Skip to main content
Data in Brief logoLink to Data in Brief
. 2024 Mar 18;54:110344. doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2024.110344

Draft genome sequence data of multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa WO7 from a hospital wastewater treatment plant in Thailand

Montri Yasawong a,b, Thunwarat Songngamsuk a, Manassanan Phatcharaharikarn a, Pichapak Sriyapai c, Kun Silprasit d, Arin Ngamniyom d, Thayat Sriyapai d,
PMCID: PMC10997946  PMID: 38586145

Abstract

Multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa WO7 was isolated from an untreated water sample from a hospital wastewater treatment plant in Thailand. This report presents the draft genome sequence data of P. aeruginosa WO7. Genomic DNA was obtained from a pure culture of P. aeruginosa WO7, and paired-end reads were generated using an Illumina MiSeq sequencer. The draft genome consisted of 111 contigs with a total size of 6,784,206 base pairs, an N50 of 209,424 base pairs, and a GC content of 65.85%. The dDDH value between WO7 and Pseudomonas aeruginosa DSM 50071T was determined to be 90.7%, indicating that the strain is Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The data presented indicate the potential for bacterial classification, comparative genomics, comprehensive analysis of antimicrobial resistance, and assessment of bacterial virulence factors in P. aeruginosa. The draft genome sequence data have been deposited at the NCBI under Bioproject accession number PRJNA550309.

Keywords: Multidrug resistance, Fluoroquinolone, Fosfomycin, Sulphonamide, NDM-1, OXA-10, OXA-50, VEB-1


Specifications Table

Subject Biological sciences
Specific subject area Omics: Genomics
Data format Raw and analysed
Type of data Tables, figures
Data collection DNA was extracted using the PureLinkTM Genomic DNA Mini Kit and sequenced using an Illumina MiSeq. Fastp v0.23.4 was used for adapter trimming and quality filtering. Genome assembly was performed using Unicycler v0.5.0 and assembly metrics were determined using QUAST v5.0.2. Genome quality was assessed using CheckM v1.1.2. The phylogenomic tree and dDDH values were analysed using the Type (Strain) Genome Server. The genomic map was generated using Proksee. Genome annotation was performed using the NCBI Prokaryotic Genome Annotation Pipeline. Identification of antimicrobial resistance genes and prediction of resistance phenotypes were performed using ResFinder v4.4.2.
Data source location Pseudomonas aeruginosa WO7 was isolated from sewage in a hospital wastewater treatment plant in Nakhon Nayok Province, Thailand (14°06′40″N, 100°59′03″E).
Data accessibility Sequencing data were deposited in the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) Genbank database under the accession number JBAHYF000000000. The deposited draft genome sequencing data are available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/JBAHYF000000000.

1. Value of the Data

  • The draft genome data of P. aeruginosa WO7 has potential value for scientific studies in the fields of bacterial taxonomy and ecology, particularly for identifying and distributing taxa.

  • The draft genome data of P. aeruginosa WO7 offers potential benefits for comparative genomic research on other Pseudomonas species with multidrug resistance.

  • Elucidating the draft genome data of P. aeruginosa WO7 could assist in identifying antimicrobial resistance genes and predicting drug resistance phenotypes.

2. Background

Pseudomonas aeruginosa, a Gram-negative bacterium, is a major cause of nosocomial infections [1]. P. aeruginosa is commonly associated with respiratory, urinary, and wound infections and can cause bacteraemia [1,2]. P. aeruginosa is particularly problematic in hospitals, causing infections in patients on ventilators, with catheters, or with surgical wounds [1,2]. P. aeruginosa has developed resistance to many antibiotics, making infections difficult to treat [2,3]. In 2017, multidrug-resistant P. aeruginosa caused an estimated 32,600 infections in hospitalised patients and an estimated 2700 deaths in the United States [3]. The ability of P. aeruginosa to develop resistance to antibiotics is a major concern in healthcare [3].

3. Data Description

Here we present the draft genome sequence data of P. aeruginosa WO7, including its gene clusters with antimicrobial resistance genes and predicted phenotypes (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Fig 1

The genome map of P. aeruginosa WO7 was generated using Proksee [4]. The coding DNA sequences (CDSs) are indicated by blue arrows, and the contigs are represented by grey arrows. GC skew+ and GC skew- are represented by green and purple peaks, respectively, and GC content is indicated by black peaks.

The genome is composed of 111 contigs with a total size of 6,784,206 bp, an N50 value of 209,424 bp, and a GC content of 65.85% (Table 1).

Table 1.

Genomic features and assembly statistics for P. aeruginosa WO7.

Attribute P. aeruginosa WO7
Genome size (bp) 6,784,206
Number of contigs 111
Genome coverage 44×
GC content (%) 65.85
Largest contig (bp) 577,113
N50 209,424
N75 91,658
L50 10
L75 23
Total gene 6,385
Total CDS 6,323
tRNA 54
rRNA 4
ncRNA 4
CRISPR repeat 3

The draft genome of P. aeruginosa WO7 is reported to be 99.68% complete, with an estimated contamination of less than 1%. The digital DNA-DNA hybridisation (dDDH) value between strain WO7 and P. aeruginosa DSM 50071T was 90.7%. Fig. 2 shows the phylogenomic tree of strain WO7 and closely related type strains, confirming that strain WO7 is a Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain.

Fig. 2.

Fig 2

The phylogenomic tree was reconstructed using whole-genome sequence data from P. aeruginosa WO7 and its closely related type strain on the TYGS platform. Branch numbers were determined on the basis of pseudo-bootstrap support values greater than 80% from 100 replicates using Genome Blast Distance Phylogeny (GBDP), with an average branch support of 95.7%.

Whole genome sequence (WGS)-based antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) revealed the presence of known multidrug resistance genes with significant similarity, namely aac(6′)-lb3 (99.82%), aadA1 (99.86%), ant(4′)-llb (99.47%), aph(3)-IIb (99.63%), blaNDM-1 (100.00%), blaOXA-10 (100.00%), blaOXA-50 (99.37%), blaPAO (99.50%), blaVEB-1 (99.67%), catB7 (98.58%), cmlA1 (98.57%), crpP (98.48%), fosA (99.75%), sul1 (99.82%), tet(A) (99.57%), and tet(G) (100.00%) in the P. aeruginosa WO7 genome (Table 2). Prediction of resistance phenotypes suggests that P. aeruginosa WO7 may be resistant to antibiotics from seven classes, including aminoglycoside, beta-lactam, phenicol, fluoroquinolone, fosfomycin, sulphonamide, and tetracycline (Table 2). The draft genome sequence data could facilitate a comprehensive analysis of the antimicrobial resistance and bacterial virulence factors of P. aeruginosa.

Table 2.

Identification of antimicrobial resistance genes and prediction of resistance phenotypes from the WO7 genome sequence.

Resistance ene Identity (%) Alignment length/gene length Position in the reference Contig Position in the contig The resistance phenotype Antibiotic class GenBank accession number
aac(6´)-Ib3 99.82 555/555 1-555 75 27-581 Amikacin, Tobramycin Aminoglycoside X60321
aadA1 99.86 722/792 1-722 94 207-928 Spectinomycin, Streptomycin JQ414041
ant(4´)-IIb 99.47 756/756 1-756 52 7,313-8,068 Amikacin, Tobramycin, and Isepamicin AY114142
aph(3´)-IIb 99.63 807/807 1-807 18 99,053-99,859 Kanamycin, Neomycin, Paromomycin, Ribostamycin, Butiromycin, Gentamicin, and Unknown aminoglycoside CP006832
blaNDM-1 100.00 813/813 1-813 52 14,679-15,491 Amoxicillin, Amoxicillin+Clavulanic acid, Ampicillin, Ampicillin+Clavulanic acid, Cefepime, Cefixime, Cefotaxime, Cefoxitin, Ceftazidime, Ertapenem, Imipenem, Meropenem, Piperacillin, Piperacillin+Tazobactam, Temocillin Beta-lactam FN396876
blaOXA-10 100.00 610/801 1-610 96 1-610 Amoxicillin, Ampicillin, Aztreonam, Piperacillin, Piperacillin+Tazobactam J03427
blaOXA-50 99.37 789/789 1-789 12 112,364-113,152 Amoxicillin, Ampicillin AY306130
blaPAO 99.50 1,194/1,194 1-1,194 18 85,517-86,710 Amoxicillin, Ampicillin, Cefepime, Ceftazidime AY083592
blaVEB-1 99.67 900/900 1-900 64 3,213-4,109 Amoxicillin, Amoxicillin+Clavulanic acid, Ampicillin, Ampicillin+Clavulanic acid, Aztreonam, Cefotaxime, Cefoxitin, Cefepime, Ceftazidime, Piperacillin, Piperacillin+Tazobactam, Ticarcillin, Ticarcillin+Clavulanic acid HM370393
catB7 98.59 639/639 1-639 20 51,720-52,358 Chloramphenicol Phenicol AF036933
cmlA1 98.57 1,260/1,260 1-1,260 75 796-2,055 Chloramphenicol M64556
crpP 98.48 198/198 1-198 33 52,671-52,868 Ciprofloxacin Fluoroquinolone HM560971
fosA 99.75 408/408 1-408 1 414,986-415,393 Fosfomycin Fosfomycin ACWU01000146
sul1 99.82 556/867 1-556 93 1-556 Sulfamethoxazole Sulphonamide EU780013
tet(A) 99.57 1,174/1,200 1-1,173 64 1,289-2,461 Doxycycline, Tetracycline Tetracycline AY196695
tet(G) 100.00 1,176/1,176 1-1,176 52 2,811-3,986 Doxycycline, Tetracycline AF133140

4. Experimental Design, Materials, and Methods

4.1. Bacterial Isolation

Untreated wastewater was collected from a treatment plant at a hospital (14°06′40"N, 100°59′03"E) in Nakhon Nayok Province, Thailand. Ten millilitres of untreated wastewater was subjected to 10-fold serial dilution using sodium chloride solution (0.85% (w/v) NaCl). Then, 100 µL of the mixture was spread onto Hicrome™ KPC agar (Himedia, India) and incubated at 37°C for 20 h. After selecting a single colony of strain WO7, it was subcultured for purification on tryptic soy agar (Himedia, India). Strain WO7 was cultured in tryptic soy broth (TSB) at 37°C with shaking at 250 rpm for 24 h. It was then stored for long-term preservation in TSB containing 25% glycerol at -80°C.

4.2. Genomic DNA Preparation

Genomic DNA (gDNA) was extracted from overnight cultures of strain WO7 grown in TSB using the PureLinkTM Genomic DNA Mini Kit (Invitrogen, USA) according to the manufacturer's instructions. The quality of gDNA was assessed using agarose gel electrophoresis and NanoDrop spectrophotometry (Thermo Scientific, USA).

4.3. Whole Genome Sequencing and Assembly

Library preparation for DNA sequencing was performed using sparQ Frag & DNA Library Prep (QuantaBio, USA) with 100 ng of gDNA. gDNA was fragmented through an enzymatic reaction and subsequently purified using magnetic beads. Following this, an adaptor index was ligated to the fragmented DNA. The quantity and quality of the indexed libraries were measured using the 2100 Bioanalyzer (Agilent, USA) and QFX Fluorometer (DeNovix, USA), respectively. They were then pooled in equimolar amounts. Cluster generation and paired-end 2×250 nucleotide read sequencing were performed using an Illumina MiSeq sequencer. Quality assessments, adapter trimming, and quality filtering were performed using Fastp v0.23.4 with default settings [5]. De novo genome assembly was performed using the raw reads and Unicycler v0.5.0 with default settings [6]. The assessment of genome assembly metrics was performed using QUAST v5.0.2, employing the default parameters [7].

4.4. Taxonomic Identification of the Strain

The quality of the genome sequence was assessed using CheckM v1.1.2 with default settings [8]. An analysis of digital DNA-DNA hybridisation (dDDH) and a phylogenomic tree based on the whole genome sequences of WO7 and its related type strains was conducted using the Type (Strain) Genome Server (TYGS) [9].

4.5. Genome Annotation and Antimicrobial Gene Prediction

Proksee [4] generated a genomic map of WO7, and the genome was annotated using the NCBI Prokaryotic Genome Annotation Pipeline (PGAP) with default settings [10]. Furthermore, ResFinder v4.4.2 with default settings [11] was used to perform whole genome sequence (WGS)-based antimicrobial susceptibility testing.

Limitations

Next-generation sequencing techniques generate vast amounts of data. However, the resulting de novo genome assemblies often lack completeness. These assemblies may contain shortcomings that make them vulnerable to annotation errors, particularly in the imprecise estimation of genes that may exist in the draft genome of WO7.

Ethics Statement

This study did not involve human or animal subjects. The authors declare that this manuscript is original and has not been published elsewhere.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Montri Yasawong: Methodology, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Thunwarat Songngamsuk: Methodology, Data curation. Manassanan Phatcharaharikarn: Methodology, Data curation. Pichapak Sriyapai: Methodology, Data curation. Kun Silprasit: Methodology, Data curation. Arin Ngamniyom: Methodology, Data curation. Thayat Sriyapai: Methodology, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Supervision.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the 2022 research fund of Srinakharinwirot University grant no. 014/2565, the Thailand Science Research and Innovation project code 180874 (FRB660044/0240), and the Center of Excellence on Environmental Health and Toxicology (EHT), OPS, Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest that could have influenced the work reported in this paper.

Data Availability

References

  • 1.Reynolds D., Kollef M. The epidemiology and pathogenesis and treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections: An update. Drugs. 2021;81:2117–2131. doi: 10.1007/s40265-021-01635-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Larrosa M., Truchado P., Espín J.C., Tomás-Barberán F.A., Allende A., García-Conesa M.T. Evaluation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PAO1) adhesion to human alveolar epithelial cells A549 using SYTO 9 dye. Mol Cell Probes. 2012;26:121–126. doi: 10.1016/j.mcp.2012.03.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.CDC's 2019 Antibiotic Resistance Threats Report, Centers for disease control and prevention, 2019 https://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/pdf/threats-report/pseudomonas-aeruginosa-508.pdf. Accessed February 24, 2024.
  • 4.Grant J.R., Enns E., Marinier E., Mandal A., Herman E.K., Chen C.Y., Graham M., Van Domselaar G., Stothard P. Proksee: in-depth characterization and visualization of bacterial genomes. Nucl. Acids Res. 2023;51:W484–W492. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkad326. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Chen S., Zhou Y., Chen Y., Gu J. fastp: an ultra-fast all-in-one FASTQ pre-processor. Bioinformatics. 2018;34:i884–i890. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty560. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Wick R.R., Judd L.M., Gorrie C.L., Holt K.E. Unicycler: resolving bacterial genome assemblies from short and long sequencing reads. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2017;13 doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005595. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Mikheenko A., Prjibelski A., Saveliev V., Antipov D., Gurevich A. Versatile genome assembly evaluation with QUAST-LG. Bioinformatics. 2018;34:i142–i150. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty266. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Parks D.H., Imelfort M., Skennerton C.T., Hugenholtz P., Tyson G.W. CheckM: assessing the quality of microbial genomes recovered from isolates, single cells, and metagenomes. Genome Res. 2015;25:1043–1055. doi: 10.1101/gr.186072.114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Meier-Kolthoff J.P., Göker M. TYGS is an automated high-throughput platform for state-of-the-art genome-based taxonomy. Nat. Commun. 2019;10:2182. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-10210-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Tatusova T., DiCuccio M., Badretdin A., Chetvernin V., Nawrocki E.P., Zaslavsky L., Lomsadze A., Pruitt K.D., Borodovsky M., Ostell J. NCBI prokaryotic genome annotation pipeline. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44:6614–6624. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkw569. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Bortolaia V., Kaas R.S., Ruppe E., Roberts M.C., Schwarz S., Cattoir V., Philippon A., Allesoe R.L., Rebelo A.R., Florensa A.F., Fagelhauer L., Chakraborty T., Neumann B., Werner G., Bender J.K., Stingl K., Nguyen M., Coppens J., Xavier B.B., Malhotra-Kumar S., Westh H., Pinholt M., Anjum M.F., Duggett N.A., Kempf I., Nykäsenoja S., Olkkola S., Wieczorek K., Amaro A., Clemente L., Mossong J., Losch S., Ragimbeau C., Lund O., Aarestrup F.M. ResFinder 4.0 for predictions of phenotypes from genotypes. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2020;12:3491–3500. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkaa345. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement


Articles from Data in Brief are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES