Abstract
Biogas production through the anaerobic digestion (AD) of organic waste plays a crucial role in promoting sustainability and closing the carbon cycle. Over the past decade, this has driven global research on biogas-producing microbiomes, leading to significant advances in our understanding of microbial diversity and metabolic pathways within AD plants. However, substantial knowledge gaps persist, particularly in understanding the specific microbial communities involved in biogas production in countries such as South Korea. The present dataset addresses one of these gaps by providing comprehensive information on the metagenomes of five full-scale mesophilic biogas reactors in South Korea. From 110 GB of raw DNA sequences, 401 metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) were created, which include 42,301 annotated genes. Of these, 187 MAGs (46.7%) were classified as high-quality based on Minimum Information about Metagenome-Assembled Genome (MIMAG) standards. The data presented here contribute to a broader understanding of biogas-specific microbial communities and offers a significant resource for future studies and advancements in sustainable biogas production.
Subject terms: Metagenomics, Microbial ecology
Background & Summary
Anaerobic digestion (AD), which is essential for meeting sustainable energy needs, is a crucial process for generating methane in engineered bioreactors, thereby reducing the reliance on fossil fuels1. AD converts organic waste, agricultural residues, and renewable primary products into energy and other valuable resources, aligning seamlessly with the circular economy concept2. Methane, a prominent end product of AD’s methanogenesis step, is vital for meeting societal energy demands and is intricately linked to the composition of the AD microbiome3–5. Microbial metabolism in AD is thermodynamically influenced by the environmental parameters within the reactor6. The close relationship between these parameters offers distinct opportunities to improve process efficiency by selective cultivation or modification of microbial communities.
Traditional cultivation-based techniques are limited to studying microorganisms capable of laboratory growth; this limits their ability to fully characterize the diverse microbial communities active in AD. In contrast, metagenome sequencing offers a broader and more comprehensive analysis of all genetic material present in the environment. This approach provides deeper insights into the intricate microbial interactions and processes that drive AD systems7. Assembly and binning techniques for metagenome sequencing are crucial to elucidating the “black box” of microbial communities, leading to the discovery of previously unknown microorganisms in AD reactors8. This approach enables the generation of metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs), providing valuable insights into microbial dynamics in AD processes8,9. Geographic variations in AD microbiomes highlight the variability in energy production, waste degradation, and metagenomic composition across locations, making it essential to understand these fluctuations to customize AD procedures for specific regions and to maximize biogas production. However, very few studies have focused on global meta-analyses to systematically address location-dependent differences in AD metagenomes.
In this study, samples were collected from five full-scale biogas reactors located in the Ichon (I_A & I_M), Gunsan (G), Jungrang (J), and Anyang (A) regions to investigate microbial diversity and metabolic potential (Fig. 1). Detailed sample metadata and sequencing strategies are shown in Table S1.
Fig. 1.
Sampling sites of five full-scale biogas plants in South Korea. Detailed sample metadata can be found in Table S1.
Upon metagenomic sequencing and binning, 401 MAGs were reconstructed with completeness of ≥50% and contamination of ≤10%. Among these, 74, 79, 80, 93, and 65 representative MAGs originated from the metagenomes I_A, I_M, G, J, and A, respectively. Furthermore, 187 MAGs (46.7%) were classified as high-quality MAGs, with completeness ≥90% and contamination ≤5%, based on the Minimum Information about Metagenome-Assembled Genome (MIMAG) standards10. These MAGs were taxonomically assigned to two archaeal and 36 bacterial phyla based on the Genome Taxonomy Database (GTDB)11–15, with a total of five archaeal and 182 bacterial MAGs. Archaeal MAGs were affiliated with Halobacteriota (n = 3) and Methanobacteriota (n = 2) phyla. Bacterial MAGs were primarily from Bacteroidota (n = 85), Bacillota_A (n = 65), Bacillota_G (n = 34), Cloacimonadota (n = 11), Bacillota_D (n = 11), Desulfobacterota (n = 10), Verrucomicrobiota (n = 10), Actinomycetota (n = 8), Chloroflexota (n = 8), Pseudomonadota (n = 7), Synergistota (n = 7), Acidobacteriota (n = 5), DTU030 (n = 5), Armatimonadota (n = 4), Atribacterota (n = 4), Hydrogenedentota (n = 3), Myxococcota (n = 3), Omnitrophota (n = 2), Fibrobacterota (n = 2), Riflebacteria (n = 2), Sumerlaeota (n = 2), UBP6 (n = 1), UBA1439 (n = 1), Latescibacterota (n = 1), Planctomycetota (n = 1), Bacillota_F (n = 1), Bacillota_E (n = 1), and Bacillota_H (n = 1). The detailed taxonomic assignments of all MAGs are provided in Table S2 and Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.
Phylogenomics tree of MAGs reconstructed using full-scale biogas reactors in South Korea. 49 COG domains were used to build a maximum-likelihood phylogenomic tree. Detailed MAG taxonomy assignments, associated with completeness and contamination information, can be found in Table S2, and the list of 49 COD domain information can be seen in Table S3.
Genes were identified at the MAGs level to construct a community-level gene catalog. After gene calling and deduplication, 42,301 genes were identified. Their functions were annotated using the Hidden Markov Model for Emission and Recognition (HMMER)16,17. Genome sets containing high-quality MAGs were further annotated and distilled using Distilled and Refined Annotation of Metabolism (DRAM)18. The metabolic profiles of these high-quality MAGs annotated by DRAM with advanced parameters such as a bit score threshold of 60 and a reverse search bit score threshold of 350 are shown in Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.
DRAM annotation of metabolic profiles for high-quality MAGs across all genome sets. Detailed annotations, gene sequences, metabolite products, and summary are submitted in figshare56 repository.
Methods
Sample collection and preparation
In this study, samples were collected from five mesophilic biogas reactors operating within a temperature range of 35–40 °C, located across four regions in South Korea, identified by GPS coordinates (I_A = 37.335048, 127.413917; I_M = 37.335048, 127.413917; G = 35.97861, 126.71139; J = 37.557499, 127.057625; and A = 37.402233, 126.895660). The sampling period spanned from August 2022 to August 2023. Additional details regarding the sampling sites and substrates are presented in Fig. 1 and Table S1, respectively. All the samples were collected during periods of stable operation. To maintain anaerobic conditions, the collected, unfiltered samples were stored in airtight bags and frozen at −80 °C until DNA extraction.
DNA extraction, sequencing, and sequence quality assessment
The genomic DNA of the five biogas reactor samples was extracted using a Fast DNATM Spin Kit for soil (MP Biomedicals, LLC, Solon, OH, USA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions.
The concentration of the extracted double-stranded DNA was determined using an Infinite M200 PRO microplate reader (Tecan Austria GmbH, Grödig, Austria). The extracted DNA was then sent to Macrogen Inc., Seoul, South Korea for DNA sequencing using a NovaSeq 6000 platform with a read length of 151 base pairs (bp) for paired-end sequencing (X 2) in high-output mode (H). Raw reads were trimmed using the Joint Genome Institute (JGI) RQCFilter pipeline (BBTools v38.22)19 with specific parameters (library option = frag and trim the low-quality read ends to remove low-quality bases; minq = Trim both ends). The quality of the trimmed reads from the JGI RQCFilter pipeline (BBTools v38.22)19 was checked using FastQC v0.12.120, and additional contaminating reads were removed using Trimmomatic v0.3621.
Metagenomic assembly
Clean reads of each sample were assembled using different assemblers: metaSPAdes - v3.15.322, MEGAHIT v1.2.9 (x2 using different parameters; Meta-large and Meta-sensitive)23, and IDBA-UD - v1.1.324 with a minimum contig length of 300 bp. The assemblies were evaluated using QUAST-v4.425,26 and Compare Assembled Contig Distributions – v1.1.227. Based on these results, MEGAHIT v1.2.9 - Meta-sensitive was selected as the best assembler for all samples, except for sample A, which was better suited for the MEGAHIT v1.2.9 - Meta-large assembler.
MAGs generation, quality assessment, and annotation
The contigs from the MEGAHIT v1.2.9 assembler were grouped into bins with the following binners: MaxBin2 - v2.2.428,29 and CONCOCT - v1.130. To enhance the quality of the resulting binned contigs, optimization was performed using DAS Tool - v1.1.231–34, resulting in bins with ≥50% completeness and ≤10% contamination. Subsequently, all bins were subjected to quality assessment and filtering using CheckM – v1.0.1835 under the MIMAG threshold10, categorizing them as high- and medium-quality bins. Furthermore, filtered bins were assigned to unique MAGs using Extract Bins as Assemblies from BinnedContigs - v1.0.227 and turned into annotated genomes using the Rapid Annotation Subsystem Technology (RAST) Pipeline, RASTtk - v1.07336–44. The taxonomy of each MAG-containing genome set was annotated using GTDB-Tk - v2.3.211–15,45,46 with version r214. Additionally, the metabolic roles of MAGs were functionally annotated using HMMER16,17 and DRAM18 by searching for functional marker genes.
Phylogenomics
A total of 401 bacterial and archaeal MAGs were obtained using GTDB-Tk - v2.3.211–15,45,46. The phylogenomics tree (Fig. 2) was constructed using the Insert Genome into SpeciesTree - v2.2.047, utilizing 49 core clusters of orthologous group (COG) gene families (see Table S3). The genomes were inserted into curated multiple sequence alignments (MSAs) for each COG family using Muscle48. The curated alignments were trimmed using GBLOCKS49 to remove the poorly aligned sections. Subsequently, the MSAs were concatenated and used for the tree construction. The final tree was visualized and annotated using the iTOL web tool.
Data Records
All sequencing products associated with this project can be found under National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) BioProject (ID: PRJNA1104272). Raw reads from metagenomic sequencing were deposited in the NCBI with specific Sequence Read Archive (SRA) numbers50. The assemblies were deposited in GenBank51–55 under the same Bioproject submission. The NCBI SRA and GenBank accession numbers for each sample are listed in Table S1. MAGs, the functional annotation of non-redundant genes identified using HMMER, and all metabolic profiles of high-quality MAGs annotated using DRAM are deposited in Figshare repository56.
Technical Validation
All raw data processing steps, software, and parameters used in this study are described in the “Methods” section. The quality scores for the raw and clean reads of the five metagenomes were assessed using FastQC v0.12.120. The best assembler for each sample was selected using QUAST-v4.425,26 and Compare Assembled Contig Distributions – v1.1.227. The quality of the MAGs was assessed using CheckM- v1.0.1835.
Supplementary information
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by Korea Environment Industry and Technology Institute (KEITI) through Development of Demonstration technology for energy conversion using waste resources Program, funded by Korea Ministry of Environment (MOE; 2022003480001). This research was supported by Plastic Free Specialized Graduate Program through the Korea Environmental Industry & Technology Institute(KEITI) funded by the Ministry of Environment (MOE).
Author contributions
G.W. conducted field sampling, D.P. conducted DNA extraction and metagenomic data analysis, produced all figures, and wrote the draft under the supervision of B.I. H.K. initiated the study, S.I. revised the draft, B.I. supervised the study and revised the draft, All authors reviewed and contributed to the final version of the manuscript.
Code availability
All versions of the third-party software and scripts used in this study are described and referenced in the Methods section.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41597-024-04315-8.
References
- 1.Venkiteshwaran, K., Bocher, B., Maki, J. & Zitomer, D. Relating anaerobic digestion microbial community and process function: supplementary issue: water microbiology. Microbiol. insights8, MBI. S33593 (2015). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Campanaro, S. et al. New insights from the biogas microbiome by comprehensive genome-resolved metagenomics of nearly 1600 species originating from multiple anaerobic digesters. Biotechnol. for biofuels13, 1–18 (2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Campanaro, S., Treu, L., Kougias, P. G., Luo, G. & Angelidaki, I. Metagenomic binning reveals the functional roles of core abundant microorganisms in twelve full-scale biogas plants. Water res.140, 123–134 (2018). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Theuerl, S., Klang, J., Heiermann, M. & De Vrieze, J. Marker microbiome clusters are determined by operational parameters and specific key taxa combinations in anaerobic digestion. Bioresource technol.263, 128–135 (2018). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Ziels, R. M. et al. Microbial rRNA gene expression and co‐occurrence profiles associate with biokinetics and elemental composition in full‐scale anaerobic digesters. Microbial biotechnol.11, 694–709 (2018). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Oh, S. T. & Martin, A. D. Thermodynamic equilibrium model in anaerobic digestion process. Biochem.l Eng. J.34, 256–266 (2007). [Google Scholar]
- 7.Lagkouvardos, I., Overmann, J. & Clavel, T. Cultured microbes represent a substantial fraction of the human and mouse gut microbiota. Gut microbes8, 493–503 (2017). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Alivisatos, A. P. et al. A unified initiative to harness Earth’s microbiomes. Science350, 507–508 (2015). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Vanwonterghem, I., Jensen, P. D., Ho, D. P., Batstone, D. J. & Tyson, G. W. Linking microbial community structure, interactions and function in anaerobic digesters using new molecular techniques. Current opinion in biotechnol.27, 55–64 (2014). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Bowers, R.M. et al. Corrigendum: Minimum information about a single amplified genome (MISAG) and a metagenome-assembled genome (MIMAG) of bacteria and archaea. Nature biotechnol. 36 (2017). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 11.Chaumeil, P.-A., Mussig, A. J., Hugenholtz, P. & Parks, D. H. GTDB-Tk v2: memory friendly classification with the genome taxonomy database. Bioinformatics38, 5315–5316 (2022). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Chaumeil, P.-A., Mussig, A. J., Hugenholtz, P. & Parks, D. H. GTDB-Tk: a toolkit to classify genomes with the Genome Taxonomy Database. Bioinformatics36, 1925–1927 (2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Parks, D. H. et al. GTDB: an ongoing census of bacterial and archaeal diversity through a phylogenetically consistent, rank normalized and complete genome-based taxonomy. Nucleic acids res.50, D785–D794 (2022). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Parks, D. H. et al. A standardized bacterial taxonomy based on genome phylogeny substantially revises the tree of life. Nature biotechnol.36, 996–1004 (2018). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Rinke, C. et al. A standardized archaeal taxonomy for the Genome Taxonomy Database. Nat Microbiol6, 946–959 (2021). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Zhang, H. et al. dbCAN2: a meta server for automated carbohydrate-active enzyme annotation. Nucleic acids res.46, W95–W101 (2018). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Eddy, S. R. Accelerated profile HMM searches. PLoS computational biol.7, e1002195 (2011). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Shaffer, M. et al. DRAM for distilling microbial metabolism to automate the curation of microbiome function. Nucleic acids res.48, 8883–8900 (2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Bushnell, B., Rood, J. & Singer, E. BBMerge–accurate paired shotgun read merging via overlap. PloS one12, e0185056 (2017). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Bioinformatics group at the Babraham Institute. FastQC source, version 0.12.1. Babraham Bionformaticshttp://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc/ (2023).
- 21.Bolger, A. M., Lohse, M. & Usadel, B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics30, 2114–2120 (2014). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Nurk, S., Meleshko, D., Korobeynikov, A. & Pevzner, P. A. metaSPAdes: a new versatile metagenomic assembler. Genome res.27, 824–834 (2017). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Li, D., Liu, C.-M., Luo, R., Sadakane, K. & Lam, T.-W. MEGAHIT: an ultra-fast single-node solution for large and complex metagenomics assembly via succinct de Bruijn graph. Bioinformatics31, 1674–1676 (2015). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Peng, Y., Leung, H. C., Yiu, S.-M. & Chin, F. Y. IDBA-UD: a de novo assembler for single-cell and metagenomic sequencing data with highly uneven depth. Bioinformatics28, 1420–1428 (2012). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Gurevich, A., Saveliev, V., Vyahhi, N. & Tesler, G. QUAST: quality assessment tool for genome assemblies. Bioinformatics29, 1072–1075 (2013). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Mikheenko, A., Valin, G., Prjibelski, A., Saveliev, V. & Gurevich, A. Icarus: visualizer for de novo assembly evaluation. Bioinformatics32, 3321–3323 (2016). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Arkin, A. P. et al. KBase: the United States department of energy systems biology knowledgebase. Nature biotechnol.36, 566–569 (2018). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Wu, Y.-W., Simmons, B. A. & Singer, S. W. MaxBin 2.0: an automated binning algorithm to recover genomes from multiple metagenomic datasets. Bioinformatics32, 605–607 (2016). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Wu, Y.-W., Tang, Y.-H., Tringe, S. G., Simmons, B. A. & Singer, S. W. MaxBin: an automated binning method to recover individual genomes from metagenomes using an expectation-maximization algorithm. Microbiome2, 1–18 (2014). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Alneberg, J. et al. Binning metagenomic contigs by coverage and composition. Nature methods11, 1144–1146 (2014). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Sieber, C. M. et al. Recovery of genomes from metagenomes via a dereplication, aggregation and scoring strategy. Nature microbiol.3, 836–843 (2018). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Hyatt, D. et al. Prodigal: prokaryotic gene recognition and translation initiation site identification. BMC bioinformatics11, 1–11 (2010). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Camacho, C. et al. BLAST+: architecture and applications. BMC bioinformatics10, 1–9 (2009). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Buchfink, B., Xie, C. & Huson, D. H. Fast and sensitive protein alignment using DIAMOND. Nature methods12, 59–60 (2015). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Parks, D. H., Imelfort, M., Skennerton, C. T., Hugenholtz, P. & Tyson, G. W. CheckM: assessing the quality of microbial genomes recovered from isolates, single cells, and metagenomes. Genome res.25, 1043–1055 (2015). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Aziz, R. K. et al. The RAST Server: rapid annotations using subsystems technology. BMC genomics9, 1–15 (2008). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Overbeek, R. et al. The SEED and the Rapid Annotation of microbial genomes using Subsystems Technology (RAST). Nucleic acids res.42, D206–D214 (2014). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Brettin, T. et al. RASTtk: a modular and extensible implementation of the RAST algorithm for building custom annotation pipelines and annotating batches of genomes. Scientific reports5, 1–6 (2015). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Kent, W. J. BLAT—the BLAST-like alignment tool. Genome research12, 656–664 (2002). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Altschul, S. F. et al. Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic acids res.25, 3389–3402 (1997). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Lowe, T. M. & Eddy, S. R. tRNAscan-SE: a program for improved detection of transfer RNA genes in genomic sequence. Nucleic acids res.25, 955–964 (1997). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Cobucci-Ponzano, B., Rossi, M. & Moracci, M. Translational recoding in archaea. Extremophiles16, 793–803 (2012). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Meyer, F., Overbeek, R. & Rodriguez, A. FIGfams: yet another set of protein families. Nucleic acids res.37, 6643–6654 (2009). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Croucher, N. J., Vernikos, G. S., Parkhill, J. & Bentley, S. D. Identification, variation and transcription of pneumococcal repeat sequences. BMC genomics12, 1–13 (2011). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Chivian, D. et al. Metagenome-assembled genome extraction and analysis from microbiomes using KBase. Nature Protocols18, 208–238 (2023). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Matsen, F. A., Kodner, R. B. & Armbrust, E. V. pplacer: linear time maximum-likelihood and Bayesian phylogenetic placement of sequences onto a fixed reference tree. BMC bioinformatics11, 1–16 (2010). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Price, M. N., Dehal, P. S. & Arkin, A. P. FastTree 2–approximately maximum-likelihood trees for large alignments. PloS one5, e9490 (2010). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Edgar, R. C. MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic acids res.32, 1792–1797 (2004). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Talavera, G. & Castresana, J. Improvement of phylogenies after removing divergent and ambiguously aligned blocks from protein sequence alignments. Systematic biol.56, 564–577 (2007). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.NCBI Sequence Read Archivehttps://identifiers.org/ncbi/insdc.sra:SRP505515 (2024).
- 51.Sang, B. I. & Prabhaharan, D. Metagenome sequencing assembly of Ichon_A, whole genome shotgun sequencing project. GenBankhttps://identifiers.org/ncbi/insdc:JBEFFB000000000 (2024).
- 52.Sang, B. I. & Prabhaharan, D. Metagenome sequencing assembly of Ichon_M, whole genome shotgun sequencing project. GenBankhttps://identifiers.org/ncbi/insdc:JBEFFC000000000 (2024).
- 53.Sang, B. I. & Prabhaharan, D. Metagenome sequencing assembly of Gunsan, whole genome shotgun sequencing project. GenBankhttps://identifiers.org/ncbi/insdc:JBEFFD000000000 (2024).
- 54.Sang, B. I. & Prabhaharan, D. Metagenome sequencing assembly of Jungrang, whole genome shotgun sequencing project. GenBankhttps://identifiers.org/ncbi/insdc:JBEFFE000000000 (2024).
- 55.Sang, B. I. & Prabhaharan, D. Metagenome sequencing assembly of Anyang, whole genome shotgun sequencing project. GenBankhttps://identifiers.org/ncbi/insdc:JBEFFF000000000 (2024).
- 56.Sang, B. I. & Prabhaharan, D. Representative Metagenomes of Mesophilic Biogas Reactor Across South Korea. figshare10.6084/m9.figshare.26962630 (2024). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Citations
- NCBI Sequence Read Archivehttps://identifiers.org/ncbi/insdc.sra:SRP505515 (2024).
- Sang, B. I. & Prabhaharan, D. Metagenome sequencing assembly of Ichon_A, whole genome shotgun sequencing project. GenBankhttps://identifiers.org/ncbi/insdc:JBEFFB000000000 (2024).
- Sang, B. I. & Prabhaharan, D. Metagenome sequencing assembly of Ichon_M, whole genome shotgun sequencing project. GenBankhttps://identifiers.org/ncbi/insdc:JBEFFC000000000 (2024).
- Sang, B. I. & Prabhaharan, D. Metagenome sequencing assembly of Gunsan, whole genome shotgun sequencing project. GenBankhttps://identifiers.org/ncbi/insdc:JBEFFD000000000 (2024).
- Sang, B. I. & Prabhaharan, D. Metagenome sequencing assembly of Jungrang, whole genome shotgun sequencing project. GenBankhttps://identifiers.org/ncbi/insdc:JBEFFE000000000 (2024).
- Sang, B. I. & Prabhaharan, D. Metagenome sequencing assembly of Anyang, whole genome shotgun sequencing project. GenBankhttps://identifiers.org/ncbi/insdc:JBEFFF000000000 (2024).
- Sang, B. I. & Prabhaharan, D. Representative Metagenomes of Mesophilic Biogas Reactor Across South Korea. figshare10.6084/m9.figshare.26962630 (2024). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
All versions of the third-party software and scripts used in this study are described and referenced in the Methods section.



