Abstract
Paenibacillus larvae is a pathogen of honeybees that causes American foulbrood (AFB). We isolated bacteriophages from soil containing bee debris collected near beehives in Utah. We announce five high-quality complete genome sequences, which represent the first completed genome sequences submitted to GenBank for any P. larvae bacteriophage.
GENOME ANNOUNCEMENT
Paenibacillus larvae is a facultative anaerobic spore-forming pathogen that causes American foulbrood (AFB). AFB kills honeybee larvae (1), contributes to colony collapse disorder (2), and limits agricultural yields (3). Unfortunately, some P. larvae strains have become resistant to the antibiotics typically used for AFB treatment (4). Phage therapy is a potential treatment for AFB, yet few P. larvae-specific phages have been described (5–7), and a full-genome sequence for one has only recently become available (8).
Soil, honey, and larva samples were collected in the Utah, Salt Lake, and Davis counties of Utah. The samples were used for isolating new host strains or bacteriophages. P. larvae subsp. pulvifaciens (9) hosts were confirmed by 16S rRNA sequencing. The bacterial cultures were inoculated with soil samples to enrich for bacteriophages. Plated enrichment samples formed plaques from which bacteriophages were selected and purified by a minimum of three passages. High-titer lysates were filtered, incubated with 5 µg/ml RNase and 10 µg/ml DNase for 30 min at 37°C, and treated with 100 µg/µl proteinase K at 52°C for 1 h. Following phenol-chloroform extraction and ethanol precipitation, high-quality DNA (10) was sequenced using 454 pyrosequencing.
Raw sequences were assembled into contigs using Newbler version 2.6 (Roche Diagnostics, Branford, CT) and Consed version 19 (11). The phages Abouo and Emery assembled into single contigs. The phages Jimmer1, Jimmer2, and Davies assembled into multiple contigs that were joined using Gepard 1.30 (12), MEGA5 (13), and Geneious Pro 5.4.4 (Biomatters Ltd., Auckland, New Zealand) with phage Abouo as a reference. The sequencing fold-coverage data are provided in Table 1.
TABLE 1 .
No experiments were performed to determine the physical ends or the packing or replication strategies of the phage DNA. However, during manual finishing, overlapping contigs assembled the genome into an apparently circular genome. For the bacteriophages Jimmer1, Jimmer2, Davies, and Abouo, the first base of each genome was selected in the noncoding gap between the terminase gene and the prior gene. Since Emery did not have a terminase small subunit gene, the first base was selected in the first gap upstream of the large subunit terminase gene. The noncoding gap where the first base was selected for a genome contained multiple stops and lacked coding potential in any frame in all genomes.
Annotation was completed using DNA Master (http://cobamide2.bio.pitt.edu). A coding potential map was generated using GeneMark 2.5p (14) for each phage based on Bacillus cereus strain ATCC 14579, the closest available relative to P. larvae. Our selection of gene calls emphasized the following criteria: GeneMark HHM and Glimmer autoannotation, BLAST alignment E values of <0.001, coding potential from GeneMark, start codon sequences, and Shine-Dalgarno (SD) scores of >200 nats using the Karlin position-specific scoring matrix (PSSM) for moderately to highly expressed genes.
All five phages were identified as myoviruses. Jimmer1 and Jimmer2 were isolated independently from the same soil sample and differ in their genomic sequences by only 80 bp of the 54,312-bp genomes (99.85% similarity). The differences between these related phages are real base pair changes because the sequencing fold coverages of these samples are statistically greater than the error rate of 454 sequencing (15).
Nucleotide sequence accession numbers.
The GenBank accession numbers for the five Paenibacillus larvae bacteriophages are listed in Table 1.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was funded through the support of the Microbiology and Molecular Biology Department and the College of Life Sciences at BYU.
We also appreciate the generous sample donations from members of the Utah County Beekeepers Association (UCBA). We also gratefully acknowledge assistance from the BYU Research Instrumentation Core Facility, the BYU Sequencing Center, as well as the student workers Nic Ferguson, Ashley Kennedy, Carson Russell, and Kurt Williams.
Footnotes
Citation Sheflo MA, Gardner AV, Merrill BD, Fisher JNB, Lunt BL, Breakwell DP, Grose JH, Burnett SH. 2013. Complete genome sequences of five Paenibacillus larvae bacteriophages. Genome Announc. 1(6):e00668-13. doi:10.1128/genomeA.00668-13.
REFERENCES
- 1. de Graaf DC, Alippi AM, Brown M, Evans JD, Feldlaufer M, Gregorc A, Hornitzky M, Pernal SF, Schuch DM, Titera D, Tomkies V, Ritter W. 2006. Diagnosis of American foulbrood in honey bees: a synthesis and proposed analytical protocols. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 43:583–590 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Genersch E. 2010. American foulbrood in honeybees and its causative agent, Paenibacillus larvae. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 103:S10–S19 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Johnson R. 2010. Honey bee colony collapse disorder. Congressional Research Service. Diane Publishing Co., Darby, PA [Google Scholar]
- 4. Martinez JL, Fajardo A, Garmendia L, Hernandez A, Linares JF, Martínez-Solano L, Sánchez MB. 2009. A global view of antibiotic resistance. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 33:44–65 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Gochnauer TA. 1970. Some properties of a bacteriophage for Bacillus larvae. J. Invert. Pathol. 15:149–156 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Valerianov S. 1976. Isolation from the soil of a bacteriophage lysing Bacillus larvae. Acta Microbiol. Virol. Immunol. 4:81–85 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Bakhiet N, Stahly DP. 1988. Properties of clear plaque mutants of the Bacillus larvae bacteriophages PBL0.5 and PBL2. J. Invert. Pathol. 52:78–83 [Google Scholar]
- 8. Oliveira A, Melo LDR, Kropinski AM, Azeredo J. 2013. Complete genome sequence of the broad-host-range Paenibacillus larvae phage phiIBB_Pl23. Genome Announc. 1(5):e00438-13. 10.1128/genomeA.00438-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Genersch E, Forsgren E, Pentikäinen J, Ashiralieva A, Rauch S, Kilwinski J, Fries I. 2006. Reclassification of Paenibacillus larvae subsp. pulvifaciens and Paenibacillus larvae subsp. larvae as Paenibacillus larvae without subspecies differentiation. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 56:501–511 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Maniatis T, Fritsch EF, Sambrook J. 1982. Molecular cloning: a laboratory manual. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY [Google Scholar]
- 11. Gordon D. 2003. Viewing and editing assembled sequences using Consed. Curr. Protoc. Bioinformatics 11:11.2. 10.1002/0471250953.bi1102s02 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Krumsiek J, Arnold R, Rattei T. 2007. Gepard: a rapid and sensitive tool for creating dotplots on genome scale. Bioinformatics 23:1026–1028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Tamura K, Peterson D, Peterson N, Stecher G, Nei M, Kumar S. 2011. MEGA5: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis using maximum likelihood, evolutionary distance, and maximum parsimony methods. Mol. Biol. Evol. 28:2731–2739 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Lukashin AV, Borodovsky M. 1998. GeneMark.hmm: new solutions for gene finding. Nucleic Acids Res. 26:1107–1115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Luo C, Tsementzi D, Kyrpides N, Read T, Konstantinidis KT. 2012. Direct comparisons of Illumina vs. Roche 454 sequencing technologies on the same microbial community DNA sample. PLoS One 7:e30087. 10.1371/journal.pone.0030087 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]