ABSTRACT
Pseudoruegeria sp. SK021 is a member of the Roseobacter group, isolated under aerobic conditions from North Sea sediment. The draft genome comprises 3.95 Mb and contains 3,747 protein-coding sequences. Although the strain is nonmotile under laboratory conditions, the entire set of genes for the formation of a flagellar apparatus was found.
GENOME ANNOUNCEMENT
The Roseobacter group is globally distributed in the marine environment and represents a significant part of pelagic and benthic microbial communities (1–3). Their broad metabolic versatility make roseobacters successful in a variety of habitats (4, 5). In coastal sediments, roseobacters can constitute up to 10% of all cells (6). Although 28% of all described species in this group are of benthic origin (7), the metabolic properties of roseobacters in sediments are poorly understood. Pseudoruegeria sp. SK021, analyzed in this study, was isolated from surface sediment of the North Sea (7.1667 E, 57.8145 N) at a water depth of 181 m below sea level (8). It is closely related to P. aestuarii and represents a new benthic member of this genus.
Pseudoruegeria sp. SK021 was grown on marine broth agar (Difco) amended with dimethyl sulfide (100 µM) and lactate (5 mM) at 20°C. DNA was extracted using the innuPREP DNA mini kit (Analytik Jena) and a sequencing library was prepared using the Nextera XT kit (Illumina). Genome sequencing was performed using the Illumina MiSeq platform with the MiSeq reagent kit version 3 and generated approximately 3.8 million reads, representing ~0.98 Gb of data (fastq-stats version 1.01, http://expressionanalysis.github.io/ea-utils). Reads were trimmed and adapters removed using Trimmomatic version 0.36 (9) with the following parameters: CROP:288, HEADCROP:19, SLIDINGWINDOW:4:20, MINLEN:100, ILLUMINACLIP:bbmap/adapters.fa:2:40:15. Paired reads were assembled with SPAdes version 3.9.1 (10) using “--careful” and multiple k-mer sizes (-k 21, 33, 55, 77, 99, 127). Only contigs with a G+C content of 40 to 68%, an average read coverage > 7.5×, and a minimum size of 200 bp were retained to eliminate potential contamination. After decontamination, the assembled draft genome of Pseudoruegeria sp. SK021 had a total length of 3,948,746 bp, 128 contigs (>500 bp), and approximately 245-fold coverage. The average G+C content was 60.17% and the N50 length was 94,596 bp, as determined by QUAST version 4.3 (11). Genome completeness was 99.27%, estimated by CheckM version 1.0.7 (12) using marker genes for the family Rhodobacteraceae. Annotation by Prokka version 1.12-beta (13), on the basis of three published and annotated genomes of Pseudoruegeria spp., identified 3,747 protein-coding sequences, 3 rRNA-encoding sequences (5S, 16S, 23S rRNA), and 48 tRNAs. Even though Pseudorugeria sp. SK021 is nonmotile, genes for the formation of the complete flagellar apparatus were found in the annotated genome, including genes for the motor switch (e.g., FliG, FliM, MotA), the basal body (e.g., FlgB, FlgC), the different rings (FliF, FlgH, FlgI), the flagellar hook (e.g., FlgE, FlgK, FlgL), and the flagella itself (flagellin). Although motility is not essential in sediments, the presence of flagellar genes shows that the strain might be motile under specific conditions.
Accession number(s).
The genome was uploaded to IMG under Genome ID 2711768631. Furthermore, this whole-genome shotgun project has been deposited at DDBJ/ENA/GenBank under the accession number MTBG00000000. The version described in this paper is the first version, MTBG01000000.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We acknowledge Saranya Kanukollu and Jana Schmidt (both University of Oldenburg), for isolating the strain and for providing support during the cultivation, and Britta Poulsen (Aarhus University) for performing the Illumina MiSeq sequencing. This study was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) within the Transregional Collaborative Research Center TRR51 and the Graduate School of Science and Technology, University of Oldenburg. Furthermore, the Aarhus University Graduate School of Science and Technology, the Danish National Research Foundation (grant no. DNRF104), an ERC Advanced Grant MICROENERGY (grant no. 294200), and a Marie Curie IIF fellowship “ATP_adapt_low_energy” (both European Union Seventh Framework Programs) supported this work financially.
Footnotes
Citation Pohlner M, Marshall I, Schreiber L, Cypionka H, Engelen B. 2017. Draft genome sequence of Pseudoruegeria sp. SK021, a representative of the marine Roseobacter group, isolated from North Sea sediment. Genome Announc 5:e00541-17. https://doi.org/10.1128/genomeA.00541-17.
REFERENCES
- 1.Buchan A, González JM, Moran MA. 2005. Overview of the marine Roseobacter lineage. Appl Environ Microbiol 71:5665–5677. doi: 10.1128/AEM.71.10.5665-5677.2005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Giebel HA, Brinkhoff T, Zwisler W, Selje N, Simon M. 2009. Distribution of Roseobacter RCA and SAR11 lineages and distinct bacterial communities from the subtropics to the Southern Ocean. Environ Microbiol 11:2164–2178. doi: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2009.01942.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Selje N, Simon M, Brinkhoff T. 2004. A newly discovered Roseobacter cluster in temperate and polar oceans. Nature 427:445–448. doi: 10.1038/nature02272. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Wagner-Döbler I, Biebl H. 2006. Environmental biology of the marine Roseobacter lineage. Annu Rev Microbiol 60:255–280. doi: 10.1146/annurev.micro.60.080805.142115. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Brinkhoff T, Giebel HA, Simon M. 2008. Diversity, ecology, and genomics of the Roseobacter clade: a short overview. Arch Microbiol 189:531–539. doi: 10.1007/s00203-008-0353-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Lenk S, Moraru C, Hahnke S, Arnds J, Richter M, Kube M, Reinhardt R, Brinkhoff T, Harder J, Amann R, Mußmann M. 2012. Roseobacter clade bacteria are abundant in coastal sediments and encode a novel combination of sulfur oxidation genes. ISME J 6:2178–2187. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2012.66. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Pujalte MJ, Lucena T, Ruvira MA, Arahal DR, Macián MC. 2014. The family Rhodobacteraceae, p 439–512. In Rosenberg E, DeLong EF, Lory S, Stackebrandt E, Thompson FL (ed), The prokaryotes: alphaproteobacteria and betaproteobacteria, 4th ed. Springer Verlag, Berlin. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Kanukollu S, Wemheuer B, Herber J, Billerbeck S, Lucas J, Daniel R, Simon M, Cypionka H, Engelen B. 2016. Distinct compositions of free-living, particle-associated and benthic communities of the Roseobacter group in the North Sea. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 92:11. doi: 10.1093/femsec/fiv145. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B. 2014. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 30:2114–2120. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu170. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.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. doi: 10.1089/cmb.2012.0021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Gurevich A, Saveliev V, Vyahhi N, Tesler G. 2013. QUAST: quality assessment tool for genome assemblies. Bioinformatics 29:1072–1075. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt086. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.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]
- 13.Seemann T. 2014. Prokka: rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics 30:2068–2069. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu153. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]