Ultramicrobacteria (UMB) are species of the domain Bacteria, whose cells possess a volume of less than 0.1 μm3 and a small size of genome (from 3.2 to 0.58 Mb). UMB feature a combination of such determining characters as ultrasmall size of proliferating cells and small size of genome. As a synonym for UMB, some authors use the term ‘nanobacteria’ (NB). Several dozens of UMB species have been isolated from various habitats, such as aquatic and soil environments, sediments, silts, Greenland ice, permafrost, human intestines and insects; and are cultured under laboratory conditions on various nutritive media. The term ‘nan(n)obacteria’ is also used to designate ultrasmall bacterium‐like particles occurring in rocks, sands, soils, in deep subsurface, meteorite and clinical samples. UMB include species of free‐living and parasitic bacteria. They are characterised by a great diversity of morphology, ultrastructural organisation, physiology, biochemistry and ecology. Unique processes UMB perform are dehalorespiration, epibiont obligate and facultative parasitism, synthesis of organic compounds in oceanic waters involving bacteriorhodopsin. UMB have been found among organisms of six large phylogenetic branches of prokaryotes, where their nearest relatives are organisms with larger, typical‐of‐bacteria, cells; this is indicative of the polyphyletic origin of the currently known UMB species by reductive evolution.

Key Concepts:

  • Formation of a minimal autoreplicating microbial cell is the prerogative of the prokaryotes.

  • Ultrasmall size of cells enables parasitism (predation) of UMB on ‘large‐cell’ species of prokaryotes.

  • UMB are important model objects for studies of genome evolution in prokaryotes.

  • UMB studies are of vital importance for solving issues of the origin and evolution of primeval living objects.

  • UMB research opens new vistas for biotechnology.

  • Use of UMB representatives, mycoplasms, played a crucial role in epochal works by J Craig Venter and collaborators for experimentally creating a new living being (cells with chemically synthesised genome) and a new bacterial species.

  • Description of new UMB cell structures expands the diversity pattern of the ultrastructural and molecular organisation of the prokaryotic cell.

  • Gram‐negative, Gram‐positive or archaeal type of cell organisation are not the prohibitive factors for UMB or UMA to form.

Keywords: ultramicrobacteria (UMB); nanobacteria/nannobacteria (NB); ultramicroarchaea (UMA); nanoarchaea (NA); ultramicrocells (UmC); nanocells (NC); natural minimal cells; intermicrobial parasitism; reductive evolution

Figure 1.

Electron micrographs (a, b) of an ultrathin section of nanocell aggregates as (SS) localised as microcolonies in soil micromonoliths; (b), enlarged fragment of a peripheral part of two SS. Thin structure of SS compartments and spherical nanocells branching from SS is shown. Scale bar, 300 nm. OM, outer membrane; C, capsular fibrils; Pp, periplasm; CC, central cell in SS; CM, cytoplasmic membrane.

Figure 2.

Phase contrast micrographs of interacting cells in a binary culture of Bacillus subtilis (Bs) and Chryseobacterium solincola str. NF4 after cultivation in a starved medium for 20 min (a), 7 days (b) and 20 days (c). Ultramicrocells of strain NF4 adsorbed on Bs cells (a–c), disrupted Bs cells (b), and residual immature spores of Bs (c) are seen. BC, bacillar cell; UC, NF4 cells; Sp, spores. Scale bar, 0.5 μm.

Figure 3.

Ultramicrocells of parasitic UMB, Chryseobacterium solincola str. NF4, are adsorbed on Bacillus subtilis host cells. A contact of NF4 cell walls with the S‐layer of B. subtilis envelopes can be seen. Ultrathin section. UC, NF4 cells; N, nucleoid; Bs, B. subtilis cell; Pp, periplasm; OM, outer membrane; T, polysaccharide threads. Scale bar, 300 nm.

Figure 4.

Interaction of parasitic UMB (Kaistia adipata, str. NF1) with prey (Acidovorax delafieldii, str. 39). Fibrils of UMB capsule are attached to the host cell surface (shown by arrows). Zones of contacts of NF1 cell protrusions with the S‐layer and the cell wall of Acidovorax delafieldii 39 are visible. Ultrathin section. PF, polysaccharide fibril; SC, contact site of UMB cell protrusion with the host cell; P, prey; UC, ultramicrobacterial cell (str. NF1); Pp, periplasm; Pr, protrusion; CM, cell membrane; CW, cell wall; S, S layer. Scale bar, 0.5 μm.

Figure 5.

Enlarged fragment of an ultrathin section of interacting cells of Kaistia adipata str. NF1 and Acidovorax delafieldii str. 39 contrasted with Ruthenium Red. Threads (filaments) of UMB capsule are attached to the cell envelope of strain A. delafieldii 39; knots (globular particles on threads) can be seen. SL, tangential section of S layers; M, murein layer of cell wall; OM, outer membrane; HC, host cell (A. delafieldii); UC, 0l cell (str. NF1); T, polysaccharide threads; GP, sticky granules on threads. Scale bar, 0.3 μm. Reproduced from Duda et al. .

Figure 6.

(Scheme). Microbial nanospiders attack their prey. Mechanism of cohesion of parasitic UMB (Kaistia adipata str. NF1, Chryseobacterium solincola str. NF4) and host cells (Bacillus subtilis or Acidovorax delafieldii). The following stages are shown: a B. subtilis cell captured by polysaccharide threads of strains NF4 and NF5; interacting cells approached each other under the action of Brownian motion forces; and, at the final stage, toughly adhered cell envelopes. UMB, parasite cell; HC, host cell; PF, polysaccharide fibrils; G, sticky granules on fibrils; SL, subunit layer on the surface of cell envelope. The arrows show the direction of the cohesion stages.



Bae HC, Cota‐Robles EH and Casida LE Jr (1972) Microflora of soil as viewed by transmission electron microscopy. Applied Microbiology 23: 637–648.

Baker BJ, Comolli LR, Dick GJ et al. (2010) Enigmatic, ultrasmall, uncultivated Archaea. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 107: 8806–8811.

Cavicchioli R and Ostrowski M (2003) Ultramicrobacteria. London: Macmillan Publishers Ltd, Nature Publishing Group, pp. 1–8. http://www.els.net.

Cavicchioli R, Ostrowski M, Fegatella F, Goodchild A and Guixa‐Boixereu N (2003) Life under nutrient limitation in oligotrophic marine environments: an eco/physiological perspective of Sphingopyxis alaskensis (formerly Sphingomonas alaskensis). Microbial Ecology 45: 203–217.

Cisar JO, Xu DQ, Thompson J et al. (2000) An alternative interpretation of nanobacteria‐induced biomineralization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 97: 11511–11515.

Courties C, Perasso R and Chretiennot‐Dinet MJ (1998) Phylogenetic analysis and genome size of Ostreococcus tauri (Chlorophyta, Prasinophyceae). Journal of Physiology 34: 844–849.

Davidov Y, Huchon D, Kova S and Jurkevitch E (2006) A new α‐proteobacterial clade of Bdellovibrio‐like predators: implications for the mitochondrial endosymbiotic theory. Environmental Microbiology 8: 2179–2188.

Dmitriev VV, Suzina NE, Barinova ES, Duda VI and Boronin AM (2004) An electron microscopic study of the ultrastructure of microbial cells in extreme biotopes in situ. Microbiology 73: 716–723 (English translation of Mikrobiologiya (2004) 73: 832–840).

Dmitriev VV, Suzina NE and Rusakova TG (2008) Electron microscopic detection and in situ characterization of bacterial nanoforms in extreme biotopes. Microbiology 77: 39–46 (English translation of Mikrobiologiya (2008) 77: 46–54).

Duda VI, Suzina NE and Esikova TZ (2009) A cytological characterization of the parasitic action of ultramicrobacteria NF1 and NF3 of the genus Kaistia on chemoorganotrophic and phototrophic bacteria. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 69: 180–199.

Folk RL (1999) Nannobacteria and the precipitation of carbonate in unusual environments. Sediment Geology 126: 47–55.

Geissinger O, Herlemann DPR, Mörschel E, Maier UG and Brune A (2009) The ultramicrobacterium Elusimicrobium minutum gen. nov., sp. nov., the first cultivated representative of the termite group 1 phylum. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 75: 2831–2840.

Gibson DG, Glass JI, Lartigue C et al. (2010) Creation of a bacterial cell controlled by a chemically synthesized genome. Science 329: 52–56.

Giovannoni SJL, Bibbs L, Cho J‐C et al. (2005a) Proteorhodopsin in the ubiquitous marine bacterium SAR11. Nature 438: 82–85.

Giovannoni SJ, Tripp HJ, Givan S et al. (2005b) Genome streamlining in a cosmopolitan oceanic bacterium. Science 309: 1242–1245.

Gromov BV and Mamkaeva KA (1980) Proposal of a new genus Vampirovibrio chlorellavorus for bacteria previously assigned to Bdellovibrio. Mikrobiologiya 49: 165–167 (in Russian).

Hahn MW, Lunsdorf H, Wu QL et al. (2003) Isolation of novel ultramicrobacteria classified as Actinobacteria from five freshwater habitats in Europe and Asia. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 69: 1442–1451.

Haller CM, Rölleke S, Vybiral D, Witte A and Velimirov B (1999) Investigation of 0.2 μm filterable bacteria from Western Mediterranean Sea using a molecular approach: dominance of potential starvation forms. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 31: 153–161.

Herlemann DPR, Geissinger O, Ikeda‐Ohtsubo W et al. (2009) Genomic analysis of “Elusimicrobium minutum”, the first cultivated representative of the phylum “Elusimicrobia” (formerly termite group 1). Applied and Environmental Microbiology 75: 2841–2849.

Hamilton A (2000) Nanobacteria: gold mine or minefield of intellectual enquiry? Microbiology Today 27: 182–184.

Huber H, Hohn MJ, Rachel R, Fuchs T and Wimmer VC (2002) A new phylum of Archaea represented by a nanosized hyperthermophilic symbiont. Nature 417: 63–67.

Iizuka T, Yamanaka S, Nishiyama T and Hiraishi A (1998) Isolation and phylogenetic analysis of aerobic copiotrophic ultramicrobacteria from urban soil. Journal of General and Applied Microbiology 44: 75–84.

Janssen PH, Schuhmann A, Morschel E and Rainey FA (1997) Novel anaerobic ultramicrobacteria belonging to the Verrucomicrobiales lineage of bacterial descent isolated by dilution culture from anoxic rice paddy soil. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 63: 1382–1388.

Jurkevitch E (2007) Predatory behaviors in bacteria – diversity and transitions. Microbe 2: 67–73.

Kajander EO and Ciftcioglu N (1998) Nanobacteria – an alternative mechanism for pathogenic intra‐ and extracellular calcification and stone formation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 95: 8274–8279.

Lambina VA, Afinogenova AV, Penabad RS, Konovalova SM and Pushkareva AP (1982) Micavibrio admirandus gen. et spec. nov. Mikrobiologiya 51: 114–117 (in Russian).

Lartigue C, Glass JI, Alperovich N et al. (2007) Genome transplantation in bacteria: changing one species to another. Science 317: 632–638.

Loveland‐Curtze J, Miteva VI and Brenchley JE (2009) Herminiimonas glaciei sp. nov., a novel ultramicrobacterium from 3042 m deep Greenland glacial ice. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology 59: 1272–1277.

Loveland‐Curtze J, Miteva V and Brenchley J (2010) Novel ultramicrobacterial isolates from a deep Greenland ice core represent a proposed new species, Chryseobacterium greenlandense sp. nov. Extremophiles 14: 61–69.

Matsuzaki M, Misumi O, Shin‐I T et al. (2004) Genome sequence of the ultrasmall unicellular red alga Cyanidioschyzon merolae 100. Nature 428: 653–657.

May HD, Miller GS, Kjellerup BV and Sowers KR (2008) Dehalorespiration with polychlorinated biphenyls by an anaerobic ultramicrobacterium. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 74: 2089–2094.

McKay DS, Gibson EK Jr, Thomas‐Keprta KL et al. (1996) Search for past life on Mars: possible relic of biogenic activity in Martian meteorite ALH84001. Science 273: 924–930.

Miteva VI and Brenchley JE (2005) Detection and isolation of ultrasmall microorganisms from a 120,000‐year‐old Greenland glacier ice core. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 71: 7806–7818.

Miyoshi T, Iwatsuki T and Naganuma T (2005) Phylogenetic characterization of 16 S rRNA gene clones from deep‐groundwater microorganisms that pass through 0.2‐micrometer‐pore‐size filters. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 71: 1084–1088.

Morita RY (1988) Bioavailability of energy and its relationship to growth and starvation survival in nature. Canadian Journal of Microbiology 34: 436–441.

Morowitz HJ (1967) Biological self‐replicating systems. Progress in Theoritical Biology 1: 35–58.

Mushegian AR and Koonin EV (1996) A minimal gene set for cellular life derived by comparison of complete bacterial genomes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 93: 10268–10273.

Panikov NS (2004) Contribution of nanosized bacteria to the total biomass and activity of a soil microbial community. Advances in Applied Microbiology 57: 245–296.

Rutz BA and Kieft TL (2004) Phylogenetic characterization of dwarf archaea and bacteria from a semiarid soil. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 36: 825–833.

Sahin N, Gonzalez JM, Iizuka T and Hill JE (2010) Characterization of two aerobic ultramicrobacteria isolated from urban soil and a description of Oxalicibacterium solurbis sp. nov. FEMS Microbiology Letters 307: 25–29.

Schut F, Gottschal JC and Prins RA (1997b) Isolation and characterization of the marine ultramicrobacterium Sphingomonas sp. strain RB2256. FEMS Microbiology Reviews 20: 363–369.

Schut F, Prins RA and Gottschal JC (1997a) Oligotrophy and pelagic marine bacteria: facts and fiction. Aquatic Microbial Ecology 12: 177–202.

Sieburth JMN, Smetanek V and Lenz J (1978) Pelagic ecosystem structure: heterotrophic compartments of the plankton and their relationship to plankton size fractions. Limnology and Oceanography 23: 1256–1263.

Silbag FS (2009) Viable ultramicrocells in drinking water. Journal of Applied Microbiology 106: 105–117.

Southam G and Donald R (1999) A structural comparison of bacterial microfossils vs nanobacteria and nanofossils. Earth‐Science Reviews 48: 251–264.

Stetter KO (1999) Size Limits of Very Small Microorganisms. Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, p. 12.

Suzina NE, Duda VI, Esikova TZ et al. (2011) Novel ultramicrobacteria, strains NF4 and NF5, of the genus Chryseobacterium: facultative epibionts of Bacillus subtilis. Mikrobiologiya 80: 535–548 (English translation).

Torrella F and Morita RY (1981) Microcultural study of bacterial size changes and microcolony and ultramicrocolony formation by heterotrophic bacteria in seawater. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 41: 518–527.

Trevors JT and Psenner R (2001) From self‐assembly of life to present‐day bacteria: a possible role for nanocells. FEMS Microbiology Reviews 25: 573–582.

Urbano P and Urbano F (2007) Nanobacteria: facts and fancies. PloS Pathogens 3: e55, 0567–0570.

Uwins PJR, Webb RI and Taylor AP (1998) Novel nano‐organisms from Australian sandstones. American Mineralogist 83: 1541–1550.

Velimirov B (2001) Nanobacteria, ultramicrobacteria and starvation forms: a search for the smallest metabolizing bacterium. Microbes and Environments 16: 67–77.

Further Reading

Folk RL and Lynch LF (2001) Organic matter, putative nannobacteria and the formation of ooids and hardgrounds. Sedimentology 48: 215–229.

Hutchison CA, Peterson SN, Gill SR et al. (1999) Global transposon mutagenesis and a minimal Mycoplasma genome. Science 286: 2165–2169.

Lauro FM, McDougald D, Thomas T et al. (2009) The genomic basis of trophic strategy in marine bacteria. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 106: 15527–15533.

Moran NA (2002) Microbial minimalism: genome reduction in bacterial pathogens. Cell 108: 583–586.

Moya A, Gil R, Latorre A et al. (2009) Toward minimal bacterial cells: evolution vs design. FEMS Microbiology Reviews 33: 225–235.

Peterson SN and Fraser CM (2001) The complexity of simplicity. Genome Biology 2: 2002.1–2002.8.

Young KD (2006) The selective value of bacterial shape. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 70: 660–703.

Contact Editor close
Submit a note to the editor about this article by filling in the form below.

* Required Field

How to Cite close
Duda, Vitaly I(Nov 2011) Ultramicrobacteria. In: eLS. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester. http://www.els.net [doi: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0000309.pub2]