Literature DB >> 27610213

Draft genome sequence of Enterococcus faecium strain LMG 8148.

Joran E Michiels1, Bram Van den Bergh1, Maarten Fauvart2, Jan Michiels1.   

Abstract

Enterococcus faecium, traditionally considered a harmless gut commensal, is emerging as an important nosocomial pathogen showing increasing rates of multidrug resistance. We report the draft genome sequence of E. faecium strain LMG 8148, isolated in 1968 from a human in Gothenburg, Sweden. The draft genome has a total length of 2,697,490 bp, a GC-content of 38.3 %, and 2,402 predicted protein-coding sequences. The isolation of this strain predates the emergence of E. faecium as a nosocomial pathogen. Consequently, its genome can be useful in comparative genomic studies investigating the evolution of E. faecium as a pathogen.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Draft genome; Enterococcus faecium; Gut commensal; Human isolate; Nosocomial pathogen

Year:  2016        PMID: 27610213      PMCID: PMC5015329          DOI: 10.1186/s40793-016-0187-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stand Genomic Sci        ISSN: 1944-3277


Introduction

Enterococci commonly reside in the gastro-intestinal tract of a wide variety of invertebrate and vertebrate hosts, including humans. Since they produce bacteriocins, spp. are widely used as starter cultures for food fermentations or probiotic supplements [1]. Since the 1970s however, they have enigmatically progressed from commensal organisms of little clinical interest to leading nosocomial pathogens causing infections of the urinary tract, bloodstream, and surgical wounds, among others [2]. The large majority of human enterococcal infections are caused by two species: and . Worryingly, acquired antibiotic resistance against a multitude of drugs is increasingly being reported in these organisms [3]. Here, we report the draft genome of LMG 8148, a strain of human origin isolated in 1968 in Gothenburg, Sweden [4].

Organism information

Classification and features

is a large genus of Gram-positive, non-sporulating, facultative anaerobic, round-shaped, lactic acid-producing bacteria (Table 1) [5]. belongs to the family , order , class , and phylum . Microscopically, enterococci are often observed as pairs or short chains of cells (Fig. 1) [5]. They were classified as group D streptococci until assigned a separate genus in 1984 [6]. and are the two most prominent species within the genus. Enterococci can grow in a wide range of environmental conditions, including temperature (5-50 °C), pH (4.6-9.9), 40 % (w/v) bile salts, and 6.5 % NaCl [7]. To investigate evolutionary relationships with other species and strains, a phylogenetic tree was constructed using 16S rDNA sequences (Fig. 2). As expected, LMG 8148 forms a cluster with the other strains.
Table 1

Classification and general features of Enterococcus faecium strain LMG 8148 according to the MIGS recommendations [8]

MIGS IDPropertyTermEvidence codea
ClassificationDomain Bacteria TAS [16]
Phylum Firmicutes TAS [17]
Class Bacilli TAS [18, 19]
Order Lactobacillales TAS [19, 20]
Family Enterococcaceae TAS [19, 21]
Genus Enterococcus TAS [6]
Species Enterococcus faecium TAS [6]
Strain LMG 8148NAS
Gram stainPositiveTAS [22]
Cell shapeCoccusTAS [22]
MotilityNon-motileNAS
SporulationNon-sporulatingTAS [7]
Temperature range5-50 °CTAS [7]
Optimum temperature37 °CTAS [23]
pH range; Optimum4.6-9.9; 7.5TAS [23]
Carbon sourceGlucose, citrate, complex carbon sourcesTAS [24, 25]
MIGS-6HabitatGastro-intestinal tracts of humans and other mammalsTAS [5]
MIGS-6.3Salinity0-6.5 %TAS [7]
MIGS-22Oxygen requirementFacultatively anaerobicTAS [7]
MIGS-15Biotic relationshipCommensalTAS [5]
MIGS-14PathogenicityPathogenicTAS [5]
MIGS-4Geographic locationSwedenNAS
MIGS-5Sample collection1961TAS [4]
MIGS-4.1LatitudeUnknownNAS
MIGS-4.2LongitudeUnknownNAS
MIGS-4.4AltitudeUnknownNAS

aEvidence codes - IDA inferred from direct assay, TAS traceable author statement (i.e., a direct report exists in the literature); NAS: Non-traceable VAuthor Statement (i.e., not directly observed for the living, isolated sample, but based on a generally accepted property for the species, or anecdotal evidence). These evidence codes are from the Gene Ontology project [26]

Fig. 1

Phase-contrast micrograph of E. faecium LMG 8148

Fig. 2

16S rRNA phylogenetic tree indicating the position of E. faecium LMG 8148 relative to other E. faecium strains and other enterococcal species (type strain = T). Lactobacillus plantarum was included as an outgroup. Genbank accession numbers of the aligned sequences are indicated between brackets. 16S rDNA sequences were aligned using MUSCLE, and the phylogenetic tree was determined using the neighbour-joining algorithm with the Kimura 2-parameter distance model in MEGA (version 7) [27]. A gamma distribution (shape parameter = 1) was used for rate variation among sites. The optimal tree with the sum of branch lengths = 0.1983 is shown, and nodes that appeared in more than 50 % of replicate trees in the bootstrap test (1000 replicates) are marked with their bootstrap support values

Classification and general features of Enterococcus faecium strain LMG 8148 according to the MIGS recommendations [8] aEvidence codes - IDA inferred from direct assay, TAS traceable author statement (i.e., a direct report exists in the literature); NAS: Non-traceable VAuthor Statement (i.e., not directly observed for the living, isolated sample, but based on a generally accepted property for the species, or anecdotal evidence). These evidence codes are from the Gene Ontology project [26] Phase-contrast micrograph of E. faecium LMG 8148 16S rRNA phylogenetic tree indicating the position of E. faecium LMG 8148 relative to other E. faecium strains and other enterococcal species (type strain = T). Lactobacillus plantarum was included as an outgroup. Genbank accession numbers of the aligned sequences are indicated between brackets. 16S rDNA sequences were aligned using MUSCLE, and the phylogenetic tree was determined using the neighbour-joining algorithm with the Kimura 2-parameter distance model in MEGA (version 7) [27]. A gamma distribution (shape parameter = 1) was used for rate variation among sites. The optimal tree with the sum of branch lengths = 0.1983 is shown, and nodes that appeared in more than 50 % of replicate trees in the bootstrap test (1000 replicates) are marked with their bootstrap support values

Genome sequencing information

Genome project history

The strain LMG 8148 was isolated from a human in Gothenburg (Sweden) in 1968 [4]. The strain was obtained through the Belgian Coordinated Collection of Microorganisms. DNA samples were sequenced at the EMBL GeneCore facility (Heidelberg, Germany) and assembled using CLC Genomics Workbench (version 7.5.1). The draft genome was annotated using the NCBI Prokaryotic Genome Annotation Pipeline. This draft whole-genome sequence has been deposited at DDBJ/ENA/GenBank under the accession LOHT00000000. The project information, and its association with MIGS version 2.0 [8], is summarised in Table 2.
Table 2

Project information

MIGS-IDPropertyTerm
MIGS-31Finishing qualityHigh-quality draft
MIGS-28Libraries usedOne paired-end Illumina library (Nextera)
MIGS-29Sequencing platformsIllumina HiSeq 2000
MIGS-31.2Fold coverage317
MIGS-30AssemblersCLC NGS Cell 7.5.1
MIGS-32Gene calling methodGeneMarkS+
Locus TagAUC59
Genbank IDLOHT00000000
GenBank Date of Release2016/02/26
GOLD ID-
BIOPROJECTPRJNA305395
MIGS-13Source Material IdentifierLMG 8148
Project relevanceEvolution
Project information

Growth conditions and genomic DNA preparation

Bacterial cultures were inoculated from single colonies on lysogeny broth agar in 5 ml of lysogeny broth and grown overnight at 37 °C, with 200 rpm orbital shaking. The DNeasy Blood&Tissue Kit (Qiagen) was used for DNA isolation, following the manufacturer’s instructions and pre-treatment protocol for Gram-positive bacteria. Concentration and purity of isolated DNA was determined spectrophotometrically using the Nanodrop ND-1000 and fluorometrically using Qubit analysis (ThermoFisher Scientific).

Genome sequencing and assembly

100 bp paired-end sequencing was performed on an Illumina HiSeq 2000 machine at the EMBL GeneCore facility in Heidelberg (Germany). The total number of paired reads was 9,317,630. Sequencing data was analysed with the Qiagen CLC Genomics workbench version 7.5.1. After a trimming step for quality (score limit: 0.05) and ambiguous nucleotides (maximum 2 ambiguities), reads were assembled de novo using a mismatch cost of 2, a deletion cost of 3, an insertion cost of 3, length fraction 0.5, and similarity fraction 0.8. The assembly yielded 366 contigs (minimum length 200 bp) with an average coverage of 317× and an average contig length of 7,370 bp (N50 length of 41,184 bp). The total length of the draft genome is 2,697,490 bp with a GC-content of 38.3 %.

Genome annotation

All contigs were annotated using NCBI’s Prokaryotic Genome Annotation Pipeline. Pfam domains [9] in the predicted protein sequences were identified using the Batch Web CD-Search Tool from NCBI [10]. Predicted proteins were classified into COG [11] functional categories using the WebMGA web server for metagenomic analysis [12]. For further characterization of the predicted genes, CRISPRFinder [13], the SignalP 4.1 server [14], and the TMHMM server [15] were used to predict CRISPR repeats, signal peptides, and transmembrane domains, respectively. For the CRISPRFinder tool, only confirmed CRISPRs and not questionable CRISPRs were taken into account.

Genome properties

The properties of this draft genome are summarised in Table 3. Assembly yielded 366 contigs containing 2,697,490 bp with a 38.3 % GC-content. The total number of 2,772 genes predicted by PGAP includes 2,402 protein coding genes (totalling 2,136,945 base pairs), 303 pseudo genes, and 67 RNA genes (56 tRNA and 11 rRNA genes). For 19.37 % of the protein-coding genes, no putative function was assigned, and these were annotated as hypothetical proteins. Further characteristics of the predicted genes are given in Table 3, and classification into functional COG categories is shown in Table 4.
Table 3

Genome statistics

AttributeValue% of Total
Genome size (bp)2,697,490100.00
DNA coding (bp)2,136,94579.22
DNA G + C (bp)1,034,25638.34
DNA scaffolds366100.00
Total genes2,772100.00
Protein coding genes2,40286.65
RNA genes672.42
Pseudo genes30310.93
Genes in internal clusters--
Genes with function prediction2,23580.63
Genes assigned to COGs2,15377.67
Genes with Pfam domains2,07874.96
Genes with signal peptides1204.33
Genes with transmembrane helices63122.76
CRISPR repeats1-
Table 4

Number of genes associated with general COG functional categories

CodeValue%ageDescription
J1506.24Translation, ribosomal structure and biogenesis
A00.00RNA processing and modification
K1857.70Transcription
L1486.16Replication, recombination and repair
B00.00Chromatin structure and dynamics
D210.87Cell cycle control, cell division, chromosome partitioning
V492.04Defense mechanisms
T883.66Signal transduction mechanisms
M1144.75Cell wall/membrane biogenesis
N130.54Cell motility
U271.12Intracellular trafficking and secretion
O582.41Posttranslational modification, protein turnover, chaperones
C743.08Energy production and conversion
G25310.53Carbohydrate transport and metabolism
E1446.00Amino acid transport and metabolism
F783.25Nucleotide transport and metabolism
H552.29Coenzyme transport and metabolism
I572.37Lipid transport and metabolism
P1094.54Inorganic ion transport and metabolism
Q220.92Secondary metabolites biosynthesis, transport and catabolism
R26310.95General function prediction only
S24510.20Function unknown
-24910.37Not in COGs

The total is based on the total number of protein coding genes in the genome

Genome statistics Number of genes associated with general COG functional categories The total is based on the total number of protein coding genes in the genome

Conclusions

The presented genome sequence is from a strain isolated in 1968, and thus precedes the emergence of enterococci as important causative agents of hospital-acquired infections in the 1970s and 1980s [2]. Consequently, this genome could be useful for comparative genomic studies looking to solve the remarkable recent emergence of as a notorious nosocomial pathogen.
  22 in total

1.  Predicting transmembrane protein topology with a hidden Markov model: application to complete genomes.

Authors:  A Krogh; B Larsson; G von Heijne; E L Sonnhammer
Journal:  J Mol Biol       Date:  2001-01-19       Impact factor: 5.469

2.  SignalP 4.0: discriminating signal peptides from transmembrane regions.

Authors:  Thomas Nordahl Petersen; Søren Brunak; Gunnar von Heijne; Henrik Nielsen
Journal:  Nat Methods       Date:  2011-09-29       Impact factor: 28.547

3.  Cometabolism of citrate and glucose by Enterococcus faecium FAIR-E 198 in the absence of cellular growth.

Authors:  Frederik Vaningelgem; Veerle Ghijsels; Effie Tsakalidou; Luc De Vuyst
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 4.792

4.  Enterocin A production by Enterococcus faecium FAIR-E 406 is characterised by a temperature- and pH-dependent switch-off mechanism when growth is limited due to nutrient depletion.

Authors:  Erika Van den Berghe; Tom De Winter; Luc De Vuyst
Journal:  Int J Food Microbiol       Date:  2005-11-14       Impact factor: 5.277

5.  Effect of different complex carbon sources on growth and bacteriocin synthesis of Enterococcus faecium.

Authors:  M C Audisio; G Oliver; M C Apella
Journal:  Int J Food Microbiol       Date:  2001-02-15       Impact factor: 5.277

6.  CDD: NCBI's conserved domain database.

Authors:  Aron Marchler-Bauer; Myra K Derbyshire; Noreen R Gonzales; Shennan Lu; Farideh Chitsaz; Lewis Y Geer; Renata C Geer; Jane He; Marc Gwadz; David I Hurwitz; Christopher J Lanczycki; Fu Lu; Gabriele H Marchler; James S Song; Narmada Thanki; Zhouxi Wang; Roxanne A Yamashita; Dachuan Zhang; Chanjuan Zheng; Stephen H Bryant
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2014-11-20       Impact factor: 16.971

Review 7.  Antibiotic resistant enterococci-tales of a drug resistance gene trafficker.

Authors:  Guido Werner; Teresa M Coque; Charles M A P Franz; Elisabeth Grohmann; Kristin Hegstad; Lars Jensen; Willem van Schaik; Keith Weaver
Journal:  Int J Med Microbiol       Date:  2013-03-08       Impact factor: 3.473

Review 8.  Genomic transition of enterococci from gut commensals to leading causes of multidrug-resistant hospital infection in the antibiotic era.

Authors:  Michael S Gilmore; Francois Lebreton; Willem van Schaik
Journal:  Curr Opin Microbiol       Date:  2013-02-05       Impact factor: 7.934

9.  The minimum information about a genome sequence (MIGS) specification.

Authors:  Dawn Field; George Garrity; Tanya Gray; Norman Morrison; Jeremy Selengut; Peter Sterk; Tatiana Tatusova; Nicholas Thomson; Michael J Allen; Samuel V Angiuoli; Michael Ashburner; Nelson Axelrod; Sandra Baldauf; Stuart Ballard; Jeffrey Boore; Guy Cochrane; James Cole; Peter Dawyndt; Paul De Vos; Claude DePamphilis; Robert Edwards; Nadeem Faruque; Robert Feldman; Jack Gilbert; Paul Gilna; Frank Oliver Glöckner; Philip Goldstein; Robert Guralnick; Dan Haft; David Hancock; Henning Hermjakob; Christiane Hertz-Fowler; Phil Hugenholtz; Ian Joint; Leonid Kagan; Matthew Kane; Jessie Kennedy; George Kowalchuk; Renzo Kottmann; Eugene Kolker; Saul Kravitz; Nikos Kyrpides; Jim Leebens-Mack; Suzanna E Lewis; Kelvin Li; Allyson L Lister; Phillip Lord; Natalia Maltsev; Victor Markowitz; Jennifer Martiny; Barbara Methe; Ilene Mizrachi; Richard Moxon; Karen Nelson; Julian Parkhill; Lita Proctor; Owen White; Susanna-Assunta Sansone; Andrew Spiers; Robert Stevens; Paul Swift; Chris Taylor; Yoshio Tateno; Adrian Tett; Sarah Turner; David Ussery; Bob Vaughan; Naomi Ward; Trish Whetzel; Ingio San Gil; Gareth Wilson; Anil Wipat
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 54.908

10.  The Pfam protein families database: towards a more sustainable future.

Authors:  Robert D Finn; Penelope Coggill; Ruth Y Eberhardt; Sean R Eddy; Jaina Mistry; Alex L Mitchell; Simon C Potter; Marco Punta; Matloob Qureshi; Amaia Sangrador-Vegas; Gustavo A Salazar; John Tate; Alex Bateman
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2015-12-15       Impact factor: 16.971

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.