Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24819608›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Genomics of sponge-associated Streptomyces spp. closely related to Streptomyces albus J1074: insights into marine adaptation and secondary metabolite biosynthesis potential.

Elena Ian, Dmitry B Malko, Olga N Sekurova, Harald Bredholt, Christian Rückert, Marina E Borisova, Andreas Albersmeier, Jörn Kalinowski, Mikhail S Gelfand, Sergey B Zotchev

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Isolation and Identification of Bioactive Compounds fromAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Frontiers in microbiology · 2020
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Comparative Genomics of Marine Sponge-DerivedFrontiers in microbiology · 2019
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Frontiers in microbiology · 2019
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Genome Mining of the Marine ActinomyceteFrontiers in microbiology · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Elena IanDepartment of Biotechnology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Dmitry B MalkoN.I. Vavilov Institute of General Genetics, Department of Computational Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia.
Olga N SekurovaDepartment of Biotechnology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Harald BredholtDepartment of Biotechnology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Christian RückertInstitut fuer Genomforschung und Systembiologie, Centrum für Biotechnologie (CeBiTec), Universitaet Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany.
Marina E BorisovaA.A. Kharkevich Institute for Information Transmission Problems, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia.
Andreas AlbersmeierInstitut fuer Genomforschung und Systembiologie, Centrum für Biotechnologie (CeBiTec), Universitaet Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany.
Jörn KalinowskiInstitut fuer Genomforschung und Systembiologie, Centrum für Biotechnologie (CeBiTec), Universitaet Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany.
Mikhail S GelfandA.A. Kharkevich Institute for Information Transmission Problems, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia; Faculty of Bioengineering and Bioinformatics, M.V.Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia.
Sergey B ZotchevDepartment of Biotechnology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Norwegian University of Science and Technology · NOBielefeld University · DEInstitute for Information Transmission Problems · RULomonosov Moscow State University · RUVavilov Institute of General Genetics · RU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A total of 74 actinomycete isolates were cultivated from two marine sponges, Geodia barretti and Phakellia ventilabrum collected at the same spot at the bottom of the Trondheim fjord (Norway). Phylogenetic analyses of sponge-associated actinomycetes based on the 16S rRNA gene sequences demonstrated the presence of species belonging to the genera Streptomyces, Nocardiopsis, Rhodococcus, Pseudonocardia and Micromonospora. Most isolates required sea water for growth, suggesting them being adapted to the marine environment. Phylogenetic analysis of Streptomyces spp. revealed two isolates that originated from different sponges and had 99.7% identity in their 16S rRNA gene sequences, indicating that they represent very closely related strains. Sequencing, annotation, and analyses of the genomes of these Streptomyces isolates demonstrated that they are sister organisms closely related to terrestrial Streptomyces albus J1074. Unlike S. albus J1074, the two sponge streptomycetes grew and differentiated faster on the medium containing sea water. Comparative genomics revealed several genes presumably responsible for partial marine adaptation of these isolates. Genome mining targeted to secondary metabolite biosynthesis gene clusters identified several of those, which were not present in S. albus J1074, and likely to have been retained from a common ancestor, or acquired from other actinomycetes. Certain genes and gene clusters were shown to be differentially acquired or lost, supporting the hypothesis of divergent evolution of the two Streptomyces species in different sponge hosts.

Indexed as

AnimalsMicromonosporaPhylogenyPoriferaRNA, Ribosomal, 16SStreptomycesRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID24819608
PMCPMC4018334
OpenAlexW2060934615

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.