| Literature DB >> 29795390 |
Qin Peng1, Yihui Yuan2.
Abstract
The outbreak of multidrug-resistant pathogenic bacteria made the discovery of novel control strategies necessary. Phages have regained attention for their specific lytic activity against pathogenic bacterium. A newly isolated phage infecting the clinical Escherichia coli isolates, including several multidrug-resistant strains, was isolated, and this phage showed high control effects against the tested pathogenic E. coli strains. Host range analysis revealed that although the phage exhibited broad lytic spectrum against the tested E. coli strains, it could not lyse strains from the other species. Comparative genomic analysis showed that phages had undergone at least three genome recombination events during the evolutionary process at the position of the three phage tail genes, which was reported to be associated with the host range determination of the phage. The recombinant tail proteins contained functional domains that were highly similar with genes of the Salmonella phage and genes of Pseudomonas and Neisseria. The findings of this study not only provide resources for developing phage therapy against E. coli, but also showed the highly variable genome structure of the phage.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29795390 PMCID: PMC5967307 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-26004-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Morphology observation and characterization of phage vB_EcoS_HSE2. (A) Plaque morphologies of phage vB_EcoS_HSE2. (B) Virion morphology of phage vB_EcoS_HSE2. The phage virion was stained with potassium phosphotungstate and observed using transmission electron microscopy. (C) One step growth curve of the phage. (D) Thermal tolerance of the phage. (E) Tolerance of the phage to different pH treatment.
Antibiotic resistance and phage sensitivity of strains use in this study.
| Strains | Antibiotic Resistancea | Phage Sensitivity |
|---|---|---|
| AMPR, AMCI, ATMR, PRLR, TZPS, KZR, CXMR, CTXR, CROR, CAZR, FEPR, FOXR, SCFI, CIPR, LEVR, IPMS, MEMS, SXTR, MHI, FS, AKS, CNS | S | |
| AMPR, AMCR, ATMR, PRLR, TZPI, KZR, CXMR, CTXR, CROR, CAZR, FEPR, FOXI, SCFI, CIPR, LEVR, IPMS, MEMS, SXTS, MHI, FS, AKI, CNS | S | |
| AMPR, AMCR, ATMR, PRLR, TZPI, KZR, CXMR, CTXR, CROR, CAZR, FEPR, FOXR, SCFR, CIPR, LEVR, IPMR, MEMR, SXTR, MHR, FI, AKR, CNR |
| |
| AMPR, AMCR, ATMR, PRLR, TZPI, KZR, CXMR, CROR, CAZR, FEPR, FOXR, SCFR, CIPR, LEVR, IPMR, MEMR, SXTR, MHR, FS, AKR, CNR | S | |
| AMPR, AMCI, ATMR, PRLR, TZPS, KZR, CXMR, CTXR, CROR, CAZR, FEPR, FOXI, SCFR, CIPR, LEVR, IPMS, MEMS, SXTR, MHS, FS, AKS, CNR | S | |
| AMPR, AMCS, ATMS, PRLR, TZPS, KZR, CXMR, CTXR, CROR, CAZS, FEPR, FOXS, SCFS, CIPR, LEVR, IPMS, MEMS, SXTS, MHS, FS, AKS, CNS |
| |
| AMPR, AMCI, ATMR, PRLR, TZPI, KZR, CXMR, CTXS, CROR, CAZI, FEPR, FOXI, SCFI, CIPR, LEVR, IPMS, MEMS, SXTS, MHS, FS, AKS, CNS | R | |
| AMPR, AMCI, ATMS, PRLS, TZPS, KZI, CXMI, CROS, CAZS, FEPS, FOXS, SCFS, CIPS, LEVS, IPMS, MEMS, SXTS, MHS, FS, AKS, CNS | R | |
| AMPR, AMCS, ATMS, PRLI, TZPS, KZI, CXMS, CTXS, CROS, CAZS, FEPS, FOXS, SCFS, CIPS, LEVS, IPMS, MEMS, SXTS, MHS, AKS, CNS | R | |
| AMPR, AMCR, ATMR, PRLR, TZPR, KZR, CXMR, CTXR, CROR, CAZR, FEPR, FOXS, SCFS, CIPR, LEVR, IPMS, MEMS, SXTR, MHS, AKR, CNR | R | |
| AMPR, AMCR, ATMR, PRLR, TZPR, KZR, CXMR, CROR, CAZR, FEPR, FOXR, SCFS, CIPR, LEVR, IPMS, MEMS, SXTS, MHI, FS, AKS, CNR | R | |
| AMPR, AMCR, ATMR, PRLR, TZPR, KZR, CXMR, CTXR, CROR, CAZR, FEPR, FOXR, SCFR, CIPR, LEVR, IPMR, MEMR, SXTS, MHS, AKR, CNR | R | |
| ATMS, FEPR, TZPS, AKS, LEVR, IPMS, MEMS, PBS, CNS, CAZS, PRLS, TOBS, SCFS, CIPS | R | |
| NAb | R | |
| NA | R | |
| NA | R | |
| NA | R | |
| NA | R |
aR, resistant; S, susceptible; I, intermediate. AMP, Ampicillin (10 μg); AMC, Amoxicillin-clavulanate (20/10 μg); ATM, Aztreonam (30 μg); PRL, Piperacillin (100 μg); TZP, Piperacillin-tazobactam (100/10 μg); KZ, Cefazolin (30 μg); CXM, Cefuroxime (30 μg); CTX, Cefotaxime (30 μg); CRO, Ceftriaxone (30 μg); CAZ, Ceftazidime (30 μg); FEP, Cefepime (30 μg); FOX, Cefoxitin (30 μg); SCF, Cefoperazone-sulbactam (75/30 μg); CIP, Ciprofloxacin (5 μg); LEV, Levofloxacin (5 μg); IPM, Imipenem (10 μg); MEM, Meropenem (10 μg); SXT, Trimethoprim (5 μg); MH, Minocycline (30 μg); F, Nitrofurantoin (300 μg); AK, Amikacin (30 μg); CN, Gentamicin (10 μg); TOB, Tobramycin (10 μg); PB, Polymyxin B (300 IU).
bThe data was Not Available.
Figure 2Control effect of phage vB_EcoS_HSE2 to the pathogenic E. coli strain 40371. (A) Growth curve of strain 40371 co-cultivated with phage vB_Ecos_HSE2. The strains were treated with the phage of different MOI and strain without treating by phage was used as control. (B) Counts of the total strains and phage resistant strains. The total strain concentrations and concentrations of phage resistant strains were tested after treating the strain with different concentrations of phage for 6 hours. The ratios of phage resistant strain were analyzed by calculating the ratio of phage resistant strains to the total strains.
Figure 3Genome structure of phage vB_EcoS_HSE2 and comparative genomic analysis with phage P AB-2017, K1-dep(4) and LPSE1. The outermost ring presented the CDSs of the linear vB_EcoS_HSE2 genome (blue) and the adjacent three rings showed BLASTN homology between vB_EcoS_HSE2 and P AB-2017 (pale pink), K1-dep(4) (pale green), and LPSE1(pale blue). The middle ring indicated the GC content (black), and the innermost ring represented the GC skew of vB_EcoS_HSE2 genome. The predicted functions of the CDSs were indicated.
Figure 4Phylogenetic and functional analysis of the phage structural proteins. (A) and (B) Phylogenetic analysis of protein Gp01 and Gp53. The proteins that showed similarity with protein Gp01 and Gp53 were collected from GenBank and used for phylogenetic tree construction using Mega6.0 with neighbor-joining method with the bootstrap replicate of 1000. (C) Schematic diagram of the similarity and domain composition of Gp02. The N-terminus and C-terminus were similar with E. coli phages and Pseudomonas sp. proteins, respectively. The protein Gp02 contained three functional predicted domains, including the domain similar to the tailspike protein, endopolygalacturonase (indicated as PDB entry 2IQ7), and cellulosome protein dockerin carbohydrate binding module (indicated as PDB entry 2WZ8). (D) Protein structure modeling of residues 243–327 from protein Gp02. The structure of the protein endopolygalacturonase (PDB entry 2IQ7) was used as template for structure modeling and the polysaccharide was indicated.
Figure 5Comparative genomic analysis of phages that were similar with phage vB_EcoS_HSE2. The phages with genome similarity higher than 20% were collected from GenBank and used for dot plot analysis. The dot plot analysis was performed by using Gepard.
Figure 6Phylogenetic and comparative genomic analysis of the phage vB_EcoS_HSE2. (A) Phylogenetic analysis of phages that showed similarity with the phage vB_EcoS_HSE2. The phage genomes that showed similarity higher than 20% with the genome of phage vB_EcoS_HSE2 were collected and used for phylogenetic tree construction. (B) Core-genome analysis of phages from the same evolutionary branch with phage vB_EcoS_HSE2. The numbers of core genes for the 9 phages were indicated in the central circle, and the number of specific genes were also shown. (C) Dot plot analysis of phage vB_EcoS_HSE2 with phage K1ind1 and Jersery. The genes that were absent in phage K1ind1 genome are shown.