Skip to main content
Microbiology Resource Announcements logoLink to Microbiology Resource Announcements
. 2024 Aug 20;13(9):e00569-24. doi: 10.1128/mra.00569-24

Draft genome sequences of 21 Bacillus sp. isolates from raw bovine milk

Gauri Khullar 1,2, Zhangbin Cai 1, Bridget O'Brien 1, Jinha Suh 1, Jennifer Ronholm 1,3,4,
Editor: Vanja Klepac-Ceraj5
PMCID: PMC11385722  PMID: 39162440

ABSTRACT

Members of the Bacillus genus are commonly used as probiotics in livestock production. We isolated several Bacillus strains from healthy dairy cattle. The role of these strains in mammary health is of interest. Here, we present 21 draft genome assemblies and annotations of Bacillus sp. isolated from fresh raw milk.

KEYWORDS: Bacillus, milk, probiotic, healthy, bovine

ANNOUNCEMENT

Members from the Bacillus genus, such as Bacillus subtilis, B. coagulans, B. cereus, and B. licheniformis, are commonly used as probiotics in livestock production (13). Bacillus probiotics can improve digestion, increase nutrient absorption, and reduce gas emissions (46). Some may also prevent bacterial infections. Members of the Bacillus genus can produce lipopeptides, surfactins, bacteriocins, and organic acids, each of which has antimicrobial activity (1).

Intramammary infections (IMIs) are common in dairy cattle (7). Evidence indicates that Bacillus sp. may have antagonistic effects against IMI pathogens and may be used to prevent IMIs. For example, feeding cattle B. subtilis decreased the incidence of IMIs (8). Bacillus sp. isolated from healthy cows can inhibit the growth of several gram-positive IMI pathogens in co-culture (9), and exopolysaccharides synthesized by Bacillus velezensis have anti-biofilm activity against Staphylococcus aureus (10). Although cross-species use of Bacillus probiotics is common (11), it is understood that host colonization is more successful if the probiotic strain was isolated from the species and host niche the probiotic aims to colonize. To develop bovine anti-IMI probiotics, we collected 21 Bacillus isolates from healthy Holstein dairy cows. Here, we present draft genome sequences of these isolates.

Raw milk was collected directly from a single healthy cow on the Macdonald campus farm of McGill University (45.41168, -73.94355). The milk was transferred to an Eppendorf tube and was centrifuged at 3,800 × g for 20 min (12). The supernatant was discarded, and the pellet was spread on modified plate count agar (Hardy Diagnostics, USA). Plates were incubated overnight at 37°C. Isolated colonies were differentiated based on phenotypic properties. Unique colonies were grown in Brain Heart Infusion (BHI) broth for 48 h at 37°C. Aliquots of 1 mL of bacterial culture were preserved by adding 15% glycerol (vol/vol) and were stored at −80°C. Each isolate was tentatively identified by Sanger Sequencing of the full-length 16S rRNA gene using the 8F (5′-AGAGTTTGATCCTGGCTCAG-3′) and 1492R (5′-ACCTTGTTACGACTT-3′) primers.

Each −80°C stock solution was streaked onto a BHI agar plate and was incubated overnight at 37°C. A single colony was inoculated into 20 mL of BHI broth and was grown overnight at 37°C and 200 rpm. The DNeasy UltraClean Microbial Kit DNA was used to extract bacterial DNA from liquid cultures (Qiagen, USA). The Quant-IT dsDNA High-Sensitivity assay (Invitrogen, USA) was used to assess the final DNA quantity. Sequencing libraries were made using the Nextera DNA Flex Prep kit and were sequenced using the MiSeq benchtop sequencer and the MiSeq Reagent Kit v3 (2 × 300 bp) (Illumina, USA). All software used default parameters unless otherwise noted. Reads were assembled using ProkaryoteAssembly (v. 0.1.6) (https://github.com/BFSSI-Bioinformatics-Lab/ProkaryoteAssembly), filtering low-quality sequences with a Q-score <20. Following assembly, contigs with fewer than 1,000 bp were removed (Table 1). Quality of final assemblies was assessed with QualiMap (v. 2.2.2) (13). Gene annotations and predictions were performed using NCBI Prokaryotic Genome Annotation Pipeline (v. 6.7) (14). The annotation and functional assignment were validated using Rapid Annotations Subsystems Technology (RAST) kit (15). The completeness of the genome assemblies was assessed using Benchmarking Universal Single-Copy Orthologs (BUSCO v5) (16).

TABLE 1.

Genome quality and prediction of Bacillus sp. isolated from bovine milk in Canadaa

Isolate identification no. Species Assembly accession no. BioSample accession no. SRA accession no. GenBank accession no. Coverage (X) No. of contigs Draft genome size (bp) GC content (%) No. of
CDS
No. ofRNAs N50 (bp)
1 B. licheniformis GCF_039704985.1 SAMN39861007 SRR28833364 JBDICK000000000 23.9734 53 4075575 46.189556 4439 69 161839
7 B. licheniformis GCF_039704965.1 SAMN39861008 SRR28833363 JBDICJ000000000 56.1865 27 4075098 46.189 4432 68 402185
23b B. licheniformis GCF_039704945.1 SAMN39861009 SRR28833352 JBDICI000000000 73.6856 27 4121131 46.152622 4502 69 298889
21_C B. licheniformis GCF_039704925.1 SAMN39861010 SRR28833348 JBDICH000000000 31.8968 31 4410271 45.68565 4925 81 287648
27 B. licheniformis GCF_039704865.1 SAMN39861011 SRR28833347 JBDICG000000000 18.6028 107 4273296 45.819504 4793 80 66976
33 B. licheniformis GCF_039704875.1 SAMN39861012 SRR28833346 JBDICF000000000 62.6018 28 4410102 45.686153 4937 79 346695
35 B. licheniformis GCF_039704845.1 SAMN39861013 SRR28833345 JBDICE000000000 57.1802 40 4429233 45.64856 4957 71 296898
39 B. licheniformis GCF_039704855.1 SAMN39861014 SRR28833344 JBDICD000000000 65.0995 29 4283372 45.843018 4726 71 296898
2 B. licheniformis GCA_039704785.1 SAMN39861015 SRR28833343 JBDICC000000000 38.0009 32 4423964 45.74099 4944 70 284038
8 B. licheniformis GCF_039704805.1 SAMN39861016 SRR28833342 JBDICB000000000 76.2563 31 4425022 45.74045 4934 70 296898
11 B. licheniformis GCF_039704745.1 SAMN39861017 SRR28833362 JBDICA000000000 28.0249 35 4285446 45.831657 4731 81 296898
17a B. licheniformis GCF_039704765.1 SAMN39861018 SRR28833361 JBDIBZ000000000 116.5275 31 4361801 45.669575 4893 72 424554
5 B. licheniformis GCF_039704755.1 SAMN39861019 SRR28833360 JBDIBY000000000 37.4583 32 4345927 45.808407 4811 67 228812
28 B. licheniformis GCF_039704725.1 SAMN39861020 SRR28833359 JBDIBX000000000 65.022 29 4284751 45.8404 4725 71 296898
32 B. licheniformis GCF_039704565.1 SAMN39861021 SRR28833358 JBDIBW000000000 25.8095 29 4396779 45.70391 4920 69 296898
38 B. licheniformis GCF_039704625.1 SAMN39861022 SRR28833357 JBDIBV000000000 16.7513 196 4382965 45.650055 5040 69 46449
4 B. pumilus GCF_039704575.1 SAMN39861023 SRR28833356 JBDIBU000000000 47.1156 16 3685821 41.56838 3841 62 932876
7_C B. pumilus GCF_039704555.1 SAMN39861024 SRR28833355 JBDIBT000000000 43.1238 18 3684661 41.562927 3839 62 932849
1_C B. safensis GCF_039704545.1 SAMN39861025 SRR28833354 JBDIBS000000000 22.8362 26 3638373 41.65884 3793 58 256236
3 B. aerius GCF_039581685.1 SAMN41074328 SRR28833353 JBCPSH000000000 81.0985 16 3718211 41.24785 3869 64 540547
21 B. subtilis GCF_039581705.1 SAMN41074331 SRR28833349 JBCPSF000000000 104.0174 9 4145080 43.58461 4347 70 2210931
a

CDS, coding sequence; RNAs, sum of rRNA and tRNA counts.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors acknowledge that this research project is supported by The Second Century Fund (C2F), Chulalongkorn University, Thailand. We also acknowledge the support of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).

Contributor Information

Jennifer Ronholm, Email: jennifer.ronholm@mcgill.ca.

Vanja Klepac-Ceraj, Department of Biological Sciences, Wellesley College, Wellesley, Massachusetts, USA.

DATA AVAILABILITY

The raw reads have been submitted to SRA, and the genome sequences have been deposited in DDBJ/ENA/GenBank under the BioProject accession numbers PRJNA1074428 and PRJNA1104282, as provided in Table 1.

REFERENCES

  • 1. Mingmongkolchai S, Panbangred W. 2018. Bacillus probiotics: an alternative to antibiotics for livestock production. J Appl Microbiol 124:1334–1346. doi: 10.1111/jam.13690 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Cheng G, Hao H, Xie S, Wang X, Dai M, Huang L, Yuan Z. 2014. Antibiotic alternatives: the substitution of antibiotics in animal husbandry? Front Microbiol 5:217. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2014.00217 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Fijan S. 2014. Microorganisms with claimed probiotic properties: an overview of recent literature. Int J Environ Res Public Health 11:4745–4767. doi: 10.3390/ijerph110504745 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Jeong JS, Kim IH. 2014. Effect of Bacillus subtilis C-3102 spores as a probiotic feed supplement on growth performance, noxious gas emission, and intestinal microflora in broilers. Poult Sci 93:3097–3103. doi: 10.3382/ps.2014-04086 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Latorre JD, Hernandez-Velasco X, Wolfenden RE, Vicente JL, Wolfenden AD, Menconi A, Bielke LR, Hargis BM, Tellez G. 2016. Evaluation and selection of Bacillus species based on enzyme production, antimicrobial activity, and biofilm synthesis as direct-fed microbial candidates for poultry. Front Vet Sci 3:95. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2016.00095 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Shobharani P, Halami PM. 2016. In vitro evaluation of the cholesterol-reducing ability of a potential probiotic Bacillus spp. Ann Microbiol 66:643–651. doi: 10.1007/s13213-015-1146-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Aghamohammadi M, Haine D, Kelton DF, Barkema HW, Hogeveen H, Keefe GP, Dufour S. 2018. Herd-level mastitis-associated costs on Canadian dairy farms. Front Vet Sci 5:100. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2018.00100 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Urakawa M, Zhuang T, Sato H, Takanashi S, Yoshimura K, Endo Y, Katsura T, Umino T, Tanaka K, Watanabe H, Kobayashi H, Takada N, Kozutsumi T, Kumagai H, Asano T, Sazawa K, Ashida N, Zhao G, Rose MT, Kitazawa H, Shirakawa H, Watanabe K, Nochi T, Nakamura T, Aso H. 2022. Prevention of mastitis in multiparous dairy cows with a previous history of mastitis by oral feeding with probiotic Bacillus subtilis. Anim Sci J 93:e13764. doi: 10.1111/asj.13764 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Al-Qumber M, Tagg JR. 2006. Commensal bacilli inhibitory to mastitis pathogens isolated from the udder microbiota of healthy cows. J Appl Microbiol 101:1152–1160. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2006.03004.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Sabino YNV, Araújo Domingues K de, Mathur H, Gómez-Mascaraque LG, Drouin G, Martínez-Abad A, Tótola MR, Abreu LM, Cotter PD, Mantovani HC. 2023. Exopolysaccharides produced by Bacillus spp. inhibit biofilm formation by Staphylococcus aureus strains associated with bovine mastitis. Int J Biol Macromol 253:126689. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.126689 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Hong HA, Duc LH, Cutting SM. 2005. The use of bacterial spore formers as probiotics. FEMS Microbiol Rev 29:813–835. doi: 10.1016/j.femsre.2004.12.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Raynal-Ljutovac K, Gaborit P, Lauret A. 2005. The relationship between quality criteria of goat milk, its technological properties and the quality of the final products. Small Ruminant Res 60:167–177. doi: 10.1016/j.smallrumres.2005.06.010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Okonechnikov K, Conesa A, García-Alcalde F. 2016. Qualimap 2: advanced multi-sample quality control for high-throughput sequencing data. Bioinformatics 32:292–294. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv566 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. 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]
  • 15. Brettin T, Davis JJ, Disz T, Edwards RA, Gerdes S, Olsen GJ, Olson R, Overbeek R, Parrello B, Pusch GD, Shukla M, Thomason JA, Stevens R, Vonstein V, Wattam AR, Xia F. 2015. RASTtk: a modular and extensible implementation of the RAST algorithm for building custom annotation pipelines and annotating batches of genomes. Sci Rep 5:8365. doi: 10.1038/srep08365 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Manni M, Berkeley MR, Seppey M, Zdobnov EM. 2021. BUSCO: assessing genomic data quality and beyond. Curr Protoc 1:e323. doi: 10.1002/cpz1.323 [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

The raw reads have been submitted to SRA, and the genome sequences have been deposited in DDBJ/ENA/GenBank under the BioProject accession numbers PRJNA1074428 and PRJNA1104282, as provided in Table 1.


Articles from Microbiology Resource Announcements are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES