogenesis
A    0   0.0    RNA processing and modification
K    143   6.6    Transcription
L    194   9.0    Replication, recombination and repair
B    0   0.0    Chromatin structure and dynamics
D    31   1.4    Cell cycle control, cell division, chromosome partitioning
Y    0   0.0    Nuclear structure
V    63   2.9    Defense mechanisms
T    85   3.9    Signal transduction mechanisms
M    193   8.9    Cell wall/membrane/envelope biogenesis
N    5   0.2    Cell motility
Z    0   0.0    Cytoskeleton
W    0   0.0    Extracellular structures
U    61   2.8    Intracellular trafficking, secretion, and vesicular transport
O    61   2.8    Posttranslational modification, protein turnover, chaperones
C    105   4.9    Energy production and conversion
G    174   8.0    Carbohydrate transport and metabolism
E    134   6.2    Amino acid transport and metabolism
F    68   3.1    Nucleotide transport and metabolism
H    98   4.5    Coenzyme transport and metabolism
I    62   2.9    Lipid transport and metabolism
P    104   4.8    Inorganic ion transport and metabolism
Q    29   1.3    Secondary metabolites biosynthesis, transport and catabolism
R    285   13.2    General function prediction only
S    125   5.8    Function unknown
-    1,825   47.6    Not in COGs
Acknowledgements

We would like to gratefully acknowledge the help of Sabine Welnitz (DSMZ) for growing cultures of B. salanitronis. 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.

References
1. Garrity G. NamesforLife. BrowserTool takes expertise out of the database and puts it right in the browser. Microbiol Today 2010; 7:1.
2. Lan PTN, Sakamoto M, Sakata S, Benno Y. Bacteroides barnesiae sp. nov., Bacteroides salanitronis sp. nov. and Bacteroides gallinarum sp. nov., isolated from chicken caecum. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2006; 56:2853-2859. [doi:10.1099/ijs.0.64517-0] [pmid:17158987]
3. Comstock LE. Importance of glycans to the host-bacteroides mutualism in the mammalian intestine. Cell Host Microbe 2009; 5:522-526. [doi:10.1016/j.chom.2009.05.010] [pmid:19527880]
4. Bäckhed F, Ley RE, Sonnenburg JL, Peterson DA, Gordon JI. Host-bacterial mutualism in the human intestine. Science 2005; 307:1915-1920. [doi:10.1126/science.1104816] [pmid:15790844]
5. Hentges DJ. Role of the intestinal flora in host defense against infection. In Human Intestinal Microflora in Health and Disease 1983; pp. 311–331. Edited by D. J. Hentges. New York: Academic Press.
6. 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. [doi:10.1128/AEM.03006-05] [pmid:16820507]
7. Porter MF. An algorithm for suffix stripping. Program: electronic library and information systems 1980; 14:130-137.
8. Lee C, Grasso C, Sharlow MF. Multiple sequence alignment using partial order graphs. Bioinformatics 2002; 18:452-464. [doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/18.3.452] [pmid:11934745]
9. Castresana J. Selection of conserved blocks from multiple alignments for their use in phylogenetic analysis. Mol Biol Evol 2000; 17:540-552. [pmid:10742046]
10. Stamatakis A, Hoover P, Rougemont J. A rapid bootstrap algorithm for the RAxML Web servers. Syst Biol 2008; 57:758-771. [doi:10.1080/10635150802429642] [pmid:18853362]
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:10.1007/978-3-642-02008-7_13]
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. [doi:10.1093/nar/gkp848] [pmid:19914934]
13. Cerdeño-Tárraga AM, Patrick S, Crossman LC, Blakely G, Abratt V, Lennard N, Poxton I, Duerden B, Harris B, Quail MA, et al. Extensive DNA inversions in the B. fragilis genome control variable gene expression. Science 2005; 307:1463-1465. [doi:10.1126/science.1107008] [pmid:15746427]
14. Xu J, Bjursell MK, Himrod J, Deng S, Carmichael LK, Chiang HC, Hooper LV, Gordon JI. A genomic view of the human Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron symbiosis. Science 2003; 299:2074-2076. [doi:10.1126/science.1080029] [pmid:12663928]
15. Land M, Held B, Gronow S, Abt B, Lucas S, Glavina Del Rio T, Nolan M, Tice H, Cheng JF, Pitluck S, et al. Non-contiguous finished genome sequence of Bacteroides coprosuis type strain (PC 139T). Stand Genomic Sci 2011; 4 [pmid:21475581]
16. 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. [doi:10.1038/nbt1360] [pmid:18464787]
17. 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. [doi:10.1073/pnas.87.12.4576] [pmid:2112744]
18. 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.
19. 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
20. Garrity GM, Holt JG. 2001. Taxonomic outline of the Archaea and Bacteria, p. 155-166. In G. M. Garrity, D. R. Boone, and R. W. Castenholz (ed.), Bergey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, 2nd ed, vol. 1. Springer, New York.
21. Skerman VBD, McGowan V, Sneath PHA. Approved Lists of Bacterial Names. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1980; 30:225-420. [doi:10.1099/00207713-30-1-225]
22. Pribram E. Klassification der Schizomyceten. Klassifikation der Schizomyceten (Bakterien), Franz Deuticke, Leipzig, 1933, p. 1-143.
23. Castellani A, Chalmers AJ. Genus Bacteroides Castellani and Chalmers, 1918. Manual of Tropical Medicine, Third Edition, Williams, Wood and Co., New York, 1919, p. 959-960.
24. Holdeman LV, Moore WEC. Genus I. Bacteroides Castellani and Chalmers 1919, 959. In: Buchanan RE, Gibbons NE (eds), Bergey's Manual of Determinative Bacteriology, Eighth Edition, The Williams and Wilkins Co., Baltimore, 1974, p. 385-404.
25. Cato EP, Kelley RW, Moore WEC, Holdeman LV. Bacteroides zoogleoformans, Weinberg, Nativelle, and Prévot 1937) corrig. comb. nov.: emended description. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1982; 32:271-274. [doi:10.1099/00207713-32-3-271]
26. Shah HN, Collins MD. Proposal to restrict the genus Bacteroides (Castellani and Chalmers) to Bacteroides fragilis and closely related species. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1989; 39:85-87. [doi:10.1099/00207713-39-1-85]
27. Classification of bacteria and archaea in risk groups. http://www.baua.de TRBA 466.
28. 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. [doi:10.1038/75556] [pmid:10802651]
29. Klenk HP, Göker M. En route to a genome-based classification of Archaea and BacteriaSyst Appl Microbiol 2010; 33:175-182. [doi:10.1016/j.syapm.2010.03.003] [pmid:20409658]
30. 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 ArchaeaNature 2009; 462:1056-1060. [doi:10.1038/nature08656] [pmid:20033048]
31. 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. [doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btp393] [pmid:19561336]
32. List of growth media used at DSMZ: http//www.dsmz.de/microorganisms/media_list.php
33. 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.2010.0029]
34. The DOE Joint Genome Institute. http://www.jgi.doe.gov/
35. Phrap and Phred for Windows. MacOS, Linux, and Unix. www.phrap.com
36. Zerbino DR, Birney E. Velvet: algorithms for de novo short read assembly using de Bruijn graphs. Genome Res 2008; 18:821-829. [doi:10.1101/gr.074492.107] [pmid:18349386]
37. Han C, Chain P. 2006. Finishing repeat regions automatically with Dupfinisher. In: Proceeding of the 2006 international conference on bioinformatics & computational biology. Arabina HR, Valafar H (eds), CSREA Press. June 26-29, 2006: 141-146.
38. 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.
39. 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. [doi:10.1186/1471-2105-11-119] [pmid:20211023]
40. 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. [doi:10.1038/nmeth.1457] [pmid:20436475]
41. 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. [doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btp393] [pmid:19561336]


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Acknowledgements

We would like to gratefully acknowledge the support of many members of the Genomic Standards Consortium, the broader genomic science community, and those who have indicated their willingness to serve as editors, reviewers and contributors.

Funding for SIGS is provided by a grant from the Office of the Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies at Michigan State University, the Michigan State University Foundation, and the US Department of Energy Biological and Environmental Research DE-FG02-08ER64707.

Standards in Genomic Sciences is indexed in:

Sponsors of the Genomic Standards Consortium: