ABSTRACT
Here, we report the draft genome sequences of two Bacillus licheniformis strains harboring the lichenysin operon that were isolated from healthy goat and horse in South Africa. The genomes were sequenced using Illumina MiSeq and had a length of 4,152,826 and 4,110,075 bp, respectively, with a G + C content of 46%.
KEYWORDS: Bacillus licheniformis, lichenysin, toxin, genome, sequence, livestock
ANNOUNCEMENT
Bacillus licheniformis is a ubiquitous, endospore-forming, Gram-positive saprophytic bacterium that belongs to the Bacillus subtilis group (1). It is an opportunistic pathogen in compromised hosts and it is characterized by high temperature and stress resistance (2). It causes a wide range of infrequent infections including gastroenteritis, bacteremia, peritonitis, and ophthalmitis in immunocompromised humans (3–6). It can cause toxemia, mastitis, and abortion in bovine (7, 8) and is implicated in foodborne poisoning and outbreaks (9–14). Lichenysin toxin-producing strains were isolated from raw milk and infant food products (8–10). Additionally, B. licheniformis has biotechnological applications (15), and it was used as a potential probiotic and antibiotics alternative to prevent pathogenic infection in broilers (16–18).
Here, we report draft genome sequences of B. licheniformis strains MEZBL63 and MEZBL64 isolated from fecal samples collected from a horse and a goat, respectively, in Flagstaff, OR Tambo District, Eastern Cape, South Africa in May 2018. The samples were collected as part of One Health research project investigating zoonotic diseases and antimicrobial resistance. The samples were collected in 10 mL of 0.1% buffered peptone water and were incubated for 24 h as reported previously (19). The samples were isolated using sheep blood agar for 18–24 h at 37°C in the presence of 5% CO2. A single CFU was cultured in tryptic soy broth to an inoculum density of a 0.5-McFarland turbidity standard, and DNA was extracted from the cultures using DNeasy Blood & Tissue kit (Qiagen, Maryland, USA) as previously reported (19, 20). Sequencing libraries were prepared using Nextera XT Library Preparation Kit (Illumina Inc., California, USA). Sequencing was performed using Illumina MiSeq instrument (Illumina Inc., California, USA) and MiSeq Reagent Kit v2 (500 cycles). Sequencing yielded an average coverage of 29× and an average read length of 208 nt (Table 1).
TABLE 1.
Basic characteristics of the whole-genome sequencing, assemblies, and annotation of strains MEZBL63 and MEZBL64
| Parameter | MEZBL63 | MEZBL64 |
|---|---|---|
| No. of raw reads | 262,351 | 282,025 |
| Average read length (nt) | 220 | 219 |
| Average coverage (×) | 27.8 | 30.1 |
| No. of contigs >200 bp | 183 | 183 |
| N50 (bp) | 36,931 | 36,462 |
| Genome size (bp) | 4,152,826 | 4,110,075 |
| G + C content (%) | 46 | 46 |
| No. of genes (total) | 4,350 | 4,275 |
| No. of CDSs (with protein) | 4,204 | 4,118 |
| No. of genes (RNA) | 73 | 78 |
| No. of rRNAs (5S, 16S, 23S) | 1, 1, 1 | 1, 1, 1 |
| Complete | 1, 1, 1 | 1, 1, 1 |
| Partial | 0, 0, 0 | 0, 0, 0 |
| No. of tRNAs | 67 | 70 |
| No. of ncRNAs | 3 | 5 |
| No. of pseudogenes (total) | 73 | 79 |
| Multilocus sequence type | 3 | 3 |
Trimming (Trimmomatic v.0.36) (21), quality control (fastqc v.0.11.) (22), and assembly of raw data (SPAdes version 3.12.0) (23) were performed within the framework of ASA3P pipeline (v.1.4.0) (24). Contigs smaller than 200 nucleotides were discarded. Genome annotations were performed using NCBI Prokaryotic Genome Annotation Pipeline ( v.5.3) (25). The species were determined using TYGS pipeline (26). Sequencing, assembly, and annotation data of MEZBL63 and MEZBL64 are shown in Table 1. Assembly yielded a total length of 4,152,826 bp for MEZBL63 and 4,110,075 bp for MEZBL64, respectively. The GC content detected was 46%. An N50 value of 36,931 bp (MEZBL63) and 36,462 bp (MEZBL64) was achieved.
Multilocus sequence type determination was performed using PubMLST database and the previously established genotyping scheme for B. licheniformis (27). Both MEZBL63 and MEZBL64 strains belong to sequence type 3.
Analysis of the genomes using ResFinder (v.4.1) (28) and PlasmidFinder (v2.1) (29) revealed that MEZBL63 and MEZBL64 harbored neither antibiotic resistance genes nor plasmids. Virulence genes were analyzed using VFDB database implemented in ASA3P (24), and no virulence genes were detected.
BLAST analysis using blast stand-alone version 2.10.0+ was performed in prfectblast v.2.0 (30) to determine the presence/absence of lichenysin operon (reference sequence: accession number GU949560.1) in both genomes. This analysis revealed that MEZBL63 and MEZBL64 harbored lichenysin operon (licABC/TE) albeit with several differences in the amino acid sequence, thus supporting the theory that they are two different isolates.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank staff from the Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, College of Veterinary Medicine, and the Genomic Center at University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, USA for their cooperation and help throughout the WGS project. The authors thank the GenomeTrakr Network and the Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) Program for Foodborne Pathogen Traceback and the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for their cooperation and support. The authors thank the NCBI GenBank submission staff for help with the genome upload, decontamination, and deposition process.
The project was supported in part by funding from the South African National Research Foundation for supporting this research through the Thuthuka Funding Instrument (grant number TTK170411226583), and the United States National Institutes of Health/Food and Drug Administration (USA/NIH/FDA) under award 1U18FD006780-01, the Hessian Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Arts within the project HuKKH (Hessisches Universitaeres Kompetenzzentrum Krankenhaus Hygiene). The project was also supported by discretionary funds from Prof. Dr Mohamed E. El Zowalaty and from Dr Yosra A. Helmy through start-up fund from the Department of Veterinary Science, College of Agriculture, Food, and Environment, University of Kentucky, USA.
No other person had any role in the study concept, study design, data collection, experimental work, data analysis, data interpretation or the decision to publish. Any use of commercial names, commercial diagnostic products, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the funding agencies, the National Institutes of Health, Food and Drug Administration, or the United States Government. Any opinions, findings and conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the funders, the South Africa NRF, the US National Institutes of Health, or the United States Government. The funders of the study had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The corresponding author had full access to all the data in the study project and had the final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.
Contributor Information
Mohamed E. El Zowalaty, Email: elzow005@gmail.com.
Julie C. Dunning Hotopp, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
DATA AVAILABILITY
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/all/?term=PRJNA716986The whole-genome sequences were deposited at DDBJ/ENA/GenBank under the BioProject number PRJNA716986 (BioSample accession numbers SAMN23419540 and SAMN23419541, GenBank accession numbers JAJNNM000000000 and JAJNNL000000000 for MEZBL63 and MEZBL64, respectively. The versions described in this paper are the first versions. The sequences have been submitted to the Sequence Read Archive (SRA) under the accession numbers SRR17485928 and SRR17485927.
REFERENCES
- 1. Fritze D. 2002. Bacillus identification – traditional approaches, p 100–122. In Berkeley R, Heyndrickx M, Logan N, De P (ed), Applications and Systematics of Bacillus and relatives. Wiley-Blackwell, UK. [Google Scholar]
- 2. Wecke T, Veith B, Ehrenreich A, Mascher T. 2006. Cell envelope stress response in Bacillus licheniformis: integrating comparative genomics, transcriptional profiling, and regulon mining to decipher a complex regulatory network. J Bacteriol 188:7500–7511. doi: 10.1128/JB.01110-06 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Hoi LT, Voigt B, Jürgen B, Ehrenreich A, Gottschalk G, Evers S, Feesche J, Maurer K-H, Hecker M, Schweder T. 2006. The phosphate-starvation response of Bacillus licheniformis. Proteomics 6:3582–3601. doi: 10.1002/pmic.200500842 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Tabbara KF, Tarabay N. 1979. Bacillus licheniformis corneal ulcer. Am J Ophthalmol 87:717–719. doi: 10.1016/0002-9394(79)90311-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Thurn JR, Goodman JL. 1988. Post-traumatic ophthalmitis due to Bacillus licheniformis. Am J Med 85:708–710. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9343(88)80246-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Blue SR, Singh VR, Saubolle MA. 1995. Bacillus licheniformis bacteremia: Five cases associated with indwelling central venous catheters. Clin Infect Dis 20:629–633. doi: 10.1093/clinids/20.3.629 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Johnson CT, Lupson GR, Lawrence KE. 1994. The bovine placentome in bacterial and mycotic abortions. Vet Rec 134:263–266. doi: 10.1136/vr.134.11.263 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Nieminen T, Rintaluoma N, Andersson M, Taimisto AM, Ali-Vehmas T, Seppälä A, Priha O, Salkinoja-Salonen M. 2007. Toxinogenic Bacillus pumilus and Bacillus licheniformis from mastitic milk. Vet Microbiol 124:329–339. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2007.05.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Banykó J, Vyletelová M. 2009. Determining the source of Bacillus cereus and Bacillus licheniformis isolated from raw milk, pasteurized milk and yoghurt. Lett Appl Microbiol 48:318–323. doi: 10.1111/j.1472-765X.2008.02526.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Salkinoja-Salonen MS, Vuorio R, Andersson MA, Kämpfer P, Andersson MC, Honkanen-Buzalski T, Scoging AC. 1999. Toxigenic strains of Bacillus licheniformis related to food poisoning. Appl Environ Microbiol 65:4637–4645. doi: 10.1128/AEM.65.10.4637-4645.1999 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Logan NA. 2012. Bacillus and relatives in foodborne illness. J Appl Microbiol 112:417–429. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2011.05204.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Lund BM. 1990. Foodborne diseases due to Bacillus and Clostridium species. Lancet 336:982–986. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(90)92431-g [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Rosenkvist H, Hansen Å. 1995. Contamination profiles and characterization of Bacillus species in wheat bread and raw materials for bread production. Int J Food Microbiol 26:353–363. doi: 10.1016/0168-1605(94)00147-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Tatzel R, Ludwig W, Schleifer KH, Wallnöfer PR. 1994. Identification of Bacillus strains isolated from milk and cream with classical and nucleic acid hybridization methods. J Dairy Res 61:529–535. doi: 10.1017/s0022029900028454 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Muras A, Romero M, Mayer C, Otero A. 2021. Biotechnological applications of Bacillus licheniformis. Crit Rev Biotechnol 41:609–627. doi: 10.1080/07388551.2021.1873239 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Chen YC, Yu YH. 2022. Bacillus licheniformis-fermented products and enramycin differentially modulate microbiota and antibiotic resistome in the cecal digesta of broilers. Poult Sci 101:102010. doi: 10.1016/j.psj.2022.102010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Gong L, Wang B, Mei X, Xu H, Qin Y, Li W, Zhou Y. 2018. Effects of three probiotic Bacillus on growth performance, digestive enzyme activities, antioxidative capacity, serum immunity, and biochemical parameters in broilers. Anim Sci J 89:1561–1571. doi: 10.1111/asj.13089 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Abudabos AM, Aljumaah MR, Alkhulaifi MM, Alabdullatif A, Suliman GM, R Al Sulaiman A. 2020. Comparative effects of Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus licheniformis on live performance, blood metabolites and intestinal features in broiler inoculated with Salmonella infection during the finisher phase. Microb Pathog 139:103870. doi: 10.1016/j.micpath.2019.103870 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. El Zowalaty ME, Moura A, Lecuit M, Zishiri OT. 2022. Draft genome sequence of Listeria innocua strain MEZLIS29, isolated from a cow in South Africa. Microbiol Resour Announc 11:e0112221. doi: 10.1128/mra.01122-21 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. El Zowalaty ME, Falgenhauer L, Forsythe S, Helmy YA. 2023. Draft genome sequences of rare Lelliottia nimipressuralis strain MEZLN61 and two Enterobacter kobei strains MEZEK193 and MEZEK194 carrying mobile colistin resistance gene mcr-9 isolated from wastewater in South Africa. J Glob Antimicrob Resist 33:231–237. doi: 10.1016/j.jgar.2023.03.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B. 2014. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 30:2114–2120. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu170 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Andrews S. 2023. Babraham Bioinformatics. FastQC: a quality control tool for high throughput sequence data. Babraham Institute, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Available from: https://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc [Google Scholar]
- 23. Bankevich A, Nurk S, Antipov D, Gurevich AA, Dvorkin M, Kulikov AS, Lesin VM, Nikolenko SI, Pham S, Prjibelski AD, Pyshkin AV, Sirotkin AV, Vyahhi N, Tesler G, Alekseyev MA, Pevzner PA. 2012. SPAdes: a new genome assembly algorithm and its applications to single-cell sequencing. J Comput Biol 19:455–477. doi: 10.1089/cmb.2012.0021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Schwengers O, Hoek A, Fritzenwanker M, Falgenhauer L, Hain T, Chakraborty T, Goesmann A. 2020. ASA3P: an automatic and scalable pipeline for the assembly, annotation and higher-level analysis of closely related bacterial isolates. PLoS Comput Biol 16:e1007134. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007134 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Tatusova T, DiCuccio M, Badretdin A, Chetvernin V, Nawrocki EP, Zaslavsky L, Lomsadze A, Pruitt KD, Borodovsky M, Ostell J. 2016. NCBI prokaryotic genome annotation pipeline. Nucleic Acids Res 44:6614–6624. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkw569 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Meier-Kolthoff JP, Carbasse JS, Peinado-Olarte RL, Göker M. 2022. TYGS and LPSN: a database tandem for fast and reliable genome-based classification and nomenclature of prokaryotes. Nucleic Acids Res 50:D801–D807. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkab902 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Madslien EH, Olsen JS, Granum PE, Blatny JM. 2012. Genotyping of B. licheniformis based on a novel multi-locus sequence typing (MLST) scheme. BMC Microbiol 12:230. doi: 10.1186/1471-2180-12-230 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Bortolaia V, Kaas RS, Ruppe E, Roberts MC, Schwarz S, Cattoir V, Philippon A, Allesoe RL, Rebelo AR, Florensa AF, et al. 2020. ResFinder 4.0 for predictions of phenotypes from genotypes. J Antimicrob Chemother 75:3491–3500. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkaa345 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Carattoli A, Hasman H. 2020. Plasmidfinder and in silico pMLST: identification and typing of plasmid replicons in whole-genome sequencing (WGS). Methods Mol Biol 2075:285–294. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-9877-7_20 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Santiago-Sotelo P, Ramirez-Prado JH. 2012. prfectBLAST: a platform-independent portable front end for the command terminal BLAST+ stand-alone suite. Biotechniques 53:299–300. doi: 10.2144/000113953 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/all/?term=PRJNA716986The whole-genome sequences were deposited at DDBJ/ENA/GenBank under the BioProject number PRJNA716986 (BioSample accession numbers SAMN23419540 and SAMN23419541, GenBank accession numbers JAJNNM000000000 and JAJNNL000000000 for MEZBL63 and MEZBL64, respectively. The versions described in this paper are the first versions. The sequences have been submitted to the Sequence Read Archive (SRA) under the accession numbers SRR17485928 and SRR17485927.
