Skip to main content
Genome Announcements logoLink to Genome Announcements
. 2014 May 29;2(3):e00478-14. doi: 10.1128/genomeA.00478-14

Draft Genome Sequence of Lactobacillus animalis 381-IL-28

Joseph M Sturino a,b,a,b,, Mahitha Rajendran b, Eric Altermann c,d,c,d
PMCID: PMC4038880  PMID: 24874675

Abstract

Lactobacillus animalis 381-IL-28 is an integral component of a multistrain commercial culture with food biopreservative and pathogen biocontrol functionality. A draft sequence of the L. animalis 381-IL-28 genome is described in this paper.

GENOME ANNOUNCEMENT

Lactobacillus animalis 381-IL-28 is a component of a commercial biocontrol culture. Similar to probiotics (1), biocontrol cultures are living microorganisms that, when applied in adequate amounts, extend the safe storage life of beverages, foods, or feeds without changing their organoleptic properties (2). Some L. animalis strains are generally recognized as safe for the biocontrol of Campylobacter, Escherichia coli O157:H7, and Salmonella organisms in meat and poultry products (35) and on fresh-cut spinach (6). The L. animalis 381-IL-28 genome was sequenced to determine the genetic basis of its antimicrobial characteristics.

In brief, L. animalis 381-IL-28 was cultivated in Menon-Sturino (MS) broth supplemented with 100 mM d-glucose (7), and the genomic DNA was isolated by alkaline lysis (MasterPure Gram-positive DNA purification kit; Epicentre, Madison, WI), ethanol precipitation (8), and solid phase extraction (DNeasy blood purification kit; Qiagen, Valencia, CA). Genomic DNAs were sequenced using two chemistries. A paired-end library was prepared and sequenced using a Genome Analyzer IIx (Illumina, San Diego, CA) at the Genomics and Bioinformatics Center (College Station, TX). Genomic DNA was also primed for shotgun sequencing (Ion Xpress template kit; Ion Torrent, Grand Island, NY), and the library was sequenced by Epoch Life Science, Inc. (Sugar Land, TX) using a Personal Genome Machine (Ion Torrent).

The reads were randomly downsampled using the computational genomics (CG) pipeline (9) to an average 100-fold coverage and assembled de novo using Velvet (10) and VelvetOptimiser (11). The assembly was manually validated with AMOS and Hawkeye (12), and read coverage was assessed using SMALT (http://www.sanger.ac.uk/resources/software/smalt/) and SAMtools (13). The final assembly comprised 12 scaffolds (32 contigs) and 68 contigs (1,858,297 nucleotides [nt]). Twenty-seven contigs >10,000 nt covered 97% of the draft genome. Most contigs (93%) were within two standard deviations of the average coverage (110-fold), while the minimum coverage was 39-fold.

The size (1.86 Mb) and G+C content (41.1%) of the L. animalis 381-IL-28 draft genome were compared to those of other previously sequenced members of the Lactobacillus salivarius group, including L. animalis KCTC 3501 (1.88 Mb, 41.1% G+C) (16) and L. salivarius UCC118 (2.13 Mb, 33% G+C) (17). A functional genome distribution (FGD) analysis (14) was carried out and genome synteny visualized using ACT (15). Gene synteny differed among L. animalis 381-IL-28, L. salivarius UCC118, and other L. salivarius strains. Furthermore, 381-IL-28 harbors 549 strain-specific genes not found in L. salivarius UCC118 (e-value cutoff, 1e−10). In contrast, an FGD comparison between L. animalis strains 381-IL-28 and KCTC 3501 showed a high degree of gene synteny within the contigs. An ORFeome comparison highlighted 179 L. animalis 381-IL-28-specific genes (e-value cutoff, e−100), including an integrated prophage (open reading frames [ORFs] 822 to 877), transposase elements, and a clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR) system (ORFs 1279 to 1288).

Protein-coding domain sequences were predicted and the draft genome was annotated using GAMOLA version 2 (18). Three l-lactate dehydrogenases (EC 1.1.1.27; ORF_1417, ORF_1456, ORF_1601) and one acetaldehyde dehydrogenase (EC 1.2.1.10; ORF_1385) were among the 1,844 protein-coding genes that were predicted.

Nucleotide sequence accession numbers.

This whole-genome sequencing project was deposited at DDBJ/EMBL/GenBank under the accession no. JMHU00000000. The version described in this manuscript is the first version, JMHU01000000.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Support for this study was provided, in part, by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service, Hatch project TEX 09436 and Texas AgriLife Research (both to J.M.S.). The sponsors had no role in the study design, data collection or analysis, the production of the submitted manuscript, or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

We thank Scott Schwartz, Richard Metz, and Charlie Johnson from the Texas AgriLife Genomics and Bioinformatics Center (College Station, TX) and Suvra Bhowmick for additional technical support.

Footnotes

Citation Sturino JM, Rajendran M, Altermann E. 2014. Draft genome sequence of Lactobacillus animalis 381-IL-28. Genome Announc. 2(3):e00478-14. doi:10.1128/genomeA.00478-14.

REFERENCES

  • 1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, World Health Organization 2001. Health and nutritional properties of powder milk and live lactic acid bacteria: report of a joint FAO/WHO expert consultation on evaluation of health and nutritional properties of probiotics in food including powder milk with live lactic acid bacteria. FAO and WHO, Córdoba, Argentina, 1 to 4 October 2001 ftp://ftp.fao.org/es/esn/food/probio_report_en.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Sturino JM, Rajendran M, Altermann E. 2013. Draft genome sequence of the pediocin-encoding biopreservative and biocontrol strain Pediococcus acidilactici D3. Genome Announc. 1(3):e00208-13. 10.1128/genomeA.00208-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. USDA FSIS. 2012. Safe and suitable ingredients used in the production of meat, poultry, and egg products. Directive 7120:1, Rev. 12. United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service, Washington, DC: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/FSISDirectives/7120.1Rev2.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Koo OK, Eggleton M, O’Bryan CA, Crandall PG, Ricke SC. 2012. Antimicrobial activity of lactic acid bacteria against Listeria monocytogenes on frankfurters formulated with and without lactate/diacetate. Meat Sci. 92:533–537. 10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.05.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Dow A, Alvarado C, Brashears M. 2011. Reduction of inoculated Salmonella cocktail in ground turkey and turkey breasts using Lactobacillus-based intervention. Poult. Sci. 90:876–879. 10.3382/ps.2010-00807 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Cálix-Lara TF, Rajendran M, Talcott ST, Smith SB, Miller RK, Castillo A, Sturino JM, Taylor TM. 2014. Inhibition of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Salmonella enterica on spinach and identification of antimicrobial substances produced by a commercial lactic acid bacteria food safety intervention. Food Microbiol. 38:192–200. 10.1016/j.fm.2013.09.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Menon R, Shields M, Duong T, Sturino JM. 2013. Development of a carbohydrate-supplemented semidefined medium for the semiselective cultivation of Lactobacillus spp. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 57:249–257. 10.1111/lam.12106 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Sambrook J, Fritsch E, Maniatis T. 1982. Molecular cloning: a laboratory manual. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Kislyuk AO, Katz LS, Agrawal S, Hagen MS, Conley AB, Jayaraman P, Nelakuditi V, Humphrey JC, Sammons SA, Govil D, Mair RD, Tatti KM, Tondella ML, Harcourt BH, Mayer LW, Jordan IK. 2010. A computational genomics pipeline for prokaryotic sequencing projects. Bioinformatics 26:1819–1826. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq284 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Zerbino DR, Birney E. 2008. Velvet: algorithms for de novo short read assembly using de Bruijn graphs. Genome Res. 18:821–829. 10.1101/gr.074492.107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Zerbino DR. Using the Velvet de novo assembler for short-read sequencing technologies. Curr. Protoc. Bioinformatics Chapter 11:Unit 11.5. 10.1002/0471250953.bi1105s31 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Schatz MC, Phillippy AM, Sommer DD, Delcher AL, Puiu D, Narzisi G, Salzberg SL, Pop M. 2013. Hawkeye and AMOS: visualizing and assessing the quality of genome assemblies. Brief. Bioinform. 14:213–224. 10.1093/bib/bbr074 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Li H, Handsaker B, Wysoker A, Fennell T, Ruan J, Homer N, Marth G, Abecasis G, Durbin R, 1000 Genome Project Data Processing Subgroup 2009. The Sequence Alignment/map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics 25:2078–2079. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp352 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Altermann E. 2012. Tracing lifestyle adaptation in prokaryotic genomes. Front. Microbiol. 3:48. 10.3389/fmicb.2012.00048 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Carver TJ, Rutherford KM, Berriman M, Rajandream MA, Barrell BG, Parkhill J. 2005. ACT: the Artemis Comparison Tool. Bioinformatics 21:3422–3423. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bti553 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Nam SH, Choi SH, Kang A, Kim DW, Kim RN, Kim A, Kim DS, Park HS. 2011. Genome sequence of Lactobacillus animalis KCTC 3501. J. Bacteriol. 193:1280–1281. 10.1128/JB.01505-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Claesson MJ, Li Y, Leahy S, Canchaya C, van Pijkeren JP, Cerdeño-Tárraga AM, Parkhill J, Flynn S, O’Sullivan GC, Collins JK, Higgins D, Shanahan F, Fitzgerald GF, van Sinderen D, O’Toole PW. 2006. Multireplicon genome architecture of Lactobacillus salivarius. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 103:6718–6723. 10.1073/pnas.0511060103 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Altermann E, Klaenhammer TR. 2003. GAMOLA: a new local solution for sequence annotation and analyzing draft and finished prokaryotic genomes. Omics 7:161–169. 10.1089/153623103322246557 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES