| Literature DB >> 26264042 |
Karen G Jarvis1, James R White2, Christopher J Grim3,4, Laura Ewing5, Andrea R Ottesen6, Junia Jean-Gilles Beaubrun7, James B Pettengill8, Eric Brown9, Darcy E Hanes10.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Salmonella enterica is a common cause of foodborne gastroenteritis in the United States and is associated with outbreaks in fresh produce such as cilantro. Salmonella culture-based detection methods are complex and time consuming, and improvments to increase detection sensitivity will benefit consumers. In this study, we used 16S rRNA sequencing to determine the microbiome of cilantro. We also investigated changes to the microbial community prior to and after a 24-hour nonselective pre-enrichment culture step commonly used by laboratory analysts to resuscitate microorganisms in foods suspected of contamination with pathogens. Cilantro samples were processed for Salmonella detection according to the method in the United States Food and Drug Administration Bacteriological Analytical Manual. Genomic DNA was extracted from culture supernatants prior to and after a 24-hour nonselective pre-enrichment step and 454 pyrosequencing was performed on 16S rRNA amplicon libraries. A database of Enterobacteriaceae 16S rRNA sequences was created, and used to screen the libraries for Salmonella, as some samples were known to be culture positive. Additionally, culture positive cilantro samples were examined for the presence of Salmonella using shotgun metagenomics on the Illumina MiSeq.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26264042 PMCID: PMC4534111 DOI: 10.1186/s12866-015-0497-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Microbiol ISSN: 1471-2180 Impact factor: 3.605
Fig. 1Phyla representing at least 1 % of the total abundances in the cilantro microbiome (T0) and after 24-hour nonselective mBPW pre-enrichment (T24)
Fig. 2Unsupervised hierarchical clustering of samples using family level profiles. Values reflect (a) proportions and (b) log-normalized proportions (e.g. -1 ~ 10 %, −2 ~ 1 %, −3 ~ 0.1 %) to increase the weighting of low frequency members. Utilizing the log-normalized profiles, we find distinct clustering of T0 and T24 samples. Dendrograms were generated using a Euclidean distance metric with furthest neighbor clustering
MetaStats analysis of relative abundance (>0.5 %)
| %T0 | %24-hour | Fold change |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| a.) The most abundant members at time zero | ||||
| Oxalobacteraceae | 38.63 | 0.96 | −40.21 | 0.0002 |
| Pseudomonadaceae | 10.62 | 1.36 | −7.79 | 0.0158 |
| Flavobacteriaceae | 7.33 | 0.22 | −33.12 | 0.0002 |
| Comamonadaceae | 5.03 | 2.43 | −2.07 | 0.1982 |
| Xanthomonadaceae | 4.11 | 0.87 | −4.72 | 0.0154 |
| Rhizobiaceae | 3.57 | 0.13 | −27.76 | 0.0002 |
| Methylobacteriaceae | 3.50 | 0.03 | −140.14 | 0.0002 |
| Micrococcaceae | 2.52 | 0.01 | −176.45 | 0.0002 |
| Sphingomonadaceae | 2.28 | 0.03 | −79.78 | 0.0002 |
| Weeksellaceae | 2.20 | 0.07 | −33.30 | 0.0002 |
| Rhodobacteraceae | 2.11 | 0.03 | −73.74 | 0.0002 |
| Microbacteriaceae | 2.06 | 0.02 | −104.63 | 0.0002 |
| [Exiguobacteraceae] | 1.84 | 6.20 | 3.37 | 0.0002 |
| Caulobacteraceae | 1.58 | 0.03 | −55.16 | 0.0002 |
| Rickettsiales | 1.32 | 0.01 | −92.45 | 0.0002 |
| Sphingobacteriaceae | 1.29 | 0.08 | −17.20 | 0.0002 |
| Enterobacteriaceae | 1.14 | 3.59 | 3.13 | 0.0288 |
| Aurantimonadaceae | 1.01 | 0.01 | −93.98 | 0.0002 |
| Paenibacillaceae | 0.99 | 1.51 | 1.52 | 0.1238 |
| Rhizobiales;Other | 0.62 | 0.04 | −14.56 | 0.0002 |
| Bacillaceae | 0.61 | 3.08 | 5.01 | 0.0002 |
| Cytophagaceae | 0.60 | 0.01 | −111.36 | 0.0002 |
| b.) The most abundant members after a 24-hour mBPW enrichment | ||||
| Peptostreptococcaceae | 0.01 | 40.79 | 2957.09 | 0.0002 |
| Planococcaceae | 0.31 | 19.49 | 62.11 | 0.0002 |
| Clostridiaceae | 0.03 | 13.54 | 490.93 | 0.0002 |
| [Exiguobacteraceae] | 1.84 | 6.20 | 3.37 | 0.0002 |
| Enterobacteriaceae | 1.14 | 3.59 | 3.13 | 0.0288 |
| Bacillaceae | 0.61 | 3.08 | 5.01 | 0.0002 |
| Comamonadaceae | 5.03 | 2.43 | −2.07 | 0.1982 |
| Lachnospiraceae | 0.00 | 1.82 | 527.18 | 0.0002 |
| Paenibacillaceae | 0.99 | 1.51 | 1.52 | 0.1238 |
| Clostridiales;Other | 0.00 | 1.50 | ∞ | 0.0002 |
| Pseudomonadaceae | 10.62 | 1.36 | −7.79 | 0.0158 |
| Oxalobacteraceae | 38.63 | 0.96 | −40.21 | 0.0002 |
| Xanthomonadaceae | 4.11 | 0.87 | −4.72 | 0.0154 |
| Aeromonadaceae | 0.00 | 0.57 | 164.68 | 0.0002 |
Fig. 3a Alpha diversity measured using Shannon entropy and Faith’s whole-tree phylogenetic diversity. Both metrics indicate a significant increase in the diversity of T0 sample communities relative to the T24 group (P < 0.002; Mann–Whitney test). b Principal coordinates analysis reveals a distinct clustering of samples by T0/T24 status. (PCoA plots computed from unweighted UniFrac distances)
Fig. 4a Sensitivity testing of the Enterobacteriaceae database. Randomly fragmented 16S rRNA genes specific to S. enterica were compared to the Enterobacteriaceae database using BLASTn. Fragment sizes ranged from 100 to 500 bp and errors were randomly introduced at rates ranging from 0 to 1 %. The S. enterica non-exclusive plot (green) represents the percentage of hits to Salmonella and other Enterobacteriaceae. The S. enterica diagnostic plot (purple) represents the percentage of hits exclusive to Salmonella (left axis). The false negative rate plot (blue) represents the percentage of 16S fragments without a Salmonella best alignment (right axis). b Specificity testing of the Enterobacteriaceae database. 16S rRNA fragments specific to E. coli were randomly fragmented to sizes ranging from 100 to 500 bp and random errors were introduced. Fragments were searched against the Enterobacteriaceae database using BLASTn. c Validation of the Enterobacteriaceae database using BLASTn analysis of raw Illumina MiSeq reads from 105 S. enterica 16S rRNA genes to the EnteroDB. The S. enterica non-exclusive plot (green) represents the percentage of hits to Salmonella and other Enterobacteriaceae. The S. enterica diagnostic plot (purple) represents the percentage of hits exclusive to Salmonella (left axis). The false negative rate plot (blue) represents the percentage of 16S rRNA fragments without a Salmonella best alignment (right axis)
Percent hits for BLASTn and MetaPhlAn analysis of cilantro shotgun metagenomes to Salmonella
| Cilantro sample | FL8Ka | MI2Ja | NY7Ja | MI6Fb,f | NY3Fc | OH6Fc,f | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Time point | T0d, | T24e, | T0 | T24 | T0 | T24 | S2_T24 | S3_T24 | T24 | S1_T24 | S2_T24 | S3_T24 |
| No. of samples in MiSeq run | 1 | 1 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
| Total reads | 2,566,734 | 9,146,885 | 1,212,903 | 2,009,022 | 683,454 | 1,767,923 | 5,450,586 | 4,990,831 | 10,622,374 | 3,347,897 | 2,082,712 | 1,988,350 |
| BLASTng | ||||||||||||
| SalC 102 (Newport) (%) |
|
|
|
|
|
| 3.959 | 1.377 | 0.227 | 0.128 | 0.084 | 0.183 |
| SalC 13 (Newport) (%) | 2.347 | 15.779 | 0.008 | 1.016 | 0.028 | 0.144 |
|
| 0.228 | 0.126 | 0.082 | 0.183 |
| SalC 77 (Tennessee) (%) | 1.785 | 11.994 | 0.008 | 0.788 | 0.024 | 0.139 | 3.061 | 1.077 |
|
|
|
|
| SalC AVG (%) | 2.172 | 14.636 | 0.008 | 0.949 | 0.027 | 0.143 | 3.706 | 1.291 | 0.223 | 0.121 | 0.080 | 0.193 |
| MetaPhlAn | ||||||||||||
|
| 4.870 | 13.658 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 4.282 | 1.790 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
|
| 14.626 | 34.269 | 0.000 | 7.770 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 15.717 | 6.490 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.448 |
aCilantro sample culture positive for SalC 102
bCilantro samples culture positive for SalC 13
cCilantro samples culture positive for SalC 77
dT0 = time zero
eT24 = 24-hour
fSubsets of a single cilantro samples are indicated by S1 S2 and S3
gBolded numbers indicate results with S. enterica isolate cultured from the cilantro
Fig. 5The percentage of hits to members of the Clostridiales and Bacillales orders in cilantro samples enriched for 24-hours in mBPW