Skip to main content
Genome Announcements logoLink to Genome Announcements
. 2016 Jul 28;4(4):e00672-16. doi: 10.1128/genomeA.00672-16

Genome Sequence of a Proteus mirabilis Strain Isolated from the Salivary Glands of Larval Lucilia sericata

Ye Yuan a, Yu Zhang b, Shuhua Fu a, Tawni L Crippen c, David K Visi d, M Eric Benbow e, Michael S Allen d, Jeffery K Tomberlin f, Sing-Hoi Sze a,b, Aaron M Tarone f,
PMCID: PMC4966454  PMID: 27469950

Abstract

We announce a draft genome sequence of a Proteus mirabilis strain derived from Lucilia sericata salivary glands. This strain is demonstrated to attract and induce oviposition by L. sericata, a common blow fly important to medicine, agriculture, and forensics. The genome sequence will help dissect interkingdom communication between the species.

GENOME ANNOUNCEMENT

Proteus mirabilis is a gut-commensal bacterium associated with human urinary tract infections (14) and is a model for cellular communication (58). It is found in association with rotting proteinaceous material (913), the blow fly Lucilia sericata (14) (a fly used in maggot therapy [15]), and other flies associated with decomposing animal remains and animal wounds (9, 13). There are several reasons to hypothesize a commensal relationship between these species. P. mirabilis is hypothesized to enhance maggot therapy (15). This enhancement is partially due to the production of antibiotic molecules (16, 17), which kill microbes that are effectively controlled in maggot therapy (15, 18, 19). This aligned microbial control suggests that the bacterium and fly are in competition with similar bacterial species. Concurrently, the flies do not appear to effectively control P. mirabilis (19). Further, Proteus species have been identified in salivary gland samples of L. sericata (14, 20), a relatively clean tissue and a major source of molecules contributing to molecular antibacterial activities important to maggot therapy (2124). Finally, swarming signals associated with P. mirabilis have been linked to fly attraction and oviposition, making the species a model for interkingdom signaling between bacteria and insects (7), which might have implications for medical, forensic, and agricultural research with decomposer flies and for microbial ecology.

Here, we present a draft genomic sequence of P. mirabilis. Genomic DNA was isolated from a colony derived from maggot salivary glands of L. sericata third-instar larvae raised on beef liver (7). Sequencing was performed using an Ion Torrent Personal Genome Machine (Life Technologies, Carlsbad, CA) after preparation with a NEBNext fast DNA fragmentation library prep set. This produced approximately 1,880,512 short reads, with an average length of 219 bp, totaling 412 Mbp, resulting in approximately 104-fold coverage. A total of 113 contigs were assembled using the PATRIC assembly service (25), with an N50 of 202,584 bp. This strain is highly similar to previously sequenced P. mirabilis HI4320 (NCBI accession no. NC_010554) and BB2000 (NCBI accession NC_022000), being more similar to BB2000. Draft genome assemblies based on CONTIGuator (26) indicate 49 contigs unique to this strain, with 98.6% of the assembled nucleotides aligning to either of the reference genomes. These observations support a previous finding that strains from this species exhibit lineage specific indels (27, 28), suggesting a species with a core genome and various auxiliary genes. Two contigs were found to have plasmid identities of >99%.

The draft genome contigs consist of 3,953,708 bp, with 38.43% G+C content. A total of 3,678 genes and 3,586 coding sequences (CDSs) were identified by the NCBI Prokaryotic Genome Annotation Pipeline (29). Seven prophage regions were identified among contigs with PHAST (30), of which three regions are intact, three are incomplete, and one is questionably functional. One of the prophage sequences predicted to be active is located near rfaL, which has been shown to impact fly behavior (7). Strain-specific gene functions and phage insertions will be useful in dissecting the interactions between L. sericata and P. mirabilis.

Nucleotide sequence accession numbers.

This whole-genome shotgun project has been deposited at DDBJ/ENA/GenBank under the accession no. LTBK00000000; this is version LTBK01000000.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Thomas Wood at Pennsylvania State University and Karine Gibbs at Harvard University for helpful conversations.

Funding Statement

Funding for A.M.T. and J.K.T. was provided partially by Texas Agrilife Research and the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Texas A&M University, College Station, TX. Additional funding for A.M.T., T.L.C., M.E.B., and J.K.T. was provided by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, through grant 2010-DN-BX-K243. Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice, Department of the Army, or Department of Defense or the U.S. government. Mention of trade names, companies, or commercial products in this publication is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement of the products by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Footnotes

Citation Yuan Y, Zhang Y, Fu S, Crippen TL, Visi DK, Benbow ME, Allen MS, Tomberlin JK, Sze S-H, Tarone AM. 2016. Genome sequence of a Proteus mirabilis strain isolated from the salivary glands of larval Lucilia sericata. Genome Announc 4(4):e00672-16. doi:10.1128/genomeA.00672-16.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Allison C, Coleman N, Jones PL, Hughes C. 1992. Ability of Proteus mirabilis to invade human urothelial cells is coupled to motility and swarming differentiation. Infect Immun 60:4740–4746. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Umpiérrez A, Scavone P, Romanin D, Marqués JM, Chabalgoity JA, Rumbo M, Zunino P. 2013. Innate immune responses to Proteus mirabilis flagellin in the urinary tract. Microbes Infect 15:688–696. doi: 10.1016/j.micinf.2013.06.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Mobley HL, Belas R. 1995. Swarming and pathogenicity of Proteus mirabilis in the urinary tract. Trends Microbiol 3:280–284. doi: 10.1016/S0966-842X(00)88945-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Coker C, Poore CA, Li X, Mobley HL. 2000. Pathogenesis of Proteus mirabilis urinary tract infection. Microbes Infect 2:1497–1505. doi: 10.1016/S1286-4579(00)01304-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Gibbs KA, Urbanowski ML, Greenberg EP. 2008. Genetic determinants of self identity and social recognition in bacteria. Science 321:256–259. doi: 10.1126/science.1160033. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Stankowska D, Czerwonka G, Rozalska S, Grosicka M, Dziadek J, Kaca W. 2012. Influence of quorum sensing signal molecules on biofilm formation in Proteus mirabilis O18. Folia Microbiol (Praha) 57:53–60. doi: 10.1007/s12223-011-0091-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Ma Q, Fonseca A, Liu W, Fields AT, Pimsler ML, Spindola AF, Tarone AM, Crippen TL, Tomberlin JK, Wood TK. 2012. Proteus mirabilis interkingdom swarming signals attract blow flies. ISME J 6:1356–1366. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2011.210. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Dienes L. 1946. Reproductive processes in Proteus cultures. Exp Biol Med 63:265–270. doi: 10.3181/00379727-63-15570. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Kamal AS. 1959. Comparative studies of thirteen species of Sarcosaprophagous Calliphoridae and Sarcophagidae (Diptera) II Digestive enzymology. Ann Entomol Soc Am 52:167–173. doi: 10.1093/aesa/52.2.167. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Yoshinaga DH, Frank HA. 1982. Histamine-producing bacteria in decomposing skipjack tuna Katsuwonus pelamis. Appl Environ Microbiol 44:447–452. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Durlu-Özkaya F, Ayhan K, Vural N. 2001. Biogenic amines produced by Enterobacteriaceae isolated from meat products. Meat Sci 58:163–166. doi: 10.1016/S0309-1740(00)00144-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Lauber CL, Metcalf JL, Keepers K, Ackermann G, Carter DO, Knight R. 2014. Vertebrate decomposition is accelerated by soil microbes. Appl Environ Microbiol 80:4920–4929. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00957-14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Thompson CR, Brogan RS, Scheifele LZ, Rivers DB. 2013. Bacterial interactions with necrophagous flies. Ann Entomol Soc Am 106:799–809. doi: 10.1603/AN12057. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Singh B, Crippen TL, Zheng L, Fields AT, Yu Z, Ma Q, Wood TK, Dowd SE, Flores M, Tomberlin JK, Tarone AM. 2015. A metagenomic assessment of the bacteria associated with Lucilia sericata and Lucilia cuprina (Diptera: Calliphoridae). Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 99:869–883. doi: 10.1007/s00253-014-6115-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Sherman RA, Hall MJ, Thomas S. 2000. Medicinal maggots: an ancient remedy for some contemporary afflictions. Annu Rev Entomol 45:55–81. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ento.45.1.55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Greenberg B. 1968. Model for destruction of bacteria in the midgut of blow fly maggots. J Med Entomol 5:31–38. doi: 10.1093/jmedent/5.1.31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Erdmann GR, Khalil SKW. 1986. Isolation and identification of two antibacterial agents produced by a strain of Proteus mirabilis isolated from larvae of the screwworm Cochliomyia hominivorax (Diptera: Calliphoridae). J Med Entomol 23:208–211. doi: 10.1093/jmedent/23.2.208. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Čeřovský V, Žďárek J, Fučík V, Monincová L, Voburka Z, Bém R. 2010. Lucifensin, the long-sought antimicrobial factor of medicinal maggots of the blowfly Lucilia sericata. Cell Mol Life Sci 67:455–466. doi: 10.1007/s00018-009-0194-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Jaklič D, Lapanje A, Zupančič K, Smrke D, Gunde-Cimerman N. 2008. Selective antimicrobial activity of maggots against pathogenic bacteria. J Med Microbiol 57:617–625. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.47515-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Blenkiron C, Tsai P, Brown LA, Tintinger V, Askelund KJ, Windsor JA, Phillips AR. 2015. Characterisation of the small RNAs in the biomedically important green-bottle blowfly Lucilia sericata. PLoS One 10:e0122203. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0122203. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Bexfield A, Nigam Y, Thomas S, Ratcliffe NA. 2004. Detection and partial characterisation of two antibacterial factors from the excretions/secretions of the medicinal maggot Lucilia sericata and their activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Microbes Infect 6:1297–1304. doi: 10.1016/j.micinf.2004.08.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Bexfield A, Bond AE, Roberts EC, Dudley E, Nigam Y, Thomas S, Newton RP, Ratcliffe NA. 2008. The antibacterial activity against MRSA strains and other bacteria of a <500Da fraction from maggot excretions/secretions of Lucilia sericata (Diptera: Calliphoridae). Microbes Infect 10:325–333. doi: 10.1016/j.micinf.2007.12.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Harris LG, Bexfield A, Nigam Y, Rohde H, Ratcliffe NA, Mack D. 2009. Disruption of Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilms by medicinal maggot Lucilia sericata excretions/secretions. Int J Artif Organs 32:555–564. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Bexfield A, Bond AE, Morgan C, Wagstaff J, Newton RP, Ratcliffe NA, Dudley E, Nigam Y. 2010. Amino acid derivatives from Lucilia sericata excretions/secretions may contribute to the beneficial effects of maggot therapy via increased angiogenesis. Br J Dermatol 162:554–562. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2009.09530.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Wattam AR, Abraham D, Dalay O, Disz TL, Driscoll T, Gabbard JL, Gillespie JJ, Gough R, Hix D, Kenyon R, Machi D, Mao C, Nordberg EK, Olson R, Overbeek R, Pusch GD, Shukla M, Schulman J, Stevens RL, Sullivan DE. 2014. PATRIC, the bacterial bioinformatics database and analysis resource. Nucleic Acids Res 12:D581–D591. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkt1099. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Galardini M, Biondi EG, Bazzicalupo M, Mengoni A. 2011. CONTIGuator: a bacterial genomes finishing tool for structural insights on draft genomes. Source Code Biol Med 6:11. doi: 10.1186/1751-0473-6-11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Sullivan NL, Septer AN, Fields AT, Wenren LM, Gibbs KA. 2013. The complete genome sequence of Proteus mirabilis strain BB2000 reveals differences from the P. mirabilis reference strain. Genome Announc 1(5):e00024-13. doi: 10.1128/genomeA.00024-13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Pearson MM, Sebaihia M, Churcher C, Quail MA, Seshasayee AS, Luscombe NM, Abdellah Z, Arrosmith C, Atkin B, Chillingworth T, Hauser H, Jagels K, Moule S, Mungall K, Norbertczak H, Rabbinowitsch E, Walker D, Whithead S, Thomson NR, Rather PN. 2008. Complete genome sequence of uropathogenic Proteus mirabilis, a master of both adherence and motility. J Bacteriol 190:4027–4037. doi: 10.1128/JB.01981-07. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Angiuoli SV, Gussman A, Klimke W, Cochrane G, Field D, Garrity G, Kodira CD, Kyrpides N, Madupu R, Markowitz V, Tatusova T, Thomson N, White O. 2008. Toward an online repository of standard operating procedures (SOPs) for metagenomic annotation. Omics 12:137–141. doi: 10.1089/omi.2008.0017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Zhou Y, Liang Y, Lynch KH, Dennis JJ, Wishart DS. 2011. PHAST: a fast phage search tool. Nucleic Acids Res 14:W347–W352. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkr485. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES