Methanobacterium formicicum BRM9

From Global Methane Hub Wikipedia

Introduction

Methanobacterium formicicum BRM9 is isolated from the rumen enrichment of non-lactating, rumen-fistulated, 6-year-old New Zealand Friesian cows grazing ryegrass/clover pastures[1]. While the abundance of Methanobacterium species is relatively low in the rumen environment, they have been found as endosymbionts of anaerobic amoebae and ciliate protozoa species.

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 the manufacturer's protocols for gram-positive bacteria and archaea, except that lysozyme was replaced with the phage ΨM2 pseudomurein endoisopeptidase of Methanothermobacter marburgensis (PeiP)[2].

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. ↑ Jarvis, G., Strömpl, C., Burgess, D. et al. Isolation and Identification of Ruminal Methanogens from Grazing Cattle. Curr Microbiol 40, 327–332 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/s002849910065.
  2. ↑ Luo Y, Pfister P, Leisinger T, Wasserfallen A. Pseudomurein endoisopeptidases PeiW and PeiP, two moderately related members of a novel family of proteases produced in Methanothermobacter strains. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2002 Feb 19;208(1):47-51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6968.2002.tb11059.x.
  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.