Skip to content
1887

Microbial Genomics logo Microbial Genomics

Volume 9, Issue 10

Comparative genomic analysis of species: deep insights into plant-growth-promoting and halotolerant capacities Open Access

Abstract

Members of the genus have attracted great interest as beneficial bacteria that can promote plant growth and biocontrol. Given the recent risks of climate change, it is important to develop tolerance strategies for efficient applications of plant-beneficial bacteria in saline environments. However, the genetic determinants of plant-growth-promoting and halotolerance effects in have not yet been investigated at the genomic level. Here, a comparative genomic analysis was conducted with seven species. Phylogenetic and phylogenomic analyses revealed niche-specific evolutionary distances between soil and freshwater species, consistent with differences in genomic statistics, indicating that the freshwater bacteria have smaller genome sizes and fewer genes than the soil bacteria. Phosphorus- and zinc-cycling genes (required for nutrient acquisition in plants) were universally present in all species, whereas nitrification and sulphite reduction genes (required for nitrogen- and sulphur-cycling, respectively) were distributed only in soil bacteria. A pan-genome containing 6842 gene clusters was constructed, which reflected the general features of the core, accessory and unique genomes. Halotolerant species with an accessory genome shared a Kdp potassium transporter and biosynthetic pathways for branched-chain amino acids and the carotenoid lycopene, which are associated with countermeasures against salt stress. Protein–protein interaction network analysis was used to define the genetic determinants of NBC122 that reduce salt damage in bacteria and plants. Sixteen hub genes comprised the aromatic compound degradation and Por secretion systems, which are required to cope with complex stresses associated with saline environments. Horizontal gene transfer and CRISPR–Cas analyses indicated that NBC122 underwent more evolutionary events when interacting with different environments. These findings provide deep insights into genomic adaptation to dynamic interactions between plant-growth-promoting and salt stress.

  • Received:
  • Accepted:
  • Published Online:
Keyword(s): Chryseobacterium , comparative genomic analysis , pan-genome , plant-growth-promoting bacteria and salt stress
Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • National Institute of Fisheries Science (Award R2023050)
    • Principle Award Recipient: JungwookPark
© 2023 The Authors
  • This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.001108
2023-10-05
2025-04-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/mgen/9/10/mgen001108.html?itemId=/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.001108&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Kim H, Yu SM. Complete genome sequence of Chryseobacterium sp. strain NBC 122, a plant growth-promoting bacterium isolated from freshwater. Microbiol Resour Announc 2020; 9:e01028-19 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Lee SA, Kim SY, Sang MK, Song J, Weon HY. Complete genome sequence of Chryseobacterium sp. T16E-39, a plant growth-promoting and biocontrol bacterium, isolated from tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) root. Korean J Microbiol 2017; 53:351–353
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Sang MK, Jeong JJ, Kim J, Kim KD. Growth promotion and root colonisation in pepper plants by phosphate-solubilising Chryseobacterium sp. strain ISE14 that suppresses Phytophthora blight. Ann Appl Biol 2018; 172:208–223 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Dardanelli MS, Manyani H, González-Barroso S, Rodríguez-Carvajal MA, Gil-Serrano AM et al. Effect of the presence of the plant growth promoting rhizobacterium (PGPR) Chryseobacterium balustinum Aur9 and salt stress in the pattern of flavonoids exuded by soybean roots. Plant Soil 2010; 328:483–493 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Karki HS, Shrestha BK, Han JW, Groth DE, Barphagha IK et al. Diversities in virulence, antifungal activity, pigmentation and DNA fingerprint among strains of Burkholderia glumae. PLoS One 2012; 7:e45376 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Ramos Solano B, Barriuso Maicas J, Pereyra de la Iglesia MT, Domenech J, Gutiérrez Mañero FJ. Systemic disease protection elicited by plant growth promoting rhizobacteria strains: relationship between metabolic responses, systemic disease protection, and biotic elicitors. Phytopathology 2008; 98:451–457 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Kim K, Jang Y-J, Lee S-M, Oh B-T, Chae J-C et al. Alleviation of salt stress by Enterobacter sp. EJ01 in tomato and Arabidopsis is accompanied by up-regulation of conserved salinity responsive factors in plants. Mol Cells 2014; 37:109–117 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Nawaz A, Shahbaz M, Asadullah M, Imran A, Marghoob MU et al. Potential of salt tolerant PGPR in growth and yield augmentation of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under saline conditions. Front Microbiol 2020; 11:2019 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Selvakumar G, Kim K, Hu S, Sa T. Effect of salinity on plants and the role of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria in alleviation of salt stress. Physiol Mech Adapt Strateg Plants Under Chang Environ 2014; 1:115–144 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Rietz DN, Haynes RJ. Effects of irrigation-induced salinity and sodicity on soil microbial activity. Soil Biol Biochem 2003; 35:845–854 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Khan KS, Mack R, Castillo X, Kaiser M, Joergensen RG. Microbial biomass, fungal and bacterial residues, and their relationships to the soil organic matter C/N/P/S ratios. Geoderma 2016; 271:115–123 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Yan N, Marschner P, Cao W, Zuo C, Qin W. Influence of salinity and water content on soil microorganisms. Int Soil Water Conserv Res 2015; 3:316–323 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Allam NG, Kinany R, El-Refai E, Ali WY. Potential use of beneficial salt tolerant bacteria for improving wheat productivity grown in Salinized soil. J Microbiol Res 2018; 8:43–53
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Kapoor R, Gupta MK, Kumar N, Kanwar SS. Analysis of nhaA gene from salt tolerant and plant growth promoting Enterobacter ludwigii. Rhizosphere 2017; 4:62–69 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Iqbal S, Vohra MS, Janjua HA. Whole-genome sequence and broad-spectrum antibacterial activity of Chryseobacterium cucumeris strain MW-6 isolated from the Arabian Sea. 3 Biotech 2021; 11:489 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Yu S-M, Kim H, Eom JH, Jeong SC, Han W et al. A Chryseobacterium Sp. NBC122 and Composition for Plant Growth Promotion Containing Chryseobacterium Sp. NBC122 or Its Culture Fluid as an Active Ingredient KR101996529B1; 2018
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Kumar S, Stecher G, Li M, Knyaz C, Tamura K. MEGA X: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis across computing platforms. Mol Biol Evol 2018; 35:1547–1549 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Page AJ, Cummins CA, Hunt M, Wong VK, Reuter S et al. Roary: rapid large-scale prokaryote pan genome analysis. Bioinformatics 2015; 31:3691–3693 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Katoh K, Misawa K, Kuma K, Miyata T. MAFFT: a novel method for rapid multiple sequence alignment based on fast fourier transform. Nucleic Acids Res 2002; 30:3059–3066 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Stamatakis A. RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics 2014; 30:1312–1313 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Zhao Y, Wu J, Yang J, Sun S, Xiao J et al. PGAP: pan-genomes analysis pipeline. Bioinformatics 2012; 28:416–418 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Aramaki T, Blanc-Mathieu R, Endo H, Ohkubo K, Kanehisa M et al. KofamKOALA: KEGG ortholog assignment based on profile HMM and adaptive score threshold. Bioinformatics 2020; 36:2251–2252 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Zhu Q, Kosoy M, Dittmar K. HGTector: an automated method facilitating genome-wide discovery of putative horizontal gene transfers. BMC Genomics 2014; 15:717 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Buchfink B, Xie C, Huson DH. Fast and sensitive protein alignment using DIAMOND. Nat Methods 2015; 12:59–60 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Couvin D, Bernheim A, Toffano-Nioche C, Touchon M, Michalik J et al. CRISPRCasFinder, an update of CRISRFinder, includes a portable version, enhanced performance and integrates search for Cas proteins. Nucleic Acids Res 2018; 46:W246–W251 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Biswas A, Gagnon JN, Brouns SJJ, Fineran PC, Brown CM. CRISPRTarget: bioinformatic prediction and analysis of crRNA targets. RNA Biol 2013; 10:817–827 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Jeong J-J, Lee DW, Park B, Sang MK, Choi I-G et al. Chryseobacterium cucumeris sp. nov., an endophyte isolated from cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) root, and emended description of Chryseobacterium arthrosphaerae. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2017; 67:610–616 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Hong CE, Kim JU, Lee JW, Bang KH, Jo I-H. Complete genome sequence of the endophytic bacterium Chryseobacterium indologenes PgBE177, isolated from Panax quinquefolius. Microbiol Resour Announc 2018; 7:e01234-18 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Yoo SJ, Weon HY, Song J, Sang MK. Effects of Chryseobacterium soldanellicola T16E-39 and Bacillus siamensis T20E-257 on biocontrol against phytophthora blight and bacterial wilt and growth promotion in tomato plants. Int J Agric Biol 2020; 23:534–540
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Montero-Calasanz MDC, Göker M, Rohde M, Spröer C, Schumann P et al. Chryseobacterium oleae sp. nov., an efficient plant growth promoting bacterium in the rooting induction of olive tree (Olea europaea L.) cuttings and emended descriptions of the genus Chryseobacterium, C. Daecheongense, C. Gambrini, C. Gleum, C. Joostei, C. Jejuense, C. Luteum, C. Shigense, C. Taiwanense, C. Ureilyticum and C. Vrystaatense. Syst Appl Microbiol 2014; 37:342–350
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Kim H, Yu SM. Chryseobacterium salivictor sp. nov., a plant-growth-promoting bacterium isolated from freshwater. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 2020; 113:989–995 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Mainka T, Weirathmüller D, Herwig C, Pflügl S. Potential applications of halophilic microorganisms for biological treatment of industrial process brines contaminated with aromatics. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 2021; 48:kuab015 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Rodríguez-Gijón A, Nuy JK, Mehrshad M, Buck M, Schulz F et al. A genomic perspective across Earth’s microbiomes reveals that genome size in Archaea and bacteria is linked to ecosystem type and trophic strategy. Front Microbiol 2021; 12:761869 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Giovannoni SJ, Cameron Thrash J, Temperton B. Implications of streamlining theory for microbial ecology. ISME J 2014; 8:1553–1565 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Fry B. Conservative mixing of stable isotopes across estuarine salinity gradients: a conceptual framework for monitoring watershed influences on downstream fisheries production. Estuaries 2002; 25:264–271 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Satoh S, Mimuro M, Tanaka A, Lin S. Construction of a phylogenetic tree of photosynthetic prokaryotes based on average similarities of whole genome sequences. PLoS One 2013; 8:e70290 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Chung M, Munro JB, Tettelin H, Dunning Hotopp JC. Using core cenome alignments to assign bacterial species. mSystems 2018; 3:e00236-18 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Backer R, Rokem JS, Ilangumaran G, Lamont J, Praslickova D et al. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria: context, mechanisms of action, and roadmap to commercialization of biostimulants for sustainable agriculture. Front Plant Sci 2018; 9:1473 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Vessey JK. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria as biofertilizers. Plant Soil 2003; 255:571–586 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Azziz G, Bajsa N, Haghjou T, Taulé C, Valverde Á et al. Abundance, diversity and prospecting of culturable phosphate solubilizing bacteria on soils under crop–pasture rotations in a no-tillage regime in Uruguay. Appl Soil Ecol 2012; 61:320–326 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Fan X, Zhang S, Mo X, Li Y, Fu Y et al. Effects of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria and N source on plant growth and N and P uptake by tomato grown on calcareous soils. Pedosphere 2017; 27:1027–1036 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Jeon J-S, Etalo DW, Carreno-Quintero N, de Vos RCH, Raaijmakers JM. Effects of sulfur assimilation in Pseudomonas fluorescens SS101 on growth, defense, and metabolome of different Brassicaceae. Biomolecules 2021; 11:1704 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Shariati VJ, Malboobi MA, Tabrizi Z, Tavakol E, Owlia P et al. Comprehensive genomic analysis of a plant growth-promoting rhizobacterium Pantoea agglomerans strain P5. Sci Rep 2017; 7:15610 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Kumar R, Verma H, Haider S, Bajaj A, Sood U et al. Comparative genomic analysis reveals habitat-specific genes and regulatory hubs within the genus Novosphingobium. mSystems 2017; 2:e00020-17 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Iqbal S, Vollmers J, Janjua HA. Genome mining and comparative genome analysis revealed niche-specific genome expansion in antibacterial Bacillus pumilus strain SF-4. Genes 2021; 12:1060 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Suleman M, Yasmin S, Rasul M, Yahya M, Atta BM et al. Phosphate solubilizing bacteria with glucose dehydrogenase gene for phosphorus uptake and beneficial effects on wheat. PLoS One 2018; 13:e0204408 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Rodríguez H, Fraga R, Gonzalez T, Bashan Y. Genetics of phosphate solubilization and its potential applications for improving plant growth-promoting bacteria. Plant Soil 2006; 287:15–21 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Gyaneshwar P, Parekh LJ, Archana G, Poole PS, Collins MD et al. Involvement of a phosphate starvation inducible glucose dehydrogenase in soil phosphate solubilization by Enterobacter asburiae. FEMS Microbiol Lett 1999; 171:223–229 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Gandhi Pragash M, Narayanan KB, Naik PR, Sakthivel N. Characterization of Chryseobacterium aquaticum strain PUPC1 producing a novel antifungal protease from rice rhizosphere soil. J Microbiol Biotechnol 2009; 19:99–107 [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Singh AV, Chandra R, Goel R. Phosphate solubilization by Chryseobacterium sp. and their combined effect with N and P fertilizers on plant growth promotion. Arch Agron Soil Sci 2013; 59:641–651 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Saravanan VS, Kalaiarasan P, Madhaiyan M, Thangaraju M. Solubilization of insoluble zinc compounds by Gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus and the detrimental action of zinc ion (Zn2+) and zinc chelates on root knot nematode Meloidogyne incognita. Lett Appl Microbiol 2007; 44:235–241 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Eida AA, Bougouffa S, L’Haridon F, Alam I, Weisskopf L et al. Genome insights of the plant-growth promoting bacterium Cronobacter muytjensii JZ38 with volatile-mediated antagonistic activity against Phytophthora infestans. Front Microbiol 2020; 11:369 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Iqbal N, Khan NA, Ferrante A, Trivellini A, Francini A et al. Ethylene role in plant growth, development and senescence: interaction with other phytohormones. Front Plant Sci 2017; 8:475 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Ma W, Penrose DM, Glick BR. Strategies used by rhizobia to lower plant ethylene levels and increase nodulation. Can J Microbiol 2002; 48:947–954 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Baudoin E, Lerner A, Mirza MS, El Zemrany H, Prigent-Combaret C et al. Effects of Azospirillum brasilense with genetically modified auxin biosynthesis gene ipdC upon the diversity of the indigenous microbiota of the wheat rhizosphere. Res Microbiol 2010; 161:219–226 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Tettelin H, Masignani V, Cieslewicz MJ, Donati C, Medini D et al. Genome analysis of multiple pathogenic isolates of Streptococcus agalactiae: implications for the microbial “pan-genome.”. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005; 102:13950–13955 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Ying J, Ye J, Xu T, Wang Q, Bao Q et al. Comparative genomic analysis of Rhodococcus equi: an insight into genomic diversity and genome evolution. Int J Genomics 2019; 2019:8987436 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Kobayashi I. Behavior of restriction-modification systems as selfish mobile elements and their impact on genome evolution. Nucleic Acids Res 2001; 29:3742–3756 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Chen Z, Cuin TA, Zhou M, Twomey A, Naidu BP et al. Compatible solute accumulation and stress-mitigating effects in barley genotypes contrasting in their salt tolerance. J Exp Bot 2007; 58:4245–4255 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Nanatani K, Shijuku T, Takano Y, Zulkifli L, Yamazaki T et al. Comparative analysis of Kdp and Ktr mutants reveals distinct roles of the potassium transporters in the model cyanobacterium Synechocystis sp. strain PCC 6803. J Bacteriol 2015; 197:676–687
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Price-Whelan A, Poon CK, Benson MA, Eidem TT, Roux CM et al. Transcriptional profiling of Staphylococcus aureus during growth in 2 M NaCl leads to clarification of physiological roles for Kdp and Ktr K+ uptake systems. mBio 2013; 4:e00407-13 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Brøndsted L, Kallipolitis BH, Ingmer H, Knöchel S. kdpE and a putative RsbQ homologue contribute to growth of Listeria monocytogenes at high osmolarity and low temperature. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2003; 219:233–239 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Sleator RD, Hill C. Bacterial osmoadaptation: the role of osmolytes in bacterial stress and virulence. FEMS Microbiol Rev 2002; 26:49–71 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Takami H, Takaki Y, Uchiyama I. Genome sequence of Oceanobacillus iheyensis isolated from the Iheya ridge and its unexpected adaptive capabilities to extreme environments. Nucleic Acids Res 2002; 30:3927–3935 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Botsford JL, Lewis TA. Osmoregulation in Rhizobium meliloti: production of glutamic acid in response to osmotic stress. Appl Environ Microbiol 1990; 56:488–494 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Etesami H, Adl SM. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) and their action mechanisms in availability of nutrients to plants. Phyto-Microbiome Stress Regul 2020147–203
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Li C, Li B, Zhang N, Wei N, Wang Q et al. Salt stress increases carotenoid production of Sporidiobolus pararoseus NGR via torulene biosynthetic pathway. J Gen Appl Microbiol 2019; 65:111–120 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Domonkos I, Kis M, Gombos Z, Ughy B. Carotenoids, versatile components of oxygenic photosynthesis. Prog Lipid Res 2013; 52:539–561 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Rao AV, Shen H. Effect of low dose lycopene intake on lycopene bioavailability and oxidative stress. Nutr Res 2002; 22:1125–1131 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Hernández-Almanza A, Montañez J, Martínez G, Aguilar-Jiménez A, Contreras-Esquivel JC et al. Lycopene: progress in microbial production. Trends Food Sci Technol 2016; 56:142–148 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Mantzouridou F, Tsimidou MZ. Lycopene formation in Blakeslea trispora. Chemical aspects of a bioprocess. Trends Food Sci Technol 2008; 19:363–371 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Miura Y, Kondo K, Shimada H, Saito T, Nakamura K et al. Production of lycopene by the food yeast, Candida utilis that does not naturally synthesize carotenoid. Biotechnol Bioeng 1998; 58:306–308 [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Jabrin S, Ravanel S, Gambonnet B, Douce R, Rébeillé F. One-carbon metabolism in plants. Regulation of tetrahydrofolate synthesis during germination and seedling development. Plant Physiol 2003; 131:1431–1439 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Mehrshahi P, Gonzalez-Jorge S, Akhtar TA, Ward JL, Santoyo-Castelazo A et al. Functional analysis of folate polyglutamylation and its essential role in plant metabolism and development. Plant J 2010; 64:267–279 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Wittek F, Kanawati B, Wenig M, Hoffmann T, Franz-Oberdorf K et al. Folic acid induces salicylic acid-dependent immunity in Arabidopsis and enhances susceptibility to Alternaria brassicicola. Mol Plant Pathol 2015; 16:616–622 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Wu Y, Li J, Wang J, Dawuda MM, Liao W et al. Heme is involved in the exogenous ALA-promoted growth and antioxidant defense system of cucumber seedlings under salt stress. BMC Plant Biol 2022; 22:329 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Gören-Sağlam N, Harrison E, Breeze E, Öz G, Buchanan-Wollaston V. Analysis of the impact of indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) on gene expression during leaf senescence in Arabidopsis thaliana. Physiol Mol Biol Plants 2020; 26:733–745 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Chhetri G, Kim I, Kim J, So Y, Seo T. Chryseobacterium tagetis sp. nov., a plant growth promoting bacterium with an antimicrobial activity isolated from the roots of medicinal plant (Tagetes patula). J Antibiot 2022; 75:312–320 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Bhise KK, Bhagwat PK, Dandge PB. Synergistic effect of Chryseobacterium gleum sp. SUK with ACC deaminase activity in alleviation of salt stress and plant growth promotion in Triticum aestivum L. 3 Biotech 2017; 7:1–13 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Muñoz-García A, Mestanza O, Isaza JP, Figueroa-Galvis I, Vanegas J. Influence of salinity on the degradation of xenobiotic compounds in rhizospheric mangrove soil. Environ Pollut 2019; 249:750–757 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Yue H, Zhao L, Yang D, Zhang M, Wu J et al. Comparative analysis of the endophytic bacterial diversity of Populus euphratica oliv. in environments of different salinity intensities. Microbiol Spectr 2022; 10:e0050022 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Li Y, Li W, Ji L, Song F, Li T et al. Effects of salinity on the biodegradation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in oilfield soils emphasizing degradation genes and soil enzymes. Front Microbiol 2022; 12:824319 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Cheng L, Wang Y, Cai Z, Liu J, Yu B et al. Phytoremediation of petroleum hydrocarbon-contaminated saline-alkali soil by wild ornamental Iridaceae species. Int J Phytoremediation 2017; 19:300–308 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Compant S, Clément C, Sessitsch A. Plant growth-promoting bacteria in the rhizo- and endosphere of plants: their role, colonization, mechanisms involved and prospects for utilization. Soil Biol Biochem 2010; 42:669–678 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Sato K, Naito M, Yukitake H, Hirakawa H, Shoji M et al. A protein secretion system linked to bacteroidete gliding motility and pathogenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2010; 107:276–281 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Nan B. Bacterial gliding motility: rolling out a consensus model. Curr Biol 2017; 27:R154–R156 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Kolton M, Frenkel O, Elad Y, Cytryn E. Potential role of Flavobacterial gliding-motility and type IX secretion system complex in root colonization and plant defense. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 2014; 27:1005–1013 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Khare D, Chandwadkar P, Acharya C. Gliding motility of a uranium-tolerant bacteroidetes bacterium Chryseobacterium sp. strain PMSZPI: insights into the architecture of spreading colonies. Environ Microbiol Rep 2022; 14:453–463 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Pinilla-Redondo R, Russel J, Mayo-Muñoz D, Shah SA, Garrett RA et al. CRISPR-Cas systems are widespread accessory elements across bacterial and archaeal plasmids. Nucleic Acids Res 2022; 50:4315–4328 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Leister C, Hügler M. Draft genome sequences of Buttiauxella spp. isolates from water and gastropods with putative β-d-glucuronidase activity. Microbiol Resour Announc 2022; 11:e0006422 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Hendry TA, Freed LL, Fader D, Fenolio D, Sutton TT et al. Ongoing transposon-mediated genome reduction in the luminous bacterial symbionts of deep-sea ceratioid anglerfishes. mBio 2018; 9:e01033-18 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Krovacek K, Eriksson LM, González-Rey C, Rosinsky J, Ciznar I. Isolation, biochemical and serological characterisation of Plesiomonas shigelloides from freshwater in Northern Europe. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis 2000; 23:45–51 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Rajapandiyan S, Sudha K, Arunachalam KD. Prevalence and distribution of Vibrio vulnificus in fishes caught off Chennai, Indian ocean. African J Microbiol Res 2009; 3:622–625
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Jeong JJ, Park BH, Park H, Choi IG, Kim KD. Draft genome sequence of Chryseobacterium sp. strain GSE06, a biocontrol endophytic bacterium isolated from cucumber (Cucumis sativus). Genome Announc 2016; 4:e00577–e00616 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Montero-Calasanz MDC, Göker M, Rohde M, Spröer C, Schumann P et al. Chryseobacterium hispalense sp. nov., a plant-growth-promoting bacterium isolated from a rainwater pond in an olive plant nursery, and emended descriptions of Chryseobacterium defluvii, Chryseobacterium indologenes, Chryseobacterium wanjuense and Chryseobacterium gregarium. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2013; 63:4386–4395 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Jeong J-J, Sang MK, Pathiraja D, Park B, Choi I-G et al. Draft genome sequence of phosphate-solubilizing Chryseobacterium sp. strain ISE14, a biocontrol and plant growth-promoting rhizobacterium isolated from cucumber. Genome Announc 2018; 6:e00612-18 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.001108
Loading
Comparative genomic analysis of Chryseobacterium species: deep insights into plant-growth-promoting and halotolerant capacities
M Gen 9, 001108 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1099/mgen.0.001108
/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.001108
/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.001108
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary material 1

PDF

Supplementary material 2

EXCEL

Most cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error