Skip to main content
Genome Announcements logoLink to Genome Announcements
. 2014 Dec 18;2(6):e01278-14. doi: 10.1128/genomeA.01278-14

Draft Genome Sequences of Escherichia coli Strains Isolated from Septic Patients

Madison I Dunitz a, David A Coil a, Guillaume Jospin a, Jonathan A Eisen a,b,a,b,, Jason Y Adams c
PMCID: PMC4271156  PMID: 25523766

Abstract

We present the draft genome sequences of six strains of Escherichia coli isolated from blood cultures collected from patients with sepsis. The strains were collected from two patient sets, those with a high severity of illness, and those with a low severity of illness. Each genome was sequenced by both Illumina and PacBio for comparison.

GENOME ANNOUNCEMENT

Sepsis is a clinical syndrome defined as infection complicated by a systemic inflammatory response syndrome. Sepsis affects >1.6 million Americans each year and is the most costly reason for hospitalization in the United States (1, 2). The more severe subtypes of sepsis, known as severe sepsis and septic shock, are associated with acute end-organ dysfunction and a 30% risk of in-hospital mortality (3, 4). Mortality increases with increasing severity of end-organ dysfunction at the population level (5, 6); however, the clinical outcomes of individual patients vary significantly. The relative contributions of host susceptibility factors and pathogen virulence-associated factors to the severity of illness in sepsis are not well understood. In this study, we sequenced 3 pairs of uropathogenic Escherichia coli strains isolated from blood samples from patients with sepsis from a urinary tract infection who were admitted to the UC Davis Medical Center. Each pair of strains was selected from patients who were matched with regard to clinical characteristics, including age group, sex, site of infection within the urinary tract, and major comorbidities, but they differed significantly in sepsis severity of illness, as defined by scores on the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) (7). E. coli strains JA23, JA62, and JA65 were from patients with a high severity of illness, whereas strains JA03, JA17, and JA69 were from patients with a low severity of illness. All aspects of the study were approved by the institutional review board of the UC Davis Medical Center (protocol no. 247849).

Strains of E. coli were isolated from overnight-plated subcultures of initial liquid blood cultures obtained in the course of routine clinical practice and stored in a biorepository at -80°C. A single colony from each strain was grown in LB broth at 37°C and then used for genomic DNA extraction.

Illumina paired-end libraries were made from E. coli genomic DNA extracted using a Promega Wizard genomic DNA purification kit (Promega Corporation, Madison, WI). The libraries were prepared using an Illumina TruSeq kit (Illumina, San Diego, CA). The samples were pooled and then sequenced on an Illumina MiSeq for paired-end 250-bp reads. An average of 2,355,125 paired-end reads per sample were generated. Quality trimming and error correction resulted in an average of 2,040,300 high-quality reads. All sequence processing and assembly of the Illumina reads were performed using the a5 assembly pipeline (8). Automated annotation was performed using the RAST server (9). The assembly and annotation statistics are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Accession numbers and assembly statistics for 6 E. coli strains

Strain ID by sequencing methoda No. of contigs No. of scaffolds N50 contig (bp) Total size (bp) Coverage (×) G+C content (%) No. of ORFs No. of RNAs Accession no. Version
Illumina sequencing
JA03 134 123 183,087 5,287,643 105 51 5,257 107 JFFJ00000000 JFFJ00000000.1
JA17 99 94 288,084 5,064,765 101 51 4,946 100 JFFK00000000 JFFK00000000.1
JA23 62 42 372,835 4,933,283 28 51 4,774 98 JFFL00000000 JFFL00000000.1
JA62 139 120 201,894 5,336,948 60 51 5,414 111 JFFM00000000 JFFM00000000.1
JA65 84 83 172,163 4,802,037 95 51 4,666 107 JFFN00000000 JFFN00000000.1
JA69 102 97 198,017 5,203,662 59 51 5,132 106 JFFO00000000 JFFO00000000.1
Avg 103 93 236,013 5,104,723 75 51 5,032 105
PacBio sequencing
JA03_pb 10 NAb 3,249,757 5,411,202 67 51 5,387 117 JMIZ00000000 JMIZ00000000.1
JA17_pb 3 NA 5,119,992 5,119,992 86 51 4,959 109 JMJA00000000 JMJA00000000.1
JA23_pb 3 NA 4,904,536 4,904,536 55 51 4,775 111 JMJB00000000 JMJB00000000.1
JA62_pb 17 NA 5,559,237 5,559,237 52 51 5,869 110 JMJC00000000 JMJC00000000.1
JA65_pb 3 NA 4,876,096 4,876,096 68 51 4,728 113 JMJD00000000 JMJD00000000.1
JA69_pb 27 NA 5,319,871 5,319,871 47 51 5,368 148 JMJE00000000 JMJE00000000.1
Avg 11 4,838,248 5,198,489 63 51 5,181 118
a

ID, identification.

b

NA, not available.

PacBio sample prep and genomic DNA extraction were performed using a Mo Bio PowerSoil DNA isolation kit (Mo Bio, Carlsbad, CA). PacBio libraries were prepared via the PacBio standard 10-kb library prep and sequenced using Pacific Biosciences RS sequencing technology (Pacific Biosciences, Menlo Park, CA). De novo assembly of the read sequences was performed using the Hierarchical Genome Assembly Process (HGAP2) workflow (PacBio DevNet; Pacific Biosciences) as available in single-molecular real-time (SMRT) Analysis. Automated annotation was performed using the RAST annotation server (9). The assembly and annotation statistics are presented in Table 1.

Nucleotide sequence accession numbers.

All 12 assemblies described in this paper have been deposited as whole-genome shotgun projects in DDBJ/EMBL/GenBank under the accession numbers provided in Table 1.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Illumina and PacBio sequencing were performed at the DNA Technologies Core facility in the Genome Center at University of California Davis, CA.

Funding for this work was provided by a pilot grant from the UC Davis Clinical and Translational Science Center (CTSC). The project described was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, through grant no. UL1 TR000002.

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.

Footnotes

Citation Dunitz MI, Coil DA, Jospin G, Eisen JA, Adams JY. 2014. Draft genome sequences of Escherichia coli strains isolated from septic patients. Genome Announc. 2(6):e01278-14. doi:10.1128/genomeA.01278-14.

REFERENCES

  • 1. Elixhauser A, Friedman B, Stranges E. 2011. HCUP Statistical Brief #122. Septicemia in U.S. hospitals, 2009. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD: http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb122.pdf. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Miniño AM, Murphy SL, Xu J, Kochanek KD. 2011. Deaths: final data for 2008. Natl. Vital Stat. Rep. 59:1–126. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Angus DC, Linde-Zwirble WT, Lidicker J, Clermont G, Carcillo J, Pinsky MR. 2001. Epidemiology of severe sepsis in the United States: analysis of incidence, outcome, and associated costs of care. Crit. Care Med. 29:1303–1310. 10.1097/00003246-200107000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Dombrovskiy VY, Martin AA, Sunderram J, Paz HL. 2007. Rapid increase in hospitalization and mortality rates for severe sepsis in the United States: a trend analysis from 1993 to 2003. Crit. Care Med. 35:1244–1250. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000261890.41311.E9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Ferreira FL, Bota DP, Bross A, Melot C, Vincent JL. 2001. Serial evaluation of the SOFA score to predict outcome in critically ill patients. JAMA 286:1754–1758. 10.1001/jama.286.14.1754. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Sakr Y, Lobo SM, Moreno RP, Gerlach H, Ranieri VM, Michalopoulos A, Vincent JL, SOAP Investigators, the SI 2012. Patterns and early evolution of organ failure in the intensive care unit and their relation to outcome. Crit. Care 16:R222. 10.1186/cc11868. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Vincent JL, Moreno R, Takala J, Willatts S, De Mendonça A, Bruining H, Reinhart CK, Suter PM, Thijs LG. 1996. The SOFA (sepsis-related organ failure assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. On behalf of the Working Group on Sepsis-Related Problems of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med. 22:707–710. 10.1007/BF01709751. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Tritt A, Eisen JA, Facciotti MT, Darling AE. 2012. An integrated pipeline for de novo assembly of microbial genomes. PLoS One 7:e42304. 10.1371/journal.pone.0042304. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Aziz RK, Bartels D, Best AA, DeJongh M, Disz T, Edwards RA, Formsma K, Gerdes S, Glass EM, Kubal M, Meyer F, Olsen GJ, Olson R, Osterman AL, Overbeek RA, McNeil LK, Paarmann D, Paczian T, Parrello B, Pusch GD, Reich C, Stevens R, Vassieva O, Vonstein V, Wilke A, Zagnitko O. 2008. The RAST server: Rapid Annotations using Subsystems Technology. BMC Genomics 9:75. 10.1186/1471-2164-9-75. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES