Skip to content


  • Short genome report
  • Open Access

Draft genome sequence of Halomonas lutea strain YIM 91125T (DSM 23508T) isolated from the alkaline Lake Ebinur in Northwest China

  • 1, 11,
  • 2,
  • 2, 9,
  • 10,
  • 3, 4,
  • 5,
  • 5,
  • 5,
  • 5,
  • 5,
  • 5,
  • 5,
  • 7,
  • 6,
  • 5,
  • 7, 12,
  • 5, 8 and
  • 1, 2Email author
Standards in Genomic Sciences201510:1

  • Received: 28 July 2014
  • Accepted: 6 November 2014
  • Published:


Species of the genus Halomonas are halophilic and their flexible adaption to changes of salinity and temperature brings considerable potential biotechnology applications, such as degradation of organic pollutants and enzyme production. The type strain Halomonas lutea YIM 91125T was isolated from a hypersaline lake in China. The genome of strain YIM 91125T becomes the twelfth species sequenced in Halomonas, and the thirteenth species sequenced in Halomonadaceae. We described the features of H. lutea YIM 91125T, together with the high quality draft genome sequence and annotation of its type strain. The 4,533,090 bp long genome of strain YIM 91125T with its 4,284 protein-coding and 84 RNA genes is a part of Genomic Encyclopedia of Type Strains, Phase I: the one thousand microbial genomes (KMG-I) project. From the viewpoint of comparative genomics, H. lutea has a larger genome size and more specific genes, which indicated acquisition of function bringing better adaption to its environment. DDH analysis demonstrated that H. lutea is a distinctive species, and halophilic features and nitrogen metabolism related genes were discovered in its genome.


  • Halomonas lutea
  • Aerobic
  • Gram-negative
  • Chemoorganotrophic
  • Moderately halophilic
  • Lake Ebinur


Strain YIM 91125T (= DSM 23508T = KCTC 12847T = CCTCC AB 206093T) is the type strain of Halomonas lutea[1]. Currently, there are 83 validly named species in the genus Halomonas on the basis of most recent released from LPSN [2] and EzTaxon-e [3]. Halomonadaceae comprises the largest number of halophilic and halotolerant bacteria described to date, and Halomonas is the largest genus in this family. However, most of the taxa in Halomonadaceae have been reclassified in the past due to their heterogeneous features [47]. In Halomonas, a small group of species has been formally re-located to Chromohalobacter, Cobetia and Kushneria by further taxonomic studies. Members of the genus Halomonas were usually isolated from saline environments [812]. Strain YIM 91125T was originally isolated from soil sample of Ebinur Lake, which has been a long-term target for the studies of element cycling and microbial biota under extremely high-saline conditions in Xinjiang, Northwest China. As a type strain, it’s the original isolate used in species description, which exhibits the relevant phenotypic and genotypic properties cited in the original published taxonomic circumscriptions [13]. This organism grows well across a wide range of salinity and temperature and also participates in nitrogen reduction. In this context, strain YIM 91125T has been sequenced as a halophilic representative, and becomes a part of Genomic Encylopedia of Type Strains, Phase I: the one thousand microbial genomes project.

Here, we present a summary classification and a set of features for H. lutea strain YIM 91125T, together with the description of the genomic sequencing and annotation, and provide brief findings of its genome sequence as compared to genomes of other Halomonas species. The genomic data will provide insights into its new biotechnological applications, such as sewage treatment. The comprehensive genomes of this genus will facilitate our understanding of the ecological roles that Halomonas species play in those hypersaline habitats and their relationships with other halophilic and nonhalophilic microorganisms.

Classification and features

H. lutea YIM 91125T is a Gram-negative-staining, motile, aerobic and moderately halophilic bacterium, which can reduce nitrate (Table 1). Cells of the strain are short rods, 0.4 to 0.7 μm in diameter and 0.6 to 1.0 μm in length (Figure 1). They are motile by means of single polar flagellum and their colonies are orange, flat, opaque and mucoid with slightly irregular edges (Figure 1). The predominant respiratory quinone found in H. lutea YIM 91125T is Q-9, similar to other members of the genus Halomonas. The predominant fatty acids are C18:1 ω7c (25.1%), C16:0 (17.0%), C19:0 cyclo ω8c (13.6%), C12:0 3-OH (10.7%), C12:0 (7.9%), C10:0 (6.0%) and C17:0 cyclo (4.6%) [1]. The profile of major fatty acids in strain YIM 91125T is also similar to other members of the genus Halomonas[1417].
Table 1

Classification and general features of H. lutea YIM 91125 T [18]




Evidence code a



Domain Bacteria

TAS [19]

Phylum Proteobacteria

TAS [20]

Class Gammaproteobacteria

TAS [21, 22]

Order Oceanospirillales

TAS [21, 23]

Family Halomonadaceae

TAS [4]

Genus Halomonas

TAS [24]

Species Halomonas lutea

TAS [1]

Type strain YIM 91125T

TAS [1]


Gram stain


TAS [1]


Cell shape

short rods

TAS [1]




TAS [1]




TAS [1]


Temperature range


TAS [1]


Optimum temperature


TAS [1]


pH range; Optimum


TAS [1]


Carbon source

mono- and polysaccarides

TAS [1]



aquatic, fresh water, lake, salinewater

TAS [1]



1-20% NaCl (w/v)

TAS [1]


Oxygen requirement


TAS [1]


Biotic relationship

free living

TAS [1]






Geographic location

Ebinur Lake (China)

TAS [1]


Sample collection

2008 or before





TAS [1]




TAS [1]



not reported


aEvidence codes – TAS: Traceable Author Statement (i.e., a direct report exists in the literature); NAS: Non-traceable Author Statement (i.e., not directly observed for the living, isolated sample, but based on a generally accepted property for the species, or anecdotal evidence). These evidence codes are from the Gene Ontology project [25].

Figure 1
Figure 1

Transmission electron micrograph of H. lutea YIM 91125 T .

16S rRNA gene sequence of strain YIM 91125T was compared with the newly released database from the Greengenes [26], using NCBI BLAST [27, 28] under default settings (e.g., considering only HSPs from the best 250 hits) and the relative frequencies of taxa were determined, weighted by BLAST scores. The most frequently occurring genera were Halomonas (71.4%), Chromohalobacter (17.8%), Bacillus (3.6%), Haererehalobacter (3.6%) and Modicisalibacter (3.6%) (228 hits in total). Regarding 186 hits to sequences from members of the genus Halomonas, the average identity within HSPs was 95.5%, whereas the average coverage by HSPs was 98.3%. Among all other species, the one yielding the highest score was Halomonas xinjiangensis, which corresponded to identity of 99.9% and HSP coverage of 98.0%. (Note that the Greengenes database uses the INSDC (=EMBL/NCBI/DDBJ) annotation, which is not an authoritative source for nomenclature or classification.) The highest scoring environmental sequences were EF157249 and EF157230 (Greengenes short name ‘tar pits clone 101–11 k’ and ‘tar pits clone 101–120 k’), which showed identity of 96.3% and an HSP coverage of 99.6%. The most frequently occurring keywords within the labels of all environmental samples which yielded hits were soil like ‘soil’, ‘seafloor’, ‘drilling deep-earth’; water like ‘groundwater’, ‘aquatic’, ‘lake’, ‘marine’; oil and plant. Environmental samples yielded hits of a higher score than the highest scoring species were not found.

Phylogenetic analyses were carried out with two different algorithms, i.e., neighbor-joining (NJ) and maximum-likelihood (ML). The phylogenetic tree was shown in Figure 2 and Additional file 1: Figure S1, which provides an interesting insight into the nomenclature and classification of members of the genus Halomonas, and also indicates the phylogenetic neighborhood of H. lutea. The phylogenetic relationships indicate that H. lutea YIM 91125T is most closely to H. xianhensis A-1T with 99% similarity and the sequence of the sole 16S rRNA gene in the genome differs by 10 nucleotides from the previously published 16S rRNA sequence (EF674852).
Figure 2
Figure 2

Phylogenetic tree highlighting the position of H. lutea relative to the type strains of the other species within Halomonas . According to the most recent release of the EzTaxon-e database, all the 16S rRNA gene sequences of the type strains within genus Halomonas were retained. The tree was inferred from 1,383 aligned bases [29] under the neighbor-joining (NJ) [30] and maximum-likelihood (ML) [31] methods with 1,000 randomly selected bootstrap replicates using MEGA version 5.2 [32]. The branches are scaled in terms of the expected number of substitutions per site. Numbers adjacent to the branches are support values from 1,000 NJ bootstrap (left) and from 1,000 ML bootstrap (right) replicates [33] if they are larger than 50%. Lineages with type strain genome sequencing projects registered in Genomes OnLine Database (GOLD) [34] are labeled with one asterisk, and those have available genomic data are labeled with two asterisks. Non-type strain LS21of H. campaniensis and H. elongata DSM 2581T listed ‘Complete and Published’ are also labeled with two asterisks.

Genome sequencing and annotation

Genome project history

This organism was selected for sequencing on the basis of its phylogenetic position and biological application importance [35, 36], and for a better understand the mechanism of its halophilic adaptation. Sequencing of H. lutea YIM 91125T is part of Genomic Encyclopedia of Type Strains, Phase I: the one thousand microbial genomes (KMG-I) project [37], a follow-up of the GEBA project [38], which aims for increasing the sequencing coverage of key reference microbial genomes. The genome project is deposited in the Genomes OnLine Database (GOLD), and the high quality draft genome sequence is deposited in GenBank. Sequencing, finishing and annotation were performed by the DOE JGI using state of the art sequencing technology [39]. A summary of the project information is shown in Table 2. It presents the project information and in compliance with MIGS version 2.0 compliance [18].
Table 2

Project information





Finishing quality

Improved-High-Quality Draft


Libraries used

Illumina standard shotgun library


Sequencing platforms

Illumina HiSeq 2000


Fold coverage

119 ×



Velvet v. 1.1.04; ALLPATHS v. r41043


Gene calling method

Prodigal 1.4


Locus Tag



Genbank ID



Genbank Date of Release

April 23, 2013








Project relevance

Genomic Encyclopedia of Type Strains, Phase I: the one thousand microbial genomes (KMG-I) project


Source Material Identifier

Halomonas lutea DSM 23508

Growth conditions and DNA isolation

H. lutea strain YIM 91125T (DSM 23508T), was grown in DSMZ medium 514b (Medium 514 plus additional salt) at 37°C [40]. DNA was isolated from 0.5-1.0 g of cell pasted using Jetflex Genomic DNA Purification Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany), following the standard protocol as recommended by the manufacturer, but with an additional incubation (60 min, 37°C) with 50 μl proteinase K and finally adding 200 μl protein precipitation buffer (PPT). DNA is available through the DNA Bank Network [41].

Genome sequencing and assembly

The draft genome of strain YIM 91125T was generated at JGI using Illumina technology [42]. An Illumina standard shotgun library was constructed and sequenced using the Illumina HiSeq 2000 platform which generated 9,251,032 reads totaling 1,387.7 Mb. All general aspects of library construction and sequencing performed at the JGI. All raw Illumina sequence data was passed through DUK, a filtering program developed at JGI, which removes known Illumina sequencing and library preparation artifacts. The following steps were then performed for assembly: (1) filtered Illumina reads were assembled using Velvet version 1.1.04 [43]; (2) 1–3 Kb simulated paired end reads were created from Velvet contigs using Wgsim [44]; (3) Illumina reads were assembled with simulated read pairs using Allpaths-LG [45]. The final draft assembly contained 49 contigs in 42 scaffolds. The total size of the genome is 4.5 Mbp and the final assembly is based on 538.9 Mbp of Illumina data, which provides an average 119.0 × coverage of the genome.

Genome annotation

Genes were identified using Prodigal [46] as part of the DOE JGI genome annotation pipeline [47], following by a round of manual curation using the JGI GenePRIMP pipeline [48]. The predicted CDSs were translated and used to search the NCBI non-redundant database, UniProt, TIGR-Fam, Pfam, PRIAM, KEGG, COG, and InterPro database. These data sources were combined to assert a product description for each predicted protein. Additional gene prediction analysis and functional annotation were performed within the Integrated Microbial Genomes-Expert Review (IMG-ER) platform [49].

Genome properties

The assembly of the draft genome sequence consists of 42 scaffolds (Figure 3) amounting to 4,533,090 bp, and G+C content is 59.1%. The majority of the protein-coding genes (83.0%) were assigned a putative function while the remaining ones were annotated as hypothetical proteins. 3,325 protein coding genes belong to 422 paralogous families in this genome. The properties and the statistics of the genome are summarized in Table 3. The distribution of genes into COGs functional categories is presented in Table 4.
Figure 3
Figure 3

Graphical map of the largest scaffold in Halomonas lutea YIM 91125 T . From bottom to the top: Genes on forward strand (colored by COG categories), Genes on reverse strand (colored by COG catergories), RNA genes (tRNA green, rRNA red, other RNAs black), GC content, GC skew (purpele/olive).

Table 3

Genome statistics



Genome size (bp)


DNA coding (bp)


DNA G + C (bp)


DNA scaffolds


Total genes


Protein-coding genes


RNA genes


Pseudo genes


Genes in internal clusters


Genes with function prediction


Genes assigned to COGs


Genes with Pfam domains


Genes with signal peptides


Genes with transmembrane helices


CRISPR repeats


Table 4

Number of genes associated with general COG functional categories



% age





Translation, ribosomal structure and biogenesis




RNA processing and modification








Replication, recombination and repair




Chromatin structure and dynamics




Cell cycle control, Cell division, chromosome partitioning




Defense mechanisms




Signal transduction mechanisms




Cell wall/membrane biogenesis




Cell motility




Intracellular trafficking and secretion




Posttranslational modification, protein turnover, chaperones




Energy production and conversion




Carbohydrate transport and metabolism




Amino acid transport and metabolism




Nucleotide transport and metabolism




Coenzyme transport and metabolism




Lipid transport and metabolism




Inorganic ion transport and metabolism




Secondary metabolites biosynthesis, transport and catabolism




General function prediction only




Function unknown




Not in COGs

The total is based on the total number of protein-coding genes in the annotated genome.

Insights from the genome sequence

The genomic sequences of twelve Halomonas species are available, including H. lutea YIM 91125T. Genome properties of those Halomonas species are shown in Table 5, but only H. elongate and H. campaniensis have complete genome sequences. These Halomonas genome sequences exhibit dramatic interspecies variations in size, ranging from 5.34 Mb (H. titanicae) to 2.85 Mb (H. jeotgali); and the size of H. lutea is larger than the average size, suggesting acquisition of functions may allow better adaption to its environment, e.g., genes coding for tripartite ATP-independent periplasmic (TRAP) transporters for substrate uptake or nitrate degradation [50]. Also, GC contents of those species vary from 52.65% (H. campaniensis) to 67.86% (H. smyrnensis), and of H. lutea (59.05%) is around the average GC content, close to H. anticariensis (58.54%). In addition, the distribution of genes into COG categories was not entirely similar in all twelve compared genomes (Figure 4). And H. lutea has more specific genes, since proteins with COG only account for 71.18% which is lower than other members. Compared with other Halomonas species, the proportions of genes with signal peptide and transmembrane helices of H. lutea are respectively 7.46% and 23.65%, close to the corresponding averages. The abundance of transmembrane helices related genes indicates the important role in metabolism process of Halomonas.
Table 5

Comparison of genome features of Halomonas species


Genome size (Mb)

GC content (%)

Gene count

H. anticariensis FP35T




H. boliviensis LC1T




H. campaniensis LS21




H. elongata DSM 2581T




H. halocynthiae DSM 14573T




H. halodenitrificans DSM 735T




H. jeotgali HwaT




H. lutea YIM 91125T




H. smyrnensis AAD6T




H. stevensiss S18214T




H. titanicae BH1T




H. zhanjiangensis DSM 21076T




Figure 4
Figure 4

Distribution of functional classes of predicted genes in Halomonas species chromosomes accordingf to the clusters of orthologous groups of proteins.

DNA-DNA hybridization is considered as a gold-standard of distinguishing species [51]. Digital DDH similarities between genome of H. lutea and those of other Halomonas species were calculated using GGDC web server version 2.0 under recommend setting [52, 53]. The probabilities of DDH value > 70% assessed via logistic regression under three formulae indicate that H. lutea is different from other species of the genus (Table 6). The inter-genome distances under formula 2 between H. lutea and H. anticariensis, H. boliviensi, H. campaniensis, H. elongata, H. halocynthiae, H. halodenitrificans, H. jeotgali, H. smyrnensis, H. stevensii, H. titanicae and H. zhanjiangensis are about 0.22, the corresponding DDH estimates below the 70% threshold under formula 2 are: 19.5% (± 2.29), 20.2% (± 2.31), 21.1% (± 2.33), 20.1% (± 2.31), 19.2% (± 2.29), 19.4% (± 2.29), 19.9% (± 2.30), 20.3% (± 2.32), 20.4% (± 2.32), 20.5% (± 2.32), 18.9% (± 2.28), respectively. The standard deviations indicate the inherent uncertainty in estimating DDH values from intergenomic distances based on models derived from empirical test data sets. Given that the low degree of DNA-DNA similarity among Halomonas species, it appears justified to assume that these strains represent different species. For better understanding of the relationships between H. lutea and other Halomonas members, availability of more genome sequences of representatives are needed to implement phylogenomic inference.
Table 6

Digital DDH similarities between H. lutea DSM 23529 T and the other Halomonas s pecies

Reference species

Formula 1

Formula 2

Formula 3

H. anticariensis

14.9 ± 3.14

19.5 ± 2.29

15.0 ± 2.67

H. boliviensis

13.0 ± 2.99

20.2 ± 2.31

13.4 ± 2.56

H. campaniensis

13.0 ± 2.99

21.1 ± 2.33

13.3 ± 2.56

H. elongata

15.6 ± 3.19

20.1 ± 2.31

15.6 ± 2.70

H. halocynthiae

13.0 ± 2.99

19.2 ± 2.29

13.3 ± 2.56

H. halodenitrificans

14.5 ± 3.11

19.4 ± 2.29

14.6 ± 2.65

H. jeotgali

13.5 ± 3.03

19.9 ± 2.30

13.8 ± 2.59

H. smyrnensis

15.5 ± 3.18

20.3 ± 2.32

15.5 ± 2.70

H. stevensiss

13.5 ± 3.04

20.4 ± 2.32

13.8 ± 2.59

H. titanicae

13.0 ± 2.99

20.5 ± 2.32

13.3 ± 2.56

H. zhanjiangensis

13.2 ± 3.01

18.9 ± 2.28

13.5 ± 2.57

GenBank accession numbers for the reference genomes: H. anticariensis (NZ_ASTJ00000000), H. boliviensi (NZ_AGQZ00000000), H. campaniensis (CP007757), H. elongata (NC_014532), H. halocynthiae (AUDZ00000000), H. halodenitrificans (JHVH00000000), H. jeotgali (NZ_AMQY00000000), H. smyrnensis (NZ_AJKS00000000), H. stevensii (NZ_AJTS00000000), H. titanicae (NZ_AOPO00000000), H. zhanjiangensis (NZ_ARIT00000000).

As a halophilic bacterium, the genome of H. lutea also shows properties related to solute and ion transport, 203 genes related ion transport and metablism, 60 genes related TRAP-type C4-dicarboxylate transport system which is a crucial family of solute transporters. Moreover, nitrate reduction was tested using API 20NE system and 57 genes were predicted to participate in the nitrogen metabolism. PTS IIA-like nitrogen-regulatory protein, nitrate and sulfonate transport systems related genes were also detected in its genome.


The genome sequence and annotation of H. lutea YIM 91125T were presented. The genome comprises 42 scaffolds which together represent the organism of approximately 4.53 Mb. It encodes for key genes and pathways involved in the compatible solutes production and nitrogen degradation. This provides clues to discover novel genes and functions, and leads to an improved understanding of halophilic microbial evolution and function in the extremely salty conditions. YIM 91125T participates in nitrogen cycling, although the process of reducing nitrogen needs further studies to fully understand the related pathways. The genome sequencing of H. lutea marks an important step toward a comprehensive genomic catalog and the metabolic diversity of halophilic bacteria. It may contribute to further studies on important process for Halomonas, such as quorum-sensing regulatory and osmoadaption. Combining with genomes of other members in Halomonas, will make an important advance in understanding of the ecological roles that Halomonas species play in those hypersaline environments and their relationships with other halophilic and nonhalophilic microorganisms.



DNA-DNA hybridization


High-scoring segment pair.



Susanne Schneider is gratefully acknowledged the assistance for growing H. lutea cultures. We also thank Evelyne-Marie Brambilla for DNA extraction and quality control (both at the DSMZ). This work was performed under the auspices of the US Department of Energy's Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research Program, and by the University of California, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract No. DE-AC52-07NA27344. A. L. was supported in part by Russian Ministry of Science Mega-grant no. 11.G34.31.0068 (Dr. Stephen J O'Brien Principal Investigator). W.-J. Li was supported by ‘Hundred Talents Program’ of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

Authors’ Affiliations

Key Laboratory of Biogeography and Bioresource in Arid Land, Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Urumqi, China
Key Laboratory of Microbial Diversity in Southwest China, Ministry of Education and the Laboratory for Conservation and Utilization of Bio-Resources, Yunnan Institute of Microbiology, Yunnan University, Kunming, China
Theodosius Dobzhansky Center for Genome Bionformatics, St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russia
Algorithmic Biology Lab, St. Petersburg Academic University, St. Petersburg, Russia
DOE Joint Genome Institute, Walnut Creek, California, USA
Biological Data Management and Technology Center, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, USA
Leibniz-Institute DSMZ - German Collection of Microorganisms and Cell Cultures, Braunschweig, Germany
Department of Biological Sciences, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
The First Hospital of Qujing City, Qujing Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Qujing, China
State Key Laboratory Breeding Base for Zhejiang Sustainable Plant Pest Control, Institute of Quality and Standard for Agro-products, Zhejiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
School of Biology, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK


  1. Wang Y, Tang SK, Lou K, Mao PH, Jin X, Jiang CL, Xu LH, Li WJ: Halomonas lutea sp. nov., a moderately halophilic bacterium isolated from a salt lake. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2008, 58:2065–2069. 10.1099/ijs.0.65436-0View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Parte AC: LPSN-List of Prokaryotic names with Standing in nomenclature. Nucl Acids Res 2013, 41:1–4. 10.1093/nar/gks1039View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Kim OS, Cho YJ, Lee K, Yoon SH, Kim M, Na H, Park SC, Jeon YS, Lee JH, Yi H, Won S, Chun J: Introducing EzTaxon-e: a prokaryotic 16S rRNA gene sequence database with phylotypes that represent uncultured species. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2012, 62:716–21. 10.1099/ijs.0.038075-0View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Franzmann PD, Wehmeyer U, Stackebrandt E: Halomonadaceae fam. nov., a New Family of the Class Proteobacteria to Accommodate the Genera Halomonas and Deleya . Syst Appl Microbiol 1988, 11:16–19. 10.1016/S0723-2020(88)80043-2View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Anzai Y, Kim H, Park JY, Wakabayashi H, Oyaizu H: Phylogenetic affiliation of the pseudomonads based on 16S rRNA sequence. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2000, 50:1563–1589. 10.1099/00207713-50-4-1563View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Arahal DR, Ludwig W, Schleifer KH, Ventosa A: Phylogeny of the family Halomonadaceae based on 23S and 165 rDNA sequence analyses. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2002, 52:241–249.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Mellado E, Moore ERB, Nieto JJ, Ventosa A: Phylogenetic Inferences and Taxonomic Consequences of 16S Ribosomal DNA Sequence Comparison of Chromohalobacter marismortui , Volcaniella eurihalina , and Deleya salina and Reclassification of V. eurihalina as Halomonas eurihalina comb. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 1995, 45:712–716.Google Scholar
  8. Cabrera A, Aguilera M, Fuentes S, Incerti C, Russell NJ, Ramos-Cormenzana A, Monteoliva-Sánchez M: Halomonas indalinina sp. nov., a moderately halophilic bacterium isolated from a solar saltern in Cabo de Gata, Almería, southern Spain. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2007, 57:376–380. 10.1099/ijs.0.64702-0View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Kim KK, Jin L, Yang HC, Lee ST: Halomonas gomseomensis sp. nov., Halomonas janggokensis sp. nov., Halomonas salaria sp. nov. and Halomonas denitrificans sp. nov., moderately halophilic bacteria isolated from saline water. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2007, 57:675–681. 10.1099/ijs.0.64767-0View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Soto-Ramírez N, Sánchez-Porro C, Rosas S, González W, Quiñones M, Ventosa A, Montalvo-Rodríguez R: Halomonas avicenniae sp. nov., isolated from the salty leaves of the black mangrove Avicennia germinans in Puerto Rico. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2007, 57:900–905. 10.1099/ijs.0.64818-0View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Ventosa JJ, Nieto JJ, Oren A: Biology of moderately halophilic aerobic bacteria. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 1998, 62:504–544.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Wang YN, Cai H, Chi CQ, Lu AH, Lin XG, Jiang ZF, Wu XL: Halomonas shengliensis sp. nov., a moderately halophilic, denitrifying, crude-oil-utilizing bacterium. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2007, 57:1222–1226. 10.1099/ijs.0.64973-0View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Kyrpides NC, Hugenholtz P, Eisen JA, Woyke T, Goker M, Parker CT, Amann R, Beck BJ, Chain PS, Chun J, Colwell RR, Danchin A, Dawyndt P, Dedeurwaerdere T, DeLong EF, Detter JC, De Vos P, Donohue TJ, Dong XZ, Ehrlich DS, Fraser C, Gibbs R, Gilbert J, Gilna P, Glockner FO, Jansson JK, Keasling JD, Knight R, Labeda D, Lapidus A, et al.: Genomic encyclopedia of bacteria and archaea: sequencing a myriad of type strains. PLoS Biol 2014, 12:e1001920. 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001920View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Berendes F, Gottschalk G, Heine-Dobbernack E, Moore ERB, Tindall BJ: Halomonas desiderata sp. nov, a new alkaliphilic, halotolerant and denitrifying bacterium isolated from a municipal sewage works. Syst Appl Microbiol 1996, 19:158–167. 10.1016/S0723-2020(96)80041-5View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Romano I, Gottschalk G, Heine-Dobbernack E, Moore ERB, Tindall BJ: Characterization of a haloalkalophilic strictly aerobic bacterium, isolated from Pantelleria island. Syst Appl Microbiol 1996, 19:326–333. 10.1016/S0723-2020(96)80059-2View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Heyrman J, Balcaen A, De Vos P, Swings J: Halomonas muralis sp. nov., isolated from microbial biofilms colonizing the walls and murals of the Saint-Catherine chapel (Castle Herberstein, Austria). Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2002, 52:2049–2054. 10.1099/ijs.0.02166-0View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Jeon CO, Lim JM, Lee JR, Lee GS, Park DJ, Lee JC, Oh HW, Kim CJ: Halomonas kribbensis sp. nov., a novel moderately halophilic bacterium isolated from a solar saltern in Korea. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2007, 57:2194–2198. 10.1099/ijs.0.65285-0View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Field D, Garrity G, Gray T, Morrison N, Selengut J, Sterk P, Tatusova T, Thomson N, Allen MJ, Angiuoli SV, Ashburner M, Axelrod N, Baldauf S, Ballard S, Boore J, Cochrane G, Cole J, Dawyndt P, De Vos P, DePamphilis C, Edwards R, Faruque N, Feldman R, Gilbert J, Gilna P, Glöckner FO, Goldstein P, Guralnick R, Haft D, Hancock D, et al.: The minimum information about a genome sequence (MIGS) specification. Nat Biotechnol 2008, 26:541–547. 10.1038/nbt1360View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Woese CR, Kandler O, Wheelis ML: Towards a natural system of organisms: proposal for the domains Archaea, Bacteria, and Eucarya. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1990, 87:4576–4579. 10.1073/pnas.87.12.4576View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Garrity GM, Bell JA, Lilburn T: Phylum XIV. Proteobacteria phyl. nov. In Bergey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, Volume 2. 2nd edition. Edited by: Garrity GM, Brenner DJ, Krieg NR, Staley JT. New York: Springer; 2005.Google Scholar
  21. Garrity A: Validation of publication of new names and new combinations previously effectively published outside the IJSEM. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2005, 55:2235–2238.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Garrity GM, Bell JA, Lilburn T: Class III. Gammaproteobacteria class. nov. In Bergey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, Volume 2. 2nd edition. Edited by: Garrity GM, Brenner DJ, Krieg NR, Staley JT. New York: Springer; 2005.Google Scholar
  23. Garrity GM, Bell JA, Lilburn T: Order VIII. Oceanospirillales ord. nov. In Bergey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, Volume 2. 2nd edition. Edited by: Garrity GM, Brenner DJ, Krieg NR, Staley JT. New York: Springer; 2005.Google Scholar
  24. Vreeland R, Litchfield CD, Martin EL, Elliot E: Halomonas elongata , a new genus and species of extremely salt-tolerant bacteria. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 1980, 30:485–495.Google Scholar
  25. Ashburner M, Ball CA, Blake JA, Botstein D, Butler H, Cherry JM, Davis AP, Dolinski K, Dwight SS, Eppig JT, Harris MA, Hill DP, Issel-Tarver L, Kasarskis A, Lewis S, Matese JC, Richardson JE, Ringwald M, Rubin GM, Sherlock G: Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nat Genet 2000, 25:25–29. 10.1038/75556View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. DeSantis TZ, Hugenholtz P, Larsen N, Rojas M, Brodie EL, Keller K, Huber T, Dalevi D, Hu P, Andersen GL: Greengenes, a chimera-checked 16S rRNA gene database and workbench compatible with ARB. Appl Environ Microbiol 2006, 72:5069–5072. 10.1128/AEM.03006-05View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ: Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol 1990, 215:403–410. 10.1016/S0022-2836(05)80360-2View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Korf I, Yandell M, Bedell J: BLAST. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Press; 2003.Google Scholar
  29. Lee C, Grasso C, Sharlow MF: Multiple sequence alignment using partial order graphs. Bioinformatics 2002, 18:452–464. 10.1093/bioinformatics/18.3.452View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Saitou N, Nei M: The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol Biol Evol 1987, 4:406–425.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Strimmer K, von Haeseler A: Quartet puzzling: a quartet maximum-likelihood method for reconstructing tree topologies. Mol Biol Evol 1996, 13:964–969. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a025664View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Tamura K, Peterson D, Peterson N, Stecher G, Nei M, Kumar S: MEGA5: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis using maximum likelihood, evolutionary distance, and maximum parsimony methods. Mol Biol Evol 2011, 28:2731–2739. 10.1093/molbev/msr121View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Pattengale ND, Alipour M, Bininda-Emonds OR, Moret BM, Stamatakis A: How many bootstrap replicates are necessary? J Comput Biol 2010, 17:337–354. 10.1089/cmb.2009.0179View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Pagani I, Liolios K, Jansson J, Chen IM, Smirnova T, Nosrat B, Markowitz VM, Kyrpides NC: The Genomes OnLine Database (GOLD) v. 4: status of genomic and metagenomic projects and their associated metadata. Nucleic Acids Res 2012, 40:D571-D579. 10.1093/nar/gkr1100View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Göker M, Klenk HP: Phylogeny-driven target selection for genome-sequencing (and other) projects. Standards in Genomic Sci 2013, 8:360–374. 10.4056/sigs.3446951View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Klenk HP, Göker M: En route to a genome-based classification of Archaea and Bacteria? Syst Appl Microbiol 2010, 33:175–182. 10.1016/j.syapm.2010.03.003View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Kyrpides NC, Woyke T, Eisen JA, Garrity G, Lilburn TG, Beck BJ, Whitman WB, Hugenholz P, Klenk HP: Genomic Encyclopedia of Type Strains, Phase I: the one thousand microbial genomes (KMG-I) project. Stand Genomic Sci 2013, 9:628–634.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Wu D, Hugenholtz P, Mavromatis K, Pukall R, Dalin E, Ivanova NN, Kunin V, Goodwin L, Wu M, Tindall BJ, Hooper SD, Pati A, Lykidis A, Spring S, Anderson IJ, D'haeseleer P, Zemla A, Singer M, Lapidus A, Nolan M, Copeland A, Han C, Chen F, Cheng JF, Lucas S, Kerfeld C, Lang E, Gronow S, Chain P, Bruce D, et al.: A phylogeny-driven genomic encyclopaedia of Bacteria and Archaea. Nature 2009, 462:1056–1060. 10.1038/nature08656View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Mavromatis K, Land ML, Brettin TS, Quest DJ, Copeland A, Clum A, Goodwin L, Woyke T, Lapidus A, Klenk HP, Cottingham RW, Kyrpides NC: The fast changing landscape of sequencing technologies and their impact on microbial genome assemblies and annotation. PLOS ONE 2012, 7:e48837. 10.1371/journal.pone.0048837View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. List of growth media used at DSMZ []
  41. Gemeinholzer B, Dröge G, Zetzsche H, Haszprunar G, Klenk HP, Güntsch A, Berendsohn WG, Wägele JW: The DNA Bank Network: the start from a German initiative. Biopreserv Biobank 2011, 9:51–55. 10.1089/bio.2010.0029View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Bennett S: Solexa Ltd. Pharmacogenomics 2004, 5:433–438. 10.1517/14622416.5.4.433View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Zerbino D, Birney E: Velvet: algorithms for de novo short read assembly using de Bruijn graphs. Genome Res 2008, 18:821–829. 10.1101/gr.074492.107View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Wgsim []
  45. Gnerre S, MacCallum I: High-quality draft assemblies of mammalian genomes from massively parallel sequence data. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2011, 108:1513–1518. 10.1073/pnas.1017351108View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Hyatt D, Chen GL, LoCascio PF, Land ML, Larimer FW, Hauser LJ: Prodigal: prokaryotic gene recognition and translation initiati on site identification. BMC Bioinformatics 2010, 11:119. 10.1186/1471-2105-11-119View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Mavromatis K, Ivanova NN, Chen IM, Szeto E, Markowitz VM, Kyrpides NC: The DOE-JGI Standard operating procedure for the annotations of microbial genomes. Stand Genomic Sci 2009, 1:63–67. 10.4056/sigs.632View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Pati A, Ivanova NN, Mikhailova N, Ovchinnikova G, Hooper SD, Lykidis A, Kyrpides NC: GenePRIMP: a gene prediction improvement pipeline for prokaryotic genomes. Nat Methods 2010, 7:455–457. 10.1038/nmeth.1457View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Markowitz VM, Ivanova NN, Chen IMA, Chu K, Kyrpides NC: IMG ER: a system for microbial genome annotation expert review and curation. Bioinformatics 2009, 25:2271–2278. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp393View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Koechler S, Plewniak F, Barbe V, Battaglia-Brunet F, Jost B, Joulian C, Philipps M, Vicaire S, Vincent S, Ye T, Bertin PN: Genome Sequence of Halomonas sp. Strain A3H3, Isolated from Arsenic-Rich Marine Sediments. Genome Announc 2013, 1:e00819–13.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Richter M, Rosselló-Móra R: Shifting the genomic gold standard for the prokaryotic species definition. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2009, 106:19126–19131. 10.1073/pnas.0906412106View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Auch AF, von Jan M, Klenk HP, Göker M: Digital DNA-DNA hybridization for microbial species delineation by means of genome-to-genome sequence comparison. Stand Genomic Sci 2010, 2:117–134. 10.4056/sigs.531120View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Auch AF, Klenk HP, Göker M: Standard operating procedure for calculating genome-to-genome distances based on high-scoring segment pairs. Stand Genomic Sci 2010, 2:142–148. 10.4056/sigs.541628View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar


© Gao et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.