4.6 Article

Mobile Elements in a Single-Filament Orange Guaymas Basin Beggiatoa (Candidatus Maribeggiatoa) sp Draft Genome: Evidence for Genetic Exchange with Cyanobacteria

期刊

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 79, 期 13, 页码 3974-3985

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.03821-12

关键词

-

资金

  1. Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation Marine Microbial Genome Sequencing Project
  2. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services (NIAD) [HHSN266200400042C]
  3. NSF OCE [0647633]
  4. Directorate For Geosciences
  5. Division Of Ocean Sciences [0647633] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  6. Office of Integrative Activities
  7. Office Of The Director [1301765] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The draft genome sequence of a single orange Beggiatoa (Candidatus Maribeggiatoa) filament collected from a microbial mat at a hydrothermal site in Guaymas Basin (Gulf of California, Mexico) shows evidence of extensive genetic exchange with cyanobacteria, in particular for sensory and signal transduction genes. A putative homing endonuclease gene and group I intron within the 23S rRNA gene; several group II catalytic introns; GyrB and DnaE inteins, also encoding homing endonucleases; multiple copies of sequences similar to the fdxN excision elements XisH and XisI (required for heterocyst differentiation in some cyanobacteria); and multiple sequences related to an open reading frame (ORF) (00024_0693) of unknown function all have close non-Beggiatoaceae matches with cyanobacterial sequences. Sequences similar to the uncharacterized ORF and Xis elements are found in other Beggiatoaceae genomes, a variety of cyanobacteria, and a few phylogenetically dispersed pleiomorphic or filamentous bacteria. We speculate that elements shared among filamentous bacterial species may have been exchanged in microbial mats and that some of them may be involved in cell differentiation.

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

4.6
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