Open Access

Complete genome sequence of Spirosoma linguale type strain (1T)

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

DOI: 10.4056/sigs.741334

Received: 30 March 2010

Published: 30 April 2010


Spirosoma linguale Migula 1894 is the type species of the genus. S. linguale is a free-living and non-pathogenic organism, known for its peculiar ringlike and horseshoe-shaped cell morphology. Here we describe the features of this organism, together with the complete genome sequence and annotation. This is only the third completed genome sequence of a member of the family Cytophagaceae. The 8,491,258 bp long genome with its eight plasmids, 7,069 protein-coding and 60 RNA genes is part of the Genomic Encyclopedia of Bacteria and Archaea project.


psychroactiveoligotrophicaerobicringlike morphologynon-pathogenicfree-livingCytophagaceaeGEBA


Strain 1T (= DSM 74 = ATCC 33905 = LMG 10896) is the type strain of the species Spirosoma linguale, which is the type species of the genus Spirosoma. The genus currently consists of five species [1]. Strain 1T is reported to be isolated from a laboratory water bath (websites of DSMZ and ATCC), however, a proper reference could not be identified. Another strain of S. linguale was isolated from fresh water from deep wells in Long Beach, California, USA [2]. Other strains from the genus Spirosoma were isolated from high arctic permafrost soil in Norway [3], soil from a ginseng field in Pocheon province, South Korea [4], and fresh water from the Woopo wetlands, South Korea [5]. This would allow the hypothesis that S. linguale is a free-living species with a worldwide distribution. The genus name Spirosoma derives from ‘spira’ from Latin meaning coil combined with ‘soma’, Latin for ‘body’, resulting in ‘coiled body’ [1]. Spirosoma was the first genus in the family Spirillaceae in Migula’s “System der Bakterien” [6]. The species name is effectively published by Migula in 1894 [7] and validly published by Skerman in 1980 [8]. Various taxonomic treatments have placed this organism either in the family “Flexibacteraceae” or the family Cytophagaceae. This would appear to be due to a number of nomenclatural problems. The family “Flexibacteriaceae” as outlined in TOBA 7.7 would include Cytophaga hutchinsonii, which is the type species of the genus Cytophaga, which, in turn is the type of the family Cytophagaceae, a name that may not be replaced by the family name “Flexibacteriaceae” as long as Cytophaga hutchinsonii is one of the included species. However, the topology of the 16S rDNA based dendrogram indicates that it may be possible to define a second family, including the genus Spirosoma, but excluding Cytophaga hutchinsonii. At the same time, the family Cytophagaceae may be defined to exclude the type species of the genus Flexibacter and members of the genus Spirosoma. It should also be remembered that the genus Spirosoma is the type of the family Spirosomaceae Larkin and Borrall 1978. At present the higher taxonomic ranks of this group of organisms lacks formal modern descriptions and circumscriptions making it difficult to make definitive statements that would hold over the next few years. Here we present a summary classification and a set of features for S. linguale 1T, together with the description of the complete genomic sequencing and annotation.

Classification and features

Uncultured clone sequences in Genbank showed 96% or less sequence identity to the 16S gene sequence (AM000023) of strain S. linguale 1T. No reasonable sequence similarity (>87%) to any metagenomic survey were reported from the NCBI BLAST server (October 2009).

Figure 1 shows the phylogenetic neighborhood of for S. linguale 1T in a 16S rRNA based tree. The sequences of the four identical 16S rRNA gene copies in the genome of S. linguale 1T are also identical with the previously published 16S rRNA sequence generated from LMG 10896 (AM000023).

Figure 1

Phylogenetic tree highlighting the position of S. linguale 1T and the type strains of the other species within the genus relative to the other type strains within the family Cytophagaceae. The tree was inferred from 1,320 aligned characters [9,10] of the 16S rRNA gene sequence under the maximum likelihood criterion [11] and rooted with the type strain of the family Sphingobacteriaceae. 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 [12] are shown in blue, published genomes such as the one of Dyadobacter fermentans [13] in bold.

On TGEY medium [14], strain S. linguale 1T forms mucoid, opaque, and smooth colonies with a yellowish nondiffusible pigment [15]. The colony size is 2-4 mm, circular, with entire margins and convex elevation. In broth, growth is aerobic (Table 1) with even turbidity and flaky sediment [15]. The Gram-negative cells have round ends and show vibroid, horseshoe, and ring-like shapes, as well as coils and spiral forms [Figure 2 and ref. 15]. The cell width is 0.5 – 1.0 µm, and the outer ring diameter is 1.5–3.0 µm. The cell length is 2.0–5.0 µm [22]. Reports on filaments are conflicting [15,22].

Table 1

Classification and general features of S. linguale 1T according to the MIGS recommendations [16]




    Evidence code

   Current classification

    Domain Bacteria

    TAS [17]

    Phylum Bacteroidetes

    TAS [18,19]

    Class Sphingobacteria

    TAS [18,20]

    Order Sphingobacteriales

    TAS [18,20]

    Family Cytophagaceae

    TAS [8,21]

    Genus Spirosoma

    TAS [3,7,8]

    Species Spirosoma linguale

    TAS [7]

    Type strain 1

    TAS [7,8]

   Gram stain


    TAS [15]

   Cell shape

    vibroid, horseshoe, and ring-like shapes;    spiral form

    TAS [15]



    TAS [15]




   Temperature range


    TAS [5]

   Optimum temperature


    TAS [5]


    0-1.25% (w/v)

    TAS [5]


   Oxygen requirement


    TAS [15]

   Carbon source

    glycerol phosphate, succinate, tartrate,    malonate

    TAS [22]

   Energy source


    TAS [22]



    Laboratory water bath



   Biotic relationship





    not reported


   Biosafety level


    TAS [23]


    not reported



   Geographic location




   Sample collection time

    not reported


   Latitude   Longitude

    not reported



    not reported



    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 [24]. If the evidence code is IDA, then the property was directly observed for a live isolate by one of the authors, or an expert mentioned in the acknowledgements.

Figure 2

Scanning electron micrograph of S. linguale 1T

Strain S. linguale 1T produces oxidatively acid from arabinose, ribose, xylose, rhamnose, fructose, galactose, glucose, mannose, α-methyl-D-glucoside, salicin, cellobiose, lactose, maltose, melibiose, sucrose, trehalose, raffinose, dextrin and inulin, but not from sorbose, glycerol, erythritol, dulcitol, mannitol, and sorbitol [22]. On the enzymatic level, strain S. linguale 1T is positive for oxidase, catalase, ONPG-reaction, and, albeit weakly, for phosphatase, but negative for urease, lecithinase, lysine decarboxylase, phenylalanine deaminase, and hemolysin, indole, methyl red, Voges-Proskauer, NO3 reduction and H2S reactions [22]. Strain S. linguale 1T hydrolyzes esculin, tributyrin, gelatin, and, less well, starch and casein, but not cellulose and chitin [22]. It utilizes for growth on basal medium [25] glycerol phosphate, succinate, tartrate, and malonate as single carbon source, but not acetate, benzoate, citrate, formate, methylamine, propionate, and methanol [22]. Strain S. linguale 1T grows well on nutrient agar, nutrient agar + 5% sucrose, Microcyclus-Spirosoma agar, and yeast extract tryptone agar, weakly on peptonized milk agar, blood, and chocolate, and not on eosin methylene blue agar, phenol red mannitol salt agar, phenyl ethyl alcohol agar, trypticase soy agar (TSA), TSA + 3% glucose, TSA + 3% sucrose, McConkey, bismuth sulfide agar, and Salmonella-Shigella agar [22]. Strain S. linguale 1T is susceptible to actinomycin D (100 µg/ml), ampicillin (10 µg), aureomycin (15 µg), carbenicillin (50 µg), erythromycin (15 µg), furadantin/macrodantin (300 µg), gentamicin (10 µg), kanamycin (30 µg), mitomycin C (1 µg/ml), neomycin (30 µg), penicillin G (10 units), streptomycin (10 µg), sulfamethoxyzole/trimethopterin (25 µg), sulfathiazole (300 µg), and tetracycline(30 µg), but resistant to colistin (10 µg), polymixin B (300 units), and triple sulfa (1 mg) [22].


Earlier studies report C16:1 to be the dominant fatty acid (47.9%), followed by iso-C17:0 (20.1%), C16:0 (14.2%), iso-C15:0 (11.0%) and iso-C13:0 (3.4%). Anteiso and hydroxy fatty acids are each below 2.1% [26]. The fatty acids comprise a complex mixture of straight chain saturated and unsaturated fatty acids, together with iso-branched and 3-hydroxylated iso-branched fatty acids. The fatty acids comprise iso-C13:0 (2.2%), iso-C15:0 (9.3%), iso-C15:0 3-OH (3.4%), anteiso-C15:0 (2.6%), C16:0 (3.6%), C16:0 3-OH (2.2%), C16:1 ω 5c (22.2%), C17:0 2-OH (1.0%), iso-C17:0 3-OH (8.6%), iso-C13:0 (2.2%), C17:1 ω 9c (1.2%) and C16:1 ω 7c and/or iso-C15:0 2-OH (42.4%). The polar lipids comprise phosphatidylethanolamine and a number of lipids and amino lipids that were not further characterized. The fatty acid pattern is typical of the evolutionary group currently defined as the phylum Bacteroidetes. Furthermore the presence of phosphatidylethanolamine as the predominant/sole diglyceride based phospholipid is also typical of the vast majority of the phylum Bacteroidetes. Limited detailed studies indicate that this phospholipid contains both saturated and unsaturated straight chain fatty acids. Hydroxylated fatty acids are not present in this compound. In contrast, the limited studies on the amino lipids of Flavobacterium johnsoniae indicate that they are amino acid based, with a 3-OH fatty acid in amide linkage with a free amino group of the amino acid. The 3-OH fatty acid is further esterified with either a non-hydroxylated fatty acid, or with a second hydroxylated fatty acid. The presence of lipids that did not stain further running in proximity with the major aminolipid may also be indicative of capnines. The failure to resolve the fatty acids reported by the MIDI Sherlock MIS system as “summed feature 4” C16:1ω7c/iso C15:0 2-OH is problematic for genomics, since it either indicates that two mechanisms of introducing double bonds into fatty acids are present (C16:1ω5c and C16:1ω7c) or a fatty acid 2-hydroxylase is present. Furthermore, the distribution of 3-OH and 2-OH fatty acids among the amino- and non-staining lipids may also be characteristic. The main isoprenoid quinone is MK-7 (91.5%), followed by MK-8 (7.2%) and MK-6 (1.3%) [26].

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. The genome project is deposited in the Genome OnLine Database [12] 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





    Finishing quality



    Libraries used

     Two Sanger libraries: 8kb pMCL200 and fosmid pcc1Fos     One 454 pyrosequence and one Solexa standard library


    Sequencing platforms

     ABI3730, 454 GS FLX, Illumina GA


    Sequencing coverage

     10.1× Sanger; 18.4× pyrosequence



     Newbler, phrap


    Gene calling method

     Prodigal, GenePRIMP


     CP001769 (chromosome)     CP001770-77 (plasmids)

    Genbank Date of Release

     January 13, 2010



    NCBI project ID


    Database: IMG-GEBA



    Source material identifier

     DSM 74

    Project relevance

     Tree of Life, GEBA

Growth conditions and DNA isolation

S. linguale 1T, DSM 74, was grown in DSMZ medium 7 [27] at 28°C. DNA was isolated from 0.5-1 g of cell paste using Qiagen Genomic 500 DNA Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) with cell lysis modification st/L [28] and one hour incubation at 37°C.

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 can be found at Web Site. 454 Pyrosequencing reads were assembled using the Newbler assembler version (Roche). Large Newbler contigs were broken into 9,401 overlapping fragments of 1,000 bp and entered into 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 [29] or transposon bombing of bridging clones (Epicentre Biotechnologies, Madison, WI). Gaps between contigs were closed by editing in Consed, custom primer walk or PCR amplification. A total of 974 Sanger finishing reads were produced to close gaps, to resolve repetitive regions, and to raise the quality of the finished sequence. Illumina reads were used to improve the final consensus quality using an in-house developed tool (the Polisher). The error rate of the completed genome sequence is less than 1 in 100,000. Together all sequence types provided 28.5× coverage of the genome. The final assembly contains 87,186 Sanger and 666,973 pyrosequence reads.

Genome annotation

Genes were identified using Prodigal [30] as part of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory genome annotation pipeline, followed by a round of manual curation using the JGI GenePRIMP pipeline [31]. 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 manual functional annotation was performed within the Integrated Microbial Genomes Expert Review (IMG-ER) platform [32].

Genome properties

The genome consists of a 8,078,757 bp long chromosome and eight plasmids with 6,072 to 189,452 bp length (Table 3 and Figure 3). Of the 7,129 genes predicted, 7,069 were protein-coding genes, and 60 RNAs; 131 pseudogenes were also identified. The majority of the protein-coding genes (61.5%) 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



   % of Total

Genome size (bp)



DNA coding region (bp)



DNA G+C content (bp)



Number of replicons


Extrachromosomal elements


Total genes



RNA genes



rRNA operons


Protein-coding genes



Pseudo genes



Genes with function prediction



Genes in paralog clusters



Genes assigned to COGs



Genes assigned Pfam domains



Genes with signal peptides



Genes with transmembrane helices



CRISPR repeats


Figure 3

Graphical circular map of the chromosome (A) and the eight plasmids: pSLIN01 (B), pSLIN02 (C), pSLIN03 (D), pSLIN04 (E), pSLIN05 (F), pSLIN06 (G), pSLIN07 (H), pSLIN08 (I). Plasmids not drawn to scale. 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








    Translation, ribosomal structure and biogenesis




    RNA processing and modification








    Replication, recombination and repair




    Chromatin structure and dynamics




    Cell cycle control, mitosis and meiosis




    Nuclear structure




    Defense mechanisms




    Signal transduction mechanisms




    Cell wall/membrane biogenesis




    Cell motility








    Extracellular structures




    Intracellular trafficking and secretion




    Posttranslational modification, protein turnover, chaperones




    Energy production and conversion




    Carbohydrate transport and metabolism




    Amino acid transport and metabolism




    Nucleotide transport and metabolism




    Coenzyme transport and metabolism




    Lipid transport and metabolism




    Inorganic ion transport and metabolism




    Secondary metabolites biosynthesis, transport and catabolism




    General function prediction only




    Function unknown




    Not in COGs



We would like to gratefully acknowledge the help of Susanne Schneider (DSMZ) for DNA extraction and quality analysis. 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, Los Alamos National Laboratory under contract No. DE-AC02-06NA25396, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725, as well as German Research Foundation (DFG) INST 599/1-1 and SI 1352/1-2.

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.


  1. Euzéby JP. List of bacterial names with standing in nomenclature: A folder available on the Internet. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1997; 47:590-592 View ArticlePubMed
  2. Raj HD. A new species - Microcyclus flavus. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1970; 20:61-81 View Article
  3. Finster KW, Herbert RA and Lomstein BA. Spirosoma spitsbergense sp. nov. and Spirosoma luteum sp. nov., isolated from a high Arctic permafrost soil, and emended description of the genus Spirosoma. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2009; 59:839-844 View ArticlePubMed
  4. Ten LN, Xu JL, Jin FX, Im WT, Oh HM and Lee ST. Spirosoma panaciterrae sp. nov., isolated from soil. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2009; 59:331-335 View ArticlePubMed
  5. Baik KS, Kim MS, Park SC, Lee DW, Lee SD, Ka JO, Choi SK and Seong CN. Spirosoma rigui sp. nov., isolated from fresh water. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2007; 57:2870-2873 View ArticlePubMed
  6. Migula W. 1900. System der Bakterien, Vol 2. Gustav Fischer, Jena.
  7. Migula W. Über ein neues System der Bakterien. Arb Bakteriol Inst Karlsruhe. 1894; 1:235-238
  8. Skerman VBD, McGowan V and Sneath PHA. Approved Lists of Bacterial Names. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1980; 30:225-420 View Article
  9. Castresana J. Selection of conserved blocks from multiple alignments for their use in phylogenetic analysis. Mol Biol Evol. 2000; 17:540-552PubMed
  10. Lee C, Grasso C and Sharlow MF. Multiple sequence alignment using partial order graphs. Bioinformatics. 2002; 18:452-464 View ArticlePubMed
  11. Stamatakis A, Hoover P and Rougemont J. A Rapid Bootstrap Algorithm for the RAxML Web Servers. Syst Biol. 2008; 57:758-771 View ArticlePubMed
  12. 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
  13. Lang E, Lapidus A, Chertkov O, Brettin T, Detter JC, Han C, Copeland A, Glavina Del Rio T, Nolan M and Chen F. Complete genome sequence of Dyadobacter fermentans type strain (NS114T). Stand Genomic Sci. 2009; 1:133-140 View Article
  14. Raj HD. 1981. The genus Microcyclus and related bacteria, p. 630-44. In: Starr MP, Stolp H, Trüper HG, Balows A, HG Schlegel (eds), The Prokaryotes A handbook on habitats, isolation and identification of bacteria, Vol 1. Springer, New York.
  15. Raj HD and Maloy SR. Proposal of Cyclobacterium marinus gen. nov., comb. nov. for a marine bacterium previously assigned to the genus Flectobacillus. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1990; 40:337-347 View Article
  16. 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
  17. Woese CR, Kandler O and Wheelis ML. Towards a natural system of organisms: proposal for the domains Archaea, Bacteria, and Eucarya. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1990; 87:4576-4579 View ArticlePubMed
  18. Garrity GM, Lilburn TG, Cole JR, Harrison SH, Euzéby J, Tindall BJ. Taxonomic outline of the Bacteria and Archaea, Release 7.7 March 6, 2007. Part 11 - The Bacteria: Phyla "Planctomycetes", "Chlamydiae", "Spirochaetes", "Fibrobacteres", "Acidobacteria", "Bacteroidetes", "Fusobacteria", "Verrucomicrobia", "Dictyoglomi", "Gemmatimonadetes", and "Lentisphaerae". 2007.Web Site
  19. Woese CR, Stackebrandt E, Macke TJ and Fox GE. A phylogenetic definition of the major eubacterial taxa. Syst Appl Microbiol. 1985; 6:143-151PubMed
  20. Garrity GM, Holt JG. In: Garrity GM, Boone DR, Castenholz RW (2001) Taxonomic Outline of the Archaea and Bacteria Bergey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology 155-166.
  21. Stanier RY. Studies on the Cytophagas. J Bacteriol. 1940; 40:619-635PubMed
  22. Larkin JM, Williams PM and Taylor R. Taxonomy of the genus Microcyclus Orskov 1928: reintroduction and emendation of the genus Spirosoma Migula 1894 and proposal of a new genus, Flectobacillus. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1977; 27:147-156 View Article
  23. Classification of Bacteria and Archaea in risk groups. TRBA 466.Web Site
  24. 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. Nat Genet. 2000; 25:25-29 View ArticlePubMed
  25. Gordon RE and Mihm JM. A comparative study of some strains received as nocardiae. J Bacteriol. 1957; 73:15-27PubMed
  26. Urakami T and Komagata K. Methanol-utilizing Ancylobacter strains and comparison of their cellular fatty acid compositions and quinone systems with those of Spirosoma, Flectobacillus, and Runella species. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1986; 36:415-421 View Article
  27. List of growth media used at DSMZ: Web Site
  28. Wu D, Hugenholtz P, Mavromatis K, Pukall R, Dalin E, Ivanova NN, 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
  29. Sims D, Brettin T, Detter J, Han C, Lapidus A, Copeland A, Glavina Del Rio T, Nolan M, Chen F and Lucas S. Complete genome sequence of Kytococcus sedentarius type strain (541T). Stand Genomic Sci. 2009; 1:12-20 View Article
  30. Hyatt D, Chen GL, Locascio PF, Land ML, Larimer FW and Hauser LJ. Prodigal Prokaryotic Dynamic Programming Genefinding Algorithm. BMC Bioinformatics. 2010; 11:119 View ArticlePubMed
  31. Pati A, Ivanova N, Mikhailova N, Ovchinikova G, Hooper SD, Lykidis A and Kyrpides NC. GenePRIMP: A Gene Prediction Improvement Pipeline for microbial genomes. Nat Methods (in press).
  32. Markowitz VM, Mavromatis K, Ivanova NN, Chen IMA, Chu K and Kyrpides NC. Expert Review of Functional Annotations for Microbial Genomes. Bioinformatics. 2009; 25:2271-2278 View ArticlePubMed