Skip to main content


  • Extended genome report
  • Open Access

High-quality draft genome sequence of a new phytase-producing microorganism Pantoea sp. 3.5.1

  • 1Email author,
  • 2,
  • 3,
  • 4,
  • 1,
  • 1 and
  • 1
Standards in Genomic Sciences201510:95

  • Received: 15 September 2015
  • Accepted: 2 November 2015
  • Published:


Strain 3.5.1 was isolated from soils of the Republic of Tatarstan, Russia, on the basis of presence of a high phytate-degrading activity. Strains with such activities attract special interest because of its potential use as feed additives and natural manures. Strain 3.5.1 harbors a 99 % 16S rRNA nucleotide sequence similarity to different Pantoea species (P. vagans, P. ananatis, P. agglomerans, P. anthophila and Pantoea sp.) and exhibits unique biochemical properties that do not allow strain identification up to species. Moreover, the strain 3.5.1 shows a low ANI and MALDI-TOF Mass Spectrometry scores. Thus, it is likely that the strain 3.5.1 represents a new Pantoea species. Here, we present the genome sequence of Pantoea sp. strain 3.5.1. The 4,964,649 bp draft genome consists of 23 contigs with 4,556 protein-coding and 143 RNA genes. Genome sequencing and annotation revealed two phytase genes and putative regulatory genes controlling its activity.


  • Strain 3.5.1
  • Pantoea
  • Genome
  • 454
  • Ion Torrent
  • Phytase


Up to 90 % of natural phosphorus in the World is present in the form of phytic acid or phytate and is often accumulated in livestock feces. This form of organic phosphorus cannot be utilized by monogastric farm animals and ends up polluting soils and contributes to the eutrophication of water environments [1, 2]. Moreover, phytate reduces the nutritional value of feeds because it chelates essential minerals such as calcium, iron, zinc, magnesium, manganese, copper and molybdenum [3]. Chemical (acid hydrolysis ion and exchange) or physical (autoclaving) methods to hydrolyze phytate are costly and reduce the nutrient value of feeds. Therefore, the search for of alternative methods of phytate hydrolysis is an important task. In light of this, identification and isolation of bacteria capable of enzymatic phytate hydrolysis is a promising approach that would simultaneously reduce environmental burden caused by current agricultural practices.

Phytases are specific group of phosphatases capable of phytate (myo-inositol 1,2,3,4,5,6-hexakisphosphate) hydrolysis with the formation of less phosphorylated inositol derivatives [4, 5]. There are a few reports on phytase-producing microbes from Russia; they include fungi [6, 7] and bacteria [5, 8, 9]. Here, we characterize a phytase-producing strain 3.5.1, present its classification and describe a set of its features along with the annotated genome sequence that provides important insights into several candidate genes involved in phytate hydrolysis. Strain 3.5.1 was isolated from a forest soil sample on a selective medium containing calcium phytate as the only source of phosphorus.

Organism Information

Classification and features

The genus Pantoea , within the Enterobacteriaceae family, consists of several species ( P. agglomerans , P. ananatis , P. dispersa , P. vagans and others) that generally inhabit numerous ecological niches, including plants, water, soil, humans and animals. Classification of these species had a long history before they were separated in the new Pantoea genus [10]. P. agglomerans (formerly Enterobacter agglomerans ) and P. dispersa were proposed as the first Pantoea species based on their DNA–DNA hybridization relatedness. Mergaert et al. proposed the name P. ananatis for Erwinia ananas [11]. Brady et al. isolated P. agglomerans -like strains and separated them into four novel species ( P. vagans , P. eucalypti , P. deleyi and P. anthophila ) based on MultiLocus Sequence Analysis and amplified fragment length polymorphism analysis [12]. Identification of Pantoea species through their nutritional characteristics or biochemical approaches has proven to be difficult. Currently, several strategies based on the use of genomic approaches have been reported to define Pantoea species [1316]. One of challenging approaches to construct the phylogenetic relationships among different bacterial isolates is a whole genome sequencing [17]. To date the NCBI database contains information about nine of 23 validly published Pantoea species genome assemblies.

Strain 3.5.1 was isolated from the forest soil near Agerze village, Aznakaevo district, Republic of Tatarstan, Russia [18, 19]. The isolate was characterized as Gram-negative, motile and rod-shaped bacterium 0.5 μm to 1.5 μm length (Fig. 1 and Table 1). Colonies were round, smooth and shiny after incubation at 37 °C for 24 h. Longer incubation (2–3 days) of the isolate resulted in production of yellow pigment. The strain 3.5.1 displayed phytate-hydrolyzing activity on PSM solid medium (2 % Glucose, 0.4 % Sodium phytate, 0.2 % CaCl2, 0.5 % NH4NO3, 0.05 % KCl, 0.05 % MgSO4 × 7H2O, 0.001 % FeSO4 × 7H2O, 0.001 % MnSO4 × H2O, 3 % Agar, pH 7.0), i.e. it was able to form halo zone around the colonies (clear zone reflecting solubilization of Ca-phytate in the agar medium) (Fig. 1A) [20, 21]. Thus, strain 3.5.1 has the unique characteristics of degradation of phytate and can potentially be used for the industrial production of microbial phytase; the enzyme could possibly be applied as phosphorus-mobilizing agent in soil or as a feed supplement for livestock production.
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

General characteristics of the strain 3.5.1. a Screening for phytate-hydrolyzing activity on PSM solid medium. Strain 3.5.1 is indicated by red arrow. b Phase contrast micrograph of the strain 3.5.1. c and d Scanning electron micrographs of the strain 3.5.1 (Carl Zeiss, Merlin)

Table 1

Classification and general features of Pantoea sp. 3.5.1. in accordance with the MIGS recommendations [42] as published by the Genome Standards Consortium [43]




Evidence codea



Domain Bacteria

TAS [44]


Phylum Proteobacteria

TAS [45]


Class Gammaproteobacteria

TAS [45, 46]


Order “Enterobacteriales”

TAS [4749]


Family Enterobacteriaceae

TAS [49]


Genus Pantoea

TAS [10, 50]


Species Pantoea sp.

TAS [51, 52]


Type strain: 3.5.1



Gram stain




Cell shape









Non-spore forming



Temperature range




Optimum temperature

+37 °C



pH range; Optimum

3.5–7; 5



Carbon source

D-glucose, lactose, maltose, mannite



Energy source









Not tested



Oxygen requirement

Facultative aerobic



Biotic relationship

Free living




Opportunistic pathogen



Geographic location

Agerze village, Aznakaevo district, Republic of Tatarstan, Russia



Sample collection

September 2010












25 cm




233 m


aEvidence codes - IDA: Inferred from Direct Assay; 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 [53]

Strain 3.5.1 was shown to be able to utilize the following carbon substrates: glucose, lactose, maltose and mannitol without gas formation, but unable to oxidize urea (tested on Kligler Iron Agar, Olkenitski's medium and Hiss media) [22, 23]. By API-20E test (bioMerieux, Inc.) it was shown that the strain 3.5.1 cannot utilize ornithine. The strain is resistant to tetracycline, chloramphenicol and erythromycin but susceptible to beta-lactam antibiotics like ampicillin and penicillin. These morphological and biochemical properties are consistent with the notion that this isolate likely belongs to the family Enterobacteriaceae .

The taxonomic position of the strain 3.5.1 was first evaluated by the comparison of 16S rRNA gene sequences with related sequences using blastn (nr/nt GenBank Database). The sequence showed 99 % identity to multiple 16S sequences from Pantoea species ( Pantoea spp., P. ananatis , P. vagans , P. agglomerans , P. conspicua and others). More detailed phylogenetic analysis of the strain 3.5.1 was performed using MEGA 6.0 software [24] with 16S rRNA gene sequences of 21 Pantoea species and 2 Escherichia coli strains as an outgroup (a complete/scaffold level genome sequences for all these species are available in NCBI database). However, our alignment allowed comparison of only variable regions V3 and V4 of 16S rRNA gene for these set of species, because not all completed sequences of these genes are available. Therefore, we eliminated several species from phylogenetic comparison to generate a tree based on the extended variable regions of 16S rRNA gene [25, 26]. Finally, 14 Pantoea species and 2 Escherichia coli strains were aligned, the incomplete sites on both 5′- and 3′-ends of the 16S rRNA gene sequences were excluded from the alignment. The remaining alignment sites (1208 bp), which included V1–V8 regions of 16S rRNA sequences, were selected for the subsequent analysis. Phylogenetic tree was generated using the Maximum likelihood (ML) algorithm with 1,000 bootstrap iterations (Fig. 2). As expected, two strains of E. coli (K-12 substr. MG1655 and O157:H16 Santai) could be clearly distinguished phylogenetically from species that belong to Pantoea genus. P. ananatis and P. stewartii belong to two different clades of the tree with high bootstrap support. However, certain clades, such as P. agglomerans , P. vagans and Pantoea sp., do not form clearly separate groups. Interestingly, despite the fact that the strain 3.5.1 forms a distinct node with P. agglomerans Eh318 and P. vagans C9-1, P. vagans species do not show motility at 37 C° and both with P. agglomerans strains are not able to hydrolyze lactose as a carbon source, unlike the strain 3.5.1 [12]. We also carried out the matrix-assisted laser-desorption/ionization time-of-flight MS protein analysis for the strain 3.5.1 using a Microflex spectrometer (Bruker Daltonics, Leipzig, Germany). Measurements were made as previously described [27]. Spectra of the strain 3.5.1 were imported into the MALDI BioTyper software (version 2.0; Bruker) and analyzed by standard pattern matching (with default parameter settings). The commercially available Bruker database contains 26 protein profiles of Pantoea species and 14 protein profiles of E. coli species. All these profiles were used as reference data to compare the strain 3.5.1 spectra. Strain 3.5.1 showed log (score) values between 1.6 and 2.0 which allowed defining only its genus identification. The 3.5.1 spectra obtained are shown as a dendrogram in Additional file 1. We then calculated average nucleotide identity values between the genome sequences of the strain 3.5.1 and 21 Pantoea species using the JSpecies software [28] based on the BLASTn method (ANIb) and the MUMmer algorithm (ANIm). Analysis of the 3.5.1 genome data yielded low ANI values (ANIb 74.88-85.11 % and ANIm 83.72-86.86 %) indicating that the strain 3.5.1 does not belong to previously characterized species (Additional file 2), since the lowest threshold for ANI clustering is 97 %. Since the strain 3.5.1 differs from known Pantoea species both biochemically and phylogenetically we designate our isolate as Pantoea sp. 3.5.1.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2

Maximum likelihood phylogenetic tree highlighting the position of the strain 3.5.1 relative to other species within the genus Pantoea based on 16S rRNA gene sequences. Bootstrap consensus tree were inferred from 1,000 replicates. Two E. coli strains were used as outgroup. The scale bar, 0,005 substitutions per nucleotide position. The phylogenetic tree was obtained by MEGA 6 software [44]. The corresponding GenBank accession numbers for 16S rRNA sequences are: NR_074740 (P. ananatis AJ13355), FJ611814 (P. ananatis LMG 20103), FJ611845 (P. ananatis LMG 5342), NC_017554 (P. ananatis PA13), NZ_JMRT02000019 (the strain 3.5.1), NZ_KK403348 (P. agglomerans Eh318), NR_102966 (P. vagans C9-1), JXXL01000005 (P. anthophila 11–2), FJ611810 (Pantoea sp. Sc1), AJ311838 (P. stewartii subsp. stewartii DC283), KJ830125 (P. stewartii M009), NR_119256 (P. stewartii subsp. indologenes LMG 2632), JX861128 (Pantoea sp. IMH), NZ_CP009454 (P. rwandensis ND04), NC_014837 (Pantoea sp. At-9b), NR_102804 (E. coli K-12 substr. MG1655), NZ_CP007592.1 (E. coli O157:H16 strain Santai)

Genome sequencing information

Genome project history

The genome of Pantoea sp. strain 3.5.1 was selected for whole genome sequencing because of its ability to produce phytase. Comparison of the strain 3.5.1 genome with other Pantoea species may provide insights into the molecular basis of phytase activity and metabolic features of this strain. The high-quality draft genome sequence was completed on March 27, 2015 and was deposited to GenBank as the Whole Genome Shotgun project under the accession number JMRT00000000 (current version JMRT00000000.2) and to the Genome OnLine Database with ID Gp0114842 [29]. A summary of the project information is shown in Table 2.
Table 2

Project information





Finishing quality

High quality draft


Libraries used

Two single-end libraries of 200 bp and 600 bp


Sequencing platforms

Ion Torrent PGM and 454 GS Junior

MIGS 31.2

Fold coverage




SPAdes 3.5.0


Gene calling method

GeneMark, RAST


Locus Tag



Genbank ID



GenBank Date of Release

April 16, 2015








Source Material Identifier



Project relevance

Phytase producer bacterium, Agricultural

Growth conditions and genomic DNA preparation

The Pantoea sp. strain 3.5.1 is deposited to the Russian National Collection of Industrial Microorganisms (VKPM) under the accession number В-11689.

For genomic DNA isolation bacterial culture was grown overnight in 25 mL LB medium at 37 °C with vigorous shaking. DNA was isolated using a Genomic DNA Purification Kit (Fermentas). DNA purity was tested by gel electrophoresis (1 % agarose gel) and DNA concentration was estimated by the Qubit 2.0 Fluorometer using the Qubit dsDNA (High Sensitivity) Assay Kit (Life Technologies).

Genome sequencing and assembly

The genomic DNA of Pantoea sp. 3.5.1 strain was sequenced with 32-fold overall genome coverage by a whole genome shotgun strategy. Two single-end libraries were used: a 200 bp-library for Ion Torrent PGM sequencing (performed in the Research Institute of Physical Chemical Medicine, Moscow, Russia) and 600 bp library for 454 GS Junior sequencing (performed in the Interdisciplinary Center for Proteomics Research, Kazan, Russia). Sequencing of the 200 bp library generated 349,046 reads, while sequencing of the 600 bp library generated 152,266 reads. Both read sets were assembled de novo using the SPAdes 3.5.0 assembler [30]. This strategy resulted in 23 contigs (>500 bp) with a calculated genome size of 4,964,649 bp and G + C content of 55,77 mol %. The N50 size of the resulted contigs was 562,444 bp.

Genome annotation

Genes of Pantoea sp. 3.5.1 strain were identified using the Prokaryotic Genomes Automatic Annotation Pipeline. The predicted CDSs were translated and analyzed against the NCBI non-redundant database, iPfam, TIGRfam, InterPro, KEGG, COG and IMG databases [3136]. The genome sequence was also uploaded into the RAST system [37] to check the annotated sequences.

Genome properties

The draft assembly of the genome consists of 23 contigs with the fragment size lager than 500 bp, N50 is 562,444 bp. Of the 4,699 genes predicted, 4,556 were protein-coding genes and 143 were RNA genes. Putative functions were assigned to the majority of the protein-coding genes (96.96 %), while the remaining ORFs (open reading frames) were annotated as hypothetical proteins. The distribution of genes into COGs functional categories is presented in Tables 3 and 4.
Table 3

Genome statistics



% of Total

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








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 genome

Extended insights

Most phytases of the family Enterobacteriaceae family belong to the group of histidine acid phosphatases as judged by their sequence and properties. Three phytase subgroups (AppA-related, Agp-related and PhyK phytases) can be identified within histidine acid phytases based on their substrate specificity and specific activity levels [38]. To gain insight into the phytate-degrading activity of Pantoea sp. 3.5.1 strain, we analyzed its genome for the presence of key genetic factors responsible for phytase activity of Enterobacteriaceae .

We detected genes for glucose-1-phosphatase and 3-phytase which are located on the first contig of the assembly (Additional file 3). However, no sequence homology was observed for an appA-related gene. Sequence analysis of the 3-phytase gene from Pantoea sp. 3.5.1 revealed maximal homology (77 % nucleotide identity) to phyK gene of P. vagans C9-1. A high degree of homology of glucose-1-phosphatase gene of 3.5.1 strain was found to glucose-1-phosphatases (agp) of P. vagans C9-1 (84 % nucleotide identity), Plautia stali symbiont (82 %), P. ananatis strains and P. rwandensis ND04 (81 %), Pantoea sp. At-9b (80 %), and E. coli 042 (72 %). Therefore, we show that Pantoea sp. 3.5.1 harbors two phytase-encoding genes (agp-related and phyK phytases) but lacks appA-like phytase genes.

There is still very little information available in regards to the regulation of phytate-degrading gene expression in bacteria. To date, regulation of two periplasmic phytases of E. coli (agp-encoded acid glucose-1-phosphatase and appA-encoded 3-phytase) have been described in great details [39]. Gene agp is constitutively expressed whereas expression of appA is induced by phosphate starvation and by transition to stationary phase. Gene appA is located within the appCBA operon and its regulation occurs by two inducible promoters. We compared phytase genes, their position and context in the Pantoea sp. 3.5.1 genome with agp and appA genes of E. coli . Neither Pantoea sp. 3.5.1 phytase genes (agp and phyK) have similar locations to genome context of E. coli but are comparable with P. vagans C9-1 genome context. However we identified two genes which can possibly participate in the regulation of phytase activity similar to the situation in E. coli : the rpoS gene (RNA polymerase sigma factor RpoS) and araC-like gene (DNA-binding domain-containing protein which belongs to the AraC/XylS family). These regulatory genes are active in anaerobic conditions, phosphate starvation and during entry into stationary phase. Thus, the mechanism of phytase activity regulation in Pantoea sp. 3.5.1 might be similar to E. coli . Figure 3 shows the results of full genome comparison between the Pantoea sp. 3.5.1 strain and P. vagans C9-1 using BLAST Ring Image Generator comparison tool [40]. We also designated the local positions of two detected phytase genes and its possible regulatory genes.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3

Circular representation of the genome comparison between the Pantoea sp. 3.5.1 strain and P. vagans C9-1. The inner ring shows GC content (in black) and GC skew (in purple/green). Color intensity within the circle represents the levels of nucleotide homology (from 70 % to 100 %). The external ring shows CDS of two detected phytase genes and the candidate regulatory genes

Regulation of intracellular phytase activity has also been investigated in rhizospheric strain of Serratia plymuthica IC1270 [41]. It was shown that the GrrS/GrrA system (also known as GacS/GacA and BarA/UvrY) and RpoS factor are implicated in phytase production in S. plymuthica . Both genes of GrrS/GrrA two-component signal transduction system were also predicted in genome assembly of Pantoea sp. 3.5.1.


In the current study, we characterized the genome of the Pantoea strain 3.5.1 that was isolated from soils of the Republic of Tatarstan, Russia. The strain exhibits high phytate-degrading activity. Phylogenetically the Pantoea strain 3.5.1 is positioned between P. agglomerans and P. vagans , but the strain 3.5.1 is characterized by phenotypic differences. Thus, it is likely that this strain represents a new Pantoea species. In order to improve the understanding of the molecular basis for the ability of Pantoea sp. 3.5.1 strain to hydrolyze phytate we performed detailed genome sequencing and annotation. We also identified three regulatory genes encoding transcriptional factors.



Phytase screening medium


non-redundant nucleotide



We are grateful to Dr. Lydia M. Bogomolnaya and Dr. Eugene V. Shakirov for insightful discussions and correction of the manuscript. We thank the genomic laboratory staff of the Research Institute of Physical Chemical Medicine, Moscow (Russia) and the Interdisciplinary Center for Collective Use of Kazan Federal University, Kazan (Russia) for whole genome sequencing. We also thank Vladimir G. Evtugyn (Interdisciplinary Center for Analytical Microscopy, Kazan Federal University, Kazan, Russia) for excellent technical assistance with transmission electron microscopy.

The research was performed using the equipment of Interdisciplinary centre for shared use of Kazan Federal University, which is supported by The Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation (ID RFMEFI59414X0003).

This work was financially supported by the subsidy allocated to Kazan Federal University for the state support of scientific activities [project №14-83 0211/02.11.10083.001], by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research [project no. 12-08-00942a] and by the Government of Russian Federation [grant 074-U01]. This work was performed in accordance with the Russian Government Program of Competitive Growth of Kazan Federal University.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

Laboratory of Biosynthesis and Bioengineering of the Enzymes, Institute of Fundamental Medicine and Biology, Kazan (Volga region) Federal University, Kazan, Russia
Interdisciplinary Center for Proteomics Research, Kazan (Volga region) Federal University, Kazan, Russia
Omics Technologies Laboratory, Kazan (Volga region) Federal University, Kazan, Russia
Computer Technologies Laboratory, Information Technologies, Mechanics & Optics University, Saint Petersburg, Russia


  1. Harland BF, Morris ER. Phytate: A good or a bad food component? Nutr Res. 1995;15:733–54.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Smith VH. Eutrophication of freshwater and coastal marine ecosystems: A global problem. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2003;10:126–39.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Nolan KB, Duffin PA, Mc. Weeny DJ. Effects of phytate on mineral bioavailability. In vitro studies on Mg, Ca, Fe, Cu and Zn (also CD) solubilities in the presence of phytate. J Sci Food Agric. 1987;40:79–85.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Oh BC, Choi WC, Park S, Kim YO, Oh TK. Biochemical properties and substrate specificities of alkaline and histidine acid phytases. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2004;63:362–72.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Mukhametzianova AD, Akhmetova AI, Sharipova MR. Microorganisms as phytase producers. Microbiol (Mikrobiologiya, Moscow). 2012;81:267–75.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Sinitsyna OA, Fedorova EA, Gusakov AV, Uporov IV, Sokolova LM, Bubnova TM, et al. Isolation and characterization of extracellular phytase a from Penicillium canescens. Russ J Bioorganic Chem. 2006;71:1260–8.Google Scholar
  7. Rozhkova AM, Sereda AS, Tsurikova NV, Nurtaeva AK, Semenova MV, Rimareva LV, et al. Creation of a heterologous gene expression system on the basis of Aspergillus awamori recombinant strain. Appl Biochem Microbiol (Prikl Biokhim Mikrobiol, Moscow). 2011;47:279–87.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Shedova EN, Berezina OV, Khmel' IA, Lipasova VA, Borriss R, Velikodvorskaia GA. Phytase activity in some groups of bacteria. Search for and cloning of genes for bacterial phytases. Mol Gen Mikrobiol Virusol (Moscow). 2004;1:18–21.Google Scholar
  9. Akhmetova AI, Nyamsuren C, Balaban NP, Sharipova MR. Isolation and characterization of a new bacillary phytase. Russ J Bioorganic Chem. 2013;39:384–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Gavini F, Mergaert J, Beji A, Mielcarek C, Izard D, Kersters K, et al. Transfer of Enterobacter agglomerans (Beijerinck 1888) Ewing and Fife 1972 to Pantoea gen. nov. as Pantoea agglomerans comb. nov. and description of Pantoea dispersa sp. nov. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1989;39:337–45.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Mergaert J, Verdonck L, Kersters K. Transfer of Erwinia ananas (synonym, Erwinia uredovora) and Erwinia stewartii to the genus Pantoea emend. as Pantoea ananas (Serrano 1928) comb. nov. and Pantoea stewartii (Smith 1898) comb. nov., respectively, and description of Pantoea stewartii subsp. indologenes subsp. nov. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1993;43:162–73.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Brady CL, Venter SN, Cleenwerck I, Engelbeen K, Vancanneyt M, Swings J, et al. Pantoea vagans sp. nov., Pantoea eucalypti sp. nov., Pantoea deleyi sp. nov. and Pantoea anthophila sp. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2009;59:2339–45.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Brady C, Cleenwerck I, Venter S, Vancanneyt M, Swings J, Coutinho T. Phylogeny and identification of Pantoea species associated with plants, humans and the natural environment based on multilocus sequence analysis (MLSA). Syst Appl Microbiol. 2008;31:447–60.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Brady C, Venter S, Cleenwerck I, Vancanneyt M, Swings J, Coutinho T. A FAFLP system for the improved identification of plant-pathogenic and plant-associated species of the genus Pantoea. Syst Appl Microbiol. 2007;30:413–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Delétoile A, Decré D, Courant S, Passet V, Audo J, Grimont P, et al. Phylogeny and identification of Pantoea species and typing of Pantoea agglomerans strains by multilocus gene sequencing. J Clin Microbiol. 2009;47:300–10.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Tambong JT, Xu R, Kaneza CA, Nshogozabahizi JC. An In-depth analysis of a multilocus phylogeny identifies leuS as a reliable phylogenetic marker for the genus Pantoea. Evol Bioinform Online. 2014;10:115–25.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Eisen JA. Assessing evolutionary relationships among microbes from whole-genome analysis. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2000;3:475–80.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Suleimanova AD, Danilova YV, Sharipova MR, Greiner R. A new intracellular phytase of enterobacteria: isolation and characterization. Russ J Bioorganic Chem. 2013;39:378–83.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Suleimanova AD, Beinhauer A, Valeeva LR, Chastukhina IB, Balaban NP, Shakirov EV, et al. A novel glucose-1-phosphatase with high phytase activity and unusual metal ion activation is produced by the soil bacterium Pantoea. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2015. in pressGoogle Scholar
  20. Mukesh P, Suma S, Singaracharya MA, Lakshmipathi V. Isolation of phytate-hydrolysing microbial strains from traditional waste water of rice fermentation and liquid cattle feeds. World J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2004;20:531–4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Sasirekha B, Bedashree T, Champa KL. Optimization and partial purification of extracellular phytase from Pseudomonas aeruginosa p6. Eur J Exp Biol. 2012;2:95–104.Google Scholar
  22. Garanin BA, Nesmelova ZP, Gurileva NP, Solodova FG. Trial of the use of Olkenitski's medium for the study of bacteria of the Enterobacteriaceae group. Lab Delo. 1965;8:498–500.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Cote RJ, Gherna RL. Nutrition and Media. In: Gerhardt P, Murray RGE, Wood WA, Krieg NR, editors. Methods for general and molecular bacteriology. Washington, D.C: American Society for Microbiology; 1994. p. 157–77.Google Scholar
  24. Tamura K, Stecher G, Peterson D, Filipski A, Kumar S. MEGA6: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis version 6.0. Mol Biol Evol. 2013;30:2725–9.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Van de Peer Y, Chapelle S, De Wachter R. A quantitative map of nucleotide substitution rates in bacterial rRNA. Nucleic Acids Res. 1996;24:3381–91.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Kim M, Morrison M, Yu Z. Evaluation of different partial 16S rRNA gene sequence regions for phylogenetic analysis of microbiomes. J Microbiol Methods. 2011;84:81–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Seng P, Drancourt M, Gouriet F, La Scola B, Fournier PE, Rolain JM, et al. Ongoing revolution in bacteriology: routine identification of bacteria by matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;49:543–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Richter M, Rosselló-Móra R. Shifting the genomic gold standard for the prokaryotic species definition. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2009;106:19126–31.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Liolios K, Chen IM, Mavromatis K, Tavernarakis N, Hugenholtz P, Markowitz VM, et al. The Genomes On Line Database (GOLD) in 2009: status of genomic and metagenomic projects and their associated metadata. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010;38:D346–54.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Nurk S, Bankevich A, Antipov D, Gurevich AA, Korobeynikov A, Lapidus A, et al. Assembling single-cell genomes and mini-metagenomes from chimeric MDA products. J Comput Biol. 2013;20:714–37.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Finn RD, Miller BL, Clements J, Bateman A. iPfam: a database of protein family and domain interactions found in the Protein Data Bank. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42:D364–73.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Haft DH, Selengut JD, White O. The TIGRFAMs database of protein families. Nucl Acids Res. 2003;31:371–3.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Jones P, Binns D, Chang HY, Fraser M, Li W, McAnulla C, et al. InterProScan 5: genome-scale protein function classification. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:1236–40.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Kanehisa M, Goto S. KEGG: Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes. Nucl Acids Res. 2000;28:27–30.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Tatusov RL, Koonin EV, Lipman DJ. A genomic perspective on protein families. Science. 1997;278:631–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Markowitz VM, Chen IM, Palaniappan K, Chu K, Szeto E, Pillay M, et al. IMG 4 version of the integrated microbial genomes comparative analysis system. Nucl Acids Res. 2014;42:D560–7.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Aziz RK, Bartels D, Best AA, DeJongh M, Disz T, Edwards RA, et al. The RAST Server: rapid annotations using subsystems technology. BMC Genomics. 2008. doi:10.1186/1471-2164-9-75.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Böhm K, Herter T, Müller JJ, Borriss R, Heinemann U. Crystal structure of Klebsiella sp. ASR1 phytase suggests substrate binding to a preformed active site that meets the requirements of a plant rhizosphere enzyme. FEBS J. 2010;277:1284–96.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Greiner R. Phytate-degrading enzymes: regulation of synthesis in microorganisms and plants. In: Turner BL, Richardson AE, Mullaney EJ, editors. Inositol Phosphates: Linking Agriculture and the Environment. UK, Wallingford: CAB International; 2007. p. 78–96.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Alikhan NF, Petty NK, Ben Zakour NL, Beatson SA. BLAST Ring Image Generator (BRIG): simple prokaryote genome comparisons. BMC Genomics. 2011;12:402.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Shedova E, Lipasova V, Velikodvorskaya G, Ovadis M, Chernin L, Khmel I. Phytase activity and its regulation in a rhizospheric strain of Serratia plymuthica. Folia Microbiol (Praha). 2008;53:110–4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Field D, Garrity G, Gray T, Morrison N, Selengut J, Sterk P, et al. The minimum information about a genome sequence (MIGS) specification. Nat Biotechnol. 2008;26:541–7.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Field D, Amaral-Zettler L, Cochrane G, Cole JR, Dawyndt P, Garrity GM, et al. Clarifying concepts and terms in biodiversity informatics. PLoS Biol. 2011;9:e1001088.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 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;87:4576–9.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Garrity GM, Bell JA, Lilburn T. Phylum XIV. Proteobacteria phyl nov. In: Brenner DJ, Krieg NR, Stanley JT, Garrity GM, editors. Bergey’s manual of systematic bacteriology. (The Proteobacteria part B The Gammaproteobacteria). New York: Springer; 2005. p. 1.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Garrity GM, Bell JA, Lilburn T. Class III. Gammaproteobacteria class. nov. In: Garrity GM, Brenner DJ, Krieg NR, Staley JT, editors. Bergey’s manual of systematic bacteriology. New York: Springer; 2005. p. 1.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Garrity GM, Holt JG. Taxonomic outline of the Archaea and Bacteria. In: Boone DR, Castenholz RW, editors. Bergey’s manual of systematic bacteriology. (The Archaea and the deeply branching and phototrophic Bacteria). New York: Springer; 2001. p. 155–66.Google Scholar
  48. Rahn O. New principles for the classification of bacteria. Zentralbl Bakteriol Parasitenkd Infektionskr Hyg. 1937;96:273–86.Google Scholar
  49. Commission J. Conservation of the family name Enterobacteriaceae, of the name of the type genus, and designation of the type species Opinion No. 15. Int Bull Bacteriol Nomencl Taxon. 1958;8:74.Google Scholar
  50. Brady CL, Cleenwerck I, Venter SN, Engelbeen K, De Vos P, Coutinho TA. Emended description of the genus Pantoea, description of four species from human clinical samples, Pantoea septica sp. nov., Pantoea eucrina sp. nov., Pantoea brenneri sp. nov. and Pantoea conspicua sp. nov., and transfer of Pectobacterium cypripedii (Hori 1911) Brenner et al. 1973 emend. Hauben et al. 1998 to the genus as Pantoea cypripedii comb. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2010;60:2430–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Tian H, Jing C. Genome sequence of the aerobic arsenate-reducing bacterium Pantoea sp. strain IMH. Genome Announc. 2014; doi:10.1128/genomeA.00267-14.Google Scholar
  52. Tan WS, Muhamad Yunos NY, Tan PW, Mohamad NI, Adrian TG, Yin WF, Chan KG. Pantoea sp. isolated from tropical fresh water exhibiting N-acyl homoserine lactone production. Sci World J. 2014; doi:10.1155/2014/828971.Google Scholar
  53. Ashburner M, Ball CA, Blake JA, Botstein D, Butler H, Cherry JM, et al. Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. The Gene Ontology Consortium. Nat Genet. 2000;25:25–9.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar


© Suleimanova et al. 2015