Literature DB >> 27004771

CRISPR1 analysis of naturalized surface water and fecal Escherichia coli suggests common origin.

Lisa D Tymensen1.   

Abstract

Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPRs) are part of an acquired bacterial immune system that functions as a barrier to exogenous genetic elements. Since naturalized Escherichia coli are likely to encounter different genetic elements in aquatic environments compared to enteric strains, we hypothesized that such differences would be reflected within the hypervariable CRISPR alleles of these two populations. Comparison of CRISPR1 alleles from naturalized and fecal phylogroup B1 E. coli strains revealed that the alleles could be categorized into four major distinct groups (designated G6-G9), and all four allele groups were found among naturalized strains and fecal strains. The distribution of CRIPSR G6 and G8 alleles was similar among strains of both ecotypes, while naturalized strains tended to have CRISPR G7 alleles rather than G9 alleles. Since CRISPR G7 alleles were not specific to naturalized strains, they, however, would not be useful as a marker for identifying naturalized strains. Notably, CRISPR alleles from naturalized and fecal strains also had similar spacer repertoires. This indicates a shared history of encounter with mobile genetic elements and suggests that the two populations were derived from common ancestors.
© 2016 The Author. MicrobiologyOpen published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CRISPR1; ET-1 clade; Escherichia coli; MLST; naturalized; surface water

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27004771      PMCID: PMC4906003          DOI: 10.1002/mbo3.348

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Microbiologyopen        ISSN: 2045-8827            Impact factor:   3.139


Introduction

Although the existence of naturalized E. coli that persist and multiply in aquatic environments is supported by an increasing number of studies (Ishii and Sadowsky 2008), the fundamental question remains of whether these naturalized E. coli represent an autochthonous population (i.e., self‐sustaining in the absence of fecal input) or whether they are environmentally selected fecal contaminants. Although some strains associated primarily with aquatic environments have shown to be phylogenetically divergent from E. coli, such as those from cryptic clades III‐V (Walk et al. 2009; Clermont et al. 2011), most studies suggest that naturalized aquatic populations are predominated by phylogroup B1 strains (Ratajczak et al. 2010; Berthe et al. 2013; Tymensen et al. 2015). However, phylogroup B1 strains are also abundant in the feces of certain livestock and wildlife (Higgins et al. 2007), making it difficult to determine whether naturalized E. coli populations are truly autochthonous. To address this, we compared the genetic relatedness of CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) arrays of naturalized and fecal phylogroup B1 E. coli. CRISPRs canonically serve as part of an adaptive bacterial immune system against foreign nucleic acids (Horvath and Barrangou 2010). They consist of partially palindromic direct DNA repeats separated by spacers that are often derived from foreign genetic elements. The spacers can serve as templates for RNA‐mediated interference with the exogenous genetic elements, thereby limiting horizontal gene transfer. Bacteria continually acquire CRISPR spacers from attacking foreign mobile genetic elements (Yosef and Qimron 2015), ultimately generating a hypervariable spacer repertoire among different strains. This variability has been leveraged for use in genetic typing (Delannoy et al. 2012). Although CRISPR immunity does not appear to be highly active in present‐day E. coli (Touchon et al. 2011), their alleles ostensibly reflect historical encounters with exogenous genetic elements. Since naturalized E. coli populations have likely encountered different genetic elements in aquatic environments compared to enteric strains residing in the intestine, we hypothesized that these two populations would have different CRISPR spacer repertoires owing to the incorporation of different foreign genetic elements present in their respective environments.

Experimental Procedures

Strains

E. coli strains were obtained from a previously established collection of surface water, sediment, and fecal strains, that were isolated from the Milk River watershed in Alberta, Canada (Tymensen et al. 2015) (Table 1). The naturalized strains included those from the ET–1 clade, along with other phylogroup B1 strains, and represented several clonal genotypes (based on accessory gene profiles) that were either specific to or numerically more abundant (i.e., overrepresented) in surface water and sediment compared to feces. Fecal strains were largely from cattle, as they were the predominant contributor of fecal contamination in the watershed; however, several ET–1 clade strains from other livestock and wildlife were also included, since few cattle ET–1 clade strains were present in the isolate collection.
Table 1

Isolation source, CRISPR allele spacer number and relatedness group, sequence type (ST), and multilocus sequence typing (MLST) data for phylogroup B1 strains analyzed in this study

Strain IDSourceSpacers/alleleCRISPR relatedness groupa ST (MLST)MLST allele numbersb
aspC clpX fadD icdA lysP mdh uidA
ARDMR005Surface water13G611007577412261
ARDMR007Surface water9G722356712181
ARDMR017Sediment9G7230567125181
ARDMR021Cow11G961945238151
ARDMR022Cow18G911717552183
ARDMR023Cow0c n/a311452691721
ARDMR024Cow8G6145552211323
ARDMR025Cow15G8603325513311323
ARDMR026Cow11G961945238151
ARDMR037Surface water13G722356712181
ARDMR041Surface water7UG11534652121
ARDMR043Surface water17G9nd55230111
ARDMR056Surface water8G9nd552301121
ARDMR058Surface water10UGnd325238151
ARDMR063Sediment7G8286451387185
ARDMR067Cliff Swallow16G9nd55241563
ARDMR068Cow10G6111451912211223
ARDMR070Cow6G6nd751321201
ARDMR075Cow19G8150595644151
ARDMR076Cow14G9118055222115277
ARDMR077Cow17G8nd595644151
ARDMR078Cow9G77215616725181
ARDMR079Cow16G9nd562411363
ARDMR080Cow19G91484524151
ARDMR081Cow14G7230567125181
ARDMR082Cow13G7230567125181
ARDMR083Cow14G910495613418257
ARDMR085Cow6UG6305522183
ARDMR086Cow13G9131462391541
ARDMR087Surface water13G6nd44221123
ARDMR088Surface water19G7230567125181
ARDMR090Surface water9G711815671222181
ARDMR091Surface water11G8603325513311323
ARDMR093Surface water12G614655221523
ARDMR094Surface water9G7230567125181
ARDMR095Surface water9G8118255188413421
ARDMR096Surface water13G722356712181
ARDMR097Surface water8G911836782215278
ARDMR098Surface water9G7230567125181
ARDMR099Surface water13G722356712181
ARDMR100Surface water6G7230567125181
ARDMR101Surface water9G7118418267125181
ARDMR102Surface water9G7230567125181
ARDMR103Surface water13G911855524621131
ARDMR104Surface water16G6nd75541595
ARDMR105Surface water11G6145552211323
ARDMR106Surface water9G7230567125181
ARDMR107Surface water18G9118641985411323
ARDMR108Cliff Swallow9G7230567125181
ARDMR109Cow13G6650781321523
ARDMR110Cow9G77215616725181
ARDMR111Cow8UG1577520231291
ARDMR114Horse16G9102751102411363
ARDMR115Horse5G8nd461411691
ARDMR116Sheep23G99376132155
ARDMR117Deer9G7230567125181
ARDMR118Surface water8G81297613411323

nd, not determined; ST, sequence type.

As previously defined by Touchon et al. 2011.

Allele numbers according to Shigatox EcMLST database.

CRISPR1 was not amplified from strain ARDMR023.

Isolation source, CRISPR allele spacer number and relatedness group, sequence type (ST), and multilocus sequence typing (MLST) data for phylogroup B1 strains analyzed in this study nd, not determined; ST, sequence type. As previously defined by Touchon et al. 2011. Allele numbers according to Shigatox EcMLST database. CRISPR1 was not amplified from strain ARDMR023.

CRISPR sequencing and analysis

CRISPR1 arrays of each E. coli strain were amplified by PCR using primers flanking the iap (C1Fw, GTTATGCGGATAATGCTACC) and cas2 (C1Rev, CGTAYYCCGGTRGATTTGGA) genes, as previously described (Touchon et al. 2011). Forward and reverse sequencing of the PCR products was conducted by Functional Biosciences (Madison, WI). Consensus sequences were assembled using the Staden package v3.3. (Hinxton, UK) (Staden et al. 2003). Sequences were submitted to GenBank with accession numbers KT821503 to KT821545. Analysis of CRISPR sequences was performed using the CRISPRdb database and CRISPRtionary tool (Grissa et al. 2007). Spacers were automatically numbered, with each distinct spacer being assigned a different number. A two‐base mismatch for spacers was allowed for distinct spacer assignment. CRISPR1 sequences of representative reference strains from the E. coli reference (ECOR) collection and each of the four CRISPR sequence groups, G6 to G9 (as previously identified by Touchon et al. 2011), were obtained from GenBank.

MLST

Phylogenetic reconstruction was based on the seven‐gene multilocus sequence typing (MLST) protocol described elsewhere (Shigatox.net). Forward and reverse sequences for each of the seven genes (aspC, clpX, fadD, icdA, lysP, mdh, and uidA) were assembled using the Staden package v3.3 (Hinxton, UK). (Staden et al. 2003). New alleles and sequence types were submitted to the Shigatox EcMLST database (Qi et al. 2004). For each E. coli strain, consensus sequences for each of the seven genes were concatenated and aligned using MUSCLE (default parameters) (Edgar 2004) as implemented from within Mega5 (Tamura et al. 2011). The alignment was imported into SplitsTree4 v.4.13.1 (Tubingen, Germany) and analyzed according to the Neighbour‐Net algorithm (default parameters) (Huson and Bryant 2006). MLST data of representative E. coli strains from the ECOR collection, clade ET1, and several additional non‐phylogroup B1 strains from the Milk River were included in the analysis for comparison purposes (Table S1). MLST sequences for reference strains from the ECOR collection were obtained from the Shigatox EcMLST database. Dr. Seth Walk (Montana State University, Bozeman, MT) kindly provided the MLST sequences for the reference clade ET–1 strains.

Results and Discussion

CRISPR1 arrays of 56 fecal and naturalized E. coli strains from a previous study (Tymensen et al. 2015) were sequenced (see Table 1). CRISPR sequence analysis identified a total of 177 distinct spacers among the surface water and fecal E. coli strains (Fig. 1). Among naturalized strains, 68 of the 74 common spacers, which were defined as being present in two or more strains, were also present in fecal strains, indicating that common spacer repertoires were largely similar (Table S2), which was contrary to our hypothesis. The spacers were arranged as 40 different alleles, with only one allele (ST35) that was shared by naturalized and fecal strains (Fig. 1). Allelic variation among naturalized strains was largely due to spacer deletion, where alleles from naturalized strains were similar to those of fecal strains, but missing spacers. The remaining variation could be attributed to the presence of strain‐specific spacers in eight of the 21 alleles.
Figure 1

Graphical representation of CRISPR1 alleles from fecal and naturalized E. coli. Each spacer is represented by a square (direct repeats not shown). Identical spacers found in two or more strains have identical numbers and colors, while strain‐specific spacers are white. Alleles were aligned with the most ancient spacers on the left. Gaps were introduced to improve spacer alignment. Isolate source and CRISPR sequence types (ST) are shown. Spacers were grouped according to four different spacer repertoire relatedness groups (G6 to G9, as previously defined by Touchon et al. 2011). ‘MANY’ includes strains ARDMR007, −017, −078, −090, −094, −098, −101, −102, −106, −108, −110, and −117. Reference strains were from the ECOR collection or Touchon et al. 2011 (strains 518, R379, 725, and R410). cs, cliff swallow; co, cow; hs, horse; sw, surface water/sediment; sh, sheep; de, deer; IS, insertion sequence.

Graphical representation of CRISPR1 alleles from fecal and naturalized E. coli. Each spacer is represented by a square (direct repeats not shown). Identical spacers found in two or more strains have identical numbers and colors, while strain‐specific spacers are white. Alleles were aligned with the most ancient spacers on the left. Gaps were introduced to improve spacer alignment. Isolate source and CRISPR sequence types (ST) are shown. Spacers were grouped according to four different spacer repertoire relatedness groups (G6 to G9, as previously defined by Touchon et al. 2011). ‘MANY’ includes strains ARDMR007, −017, −078, −090, −094, −098, −101, −102, −106, −108, −110, and −117. Reference strains were from the ECOR collection or Touchon et al. 2011 (strains 518, R379, 725, and R410). cs, cliff swallow; co, cow; hs, horse; sw, surface water/sediment; sh, sheep; de, deer; IS, insertion sequence. CRISPR alleles from naturalized strains contained an average of 11 ± 3 spacers per allele (mean ± SD) compared to fecal strains which had 13 ± 5 spacers per allele (Fig. 2). These values were not statistically significantly different (P = 0.08, Mann–Whitney Rank Sum Test). Using spacer count as a proxy for CRISPR activity (Gophna et al. 2015), it appears that naturalized and fecal strains have similar immunity to exogenous DNA. Reduced CRISPR immunity may facilitate the acquisition of environmentally adaptive genetic traits through the uptake of foreign DNA. This mechanism has been proposed to facilitate acquisition of virulence factors among pathogenic strains (Toro et al. 2014; Garcia‐Gutierrez et al. 2015). While the data from the current study suggest that CRIPSR‐mediated immunity (or lack thereof) does not play a major role in environmental adaptation among naturalized strains, this interpretation should be viewed cautiously as the number of naturalized and fecal strain used in this study was relatively small. It is therefore recommended that future studies in other watersheds should include larger numbers of strains, particularly given the tremendous diversity of CRISPR1 alleles observed among E coli strains.
Figure 2

Box plot of the number of spacers in CRISPR alleles of naturalized versus fecal E. coli. Dot within the box represents mean. Mean ± SD for naturalized: =11 ± 3 spacers/allele versus fecal: =13 ± 5; Mann–Whitney Rank Sum Test: P = 0.08, considered not significant.

Box plot of the number of spacers in CRISPR alleles of naturalized versus fecal E. coli. Dot within the box represents mean. Mean ± SD for naturalized: =11 ± 3 spacers/allele versus fecal: =13 ± 5; Mann–Whitney Rank Sum Test: P = 0.08, considered not significant. Previous examination of E. coli CRISPRs indicates that certain alleles are predominantly associated with specific phylogroups (Touchon et al. 2011). Among phylogroup B1strains, four major distinct groups of alleles, with almost completely different spacer repertoires, have been previously identified (herein referred to as G6 to G9, as designated previously). The majority of CRISPR alleles from the current study belonged to one of the four groups (Fig. 1), and all four allele groups were found among naturalized strains and fecal strains. Four alleles were uncategorized. To examine CRISPR alleles in the context of phylogenetic relatedness, the phylogeny was reconstructed based on MLST. Several strains from other major phylogroups were also included in the reconstruction (Table S1). Among the phylogroup B1 strains, three distinct clades, including the previously identified naturalized ET‐1 clade (Walk et al. 2007), were observed (Fig. 3). Similar phylogenetic structure has been reported among phylogroup B1 strains from soil (Bergholz et al. 2011), although no attempt was made to see if the clades in this current study corresponded with those of the previous study. Conspicuously, the different CRISPR allele groups tended to be conserved among strains of the same phylogenetic clade. For example, all strains with G7 alleles belonged to the ET–1 clade, while seven of the nine strains with G6 alleles clustered in a second phylogroup B1 clade, and half of the strains with G9 alleles clustered in a third phylogroup B1 clade. Some strains did not group with their respective clade. This is likely due to genetic recombination, which is noted to be especially common among phylogroup B1 strains (Almendros et al. 2014).
Figure 3

Phylogenetic relationships of naturalized and fecal E. coli strains based on MLST (Whittam typing scheme). The top left panel represents the Splitstree phylogenetic network of phylogroup B1 strains in relation to other major phylogroups. Major phylogenetic groups are labeled. The three panels on the right and the bottom of the figure are enlargements of the ET‐1 clade, and two distinct phylogroup B1 clades. Strain ID's are followed by a symbol representing the source of isolation (naturalized, circle; fecal, square), and the CRISPR relatedness group (G6, red; G7, green; G8, purple; G9, teal; ungrouped, black; Touchon et al. 2011). Representative phylogroup B1 ECOR strains and clade ET‐1 strains (denoted by the prefix TW) were also included.

Phylogenetic relationships of naturalized and fecal E. coli strains based on MLST (Whittam typing scheme). The top left panel represents the Splitstree phylogenetic network of phylogroup B1 strains in relation to other major phylogroups. Major phylogenetic groups are labeled. The three panels on the right and the bottom of the figure are enlargements of the ET‐1 clade, and two distinct phylogroup B1 clades. Strain ID's are followed by a symbol representing the source of isolation (naturalized, circle; fecal, square), and the CRISPR relatedness group (G6, red; G7, green; G8, purple; G9, teal; ungrouped, black; Touchon et al. 2011). Representative phylogroup B1 ECOR strains and clade ET‐1 strains (denoted by the prefix TW) were also included. Looking specifically at the distribution of the different CRISPR alleles, it is noteworthy that the majority of strains that have CRISPR G7 alleles (13 of 19 or 68%) were naturalized. Conversely, the majority strains with CRISPR G9 alleles were of fecal origin including 11 of 16 strains (69%). CRISPR G6 and G8 alleles were evenly distributed among naturalized and fecal strains. This indicates that while naturalized strains are genetically diverse, there appeared to be a bias toward naturalized strains having CRIPSR G7 alleles rather than G9 alleles (P = 0.04, Fisher's exact test). This is consistent with notion that the ET‐1 clade (in which all CRISPR G7 alleles are found) is a naturalized clade found in aquatic environments (Walk et al. 2007). Regardless of the bias, CRISPR G7 alleles were not specific to naturalized strains, and therefore not useful as a marker for identifying naturalized strains.

Conclusion

Despite the tremendous genetic diversity among the strains of both ecotypes, the observation that fecal and naturalized E. coli strains possess largely similar CRISPR spacer repertoires suggests these strains likely have a shared history of encounter with exogenous genetic elements. The most parsimonious explanation is that the strains were derived from common ancestral lineages and/or were from the same fecal sources. Likewise, MLST data also supports that naturalized phylogroup B1 strains are not genetically divergent from fecal strains, but rather, appear to represent a continuum within the global E. coli population. From a practical perspective, the large variation among individual strains will preclude the use of CRISPRs as typing markers for identifying naturalized populations.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest. Table S1. Isolation source, sequence type (ST), and MLST data for additional non‐phylogroup B1 strains analyzed in this study. Click here for additional data file. Table S2. Characteristics of CRISPR alleles from naturalized and fecal E. coli strains. Click here for additional data file.
  22 in total

1.  Application of phylogenetic networks in evolutionary studies.

Authors:  Daniel H Huson; David Bryant
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  2005-10-12       Impact factor: 16.240

2.  Association of clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR) elements with specific serotypes and virulence potential of shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli.

Authors:  Magaly Toro; Guojie Cao; Wenting Ju; Marc Allard; Rodolphe Barrangou; Shaohua Zhao; Eric Brown; Jianghong Meng
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2013-12-13       Impact factor: 4.792

Review 3.  CRISPR/Cas, the immune system of bacteria and archaea.

Authors:  Philippe Horvath; Rodolphe Barrangou
Journal:  Science       Date:  2010-01-08       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  Comparative accessory gene fingerprinting of surface water Escherichia coli reveals genetically diverse naturalized population.

Authors:  L D Tymensen; F Pyrdok; D Coles; W Koning; T A McAllister; C C Jokinen; S E Dowd; N F Neumann
Journal:  J Appl Microbiol       Date:  2015-04-20       Impact factor: 3.772

5.  Characterization of the cryptic Escherichia lineages: rapid identification and prevalence.

Authors:  Olivier Clermont; David M Gordon; Sylvain Brisse; Seth T Walk; Erick Denamur
Journal:  Environ Microbiol       Date:  2011-06-08       Impact factor: 5.491

6.  Cryptic lineages of the genus Escherichia.

Authors:  Seth T Walk; Elizabeth W Alm; David M Gordon; Jeffrey L Ram; Gary A Toranzos; James M Tiedje; Thomas S Whittam
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2009-08-21       Impact factor: 4.792

7.  Genetic diversity and population structure of Escherichia coli isolated from freshwater beaches.

Authors:  Seth T Walk; Elizabeth W Alm; Lisa M Calhoun; Janice M Mladonicky; Thomas S Whittam
Journal:  Environ Microbiol       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 5.491

8.  Genotyping of Escherichia coli from environmental and animal samples.

Authors:  James Higgins; Christina Hohn; Sally Hornor; Mark Frana; Mary Denver; Rolf Joerger
Journal:  J Microbiol Methods       Date:  2007-04-24       Impact factor: 2.363

9.  Influence of hydrological conditions on the Escherichia coli population structure in the water of a creek on a rural watershed.

Authors:  Mehdy Ratajczak; Emilie Laroche; Thierry Berthe; Olivier Clermont; Barbara Pawlak; Erick Denamur; Fabienne Petit
Journal:  BMC Microbiol       Date:  2010-08-19       Impact factor: 3.605

10.  The CRISPRdb database and tools to display CRISPRs and to generate dictionaries of spacers and repeats.

Authors:  Ibtissem Grissa; Gilles Vergnaud; Christine Pourcel
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2007-05-23       Impact factor: 3.169

View more
  2 in total

1.  CRISPR1 analysis of naturalized surface water and fecal Escherichia coli suggests common origin.

Authors:  Lisa D Tymensen
Journal:  Microbiologyopen       Date:  2016-03-22       Impact factor: 3.139

Review 2.  A CRISPR View of Biological Mechanisms.

Authors:  Eduardo Martinez; Lilia Sanchez; Neftali Vazquez; Rebecca Marks; Raechel Cedillo; Christa Respondek; Martin Holguin; Michael W Persans; Megan Keniry
Journal:  Discoveries (Craiova)       Date:  2016-12-31
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.