Skip to main content
Microbiology Resource Announcements logoLink to Microbiology Resource Announcements
. 2026 Jan 30;15(3):e01174-25. doi: 10.1128/mra.01174-25

Genomes of eight cultured microbes from soil sites in Wellesley, MA

Mia Chao 1, Elizabeth Chou 1, Victoria Tang 1, Arla Hofer 1, Oumayma Dakhama 1, Shea Gardner 1, Vaibhavi James 1, Priya Patel 1, Sally Song 1, Clara Tessier 1, Annika Wolberg 1, Steven J Biller 1,✉
Editor: Leighton Pritchard2
PMCID: PMC12981122  PMID: 41615207

ABSTRACT

We present draft-quality genomes of eight cultured microbes isolated from two soil sites with different levels of leaf cover in Wellesley, MA. This dataset includes representatives of taxa including Pedobacter, Bacillus, Paenibacillus, Streptomyces, and Flavobacterium.

KEYWORDS: soil

ANNOUNCEMENT

Soil microbial communities are critical to the health, productivity, and functionality of terrestrial ecosystems through their contributions to biogeochemical cycling and interactions with plants (1, 2). Understanding soil microbial diversity can inform sustainable agricultural practices, provide insights into the functional roles of microbial groups, and aid in managing environmental health (3, 4). Leaf litter affects microbial nutrient cycling by adding nutrients to soils, thereby influencing microbial metabolism and shaping community composition (5). To expand our understanding of soil microbial genomic diversity and explore the impact of leaf litter cover, we sequenced a set of microbes isolated from the suburban campus of Wellesley College (Wellesley, MA, USA). Microbes were sampled from two sites near the Munger residence hall (42° 17′ 43″ N, 71° 18′ 22″ W). One site had exposed, compacted soil associated with its presence along a commonly used footpath, while the other site (approximately 5 m away) was less impacted and covered with ~15 cm of oak leaf cover. Approximately 100 g of surface soil was collected from each of the two locations. Replicate ~2 g subsamples of soil were mixed with sterile PBS buffer, and then the diluted cell suspensions were spread onto R2A agar plates (6) and grown at 30°C for three days. Individual colonies were purified by re-streaking for single colonies twice on fresh R2A plates and grown as before.

Four colonies from each of the two sampling sites were randomly chosen for sequencing. These isolates were grown overnight at 30°C in liquid R2A media with shaking (250 rpm). Genomic DNA was extracted from cells pelleted from 2 mL of culture using the NEB Monarch Genomic DNA extraction kit, yielding 4–30 µg of DNA as measured with the Qubit 1X dsDNA High Sensitivity kit (Invitrogen). Total genomic DNA libraries for nanopore sequencing were prepared without size selection using the Oxford Nanopore rapid sequencing DNA V14 Barcoding Kit (SQK-RBK114.24). The pooled libraries were then loaded into an Oxford Nanopore MinION R10.4.1 flow cell and sequenced using a Mk1B sequencer for 48 h. Raw Nanopore data were processed using Dorado 0.9.1 (https://github.com/nanoporetech/dorado) in SUP mode, generating 65,133–1,218,550 reads per sample (Table 1). All extraction and library preparation protocols were carried out following the manufacturers’ instructions.

TABLE 1.

Genome assembly summary data

Strain ID Site Total reads Read N50 (bp) Total sequence data (bp) Total contigs Plasmid contigs Assembly length (bp) Assembly GC (%) Assembly N50 (bp) Nanopore coverage (×) GTDB taxonomy (genus) CheckM completeness (%) CheckM contamination (%) Predicted genes (total) Assembly accession SRA raw data accession
WC2501 Leaf covered 632,068 6,142 1,575,797,205 1 0 6,241,392 38.4 6,241,392 252 Pedobacter 98.09 0.66 5,198 GCA_052682415.1 SRR35310660
WC2502 Exposed 621,153 8,525 2,025,664,145 2 0 3,737,437 41.7 3,723,327 542 Bacillus 99.59 0 3,825 GCA_052682445.1 SRR35310659
WC2503 Exposed 1,051,143 7,740 3,367,740,353 2 1 5,629,584 35.3 5,317,538 598 Bacillus_A 99.43 0.31 5,752 GCA_052682895.1 SRR35310658
WC2504 Exposed 185,637 12,439 919,682,998 1 0 8,179,892 46.0 8,179,892 112 Paenibacillus_E 99.19 1.52 7,485 GCA_052682475.1 SRR35310657
WC2507 Leaf covered 65,133 10,755 200,034,471 3 1 5,789,317 35.2 5,339,450 35 Bacillus 99.43 0.22 6,011 GCA_052656125.1 SRR35310656
WC2508 Leaf covered 352,818 6,487 882,731,881 4 2 9,489,572 70.8 7,519,079 93 Streptomyces 99.88 1.86 8,391 GCA_052656385.1 SRR35310655
WC2509 Leaf covered 1,218,550 8,121 4,048,993,377 1 0 4,508,346 33.1 4,508,346 898 Flavobacterium 98.94 1.06 3,737 GCA_052683105.1 SRR35310654
WC2510 Exposed 191,642 5,477 313,389,403 3 1 3,721,180 41.7 3,685,107 84 Bacillus 99.59 0 3,817 GCA_052656105.1 SRR35310653

Genome assembly steps were performed using KBase (7), and default parameters were used for all software tools. The FASTQ format sequence data generated by Dorado were first filtered using Filtlong v0.2.1 (https://github.com/rrwick/Filtlong) and then assembled with Flye v2.9.4 (8). Assembly quality was assessed using the CheckM v1.1.2 lineage-specific workflow (9). geNomad v1.8.0 was used to identify putative plasmids in the assemblies (10). Taxonomic classifications were conducted using GTDB-Tk v1.7.0 (11). Genomes were annotated by NCBI using the NCBI Prokaryotic Genome Annotation Pipeline v6.10 (12).

We obtained eight high-quality draft genome assemblies, ranging between 3.73–9.49 Mbp in length and 33–71%GC (Table 1). All sequences are estimated to be >98% complete and contain <1.9% contamination. Genomes were identified as members of the genera Pedobacter, Bacillus, Paenibacillus, Streptomyces, and Flavobacterium.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by Wellesley College.

The authors would like to thank the KBase Educators Group and KBase staff for their assistance.

Contributor Information

Steven J. Biller, Email: sbiller@wellesley.edu.

Leighton Pritchard, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, United Kingdom.

DATA AVAILABILITY

All sequence data are available under NCBI BioProject PRJNA1321493 and via the specific accession numbers listed in Table 1. Data analyses can be accessed through KBase via the overview narrative at https://doi.org/10.25982/229295.9/2589424

REFERENCES

  • 1. Hayat R, Ali S, Amara U, Khalid R, Ahmed I. 2010. Soil beneficial bacteria and their role in plant growth promotion: a review. Ann Microbiol 60:579–598. doi: 10.1007/s13213-010-0117-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Keck F, Peller T, Alther R, Barouillet C, Blackman R, Capo E, Chonova T, Couton M, Fehlinger L, Kirschner D, Knüsel M, Muneret L, Oester R, Tapolczai K, Zhang H, Altermatt F. 2025. The global human impact on biodiversity. Nature 641:395–400. doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-08752-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Miransari M. 2011. Soil microbes and plant fertilization. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 92:875–885. doi: 10.1007/s00253-011-3521-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Fierer N. 2017. Embracing the unknown: disentangling the complexities of the soil microbiome. Nat Rev Microbiol 15:579–590. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro.2017.87 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Song Y, Yu Y, Li Y, Du M. 2023. Leaf litter chemistry and its effects on soil microorganisms in different ages of Zanthoxylum planispinum var. Dintanensis. BMC Plant Biol 23:262. doi: 10.1186/s12870-023-04274-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Reasoner DJ, Geldreich EE. 1985. A new medium for the enumeration and subculture of bacteria from potable water. Appl Environ Microbiol 49:1–7. doi: 10.1128/aem.49.1.1-7.1985 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Arkin AP, Cottingham RW, Henry CS, Harris NL, Stevens RL, Maslov S, Dehal P, Ware D, Perez F, Canon S, et al. 2018. KBase: The United States Department of Energy Systems Biology Knowledgebase. Nat Biotechnol 36:566–569. doi: 10.1038/nbt.4163 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Kolmogorov M, Yuan J, Lin Y, Pevzner PA. 2019. Assembly of long, error-prone reads using repeat graphs. Nat Biotechnol 37:540–546. doi: 10.1038/s41587-019-0072-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Parks DH, Imelfort M, Skennerton CT, Hugenholtz P, Tyson GW. 2015. CheckM: assessing the quality of microbial genomes recovered from isolates, single cells, and metagenomes. Genome Res 25:1043–1055. doi: 10.1101/gr.186072.114 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Camargo AP, Roux S, Schulz F, Babinski M, Xu Y, Hu B, Chain PSG, Nayfach S, Kyrpides NC. 2024. Identification of mobile genetic elements with geNomad. Nat Biotechnol 42:1303–1312. doi: 10.1038/s41587-023-01953-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Chaumeil P-A, Mussig AJ, Hugenholtz P, Parks DH. 2020. GTDB-Tk: a toolkit to classify genomes with the Genome Taxonomy Database. Bioinformatics 36:1925–1927. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btz848 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Tatusova T, DiCuccio M, Badretdin A, Chetvernin V, Nawrocki EP, Zaslavsky L, Lomsadze A, Pruitt KD, Borodovsky M, Ostell J. 2016. NCBI prokaryotic genome annotation pipeline. Nucleic Acids Res 44:6614–6624. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkw569 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Data Availability Statement

All sequence data are available under NCBI BioProject PRJNA1321493 and via the specific accession numbers listed in Table 1. Data analyses can be accessed through KBase via the overview narrative at https://doi.org/10.25982/229295.9/2589424


Articles from Microbiology Resource Announcements are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES