4.3 Article

Draft genome sequences of hydrocarbon degrading Haloferax sp. AB510, Haladaptatus sp. AB618 and Haladaptatus sp. AB643 isolated from the estuarine sediments of Sundarban mangrove forests, India

期刊

3 BIOTECH
卷 12, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s13205-022-03273-5

关键词

-

资金

  1. Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR), Government of India [38(1391)/14/EMR-II]
  2. University Grants Commission (UGC), India

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study reports the draft genomes of three hydrocarbon-degrading haloarchaeal strains isolated from the estuarine sediments of Sundarban mangrove forests, India. These genomes had a high GC content and encoded genes related to survival in the presence of hydrocarbons. Functional annotation revealed different pathways utilized by the strains for degrading aromatic compounds.
The present study reports the draft genomes of three hydrocarbon-degrading haloarchaeal strains Haloferax sp. AB510, Haladaptatus sp. AB618 and Haladaptatus sp. AB643 that were isolated from the estuarine sediments of Sundarban mangrove forests, India. All three genomes had a high GC content of around 60%, characteristic of the haloarchaea. The Haloferax sp. AB510 genome was around 3.9 Mb in size and consisted of 4567 coding sequences and 54 RNAs. The Haladaptatus sp. AB618 and Haladaptatus sp. AB643 genomes were comparatively larger and around 4.8 Mb each. The AB618 and AB643 genomes comprised 5279 and 5304 coding sequences and 60 and 59 RNAs, respectively. All three of the genomes encoded several genes that attributed to their survival in the presence of hydrocarbons in their native habitats. Functional annotation and curation of the sequenced genomes suggested that the Haloferax sp. AB510 strain utilized the gentisate pathway of aromatic compound degradation. While the Haladaptatus sp. AB618 and Haladaptatus sp. AB643 strains possessed the freedom of utilizing both the gentisate and the catechol pathways for degrading aromatic hydrocarbons.

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

4.3
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