| Literature DB >> 19811647 |
Gagan A Pandya1, Michael H Holmes, Jeannine M Petersen, Sonal Pradhan, Svetlana A Karamycheva, Mark J Wolcott, Claudia Molins, Marcus Jones, Martin E Schriefer, Robert D Fleischmann, Scott N Peterson.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A low genetic diversity in Francisella tularensis has been documented. Current DNA based genotyping methods for typing F. tularensis offer a limited and varying degree of subspecies, clade and strain level discrimination power. Whole genome sequencing is the most accurate and reliable method to identify, type and determine phylogenetic relationships among strains of a species. However, lower cost typing schemes are necessary in order to enable typing of hundreds or even thousands of isolates.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19811647 PMCID: PMC2767358 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2180-9-213
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Microbiol ISSN: 1471-2180 Impact factor: 3.605
Francisella strains resequenced in the study
| Isolate | Species/Subspecies | Other strain name | Geographic Source | Year isolated | Source | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | SCHUS4 | A1 (A1a) | Ohio | 1941 | CDC | ||
| 2 | MA00-2987 | A1 (A1b) | Massachusetts | 2000 | CDC | ||
| 3 | AR01-1117 | A1 (A1b) | Arkansas | 2001 | CDC | ||
| 4 | KS00-1817 | A1 (A1a) | Kansas | 2000 | CDC | ||
| 5 | OK00-2732 | A1 (A1b) | Oklahoma | 2000 | CDC | ||
| 6 | FRAN005 | A1 | Illinois | 1990 | USAMRIID | ||
| 7 | FRAN006 | A1 | Illinois | 1988 | USAMRIID | ||
| 8 | FRAN007 | A1 | Illinois | 1988 | USAMRIID | ||
| 9 | FRAN008 | A1 | Illinois | 1988 | USAMRIID | ||
| 10 | FRAN009 | A1 | Illinois | 1988 | USAMRIID | ||
| 11 | FRAN010 | A1 | Illinois | 1987 | USAMRIID | ||
| 12 | FRAN011b | A1 | Illinois | 1984 | USAMRIID | ||
| 13 | FRAN014 | A1 | Illinois | 1989 | USAMRIID | ||
| 14 | FRAN015 | A1 | Illinois | 1988 | USAMRIID | ||
| 15 | FRAN023 | A1 | FoxP1 | Ohio | 1940 | USAMRIID | |
| 16 | FRAN026 | A1 | Schu-SOO | Unknown | Unknown | USAMRIID | |
| 17 | FRAN030 | A1 | SOL | Unknown | Unknown | USAMRIID | |
| 18 | FRAN031 | A1 | SCHERM | Ohio | 1944 | USAMRIID | |
| 19 | FRAN032 | A1 | GREU | Ohio | Unknown | USAMRIID | |
| 20 | FRAN033 | A1 | HUGH | Ohio | 1940 | USAMRIID | |
| 21 | WY96-3418 | A2 | Wyoming | 1996 | CDC | ||
| 22 | CA02-0099 | A2 | California | 2002 | CDC | ||
| 23 | UT02-1927 | A2 | Utah | 2002 | CDC | ||
| 24 | FRAN001 | A2 | 38 derivative (ATCC 6223) | Utah | 1920 (?) | USAMRIID | |
| 25 | FRAN027 | A2 | 38A (38 derivative) | Utah | - | USAMRIID | |
| 26 | FRAN028 | A2 | Larsen NIH38 (38 derivative) | Utah | - | USAMRIID | |
| 27 | LVS | Russia | 1958 (?) | CDC | |||
| 28 | KY99-3387 | Kentucky | 1999 | CDC | |||
| 29 | OR96-0246 | Oregon | 1996 | CDC | |||
| 30 | OR96-0463 | Oregon | 1996 | CDC | |||
| 31 | KY00-1708 | Kentucky | 2000 | CDC | |||
| 32 | MO01-1673 | Missouri | 2001 | CDC | |||
| 33 | IN00-2758 | Indiana | 2000 | CDC | |||
| 34 | CA99-3992 | California | 1999 | CDC | |||
| 35 | FRAN004 | LVS | Russia | 1958 (?) | USAMRIID | ||
| 36 | FRAN012 | Alabama | 1991 | USAMRIID | |||
| 37 | FRAN024 | JAP | Japan | 1926 | USAMRIID | ||
| 38 | FRAN025 | VT68 | Vermont | 1968 | USAMRIID | ||
| 39 | FRAN029 | 425 | Montana | 1941 (?) | USAMRIID | ||
| 40 | FRAN003 | ATCC 15482 (U112) | Utah | 1950 | USAMRIID | ||
aStrains characterized to the level of A1a or A1b by PmeI PFGE are indicated.
bIsolate recovered from a clinically normal rabbit
F. tularensis strains used to evaluate SNP diagnostic markers
| Isolate | Subspecies | Clade | Geographic Source | Year isolated | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ND00-0952 | type A | A1 (A1a) | North Dakota | 2000 |
| 2 | MO01-1907 | type A | A1 (A1a) | Missouri | 2001 |
| 3 | AR00-0028 | type A | A1 (A1a) | Arkansas | 2000 |
| 4 | KS00-0948 | type A | A1 (A1a) | Kansas | 2000 |
| 5 | OK01-2528 | type A | A1 (A1a) | Oklahoma | 2001 |
| 6 | CA00-0036 | type A | A1 (A1a) | California | 2000 |
| 7 | AR98-2146 | type A | A1 (A1a) | Arkansas | 1998 |
| 8 | GA02-5497 | type A | A1 (A1a) | Virginia | 1982 |
| 9 | NC01-5379 | type A | A1 (A1b) | North Carolina | 2001 |
| 10 | NY04-2787 | type A | A1 (A1b) | New York | 2004 |
| 11 | AK96-2888 | type A | A1 (A1b) | Alaska | 1996 |
| 12 | OK02-0195 | type A | A1 (A1b) | Oklahoma | 2002 |
| 13 | PA04-2790 | type A | A1 (A1b) | Pennsylvania | 2004 |
| 14 | CA04-2258 | type A | A1 (A1b) | California | 2004 |
| 15 | GA02-5375 | type A | A1 (A1b) | New York | 1977 |
| 16 | WY03-1228 | type A | A2 | Wyoming | 2003 |
| 17 | CO01-3713 | type A | A2 | Colorado | 2001 |
| 18 | UT07-4362 | type A | A2 | Utah | 2007 |
| 19 | TX00-1591 | type A | A2 | Texas | 2000 |
| 20 | GA02-5453 | type A | A2 | Wyoming | 1993 |
| 21 | WY01-3911 | type A | A2 | Wyoming | 2001 |
| 22 | NM99-0295 | type A | A2 | New Mexico | 1999 |
| 23 | ID04-2687 | type A | A2 | Oregon | 2004 |
| 24 | AZ00-1180 | type B | Arizona | 2000 | |
| 25 | AZ00-1324 | type B | Arizona | 2000 | |
| 26 | SP03-1782 | type B | Spain | 2003 | |
| 27 | WA98-1774 | type B | Washington | 1998 | |
| 28 | E3443 | type B | Oregon | 1978 | |
| 29 | SP98-2108 | type B | Spain | 1998 | |
| 30 | OR98-0719 | type B | Oregon | 1998 | |
| 31 | RC503 | type B | Russia | - | |
| 32 | SP03-1783 | type B | Spain | 2003 | |
| 33 | CN98-5979 | type B | Canada | 1998 | |
| 34 | NY98-2295 | type B | New York | 1998 | |
| 35 | TX03-3834 | type B | Mississippi | 2003 | |
| 36 | IN00-2758 | type B | Indiana | 2000 | |
| 37 | F4853 | type B | California | 1983 | |
| 38 | OH01-3029 | type B | Kansas | 2001 | |
| 39 | CO05-3922 | type B | Colorado | 2005 | |
Figure 1Whole genome resequencing and SNP profiles of . (A) Whole genome resequencing call rates and (B) single nucleotide polymorphic profiles of 39 F. tularensis type A and B strains. The data is an average of sample analysis performed in duplicate. The filtered base call rate and the filtered SNP values were obtained by processing the raw data from Affymetrix software through our bioinformatic filters [13]. Strains are displayed as either A1, A2 or type B for comparative analysis. F. tularensis subsp. novicida (FRAN003) displayed an average filtered base call rate of 83.041% and 12407 filtered SNPs (data not shown).
Figure 2Whole genome SNP based phylogenetic analysis of . Phylogenetic analysis of resequenced Francisella strains. The whole-genome resequencing data was pared down to those base positions at which a SNP call occurred in one or more of the forty strains. These sequences were used to generate a phylogenetic tree using the MrBayes program as described in methods. This tree was then displayed as a cladogram (A) and as a phylogram (B) using the TreeView program http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/treeview.html. Distinct clustering of type A and type B strains was observed. Both type A and B strains were further discriminated within the clusters. In the cladogram, the percentage values on the branches are the probabilities of the partitions indicated by each branch. The numbers shown in red are node numbers of significant nodes that are referenced in the manuscript. In the phylogram, the branch lengths are proportional to the mean of the posterior probability density, and a scale bar is given to relate the branch lengths to their numeric values.
Figure 3Expanded phylogram for . Expanded sections of the phylogram (Figure 2B) containing the F. tularensis A1 strains except MA00 2987 (A), A2 strains (B) and type B strains except FRAN024 (C). The three subtrees are shown at different scales. The scale bars below each subtree are given to relate the branch lengths to their numeric probability values.
SNP content of the major nodes identified in the phylogenetic tree (cladogram)
| Node | Sub-species/clade/sub-clade | Number of strains per node | Total SNPs | Total SNPs in LVS genome | Total SNPs in SchuS4 unique sequence | Common SNPs | Unique SNPs | Differentiating SNPs | Maximum SNP separation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 50 | B | 13 | 3771 | 3686 | 85 | 5 | 2837 | 3656 | 2833 |
| 51 | B* | 12 | 1154 | 1115 | 39 | 6 | 233 | 1060 | 602 |
| 52 | B1 | 7 | 779 | 750 | 29 | 385 | 164 | 161 | 76 |
| 64 | B2 | 5 | 705 | 677 | 28 | 7 | 153 | 628 | 549 |
| 4 | A | 26 | 8653 | 8559 | 94 | 2905 | 514 | 3765 | 2779 |
| 39 | A2 | 6 | 6003 | 5919 | 84 | 3789 | 358 | 316 | 201 |
| 5 | A1 | 20 | 7306 | 7291 | 15 | 4953 | 323 | 497 | 176 |
| 8 | A1a | 9 | 7001 | 6993 | 8 | 5491 | 277 | 129 | 75 |
| 23 | A1b | 10 | 7030 | 7022 | 8 | 5537 | 234 | 71 | 38 |
* contains all the type B strains with the exception of FRAN024, Japanese holarctica strain.
Total SNPs are locations at which a SNP occurs in one or more strains in the node (if the same SNP occurs in more than one strain, that location is counted only once). Common SNPs are locations where all strains in the node share the same base call, which is different from the reference call on the resequencing platform. Unique SNPs are locations where just a single strain in the node has a base call that differs from the reference sequence. Differentiating SNPs are locations at which at least two strains in the node have different base calls. Maximum SNP separation is the number of base calls separating the two most distant members of the node. Differentiating SNPs and maximum SNP separation are both indicators of the degree of diversity within the node. The detection of diversity is limited by the extent to which our sample set is representative of the variability within each clade in nature. Refer to Figure 2 for the details of strain clustering.
Figure 4Location of . Representation of in silico discriminating SNP markers on the F. tularensis LVS genome. The vertical colored bar represents the position of the SNP marker on the LVS with the relevant node pair indicated by color. Loci containing the discriminatory SNP markers in the forward and reverse strands are shown in red and blue respectively. Two markers in the non-coding sequences of the genome are also shown.
Figure 5Real-time PCR evaluation of SNP diagnostic markers. Evaluation of SNP diagnostic markers using real-time PCR. Data is shown for primer sets A) 1014623 discriminating node pairings 4 and 50 (type A vs. type B); B) 521982 discriminating node pairings 5 and 39 (A1 vs. A2); C) 299153 discriminating node pairings 52 and 64 (B1 vs. B2); and D) 1574929 discriminating node pairings 8 and 23 (A1a vs. A1b). The six control strains included in the analysis are also shown; A1 (AR01 1117), A2 (WY96 3418), B1 (LVS, OR96 0246) and B2 (KY00 1708, MO01 1673).