Skip to main content

Draft genomes of three closely related low light-adapted Prochlorococcus

Abstract

Objectives

The marine cyanobacterium Prochlorococcus is a critical part of warm ocean ecosystems and a model for studying microbial evolution and ecology. To expand the representation of this organism’s vast wild diversity in sequence collections, we performed a set of isolation efforts targeting low light-adapted Prochlorococcus. Three genomes resulting from this larger body of work are described here.

Data description

We present draft-quality Prochlorococcus genomes from enrichment cultures P1344, P1361, and P1363, sampled in the North Pacific. The genomes were built from Illumina paired reads assembled de novo. Supporting datasets of raw reads, assessments, and sequences from co-enriched heterotrophic marine bacteria are also provided. These three genomes represent members of the low light-adapted LLIV Prochlorococcus clade that are closely related, with 99.9% average nucleotide identity between pairs, yet vary in gene content. Expanding the powerful toolkit of Prochlorococcus genomes, these sequences provide an opportunity to study fine-scale variation and microevolutionary processes.

Objective

Inhabiting the oligotrophic open oceans, the cyanobacterium Prochlorococcus is the most abundant photoautotroph on Earth, influencing local trophic flow and global biogeochemical cycling [1, 2]. A minimalist adapted to its low-nutrient environment [3, 4], Prochlorococcus is unique among cyanobacteria for its small cells, 0.5 – 1.0 µm diameter [5, 6], and small genomes, 1.6 – 2.7 Mb [7]. As a model system, Prochlorococcus has revealed ecological structure and adaptation at many scales (e.g., [7,8,9,10,11,12]).

Prochlorococcus diversity is organized into phylogenetic clades, sorted into low light-adapted (LL) and high light-adapted (HL) groups based on ecological, genomic, and physiological patterns [7, 12, 13]. While HL clades are more abundant [9, 14], LL Prochlorococcus include lineages adapted to uniquely challenging conditions, including anoxic zones [15], seasonal mixing [14], and light limitation in the deep euphotic zone [12]. LL strains have larger genomes with substantial flexible genome content [7]. Known wild diversity among LL Prochlorococcus far exceeds culture collections [7], and culturing this organism can be unpredictable [16].

In this context, we performed isolation and sequencing efforts targeting LL Prochlorococcus during a North Pacific sampling opportunity. This work resulted in previously described strains [17,18,19] and the three LLIV clade genomes described here: P1344, P1361, and P1363. To date, these new genomes have been used in studies on novel mobile genetic elements [20] and diversity in Prochlorococcus enrichment cultures [19]. These genomes represent a set of sympatric, closely related strains, supporting the study of microevolution in the growing Prochlorococcus sequence collection.

Data description

We present draft Prochlorococcus genomes from enrichment cultures P1344, P1361, and P1363 (Dataset 1) [21,22,23]. They come from a single sample collected in the North Pacific from 150 m at Station ALOHA (22.75°N, 158°W), June 2013 [24, 25]. Isolation protocols [16] were tuned to enrich for LL Prochlorococcus. Data file 1 [26] provides detailed methods; Table 1 lists datasets. Previously described strains from the same project [17,18,19] are described in Data file 2 [26]. After 1.5 years of subculturing, enrichments P1344, P1361, and P1363 each stabilized to a single internal transcribed spacer rRNA (ITS) sequence [27], an indicator of unialgal Prochlorococcus cultures [16, 28]. Because the time from sea to genome was shorter than for previously sequenced enrichment cultures (e.g., 5–20 years [28]), we followed a naming convention for Prochlorococcus enrichments [29]. The three ITS sequences, in the LLIV clade, were identical to each other, strains MIT1312 and MIT1327 (additional co-isolates from the same sample [17]), and MIT1227 (from Station ALOHA one year earlier [30]).

Table 1 Overview of data files/data sets

Genomic libraries were prepared as in [34] from bulk enrichment DNA and sequenced with Illumina MiSeq V3 at the MIT BioMicroCenter [35] with 300 base paired reads. Raw reads are available in the NCBI Sequencing Read Archive (Dataset 2) [31,32,33]. Quality-trimmed reads were assembled de novo with SPAdes v.3.1.1 [36]. Enrichment contigs were screened with blastn [37] against the NCBI nt database to separate out Prochlorococcus sequences (Data file 3) [26]. Contigs with at least 500 bases, top BLAST hits to Prochlorococcus (Data file 4) [26], and at least 2 × kmer coverage were selected to produce the genomes. For P1344, P1361, and P1363, respectively, genomes consist of 106, 45, and 66 contigs, with average read coverage depths 82x, 57x, and 67x [38] and genome sizes 2.47 Mb, 2.51 Mb, and 2.56 Mb, similar to other LLIV genomes (Data file 2) [26].

For initial assessments, we annotated the genomes with Prokka [39] (Dataset 3, Data file 5) [26]. Genbank annotations come from the NCBI automated annotation pipeline (Dataset 1) [22,23,24]. Enrichment assembly (Dataset 4 [26]) BLAST and metagenomic binning results (Data files 1, 3, 6, 7) [26] show the presence of copiotrophic marine bacteria at lower coverage than Prochlorococcus, with partially recovered genomes [40,41,42,43]. These include Alteromonas and Marinobacter, groups previously studied in co-culture with Prochlorococcus that can enhance its growth or survival in culture [18, 19, 44,45,46]. Comparisons among P1344, P1361, P1363, and the three other genomes with the same ITS (Data files 1, 8, 9) [26] support the idea that they represent similar but distinct strains, with average nucleotide identity from 99.9% ± 0.7% to 100.0% ± 0.1% s.d. [47], 103 – 3,854 SNPs in pairwise alignments [48, 49], and 32 – 132 distinct genes in pairwise ortholog group comparisons [50]. While mostly without predicted functions, these variable genes include a pilus-related protein and a member of the cytochrome c family, located near contig ends (Data files 1, 5) [26]. This scale of variation will support the study of recent Prochlorococcus evolution.

Limitations

The enrichment cultures described here were lost during maintenance and are no longer available. These genomes came from enrichments rather than clones, representing a snapshot in time of a likely single dominant strain in each culture and an associated heterotrophic community (Data file 1) [26]. That these genomes are not linked to existing cultures and did not come from clonal isolates limits downstream use and requires caution in interpretation, but not more so than sequences derived from single cell methods or metagenomics, and with the benefit of more complete genomes. With care, these new genomes still have the potential to contribute useful insights on the nature and mechanisms of fine-scale evolution in Prochlorococcus.

Availability of data and materials

The genomic data described in this Data note can be freely and openly accessed at the NCBI Genbank database under Bioproject PRJNA623403, with accession numbers JABBYR000000000.1 (P1344), JABBYP000000000.1 (P1361), and JABBYQ000000000.1 (P1363) [21,22,23]. Raw enrichment sequencing reads are available in the NCBI Sequencing Read Archive under accession numbers SRR11497176 (P1344), SRR11497178 (P1361), and SRR11497177 (P1363) [31,32,33]. Detailed methods and supportive datasets are available on figshare at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12675410 [26].

Abbreviations

HL:

High light-adapted

LL:

Low light-adapted

ITS:

Internal transcribed spacer between the 16S and 23S ribosomal RNA genes

NCBI:

National Center for Biotechnology Information

References

  1. Flombaum P, Gallegos JL, Gordillo RA, Rincón J, Zabala LL, Jiao N, et al. Present and future global distributions of the marine Cyanobacteria Prochlorococcus and Synechococcus. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110:9824–9. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1307701110.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Partensky F, Hess WR, Vaulot D. Prochlorococcus, a Marine Photosynthetic Prokaryote of Global Significance. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 1999;63:106–27. https://doi.org/10.1128/mmbr.63.1.106-127.1999.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Scanlan DJ, Ostrowski M, Mazard S, Dufresne A, Garczarek L, Hess WR, et al. Ecological genomics of marine picocyanobacteria. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2009;73:249–99. https://doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.00035-08.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Partensky F, Garczarek L. Prochlorococcus: advantages and limits of minimalism. Ann Rev Mar Sci. 2010;2:305–31. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-marine-120308-081034.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Morel A, Ahn Y-H, Partensky F, Vaulot D, Claustre H. Prochlorococcus and Synechococcus: A comparative study of their optical properties in relation to their size and pigmentation. J Mar Res. 1993;51:617–49. https://doi.org/10.1357/0022240933223963.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Ting CS, Hsieh C, Sundararaman S, Mannella C, Marko M. Cryo-electron tomography reveals the comparative three-dimensional architecture of Prochlorococcus, a globally important marine cyanobacterium. J Bacteriol. 2007;189:4485–93. https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.01948-06.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Biller SJ, Berube PM, Lindell D, Chisholm SW. Prochlorococcus: the structure and function of collective diversity. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2015;13:13–27. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro3378.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kent AG, Dupont CL, Yooseph S, Martiny AC. Global biogeography of Prochlorococcus genome diversity in the surface ocean. ISME J. 2016;10:1856–65. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2015.265.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Johnson ZI, Zinser ER, Coe A, McNulty NP, Woodward EMS, Chisholm SW. Niche partitioning among Prochlorococcus ecotypes along ocean-scale environmental gradients. Science. 2006;311:1737–40. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1118052.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kashtan N, Roggensack SE, Rodrigue S, Thompson JW, Biller SJ, Coe A, et al. Single-cell genomics reveals hundreds of coexisting subpopulations in wild Prochlorococcus. Science. 2014;344:416–20. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1248575.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Coleman ML, Chisholm SW. Code and context: Prochlorococcus as a model for cross-scale biology. Trends Microbiol. 2007;15:398–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2007.07.001.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Zinser ER, Johnson ZI, Coe A, Karaca E, Veneziano D, Chisholm SW. Influence of light and temperature on Prochlorococcus ecotype distributions in the Atlantic Ocean. Limnol Oceanogr. 2007;52:2205–20. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2007.52.5.2205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Moore LR, Chisholm SW. Photophysiology of the marine cyanobacterium Prochlorococcus: Ecotypic differences among cultured isolates. Limnol Oceanogr. 1999;44:628–38. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1999.44.3.0628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Malmstrom RR, Coe A, Kettler GC, Martiny AC, Frias-Lopez J, Zinser ER, et al. Temporal dynamics of Prochlorococcus ecotypes in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. ISME J. 2010;4:1252–64. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2010.60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ulloa O, Henríquez-Castillo C, Ramírez-Flandes S, Plominsky AM, Murillo AA, Morgan-Lang C, et al. The cyanobacterium Prochlorococcus has divergent light-harvesting antennae and may have evolved in a low-oxygen ocean. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2021;118(11):e2025638118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2025638118.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Moore LR, Coe A, Zinser ER, Saito MA, Sullivan MB, Lindell D, et al. Culturing the marine cyanobacterium Prochlorococcus. Limnol Oceanogr Methods. 2007;5:353–62. https://doi.org/10.4319/lom.2007.5.353.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Cubillos-Ruiz A, Berta-Thompson JW, Becker JW, van der Donk WA, Chisholm SW. Evolutionary radiation of lanthipeptides in marine cyanobacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017;114:E5424–33. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1700990114.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Becker JW, Hogle SL, Rosendo K, Chisholm SW. Co-culture and biogeography of Prochlorococcus and SAR11. ISME J. 2019;13:1506–19. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-019-0365-4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Kearney SM, Thomas E, Coe A, Chisholm SW. Microbial diversity of co-occurring heterotrophs in cultures of marine picocyanobacteria. Environmental Microbiome. 2021;16:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40793-020-00370-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Hackl T, Laurenceau R, Ankenbrand MJ, Bliem C, Cariani Z, Thomas E, et al. Novel integrative elements and genomic plasticity in ocean ecosystems. Cell. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2022.12.006.

  21. Berta-Thompson J, Thomas E, Cubillos-Ruiz A, Hackl T, Becker JW, Biller SJ and Chisholm SW. Prochlorococcus sp. P1344 strain 150SLHB, whole genome shotgun sequencing project. NCBI Genbank. 2020. https://identifiers.org/nucleotide:JABBYR000000000.1.

  22. Berta-Thompson J, Thomas E, Cubillos-Ruiz A, Hackl T, Becker JW, Biller SJ and Chisholm SW. Prochlorococcus sp. P1361 strain 150NLHA, whole genome shotgun sequencing project. NCBI Genbank. 2020. https://identifiers.org/nucleotide:JABBYP000000000.1.

  23. Berta-Thompson J, Thomas E, Cubillos-Ruiz A, Hackl T, Becker JW, Biller SJ and Chisholm SW. Prochlorococcus sp. P1363 strain 150SLHA, whole genome shotgun sequencing project. NCBI Genbank. 2020. https://identifiers.org/nucleotide:JABBYQ000000000.1.

  24. Karl DM, Church MJ. Ecosystem Structure and Dynamics in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre: New Views of an Old Ocean. Ecosystems. 2017;20:433–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-017-0117-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Center for Microbial Oceanography Research and Education. Hawaii Ocean Experiment - Phosphorus Rally: HOE-PhoR 1. https://hahana.soest.hawaii.edu/hoephor/hoephor.html. Accessed 3 May 2021.

  26. Berta-Thompson JW, Thomas E, Cubillos-Ruiz A, Hackl T, Becker JW, Coe A, Biller SJ, Berube P, Chisholm SW. Datasets supporting draft genomes of three closely related low light-adapted Prochlorococcus. figshare. 2021. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12675410.

  27. Rodrigue S, Malmstrom RR, Berlin AM, Birren BW, Henn MR, Chisholm SW. Whole genome amplification and de novo assembly of single bacterial cells. PLoS ONE. 2009;4:e6864. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0006864.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Biller SJ, Berube PM, Berta-Thompson JW, Kelly L, Roggensack SE, Awad L, et al. Genomes of diverse isolates of the marine cyanobacterium Prochlorococcus. Sci Data. 2014;1: 140034. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2014.34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Berube PM, Biller SJ, Kent AG, Berta-Thompson JW, Roggensack SE, Roache-Johnson KH, et al. Physiology and evolution of nitrate acquisition in Prochlorococcus. ISME J. 2015;9:1195–207. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2014.211.

  30. Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute IMG/M Prochlorococcus Portal. https://img.jgi.doe.gov/cgi-bin/proportal/main.cgi. Accessed 26 Jul 2021.

  31. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Whole genome sequencing of Prochlorococcus sp. P1344: paired-end reads. NCBI Sequence Read Archive. 2020. https://identifiers.org/insdc.sra:SRR11497176.

  32. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Whole genome sequencing of Prochlorococcus sp. P1361: paired-end reads. NCBI Sequence Read Archive. 2020. https://identifiers.org/insdc.sra:SRR11497178.

  33. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Whole genome sequencing of Prochlorococcus sp. P1363: paired-end reads. NCBI Sequence Read Archive. 2020. https://identifiers.org/insdc.sra:SRR11497177.

  34. Rodrigue S, Materna AC, Timberlake SC, Blackburn MC, Malmstrom RR, Alm EJ, et al. Unlocking short read sequencing for metagenomics. PLoS ONE. 2010;5:e11840. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011840.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) BioMicro Center. https://openwetware.org/wiki/BioMicroCenter. Accessed 3 May 2021.

  36. Bankevich A, Nurk S, Antipov D, Gurevich AA, Dvorkin M, Kulikov AS, et al. SPAdes: a new genome assembly algorithm and its applications to single-cell sequencing. J Comput Biol. 2012;19:455–77. https://doi.org/10.1089/cmb.2012.0021.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ. Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol. 1990;215:403–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-2836(05)80360-2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Douglass AP, O’Brien CE, Offei B, Coughlan AY, Ortiz-Merino RA, Butler G, et al. Coverage-Versus-Length Plots, a Simple Quality Control Step for de Novo Yeast Genome Sequence Assemblies. G3. 2019;9:879–87. https://doi.org/10.1534/g3.118.200745.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Seemann T. Prokka: rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:2068–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btu153.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Kang DD, Li F, Kirton E, Thomas A, Egan R, An H, et al. MetaBAT 2: an adaptive binning algorithm for robust and efficient genome reconstruction from metagenome assemblies. PeerJ. 2019;7:e7359. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.7359.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. 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;25(7):1043–55. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.186072.114.42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Lauro FM, McDougald D, Thomas T, Williams TJ, Egan S, Rice S, et al. The genomic basis of trophic strategy in marine bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106:15527–33. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903507106.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Vergin KL, Done B, Carlson CA, Giovannoni SJ. Spatiotemporal distributions of rare bacterioplankton populations indicate adaptive strategies in the oligotrophic ocean. Aquat Microb Ecol. 2013;71:1–13. https://doi.org/10.3354/ame01661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Morris JJ, Kirkegaard R, Szul MJ, Johnson ZI, Zinser ER. Facilitation of robust growth of Prochlorococcus colonies and dilute liquid cultures by “helper” heterotrophic bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2008;74:4530–4. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02479-07.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Biller SJ, Coe A, Chisholm SW. Torn apart and reunited: impact of a heterotroph on the transcriptome of Prochlorococcus. ISME J. 2016;10:2831–43. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2016.82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Roth-Rosenberg D, Aharonovich D, Luzzatto-Knaan T, Vogts A, Zoccarato L, Eigemann F, et al. Prochlorococcus Cells Rely on Microbial Interactions Rather than on Chlorotic Resting Stages To Survive Long-Term Nutrient Starvation. mBio. 2020;11(4):e01846-20. https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.01846-20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Goris J, Konstantinidis KT, Klappenbach JA, Coenye T, Vandamme P, Tiedje JM. DNA-DNA hybridization values and their relationship to whole-genome sequence similarities. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2007;57(Pt 1):81–91. https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.64483-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Darling AE, Mau B, Perna NT. progressiveMauve: multiple genome alignment with gene gain, loss and rearrangement. PLoS ONE. 2010;5:e11147. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011147.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Treangen TJ, Ondov BD, Koren S, Phillippy AM. The Harvest suite for rapid core-genome alignment and visualization of thousands of intraspecific microbial genomes. Genome Biol. 2014;15:524. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-014-0524-x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Emms DM, Kelly S. OrthoFinder: phylogenetic orthology inference for comparative genomics. Genome Biol. 2019;20:238. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-019-1832-y.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the crew and scientists of the HOE-PhoR 1 research expedition for making the sampling for this work possible. JBT and ACR are grateful for the support they received as students in the interdepartmental, interdisciplinary MIT Microbiology Graduate Program. We thank Alison F. Takemura and Zachory K. Berta-Thompson for their thoughtful comments.

Funding

This work was supported by grants to SWC from the National Science Foundation’s Center for Microbial Oceanography Research and Education (DBI-424599), the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (GBMF495), and the Simons Foundation (LIFE-337262). ACR was supported by a Howard Hughes Medical Institute International Student Research Fellowship. The funding bodies played no role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

All authors contributed to ideas and writing. JBT designed the study, screened and maintained cultures, assembled and assessed genomes, and wrote the manuscript. ET contributed to bioinformatics and helped prepare the detailed methods. ACR conducted all work at sea and built the genomic libraries. TH contributed to bioinformatics. JWB maintained cultures and contributed to bioinformatics. AC maintained cultures and advised on isolation methods. SJB developed the core bioinformatic methodology and contributed to design of analyses and software implementation throughout. PMB contributed to the design of genome quality control analyses. SWC contributed to project design and interpretation and provided supervision and project administration throughout. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Jessie W. Berta-Thompson or Sallie W. Chisholm.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Berta-Thompson, J.W., Thomas, E., Cubillos-Ruiz, A. et al. Draft genomes of three closely related low light-adapted Prochlorococcus. BMC Genom Data 24, 11 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12863-022-01103-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12863-022-01103-4

Keywords