Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 Nov 19;20(11):e0334420. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0334420

Whole genome sequencing, characterization and analysis of coronene degrading bacterial strain Halomonas elongata

Thasneema Rafic 1, Mohammed Alarawi 2, Omer Salem Alkhnbashi 3,4, Assad Al-Thukair 1, Ajibola H Okeyode 5, Karthikeyan G 6, Alexis Nzila 1,7,*
Editor: Bijay Kumar Behera8
PMCID: PMC12629441  PMID: 41259345

Abstract

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are persistent environmental pollutants with significant ecological and health risks. Among them, coronene, a high molecular weight PAH, is particularly resistant to biodegradation due to its complex structure. This study characterizes a halophilic bacterial strain, initially identified as Halomonas caseinilytica and later reclassified as Halomonas elongata, capable of utilizing coronene as its sole carbon source under high salinity (10% NaCl). Whole genome sequencing using Oxford Nanopore technology (ONT) revealed 4,308 predicted genes, including those linked to hydrocarbon metabolism, stress adaptation, and secondary metabolite biosynthesis. Pathway analysis identified genes associated with xenobiotic degradation, although no canonical coronene specific degradative enzymes were identified, implying that the bacteria may be utilising an alternative or novel pathway. Comparative annotation uncovered operons and enzymes relevant to aromatic compound breakdown. Notably, the presence of ectoine biosynthesis genes suggests a robust osmoadaptation system. Features such as mobile genetic elements and horizontal gene transfer events were also investigated. These findings expand current knowledge on PAH-degrading halophiles and highlight the potential of H. elongata in bioremediation of saline and hypersaline environments contaminated with complex hydrocarbons. The study also emphasises the potential of long read sequencing technologies in environmental genomics and bioremediation.

Introduction

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are persistent pollutants that pose serious environmental and health risks due to their toxicity, mutagenicity, and carcinogenicity [1]. These pollutants, commonly originating from the incomplete combustion of organic materials and fossil fuels, are widespread in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems [2,3].Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) can be categorized into two groups. The first group consists of low molecular weight PAHs (LMW-PAHs), which contain two or three aromatic rings. Representative compounds in this group include naphthalene, phenanthrene, and anthracene. The second group comprises high molecular weight PAHs (HMW-PAHs), which contain more than three rings; notable examples include pyrene (four rings), benzo[a]pyrene (five rings), and coronene (seven rings) [35]. The literature contains numerous reports on the biodegradation of both LMW-PAHs (e.g., naphthalene, phenanthrene, and anthracene) and HMW-PAHs (e.g., pyrene and benzo[a]pyrene), including studies conducted under thermophilic, halophilic, and anaerobic conditions [1,512]. Bacteria capable of degrading PAHs have been identified across a wide range of genera. A study summarizing research on Saudi bacterial strains identified 38 different genera capable of degrading PAHs and other petroleum-derived compounds [13].

Comparatively, limited work has been carried out on the degradation of the HMW-PAHs coronene, due to the complexity of it’s structure, which makes it recalcitrant to biodegradation [14]. Three studies have reported the degradation of coronene by strains of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (formerly known as Burkholderia cepacia) [1517]. However, this degradation was observed only in the presence of pyrene, suggesting that these strains may not be capable of utilizing coronene as a sole carbon source. Recently, our research group identified a novel halophilic bacterial strain, Halomonas caseinilytica 10SCRN4D, isolated from fuel depots on the campus of King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (Dhahran, Saudi Arabia), which was capable of degrading coronene as the sole carbon source under high salinity conditions (10% NaCl w/v). The discovery of H. caseinilytica 10SCRN4D’s unique ability to degrade coronene in highly saline environments opens new avenues for research in PAH bioremediation, particularly in marine and hypersaline ecosystems. In addition, this strain was also capable of degrading other high molecular weight PAHs, including benzo[a]pyrene, phenanthrene, and pyrene, indicating a robust and versatile metabolic potential for PAH degradation [18].

To further elucidate the genetic and metabolic mechanisms underlying this exceptional capability, we have conducted a whole genome sequencing analysis of H. caseinilytica 10SCRN4D. Whole genome sequencing has proven to be an invaluable tool in understanding the metabolic potential and genetic adaptations of microorganisms involved in biodegradation processes [19]. For instance, the genome analysis of Mycobacterium sp. strain CH2, capable of degrading pyrene and benzo[a]pyrene, revealed a complete set of genes responsible for the degradation pathways of these HMW-PAHs [20].

Previous studies relying on Short-read Sequencing Technologies (SRST), such as Illumina, faced challenges in assembling repetitive regions, structural variations, and long operonic sequences, which are critical for understanding microbial genomic architecture [21]. For example, multiple studies underlined the difficulty in assembling repetitive regions using short reads, leading to fragmented assemblies of bacterial genomes [2224]. This could be because limited read lengths and lack of paired-end reads pose impediments for assembly software in resolving repeat regions, leading to fragmented assemblies [23]. Another challenge is the inability of short reads to accurately resolve repetitive genomic regions making it arduous to detect genetic variations [21]. In context of our study, where our strain is expected to have a relatively higher GC content as an extremophile, SRST often does not permit to accurately characterize DNA and RNA with extreme GC content, repetitive homologous sequences, or epigenetic modifications, making SRST a poor choice of sequencing technology [24,25]. These shortcomings inevitably restrict functional annotation and hamper the identification of novel pathways. In contrast, Long-read Sequencing Technologies (LRST) has demonstrated superior capabilities. It enables accurate mapping of sequencing reads to reference genomes, facilitates diverse variant detection methodologies, and introduces innovative approaches for characterizing epigenetic diversity [26]. The advancements in sequencing speed and accuracy, alongside the improved quality of bioinformatics analyses, demonstrate the effectiveness of recent technological innovations and their inherent chemical kits [27]. For instance, Koren et al. [28] in 2013 demonstrated the power of long reads in resolving complete bacterial genomes, including plasmids and repetitive regions, enhancing our understanding of bacterial evolution and pathogenicity. Another study used LRST for single-cell genomics of uncultivated bacteria, providing insights into microbial dark matter and expanding our knowledge of microbial diversity [29]. In the present study, we use LRST to explore the genetic mechanisms underlying coronene degradation in H. caseinilytica 10SCRN4D, we seek to fill the knowledge gap in HMW-PAH biodegradation and offer valuable insights and tools to tackle the enduring issue of PAH contamination across various environmental contexts.

Materials and methods

DNA isolation, whole genome sequencing and quality assessment

The strain used in this study, H. caseinilytica 10SCRN4D was originally isolated from soil samples collected from a fuel station of King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, as described in Okeyode et al.(2023) [18]. In brief, researchers enriched the soil samples under saline conditions using coronene as the only carbon source. This process led to the isolation of this halophilic bacterium, as detailed previously [18].

Bacterial pellet from single colony enrichment was subject to DNA isolation using qiagen MagAttract HMW DNA Kit (Qiagen, Germany). DNA was quantified using Qubit BR Assay Kits (Thermo, USA). 400–500 ng DNA was used to prepare sequencing library for Oxford nano-pore sequencing (ONT) using SQK-LSK109 Ligation Sequencing kit with R9.4.1 flowcell (Oxford Nanopore Technologies, Oxford, UK). The basecalling was performed in realtime using Guppy v5.1.

Bacterial genome assembly and analysis from ONT long reads was performed using the nf-core/bacass pipeline (v2.0.0) using nextflow (v23.04.0) [30]. Raw reads initial quality control and adapter trimming was performed using NanoPlot (v1.38.0) [31] and Porechop (v0.2.4). The de novo assembly was utilized Minimap2 (v2.21-r1071) [32] for read alignment and Miniasm (v0.3-r179) [33] and contig generation. The draft assembly was polished using Minimap2, Racon (v1.4.20) [34], and Medaka (v1.4.3) to improve the sequence accuracy. Finally, assembly quality was assessed using QUAST (v5.0.2) [35], and a comprehensive multi-tool report was generated with MultiQC [36].

The completness of the assembled genome was measured using BUSCO v 5.4.6 (Benchmarking Universal Single-Copy Orthologs) [37], with an E-value cutoff of 0.001 for BLAST searches to ensure high-confidence detection of conserved orthologs while minimizing false positives.

Strain identification

The thorough analysis of the bacterial genome began strain identification using Kraken2 (v2.1.1), for assigning taxonomic labels and detect contamination [38]. Parameters were set at a 0.5 confidence score to balance sensitivity and specificity. Additionally, a minimum hit group of 2 was used to avoid weak or ambiguous taxonomic assignments, improving the reliability of strain identification.

Gene prediction and functional annotation

To ensure comprehensive and accurate gene annotation, three distinct gene prediction tools were employed, each paired with a specific annotation tool. PROKKA [39] was the first tool employed for initial gene prediction, using an e-value cutoff of 1e-06 to ensure highly reliable functional annotations. A 1e-06 cut off was selected to balance specificity and sensitivity as zero is not a valid threshold in BLAST, and this cutoff also minimizes false positives while retaining biological meaningful homologs. The predicted genes were promptly annotated with PROKKA’s integrated annotation system. To enhance the depth of functional insights, hypothetical proteins identified by PROKKA were subjected to CDD (Conserved Domains Databases) searches [40,41]. These searches were performed with a stringent e-value threshold of 0.001 and a maximum of 500 hits to allow for the identification of conserved functional domains even in hypothetical proteins, thereby enhancing the depth and biological relevance of the genomic annotations. The functional insights gained from CDD analysis were then integrated with PROKKA’s annotations, creating a more comprehensive and detailed overview of the predicted genes’ roles and their potential biological significance.

In addition to PROKKA, two other gene prediction tools were employed: PRODIGAL [42] and GeneMarkS2 [43]. The genes predicted by these tools were subsequently annotated using EggNOG-mapper v2, a powerful functional annotation tool. [44]. MAFFT, a multiple sequence alignment program, was utilized to align the gene sequences predicted by all three tools to identify potential discrepancies between the different prediction methods and enhancing the overall accuracy of the annotation process [45]. Finally, gene ontology-based functional annotation was performed using InterProScan and Blast2GO [46].

Identification of genomic features

To gain insights into gene organization and regulatory mechanisms within the genome, Operon Mapper was utilized to identify potential operons, providing information on gene clustering and regulation [47]. CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) arrays, known for their role in bacterial immunity and genome editing, were detected using CRISPRCasFinder [48]. This step was crucial to understand the adaptive immune mechanisms of the organism. Additionally, the resistance gene Identifier program of the database CARD (Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database) was used to spot any genes of antibiotic resistance [49].

To further investigate the genome’s structure and evolutionary dynamics, RepeatMasker v4.1.5 [50] was employed to identify repeat elements, and RepeatModeler v2.0.5 [51] was used for de novo annotation of these repetitive sequences. Additionally, Palindrome v5.0.0.1 [52] was applied to detect inverted repeats, with parameters set as follows: lengths ranging from 10 to 100 base pairs target meaningful structural motifs; a maximum gap of 100 base pairs between repeats to accommodate typical regulatory structures and no mismatches allowed to ensure the identification of exact inverted repeats. Mobile genetic elements, which are pivotal in bacterial evolution and environmental adaptation, were identified using MobileOG-DB with e-value score of 1.0e-05 and k value of 1 that would maximize sensitivity, ensuring the identification of all potentially relevant mobile genetic sequences [53]. Furthermore, potential horizontal gene transfer events, critical for the acquisition of novel traits and rapid adaptation, were detected using Alien Hunter [54].Lastly, the presence of secondary metabolite biosynthesis genes, was identified using the antiSMASH web-based tool [54].

Pathway analysis

Two complementary approaches were used for pathway analysis: the RAST (Rapid Annotations using Subsystems Technology) server and KAAS (KEGG Automatic Annotation Server). The RAST server was employed to annotate genes based on curated subsystems and protein families [55,56]. KAAS was utilized for functional annotation of genes [57]. KAAS employed the bi-directional best hit (BBH) method, a reliable technique for identifying orthologous relationships. KO (KEGG Orthology) identifiers assigned through this process were subsequently used to automatically generate KEGG pathways and functional classifications.

Results

Whole genome sequencing and quality assessment

ONT allowed real time detection and generated long reads of 6 contigs combining to a total length of 3966854 bp, of which the largest contig made up 1702422 bp (maybe repot in Mbp or Kbp). The number of N’s per 100 kbp was reported to be zero implying that no ambiguous ‘N’ bases were in in 100,000 bp (Kbp or Mbp) of the assembly, suggesting an assembly with high sequence continuity without gaps. Table 1 summarises the quality assessment report. Overall, the statistics indicated a high-quality genome assembly with few, large, and contiguous sequences, minimal gaps, and a good representation of the genome’s total length (Fig 1). The GC content was reported to be 63.04% which, although within the desirable range of 40%−80%, is still relatively high. Higher GC content often correlates with thermal stability, which suggests that our organism is adapted to high-temperature environments, an information we can confirm from our previous study [18].

Table 1. Sequence quality assessment report.

Category Report Value Expected value Interpretation
Read Quality (NanoPlot) % Reads > Q10 100% 90% basecall accuracy – 10 100% of reads are good quality
% Reads >Q12 44.8% Nearly half the reads are over Q12
%Reads>Q15 2.0% Few reads are over Q15
Assembly Statistics Number of contigs 6 Less than 10 A low number of contigs indicates excellent contiguity
# N’s per 100 kbp 0.00 0 No gaps in the assembly, indicating fully resolved sequences
GC content 63.04% 15% − 75% Normal GC content range
L50 2 2-10 Only 2 contigs cover 50% of the total genome showing excellent assembly quality
N50 890802 highly contiguous assembly
Overall Completeness Contigs > 50 kbp 6 >10 All contigs are longer than 50 kbp, indicating high-quality assembly

Fig 1. Evaluation of quality of the genome assembly.

Fig 1

A. An Nx plot showing the assembly continuity and indicating a high-quality genome assembly with significant coverage achieved by large contigs. B. The plot shows the cumulative length of contigs from genome assembly as a function of contig index. A steep initial slope, which then levels off, indicates that a few long contigs make up a substantial part of the genome. C. The plot shows distribution of GC content across different windows of the assembled genome having a predominant and consistent GC content around 60%. D. The plot shows the peak of GC content across the contigs in the genome assembly and implies a uniform GC content of a little over 60%.

The completeness of the genome assembly was then analyzed with BUSCO which validates the quality of genome assemblies based on the presence of highly conserved genes. In Fig 2, our results show that out of a total of 619 BUSCOs searched, 506 were complete. This included 505 that are present as a single copy and 1 that is duplicated. This implies that 81% of orthologs that were found in the genome assembly are intact without missing any important regions. The predominance of single-copy BUSCOs and the minimal duplication suggest that our assembly is accurate and largely free from redundancy or misassembly. Additionally, 72 orthologs were fragmented while 41 were missing from the assembly. Low number of missing genes mean only a small proportion of expected genes are absent. This indicates the genome assembly is mostly comprehensive.

Fig 2. BUSCO assessment results displaying three categories of genomic completeness.

Fig 2

Complete (C), Fragmented (F), and Missing (M). The Complete (C) category dominates with approximately 81% of BUSCOs, including 505 single-copy and 1 duplicated. The Fragmented (F) category accounts for about 12%, while the Missing (M) category represents roughly 7%. The chart highlights the high quality and completeness of the genome assembly.

Taxonomical classification

Taxonomical classification of the sequence was done using Kraken2 software [58] that reclassified the bacteria as H. elongata contradicting the previous 16s rRNA based identification of the strain as H. caseinilytica 10SCRN4D. Fig 3 represents the hierarchical taxonomical classification of the strain. S1 Table shows the output result of the taxonomical identification when the H. elongata had the highest score of association.

Fig 3. Taxonomical classification of Halomonas elongata.

Fig 3

Gene prediction and functional annotation

PROKKA predicted a total of 4308 genes within the genome. These genes were categorized as follows: 4227 genes annotated as conserved domain sequences (CDS), 12 genes annotated as rRNA, 68 genes annotated as tRNA and 1 gene annotated as tmRNA. Additionally, 1659 CDS were annotated as hypothetical proteins, representing genes with unidentified or uncertain functions. To further characterize these hypothetical proteins, they were subjected to analysis using Conserved Domain Database (CDD), where 737 hypothetical proteins were identified as specific proteins with defined functions and 396 hypothetical proteins were linked to their respective superfamilies, providing functional insights. However, 526 hypothetical proteins remained uncharacterized, representing sequences with no detectable matches to known proteins or superfamilies (S1S4 Figs).

In addition to PROKKA, PRODIGAL and GeneMarkS2 were utilized for gene prediction (Table 2). PRODIGAL predicted 4234 genes, of which 3785 genes were annotated using EggNOG-mapper. GeneMarkS2 predicted 4280 genes, with 3861 genes annotated via EggNOG-mapper. Gene ontology (GO) assignments were carried out using InterProScan and Blast2GO. The sequence distribution based on Biological, Cellular, and Molecular functions is summarized in Fig 4. 100 proteins were categorized under GO:0006805, corresponding to xenobiotic degradation, indicating potential involvement in detoxification processes. Notably, no proteins were categorized under GO:0019439, which corresponds to aromatic compound catabolism, highlighting a lack of direct annotations related to this specific function.

Table 2. Comparison of the gene prediction and annotation results.

Gene Prediction and Annotation Tool Total length No. of genes predicted No. of genes annotated No. of CDS No. of rRNAs No. of tRNAs No. of Hypothetical Proteins No. of predicted genes not annotated
PROKKA 1152142 4308 4308 4227 12 68 1659
PRODIGAL+ EggNOG-mapper 1157291 4234 3785 3657 128 449
GenemarkS2 + EggNOG-mapper 1161458 4280 3861 3732 129 419

“Total length” refers to the total sequence length (in base pairs) that was processed by each tool to be annoatable; “No. of genes predicted” includes all coding and non-coding sequences identified by the gene prediction tool; “No. of genes annotated” includes only those with functional annotation assigned by the annotation tool; “CDS” refers to protein-coding sequences among the annotated genes; “Hypothetical proteins” are predicted proteins without functional annotation among the predicted genes; “Predicted genes not annotated” indicates sequences that were predicted to be genes by the gene prediction tool but were not annotated by the annotation tools.

Fig 4. GO analysis provides a functional snapshot of the strain’s genomic capacity.

Fig 4

The image displays GO results distributed across three major categories: Cellular Component, Molecular Function, and Biological Process. Cytosolic and membrane-associated proteins suggest critical metabolic and transport-related roles; Enzymes involved in transferase, hydrolase, and oxidoreductase activities support the degradation of complex organic compounds like coronene; The biological processes further underline the bacterium’s capacity to adapt, organize its cellular machinery and perform specialized functions.

Identification of genomic features

Operon Mapper identified 2013 operons out of which at least 9 were associated with aromatic compounds degradation. Two CRISPR sites were identified, one in utg000001l contig and the other in utg000005l contig (S2 Table). No cas sites were detected.

In total, 436 repeat regions were identified. These regions mainly comprised of simple repeats. In addition to the simple repeats, LINEs, SINEs, rRNA and tRNA repeats were also detected (Fig 5). 1288 Palindrome, 121 mobile elements and 47 Horizontal transfer genes were also found. antiSMASH was able to identify three secondary metabolite regions, namely, ectoine, NRPS/ NRPS metallophore, RiPP like protein. Fig 6 shows the gene clusters of the three secondary metabolite biosynthesis. CARD [49] detected 3 antibiotic resistance genes, namely, adeF, rsmA and qacG. Fig 7 represents the whole genome of the bacteria created using Proksee web-based tool [59].

Fig 5. Repeat sequences found in the genome.

Fig 5

T-transfer DNA, IE- Integration/excision, RRR-Replication/Recombination/Repair, P- Phage, STD- Stability/Transfer/Defense.

Fig 6. Secondary metabolite clusters of NRPS/NRP-metallophore, ectoine and RiPP-like protein.

Fig 6

Each gene clusters consist of core and additional biosynthetic genes, regulatory genes, transport-related genes and resistance gene.

Fig 7. Schematic circular map of the whole genome of Halomonas elongata.

Fig 7

The map illustrates the location of the different genetic components of the bacterial genome. Used under creative commons license.

Ectoine production

In recent years, ectoine has been extensively studied for commercial application due to its ability to stabilize cellular components such as DNAs and proteins [60]. From the annotation results, 3 of the enzymes required for ectoine synthesis, namely, Diaminobutyric acid acetyltransferase (ectA), L-2,4-diaminobutyrate-2-oxoglutarate transaminase (ectB) and Ectoine synthase (ectC) were identified. Additionally, Ectoine hydroxylase (ectD) involved in the conversion of ectoine to 5-hydroxyectoin was also found. EctD is not commonly found in all ectoine biosynthesizing bacteria. 5-hydroxyectoin has superior stress-relieving properties [61].

Functional and pathway analysis

The RAST analysis revealed that only 32% of the genome was associated with subsystem categories. Overall, 4393 coding sequences in the genome were Identified using RAST. Of these, 1398 coding sequences were linked to one or more subsystems in the database. Within the category of aromatic compound metabolism, 30 features/genes were identified, highlighting the organism’s potential role in degrading aromatic compounds. Additionally, 2 genes categorized under miscellaneous subsystems were associated with aromatic dioxygenase activity (S3 Table). RAST also identified other important subcategories including resistance to antibiotics and toxic compounds, Invasion and intracellular resistance, Prophage and phage packaging machinery suggesting mechanisms for survival in challenging environments, host interaction capabilities and phage related function (Fig 8).

Fig 8. A pie chart representing the subsystems coverage of the genome using the RAST database.

Fig 8

Subsystems include “Metabolism of Aromatic Compounds,” “Amino Acids and Derivatives,” “Carbohydrates,” “Phosphorus Metabolism,” “Secondary Metabolism,” “Stress Response,” “Membrane Transport,” and others. The chart highlights functional diversity with significant portions for metabolic, transport, and stress adaptation-related processes.

Pathway analysis using InterProScan results identified 266 KEGG pathways in addition to 1866 sequences that were found to be associated to one or more pathways. KASS produced KO list which helped in mapping the pathways. A total of 2101 genes were annotated with KO numbers. Pathway mapping allowed to see the different pathways our bacterial genome aligns with in the KEGG databases. Under the category of xenobiotic degradation pathways, 13 partial KEGG pathways were identified. One reason to explain this would be the probable presence of alternative pathways which may not be a part of the standard KEGG modules. S5 Fig shows the pathway map for the degradation of PAHs mediated by cytochrome P450.

Discussion

The advent of LRST, such as ONS used in our study, has revolutionized microbial genomics by enabling high-contiguity assemblies and the resolution of complex genomic features. This study leverages the strengths of LRST to elucidate the genomic adaptations of H. elongata (previously H. caseinilytica 10SCRN4D). Transitioning from 16S rRNA sequencing to whole genome sequencing resulted in the reclassification of our strain from H. caseinilytica 10SCRN4D to H. elongata, accentuating the evolving nature of bacterial taxonomy and the limitations of 16S rRNA-based identification methods [62]. This phenomenon is not unique to our study, as similar reclassifications have been observed in other bacterial genera. For instance, WGS-based analyses led to the proposed combination of two Clostridium species in a 2021 study [63], and another research effort reclassified an Elizabethkingia miricola strain as E. bruuniana [64]. These recurring instances of species reclassification can be attributed to the insufficient resolution of 16S rRNA-based identification, particularly when distinguishing closely related species within genetically complex genera like Halomonas [65]. The genetic similarity among Halomonas species complicates accurate classification when relying solely on the 16S rRNA gene [62]. Relatively, LRST provides a comprehensive genetic landscape, enabling more precise and nuanced species determination. Our study’s findings highlight the advantages of LRST in uncovering subtle genomic differences crucial for accurate taxonomic classification [64].

Recent studies have highlighted the potential of halophilic bacteria in degrading HMW-PAHs under saline conditions. Nanca et al. [66] isolated halophilic bacteria from Philippine salt beds capable of degrading pyrene, fluorene, and fluoranthene, demonstrating the versatility of halophiles in PAH degradation. Other studies have demonstrated the ability of various Halomonas sp. to degrade aromatic hydrocarbons under hypersaline conditions. For instance, H. organivorans has been reported to degrade phenol, salicylate, and benzoate, utilizing pathways involving phenol hydroxylase and catechol 2,3-dioxygenase enzymes [67].Similarly, Halomonas sp. strain ML-15 was shown to degrade phenanthrene effectively under haloalkaliphilic conditions, emphasizing the adaptability of Halomonas species to extreme environments [68]. Halomonas sp. strain C2SS100 has exhibited the capacity to degrade hydrocarbons under high salinity, highlighting the genus’s adaptability to extreme environments [69].Our strain of study, as observed from our previous research, was capable of degrading coronene at the same rate as that of any LMW-PAHs and at a salinity ranging between 0.5% to 10% [18]. Renowned for their ectoine producing ability, H. elongata is a halophilic γ-proteobacterium that has an optimal growth at salt concentrations ranging from 3.5% to 20% NaCl [62]. Despite the Halomonas sp. remarkable capability, the degradation of HMW PAHs such as coronene by H. elongata has not been previously reported in the literature, highlighting the novelty and significance of our findings.

The gene prediction and annotation results from multiple tools (PROKKA, PRODIGAL, and GenemarkS2) provide a comprehensive view of the H. elongata strain’s genomic content. The consistent gene count across different prediction algorithms (4308, 4234, and 4280, respectively) lends credibility to the overall gene density and supports the robustness of the genome assembly. PROKKA’s annotation revealed a high proportion of protein-coding sequences (4227 CDS) and essential RNA genes, indicating a complete set of translational machinery crucial for cellular function [70]. However, high number of hypothetical proteins (1659 out of 4227 CDS) initially annotated by PROKKA highlights the current limitations in our knowledge of bacterial gene functions, particularly in less-studied genera like Halomonas. The subsequent analysis of these hypothetical proteins using CDD reduced the number of truly uncharacterized proteins from 1659 to 526. This significant reduction emphasizes the importance of using multiple annotation tools and databases to maximize functional assignments as done in this study. The remaining 526 hypothetical proteins with no identified domains or superfamilies represent potential targets for future experimental characterization. These could be genes unique to Halomonas or even strain-specific adaptations, possibly playing roles in the organism’s specific environmental niche, and in our case, the ability to degrade coronene [65,71].

Comparative genomic analyses have further elucidated the mechanisms underlying PAH degradation in halophilic bacteria. Pontibacillus chungwhensis HN14, for example, possesses gene clusters associated with PAH degradation pathways, emphasizing the genetic basis for their catabolic capabilities [72]. These findings align with our genomic analysis of H. elongata, which revealed genes involved in aromatic compound degradation, antibiotic resistance, and stress adaptation. GO analysis with InterProScan and Blast2GO provided a general overview of the genome’s functional landscape. The identification of 100 proteins categorized under xenobiotic metabolic processes (GO:0006805) potentially addresses the strain’s ability to degrade PAHs. However, the absence of proteins categorized under aromatic compound catabolism (GO:0019439) presents a contradiction that could be interpreted in several ways, including the possibility of alternative or novel pathways for aromatic compound degradation not yet captured by current GO terms or specific genes may not be well-represented in existing databases [62,73]. This can be backed by the knowledge that GO has not completely established its ontology and has limited coverage of multi-functional genes [73].

RAST and KEGG pathway analyses provide insights into the strain’s functional capabilities and metabolic potential. The relatively low percentage of genes assigned to RAST subsystems (32%) implies a substantial number of unique or poorly characterized genes [56]. The identification of 13 partial KEGG pathways related to xenobiotic degradation is of interest, although the absence of complete pathways could be due to the use of unique or modified pathways not defined in KEGG modules or the genes may have slight variations resulting in them not being assigned with a KO number [74].

The results from Operon Mapper, CRISPR analysis, repeat region identification, CARD and antiSMASH provide valuable insights into the genomic organization and functional potential. Particularly, the nine operons associated with aromatic compound degradation corroborates the earlier Gene Ontology results indicating xenobiotic degradation potential, and at the same time suggesting that H. elongata strain under study may possess specialized pathways to break down aromatic compounds. The detection of CRISPR site but the absence of cas genes is intriguing. This either means the CRISPRs identified are non-functional, orphan CRISPR arrays or the cas genes are present but not identified by the current annotation methods [75]. Antibiotic resistance to fluoroquinolone, tetracycline, diaminopyrimidine and phenolic compounds is mainly due to the presence of efflux proteins rsmA and adeF. The gene qacG confers to it’s resistance to disinfecting agents and antiseptics [49]. Additionally, the 47 genes found to be horizontally transferred could play a role in the strain’s ability to degrade coronene. This assumption is based off of Han and co-workers research in 2025 where they observed that the ability of Altererythrobacter sp. H2 to degrade PAHs was due to horizontal gene transfer [76].

Secondary metabolite regions, particularly ectoine biosynthesis cluster is consistent with the halophilic nature of the strain as ectoine is used for osmotic balance in halophilic bacteria [60,77]. The presence of NRPS clusters, including one encoding a metallophore, would suggest the capacity to produce complex secondary metabolites participating in metal acquisition or other ecological interactions that plays a prominent role in bioremediation. RiPP-like (Ribosomally synthesized and Post-translationally modified Peptide) cluster signifies the potential for the production of bioactive peptides which has the prospect to be explored in anti-microbial activity studies [78]. Most importantly, the presence of 4 genes involved in ectoine synthesis makes our strain an important candidate for research in cosmetics and medicine. On the other hand, RAST and KEGG pathway analyses provided insights into the strain’s functional capabilities and metabolic potential. The relatively low percentage of genes assigned to RAST subsystems (32%) implies a substantial number of unique or poorly characterized genes [56]. The identification of 13 partial KEGG pathways related to xenobiotic degradation is of interest, although the absence of complete pathways could be due to the use of unique or modified pathways not defined in KEGG modules or the genes may have slight variations resulting in them not being assigned with a KO number [74].

While this study provides a detailed genomic analysis of H. elongata and its potential role in coronene degradation, it is constrained by the lack of functional validation through transcriptomic or proteomic data. The genes and pathways identified here, though computationally annotated, require experimental confirmation to establish their specific roles in PAH metabolism. Given the structural complexity and limited existing knowledge regarding the biodegradation pathways for coronene, we initially hypothesized that H. elongata might utilize established degradation pathways known for other PAHs, such as naphthalene or phenanthrene. Surprisingly, genome analysis revealed that H. elongata lacks key enzymes commonly associated with these canonical PAH degradation pathways. As the degradation intermediates of coronene were not characterized, our understanding of the complete metabolic pathway is limited. Future studies incorporating gene knockout, heterologous expression, and metabolite profiling will be essential to verify the function of key enzymes and to clarify the molecular mechanisms enabling coronene degradation under high salinity conditions.

Conclusion

This study presents a comprehensive genomic analysis of H. elongata (previously classified as H. caseinilytica), revealing its exceptional potential for degrading coronene, a HMW-PAH, under saline conditions. By utilizing LRST coupled with advanced bioinformatics tools, we identified specific genetic components and pathways related to xenobiotic metabolism, production of secondary metabolites, and adaptive mechanisms such as horizontal gene transfer and CRISPR arrays. These genetic insights highlight the organism’s adaptability and underscore its significant promise for environmental applications.

Broader implications of our findings include potential utilization of H. elongata in bioremediation strategies for marine and hypersaline ecosystems contaminated with complex hydrocarbons, as well as opportunities for industrial biotechnology applications, particularly involving halotolerant secondary metabolite production like ectoine. However, this genomic study faces limitations, notably the absence of functional validation through transcriptomic, proteomic, and metabolomic analyses. Consequently, the specific biochemical mechanisms underlying coronene degradation remain hypothetical and require confirmation through experimental studies.

Future research should explicitly focus on validating the identified metabolic pathways, characterizing unannotated or hypothetical proteins, and exploring industrially relevant secondary metabolites. Targeted genetic experiments, including gene knockouts and metabolite profiling, are essential next steps to fully harness the biotechnological and environmental potentials of H. elongata. Such future studies will significantly strengthen our understanding and enable the practical deployment of this microorganism to sustainably mitigate PAH contamination in challenging environmental settings.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Genes associated with superfamilies predicted on CDD.

(DOCX)

pone.0334420.s001.docx (80.2KB, docx)
S2 Fig. Genes associated with superfamilies predicted on CDD.

(DOCX)

pone.0334420.s002.docx (61.1KB, docx)
S3 Fig. Genes associated with superfamilies predicted on CDD.

(DOCX)

pone.0334420.s003.docx (77.2KB, docx)
S4 Fig. Genes associated with superfamilies predicted on CDD.

(DOCX)

pone.0334420.s004.docx (79.9KB, docx)
S5 Fig. Pathway mapping of metabolism of xenobiotics by cytochrome P450 from KASS The green boxes indicate the genes that are present in our gene list while the blue boxes indicate those that are absent but should have been present.

Where EC: 2.5.1.18 is glutathione S-transferase.

(DOCX)

pone.0334420.s005.docx (309KB, docx)
S1 Table. Kraken2 taxonomical classification.

(DOCX)

pone.0334420.s006.docx (23.1KB, docx)
S2 Table. CRISPR sites.

(DOCX)

pone.0334420.s007.docx (21.6KB, docx)
S3 Table. RAST Annotation corresponding to aromatic compound metabolism.

(DOCX)

pone.0334420.s008.docx (23.9KB, docx)

Data Availability

Data is available here: https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/ERR15384688 and the reference is ERR15384688.

Funding Statement

This study was supported by project number INMW2301 by the Interdisciplinary Research Center for Membranes and Water Security (IRC-MWS), King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM) Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. There was no additional external funding received for this study.

References

  • 1.Haritash AK, Kaushik CP. Biodegradation aspects of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs): a review. J Hazard Mater. 2009;169(1–3):1–15. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.03.137 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Kadri T, Rouissi T, Kaur Brar S, Cledon M, Sarma S, Verma M. Biodegradation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) by fungal enzymes: A review. J Environ Sci (China). 2017;51:52–74. doi: 10.1016/j.jes.2016.08.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Abdel-Shafy HI, Mansour MSM. A review on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: Source, environmental impact, effect on human health and remediation. Egyptian J Petroleum. 2016;25(1):107–23. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpe.2015.03.011 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Lawal AT. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. A review. Cogent Environ Sci. 2017;3(1):1339841. doi: 10.1080/23311843.2017.1339841 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Patel AB, Shaikh S, Jain KR, Desai C, Madamwar D. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons: Sources, Toxicity, and Remediation Approaches. Front Microbiol. 2020;11:562813. doi: 10.3389/FMICB.2020.562813 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Heker I, Samak NA, Kong Y, Meckenstock RU. Anaerobic degradation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2025;91(4):e0226824. doi: 10.1128/aem.02268-24 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Gupta G, Kumar V, Pal AK. Microbial Degradation of High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons with Emphasis on Pyrene. Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds. 2017;39(2):124–38. doi: 10.1080/10406638.2017.1293696 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Kanaly RA, Harayama S. Biodegradation of High-Molecular-Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons by Bacteria. J Bacteriol. 2000;182(8):2059–67. doi: 10.1128/jb.182.8.2059-2067.2000 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Nzila A. Biodegradation of high-molecular-weight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons under anaerobic conditions: Overview of studies, proposed pathways and future perspectives. Environ Pollut. 2018;239:788–802. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.04.074 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Nzila A. Current Status of the Degradation of Aliphatic and Aromatic Petroleum Hydrocarbons by Thermophilic Microbes and Future Perspectives. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(12):2782. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15122782 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Nzila A, Musa MM. Current Status of and Future Perspectives in Bacterial Degradation of Benzo[a]pyrene. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;18(1):262. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18010262 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Dhar K, Subashchandrabose SR, Venkateswarlu K, Krishnan K, Megharaj M. Anaerobic Microbial Degradation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons: A Comprehensive Review. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol. 2020;251:25–108. doi: 10.1007/398_2019_29 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Mordecai J, Al-Thukair A, Musa MM, Ahmad I, Nzila A. Bacterial Degradation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Saudi Arabia. Toxics. 2024;12(11):800. doi: 10.3390/toxics12110800 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ghosal D, Ghosh S, Dutta TK, Ahn Y. Current State of Knowledge in Microbial Degradation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs): A Review. Front Microbiol. 2016;7. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.01369 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Juhasz AL, Britz ML, Stanley GA. Degradation of fluoranthene, pyrene, benz[ a ]anthracene and dibenz[ a , h ]anthracene by Burkholderia cepacia . Journal of Applied Microbiology. 1997;83(2):189–98. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2672.1997.00220.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Juhasz AL, Britz ML, Stanley GA. Degradation of high molecular weight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons by Pseudomonas cepacia. Biotechnol Lett. 1996;18:577–82. doi: 10.1007/BF00140206 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Juhasz AL, Stanley GA, Britz ML. Microbial degradation and detoxification of high molecular weight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons by Stenotrophomonas maltophilia strain VUN 10,003. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2000;30(5):396–401. doi: 10.1046/j.1472-765x.2000.00733.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Okeyode AH, Al-Thukair A, Chanbasha B, Nazal MK, Afuecheta E, Musa MM, et al. Degradation of the highly complex polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon coronene by the halophilic bacterial strain Halomonas caseinilytica, 10SCRN4D. Archives of Environmental Protection. 2023;:78–86. doi: 10.24425/aep.2023.147330 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Lou F, Okoye CO, Gao L, Jiang H, Wu Y, Wang Y, et al. Whole-genome sequence analysis reveals phenanthrene and pyrene degradation pathways in newly isolated bacteria Klebsiella michiganensis EF4 and Klebsiella oxytoca ETN19. Microbiol Res. 2023;273:127410. doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2023.127410 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Qutob M, Rafatullah M, Muhammad SA, Alosaimi AM, Alorfi HS, Hussein MA. A Review of Pyrene Bioremediation Using Mycobacterium Strains in a Different Matrix. Fermentation. 2022;8(6):260. doi: 10.3390/fermentation8060260 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Kumar KR, Cowley MJ, Davis RL. Next-generation sequencing and emerging technologies. Semin Thromb Hemost. 2019;45:661–73. doi: 10.1055/S-0039-1688446/ID/JR02634-16/BIB [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Treangen TJ, Salzberg SL. Repetitive DNA and next-generation sequencing: computational challenges and solutions. Nat Rev Genet. 2011;13(1):36–46. doi: 10.1038/nrg3117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Pop M, Salzberg SL. Bioinformatics challenges of new sequencing technology. Trends Genet. 2008;24:142. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kim J, Lee C, Ko BJ, Yoo DA, Won S, Phillippy AM, et al. False gene and chromosome losses in genome assemblies caused by GC content variation and repeats. Genome Biol. 2022;23(1):204. doi: 10.1186/s13059-022-02765-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Chen X, Xu H, Shu X, Song C-X. Mapping epigenetic modifications by sequencing technologies. Cell Death Differ. 2025;32(1):56–65. doi: 10.1038/s41418-023-01213-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Kaplun L, Krautz-Peterson G, Neerman N, Stanley C, Hussey S, Folwick M, et al. ONT long-read WGS for variant discovery and orthogonal confirmation of short read WGS derived genetic variants in clinical genetic testing. Front Genet. 2023;14:1145285. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2023.1145285 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Pollard MO, Gurdasani D, Mentzer AJ, Porter T, Sandhu MS. Long reads: their purpose and place. Hum Mol Genet. 2018;27(R2):R234–41. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddy177 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Koren S, Harhay GP, Smith TPL, Bono JL, Harhay DM, Mcvey SD, et al. Reducing assembly complexity of microbial genomes with single-molecule sequencing. Genome Biol. 2013;14(9):R101. doi: 10.1186/gb-2013-14-9-r101 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Sharon I, Kertesz M, Hug LA, Pushkarev D, Blauwkamp TA, Castelle CJ, et al. Accurate, multi-kb reads resolve complex populations and detect rare microorganisms. Genome Res. 2015;25(4):534–43. doi: 10.1101/gr.183012.114 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Ewels PA, Peltzer A, Fillinger S, Patel H, Alneberg J, Wilm A, et al. The nf-core framework for community-curated bioinformatics pipelines. Nat Biotechnol. 2020;38(3):276–8. doi: 10.1038/s41587-020-0439-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.De Coster W, Rademakers R. NanoPack2: population-scale evaluation of long-read sequencing data. Bioinformatics. 2023;39(5). doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btad311 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Li H. Minimap2: pairwise alignment for nucleotide sequences. Bioinformatics. 2018;34(18):3094–100. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty191 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Li H. Minimap and miniasm: fast mapping and de novo assembly for noisy long sequences. Bioinformatics. 2016;32(14):2103–10. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btw152 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Vaser R, Sović I, Nagarajan N, Šikić M. Fast and accurate de novo genome assembly from long uncorrected reads. Genome Res. 2017;27(5):737–46. doi: 10.1101/gr.214270.116 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Gurevich A, Saveliev V, Vyahhi N, Tesler G. QUAST: quality assessment tool for genome assemblies. Bioinformatics. 2013;29(8):1072–5. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt086 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Ewels P, Magnusson M, Lundin S, Käller M. MultiQC: summarize analysis results for multiple tools and samples in a single report. Bioinformatics. 2016;32(19):3047–8. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btw354 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Simão FA, Waterhouse RM, Ioannidis P, Kriventseva EV, Zdobnov EM. BUSCO: assessing genome assembly and annotation completeness with single-copy orthologs. Bioinformatics. 2015;31(19):3210–2. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv351 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Lu J, Rincon N, Wood DE, Breitwieser FP, Pockrandt C, Langmead B, et al. Metagenome analysis using the Kraken software suite. Nat Protoc. 2022;17(12):2815–39. doi: 10.1038/s41596-022-00738-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Seemann T. Prokka: rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics. 2014;30(14):2068–9. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu153 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Marchler-Bauer A, Lu S, Anderson JB, Chitsaz F, Derbyshire MK, DeWeese-Scott C, et al. CDD: a Conserved Domain Database for the functional annotation of proteins. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011;39(Database issue):D225-9. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkq1189 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Wang J, Chitsaz F, Derbyshire MK, Gonzales NR, Gwadz M, Lu S, et al. The conserved domain database in 2023. Nucleic Acids Res. 2023;51(D1):D384–8. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkac1096 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Hyatt D, Chen G-L, 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 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Lomsadze A, Gemayel K, Tang S, Borodovsky M. Modeling leaderless transcription and atypical genes results in more accurate gene prediction in prokaryotes. Genome Res. 2018;28(7):1079–89. doi: 10.1101/gr.230615.117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Cantalapiedra CP, Hernández-Plaza A, Letunic I, Bork P, Huerta-Cepas J. eggNOG-mapper v2: Functional Annotation, Orthology Assignments, and Domain Prediction at the Metagenomic Scale. Mol Biol Evol. 2021;38(12):5825–9. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msab293 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Katoh K, Rozewicki J, Yamada KD. MAFFT online service: multiple sequence alignment, interactive sequence choice and visualization. Brief Bioinform. 2019;20(4):1160–6. doi: 10.1093/bib/bbx108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Paysan-Lafosse T, Blum M, Chuguransky S, Grego T, Pinto BL, Salazar GA, et al. InterPro in 2022. Nucleic Acids Res. 2023;51(D1):D418–27. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkac993 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Taboada B, Estrada K, Ciria R, Merino E. Operon-mapper: a web server for precise operon identification in bacterial and archaeal genomes. Bioinformatics. 2018;34(23):4118–20. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty496 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Couvin D, Bernheim A, Toffano-Nioche C, Touchon M, Michalik J, Néron B, et al. CRISPRCasFinder, an update of CRISRFinder, includes a portable version, enhanced performance and integrates search for Cas proteins. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;46(W1):W246–51. doi: 10.1093/nar/gky425 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Alcock BP, Huynh W, Chalil R, Smith KW, Raphenya AR, Wlodarski MA, et al. CARD 2023: expanded curation, support for machine learning, and resistome prediction at the Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2023;51:D690–D699. doi: 10.1093/NAR/GKAC920 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Tempel S. Using and understanding RepeatMasker. Methods Mol Biol. 2012;859:29–51. doi: 10.1007/978-1-61779-603-6_2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Flynn JM, Hubley R, Goubert C, Rosen J, Clark AG, Feschotte C, et al. RepeatModeler2 for automated genomic discovery of transposable element families. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020;117(17):9451–7. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1921046117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Rice P, Longden I, Bleasby A. EMBOSS: the European Molecular Biology Open Software Suite. Trends Genet. 2000;16(6):276–7. doi: 10.1016/s0168-9525(00)02024-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Brown CL, Mullet J, Hindi F, Stoll JE, Gupta S, Choi M, et al. mobileOG-db: a Manually Curated Database of Protein Families Mediating the Life Cycle of Bacterial Mobile Genetic Elements. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2022;88(18):e0099122. doi: 10.1128/aem.00991-22 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Vernikos GS, Parkhill J. Interpolated variable order motifs for identification of horizontally acquired DNA: revisiting the Salmonella pathogenicity islands. Bioinformatics. 2006;22(18):2196–203. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btl369 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Overbeek R, Olson R, Pusch GD, Olsen GJ, Davis JJ, Disz T, et al. The SEED and the Rapid Annotation of microbial genomes using Subsystems Technology (RAST). Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42(Database issue):D206-14. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkt1226 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Aziz RK, Bartels D, Best AA, DeJongh M, Disz T, Edwards RA, et al. The RAST Server: rapid annotations using subsystems technology. BMC Genomics. 2008;9:75. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-9-75 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Moriya Y, Itoh M, Okuda S, Yoshizawa AC, Kanehisa M. KAAS: an automatic genome annotation and pathway reconstruction server. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007;35(Web Server issue):W182-5. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkm321 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Wood DE, Salzberg SL. Kraken: ultrafast metagenomic sequence classification using exact alignments. Genome Biol. 2014;15(3):R46. doi: 10.1186/gb-2014-15-3-r46 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Grant JR, Enns E, Marinier E, Mandal A, Herman EK, Chen C, et al. Proksee: in-depth characterization and visualization of bacterial genomes. Nucleic Acids Research. 2023;51(W1):W484–92. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkad326 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Schwibbert K, Marin-Sanguino A, Bagyan I, Heidrich G, Lentzen G, Seitz H, et al. A blueprint of ectoine metabolism from the genome of the industrial producer Halomonas elongata DSM 2581 T. Environ Microbiol. 2011;13(8):1973–94. doi: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2010.02336.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Radjasa OK, Steven R, Humaira Z, Dwivany FM, Nugrahapraja H, Trinugroho JP, et al. Biosynthetic gene cluster profiling from North Java Sea Virgibacillus salarius reveals hidden potential metabolites. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):19273. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-44603-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Hobmeier K, Cantone M, Nguyen QA, Pflüger-Grau K, Kremling A, Kunte HJ, et al. Adaptation to Varying Salinity in Halomonas elongata: Much More Than Ectoine Accumulation. Front Microbiol. 2022;13:846677. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.846677 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Wambui J, Cernela N, Stevens MJA, Stephan R. Whole Genome Sequence-Based Identification of Clostridium estertheticum Complex Strains Supports the Need for Taxonomic Reclassification Within the Species Clostridium estertheticum. Front Microbiol. 2021;12:727022. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.727022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Liang C-Y, Yang C-H, Lai C-H, Huang Y-H, Lin J-N. Comparative Genomics of 86 Whole-Genome Sequences in the Six Species of the Elizabethkingia Genus Reveals Intraspecific and Interspecific Divergence. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):19167. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-55795-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Jeong J, Yun K, Mun S, Chung W-H, Choi S-Y, Nam Y, et al. The effect of taxonomic classification by full-length 16S rRNA sequencing with a synthetic long-read technology. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):1727. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-80826-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Nanca CL, Neri KD, Ngo ACR, Bennett RM, Dedeles GR. Degradation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons by Moderately Halophilic Bacteria from Luzon Salt Beds. J Health Pollut. 2018;8(19):180915. doi: 10.5696/2156-9614-8.19.180915 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Fathepure BZ. Recent studies in microbial degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons in hypersaline environments. Front Microbiol. 2014;5:173. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2014.00173 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Wright MH, Bentley SR, Greene AC. Draft Genome Sequence of Halomonas sp. Strain ML-15, a Haloalkaliphilic, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon-Degrading Bacterium. Microbiol Resour Announc. 2020;9(47):e01175-20. doi: 10.1128/MRA.01175-20 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Mnif S, Chamkha M, Sayadi S. Isolation and characterization ofHalomonassp. strain C2SS100, a hydrocarbon-degrading bacterium under hypersaline conditions. J Appl Microbiol. 2009;107(3):785–94. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2009.04251.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Lafi FF, Ramirez-Prado JS, Alam I, Bajic VB, Hirt H, Saad MM. Draft Genome Sequence of Halomonas elongata Strain K4, an Endophytic Growth-Promoting Bacterium Enhancing Salinity Tolerance In Planta. Genome Announc. 2016;4(6):e01214-16. doi: 10.1128/genomeA.01214-16 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Gasperotti AF, Revuelta MV, Studdert CA, Herrera Seitz MK. Identification of two different chemosensory pathways in representatives of the genus Halomonas. BMC Genomics. 2018;19(1):266. doi: 10.1186/s12864-018-4655-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Yang H, Qian Z, Liu Y, Yu F, Huang T, Zhang B, et al. Comparative genomics reveals evidence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon degradation in the moderately halophilic genus Pontibacillus. J Hazard Mater. 2024;462:132724. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.132724 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Tomczak A, Mortensen JM, Winnenburg R, Liu C, Alessi DT, Swamy V, et al. Interpretation of biological experiments changes with evolution of the Gene Ontology and its annotations. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):5115. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-23395-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Vera A, Wilson FP, Cupples AM. Predicted functional genes for the biodegradation of xenobiotics in groundwater and sediment at two contaminated naval sites. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2022;106(2):835–53. doi: 10.1007/s00253-021-11756-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Takeuchi N, Wolf YI, Makarova KS, Koonin EV. Nature and Intensity of Selection Pressure on CRISPR-Associated Genes. J Bacteriol. 2012;194(5):1216–25. doi: 10.1128/jb.06521-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Han Q, Yang M-L, Liu Z-S, Zhao Y-H, Liu X-H, Ai G-M, et al. Simultaneous high molecular weight PAHs degradation and chromate and arsenite detoxification by Altererythrobacter sp. H2. J Hazard Mater. 2025;492:138314. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2025.138314 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Hobmeier K, Oppermann M, Stasinski N, Kremling A, Pflüger-Grau K, Kunte HJ, et al. Metabolic engineering of Halomonas elongata: Ectoine secretion is increased by demand and supply driven approaches. Front Microbiol. 2022;13:968983. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.968983 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Zytnick AM, Gutenthaler-Tietze SM, Aron AT, Reitz ZL, Phi MT, Good NM, et al. Identification and characterization of a small-molecule metallophore involved in lanthanide metabolism. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2024;121(32):e2322096121. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2322096121 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Bijay Behera

15 Apr 2025

Dear Dr. Nzila,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 30 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Bijay Kumar Behera, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement:

 [This study was supported by project number INMW2301 by the Interdisciplinary Research Center for Membranes and Water Security (IRC-MWS), King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM) Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.].

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. In the online submission form, you indicated that [All the data are available upon request].

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

Additional Editor Comments:

The manuscript entitled "Whole Genome sequencing, Characterization and Analysis of coronene degrading Bacterial strain Halomonas elongata" needs major revision. The two reviewers recommended revising the manuscript.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The study addresses an important environmental issue—bioremediation of PAHs, which are persistent organic pollutants. This manuscript investigates the whole-genome sequencing and characterization of Halomonas elongata, a bacterial strain capable of degrading coronene, a high-molecular-weight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH). The study highlights the biotechnological potential of Halomonas elongata in bioremediation applications. The manuscript is well-structured and presents valuable genomic insights into Halomonas elongata. However, the following improvements in the manuscript would enhance its impact.

1. The abstract should provide a more concise yet informative summary, including key findings and their implications. Here, KEGG KAAS can be written as KAAS only as first K in KAAS stands for KEGG.

2. The introduction needs a stronger rationale explaining why Halomonas elongata is particularly significant for coronene degradation compared to other bacteria. Key studies on bacterial PAH degradation should be included.

3. More details on sequencing technology, genome assembly tools, and annotation methods would enhance reproducibility. Further, details on collection of sample and isolation of bacteria in in the beginning of materials and method are required. Name of the sequencing technology should be mentioned at line no 110 in full form

4. The study aims to provide insights into the genetic mechanisms underlying coronene degradation. What molecular mechanism you unraveled for coronene degradation by genome sequencing of H elongata should be elaborated and may be presented using an appropriately designed flow chart.

5. What is the basis of the cutoff 1e-06 in line 126?

6. Line no. 154 k-value=1 should be justified.

7. Table 1 should be properly placed for easy understanding, statistics related to Q20/Q30 should be given as minimum Q20 is an widely accepted Phred Score. The N50 value should also be provided in this table.

8. Table 2 is difficult to follow. Check the figures carefully. What is total length in Table 2. Sufficient information needs to be provided for each table and figures for making them self-explanatory.

9. Most of the figures are of poor quality having very small fonts. The clarity of figures and tables should be ensured—some may need better labelling or explanations. Figure 5 may be represented as a 3d bar chart.

10. Experimental validation of identified genes (e.g., knockout studies) would strengthen claims about metabolic pathways.

11. The discussion should include a more thorough comparison with previous studies on Halomonas elongata and other hydrocarbon-degrading bacteria. Functional analysis of specific genes responsible for coronene degradation should be elaborated. Metabolic pathways should be discussed, with a visual representation would improve comprehension.

12. The conclusion should emphasize the broader implications, such as potential applications in bioremediation and industrial use. Limitations and future research directions should be explicitly stated.

Minor Comments

1. KEGG KAAS can be written as KAAS only

2. LRS, CDD, KO, BUSCO, CRISPR, CARD etc. are to be expanded at their first instance.

3. Species name, and the words like in silico de novo etc. should be represented in italics.

4. Some phrases are repeatedly used,

5. In line 98. “Koren et al. in 2013” should be written as “Koren et al. [21]” and citation [21] at the end of the sentence should be removed.

6. Line: 219 Check carefully “Error! Reference not found..”

7. Improper capitalization of first letter in many words throughout this manuscript.

8. Some places connectivity of sentences is missing

9. Line no 271: “aligns with from..”.. aligns with what?

Reviewer #2: General comments

1. Introduction needs some more expansion specially for the recent work published worldwide.

2. Where bacteria collected from? And full procedure regarding etc.

3. Background of the bacteria lacking from the manuscript.

4. Detailed procedure needed about whole genome sequencing and quality assessment.

5. Some headings/ subheading / paragraphs missing the major citation, please update accordingly.

6. There are several capitalizations between the sentence and heading. Authors should go throughout the manuscript for betterment of the article such as tile of fig 3, table 2 etc.

7. Discussion part needs more expansion especially relation with the recent work published.

8. References needs for formatting according the journal guidelines, there are several mistakes such as reference no 10 in the list. Fermentation 2022, Vol 8, 412 Page 260 2022;8:260.

9. Clarity of the figures blurry, not even able to understand the writeup materials.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: Yes:  Dr. Tanmaya Kumar Sahu

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments.pdf

pone.0334420.s009.pdf (11KB, pdf)
PLoS One. 2025 Nov 19;20(11):e0334420. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0334420.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


19 Jun 2025

RESPONSE TO THE REVIEWERS’ COMMENTs PONE-D-25-12285

First of all, we thank the reviewers for their valuable time in reviewing manuscripts. We have addressed their reviewer’s comment, and enclosed below is the point-by-point response to these comments.

Reviewer #1

1. The abstract should provide a more concise yet informative summary, including key findings and their implications.

Our response:

The abstract has been revised, and it is more concise and informative.

2. The introduction needs a stronger rationale explaining why Halomonas elongata is particularly significant for coronene degradation compared to other bacteria. Key studies on bacterial PAH degradation should be included.

Our response:

In light of the reviewer’s comments, we have expanded the introduction to incorporate new information on the degradation of PAHs in particular and that of the coronene in general. In addition, we listed around appropriate references that could help the readers to have a broader view of this topic.

Regarding the bacterial strain, it has been isolated as part of a different study,, and we have quoted this reference (Okeyode et al. 2023). However, in light of the reviewer comments (the same point has also been raised by reviewer 2), we have added the main information on the characteristics of this strain in the “Introduction section. All detailed information regarding this strain is summarised in Okeyode et al. 2003).

3. More details on sequencing technology, genome assembly tools, and annotation methods would enhance reproducibility. Further, details on collection of sample and isolation of bacteria in in the beginning of materials and method are required. Name of the sequencing technology should be mentioned at line no 110 in full form

Our response:

• We have addressed the comments related to Bioinformatics in the “Material & Method Section”.

• However, regarding the sources of samples and isolations of bacteria, as discussed in the previous section, this bacterial strain were isolated as part of a previous work, and the we have summarised the characteristics of this strain in the “Introduction”, and have quoted the reference linked to this work. We cannot add this information in the Material Methods since it is not part of the current work.

4. The study aims to provide insights into the genetic mechanisms underlying coronene degradation. What molecular mechanism you unraveled for coronene degradation by genome sequencing of H elongata should be elaborated and may be presented using an appropriately designed flow chart.

5. Our response:

Coronene is one of the most structurally complex PAHs, and currently, there is limited knowledge about the specific molecular mechanisms involved in its biodegradation. Initially, we hypothesized that the degradation of coronene might follow similar pathways to those well-characterized for other PAHs, such as naphthalene, phenanthrene, or benzo[a]pyrene. However, upon detailed genomic analysis of Halomonas elongata, no key enzymes typically involved in known PAH degradation pathways were found, from the annotated genome.

This unexpected result strongly suggests that H. elongata likely employs an alternative, previously undocumented pathway for coronene degradation. Identifying and confirming this novel route will require further experimental investigation, including metabolomic analyses to characterize intermediate degradation products. Only through such comprehensive metabolic profiling can we accurately delineate the complete biochemical pathway. These points have been highlighted in the last paragraph of the “Discussion Section.

6. What is the basis of the cutoff 1e-06 in line 126?

7. Our response:

The E-value cutoff of 1e-06 was chosen to ensure that only highly significant matches were retained during gene prediction. This stringent threshold minimizes false positives while maintaining sensitivity to detect true homologs, improving the accuracy and reliability of functional annotations.

8. Line no. 154 k-value=1 should be justified.

Our response:

A k-value of 1 was used in MobileOG-DB to ensure that even single, high-confidence matches to known mobile element proteins were detected, which is especially important for identifying potentially novel or incomplete mobile elements in environmental genomes.

9. Table 1 should be properly placed for easy understanding, statistics related to Q20/Q30 should be given as minimum Q20 is an widely accepted Phred Score. The N50 value should also be provided in this table.

Our response:

• Table location is based on the journal requirement. Thus, we wisht to stick to the journal instruction, unless the Editor states otherwise..

• Since this study used Oxford Nanopore long-read sequencing, traditional Phred-based Q20/Q30 scores—commonly reported in short-read technologies like Illumina—are not directly applicable. Nanopore sequencing evaluates read quality using different metrics (such as mean read quality scores, read length distributions, and base-calling accuracy), which are reported separately in our quality assessment.

10. Table 2 is difficult to follow. Check the figures carefully. What is total length in Table 2. Sufficient information needs to be provided for each table and figures for making them self-explanatory.

Our response:

We have carefully revised Table 2 to improve clarity, layout, and readability.

• The column “Total length” has now been clearly labeled and explained in the table legend. It refers to the cumulative length (in base pairs) of the sequences analysed for gene prediction by each respective tool.

• We have ensured that each tool’s name is clearly and consistently labeled (e.g., “PRODIGAL + EggNOG-mapper” and “GeneMarkS2 + EggNOG-mapper” presented on a single line).

• A comprehensive table legend has been added to explain each column, including:

11. Most of the figures are of poor quality having very small fonts. The clarity of figures and tables should be ensured—some may need better labelling or explanations. Figure 5 may be represented as a 3d bar chart.

12. Our response:

• All figures have been regenerated or replaced using high-resolution formats to ensure improved clarity in both digital and print formats.

• Fig 5 has been converted to a bar graph.

• To counter the resolution problem related to fig 7, it has been submitted in PNG

13. Experimental validation of identified genes (e.g., knockout studies) would strengthen claims about metabolic pathways.

14. Our response:

We fully agree that experimental validation—particularly through gene knockout studies—would greatly enhance the strength of our claims regarding the metabolic pathways involved in coronene degradation. However, we wish to clarify that this study was designed as a computational genomic investigation to identify potential genes and pathways implicated in high-molecular-weight PAH biodegradation using long-read whole genome sequencing and advanced bioinformatics tools. Importantly, no known pathways for coronene degradation have been characterized to date. Therefore, our current approach was guided by comparative genomic analysis, assuming similarity to other PAH-degradation mechanisms. Interestingly, genes traditionally associated with PAH degradation (e.g., dioxygenases involved in pyrene or benzo[a]pyrene metabolism) were not found in our genome annotation, suggesting the existence of a novel or alternative degradation mechanism in Halomonas elongata. This point have been highlighted in the final paragraph of “Discussion section”

11. The discussion should include a more thorough comparison with previous studies on Halomonas elongata and other hydrocarbon-degrading bacteria. Functional analysis of specific genes responsible for coronene degradation should be elaborated. Metabolic pathways should be discussed, with a visual representation would improve comprehension.

Our response:

• We have added a detailed comparison of our findings with previous research on other hydrocarbon-degrading Halomonas species, including H. organivorans, Halomonas sp. ML-15, and Halomonas sp. C2SS100. These comparisons highlight both the shared capabilities and the distinct genomic features of H. elongata 10SCRN4D, particularly with respect to its coronene degradation potential under hypersaline conditions.

• We elaborated on the annotation results by highlighting the presence of genes associated with xenobiotic metabolism and the absence of canonical PAH-degradation enzymes (e.g., aromatic ring-hydroxylating dioxygenases). We discussed the possible roles of monooxygenases, hydrolases, and dehydrogenases found in the genome, and proposed that H. elongata may employ an alternative or novel degradation route. The implications of these genes, along with the remaining 526 uncharacterized proteins, are discussed as promising targets for future experimental work.

• We agree that a visual representation would aid interpretation. However, due to the limited availability of coronene-specific degradation data and the incomplete pathway annotation obtained through KAAS, it was not possible to construct a complete predictive pathway. To address this, we have included Supplementary Figure 5, which displays the partial xenobiotic degradation pathway derived from KEGG annotations. This figure outlines the identified components of the strain’s potential metabolic capabilities and visually indicates the gaps and hypothetical nature of the degradation route.

• We acknowledged the limitation of relying solely on computational annotation and discussed the need for transcriptomic, proteomic, and metabolomic studies, as well as gene knockout and heterologous expression experiments. These points are now explicitly included the Discussion Section (in the final paragraph).

12. The conclusion should emphasize the broader implications, such as potential applications in bioremediation and industrial use. Limitations and future research directions should be explicitly stated.

Our response:

We have revised the conclusion section of our manuscript. Specifically, we have now highlighted the potential practical applications of Halomonas elongata in bioremediation of marine and hypersaline environments contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; Discussed the prospective industrial applications of secondary metabolites; indicated the current lack of experimental validation; Recommended specific future studies involving targeted genetic experiments (such as gene knockout and overexpression) and comprehensive metabolite profiling.

Reviewer #2

1. Introduction needs some more expansion specially for the recent work published worldwide.

Our response:

This comment is related to comment No 2 of the reviewer 1. We have expanded the Introduction section to incorporate more information on we have added relevant and appropriate references that the readers can you to gain insight on PAHs degradation. We have also added more information on the bacterial strain used in this study

2. Where bacteria collected from?

Our response:

As discussed earlier, this information has been added in the Introduciton.

3. Background of the bacteria lacking from the manuscript.

Our response:

This point, which as also raised by the Reviewer #1, has been addressed in the Introduction.

4. Detailed procedure needed about whole genome sequencing and quality assessment.

Our response:

This has been done (in Material & Methods).

5. Some headings/ subheading / paragraphs missing the major citation, please update accordingly.

Our response:

This has been checked and corrected.

6. There are several capitalizations between the sentence and heading. Authors should go throughout the manuscript for betterment of the article such as tile of fig 3, table 2 etc.

Our response:

We have followed the journal guidelines and the titles of figures and Tables have been crossed check and corrected.

7. Discussion part needs more expansion especially relation with the recent work published.

Our response:

This has been done. More discussion has been added.

8. References needs for formatting according the journal guidelines, there are several mistakes such as reference no 10 in the list. Fermentation 2022, Vol 8, 412 Page 260 2022;8:260

Our response:

This has been corrected now.

9. Clarity of the figures blurry

Our response:

The figures have been enhanced as soon as much we could, using available tools.

END DOCUMENTS

Attachment

Submitted filename: RESPONSe_ReviewerPONE-D-25-12285.docx

pone.0334420.s011.docx (33.6KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Bijay Behera

30 Jul 2025

Dear Dr. Nzila,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 13 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Bijay Kumar Behera, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Author,

Kindly address the reviewer comments and revised the manuscript accordingly.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: In Abstract "This study extends that work through whole-genome sequencing utilizing Oxford Nanopore Sequencing, a long-read sequencing technology, followed by bioinformatics analysis to uncover the genetic mechanisms enabling this bacterium to degrade coronene effectively." I still don't find the uncovered genetic/molecular mechanism for coronene degradation by the bacterium.

Though authors have used the data from their previous research, in my opinion, still there should be a section on the sample collection where the process can be explained in brief by citing to their previous paper.

Line 110 : "ONS technology" ONS should be expanded at its first instance.

"What is the basis of the cutoff 1e-06 in line 126?". My question was why it is 1e-06 not zero or any other value.

Authors failed to understand my comment on "Table 1 should be properly placed for easy understanding, statistics related to Q20/Q30 should be given as minimum Q20 is an widely accepted Phred Score. The N50 value should also be provided in this table." It's not about the location, it was about the rearrangement of the table in an easily readable way. Further, they have not presented the N50 value in the table. In ONS many manuscripts presented the % of reads above Q=20. I understand the value will not be as much as Illumina. However, presenting these scores gives a better idea on read quality.

I still think experimental validation of identified genes would strengthen claims about metabolic pathways and thereby providing insights into the molecular mechanism.

Reviewer #2: The authors have done excellent work. Congratulations to all the authors for the publication in the fantastic journal

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2025 Nov 19;20(11):e0334420. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0334420.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 2


10 Sep 2025

Rebuttal Letter

Manuscript ID: PONE-D-25-12285

Title: Whole Genome Sequencing, Characterization, and Analysis of a Coronene-Degrading Bacterial Strain, Halomonas elongate

We sincerely thank the reviewers for their time, effort, and constructive comments on our manuscript. We have taken note that Reviewer #2 found the revised version acceptable. Regarding Reviewer #1, some of his comments have already been discussed in our first revision, and in the rebuttal response below, we have carefully addressed all the concerns he has raised.

Reviewer #1

1. In Abstract: "This study extends that work through whole-genome sequencing utilizing Oxford Nanopore Sequencing, a long-read sequencing technology, followed by bioinformatics analysis to uncover the genetic mechanisms enabling this bacterium to degrade coronene effectively." I still don't find the uncovered genetic/molecular mechanism for coronene degradation by the bacterium.

Our response:

We thank the reviewer for this important observation. In the results section, we have clearly shown that our genomic analysis did not reveal a coronene degradation pathway. Instead, we identified genes associated with xenobiotic metabolism, suggesting that H. elongata may employ an alternative or novel degradation mechanism, and we have emphasized that this finding requires further experimental validation. To make this point clear, and in light of the reviewer's comment, we have summarised this information in this abstract.

2. Though authors have used the data from their previous research, in my opinion, still there should be a section on the sample collection where the process can be explained in brief by citing to their previous paper.

Our response:

“The same comment was raised during the first revision, and we addressed it by mentioning it in the Introduction. However, in light of the reviewer’s comment, we have now added this information in the Materials and Methods section under ‘DNA isolation, whole genome sequencing, and quality assessment.

3. "ONS technology" ONS should be expanded at its first instance.

Our response: This is done. It was explained in the Materials & Methods section, and has now been added to the abstract.

4. What is the basis of the cutoff 1e-06 in line 126?". My question was why it is 1e-06 not zero or any other value

Our response

This comment was raised and discussed in the previous rebuttal. However, in light of the review comment, we have further clarified it (Material and Methods section). Zero is not a valid cutoff for BLAST; thus, an e-value of 1e-06 was chosen as a stringent threshold that minimizes false positives while retaining biologically meaningful homologs.

5. Table 1 should be properly placed for easy understanding: statistics related to Q20/Q30 should be given as minimum Q20 is an widely accepted Phred Score. The N50 value should also be provided in this table." It's not about the location, it was about the rearrangement of the table in an easily readable way. Further, they have not presented the N50 value in the table. In ONS many manuscripts presented the % of reads above Q=20. I understand the value will not be as much as Illumina. However, presenting these scores gives a better idea on read quality.

Our response:

We thank the reviewer for this comment. Regarding Q20/Q30, as noted earlier, these metrics are Illumina-specific Phred quality scores and are not directly applicable to Oxford Nanopore sequencing data, which uses a different base-calling model and error distribution. Instead, ONT quality is evaluated through alternative measures (e.g., mean read quality, read length distributions, and base-calling accuracy), which we have already reported in Table 1. We have added q12 and q15 values.

Regarding the table readability, in preparing the previous revision, we organized Table 1 to present related parameters together (read quality, assembly statistics, and completeness) to allow straightforward interpretation. All critical information, including N50 and ONT-appropriate quality metrics, is provided in text, thus, we suggest to keep the current format.

As for the comment on NE50, the assembly N50 value has been included in Table 1.

6. I still think experimental validation of identified genes would strengthen claims about metabolic pathways and thereby providing insights into the molecular mechanism.

Our response:

The point raised by the reviewer is indeed relevant. However, as discussed in the manuscript, this study was designed as a computational genomic investigation using long-read sequencing and bioinformatics tools. We fully agree with the reviewer that experimental validation of the identified genes would strengthen our findings; however, such work was beyond the scope of the present study. As noted, further studies will be required to validate the proposed genes. We have clarified this point in the Discussion and Conclusion sections.

Reviewer #2

We thank Reviewer #2 for their supportive feedback and note that no further comments were raised.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Sept 9 Response Reviewer.docx

pone.0334420.s012.docx (19.6KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Bijay Behera

28 Sep 2025

Whole Genome sequencing, Characterization and Analysis of coronene degrading Bacterial strain Halomonas elongata

PONE-D-25-12285R2

Dear Dr. Nzila,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Bijay Kumar Behera, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Dr. Nzila,

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript entitled "Whole Genome sequencing, Characterization and Analysis of coronene degrading Bacterial strain Halomonas elongata" (Manuscript Number: PONE-D-25-12285R2) has been accepted for publication in PLOS ONE.

Following rigorous peer review and careful editorial assessment, your article has been found to meet the journal’s publication criteria for scientific rigor, originality, and relevance. The study provides valuable new insights into the genetic and functional aspects of coronene-degrading Halomonas elongata, and we are confident that it will be of broad interest to the scientific community.

Your manuscript has now moved to the production process. You will soon receive further instructions regarding copyediting, proofing, and publication details from the PLOS ONE team.

Congratulations on your achievement, and thank you for choosing PLOS ONE as the venue for your research.

Sincerely,

Dr. Bijay Kumar Behera

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Though all my comments has not been satisfactorily addressed, authors addressed majority of my concerns. Understanding the authors limitaions for validation, I recommend the manuscript.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Bijay Behera

PONE-D-25-12285R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nzila,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Bijay Kumar Behera

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Genes associated with superfamilies predicted on CDD.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0334420.s001.docx (80.2KB, docx)
    S2 Fig. Genes associated with superfamilies predicted on CDD.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0334420.s002.docx (61.1KB, docx)
    S3 Fig. Genes associated with superfamilies predicted on CDD.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0334420.s003.docx (77.2KB, docx)
    S4 Fig. Genes associated with superfamilies predicted on CDD.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0334420.s004.docx (79.9KB, docx)
    S5 Fig. Pathway mapping of metabolism of xenobiotics by cytochrome P450 from KASS The green boxes indicate the genes that are present in our gene list while the blue boxes indicate those that are absent but should have been present.

    Where EC: 2.5.1.18 is glutathione S-transferase.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0334420.s005.docx (309KB, docx)
    S1 Table. Kraken2 taxonomical classification.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0334420.s006.docx (23.1KB, docx)
    S2 Table. CRISPR sites.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0334420.s007.docx (21.6KB, docx)
    S3 Table. RAST Annotation corresponding to aromatic compound metabolism.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0334420.s008.docx (23.9KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Comments.pdf

    pone.0334420.s009.pdf (11KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: RESPONSe_ReviewerPONE-D-25-12285.docx

    pone.0334420.s011.docx (33.6KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Sept 9 Response Reviewer.docx

    pone.0334420.s012.docx (19.6KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    Data is available here: https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/ERR15384688 and the reference is ERR15384688.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES