Methanobacterium formicicum BRM9: Difference between revisions

From Global Methane Hub Wikipedia
Line 148: Line 148:
|-
|-
|Sodium sulfite
|Sodium sulfite
|0.5 mM
|0.1 mM
|0.3 mM
|0.1 mM
|style="text-align: center;" | ~240 h
|style="text-align: center;" | ~240 h
|-
|-
|Mevinolin
|Mevinolin
|''Insensitive''
|style="color: red;"|''Insensitive''
|''Insensitive''
|style="color: red;"|''Insensitive''
|style="text-align: center;" | ~240 h
|style="text-align: center;" | ~240 h
|-
|-
Line 173: Line 173:
|-
|-
|5-fluorouracil (5-FU)
|5-fluorouracil (5-FU)
|''Insensitive''
|style="color: red;"|''Insensitive''
|''Insensitive''
|style="color: red;"|''Insensitive''
|style="text-align: center;" | ~240 h
|style="text-align: center;" | ~240 h
|-
|-
Line 184: Line 184:


Susceptibility testing was evaluated in GMH-VT2 medium inoculated with a 4% ''M. formicicum'' BRM9 culture that has a starting OD<sub>600</sub> of ~0.4. ''M. formicicum'' BRM9 was considered sensitive to the selection or counterselection agents if there was no increase in the OD<sub>600</sub> during the ~240 h (10 days) observation period.
Susceptibility testing was evaluated in GMH-VT2 medium inoculated with a 4% ''M. formicicum'' BRM9 culture that has a starting OD<sub>600</sub> of ~0.4. ''M. formicicum'' BRM9 was considered sensitive to the selection or counterselection agents if there was no increase in the OD<sub>600</sub> during the ~240 h (10 days) observation period.





Revision as of 22:01, 28 October 2026

Introduction

Methanocatella gottschalkii HOT (formerly Methanobrevibacter gottschalkii) is a type strain isolated from the enrichment of horse faeces[1]. M. gottschalkii, along with Methanobrevibacter ruminantium, comprises about 74% of total archaeal OTUs from rumen samples collected across a wide range of geographical regions, hosts, and diets[2]. This universality makes them methanogens of particular interest to the Global Methane Hub, as it enables strategies to mitigate methane emissions by targeting these dominant methanogens.

Global Methane Hub Metadata

Origin: BSI, New Zealand
Sequenced by: Plasmidsaurus, ONT sequencing
Assembled by: Christian Heryakusuma
Methylome called by: William G. Alexander
Methyltransferases cloned by: Guss Lab, ORNL
MIC and Culturing Conditions by: Christian Heryakusuma
Transformation by:

Abbreviation: BSI, Bioeconomy Science Institute; ONT, Oxford Nanopore Technologies; ORNL, Oak Ridge National Laboratory.


Genome

Circos plot of Methanobacterium formicicum BRM9. Source: Christian Heryakusuma
Assembly Summary
Completeness 99.94%
Contamination 0.35%
Total contigs 1
Max contig length 2,456,253 bp
GC content 41.3%
Annotation Summary
Coding density 84.8% CDSs 2397
tRNAs 44 Pseudogenes 0
tmRNAs 0 Hypotheticals 2061
rRNAs 7 sORFs 0
ncRNAs 1 Gaps 0
ncRNAs regions 2 oriCs 0
CRISPR arrays 3 oriVs 0
oriTs 0

Genomic DNA (gDNA) of M. formicicum BRM9 was extracted using NEB Monarch® Spin gDNA Extraction Kit following manufacturer protocols for gram-positive bacteria and archaea, except that lysozyme was replaced with phage pseudomurein endoisopeptidase of Methanocatella smithii PS (PeiS); an Escherichia coli strain encoding the PeiS gene was kindly provided by Prof. Metcalf (University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign).

The extracted gDNA was sequenced with Oxford Nanopore, then assembled with Flye[3] and polished with medaka (https://github.com/nanoporetech/medaka). The assembled genome was evaluated for completeness and contamination using QUAST[4] and CheckM2[5]. Bakta v1.12.0[6] with database v6.0 full (https://github.com/oschwengers/bakta) was used for genome annotation. All these bioinformatics analyses were performed at the Virginia Tech Advanced Research Computing (VT-ARC) facility.


Methylome

Methylation pattern

#motif methylCounts totalCounts %motifsMethyl
G(6mA)TC 16042 17258 92.95
GC(6mA)NNNNNNCTC 465 489 95.09
G(6mA)GNNNNNNTGC 477 489 97.55

Methylation motifs were analyzed using MIJAMP[7]. 4mC and 5mC motifs were not present in this isolate.

DefenseFinder Results

add here

Methylating E. coli

E. coli strain AG16322 developed by ORNL was used as a host to generate plasmids with M. formicicum BRM9 methylation motifs shown above.

Culturing Conditions

M. formicicum BRM9 is cultivated in GMH-VT2 medium at 37°C and 50 rpm with a 30 psig gas mixture of H2:CO2 (80:20, v/v) as an energy substrate. Growth is typically observed within 72 to 96 h. This methanogen can also be cultivated on GMH-VT2 plates using 1.5% gelrite or 2% agar as a gelling agent with a 12 to 30 psig H2:CO2 (80:20, v/v) gas mixture as an energy substrate. Visible growth on plate is usually observable within 5 to 7 days.

Antimicrobial MIC Tests

Antimicrobial susceptibility tests on M. formicicum BRM9. Source: Christian Heryakusuma.
Antibiotics Concentration Observation Period
Liquid Solid
Sodium sulfite 0.1 mM 0.1 mM ~240 h
Mevinolin Insensitive Insensitive ~240 h
5-fluoroorotic acid (5-FOA) Insensitive Insensitive ~240 h
8-azahypoxanthine (8-AH) Insensitive Insensitive ~240 h
6-mercaptopurine (6-MP) Insensitive Insensitive ~240 h
5-fluorouracil (5-FU) Insensitive Insensitive ~240 h
Sodium 2-bromoethanesulfonate (BES) 2 mM 1 mM ~240 h

Susceptibility testing was evaluated in GMH-VT2 medium inoculated with a 4% M. formicicum BRM9 culture that has a starting OD600 of ~0.4. M. formicicum BRM9 was considered sensitive to the selection or counterselection agents if there was no increase in the OD600 during the ~240 h (10 days) observation period.


Protocols

add here

Transformation Results

add here

  1. ↑ Miller, T. L. (2002). "Description of Methanobrevibacter gottschalkii sp. nov., Methanobrevibacter thaueri sp. nov., Methanobrevibacter woesei sp. nov. and Methanobrevibacter wolinii sp. nov". International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 52 (3): 819–822. https://doi.org/10.1099/00207713-52-3-819.
  2. ↑ Henderson, G., Cox, F., Ganesh, S. et al. Rumen microbial community composition varies with diet and host, but a core microbiome is found across a wide geographical range. Sci Rep 5, 14567 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep14567.
  3. ↑ Kolmogorov M, Yuan J, Lin Y, Pevzner PA. Assembly of long, error-prone reads using repeat graphs. Nat Biotechnol. 2019 May;37(5):540-546. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0072-8. Epub 2019 Apr 1. PMID: 30936562.
  4. ↑ Gurevich A, Saveliev V, Vyahhi N, Tesler G. QUAST: quality assessment tool for genome assemblies. Bioinformatics. 2013 Apr 15;29(8):1072-5. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btt086. Epub 2013 Feb 19. PMID: 23422339; PMCID: PMC3624806.
  5. ↑ Parks DH, Imelfort M, Skennerton CT, Hugenholtz P, Tyson GW. CheckM: assessing the quality of microbial genomes recovered from isolates, single cells, and metagenomes. Genome Res. 2015 Jul;25(7):1043-55. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.186072.114. Epub 2015 May 14. PMID: 25977477; PMCID: PMC4484387.
  6. ↑ Schwengers O, Jelonek L, Dieckmann MA, Beyvers S, Blom J, Goesmann A. Bakta: rapid and standardized annotation of bacterial genomes via alignment-free sequence identification. Microb Genom. 2021 Nov;7(11):000685. https://doi.org/10.1099/mgen.0.000685. PMID: 34739369; PMCID: PMC8743544.
  7. ↑ Alyssa K Tidwell, Evelyn Faust, Carrie A Eckert, Adam M Guss, William G Alexander, Discovering methylated DNA motifs in bacterial nanopore sequencing data with MIJAMP, Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology, Volume 52, 2025, kuaf022, https://doi.org/10.1093/jimb/kuaf022.