4.4 Article

Draft Genome Sequence of a Highly Pigmented Bacterium Paracoccus marcusii KGP Capable of Producing Galacto-oligosaccharides Synthesising Enzyme

期刊

CURRENT MICROBIOLOGY
卷 78, 期 2, 页码 634-641

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00284-020-02326-3

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The genome of Paracoccus marcusii KGP, isolated from marine sediment collected from the coast of the Bay of Bengal, was sequenced using Oxford Nanopore sequencing technology. The genome contains genes for industrially relevant enzymes and secondary metabolites, with the beta-galactosidase showing transgalactosylation property. Comparison with the CGMCC strain revealed significant differences in the KGP genome, possibly indicating strain-specific genes.
The genome of Paracoccus marcusii KGP, isolated from the marine sediment collected from the coast of the Bay of Bengal, was sequenced using Oxford Nanopore sequencing technology. The assembled genome sequence consists of seven contigs and has a 4,085,678 bp circular chromosome with 1647 coding genes and a G+C content of 66.7%. Besides, the genome of P. marcusii KGP contains three copies of the rrn operon. The genes coding for the industrially relevant enzymes and secondary metabolites such as beta-galactosidase, protease, amylase, beta-glucosidase, ectoine, indigoidine, and carotenoid biosynthesis clusters were also identified in the genome. When the beta-galactosidase extracted from P. marcusii KGP was mixed with a high concentration of lactose, galacto-oligosaccharides were produced, which revealed the transgalactosylation property of the enzyme. The genome sequence of P. marcusii KGP was found to have an average nucleotide identity value of 96.16 and a digital DNA-DNA hybridisation value of 73.90% with the genome sequence of P. marcusii CGMCC. Furthermore, by comparing the genome sequences of both strains, it was found that the size of the KGP genome was large, indicating the possibility of strain-specific genes in addition to core genes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据