Fig 1.
Colony and cellular morphology.
A. Colony morphology of M. hansupus swarm with 1x magnification; B. Cellular morphology as visualized with Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) with 7,380x magnification.
Table 1.
Assembly statistics for M. hansupus.
Fig 2.
Circular representation of the M. hansupus complete genome.
Circles (from inside to outside) 1 and 2 (GC content; black line and GC skew; magenta and green lines), circle 3 (M. hansupus; red circle); circle 4 (mapped Myxococcus fulvus HW-1 genome with M. hansupus genome; green circle); circle 5 (mapped Myxococcus xanthus DK1622 genome with M. hansupus genome; purple circle); circle 6 (mapped Myxococcus xanthus DZF1 genome with M. hansupus genome; Orange circle); circle 7 (mapped Myxococcus xanthus DZ2 genome with M. hansupus genome; blue circle); circle 8 (mapped Myxococcus stipitatus genome with M. hansupus genome; yellow circle). BRIG 0.95 was used to build the circular representation [53]. Mapping studies were done using BLASTn with an E-value cut-off 1e-5.
Table 2.
General features of genus Myxococcus genomes as annotated by RAST.
Fig 3.
Venn diagram of comparative annotations of Myxococcus xanthus DK1622 using RAST, Glimmer, xBASE and the original NCBI annotation.
All genome annotations were mapped to each other using BLASTp [E-value cutoff: 1e-5]. The diagram depicts the homologous proteins shared between two or more annotations (overlapping area) along with unique proteins (yellow shade). RAST, Glimmer, xBASE and the original NCBI annotations are shown in brick red, green, orange and blue colors respectively. The number of annotated proteins using the respective annotation pipeline is shown in the box.
Fig 4.
Phylogeny based on housekeeping proteins.
Twenty-eight concatenated housekeeping proteins were used to generate ML based phylogenetic tree using MEGA 6.06 [model: JTT matrix; bootstrap: 100]. Corallococcus coralloides DSM 2259, Cystobacter fuscus DSM 2262, Anaeromyxobacter dehalogenans 2CP-C, Sorangium cellulosum Soce56, and Bdellovibrio exovorus JSS were used as outgroup species in this study. Bootstrap values corresponding to the tree nodes are provided.
Table 3.
A binary map depicting cluster of homologous proteins among all genomes.
Fig 5.
Comparative representation of homologous protein distribution within the genomes.
Proteome dataset from each genome was subjected to BLASTp to identify homologous proteins between the genomes with an E-value cutoff of 1e-5, query coverage of 50% and identity of 35%. Protein distribution between different combinations of genomes was identified and is represented as a 3D-graph. X, Y and Z-axis respectively denote genome name, the number of proteins and the genome combination.