Fig. 3

Circular representation of the TFA genome and comparison with other α-proteobacteria. The location of the oriC is highlighted in pink. Comparison between the genomes of TFA and α-proteobacteria representatives at nucleotide level was performed using BLAST Ring Image Generator (BRIG). From inner to outer ring: (1) GC Skew; (2) GC Content; (3–21) BLASTn comparison between the TFA genome and Sphingopyxis sp. MC1, Sphingopyxis alaskensis RB2256, Sphingopyxis fribergensis Kp5.2, Sphingopyxis sp. LC363, Sphingopyxis sp. LC81, Sphingopyxis sp. MWB1, Sphingopyxis sp. C-1, Sphingopyxis baekryungensis DSM 1622, Sphingomonas wittichii RW1, Novosphingobium aromaticivorans DSM 12444, Novosphingobium sp. PP1Y, Erythrobacter litoralis, Blastomonas sp. AAP53, Sphingobium sp. SYK-6, Sphingobium japonicum UT26, Sphingobium chlorophenolicum L-1, Oligotropha carboxidovorans OM4, Oligotropha carboxidovorans OM5 and Zymomonas mobilis genomes; (22) Genomic Islands predicted by IslandViewer 3 by any method (green); (23) Features: Clusters of tra/trb genes (tra_1 to 8, in brown); Similar regions to other α-proteobacteria (Similarity_1 to 6, in red); Plasmid replication and partition genes (blue); Predicted prophages (Prophage_1 to 3, in yellow); Predicted CRISPR (CRISPR_1 and 2, in gray) and thn genes (in purple). Accession numbers of the genomes can be found in Additional file 3