| Literature DB >> 25297974 |
Jon Bohlin1, Ola B Brynildsrud, Camilla Sekse, Lars Snipen.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are several studies describing loss of genes through reductive evolution in microbes, but how selective forces are associated with genome expansion due to horizontal gene transfer (HGT) has not received similar attention. The aim of this study was therefore to examine how selective pressures influence genome expansion in 53 fully sequenced and assembled Escherichia coli strains. We also explored potential connections between genome expansion and the attainment of virulence factors. This was performed using estimations of several genomic parameters such as AT content, genomic drift (measured using relative entropy), genome size and estimated HGT size, which were subsequently compared to analogous parameters computed from the core genome consisting of 1729 genes common to the 53 E. coli strains. Moreover, we analyzed how selective pressures (quantified using relative entropy and dN/dS), acting on the E. coli core genome, influenced lineage and phylogroup formation.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25297974 PMCID: PMC4200225 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2164-15-882
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Genomics ISSN: 1471-2164 Impact factor: 3.969
Figure 1-based heatmap. The heatmap demonstrates a hierarchical cluster analysis of estimated dS (the rate of synonymous distributions between taxa) of 1729 core genes from the 53 E. coli genomes. The differently colored labels designate phylogroups: D (light green), B2 (red), E (green), B1 (blue), and A (dark blue). Groups D, B2 and E consisted predominantly of pathogens; Group A was almost exclusively non-pathogenic, while Group B1 consisted of a mixture of pathogenic and non-pathogenic strains.
Figure 2-based heatmap. The heatmap shows a hierarchical cluster analysis of estimated dN (the rate of non-synonymous distributions between taxa) of 1729 core genes from the 53 E. coli genomes. The differently colored labels designate phylogroups: D (light green), B2 (red), E (green), B1 (blue), and A (dark blue). Groups D, B2 and E consisted predominantly of pathogens; Group A was almost exclusively non-pathogenic, while Group B1 consisted of a mixture of pathogenic and non-pathogenic strains.
Information about the different strains used in the study
| Name | Pathogroup | Phylogroup |
|---|---|---|
|
| ExPEC (neonatal meningitis) | D |
|
| ExPEC (Uropathogenic | D |
|
| Multi-resistant | D |
|
| ExPEC (UPEC) | D |
|
| ExPEC (UPEC) | B2 |
|
| Non-pathogenic | B2 |
|
| AIEC (adherent-invasive E. coli) | B2 |
|
| AIEC | B2 |
|
| ExPEC (UPEC) | B2 |
|
| ExPEC (UPEC) | B2 |
|
| ExPEC (UPEC) | B2 |
|
| ExPEC (UPEC) | B2 |
|
| ExPEC (UPEC) | B2 |
|
| AIEC | B2 |
|
| ExPEC (neonatal meningitis) | B2 |
|
| Avian pathogenic | B2 |
|
| ExPEC (neonatal meningitis) | B2 |
|
| Non-pathogenic | B2 |
|
| ExPEC (multidrug-resistant UPEC) | B2 |
|
| Enteropathogenic | B2 |
|
| Shiga toxin-producing | E |
|
| STEC/EHEC | E |
|
| STEC/EHEC | E |
|
| STEC/EHEC | E |
|
| Atypical EPEC (aEPEC) | E |
|
| aEPEC | E |
|
| Enterotoxigenic | A |
|
| Non-pathogenic | A |
|
| Non-pathogenic | A |
|
| Lab strain – Non-pathogenic | A |
|
| Lab strain – Non-pathogenic | A |
|
| Lab strain – Non-pathogenic | A |
|
| Lab strain – Non-pathogenic | A |
|
| Lab strain – Non-pathogenic | A |
|
| Lab strain – Non-pathogenic | A |
|
| Lab strain – Non-pathogenic | A |
|
| Lab strain – Non-pathogenic | A |
|
| Lab strain – Non-pathogenic | A |
|
| Enteroaggregative – EHEC (EAggEC-EHEC) | B1 |
|
| EAggEC-EHEC | B1 |
|
| EAggEC-EHEC | B1 |
|
| EAggEC | B1 |
|
| Lab strain | B1 |
|
| Lab strain | B1 |
|
| Lab strain | B1 |
|
| Lab strain | B1 |
|
| Non pathogenic | B1 |
|
| Non pathogenic | B1 |
|
| ETEC | B1 |
|
| STEC/EHEC | B1 |
|
| STEC/EHEC | B1 |
|
| STEC/EHEC | B1 |
|
| APEC | B1 |
Figure 3Regression plot of strain-wise median and The figure shows median dS estimates plotted against median dN estimates for the E. coli strains in the study. The diagonal line designates the estimated regression line. All similar and clonal strains were removed for the regression analysis resulting in a sample size of 36 strains.
Figure 4/ -based heatmap. The heatmap demonstrates a hierarchical cluster analysis of estimated dS/dN (the rate of synonymous to non-synonymous substitutions between taxa) of 1729 core genes from the 53 E. coli genomes. The differently colored labels designate phylogroups: D (light green), B2 (red), E (green), B1 (blue), and A (dark blue). Groups D, B2 and E consisted predominantly of pathogens; Group A was almost exclusively non-pathogenic, while Group B1 consisted of a mixture of pathogenic and non-pathogenic strains. The horizontal axis of the color key legend indicates multiples of dS to dN, where values close to 1 designates neutrality of selection.
Figure 5based phylogenic tree. The phylogenic tree is based on alignments of the mutT gene found in the core genome of all 53 E. coli strain. The numbers close to the branches represent bootstrap support. The differently colored labels designate phylogroups: D (light green), B2 (red), E (green), B1 (dark blue), and A (blue). Groups D, B2 and E consisted predominantly of pathogens; Group A was almost exclusively non-pathogenic, while Group B1 consisted of a mixture of pathogenic and non-pathogenic strains.
Figure 6Core genome relative entropy and AT content. The figure consists of two panels of boxplots displaying the difference between core- and whole genome relative entropy (left), and core- and whole genome fraction of AT content (right) in all 53 E. coli strains.
Figure 7Statistical analyses of genomic properties in 53 strains. The figure consists of 4 panels showing different associations between selected genomic properties of pathogenic (red dots) and non-pathogenic (green dots) E. coli strains. The blue line denotes the estimated regression line, which was significant for all panels (p < 0.05). Top left panel shows genomic AT content versus chromosome size, while the top right panel depicts estimated HGT size versus genomic AT content. Bottom right panel designates whole genome relative entropy versus genome size, and bottom left panel shows whole genome relative entropy plotted against genomic fraction of AT.