ABSTRACT
To provide a biocontrol solution for managing the phytopathogen Phytophthora cactorum, bacteria were tested for antagonistic activity in vitro and in planta. This paper presents the draft genomes of 25 candidate biocontrol organisms, providing a solid foundation to decipher the underlying mechanisms of their antagonistic activity.
KEYWORDS: biocontrol, Phytophthora cactorum, Illumina sequencing, whole genome sequencing
ANNOUNCEMENT
Phytophthora cactorum is one of the most economically important phytopathogens in the world, causing significant annual yield losses across a wide range of crops (1). Chemical control is often inefficient, increases fungicide resistance, and is being phased out for its detrimental side effects (2–4). To support a more sustainable agriculture, the focus is set on biological control. In a recent study, 38 phylogenetically diverse bacteria were tested for their biocontrol potential against P. cactorum (J. Ferreira, B. Lievens, and H. Rediers, unpublished data). Among these, 25 bacterial strains were not fully sequenced yet.
Here, we report the draft genome sequences of 25 candidate biocontrol strains, consisting of 11 Bacillus spp., 3 Pantoea spp., 2 Peribacillus spp., 2 Priesta spp., and 7 Pseudomonas spp. These strains belong to the PME&BIM −80°C glycerol culture collection and were isolated in-house from various niches, including banana rhizosphere, sludge, whiskey barrel, nectar, and insects (Table 1).
TABLE 1.
Summary of the assembly parameters of the 25 candidate biocontrol bacteriaa
| Strain | Species IDc | ANI%d | Origin | Isolation source | GenBank accession no. | SRA accession no. | No. of readse | Avg coverage | No. of ctg | Largest ctg (bp)f | Genome assembly size (bp) | Ctg N50 (kbp)f | GC% | No. of CDSg | No. of tRNA | No. of rRNA | Contamination %h |
Completeness %h |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BW7P1 | Pseudomonas bananamidigenes | 97.07 | Sri Lanka | Banana rhizosphere | JBNMSE000000000 | SRX28306108 | 4,938,501 | 117 | 72 | 1,129,168 | 6,077,771 | 365.4 | 60.5 | 5,421 | 59 | 5 | 0.15 | 100 |
| ST01.11_032 | Priestia megaterium | 96.97 | Belgium | Sludge | JBNMSD000000000 | SRX28306109 | 959,661 | 25 | 111 | 824,800 | 5,572,100 | 370.3 | 37.5 | 5,699 | 60 | 13 | 0.8 | 100 |
| ST01.11_034 | Bacillus altitudinis | 98.45 | Belgium | Sludge | JBNMSC000000000 | SRX28306121 | 3,204,954 | 126 | 33 | 908,681 | 3,708,887 | 614.2 | 41.0 | 3,776 | 62 | 7 | 0.25 | 100 |
| ST01.11_050 | Bacillus pumilus | 95.45 | Belgium | Sludge | JBNMSB000000000 | SRX28306126 | 2,241,284 | 88 | 50 | 862,170 | 3,682,460 | 616.5 | 41.5 | 3,719 | 63 | 9 | 0 | 100 |
| ST01.11_055 | Bacillus toyonensis | 98.34 | Belgium | Sludge | JBNMSA000000000 | SRX28306127 | 7,097,656 | 121 | 141 | 635,469 | 5,900,098 | 318.2 | 35.0 | 5,981 | 70 | 6 | 0.21 | 100 |
| ST01.11_056 | Bacillus subtilis | 98.55 | Belgium | Sludge | JBNMRZ000000000 | SRX28306128 | 4,095,536 | 172 | 84 | 1,084,249 | 4,095,536 | 1,044.8 | 44.0 | 4,216 | 67 | 7 | 0.08 | 100 |
| ST01.11_057 | Peribacillus simplex | 91.07 | Belgium | Sludge | JBNMRY000000000 | SRX28306129 | 8,493,073 | 228 | 811 | 414,279 | 5,416,895 | 85.2 | 39.5 | 5,710 | 70 | 9 | 0.95 | 100 |
| ST01.11_082 | Bacillus pumilus | 95.49 | Belgium | Sludge | JBNMRX000000000 | SRX28306130 | 7,886,892 | 308 | 54 | 956,109 | 3,722,690 | 643.7 | 41.5 | 3,771 | 64 | 8 | 0 | 100 |
| ST01.11_096 | Priestia megaterium | 97.06 | Belgium | Sludge | JBNMRW000000000 | SRX28306131 | 6,532,029 | 168 | 209 | 1,224,908 | 5,669,09 | 708.6 | 37.5 | 5,916 | 77 | 15 | 1.13 | 100 |
| ST01.11_112 | Peribacillus simplex | 94.52 | Belgium | Sludge | JBNMRV000000000 | SRX28306132 | 6,486,018 | 179 | 381 | 279,955 | 5,293,975 | 99.3 | 40.0 | 5,282 | 66 | 11 | 0.3 | 100 |
| ST12.11_029 | Bacillus wiedmannii | 96.28 | Belgium | Whiskey barrel | JBNMRU000000000 | SRX28306110 | 7,538,873 | 189 | 221 | 470,079 | 5,898,176 | 81.3 | 35.0 | 5,999 | 66 | 6 | 0.2 | 100 |
| ST12.14_237b | Pseudomonas zeae | 97.68 | Belgium | Cornflower nectar | JBNMRT000000000 | SRX28306111 | 6,193,593 | 136 | 119 | 732,130 | 6,585,441 | 331.0 | 59.0 | 5,926 | 60 | 4 | 0.37 | 100 |
| ST12.14_379b | Pseudomonas zeae | 97.67 | Belgium | Borage nectar | JBNMRS000000000 | SRX28306112 | 11,227,064 | 247 | 63 | 611,397 | 6,566,488 | 331.0 | 59.0 | 5,876 | 61 | 4 | 0.37 | 100 |
| ST12.14_392b | Pseudomonas zeae | 97.66 | Belgium | Borage nectar | JBNMRR000000000 | SRX28306113 | 5,316,136 | 116 | 100 | 732,577 | 6,581,027 | 379.7 | 59.0 | 5,912 | 61 | 4 | 0.37 | 100 |
| ST12.14_393 | Pantoea agglomerans | 98.44 | Belgium | Borage nectar | JBNMRQ000000000 | SRX28306114 | 8,127,762 | 244 | 200 | 602,208 | 4,828,456 | 470.9 | 55.0 | 4,567 | 68 | 8 | 0.08 | 100 |
| ST12.14_520b | Pseudomonas kitaguniensis | 96.54 | Belgium | Helleborine nectar | JBNMRP000000000 | SRX28306115 | 2,427,057 | 55 | 266 | 257,359 | 6,145,138 | 131.2 | 59.5 | 5,704 | 59 | 3 | 0.87 | 100 |
| ST12.15_006 | Bacillus velezensis | 99.99 | Belgium | Aphidus ervi | JBNMRO000000000 | SRX28306116 | 5,316,153 | 197 | 218 | 766,952 | 3,912,410 | 422.4 | 46.5 | 3,836 | 71 | 10 | 0.57 | 100 |
| ST12.15_014 | Pseudomonas shirazensis | 99.17 | Belgium | Aphidus ervi | JBNMRN000000000 | SRX28306117 | 9,986,911 | 274 | 73 | 450,008 | 5,247,258 | 171.5 | 61.5 | 4,807 | 66 | 4 | 0.05 | 100 |
| ST12.15_023 | Pseudomonas fragariae | 94.96 | Belgium | Psylla pyri | JBNMRM000000000 | SRX28306118 | 4,498,446 | 103 | 365 | 510,199 | 6,296,113 | 190.2 | 59.0 | 5,678 | 56 | 5 | 0.22 | 100 |
| ST14.12_094 | Pantoea agglomerans | 98.52 | Belgium | Helleborine nectar | JBNMRL000000000 | SRX28306120 | 7,745,336 | 228 | 183 | 530,366 | 4,889,562 | 225.1 | 55.0 | 4,576 | 62 | 8 | 0.02 | 100 |
| ST14.12_205 | Pantoea agglomerans | 98.33 | Belgium | Helleborine nectar | JBNMRK000000000.2 | SRX28306119 | 8,879,989 | 278 | 298 | 246,398 | 4,791,170 | 66.1 | 55.13 | 4,557 | 52 | 3 | 0.55 | 99.99 |
| ST14.14_008 | Bacillus altitudinis | 97.91 | Belgium | Whiskey barrel | JBNMRJ000000000 | SRX28306122 | 7,561,929 | 285 | 57 | 818,994 | 3,845,368 | 298.5 | 41.0 | 3,914 | 60 | 7 | 0.01 | 100 |
| ST14.14_009 | Bacillus subtilis | 99.96 | Belgium | Whiskey barrel | JBNMRI000000000 | SRX28306123 | 4,819,543 | 171 | 45 | 1,057,479 | 4,083,235 | 1,043.3 | 43.5 | 4,199 | 70 | 13 | 0.01 | 100 |
| ST14.14_013 | Bacillus wiedmannii | 96.25 | Belgium | Whiskey barrel | JBNMRH000000000 | SRX28306124 | 6,741,869 | 166 | 242 | 941,155 | 5,890,985 | 415.8 | 35.0 | 5,926 | 72 | 8 | 0.17 | 100 |
| ST14.14_029 | Bacillus altitudinis | 98.00 | Belgium | Whiskey barrel | JBNMRG000000000 | SRX28306125 | 7,900,903 | 292 | 227 | 489,933 | 3,828,296 | 243.2 | 41.5 | 4,003 | 62 | 11 | 0.62 | 100 |
All the parameters described are for assemblies with contigs above 200 bp.
Reads decontaminated with the following taxids: 135623, 91347, 135614, 28211, and 2759 using Kraken2.
Species-level identification was done using multi-locus sequence typing (MLST) using the PubMLST interface.
The average nucleotide identity based on BLAST analysis (ANIb) was done against the reference strain of the species.
The number of raw reads.
ctg, contig.
CDS, coding sequence.
Completeness and contamination percentages were determined with checkm2 using the neural network model.
Genomic DNA was obtained from overnight bacterial pure cultures inoculated from a single colony and grown on Tryptone Soy Broth (Oxoid). The DNA extraction was achieved using the DNeasy UltraClean Microbial Kit (Qiagen) following the manufacturer’s instructions. The 151 bp paired-end read libraries were prepared for Illumina sequencing on the NovaSeq platform with Novogenes (UK) or Genomics Core (Belgium), roughly as described previously (5). All downstream sequence analyses were performed on the Galaxy platform (6), with default parameters. After the quality check of the raw reads with FastQC (v0.12.1, 7), they were filtered and trimmed with Trimmomatic (v0.36, 8). Contaminant reads originating from carry-over during sequencing were discarded based on their taxonomic identification with Kraken2 (v2.1.3, 9). Paired reads with a Phred score above 30 were assembled de novo using SPAdes (v3.15.4, 10). The completeness and quality of the assembly were assessed with CheckM2 (v1.0.2, 11) and QUAST (v5.3.0, 12), respectively. Strain ST14.12/205 exhibited a high contamination rate and was therefore decontaminated by binning the assembly using MaxBin2 (v2.2.7, 13). Reads were then mapped to the target bin with Bowtie2 (v2.5.3, 14), and the mapped reads were reassembled following the described pipeline. Gene prediction and functional annotation were achieved with PGAP (v6.10, 15). Species identification was achieved using the PubMLST interface (accessed in February 2025, 16) and confirmed by assessing the average nucleotide identity (ANI) with the reference genome of the closest identified species using FastANI (v1.3, 17).
Overall, the draft genomes' average coverage was 180× (25×–308×), with an average of 226 contigs over 200 bp, and N50 of 66.1 kb to 1,044 kbp. Genome sizes and GC% varied for the species of Bacillus (3.7–5.9 Mbp; 35–47%), Pantoea (4.8 Mbp; 55%), Peribacillus (5.3–5.4 Mbp; 40%), Piestia (5.6–5.7 Mbp; 38%), and Pseudomonas (5.3–6.6 Mbp; 59–62%).
The availability of draft genomes of the candidate biocontrol strains will contribute to future studies to decipher the molecular mechanisms underlying their antagonistic activity toward P. cactorum and other relevant plant pathogens. In addition, it allows studying niche-specific genetic differences in strains belonging to the same species but isolated from various sources.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by the Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek organization (grant no. 1SC6425N) and by VLAIO (Flanders Innovation and Entrepreneurship) (HBC.2017.0833).
Contributor Information
Hans Rediers, Email: hans.rediers@kuleuven.be.
David A. Baltrus, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
DATA AVAILABILITY
The draft genome assemblies have been deposited in GenBank, and the raw reads before decontamination have been deposited in SRA. The corresponding accession numbers are listed and linked in Table 1. All the data produced are part of the BioProject PRJNA1216553, hosted by the NCBI organization.
REFERENCES
- 1. Erwin DC, Ribeiro OK. 1996. Phytophthora diseases worldwide. APS Press, St. Paul, Minnesota. [Google Scholar]
- 2. Rosskopf E, Gioia FD, Vincent I, Hong J, Zhao X. 2024. Impacts of the ban on the soil-applied fumigant methyl bromide. Phytopathology 114:1161–1175. doi: 10.1094/PHYTO-09-23-0345-IA [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Cabrera JA, Hanson BD, Gerik JS, Gao S, Qin R, Wang D. 2015. Pre-plant soil fumigation with reduced rates under low permeability films for nursery production, orchard and vineyard replanting. Crop Prot 75:34–39. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2015.05.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Marin MV, Seijo TE, Zuchelli E, Peres NA. 2021. Resistance to mefenoxam of Phytophthora cactorum and Phytophthora nicotianae causing crown and leather rot in Florida strawberry. Plant Dis 105:3490–3495. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-11-20-2474-RE [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Kim N, Vargas P, Fortuna K, Wagemans J, Rediers H. 2023. Draft genome sequences of 27 rhizogenic Agrobacterium biovar 1 strains, the causative agent of hairy root disease. Microbiol Resour Announc 12. doi: 10.1128/mra.00124-23 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Abueg LAL, Afgan E, Allart O, Awan AH, Bacon WA, Baker D, Bassetti M, Batut B, Bernt M, Blankenberg D, et al. 2024. The Galaxy platform for accessible, reproducible, and collaborative data analyses: 2024 update. Nucleic Acids Res 52:W83–W94. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkae410 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Andrews S. 2010. FastQC: a quality control tool for high throughput sequence data. Available from: http://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc
- 8. 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]
- 9. Wood DE, Salzberg SL. 2014. Kraken: ultrafast metagenomic sequence classification using exact alignments. Genome Biol 15:R46. doi: 10.1186/gb-2014-15-3-r46 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. 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]
- 11. Chklovski A, Parks DH, Woodcroft BJ, Tyson GW. 2023. CheckM2: a rapid, scalable and accurate tool for assessing microbial genome quality using machine learning. Nat Methods 20:1203–1212. doi: 10.1038/s41592-023-01940-w [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Mikheenko A, Prjibelski A, Saveliev V, Antipov D, Gurevich A. 2018. Versatile genome assembly evaluation with QUAST-LG. Bioinformatics 34:i142–i150. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty266 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Wu Y-W, Simmons BA, Singer SW. 2016. MaxBin 2.0: an automated binning algorithm to recover genomes from multiple metagenomic datasets. Bioinformatics 32:605–607. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv638 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Langmead B, Salzberg SL. 2012. Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nat Methods 9:357–359. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.1923 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. 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]
- 16. Jolley KA, Bray JE, Maiden MCJ. 2018. Open-access bacterial population genomics: BIGSdb software, the PubMLST.org website and their applications. Available from: https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/3-124/v1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 17. Jain C, Rodriguez-R LM, Phillippy AM, Konstantinidis KT, Aluru S. 2018. High throughput ANI analysis of 90K prokaryotic genomes reveals clear species boundaries. Nat Commun 9:5114. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-07641-9 [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
The draft genome assemblies have been deposited in GenBank, and the raw reads before decontamination have been deposited in SRA. The corresponding accession numbers are listed and linked in Table 1. All the data produced are part of the BioProject PRJNA1216553, hosted by the NCBI organization.
