Skip to main content
Genome Announcements logoLink to Genome Announcements
. 2015 Oct 22;3(5):e01231-15. doi: 10.1128/genomeA.01231-15

Draft Genome Sequence of Komagataeibacter europaeus CECT 8546, a Cellulose-Producing Strain of Vinegar Elaborated by the Traditional Method

María José Valera a, Anja Poehlein b, María Jesús Torija a, Frederike S Haack c, Rolf Daniel b, Wolfgang R Streit c, Estibaliz Mateo a,*,, Albert Mas a
PMCID: PMC4616185  PMID: 26494678

Abstract

The present article reports the draft genome sequence of the strain Komagataeibacter europaeus CECT 8546, an acetic acid bacterium characterized by its ability to overproduce cellulose. This species is highly resistant to acetic acid and commonly found during vinegar elaboration.

GENOME ANNOUNCEMENT

The acetic acid bacteria (AAB) are a group of Gram-negative bacteria that belong to the family Acetobacteraceae. They are obligate aerobic microorganisms that are able to produce acetic acid from ethanol and are the main bacteria responsible for vinegar production. The species Komagataeibacter europaeus (formerly Gluconacetobacter europaeus [1]) was first described in high-acetic acid vinegar in Germany and Switzerland (2). This species possesses a strong capacity to oxidize ethanol compared with other species of AAB (3), and it is associated with the production of vinegar in a submerged system (2, 4, 5).

The strain K. europaeus CECT 8546 was isolated from grape vinegar produced by the traditional method in the experimental cellar Mas dels Frares (Tarragona, Spain). Chromosomal DNA was isolated using the MasterPure complete DNA purification kit (Epicentre, Madison, WI, USA). For whole-genome sequencing, the Genome Analyzer II (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA) and the 454 GS-FLX TitaniumXL (Titanium Chemistry, Roche Life Science, Mannheim, Germany) pyrosequencing systems were used. Preparation of shotgun libraries was performed according to the protocols of the manufacturers and resulted in 8,419,806 paired-end Illumina reads (112 bp) and 83,045 pyrosequencing reads. Initial hybrid de novo assembly using the MIRA software (6) resulted in 116 contigs (>500 bp) and an average coverage of 229-fold.

The genome of K. europaeus CECT 8546 consists of a chromosome with 4.11 Mb and an overall G+C content of 61.31%. Automatic gene prediction was performed using the software tool Prodigal (7). Genes coding for rRNA and tRNA were identified using RNAmmer (8) and tRNAscan (9), respectively. The Integrated Microbial Genomes-Expert Review (IMG-ER) system (10) was used for automatic annotation, which was subsequently manually curated using the Swiss-Prot, TrEMBL, and InterPro databases (11). The genome harbored 10 rRNA genes, 55 tRNA genes, 2,695 protein-coding genes with predicted functions, and 1,172 genes coding for hypothetical proteins. Among them, 51 genes encode dehydrogenases in different regions of the genome. It is noteworthy that one of these genes encodes for a NAD-dependent aldehyde dehydrogenase, which is a key enzyme during the conversion of ethanol to acetic acid (12). Moreover, a gene for a glucose dehydrogenase enzyme was also detected; this enzyme has been previously associated with vinegar flavoring (13).

In addition, the strain CECT 8546 presents the ability to biosynthesize cellulose very quickly. This biopolymer is the main component of the biofilm that AAB develop in the liquid-air interface during traditional vinegar elaboration (14). This biofilm keeps cells in tight contact with oxygen and provides a protective environment for them as they are subjected to extreme conditions (15). The gene that encodes the catalytic subunit required for cellulose biosynthesis is called cellulose synthase, and it is highly conserved among cellulose producer bacteria (16). In the genome of the strain CECT 8546, this gene is located in the cluster for starch and sucrose metabolism. The strain also presents an autoinducer synthase gene homologous to GinI and the regulator GinR (17).

Nucleotide sequence accession numbers.

This whole-genome shotgun project has been deposited at DDBJ/EMBL/GenBank under the accession number LHUQ00000000. The version described in this paper is version LHUQ01000000.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by BMBF within the ChemBiofilm network at the University of Hamburg and by the grant AGL2010-22152-C03-02 from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation. Collaboration between two groups was possible through the fellowship AP2009-0843 from the Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports for M.J.V.

We thank Kathleen Gollnow and Frauke-Dorothee Meyer for technical support.

Footnotes

Citation Valera MJ, Poehlein A, Torija MJ, Haack FS, Daniel R, Streit WR, Mateo E, Mas A. 2015. Draft genome sequence of Komagataeibacter europaeus CECT 8546, a cellulose-producing strain of vinegar elaborated by the traditional method. Genome Announc 3(5):e01231-15. doi:10.1128/genomeA.01231-15.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Yamada Y, Yukphan P, Lan Vu HT, Muramatsu Y, Ochaikul D, Tanasupawat S, Nakagawa Y. 2012. Description of Komagataeibacter gen. nov., with proposals of new combinations (Acetobacteraceae). J Gen Appl Microbiol 58:397–404. doi: 10.2323/jgam.58.397. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Sievers M, Sellmer S, Teuber M. 1992. Acetobacter europaeus sp. nov., a main component of industrial vinegar fermenters in Central Europe. Syst Appl Microbiol 15:386–392. doi: 10.1016/S0723-2020(11)80212-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Trček J, Jernejc K, Matsushita K. 2007. The highly tolerant acetic acid bacterium Gluconacetobacter europaeus adapts to the presence of acetic acid by changes in lipid composition, morphological properties and PQQ-dependent ADH expression. Extremophiles 11:627–635. doi: 10.1007/s00792-007-0077-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Hidalgo C, Vegas C, Mateo E, Tesfaye W, Cerezo AB, Callejón RM, Poblet M, Guillamón JM, Mas A, Torija MJ. 2010. Effect of barrel design and the inoculation of Acetobacter pasteurianus in wine vinegar production. Int J Food Microbiol 141:56–62. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2010.04.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Ilabaca C, Navarrete P, Mardones P, Romero J, Mas A. 2008. Application of culture culture-independent molecular biology based methods to evaluate acetic acid bacteria diversity during vinegar processing. Int J Food Microbiol 126:245–249. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2008.05.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Chevreux B, Wetter T, Suhai S. 1999. Genome sequence assembly using trace signals and additional sequence information, p 45–56. In Proceedings of the German conference on bioinformatics (GCB) 99, GCB, Hannover, Germany. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Hyatt D, Chen G, Locascio PF, Land ML, Larimer FW, Hauser LJ. 2010. Prodigal: prokaryotic gene recognition and translation initiation site identification. BMC Bioinformatics 11:119. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-11-119. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Lagesen K, Hallin P, Rødland EA, Stærfeldt H-H, Rognes T, Ussery DW. 2007. RNAmmer: consistent and rapid annotation of ribosomal RNA genes. Nucleic Acids Res 35:3100–3108. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkm160. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Lowe TM, Eddy SR. 1997. tRNAscan-SE: a program for improved detection of transfer RNA genes in genomic sequence. Nucleic Acids Res 25:955–964. doi: 10.1093/nar/25.5.0955. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Markowitz VM, Chen I-MA, Palaniappan K, Chu K, Szeto E, Pillay M, Ratner A, Huang J, Woyke T, Huntemann M, Anderson I, Billis K, Varghese N, Mavromatis K, Pati A, Ivanova NN, Kyrpides NC. 2014. IMG4 version of the integrated microbial genomes comparative analysis system. Nucleic Acids Res 42:D560–D567. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkt963. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Zdobnov EM, Apweiler R. 2001. InterProScan—an integration platform for the signature-recognition methods in InterPro. Bioinformatics 17:847–848. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/17.9.847. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Raj KC, Ingram LO, Maupin-Furlow JA. 2001. Pyruvate decarboxylase: a key enzyme for the oxidative metabolism of lactic acid by Acetobacter pasteurianus. Arch Microbiol 176:443–451. doi: 10.1007/s002030100348. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Cleton-Jansen AM, Dekker S, van de Putte P, Goosen N. 1991. A single amino acid substitution changes the substrate specificity of quinoprotein glucose dehydrogenase in Gluconobacter oxydans. Mol Gen Genet 229:206–212. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Chawla PR, Bajaj IB, Survase SA, Singhal RS. 2009. Microbial cellulose: fermentative production and applications. Food Technol Biotechnol 47:107–124. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Valera MJ, Torija MJ, Mas A, Mateo E. 2015. Acetic acid bacteria from biofilm of strawberry vinegar visualized by microscopy and detected by complementing culture-dependent and culture-independent techniques. Food Microbiol 46:452–462. doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2014.09.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Valera MJ, Torija MJ, Mas A, Mateo E. 2015. Cellulose production and cellulose synthase gene detection in acetic acid bacteria. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 99:1349–1361. doi: 10.1007/s00253-014-6198-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Iida A, Ohnishi Y, Horinouchi S. 2008. Control of acetic acid fermentation by quorum sensing via N-acylhomoserine lactones in Gluconacetobacter intermedius. J Bacteriol 190:2546–2555. doi: 10.1128/JB.01698-07. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES