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 (1–3). Bacillus probiotics can improve digestion, increase nutrient absorption, and reduce gas emissions (4–6). 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.
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 |
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.