Skip to main content
Journal of Bacteriology logoLink to Journal of Bacteriology
. 2011 Sep;193(17):4567–4568. doi: 10.1128/JB.05453-11

Genome Sequences of Eight Morphologically Diverse Alphaproteobacteria

Pamela J B Brown 1, David T Kysela 1, Aaron Buechlein 2, Chris Hemmerich 2, Yves V Brun 1,2,*
PMCID: PMC3165538  PMID: 21705585

Abstract

The Alphaproteobacteriacomprise morphologically diverse bacteria, including many species of stalked bacteria. Here we announce the genome sequences of eight alphaproteobacteria, including the first genome sequences of species belonging to the genera Asticcacaulis, Hirschia, Hyphomicrobium, and Rhodomicrobium.

GENOME ANNOUNCEMENT

Prosthecae or stalks are found in a morphologically diverse group of Gram-negative bacteria belonging primarily to the class Alphaproteobacteria. The stalked Alphaproteobacteriatypically have a characteristic dimorphic life cycle in which two dissimilar cell types are produced by asymmetric cell division (2, 4, 810, 17, 18). The swarmer progeny cells are motile and do not replicate DNA. The start of the new cell division cycle is coincident with the differentiation of the swarmer cell into a stalked cell. Stalks are true extensions of the cell body and are an integral part of the cell, bounded by both the cell membranes and the cell wall, and form a thin cylindrical extension of the cell surface layer (10). Stalks are essential for the reproduction of a subset of prosthecate bacteria, including Rhodomicrobiumand Hyphomicrobium, which divide by budding, in which the daughter cell develops at and is later released from the tip of the stalk. The stalks of both budding and nonbudding prosthecate bacteria have been implicated in nutrient uptake and are likely to be particularly advantageous in oligotrophic habitats (5, 1416, 18).

To facilitate an enhanced understanding of the function of stalks, the mechanism of budding, and regulation of dimorphic life cycles, the genomes of three nonbudding stalked bacteria, three budding stalked bacteria, and two closely related nonstalked bacteria were sequenced. The nonbudding stalked bacteria include Brevundimonas subvibrioides, Asticcacaulis biprosthecum, and Asticcacaulis excentricus. The budding stalked bacteria include Hirschia baltica, Rhodomicrobium vannielii, and Hyphomicrobium denitrificans. Finally, the nonstalked, nonbudding bacteria Caulobacter segnisand Brevundimonas diminutawere sequenced. Characteristics of the sequenced genomes are provided in Table 1.

Table 1.

Characteristics of genomes sequenced in this study

Organism Reference Genome analysis
GenBank accession no.
Sequencing statusa Size (Mb) No. of scaffolds % GC No. of CDSb
Asticcacaulis biprosthecumC19 9 PD 5.30 6 60 4,712 NZ_ADUH00000000
Asticcacaulis excentricusCB48 10 F 2.59 59 2,330 Chromosome 1, NC_014816
1.32 60 1,121 Chromosome 2, NC_014817
0.24 4 59 172 pASTEX01 NC_014818
0.16 57 140 pASTEX02 NC_014819
Brevundimonas diminutaATCC 11568 13 PD 3.24 8 65 3,002 NZ_ADUI00000000
Brevundimonas subvibrioidesATCC 15264 1 F 3.45 1 68 3,327 NC_014375
Caulobacter segnisATCC 21756 1 F 4.66 1 67 4,139 NC_014100
Hirschia balticaATCC 49814 12 F 3.46 2 45 3119 Chromosome, NC_012982
0.08 43 68 pHba101 NC_012983
Hyphomicrobium denitrificansATCC 51888 11 F 3.64 1 60 3,512 NC_014313
Rhodomicrobium vannieliiATCC 17100 18 F 4.01 1 62 3,565 NC_014664
a

F, finished; PD, permanent high-quality draft.

b

Number of annotated protein coding sequences (CDS).

Finished genomes were sequenced as part of the Department of Energy (DOE) Joint Genome Institute (JGI) Community Sequencing Program 2008 using a combination of Sanger, 454, and Illumina methods as described at the JGI website (http://www.jgi.doe.gov/sequencing/protocols/prots_production.html) and were annotated using the JGI-Oak Ridge National Laboratory annotation pipeline (7). Permanent draft genomes were sequenced by the Center for Genomics and Bioinformatics at Indiana University using standard 454 methods to obtain 17× coverage for A. biprosthecumand 58× coverage for B. diminuta. Permanent draft genomes were annotated using the Integrative Services for Genomic Analysis annotation pipeline (3). All genome annotations were loaded into the JGI Integrated Microbial Resource for analysis (6). Further analysis and comparisons of the genomes sequenced in this work are expected to provide insights into the generation of bacterial morphology, survival in oligotrophic environments, and the evolution of differing modes of bacterial cell growth.

Nucleotide sequence accession numbers.

GenBank accession numbers for all of the chromosomes and plasmids sequenced in this study are shown in Table 1.

Acknowledgments

Y.V.B. was funded by the National Institutes of Health(GM051986and GM077648) and by the National Science Foundation(MCB0731950). The sequencing of finished genomes was conducted as part of the DOE JGI 2008 Community Sequencing Project(787681) awarded to Y.V.B. The DOE JGI is supported by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energyunder contract DE-AC02-05CH11231. P.J.B.B. and D.T.K. were supported by National Institutes of Health National Research Service AwardsAI072992and GM083581. This work was supported in part by the Indiana Metabolomics and Cytomics Initiative of Indiana University, funded in part through a major grant from the Lilly Endowment, Inc.

Footnotes

Published ahead of print on 24 June 2011.

REFERENCES

  • 1. Abraham W. R., et al. 1999. Phylogeny and polyphasic taxonomy of Caulobacterspecies. Proposal of Maricaulisgen. nov. with Maricaulis maris(Poindexter) comb. nov. as the type species, and emended description of the genera Brevundimonasand Caulobacter. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 49(Pt. 3):1053–1073 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Curtis P. D., Brun Y. V. 2010. Getting in the loop: regulation of development in Caulobacter crescentus. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 74: 13–41 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Hemmerich C., Buechlein A., Podicheti R., Revanna K. V., Dong Q. 2010. An Ergatis-based prokaryotic genome annotation web server. Bioinformatics 26: 1122–1124 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Hirsch P. 1974. Budding bacteria. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 28: 391–444 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Larson R. J., Pate J. L. 1976. Glucose transport in isolated prosthecae of Asticcacaulis biprosthecum. J. Bacteriol. 126: 282–293 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Markowitz V. M., et al. 2010. The integrated microbial genomes system: an expanding comparative analysis resource. Nucleic Acids Res. 38: D382–D390 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Mavromatis K., et al. 2009. The DOE-JGI standard operating procedure for the annotations of microbial genomes. Stand. Genomic Sci. 1: 63–67 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Moore R. L. 1981. The biology of Hyphomicrobiumand other prosthecate, budding bacteria. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 35: 567–594 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Pate J. L., Porter J. S., Jordan T. L. 1973. Asticcacaulis biprosthecumsp. nov. Life cycle, morphology and cultural characteristics. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 39: 569–583 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Poindexter J. S. 1964. Biological properties and classification of the Caulobactergroup. Bacteriol. Rev. 28: 231–295 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Rainey F. A., Ward-Rainey N., Gliesche C. G., Stackebrandt E. 1998. Phylogenetic analysis and intrageneric structure of the genus Hyphomicrobiumand the related genus Filomicrobium. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 48(Pt. 3):635–639 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Schlesner H., Bartels C., Sittig M., Dorsch M., Stackebrandt E. 1990. Taxonomic and phylogenetic studies on a new taxon of budding, hyphal Proteobacteria, Hirschia balticagen. nov., sp. nov. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 40: 443–451 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Segers P., et al. 1994. Classification of Pseudomonas diminutaLeifson and Hugh 1954 and Pseudomonas vesicularisBusing, Doll, and Freytag 1953 in Brevundimonasgen. nov. as Brevundimonas diminutacomb. nov. and Brevundimonas vesiculariscomb. nov., respectively. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 44: 499–510 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Tam E., Pate J. L. 1985. Amino acid transport by prosthecae of Asticcacaulis biprosthecum: evidence for a broad-range transport system. J. Gen. Microbiol. 131: 2687–2699 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Wagner J. K., Brun Y. V. 2007. Out on a limb: how the Caulobacterstalk can boost the study of bacterial cell shape. Mol. Microbiol. 64: 28–33 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Wagner J. K., Setayeshgar S., Sharon L. A., Reilly J. P., Brun Y. V. 2006. A nutrient uptake role for bacterial cell envelope extensions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 103: 11772–11777 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Westmacott D., Primrose S. B. 1976. Synchronous growth of Rhodopseudomonas palustrisfrom the swarmer phase. J. Gen. Microbiol. 94: 117–125 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Whittenbury R., Dow C. S. 1977. Morphogenesis and differentiation in Rhodomicrobium vannieliiand other budding and prosthecate bacteria. Bacteriol. Rev. 41: 754–808 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Bacteriology are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES