Skip to main content
Genome Announcements logoLink to Genome Announcements
. 2014 May 8;2(3):e00288-14. doi: 10.1128/genomeA.00288-14

Whole-Genome Sequences of 13 Endophytic Bacteria Isolated from Shrub Willow (Salix) Grown in Geneva, New York

Huan You Gan a, Han Ming Gan a, Michael A Savka b, Alexander J Triassi b, Matthew S Wheatley b, Lawrence B Smart c, Eric S Fabio c, André O Hudson b,
PMCID: PMC4014680  PMID: 24812212

Abstract

Shrub willow, Salix spp. and hybrids, is an important bioenergy crop. Here we report the whole-genome sequences and annotation of 13 endophytic bacteria from stem tissues of Salix purpurea grown in nature and from commercial cultivars and Salix viminalis × Salix miyabeana grown in bioenergy fields in Geneva, New York.

GENOME ANNOUNCEMENT

Bioenergy produced from plant biomass as a feedstock has the potential to mitigate concerns regarding climate change and sustainability, among others (1). Shrub willow, Salix spp. and hybrids, is an attractive plant for bioenergy given its rapid growth and sustainable growth characteristics (2). There have been numerous efforts regarding the development of shrub willow cultivars suitable for the production of bioenergy (3). Endophytes have been isolated from tissues of tree willows in nature (4), but it is unknown what role endophytes might play in shrub willows growing in intensively managed bioenergy fields. To gain some insights into endophytic bacteria that associate with shrub willow, we embarked on a project which resulted in the identification of 69 unique bacteria, of which 13 were subjected to whole-genome sequencing and annotation. Plant-associated bacteria that are beneficial to Salix have the potential to improve crop production while reducing need for inputs. In addition, the identification of bacteria that are detrimental to growth and development through phytopathogenesis is also of interest as a foundation for breeding for resistance and maximizing growth potential. The endophytic bacteria were initially isolated from surface-sterilized stem tissues from wild accessions of S. purpurea growing in nature and from commercial cultivars of S. purpurea and S. viminalis × S. miyabeana growing in fertilized and nonfertilized bioenergy fields in Geneva, NY. The 13 endophytes were initially identified by amplification and nucleotide sequence analysis of the variable 3 region of the 16S rRNA gene (5).

Genomic DNA was isolated from the endophytes using a GenElute bacterial genomic kit (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) and prepared for whole-genome sequencing using a Nextera XT library preparation kit (Illumina, San Diego, CA). Whole-genome sequencing was performed using the Illumina Miseq (150-bp paired-end reads). The reads were error corrected and assembled de novo using Spades 2.5 (6). Scaffolding of the contigs and in silico gap-closing of the resulting scaffolds were performed with SSPACE and GapFiller, respectively (7, 8). Genome annotation was performed using the Prokka annotation pipeline, which incorporated Prodigal 2.60, Aragorn, and RNAmmer 1.2 for the prediction of open reading frames (ORFs), tRNAs, and rRNAs, respectively (911). Additional annotation of the predicted protein sequences was done using InterProScan5 (12). The key attributes for the genome sequences and annotation are summarized in Table 1. An in-depth analysis of the genes associated with plant-microbe symbiosis is under way and will be published in a subsequent report.

TABLE 1.

Sequencing and annotation results for the 13 endophytes isolated from Salix

Strain Sourcea SubID BioProject no. BioSample no. Accession no. Organism Genome coverage (×) Genome size (bp) No. of contigs No. of ORFs No. of tRNAs No. of rRNAs
RIT273 Fabius SUB467427 PRJNA239282 SAMN02676620 JFOK00000000 Pantoea agglomerans 138 5,365,338 26 4,914 75 17
RIT283 Fabius SUB467430 PRJNA239283 SAMN02676621 JFOJ00000000 Staphylococcus haemolyticus 289 2,527,922 81 2,445 49 14
RIT288 Fish Creek SUB468060 PRJNA239284 SAMN02676622 JFYN00000000 Pseudomonas sp. 191 6,273,290 44 5,547 61 10
RIT293 Fabius SUB468074 PRJNA239285 SAMN02676623 JFYO00000000 Microbacterium oleivorans 194 2,898,622 11 2,782 49 8
RIT304 Wild SUB468076 PRJNA239286 SAMN02676624 JFYP00000000 Micrococcus luteus 166 2,506,829 183 2,248 53 4
RIT305 Wild SUB468079 PRJNA239287 SAMN02676625 JFYQ00000000 Micrococcus luteus 200 2,612,381 110 2,350 49 6
RIT308 Fabius SUB468082 PRJNA239288 SAMN02676626 JFYR00000000 Janthinobacterium lividum 189 6,212,741 44 5,431 83 19
RIT309 Fabius SUB468084 PRJNA239289 SAMN02676627 JFYS00000000 Stenotrophomonas sp. 194 4,634,795 45 4,141 77 6
RIT313 Fabius SUB468085 PRJNA239290 SAMN02676628 JFYT00000000 Delftia sp. 56 6,698,360 122 5,936 78 5
RIT324w Fabius SUB468086 PRJNA239291 SAMN02676629 JFYU00000000 Micrococcus luteus 459 2,635,230 118 2,381 53 7
RIT328 Fish Creek SUB468089 PRJNA239292 SAMN02676630 JFYV00000000 Sphingomonas sp. 73 4,343,511 56 4,002 58 3
RIT341 Fabius SUB468091 PRJNA239293 SAMN02676631 JFYW00000000 Exiguobacterium sp. 138 3,107,022 15 3,168 62 20
RIT357 Wild SUB468093 PRJNA239294 SAMN02676632 JFYX00000000 Pseudomonas sp. 69 3,107,022 49 5,552 60 7
a

Wild, wild Salix purpurea; Fish Creek, Salix purpurea Fish Creek cultivar; Fabius, Salix viminalis × S. miyabeana Fabius cultivar.

Nucleotide sequence accession numbers.

The nucleotide sequences have been deposited at DDBJ/EMBL/GenBank under the accessions numbers provided in Table 1.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A.O.H., A.J.T., M.S.W., and M.A.S. acknowledge the College of Science (COS) at the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) for ongoing support. M.A.S. also acknowledges a Dean’s Research Initiation Grant (D-RIG) from the COS at RIT. This work was supported in part by a United States National Science Foundation (NSF) award to A.O.H. (MCB-1120541) in addition to support from the Monash University Malaysia Tropical Medicine and Biology Multidisciplinary Platform.

Footnotes

Citation Gan HY, Gan HM, Savka MA, Triassi AJ, Wheatley MS, Smart LB, Fabio ES, Hudson AO. 2014. Whole-genome sequences of 13 endophytic bacteria isolated from shrub willow (Salix) grown in Geneva, New York. Genome Announc. 2(3):e00288-14. doi:10.1128/genomeA.00288-14.

REFERENCES

  • 1. Karp A, Shield I. 2008. Bioenergy from plants and the sustainable yield challenge. New Phytol. 179:15–31. 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02432.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Heller MC, Keoleian GA, Volk TA. 2003. Life cycle assessment of a willow bioenergy cropping system. Biomass Bioenerg. 25:147–165. 10.1016/S0961-9534(02)00190-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Smart LB, Cameron KD. 2012. Shrub willow, p 687–708 In Kole C, Joshi S, Shonnard D. (ed), Handbook of bioenergy crop plants. Taylor and Francis, Boca Raton, FL [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Doty SL, Oakley B, Xin G, Kang JW, Singleton G, Khan Z, Vajzovic A, Staley JT. 2009. Diazotrophic endophytes of native black cottonwood and willow. Symbiosis 47:23–33. 10.1007/BF03179967 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Hudson AO, Ahmad NH, Van Buren R, Savka MA. 2010. Sugarcane and grapevine endophytic bacteria: isolation, detection of quorum sensing signals and identification by 16S v3 rDNA sequence analysis, p 801–806 In Mendez-Vilas A, Current research, technology and education topics in applied microbiology and microbial biotechnology, vol 2 Formatex Research Center, Badajoz, Spain [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Bankevich A, Nurk S, Antipov D, Gurevich AA, Dvorkin M, Kulikov AS, Lesin VM, Nikolenko SI, Pham S, Prjibelski AD, Pyshkin AV, Sirotkin AV, Vyahhi N, Tesler G, Alekseyev MA, Pevzner PA. 2012. SPAdes: a new genome assembly algorithm and its applications to single cell sequencing. J. Comput. Biol. 19:455–477. 10.1089/cmb.2012.0021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Boetzer M, Henkel CV, Jansen HJ, Butler D, Pirovano W. 2011. Scaffolding preassembled contigs using SSPACE. Bioinformatics 27:578–579. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq683 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Boetzer M, Pirovano W. 2012. Toward almost closed genomes with GapFiller. Genome Biol. 13:2012–2013. 10.1186/gb-2012-13-6-r56 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Hyatt D, Chen GL, Locascio PF, Land ML, Larimer FW, Hauser LJ. 2010. Prodigal: prokaryotic gene recognition and translation initiation site identification. BMC Bioinformatics 11:119. 10.1186/1471-2105-11-119 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Laslett D, Canback B. 2004. ARAGORN, a program to detect tRNA genes and tmRNA genes in nucleotide sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 32:11–16. 10.1093/nar/gkh152 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Lagesen K, Hallin P, Rødland EA, Staerfeldt HH, Rognes T, Ussery DW. 2007. RNAmmer: consistent and rapid annotation of ribosomal RNA genes. Nucleic Acids Res. 35:3100–3108. 10.1093/nar/gkm160 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Jones P, Binns D, Chang HY, Fraser M, Li W, McAnulla C, McWilliam H, Maslen J, Mitchell A, Nuka G, Pesseat S, Quinn AF, Sangrador-Vegas A, Scheremetjew M, Yong SY, Lopez R, Hunter S. 29 January 2014. InterProScan 5: genome-scale protein function classification. Bioinformatics. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu031 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES