Genome sequence of the plant-growth-promoting bacterium Bacillus velezensis EU07

  1. Ömür Baysal
  2. David J. Studholme
  3. Catherine Jimenez-Quiros
  4. Mahmut Tör

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.
Log in to save this article

Abstract

Many Gram-positive spore-forming rhizobacteria of the genus Bacillus show potential as biocontrol biopesticides that promise improved sustainability and ecological safety in agriculture. Here, we present a draft-quality genome sequence for Bacillus velezensis EU07, which shows growth-promotion in tomato plants and biocontrol against Fusarium head blight. We found that the genome of EU07 is almost identical to that of the commercially used strain QST713, but identified 46 single-nucleotide differences that distinguish these strains from each other. The availability of this genome sequence will facilitate future efforts to unravel the genetic and molecular basis for EU07's beneficial properties.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1099/acmi.0.000762.v3 on Access Microbiology
  3. Version published to 10.1099/acmi.0.000762.v2 on Access Microbiology
  4. Access Microbiology

    The submitted work would be a valuable addition to the literature. Reviewers have provided minor comments for additional information to improve the current manuscript. Please ensure that you completely address their points.

  5. Access Microbiology

    Comments to Author

    In this manuscript, the authors describe a draft genome sequence of a Bacillus velezensis strain EU07. The genomic differences of EU07 and a commercially used strain QST713 was compared and 46 single-nucleotide differences are found. The draft genome sequence of EU07 may help distinguish it to strain QST713 and facilitate unravel the genetic basis for its function. The research objective of this manuscript is clear stated and a review of the published literature is adequate. The methods described in this manuscript are appropriate to the research and the details have been shown or have added references and web servers. I suggest the authors afford more details to simply describe the processes about how to use the web servers that the authors mentioned. Other suggestions are as follows: 1. L160，charcaterised，please correct to characterized. 2. Figure 2, I suggest the authors add the species names of the genomes in the picture of Figure 2. 3. The names of genus and species in the Reference section should be corrected to be italic.

    Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour

    Good

    Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript

    Satisfactory

    Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?

    No

    Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?

    No

    If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?

    No: This manuscript does not involve human and/or animal work.

  6. Access Microbiology

    Comments to Author

    If the authors address the comments I have below, then I believe this manuscript will be fit for publication. Methods and Results are well defined and clear, with nice figures. My main issue is with the introduction being too short, which I outline below. Otherwise, it's good. Line 28 - "sGram" change to "Gram" Line 28/29 - "biocontrol biopesticides agricultural" change to just "biocontrol pesticides" as agriculture is mentioned later in the sentence. 46 - INTRODUCTION. For me this is far too short. It did not give me that much context about why this dataset was a vital part of ongoing research, or why it is important. There is no reference associated to previous work isolating this strain, and the reader is not given much information as to the relevance of this EU07 strain. Why was it isolated in the first place? Is it a well studied strain? Is it part of a soil ecosystems natural defences against pathogens? Is it an engineered strain used in agriculture? I think more work here will help get across why this study is important. Also, authors write "it inhibits / it promotes" at a couple of points; I would put the name of the strain here instead to be specific. Line 57 - Bacterial strain DNA isolation. More information needed here too. Was the DNA isolated from a clonal sample? Which broth was used? Was the broth similar to environmental conditions, or more similar to lab conditions? Line 91 - I would say how many related genomes here. I know it's mentioned later on (888?) but it should be put in the methods section. Line 98 - How consistent was the coverage? Did you have areas of high / low coverage that may affect the analysis of the data? Line 127 - Do you have any hypothesis as to why this strain would have more bacteriophage genomes within it? Is it more susceptible in some way?

    Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour

    Good

    Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript

    Satisfactory

    Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?

    No

    Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?

    No

    If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?

    Yes

  7. Version published to 10.1099/acmi.0.000762.v1 on Access Microbiology