Open Access

Complete genome sequence of Chitinophaga pinensis type strain (UQM 2034T)

  • Tijana Glavina Del Rio
  • , Birte Abt
  • , Stefan Spring
  • , Alla Lapidus
  • , Matt Nolan
  • , Hope Tice
  • , Alex Copeland
  • , Jan-Fang Cheng
  • , Feng Chen
  • , David Bruce,
  • , Lynne Goodwin,
  • , Sam Pitluck
  • , Natalia Ivanova
  • , Konstantinos Mavromatis
  • , Natalia Mikhailova
  • , Amrita Pati
  • , Amy Chen
  • , Krishna Palaniappan
  • , Miriam Land,
  • , Loren Hauser,
  • , Yun-Juan Chang,
  • , Cynthia D. Jeffries,
  • , Patrick Chain,
  • , Elizabeth Saunders
  • , John C. Detter,
  • , Thomas Brettin,
  • , Manfred Rohde
  • , Markus Göker
  • , Jim Bristow
  • , Jonathan A. Eisen,
  • , Victor Markowitz
  • , Philip Hugenholtz
  • , Nikos C. Kyrpides
  • , Hans-Peter Klenk
  • and Susan Lucas
Corresponding author

DOI: 10.4056/sigs.661199

Received: 28 February 2010

Published: 28 February 2010

Abstract

Chitinophaga pinensis Sangkhobol and Skerman 1981 is the type strain of the species which is the type species of the rapidly growing genus Chitinophaga in the sphingobacterial family ‘Chitinophagaceae’. Members of the genus Chitinophaga vary in shape between filaments and spherical bodies without the production of a fruiting body, produce myxospores, and are of special interest for their ability to degrade chitin. Here we describe the features of this organism, together with the complete genome sequence, and annotation. This is the first complete genome sequence of a member of the family ‘Chitinophagaceae’, and the 9,127,347 bp long single replicon genome with its 7,397 protein-coding and 95 RNA genes is part of the Genomic Encyclopedia of Bacteria and Archaea project.

Keywords:

filamentousglidingmyxosporesaerobicmesophileGram-negativebiomass degraderchitinolyticChitinophagaceae’GEBA

Introduction

Strain UQM 2034T (DSM 2588 = ATCC 43595 = KCTC 3412) is the type strain of the species Chitinophaga pinensis and was first described in 1981 by Sangkhobol and Skerman [1]. In 1981, strain UQM 2034T was described as a long, filamentous, gliding microorganism isolated from an infusion of litter from the base of a pine tree in Alderley, Brisbane, Australia [1]. In 1999, the phylogenetic position of C. pinensis was determined. The comparison of 16S rRNA sequences revealed Flexibacter filimoris as the most closely related bacterium [2].

In 2006 Kämpfer et al. reclassified F. sancti, F. filiformis, F. japonensis and Cytophaga arvensicola to the monospecific genus Chitinophaga and proposed C. skermanii sp. nov. [3]. In recent years the number of newly described species belonging to the genus Chitinophaga increased. Two additional new Chitinophaga species were described in 2007, C. ginsengisegetis sp. nov. and C. ginsengisoli sp. nov. isolated from soil of a ginseng field in South Korea [4]. In the same year Kim and Jung described the new species C. terrae sp. nov [5]. In 2009, three additional Chitinophaga species were described: C. niabensis sp. nov. [6], C. niastensis sp. nov [6], and C. rupis sp. nov [7]. Here we present a summary classification and a set of features for C. pinensis UQM 2034T, together with the description of the complete genomic sequencing and annotation.

Classification and features

The most similar 16S rRNA gene sequences from cultivated strains that are stored in GenBank originate from isolates belonging to different species of the genus Chitinophaga: C. sancti, C. filiformis and C. ginsengisoli with 96-97% sequence similarity; all of them were isolated from soil samples. In metagenomic surveys of environmental samples only 16S rRNA genes with sequence similarity values below 92% to C. pinensis were detected, indicating that members of this species are not abundant in the so far genomically screened habitats (status July 2009).

Figure 1 shows the phylogenetic neighborhood of C. pinensis UQM 2034T in a 16S rRNA based tree. The sequences of the six copies of the 16S rRNA gene in the genome differ by up to five nucleotides, and differ by up to 21 nucleotides (1.4%) from the previously published sequence generated from ACM 2034 (AF78775). Most likely this discrepancy is caused by sequencing errors in the publicly available C. pinensis 16S sequence.

Figure 1

Phylogenetic tree highlighting the position of C. pinensis UQM 2034T relative to the other type strains within the genus and selected other type strains within the family ‘Chitinophagaceae’. The tree was inferred from 1,410 aligned characters [8,9] of the 16S rRNA gene sequence under the maximum likelihood criterion [10] and rooted in accordance with the current taxonomy. The branches are scaled in terms of the expected number of substitutions per site. Numbers above branches are support values from 1,000 bootstrap replicates if larger than 60%. Lineages with type strain genome sequencing projects registered in GOLD [11] are shown in blue, published genomes in bold.

Cells of C. pinensis stain Gram-negative and form long, filamentous, flexible rods with rounded ends (Table 1). They occur singly and measure 0.5-0.8 by 40 µm in the mature gliding stage. Figure 2 shows cells of C. pinensis during cell division before separation. Upon aging, they transform into spherical bodies without the production of fruiting bodies. Myxospores with a diameter of 0.8-0.9 µm are formed. On charcoal yeast extract agar (CYEA) a yellowish pigment is produced. The temperature for growth ranges from 12-37°C with an optimum of 24°C. The optimal pH for growth is 7, but growth is possible in a wide pH range from 4 to 10. NaCl concentrations of 0-1.5% (w/v) are tolerated [1].

Table 1

Classification and general features of C. pinensis UQM 2034T according to the MIGS recommendations [12]

MIGS ID

   Property

  Term

    Evidence code

   Current classification

  Domain Bacteria

    TAS [13]

  Phylum Bacteroidetes

    TAS [14]

  Class Sphingobacteria

    TAS [14]

  Order Sphingobacteriales

    TAS [14]

  Family Chitinophagaceae

    NAS

  Genus Chitinophaga

    TAS [1]

  Species Chitinophaga pinensis

    TAS [1]

  Type strain UQM 2034

    TAS [1]

   Gram stain

  negative

    TAS [1]

   Cell shape

  filamentous

    TAS [1]

   Motility

  gliding

    TAS [1]

   Sporulation

  myxospores

    TAS [1]

   Temperature range

  mesophile, 12-40°C

    TAS [1]

   Optimum temperature

  24°C

    TAS [1]

   Salinity

  up to 1.5% NaCl

    TAS [1]

MIGS-22

   Oxygen requirement

  aerobic

    TAS [1]

   Carbon source

  acid production from glucose,  lactose and sucrose

    TAS [1]

   Energy source

  chemoorganotrophic

    TAS [1]

MIGS-6

   Habitat

  soil

    TAS [1]

MIGS-15

   Biotic relationship

  free living

    NAS

MIGS-14

   Pathogenicity

  non pathogenic

    NAS

   Biosafety level

  1

    TAS [15]

   Isolation

  pine litter

    TAS [1]

MIGS-4

   Geographic location

  Alderley, Brisbane, Australia

    TAS [1]

MIGS-5

   Sample collection time

  in 1981 or before

    NAS

MIGS-4.1MIGS-4.2

   Latitude   Longitude

  -27.424,  153

    TAS

MIGS-4.3

   Depth

  not reported

MIGS-4.4

   Altitude

  not reported

Evidence codes - IDA: Inferred from Direct Assay (first time in publication); TAS: Traceable Author Statement (i.e., a direct report exists in the literature); NAS: Non-traceable Author Statement (i.e., not directly observed for the living, isolated sample, but based on a generally accepted property for the species, or anecdotal evidence). These evidence codes are from of the Gene Ontology project [16]. If the evidence code is IDA, then the property was observed for a living isolate by one of the authors or an expert mentioned in the acknowledgements.

Figure 2

Scanning electron micrograph of C. pinensis UQM 2034T

Strain UQM 2034T produces acid from glucose, lactose, and sucrose. Chitin, casein and gelatin are hydrolyzed, whereas according to Sangkhobol and Skerman (1981) cellulose, starch, alginate, and agar are not hydrolyzed [1]. Nitrate is not reduced to nitrite. C. pinensis UQM 2034T produces urease and is catalase and oxidase positive [1,3]. UQM 2034T is susceptible to tetracycline, streptomycin, and chloramphenicol and resistant to neomycin, kanamycin, penicillin G, and erythromycin [1]. C. pinensis UQM 2034T is able to lyse Staphylococcus aureus cells but not cells of Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Bacillus subtilis [1].

Chemotaxonomy

The fatty acid profile of strain UQM 2034T revealed C15:0 iso (30.4%) and C16:1ω5c (33.2%) as the major fatty acids and C17:0 iso-3-OH (11.5%) and C15:0 iso-3-OH (3.1%) as the major hydroxyl fatty acids. MK-7 is the predominant menaquinone [3]. The polar lipid composition has not been analyzed, but phosphatidylethanolamine is reported for C. rupis [7].

Genome sequencing and annotation

Genome project history

This organism was selected for sequencing on the basis of its phylogenetic position, and is part of the Genomic Encyclopedia of Bacteria and Archaea project [17]. The genome project is deposited in the Genome OnLine Database [11] and the complete genome sequence is deposited in GenBank. Sequencing, finishing and annotation were performed by the DOE Joint Genome Institute (JGI). A summary of the project information is shown in Table 2.

Table 2

Genome sequencing project information

MIGS ID

  Property

  Term

MIGS-31

  Finishing quality

  Finished

MIGS-28

  Libraries used

  Two Sanger libraries: 8kb pMCL200 and fosmid pcc1 Fos.  One 454 pyrosequence standard library.

MIGS-29

  Sequencing platforms

  ABI3730, 454 GS FLX

MIGS-31.2

  Sequencing coverage

  8.9× Sanger; 17.4× pyrosequence

MIGS-30

  Assemblers

  Newbler, phrap

MIGS-32

  Gene calling method

  Prodigal, GenePRIMP

  INSDC ID

  CP001699

  Genbank Date of Release

  August 08, 2009

  GOLD ID

  Gc01083

  NCBI project ID

  27951

  Database: IMG-GEBA

  2501651204

MIGS-13

  Source material identifier

  DSM 2588

  Project relevance

  Tree of Life, GEBA

Growth conditions and DNA isolation

C. pinensis UQM 2034T, DSM 2588, was grown in DSMZ medium 67 (CY-Medium) [25] at 22°C. DNA was isolated from 0.5-1 g of cell paste using Qiagen Genomic 500 DNA Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany), with a modified protocol for cell lysis (st/LALMP), as described in Wu et al. [17].

Genome sequencing and assembly

The genome was sequenced using a combination of Sanger and 454 sequencing platforms. All general aspects of library construction and sequencing performed at the JGI can be found at the JGI website (Web Site). 454 Pyrosequencing reads were assembled using the Newbler assembler version 1.1.02.15 (Roche). Large Newbler contigs were broken into 2,046 overlapping fragments of 1,000 bp and 9,925 of them entered into the final assembly as pseudo-reads. The sequences were assigned quality scores based on Newbler consensus q-scores with modifications to account for overlap redundancy and to adjust inflated q-scores. A hybrid 454/Sanger assembly was made using the parallel phrap assembler (High Performance Software, LLC). Possible mis-assemblies were corrected with Dupfinisher or transposon bombing of bridging clones [18]. Gaps between contigs were closed by editing in Consed, custom primer walk or PCR amplification. A total of 882 Sanger finishing reads were produced to close gaps, to resolve repetitive regions, and to raise the quality of the finished sequence. The error rate of the completed genome sequence is 0.01 in 100,000 nucleotides. Together all sequence types provided 26.3× coverage of the genome. The final assembly contains 91,161 Sanger and 876,658 pyrosequencing reads.

Genome annotation

Genes were identified using Prodigal [19] as part of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory genome annotation pipeline, followed by a round of manual curation using the JGI GenePRIMP pipeline (Web Site) [20]. 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. Additional gene prediction analysis and functional annotation was performed within the Integrated Microbial Genomes - Expert Review (Web Site) platform [21].

Genome properties

The genome is 9,127,347 bp long and comprises one main circular chromosome with a 45.2% GC content (Table 3 and Figure 3). Of the 7,397 genes predicted, 7,302 were protein coding genes, and 95 RNAs. In addition, 110 pseudogenes were also identified. The majority of the protein-coding genes (62.4%) were assigned with a putative function while those remaining were annotated as hypothetical proteins. The distribution of genes into COGs functional categories is presented in Table 4.

Table 3

Genome Statistics

Attribute

Value

% of Total

Genome size (bp)

9,127,347

100.00%

DNA Coding region (bp)

8,163,680

89.44%

DNA G+C content (bp)

4,128,036

45.23%

Number of replicons

1

Extrachromosomal elements

0

Total genes

7,397

100.00%

RNA genes

95

1.28%

rRNA operons

6

Protein-coding genes

7,302

98.72%

Pseudo genes

110

1.49%

Genes with function prediction

4,616

62.40%

Genes in paralog clusters

1,705

23.05%

Genes assigned to COGs

4,451

60.17%

Genes assigned Pfam domains

4,685

63.34%

Genes with signal peptides

2,251

30.43%

Genes with transmembrane helices

1,635

22.10%

CRISPR repeats

0

Figure 3

Graphical circular map of the genome. From outside to the center: Genes on forward strand (color by COG categories), Genes on reverse strand (color by COG categories), RNA genes (tRNAs green, rRNAs red, other RNAs black), GC content, GC skew.

Table 4

Number of genes associated with the general COG functional categories

Code

value

%age

  Description

J

177

2.4

  Translation, ribosomal structure and biogenesis

A

0

0.0

  RNA processing and modification

K

613

8.4

  Transcription

L

192

2.6

  Replication, recombination and repair

B

2

0.0

  Chromatin structure and dynamics

D

24

0.3

  Cell cycle control, mitosis and meiosis

Y

0

0.0

  Nuclear structure

V

123

1.7

  Defense mechanisms

T

448

6.1

  Signal transduction mechanisms

M

337

4.6

  Cell wall/membrane biogenesis

N

25

0.3

  Cell motility

Z

0

0.0

  Cytoskeleton

W

0

0.0

  Extracellular structures

U

64

0.9

  Intracellular trafficking and secretion

O

170

2.3

  Posttranslational modification, protein turnover, chaperones

C

244

3.3

  Energy production and conversion

G

330

4.5

  Carbohydrate transport and metabolism

E

301

4.1

  Amino acid transport and metabolism

F

91

1.2

  Nucleotide transport and metabolism

H

210

2.9

  Coenzyme transport and metabolism

I

197

2.7

  Lipid transport and metabolism

P

328

4.5

  Inorganic ion transport and metabolism

Q

146

2.0

  Secondary metabolites biosynthesis, transport and catabolism

R

661

9.1

  General function prediction only

S

352

4.8

  Function unknown

-

2841

38.9

  Not in COGs

Insights from genome sequence

The predominant characteristic feature of C. pinensis is the ability to degrade chitin, a β-1,4-glycosidic linked homopolymer of N-acetyl-D-glucosamine and one of the most abundant polysaccharides in nature. It is a component of fungal cell walls and of arthropod exoskeletons. Chitin is degraded by chitinases (EC 3.2.1.14); endochitinases randomly cleave within the chitin molecule and exochitinases hydrolyze diacetylchitobiose from the end of a chitin chain. Diacetylchitobiose is further degraded to N-acetylglucosamine by the action of N-acetylglucosaminidases (EC 3.2.1.52).

These glycosidic bond hydrolyzing enzymes were grouped in glycoside hydrolase (GH) families based on amino acid sequence similarities (Web Site) [22]. For the C. pinensis genome 169 glycoside hydrolases belonging to 49 different GH families are predicted; 18 of the predicted glycoside hydrolases belong to GH family 43 which contains xylosidases, xylanases, arabinanases, arabinofuranosidases and galactosidases.

Because of the chitin degrading ability of C. pinensis a great number of chitinases was expected to be encoded in the genome. According to the CAZY-database, exochitinases and endochitinases belong to GH families 18, 19 and 48. As estimated, there were several glycoside hydrolases predicted, which may be involved in chitin degradation; five members of GH family 18 (Cpin_2184, Cpin_2186, Cpin_2580, Cpin_3805, Cpin_3919) and three members of GH family 19 (Cpin_5850, Cpin_5553, Cpin_5898). The comparison of the amino acid sequence from these chitinase candidates to the databank BlastP indicated no homologs according to the whole length of the proteins. However, similarities to the known GH family domains were observed.

The search for N-acetylglucosaminidases (EC 3.2.1.52) in the genome of C. pinensis revealed gene Cpin_3944 which encodes a protein with a GH family 20 domain. The predicted GH family 20 domain resembles the well characterized catalytic domain of a N-acetylglucosaminidase from Serratia marcescens [23]. Further N-acetylhexoaminidases of C. pinensis are encoded by the genes Cpin_1798, Cpin_4994 and Cpin_1915.

A second way to degrade chitin was described by Davis and Eveleigh in 1984 [24]. First, the chitin molecule is deacetyliated by deacetylases (EC 3.5.1.41), afterwards chitobiose is released from chitosan by the action of chitosanases (EC 3.2.1.132), finally chitobiose is hydrolyzed by glucosaminidases (EC 3.2.1.52) and glucosamine molecules are released.

One putative chitin deacetylase is encoded in the genome of C. pinensis. The deduced amino acid sequence of Cpin_6813 shows a GH family 19 domain and a C-terminal deacetylase domain. Chitosanases that are responsible for the hydrolysis of chitosan are mainly found in GH family 46 but also occur in GH families 5 and 18. In C. pinensis, no GH family 46 members were observed, but the presence of nine GHs belonging to family 5 and five members of GH family 18 are predicted. One of these glycoside hydrolases might have a chitosanase function. It remains unclear which pathway C. pinensis uses for the degradation of chitin and whether the predicted functions of the proteins match the real functions.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We would like to gratefully acknowledge the help of Birgit Merkhoffer for growing C. pinensis cultures and Susanne Schneider for DNA extraction and quality analysis (both at DSMZ). 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, as well as German Research Foundation (DFG) INST 599/1-1.


This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

References

  1. Sangkhobol V and Skerman VBD. Chitinophaga, a new genus of chitinolytic myxobacteria. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1981; 31:285-293
  2. Sly LI, Taghavi M and Fegan M. Phylogenetic position of Chitinophaga pinensis in the Flexibacter-Bacteroides-Cytophaga phylum. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1999; 49:479-481PubMed
  3. Kämpfer P, Young CC, Sridhar KR, Arun AB, Lai WA, Shen FT and Rekha PD. Transfer of [Flexibacter] sancti, [Flexibacter] filiformis, [Flexibacter] japonensis and [Cytophaga] arvensicola to the genus Chitinophaga and description of Chitinophaga skermanii sp. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2006; 56:2223-2228 View ArticlePubMed
  4. Lee HG, An DS, Im WT, Liu QM, Na JR, Cho DH, Jin CW, Lee ST and Yang DC. Chitinophaga ginsengisegetis sp. nov. and Chitinophaga ginsengisoli sp. nov., isolated from soil of a ginseng field in South Korea. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2007; 57:1396-1401 View ArticlePubMed
  5. Kim MK and Jung HY. Chitinophaga terrae sp. nov., isolated from soil. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2007; 57:1721-1724 View ArticlePubMed
  6. Weon HY, Yoo SH, Kim YJ, Son JA, Kim BY, Kwon SW and Koo BS. Chitinophaga niabensis sp. nov. and Chitinophaga niastensis sp. nov., isolated from soil. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2009; 59:1267-1271 View ArticlePubMed
  7. Lee DW, Lee JE and Lee SD. Chitinophaga rupis sp. nov., isolated from soil. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2009; 59:2830-2833 View ArticlePubMed
  8. Lee C, Grasso C and Sharlow MF. Multiple sequence alignment using partial order graphs. Bioinformatics. 2002; 18:452-464 View ArticlePubMed
  9. Castresana J. Selection of conserved blocks from multiple alignments for their use in phylogenetic analysis. Mol Biol Evol. 2000; 17:540-552PubMed
  10. Stamatakis A, Hoover P and Rougemont J. A Rapid Bootstrap Algorithm for the RAxML Web Servers. Syst Biol. 2008; 57:758-771 View ArticlePubMed
  11. Liolios K, Chen IM, Mavromatis K, Tavernarakis N, Hugenholtz P, Markowitz VM and Kyrpides NC. The Genomes On Line Database (GOLD) in 2009: status of genomic and metagenomic projects and their associated metadata. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010; 38:D346-D354 View ArticlePubMed
  12. Field D, Garrity G, Gray T, Morrison N, Selengut J, Sterk P, Tatusova T, Thomson N, Allen MJ and Angiuoli SV. The minimum information about a genome sequence (MIGS) specification. Nat Biotechnol. 2008; 26:541-547 View ArticlePubMed
  13. Woese CR, Kandler O and Wheelis ML. Towards a natural system of organisms. Proposal for the domains Archaea and Bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1990; 87:4576-4579 View ArticlePubMed
  14. Garrity GM, Holt JG. Taxonomic Outline of the Archaea and Bacteria In: Garrity GM, Boone DR, Castenholz RW (eds), Bergey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, Second Edition, Volume 1, Springer, New York, 2001, p. 155-166
  15. Biological Agents. Technical rules for biological agents TRBA 466.Web Site
  16. Ashburner M, Ball CA, Blake JA, Botstein D, Butler H, Cherry JM, Davis AP, Dolinski K, Dwight SS and Eppig JT. Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. The Gene Ontology Consortium. Nat Genet. 2000; 25:25-29 View ArticlePubMed
  17. Wu D, Hugenholtz P, Mavrommatis K, Pukall R, Dalin E, Ivanova N, Kunin V, Goodwin L, Wu M and Tindall BJ. A phylogeny-driven genomic encyclopedia of Bacteria and Archaea. Nature. 2009; 462:1056-1060 View ArticlePubMed
  18. Sims D, Brettin T, Detter JC, Han C, Lapidus A, Copeland A, Glavina Del Rio T, Nolan M, Chen F and Lucas S. Complete genome of Kytococcus sedentarius type strain (541T). Stand Genomic Sci. 2009; 1:12-20 View Article
  19. Hyatt D, Chen G-L, LoCascio PF, Land ML, Larimer FW, Hauser LJ. Prodigal: prokaryotic gene recognition and translation initiation site identification. BMC Genomics (in press)
  20. Pati A, Ivanova N, Mikhailova N, Ovchinikova G, Hooper SD, Lykidis A and Kyrpides NC. GenePRIMP: A Gene Prediction Improvement Pipeline for microbial genomes. Nature Methods, (in press)
  21. Markowitz VM, Mavromatis K, Ivanova NN, Chen IMA, Chu K and Kyrpides NC. IMG ER: a system for microbial genome annotation expert review and curation. Bioinformatics. 2009; 25:2271-2278 View ArticlePubMed
  22. Cantarel BL, Coutinho PM, Rancurel C, Bernard T, Lombard V and Henrissat B. The Carbohydrate-Active EnZymes database (CAZy): an expert resource for Glycogenomics. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009; 37:D233-D238 View ArticlePubMed
  23. Prag G, Papanikolau Y, Tavlas G, Vorgias CE, Petratos K and Oppenheim AB. Structures of chitobiase mutants complexed with the substrate di-N-acetyl-D-glucosamine: the catalytic role of the conserved acidic pair, aspartate 539 and glutamate 540. J Mol Biol. 2000; 300:611-617 View ArticlePubMed
  24. Davis B, Eveleigh DE. Chitosanases: occurrence, production and immobilization. In: Zikalis JP (ed.), Chitin, Chitosan and Related Enzymes Academic Press 1984;161-179.
  25. List of growth media used at DSMZ: Web Site