Skip to main content
Genome Announcements logoLink to Genome Announcements
. 2016 Jan 14;4(1):e01540-15. doi: 10.1128/genomeA.01540-15

Draft Genome Sequence of a Novel Desulfobacteraceae Member from a Sulfate-Reducing Bioreactor Metagenome

Robert Almstrand a,, Ameet J Pinto b, Linda A Figueroa a, Jonathan O Sharp a
PMCID: PMC4714113  PMID: 26769931

Abstract

Sulfate-reducing bacteria are important players in the global sulfur cycle and of considerable commercial interest. The draft genome sequence of a sulfate-reducing bacterium of the family Desulfobacteraceae, assembled from a sulfate-reducing bioreactor metagenome, indicates that heavy-metal– and acid-resistance traits of this organism may be of importance for its application in acid mine drainage mitigation.

GENOME ANNOUNCEMENT

Sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB) are widespread and abundant in nature and of considerable commercial importance, ranging from their role in corrosion (1) to their application in sulfate-reducing bioreactors (SRBRs) for treatment of mining-influenced waters (2). With few exceptions (3, 4), most characterized SRB are not tolerant to acidic conditions typical of acid mine drainage and require circumneutral pH (5) in order to efficiently reduce sulfate and promote metal immobilization in SRBRs. Here, we present a draft genome of a sulfate-reducing bacterium of the family Desulfobacteraceae, which was assembled from a sulfate-reducing bioreactor metagenome. Based on phylogenetic analyses using 16 ribosomal proteins (6), the genome of this organism clustered with Desulfatirhabdium butyrativorans, a butyrate-oxidizing SRB isolated from an anaerobic sludge blanket reactor treating industrial wastewater (7).

SRBR DNA was extracted using the Power Soil DNA isolation kit (MoBio Laboratories, Carlsbad, CA, USA). The genomic DNA library was prepared using an Illumina TruSEQ DNA library kit and sequenced on an Illumina HiSEQ 2500 paired-end flow cell (2 × 125-bp read length) using V4 Chemistry at the Genomics and Microarray Core, University of Colorado, Denver. IDBA-UD version 1.1.1 (8) was used to assemble the reads along with four additional samples. The resulting scaffolds were binned using CONCOCT (9), followed by extraction of mapped reads and reassembly using IDBA-UD. Following reassembly, contigs less than 1 kb and any contigs showing breaks in coverage profile were removed. The resulting genome bin contained 193 contigs with a genome size of 6.09Mbp (N50 = 33,167 bp) and a GC content of ~50%. CheckM (10) indicated a genome completeness of 97.8% with likely contamination of 0.64% and no strain heterogeneity. Comparison of the draft genome to complete reference genomes of Desulfatibacillum alkenivorans AK-01, Desulfobacula toluolica Tol2, Desulfobacterium autotrophicum HRM2, and Desulfococcus oleovorans Hxd3 using the Genome-to-Genome Distance Calculator (http://ggdc.dsmz.de) indicated an average nucleotide identity of 70.7 ± 0.4% to the reference genomes. Gene calling was performed using Prodigal (11), and the genes were annotated against the KEGG database (12) using RAPSearch2 (13). The genome consisted of 3,694 coding regions with 3,463 matches to the KEGG database.

The assembled Desulfobacteraceae genome appears capable of nitrogen fixation and urea-utilization, containing a urea transport system not encountered in the reference genomes. Similar to the reference genomes, this draft contains a two-component system (HydH-HydG), previously implicated in bacterial metal tolerance (14, 15). A unique feature of this draft genome when compared to other Desulfobacteraceae members is a γ-aminobutyrate (GABA) shunt involved in microbial acid resistance (16), raising the possibility that this genome represents a more acid-tolerant member of the family Desulfobacteraceae with potential interest for the mitigation of metal-laden, acidic waters.

Nucleotide sequence accession numbers.

This whole-genome shotgun project has been deposited in GenBank under the accession number LKPX00000000. The version described in this paper is the first version, LKPX01000000.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was supported through a Marie Curie International Outgoing Fellowship (PIOF-GA-2012-328397) within the 7th European Community Framework Programme, the Office of Science (BER) U.S. Department of Energy, grant number DE-SC0006997, the J. Gust. Richert Memorial Fund, the Carl Trygger Foundation for Scientific Research (CTS 12:11), and EPSRC award number EP/L026511/1.

Funding Statement

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Footnotes

Citation Almstrand R, Pinto AJ, Figueroa LA, Sharp JO. 2016. Draft genome sequence of a novel Desulfobacteraceae member from a sulfate-reducing bioreactor metagenome. Genome Announc 4(1):e01540-15. doi:10.1128/genomeA.01540-15.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Enning D, Garrelfs J. 2014. Corrosion of iron by sulfate-reducing bacteria: New views of an old problem. Appl Environ Microbiol 80:1226–1236. doi: 10.1128/AEM.02848-13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Logan MV, Reardon KF, Figueroa LA, McLain JET, Ahmann DM. 2005. Microbial community activities during establishment, performance, and decline of bench-scale passive treatment systems for mine drainage. Water Res 39:4537–4551. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2005.08.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Petzsch P, Johnson DB, Daniel R, Schlömann M. 2015. Genome sequence of the moderately acidophilic sulfate-reducing firmicute Desulfosporosinus acididurans (strain M1T). Genome Announc 3(4):e00881-15. doi: 10.1128/genomeA.00881-15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Sánchez-Andrea I, Stams AJM, Amils R, Sanz JL. 2013. Enrichment and isolation of acidophilic sulfate-reducing bacteria from Tinto River sediments. Environ Microbiol Rep 5:672–678. doi: 10.1111/1758-2229.12066. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Postgate J. 1984. The sulphate-reducing bacteria. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Sorek R, Zhu Y, Creevey CJ, Francino MP, Bork P, Rubin EM. 2007. Genome-wide experimental determination of barriers to horizontal gene transfer. Science 318:1449–1452. doi: 10.1126/science.1147112. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Balk M, Altinbas M, Rijpstra WIC, Sinninghe Damste JS, Stams AJM. 2008. Desulfatirhabdium butyrativorans gen. nov., sp. nov., a butyrate-oxidizing, sulfate-reducing bacterium isolated from an anaerobic bioreactor. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 58:110–115. doi: 10.1099/ijs.0.65396-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Peng Y, Leung HCM, Yiu SM, Chin FYL. 2012. IDBA-UD: a de novo assembler for single-cell and metagenomic sequencing data with highly uneven depth. Bioinformatics 28:1420–1428. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts174. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Alneberg J, Bjarnason BS, de Bruijn I, Schirmer M, Quick J, Ijaz UZ, Lahti L, Loman NJ, Andersson AF, Quince C. 2014. Binning metagenomic contigs by coverage and composition. Nat Methods 11:1144–1146. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.3103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.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]
  • 11.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]
  • 12.Kanehisa M, Goto S, Kawashima S, Nakaya A. 2002. The KEGG databases at GenomeNet. Nucleic Acids Res 30:42–46. doi: 10.1093/nar/30.1.42. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Zhao Y, Tang H, Ye Y. 2012. RAPSearch2: a fast and memory-efficient protein similarity search tool for next-generation sequencing data. Bioinformatics 28:125–126. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr595. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Leonhartsberger S, Huber A, Lottspeich F, Böck A. 2001. The hydH/G genes from Escherichia coli code for a zinc and lead responsive two-component regulatory system. J Mol Biol 307:93–105. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.2000.4451. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Lee LJ, Barrett JA, Poole RK. 2005. Genome-wide transcriptional response of chemostat-cultured Escherichia coli to zinc. J Bacteriol 187:1124–1134. doi: 10.1128/JB.187.3.1124-1134.2005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Feehily C, Karatzas KAG. 2013. Role of glutamate metabolism in bacterial responses towards acid and other stresses. J Appl Microbiol 114:11–24. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2012.05434.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES