Geobacter species are involved in electricity production, bioremediations, and various environmental friendly activities. Whole genome comparative analyses of Geobacter sulfurreducens PCA, Geobacter bemidjiensis Bem, Geobacter sp. FRC-32, Geobacter lovleyi SZ, Geobacter sp. M21, Geobacter metallireducens GS-15, Geobacter uraniireducens Rf4 have been made to find out similarities and dissimilarities among them. For whole genome comparison of Geobacter species, an in-house tool, Geobacter Comparative Genomics Tool (GCGT) has been developed using BLASTALL program, and these whole genome analyses yielded conserved genes and they are used for functional prediction. The conserved genes identified are about 2184 genes, and these genes are classified into 14 groups based on the pathway information. Functions for 74 hypothetical proteins have been predicted based on the conserved genes. The predicted functions include pilus type proteins, flagellar proteins, ABC transporters, and other proteins which are involved in electron transfer. A phylogenetic tree from 16S rRNA of seven Geobacter species showed that G. sulfurreducens PCA is closely related to G. metallireducens GS-15 and G. lovleyi SZ. For evolutionary study, acetate kinase protein is used, which showed closeness to Pelobacter propionicus, Pelobacter carbinolicus, and Deferribacteraceae family bacterial species. These results will be useful to enhance electricity production by using biotechnological approaches. 1. Introduction Geobacter species have been placed in the Geobacteraceae family which falls under the δ-Proteobacteria class. They are found in abundance where Fe(III) reduction is important, and these reductions play an important role in bioremediation [1]. These species have the ability to transfer electrons directly to electrodes or metals without any electron mediators and as a result they produce electricity or precipitate soluble metals [2, 3]. Geobacter species are involved in a variety of environmental friendly actions like bioremediation, electricity production, and so forth [2, 4]. Geobacter species till now have shown higher current production compared to other organisms, and these species are found to be having nanowires, which allows it to reach distant electron acceptors, and in turn helps in making a microbial fuel cell easier [5]. Geobacter species which are a strictly anaerobic organism also proved to be having the ability to grow in low oxygen concentrations, and this has effects on this organism’s growth in the subsurface environment [6]. As there is an increase in genome
References
[1]
C. Leang, L. A. Adams, K.-J. Chin et al., “Adaptation to disruption of the electron transfer pathway for Fe(III) reduction in Geobacter sulfurreducens,” Journal of Bacteriology, vol. 187, no. 17, pp. 5918–5926, 2005.
[2]
D. R. Bond and D. R. Lovley, “Electricity production by Geobacter sulfurreducens attached to electrodes,” Applied and Environmental Microbiology, vol. 69, no. 3, pp. 1548–1555, 2003.
[3]
B. A. Methé, K. E. Nelson, J. A. Eisen et al., “Genome of Geobacter sulfurreducens: metal reduction in subsurface environments,” Science, vol. 302, no. 5652, pp. 1967–1969, 2003.
[4]
R. T. Anderson, H. A. Vrionis, I. Ortiz-Bernad et al., “Stimulating the in situ activity of Geobacter species to remove uranium from the groundwater of a uranium-contaminated aquifer,” Applied and Environmental Microbiology, vol. 69, no. 10, pp. 5884–5889, 2003.
[5]
A. R. Schoen, “Carbon fiber electrode as an electron acceptor for a microbial fuel cell using geobacter,” Cantaurus, vol. 15, pp. 24–26, 2007.
[6]
W. C. Lin, M. V. Coppi, and D. R. Lovley, “Geobacter sulfurreducens can grow with oxygen as a terminal electron acceptor,” Applied and Environmental Microbiology, vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 2525–2528, 2004.
[7]
W. M. Fitch, “Homologya personal view on some of the problems,” Trends in Genetics, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 227–231, 2000.
[8]
M. Richter, M. Kube, D. A. Bazylinski et al., “Comparative genome analysis of four magnetotactic bacteria reveals a complex set of group-specific genes implicated in magnetosome biomineralization and function,” Journal of Bacteriology, vol. 189, no. 13, pp. 4899–4910, 2007.
[9]
L. Wei, Y. Liu, I. Dubchak, J. Shon, and J. Park, “Comparative genomics approaches to study organism similarities and differences,” Journal of Biomedical Informatics, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 142–150, 2002.
[10]
G. Sawa, J. Dicks, and I. N. Roberts, “Current approaches to whole genome phylogenetic analysis.,” Briefings in Bioinformatics, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 63–74, 2003.
[11]
J. E. Butler, N. D. Young, and D. R. Lovley, “Evolution from a respiratory ancestor to fill syntrophic and fermentative niches: comparative fenomics of six Geobacteraceae species,” BMC Genomics, vol. 10, article 103, 2009.
[12]
E. W. Sayers, T. Barrett, D. A. Benson, et al., “Database resources of the National Center for Biotechnology Information,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 39, pp. 38–51, 2011.
[13]
S. F. Altschul, W. Gish, W. Miller, E. W. Myers, and D. J. Lipman, “Basic local alignment search tool,” Journal of Molecular Biology, vol. 215, no. 3, pp. 403–410, 1990.
[14]
UniProt Consortium, “Ongoing and future developments at the Universal Protein Resource,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 39, pp. D214–D219, 2011.
[15]
M. A. Larkin, G. Blackshields, N. P. Brown et al., “Clustal W and clustal X version 2.0,” Bioinformatics, vol. 23, no. 21, pp. 2947–2948, 2007.
[16]
J. Felsenstein, “PHYLIP—phylogeny inference package (version 3. 2),” Cladistics, vol. 5, pp. 164–166, 1989.
[17]
M. V. Han and C. M. Zmasek, “PhyloXML: XML for evolutionary biology and comparative genomics,” BMC Bioinformatics, vol. 10, article 356, 2009.
[18]
D. Lee, O. Redfern, and C. Orengo, “Predicting protein function from sequence and structure,” Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, vol. 8, no. 12, pp. 995–1005, 2007.
[19]
S. J. Callister, L. A. McCue, J. E. Turse et al., “Comparative bacterial proteomics: analysis of the core genome concept,” PLoS ONE, vol. 3, no. 2, Article ID e1542, 2008.
[20]
D. W. Ussery and P. F. Hallin, “Genome update: length distributions of sequenced prokaryotic genomes,” Microbiology, vol. 150, no. 3, pp. 513–516, 2004.
[21]
E. S. Shelobolina, H. A. Vrionis, R. H. Findlay, and D. R. Lovley, “Geobacter uraniireducens sp. nov., isolated from subsurface sediment undergoing uranium bioremediation,” International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, vol. 58, no. 5, pp. 1075–1078, 2008.
[22]
F. Hildebrand, A. Meyer, and A. Eyre-Walker, “Evidence of selection upon genomic GC-content in bacteria,” PLoS Genetics, vol. 6, no. 9, Article ID e1001107, 2010.
[23]
J. E. Clarridge III, “Impact of 16S rRNA gene sequence analysis for identification of bacteria on clinical microbiology and infectious diseases,” Clinical Microbiology Reviews, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 840–862, 2004.
[24]
N. T. Trinh, J. H. Park, and B. Kim, “Increased generation of electricity in a microbial fuel cell using Geobacter sulfurreducens,” Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 748–753, 2009.
[25]
G. E. Murphy, J. R. Leadbetter, and G. J. Jensen, “In situ structure of the complete Treponema primitia flagellar motor,” Nature, vol. 442, no. 7106, pp. 1062–1064, 2006.
