Skip to main content

Advertisement

Genome sequence of Microvirga lupini strain LUT6T, a novel Lupinus alphaproteobacterial microsymbiont from Texas

Article metrics

Abstract

Microvirga lupini LUT6T is an aerobic, non-motile, Gram-negative, non-spore-forming rod that can exist as a soil saprophyte or as a legume microsymbiont of Lupinus texensis. LUT6T was isolated in 2006 from a nodule recovered from the roots of the annual L. texensis growing in Travis Co., Texas. LUT6T forms a highly specific nitrogen-fixing symbiosis with endemic L. texensis and no other Lupinus species can form an effective nitrogen-fixing symbiosis with this isolate. Here we describe the features of M. lupini LUT6T, together with genome sequence information and its annotation. The 9,633,614 bp improved high quality draft genome is arranged into 160 scaffolds of 1,366 contigs containing 10,864 protein-coding genes and 87 RNA-only encoding genes, and is one of 20 rhizobial genomes sequenced as part of a DOE Joint Genome Institute 2010 Community Sequencing Project.

Introduction

Microvirga is one of the most recently discovered genera of Proteobacteria known to engage in symbiotic nitrogen fixation with legume plants, and joins a diverse set of at least twelve other lineages of Proteobacteria that share this ecological niche [14]. Several genera of legume root-nodule symbionts have a world-wide distribution and interact with many legume taxa. By contrast, symbiotic strains of Microvirga are currently known from two distant locations and only two legume host genera [5,6]. The limited geographic and host distribution of Microvirga symbionts, along with the fact that root-nodule symbiosis is not characteristic of the genus Microvirga as a whole [7], suggest a relatively recent evolutionary transition to legume symbiosis in this group.

M. lupini is a specialized nodule symbiont associated with the legume Lupinus texensis, an annual plant endemic to a relatively small geographic area in central Texas and northeastern Mexico [5]. The genus Lupinus has about 270 annual and perennial species concentrated in western North America and in Andean regions of South America, and a much smaller number of species in the Mediterranean region of Europe and northern Africa [8]. Basal lineages of Lupinus all occur in the Mediterranean and are associated with bacterial symbionts in the genus Bradyrhizobium [9,10]. Bradyrhizobium is also the main symbiont lineage for most Lupinus species in North and South America, although a few Lupinus species utilize nodule bacteria in the genus Mesorhizobium [1013]. Thus, the acquisition of symbionts in the genus Microvirga by plants of L. texensis appears to be an unusual, derived condition for this legume genus.

L. texensis occurs in grassland and open shrub communities with an annual precipitation of 50 – 100 cm, on diverse soil types [14]. L. texensis appears to have a specialized symbiotic relationship with M. lupini in that existing surveys have failed to detect nodule symbionts of any other bacterial genus associated with this plant [5]. Moreover, inoculation experiments with other North American species of Lupinus, as well as other legume genera, have so far failed to identify any plant besides L. texensis that is capable of forming an effective, nitrogen-fixing symbiosis with M. lupini [5]. M. lupini strain Lut6T was isolated from a nodule collected from a L. texensis plant in Travis Co., Texas in 2006. Here we provide an analysis of the complete genome sequence of M. lupini strain Lut6T; one of the three described symbiotic species of Microvirga [15].

Classification and general features

M. lupini LUT6T is a non-motile, Gram-negative rod in the order Rhizobiales of the class Alphaproteobacteria. The rod-shaped form varies in size with dimensions of 1.0 µm for width and 1.5–2.0 µm for length (Figure 1 Left and Center). It is fast growing, forming colonies within 3–4 days when grown on half strength Lupin Agar (½LA) [16], tryptone-yeast extract agar (TY) [17] or a modified yeast-mannitol agar (YMA) [18] at 28°C. Colonies on ½LA are white-opaque, slightly domed and moderately mucoid with smooth margins (Figure 1 Right).

Figure 1.
figure1

Images of M. lupini LUT6T using scanning (Left) and transmission (Center) electron microscopy and the appearance of colony morphology on solid medium (Right).

Minimum Information about the Genome Sequence (MIGS) is provided in Table 1. Figure 2 shows the phylogenetic neighbor-hood of M. lupini LUT6T in a 16S rRNA sequence based tree. This strain shares 100% (1,358/1,358 bases) and 98% (1,344/1,367 bases) sequence identity to the 16S rRNA of Microvirga sp. Lut5 and Microvirga lotononidis WSM3557T, respectively.

Figure 2.
figure2

Phylogenetic tree showing the relationship of M. lupini LUT6T (shown in bold print) to other root nodule bacteria in the order Rhizobiales based on aligned sequences of the 16S rRNA gene (1,320 bp internal region). All sites were informative and there were no gap-containing sites. Phylogenetic analyses were performed using MEGA, version 5 [31]. The tree was built using the Maximum-Likelihood method with the General Time Reversible model [32]. Bootstrap analysis [33] with 500 replicates was performed to assess the support of the clusters. Type strains are indicated with a superscript T. Brackets after the strain name contain a DNA database accession number and/or a GOLD ID (beginning with the prefix G) for a sequencing project registered in GOLD [34]. Published genomes are indicated with an asterisk.

Table 1. Classification and general features of M. lupini LUT6T according to the MIGS recommendations [19,20]

Symbiotaxonomy

M. lupini strain Lut6T was isolated in from a nodule collected from Lupinus texensis growing near Travis Co., Texas. The symbiotic characteristics of this isolate on a range of selected hosts are provided in Table 2.

Table 2. Nodulation and N2 fixation properties of M. lupini Lut6T on selected legumes.

Genome sequencing and annotation

Genome project history

This organism was selected for sequencing on the basis of its environmental and agricultural relevance to issues in global carbon cycling, alternative energy production, and biogeochemical importance, and is part of the Community Sequencing Program at the U.S. Department of Energy, Joint Genome Institute (JGI) for projects of relevance to agency missions. The genome project is deposited in the Genomes OnLine Database [34] and an improved-high-quality-draft genome sequence in IMG. Sequencing, finishing and annotation were performed by the JGI. A summary of the project information is shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Genome sequencing project information for M. lupini LUT6T.

Genome sequencing and assembly

The genome of M. lupini LUT6T was sequenced at the Joint Genome Institute (JGI) using a combination of Illumina [37] and 454 technologies [38]. An Illumina GAii shotgun library which generated 77,090,752 reads totaling 5,858.9 Mbp, and a paired end 454 library with an average insert size of 8 Kbp which generated 238,026 reads totaling 81.4 Mb of 454 data were generated for this genome [36].

All general aspects of library construction and sequencing performed at the JGI can be found at [36]. The initial draft assembly contained 1,719 contigs in 6 scaffolds. The 454 paired end data were assembled together with Newbler, version 2.3-PreRelease-6/30/2009. The Newbler consensus sequences were computationally shredded into 2 Kbp overlapping fake reads (shreds). Illumina sequencing data was assembled with VELVET, version 1.0.13 [39], and the consensus sequence computationally shredded into 1.5 Kbp overlapping fake reads (shreds). The 454 Newbler consensus shreds, the Illumina VELVET consensus shreds and the read pairs in the 454 paired end library were integrated using parallel phrap, version SPS - 4.24 (High Performance Software, LLC). The software Consed [4042] was used in the following finishing process. Illumina data was used to correct potential base errors and increase consensus quality using the software Polisher developed at JGI [43]. Possible mis-assemblies were corrected using gapResolution (Cliff Han, unpublished) or Dupfinisher [44]. Some gaps between contigs were closed by editing in Consed. The estimated genome size is 10.3 Mb and the final assembly is based on 36.2 Mb of 454 draft data which provides an average 3.5x coverage of the genome and 3,090 Mbp of Illumina draft data which provides an average 300x coverage of the genome.

Genome annotation

Genes were identified using Prodigal [45] as part of the DOE-JGI annotation pipeline [46]. The predicted CDSs were translated and used to search the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) nonredundant database, UniProt, TIGRFam, Pfam, PRIAM, KEGG, COG, and InterPro databases. The tRNAScanSE tool [47] was used to find tRNA genes, whereas ribosomal RNA genes were found by searches against models of the ribosomal RNA genes built from SILVA [48]. Other non-coding RNAs such as the RNA components of the protein secretion complex and the RNase P were identified by searching the genome for the corresponding Rfam profiles using INFERNAL [49]. Additional gene prediction analysis and manual functional annotation was performed within the Integrated Microbial Genomes (IMG-ER) platform [50].

Genome properties

The genome is 9,633,614 nucleotides long with 60.26% GC content (Table 4) and comprised of 160 scaffolds (Figure 3) of 1,366 contigs. From a total of 10,951 genes, 10,864 were protein encoding and 87 RNA only encoding genes. The majority of genes (63.25%) were assigned a putative function whilst the remaining genes were annotated as hypothetical. The distribution of genes into COGs functional categories is presented in Table 5.

Figure 3.
figure3

Graphical map of the genome of Microvirga lupini LUT6T showing the four largest scaffolds. From bottom to the top of each scaffold: Genes on forward strand (color by COG categories as denoted by the IMG platform), Genes on reverse strand (color by COG categories), RNA genes (tRNAs green, sRNAs red, other RNAs black), GC content, GC skew.

Table 4. Genome statistics for Microvirga lupini LUT6T
Table 5. Number of protein coding genes of Microvirga lupini LUT6T associated with the general COG functional categories.

References

  1. 1.

    Ardley JK. Symbiotic specificity and nodulation in the southern African legume clade Lotononis s. l. and description of novel rhizobial species within the Alphaproteobacterial genus Microvirga: Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA, Australia; 2012.

  2. 2.

    Gyaneshwar P, Hirsch AM, Moulin L, Chen WM, Elliott GN, Bontemps C, Estrada-de Los Santos P, Gross E, Dos Reis FB, Sprent JI, et al. Legume-nodulating betaproteobacteria: diversity, host range, and future prospects. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 2011; 24:1276–1288. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/MPMI-06-11-0172

  3. 3.

    Maynaud G, Willems A, Soussou S, Vidal C, Maure L, Moulin L, Cleyet-Marel JC, Brunel B. Molecular and phenotypic characterization of strains nodulating Anthyllis vulneraria in mine tailings, and proposal of Aminobacter anthyllidis sp. nov., the first definition of Aminobacter as legume-nodulating bacteria. Syst Appl Microbiol 2012; 35:65–72. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.syapm.2011.11.002

  4. 4.

    Willems A. The taxonomy of rhizobia; an overview. Plant Soil 2006; 287:3–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11104-006-9058-7

  5. 5.

    Andam CP, Parker MA. Novel alphaproteobacterial root nodule symbiont associated with Lupinus texensis. Appl Environ Microbiol 2007; 73:5687–5691. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01413-07

  6. 6.

    Yates RJ, Howieson JG, Reeve WG, Nandasena KG, Law IJ, Bräu L, Ardley JK, Nistelberger HM, Real D, O’Hara GW. Lotononis angolensis forms nitrogen fixing, lupinoid nodules with phylogenetically unique, fast-growing, pink-pigmented bacteria, which do not nodulate L. bainesii or L. listii. Soil Biol Biochem 2007; 39:1680–1688. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.01.025

  7. 7.

    Weon HY, Kwon SW, Son JA, Jo EH, Kim SJ, Kim YS, Kim BY, Ka JO. Description of Microvirga aerophila sp. nov. and Microvirga aerilata sp. nov., isolated from air, reclassification of Balneimonas flocculansTakeda et al. 2004 as Microvirga flocculans comb. nov. and emended description of the genus Microvirga. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2010; 60:2596–2600 PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.018770-0

  8. 8.

    Drummond CS, Eastwood RJ, Miotto ST, Hughes CE. Multiple continental radiations and correlates of diversification in Lupinus (Leguminosae): testing for key innovation with incomplete taxon sampling. Syst Biol 2012; 61:443–460. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syr126

  9. 9.

    Jarabo-Lorenzo A, Velazquez E, Perez-Galdona R, Vega-Hernandez MC, Martinez-Molina E, Mateos PF, Vinuesa P, Martinez-Romero E, Leon-Barrios M. Restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis of 16S rDNA and low molecular weight RNA profiling of rhizobial isolates from shrubby legumes endemic to the Canary islands. Syst Appl Microbiol 2000; 23:418–425. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0723-2020(00)80073-9

  10. 10.

    Stepkowski T, Hughes CE, Law IJ, Markiewicz L, Gurda D, Chlebicka A, Moulin L. Diversification of lupine Bradyrhizobium strains: evidence from nodulation gene trees. Appl Environ Microbiol 2007; 73:3254–3264. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02125-06

  11. 11.

    Barrera LL, Trujillo ME, Goodfellow M, Garcia FJ, Hernandez-Lucas I, Davila G, van Berkum P, Martinez-Romero E. Biodiversity of bradyrhizobia nodulating Lupinus spp. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 1997; 47:1086–1091. PubMed

  12. 12.

    Koppell JH, Parker MA. Phylogenetic clustering of Bradyrhizobium symbionts on legumes indigenous to North America. Microbiology 2012; 158:2050–2059. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1099/mic0.059238-0

  13. 13.

    Simms EL, Taylor DL, Povich J, Shefferson RP, Sachs JL, Urbina M, Tausczik Y. An empirical test of partner choice mechanisms in a wild legume-Rhizobium interaction. Proceedings of Biological Sciences 2006;273(1582):77–81.

  14. 14.

    Nixon ES. Edaphic responses of Lupinus texensis and Lupinus subcarnosus. Ecology 1964; 45:459–469. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1936099

  15. 15.

    Ardley JK, Parker MA, De Meyer SE, Trengove RD, O’Hara GW, Reeve WG, Yates RJ, Dilworth MJ, Willems A, Howieson JG. Microvirga lupini sp. nov., Microvirga lotononidis sp. nov. and Microvirga zambiensis sp. nov. are alphaproteobacterial root-nodule bacteria that specifically nodulate and fix nitrogen with geographically and taxonomically separate legume hosts. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2012; 62:2579–2588. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.035097-0

  16. 16.

    Howieson JG, Ewing MA, D’antuono MF. Selection for acid tolerance in Rhizobium meliloti. Plant Soil 1988; 105:179–188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02376781

  17. 17.

    Beringer JE. R factor transfer in Rhizobium leguminosarum. J Gen Microbiol 1974; 84:188–198. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1099/00221287-84-1-188

  18. 18.

    Terpolilli JJ. Why are the symbioses between some genotypes of Sinorhizobium and Medicago suboptimal for N2 fixation? Perth: Murdoch University; 2009. 223 p.

  19. 19.

    Field D, Garrity G, Gray T, Morrison N, Selengut J, Sterk P, Tatusova T, Thomson N, Allen M, Angiuoli SV, et al. Towards a richer description of our complete collection of genomes and metagenomes “Minimum Information about a Genome Sequence” (MIGS) specification. Nat Biotechnol 2008; 26:541–547. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt1360

  20. 20.

    Woese CR, Kandler O, Wheelis ML. Towards a natural system of organisms: proposal for the domains Archaea, Bacteria, and Eucarya. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1990; 87:4576–4579. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.87.12.4576

  21. 21.

    Garrity GM, Bell JA, Lilburn T. Phylum XIV. Proteobacteria phyl. nov. In: Garrity GM, Brenner DJ, Krieg NR, Staley JT (eds), Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, Second Edition, Volume 2, Part B, Springer, New York, 2005, p. 1

  22. 22.

    Garrity GM, Bell JA, Lilburn T. Class I. Alphaproteobacteria class. nov. In: Garrity GM, Brenner DJ, Krieg NR, Staley JT (eds), Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, Second Edition, Volume 2, Part C, Springer, New York, 2005, p. 1.

  23. 23.

    Validation List No. 107. List of new names and new combinations previously effectively, but not validly, published. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2006; 56:1–6. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.64188-0

  24. 24.

    Kuykendall LD. Order VI. Rhizobiales ord. nov. In: Garrity GM, Brenner DJ, Kreig NR, Staley JT, editors. Bergy’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology. Second ed: New York: Springer — Verlag; 2005. p 324.

  25. 25.

    Garrity GM, Bell JA, Lilburn T. Family IX. Methylobacteriaceae fam. nov. In: Garrity GM, Brenner DJ, Krieg NR, Staley JT (eds), Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, Second Edition, Volume 2, Part C, Springer, New York, 2005, p. 567.

  26. 26.

    Kanso S, Patel BKC. Microvirga subterranea gen. nov., sp. nov., a moderate thermophile from a deep subsurface Australian thermal aquifer. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2003; 53:401–406. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.02348-0

  27. 27.

    Zhang J, Song F, Xin YH, Zhang J, Fang C. Microvirga guangxiensis sp. nov., a novel alphaproteobacterium from soil, and emended description of the genus Microvirga. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2009; 59:1997–2001. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.007997-0

  28. 28.

    Weon H-Y, Kwon S-W, Son J-A, Jo E-H, Kim S-J, Kim Y-S, Kim B-Y, Ka J-O. Description of Microvirga aerophila sp. nov. and Microvirga aerilata sp. nov., isolated from air, reclassification of Balneimonas flocculans Takeda et al. 2004 as Microvirga flocculans comb. nov. and emended description of the genus Microvirga. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2010; 60:2596–2600. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.018770-0

  29. 29.

    Gubler M, Hennecke H, Fix A. B and C genes are essential for symbiotic and free-living, microaerobic nitrogen fixation. FEBS Lett 1986; 200:186–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0014-5793(86)80536-1

  30. 30.

    Ashburner M, Ball CA, Blake JA, Botstein D, Butler H, Cherry JM, Davis AP, Dolinski K, Dwight SS, Eppig JT, et al. Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. The Gene Ontology Consortium. Nat Genet 2000; 25:25–29. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/75556

  31. 31.

    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. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msr121

  32. 32.

    Nei M, Kumar S. Molecular Evolution and Phylogenetics. New York: Oxford University Press; 2000.

  33. 33.

    Felsenstein J. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 1985; 39:783–791. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2408678

  34. 34.

    Liolios K, Mavromatis K, Tavernarakis N, Kyrpides NC. The Genomes On Line Database (GOLD) in 2007: status of genomic and metagenomic projects and their associated metadata. Nucleic Acids Res 2008; 36:D475–D479. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkm884

  35. 35.

    Reeve WG, Tiwari RP, Worsley PS, Dilworth MJ, Glenn AR, Howieson JG. Constructs for insertional mutagenesis, transcriptional signal localization and gene regulation studies in root nodule and other bacteria. Microbiology 1999; 145:1307–1316. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1099/13500872-145-6-1307

  36. 36.

    DOE Joint Genome Institute user homepage. http://my.jgi.doe.gov/general/index.html

  37. 37.

    Bennett S. Solexa Ltd. Pharmacogenomics 2004; 5:433–438. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1517/14622416.5.4.433

  38. 38.

    Margulies M, Egholm M, Altman WE, Attiya S, Bader JS, Bemben LA, Berka J, Braverman MS, Chen YJ, Chen Z, et al. Genome sequencing in microfabricated high-density picolitre reactors. Nature 2005; 437:376–380. PubMed

  39. 39.

    Zerbino DR. Using the Velvet de novo assembler for short-read sequencing technologies. Current Protocols in Bioinformatics 2010;Chapter 11:Unit 11 5.

  40. 40.

    Ewing B, Green P. Base-calling of automated sequencer traces using phred. II. Error probabilities. Genome Res 1998; 8:186–194. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/gr.8.3.175

  41. 41.

    Ewing B, Hillier L, Wendl MC, Green P. Base-calling of automated sequencer traces using phred. I. Accuracy assessment. Genome Res 1998; 8:175–185. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/gr.8.3.175

  42. 42.

    Gordon D, Abajian C, Green P. Consed: a graphical tool for sequence finishing. Genome Res 1998; 8:195–202. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/gr.8.3.195

  43. 43.

    LaButti K, Foster B, Lowry S, Trong S, Goltsman E, Lapidus A. POLISHER: a Tool for Using Ultra Short Read in Microbial Genome Finishing http://publications.lbl.gov/fedora/repository/ir%253A150163. Berkeley Lab Publications 2008.

  44. 44.

    Han C, Chain P. Finishing repeat regions automatically with Dupfinisher. In: Valafar HRAH, editor. Proceeding of the 2006 international conference on bioinformatics & computational biology: CSREA Press; 2006. p 141–146.

  45. 45.

    Hyatt D, Chen GL, Locascio PF, Land ML, Larimer FW, Hauser LJ. Prodigal: prokaryotic gene recognition and translation initiation site identification. BMC Bioinformatics 2010; 11:119. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-11-119

  46. 46.

    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. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.4056/sigs.632

  47. 47.

    Lowe TM, Eddy SR. tRNAscan-SE: a program for improved detection of transfer RNA genes in genomic sequence. Nucleic Acids Res 1997; 25:955–964. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/25.5.0955

  48. 48.

    Pruesse E, Quast C, Knittel K. Ludwig W, Peplies J, Glöckner FO. SILVA: a comprehensive online resource for quality checked and aligned ribosomal RNA sequence data compatible with ARB. Nucleic Acids Res 2007; 35:7188–7196. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkm864

  49. 49.

    INFERNAL. http://infernal.janelia.org

  50. 50.

    Markowitz VM, Mavromatis K, Ivanova NN, Chen IM, Chu K, Kyrpides NC. IMG ER: a system for microbial genome annotation expert review and curation. Bioinformatics 2009; 25:2271–2278. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp393

Download references

Acknowledgements

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, and Los Alamos National Laboratory under contract No. DE-AC02-06NA25396. We gratefully acknowledge research funding received from Murdoch University.

Author information

Correspondence to Wayne Reeve.

Rights and permissions

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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Keywords

  • root-nodule bacteria
  • nitrogen fixation
  • rhizobia
  • Alphaproteobacteria