Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Scientific Reports logoLink to Scientific Reports
. 2016 Dec 2;6:38442. doi: 10.1038/srep38442

Genome analysis of Campylobacter concisus strains from patients with inflammatory bowel disease and gastroenteritis provides new insights into pathogenicity

Heung Kit Leslie Chung 1,*, Alfred Tay 2,*, Sophie Octavia 1, Jieqiong Chen 1, Fang Liu 1, Rena Ma 1, Ruiting Lan 1, Stephen M Riordan 3, Michael C Grimm 4, Li Zhang 1,a
PMCID: PMC5133609  PMID: 27910936

Abstract

Campylobacter concisus is an oral bacterium that is associated with inflammatory bowel disease. C. concisus has two major genomospecies, which appear to have different enteric pathogenic potential. Currently, no studies have compared the genomes of C. concisus strains from different genomospecies. In this study, a comparative genome analysis of 36 C. concisus strains was conducted including 27 C. concisus strains sequenced in this study and nine publically available C. concisus genomes. The C. concisus core-genome was defined and genomospecies-specific genes were identified. The C. concisus core-genome, housekeeping genes and 23S rRNA gene consistently divided the 36 strains into two genomospecies. Two novel genomic islands, CON_PiiA and CON_PiiB, were identified. CON_PiiA and CON_PiiB islands contained proteins homologous to the type IV secretion system, LepB-like and CagA-like effector proteins. CON_PiiA islands were found in 37.5% of enteric C. concisus strains (3/8) isolated from patients with enteric diseases and none of the oral strains (0/27), which was statistically significant. This study reports the findings of C. concisus genomospecies-specific genes, novel genomic islands that contain type IV secretion system and putative effector proteins, and other new genomic features. These data provide novel insights into understanding of the pathogenicity of this emerging opportunistic pathogen.

Campylobacter concisus is a Gram-negative motile bacterium that grows under both anaerobic and microaerobic conditions with the presence of hydrogen significantly aiding growth1. The human oral cavity is the natural colonization site of C. concisus, although C. concisus may also colonize the intestinal tract in some individuals2,3.

C. concisus has gained increasing attention in recent years due to its association with enteric diseases, in particular inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) which includes Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). A number of studies reported a significantly higher detection of C. concisus by PCR in intestinal biopsies collected from patients with IBD as compared to controls4,5,6,7. In addition to IBD, C. concisus was frequently isolated from diarrheal stool samples, suggesting its possible role in human diarrheal disease8,9,10,11.

Previous studies found that some oral C. concisus strains or their toxins were able to damage the intestinal epithelial barrier and induce intestinal epithelial production of proinflammatory cytokines using cell line models11,12,13. These data suggest that translocation of enteric virulent C. concisus strains from the human oral cavity to the intestinal tract may cause enteric diseases in some individuals.

Earlier studies found that some C. concisus strains had only 42–50% DNA-DNA hybridization value with the reference C. concisus strain; however no phenotypic tests were able to differentiate them14. These strains were referred to as different genomospecies15. C. concisus has two genomospecies, which were defined by the analysis of amplified fragment length polymorphisms (AFLP), housekeeping genes and a PCR method targeting the polymorphisms of C. concisus 23S rRNA gene15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22. The two C. concisus genomospecies contained both oral and enteric C. concisus strains15,16,17,18,19,20,21. Strains from the two C. concisus genomospecies appear to have different enteric pathogenic potentials. Oral C. concisus strains that were invasive to intestinal epithelial cells were found in Genomospecies 2 (GS2)10,11. GS2 C. concisus strains were more often isolated from faecal samples collected from patients with bloody diarrhoea and they were more invasive to intestinal epithelial cells as compared to Genomospecies 1 (GS1) strains15,16.

Currently, no studies have compared the genomes of C. concisus strains from different genomospecies. Identification of C. concisus genomospecies-specific genes and other genomic features will provide insights into the evolution and pathogenic potential of this bacterium. We therefore performed comparative genome analysis of 36 C. concisus strains including 27 strains that were sequenced in this study and nine publically available C. concisus genomes, which revealed new genomic features of C. concisus genomospecies and identified novel genomic islands that contain proteins homologous to the type IV secretion system (T4SS) and potential virulence effector proteins.

Results

The draft genomes of 27 C. concisus strains

The genomes of 27 C. concisus strains were sequenced in this study. These 27 C. concisus strains were previously isolated in our laboratory from patients with CD, UC and healthy controls and they were randomly selected for inclusion into this study. Ten of these strains were analysed in our previous studies of grouping C. concisus strains using housekeeping genes3,6,10,23.

The draft genome sizes of these C. concisus strains were 1.80 to 2.21 Mb. The contig numbers ranged from 7 to 76. The fold coverage ranged from 83.98 to 230.58. The summaries of the C. concisus genomes sequenced in this study are in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of the 27 C. concisus genomes sequenced in this study.

Strain ID Health status No. of Contigs N50 Genome size (Mb) Fold coverage
H1O1* Healthy 21 225,994 1.86 144.81
H9O-S2* Healthy 32 172,447 2.03 169.43
H14O-S1* Healthy 33 322,175 1.98 117.90
H17O-S1* Healthy 15 986,534 1.95 129.68
H21O-S1 Healthy 38 112,460 2.04 109.13
H21O-S2 Healthy 40 138,316 2.03 133.83
H21O-S3 Healthy 25 369,626 1.98 160.43
H21O-S5 Healthy 73 75,277 2.12 115.50
H22O-S1 Healthy 76 162,003 2.14 202.49
H23O-S1 Healthy 33 298,329 2.14 166.47
P2CDO3* CD 72 277,481 2 155.83
P2CDO4* CD 30 223,561 2.09 230.58
P2CDO-S6 CD 53 278,451 2.01 189.64
P3UCB1* UC 17 361,314 1.82 118.62
P3UCO1* UC 7 569,893 1.8 102.09
P13UCO-S3* UC 57 214,312 2.06 183.54
P15UCO-S2* UC 27 451,303 1.96 142.96
P20CDO-S1 CD 75 227,524 2.08 204.22
P20CDO-S2 CD 55 266,446 2.05 155.16
P20CDO-S3 CD 71 197,586 2.21 194.63
P20CDO-S4 CD 10 1,298,069 1.92 90.93
P21CDO-S1 CD 32 215,002 2.02 223.50
P21CDO-S2 CD 68 332,372 2.15 171.43
P21CDO-S4 CD 38 129,907 1.93 83.98
P24CDO-S2 CD 26 184,230 1.95 186.95
P24CDO-S3 CD 57 85,614 1.99 167.75
P24CDO-S4 CD 40 136,251 1.94 129.65
Open in a new tab

Draft genomes were assembled using St. Petersburg genome assembler (SPAdes, Ver. 3.6.1). Letters P and H in strain ID indicate strains isolated from patients with inflammatory bowel disease and healthy controls respectively. O indicates oral strains isolated from saliva samples and B indicates a strain isolated from intestinal biopsies. These strains were isolated from our previous studies3,6.

*Indicates strains used in a previous study using housekeeping genes to group C. concisus strains18. CD: Crohn’s disease. UC: Ulcerative colitis.

The core-genome and accessory genes

The C. concisus core-genome was derived from 36 C. concisus strains including the 27 C. concisus strains sequenced in this study and nine C. concisus genomes that are publically available3,6,10,23,24.

The C. concisus core-genome of the 36 C. concisus strains consisted of 582 genes, which were 28.7% (582/2025) of the total number of genes present in C. concisus strain 13826. The core-genomes of GS1 and GS2 strains had 1,098 and 1,143 genes respectively. The genes in both GS1 and GS2 C. concisus core-genomes were evenly distributed amongst different Clusters of Orthologous Groups (Supplementary Fig. S1). The accessory genes in the 36 C. concisus strains ranged from 1,163 to 1,521.

The two C. concisus genomospecies identified from analysis of C. concisus core-genome, housekeeping genes and 23S rRNA gene

The phylogenetic tree generated based on the core-genome sequences divided the 36 C. concisus strains into two genomospecies. Most of the strains belonged to GS2 (77.8%, 28/36) while only eight strains belonged to GS1 (22.2%, 8/36). GS1 and GS2 contained both oral and enteric strains. Some individuals carried C. concisus strains from both GS1 and GS2. For example, multiple strains from two individuals (P20CDO-S1, P20CDO-S2, P20CDO-S3, and P20CDO-S4 from a patient with CD as well as H21O-S1, H21O-S2, H21O-S3 and H21O-S5 strains from a healthy individual) were found in different genomospecies (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. The phylogenetic tree generated based on C. concisus core-genome sequences.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

The phylogenetic tree was generated based on the C. concisus core-genome generated from 36 Campylobacter concisus strains using Roary45. Oral strains from patients with IBD that were sequenced in this study are coloured red. Oral strains from healthy controls that were sequenced in this study are coloured blue. Oral strain ATCC 33237 is coloured purple; this strain was isolated from a patient with gingivitis. Enteric strains are coloured green. The genome of enteric strain P3UCB1, a strain isolated from intestinal biopsies of a patient with UC, was sequenced in this study. The remaining genomes of enteric C. concisus strains are publically available. Enteric strain ATCC 51561 was isolated from faecal samples of a healthy individual. Enteric strains UNSW2, UNSW3 and UNSWCD were isolated from patients with CD24. The remaining enteric strains were isolated from patients with gastroenteritis. Bootstrap values of more than 70 are indicated on the internal branches. GS1 and GS2 indicate Genomospecies 1 and 2 respectively.

Both housekeeping genes and a PCR method targeting the polymorphisms of 23S rRNA gene were previously used to separate C. concisus strains into different groups15,16,17,18,19,20,21. In this study, we compared the assignment of C. concisus strains by housekeeping genes and 23S rRNA gene. The sequences of these housekeeping genes or 23S rRNA gene divided the 36 strains into two clusters, consistent with the GS1 and GS2 grouping assigned based on the C. concisus core-genome (Figs 2 and 3).

Figure 2. The phylogenetic tree generated based on housekeeping genes of the 36 Campylobacter concisus strains.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

The sequences of six housekeeping genes (asd, aspA, atpA, glnA, pgi and tkt) were extracted from the 36 C. concisus strains and were used to generate the phylogenetic tree using neighbour-joining method, which was performed using molecular evolutionary genetic analysis software version 6.06 (MEGA 6.06) with 1,000 bootstrap replications47. Oral strains from patients with IBD that were sequenced in this study are coloured red. Oral strains from healthy controls that were sequenced in this study are coloured blue. Oral strain ATCC 33237 is coloured purple; this strain was isolated from a patient with gingivitis. Enteric strains are coloured green. The genome of enteric strain P3UCB1, a strain isolated from intestinal biopsies of a patient with UC, was sequenced in this study. The remaining genomes of enteric C. concisus strains are publically available. Enteric strain ATCC 51561 was isolated from faecal samples of a healthy individual. Enteric strains UNSW2, UNSW3 and UNSWCD were isolated from patients with CD24. The remaining enteric strains were isolated from patients with gastroenteritis. Bootstrap values of more than 70 are indicated on the internal branches. Campylobacter jejuni strain NCTC11168 was used as an outgroup (GenBank accession no. NC_002163). GS1 and GS2 indicate Genomospecies 1 and 2 respectively.

Figure 3. The phylogenetic tree generated based on the sequences of 23S ribosomal RNA genes of the 36 Campylobacter concisus strains.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

The phylogenetic tree was generated based on the sequences of the 23S ribosomal RNA genes. The neighbour-joining method was used to generate the phylogenetic tree, which was performed using Molecular Evolutionary Genetic Analysis software version 6.06 (MEGA 6.06) with 1,000 bootstrap replications47. Oral strains from patients with IBD that were sequenced in this study are coloured red. Oral strains from healthy controls that were sequenced in this study are coloured blue. Oral strain ATCC 33237 is coloured purple; this strain was isolated from a patient with gingivitis. Enteric strains are coloured green. The genome of enteric strain P3UCB1, a strain isolated from intestinal biopsies of a patient with UC, was sequenced in this study. The remaining genomes of enteric C. concisus strains are publically available. Enteric strain ATCC 51561 was isolated from faecal samples of a healthy individual. Enteric strains UNSW2, UNSW3 and UNSWCD were isolated from patients with CD24. The remaining enteric strains were isolated from patients with gastroenteritis. Bootstrap values of more than 70 are indicated on the internal branches. Bootstrap values of more than 70 are indicated on the internal branches. Campylobacter jejuni strain NCTC11168 was used as an outgroup (GenBank accession no. NC_002163). GS1 and GS2 indicate Genomospecies 1 and 2 respectively.

A previous study examining eight C. concisus strains found that the 16S rRNA gene was able to differentiate C. concisus strains isolated from patients with gastroenteritis and CD24. However, in this study, we found that the 16S rRNA gene was unable to differentiate C. concisus genomospecies or their related diseases (Fig. 4).

Figure 4. The phylogenetic tree generated based on the sequences of 16S ribosomal RNA genes for the 36 Campylobacter concisus strains.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

The phylogenetic tree was generated based on the sequences of the 16S ribosomal RNA genes. The neighbour-joining method was used to generate the phylogenetic tree, which was performed using Molecular Evolutionary Genetic Analysis software version 6.06 (MEGA 6.06) with 1,000 bootstrap replications47. Oral strains from patients with IBD that were sequenced in this study are coloured red. Oral strains from healthy controls that were sequenced in this study are coloured blue. Oral strain ATCC 33237 is coloured purple; this strain was isolated from a patient with gingivitis. Enteric strains are coloured green. The genome of enteric strain P3UCB1, a strain isolated from intestinal biopsies of a patient with UC, was sequenced in this study. The remaining genomes of enteric C. concisus strains are publically available. Enteric strain ATCC 51561 was isolated from faecal samples of a healthy individual. Enteric strains UNSW2, UNSW3 and UNSWCD were isolated from patients with CD24. The remaining enteric strains were isolated from patients with gastroenteritis. Bootstrap values of more than 70 are indicated on the internal branches. Campylobacter jejuni strain NCTC11168 was used as an outgroup (GenBank accession no. NC_002163).

Genomospecies-specific genes

Using Burrows-Wheeler Aligner, BLASTn and BLASTx, we found that some genes that were present in all GS1 C. concisus strains were absent in all GS2 strains and vice versa, showing that these were genomospecies-specific genes. The flanking regions of GS1-specific genes were found in the genomes of all GS2 strains on unbroken contigs, and vice versa, further confirming that they were truly genomospecies specific.

Of the nine GS1-specific genes, three genes encode phosphate transport proteins (PstS, PstA and PstC). The remaining GS1-specific genes encode hypothetical proteins, transporter proteins and enzymes (Table 2). Fourteen GS2-specific genes were found, including genes that encode a protein involved in regulation of osmolarity (aquaporin Z), a protein involved in pH homeostasis and sodium extrusion (Na+/H+ antiporter NhaC), twitching motility protein and the others (Table 2).

Table 2. Genomospecies-specific genes.

GS1-specific gene products Locus tag
Transporter, AbgT family CCON33237_0883
Hypothetical protein CCON33237_0734
Hypothetical protein CCON33237_1772
Tellurite-resistance/dicarboxylate transporter, TDT family CCON33237_1254
Transcriptional regulator, Crp family CCON33237_1253
Putative NADH dehydrogenase CCON33237_1252
Phosphate ABC transporter, permease protein PstA CCON33237_1171
Phosphate ABC transporter, permease protein PstC CCON33237_1170
Phosphate ABC transporter, periplasmic substrate-binding protein PstS CCON33237_1169
GS2-specific gene products Locus tag
LemA protein CCC13826_1702
Twitching motility protein CCC13826_1584
Hydroxylamine reductase CCC13826_1540
Aspartate racemase CCC13826_1511
DNA-3-methyladenine glycosylase 1 CCC13826_0272
Oxidoreductase, FAD/FMN-binding CCC13826_0436
Aquaporin Z CCC13826_1636
Glyoxalase II CCC13826_1402
Beta-lactamase HcpA (Cysteine-rich 28 kDa protein) CCC13826_2180
Rhomboid family protein CCC13826_1263
Beta-aspartyl peptidase CCC13826_0178
Na+/H+ antiporter NhaC CCC13826_0177
Periplasmic protein CCC13826_0895
PAS/PAC sensor signal transduction histidine kinase CCC13826_0721
Open in a new tab

GS: genomospecies. Locus tag: GS1-specific genes locus tag refers to the locus in C. concisus strain ATCC 33237; GS2-specific genes locus tag refers to the locus in C. concisus strain 13826.

CRISPR-associated proteins

Twenty-two C. concisus strains, all belonged to GS2, were found to have genes encoding CRISPR-associated proteins. Cas1, Cas2, Cas3 and Cas4a proteins were found in all 22 strains. Cas5h, Csh1 and Csd2/Csh2 proteins were found in most of these 22 strains, Cas6 protein was found in five strains and the remaining seven CRISPR-associated proteins were found in one or two C. concisus strains (Table 3).

Table 3. CRISPR-associated proteins in Campylobacter concisus strains.

CRISPR
Strain ID Cas1 Cas2 Cas3 Cas4a Cas5h Cas6 Csh1 family Csh2 family Csd2/Csh2 family Csm1 family Csm2 family Csm3 Csm4 family Csm5 family TM1812
P2CDO5 + + + + +   +   +            
P13UCO-S3 + + + + +   +   +            
P15UCO-S2 + + + + +   +   +            
P20CDO-S1 + + + + +       +            
P20CDO-S2 + + + + +   +   +            
P20CDO-S3 + + + + +       +            
P21CDO-S1 + + + + + + +   +           +
P21CDO-S2 + + + + +   +   +            
P24CDO-S2 + + + + +   +   +            
P24CDO-S3 + + + + +   +   +            
P24CDO-S4 + + + + +   +   +            
H9O-S2 + + + +         +            
H14O-S1 + + + + +   +   +            
H21O-S1 + + + + + + +   +           +
H21O-S2 + + + + +   +   +            
H21O-S5 + + + + + + +   + + + + + +  
H23O-S1 + + + + +   +   +            
13826 + + + + +   + +              
ATCC51561 + + + +         +            
UNSW1 + + + + +   +   +            
UNSW2 + + + +         +            
UNSWCS + + + +   +     +            
Open in a new tab

All C. concisus strains that have CRISPR-associated proteins belonged to Genomospecies 2. Letters P and H in strain ID indicate oral strains isolated from patients with inflammatory bowel disease and healthy controls respectively. The remaining five strains were enteric strains isolated from patients with Crohn’s disease and gastroenteritis. A positive sign (+) indicates the presence of a gene.

Two different genomic islands containing T4SS homologues and putative effector proteins were found in enteric and oral C. concisus strains respectively

P3UCO1 and P3UCB1 strains were isolated from saliva and intestinal biopsies of a patient with UC. These two strains were genetically closely related (Fig. 1). Interestingly we found a region in the genome of the enteric strain P3UCB1 that was absent in the genome of the oral strain P3UCO1 (Fig. 5A). The size of this region is 31,286 bp, beginning with an integrase. This region contained five proteins homologous to T4SS proteins from the tumour inducing (Ti) plasmid in plant pathogen Agrobacterium tumefaciens, which includes VirB4, VirB8, VirB9, VirB10 and VirB11. Their similarities to the A. tumefaciens VirB proteins were 41%, 42%, 29%, 39% and 50% respectively. Furthermore, this region had proteins homologous to the RP4 plasmid conjugative transfer protein TraQ, the plasmid partitioning protein ParA and to various hypothetical proteins. Collectively, these findings showed that this region is a plasmid derived genomic island, which we have named the C. concisus plasmid integrative island A (CON_PiiA) (Fig. 5A and Table 4). Two additional enteric C. concisus strains, UNSW2 and ATCC 51562 were found to have CON_PiiA based on the annotated proteins. CON_PiiA was identified in 37.5% (3/8) of the enteric C. concisus strains isolated from individuals with enteric disease and interestingly none of the oral strains (0/27), which was statistically different (P = 0.0086). The core-genomes of multiple oral strains collected from some individuals were genetically similar (Fig. 1), which may lead to biased statistical results. Therefore, we re-analysed the data by considering multiple oral C. concisus strains from a given individual as one strain if these strains were in the same small group in Fig. 1. P24CDO-S3, P24CDO-S2 and P24CDO-S4 were considered as one strain, P2CDO3 and P2CDO-S6 were considered as one strain, P20CDO-S1 and P20CDO-S3 were considered as one strain, H21O-S1 and H21O-S5 were considered as one strain. Therefore, the total number of oral strains used for re-analysis was 22 instead of 27. The presence of CON_PiiA in enteric strains isolated from patients with enteric diseases and oral C. concisus strains was still significantly different 37.5% (3/8) vs (0/22) (P = 0.0138).

Figure 5. Genomic islands CON_PiiA and CON_PiiB.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

(A) Comparison of proteins in C. concisus strains P3UCO1 and P3UCB1 shows the insertion of CON_PiiA island in P3UCB1 strain. The identical proteins in these two strains are shaded in dark grey. (B) Proteins in CON_PiiA and CON_PiiB islands. T4SS homologous proteins are coloured orange and the putative effector proteins are coloured purple. The two proteins that had more 40% identities in CON_PiiA and CON_PiiB are shown with light grey lines. The remaining proteins in these two islands had less than 20% amino acid identities.

Table 4. Putative effector proteins and other proteins in CON_PiiA and CON_PiiB genomic islands.

CON_PiiB (strain H17O-S1) Island protein size (AA) Effector Effector size (AA) E-value Homology to known bacterial effector# Bacterial strain
Integrase 384 AnkI/legAS4 545 0.027 49% (101AA) (408–508) Legionella pneumophila
Massive surface protein MspG 433 LepB 1294 8.50E-09 44% (406AA) (590–995) L. pneumophila
Hypothetical protein@ 328 LepB 1294 0.0018 42% (250AA) (883–1132) L. pneumophila
TraQ@ 78          
Hypothetical protein 412 LaiA/SdeA 1545 0.056 44% (299AA) (1059–1357) L. pneumophila
Hypothetical protein 79 Ceg4 364 0.097 63% (27AA) (19–45) L. longbeachae
Hypothetical protein 79          
Hypothetical protein 124          
Hypothetical protein 79 TPR family protein 532 0.00093 51% (61AA) (472–532) Coxiella burnetii
Hypothetical protein 83          
Hypothetical protein 446 LepB 1294 0.0017 48% (304AA) (637–940) L. pneumophila
Hypothetical protein 38          
VirB4 821 LepB 1294 8.70E-05 46% (364AA) (859–1222) L. pneumophila
Hypothetical protein 40          
VirB8 216          
VirB9 407          
VirB10@ 407          
Hypothetical protein 68 YlfA/legC7 425 0.035 72% (32AA) (337–368) L. pneumophila
VirB11 315          
Hypothetical protein 136 YlfB/legC2 405 0.023 53% (91AA) (152–242) L. pneumophila
Hypothetical protein 621          
Hypothetical protein 65 Lem19 416 0.034 54% (26AA) (162–187) L. pneumophila
Hypothetical protein 285 hypothetical 230 0.049 46% (162AA) (48–209) L. pneumophila
Hypothetical protein 91          
Hypothetical protein 406          
DNA topoisomerase I 651 CagA 1230 0.0016 39% (234AA) (655–878) Helicobacter pylori G27
Single-stranded DNA-binding protein 133          
EcoRI methylase/methyltransferase 332          
Hypothetical protein 67 Ceg2 274 0.026 52% (33AA) (107–139) L. pneumophila
ParA* 214 PieA/lirC 699 0.1 44% (188AA) (425–612) L. pneumophila
Hypothetical protein 45          
Hypothetical protein 119          
Hypothetical protein 78          
Hypothetical protein* 67 hypothetical 205 0.00029 62% (29AA) (19–47) L. pneumophila
Hypothetical protein 188 hypothetical 216 0.079 49% (51AA) (123–173) L. pneumophila
Hypothetical protein 53          
Initiator replication protein 267          
CON_PiiB (strain H17O-S1) Island protein size (AA) Effector Effector size (AA) E-value Homology to effector# Bacterial strain
Integrase 417          
Hypothetical protein 38          
VirB4 929          
VirB5@ 264 LepA 1119 0.015 45% (100AA) (235–334) L. pneumophila
VirB6 388          
Hypothetical protein 81 hypothetical 162 0.0018 54% (50AA) (18–67) L. pneumophila
VirB8 234 Ceg28 1159 0.089 43% (136AA) (90–225) L. pneumophila
Hypothetical protein 91          
Hypothetical protein 182 AnkD/legA15 473 0.0045 45% (176AA) (295–470) L. pneumophila
VirB9@ 315          
VirB10 381          
VirB11 333          
VirD4 717 LaiA/SdeA 1506 0.00056 53% (91AA) (1131–1221) L. pneumophila
Hypothetical protein 73          
Cag pathogenicity island protein 12@ 156          
TraQ@ 234          
Hypothetical protein 323 LepB 1294 6.60E-07 46% (273AA) (840–1112) L. pneumophila
Hypothetical protein 248 hypothetical 311 0.1 49% (88AA) (177–264) L. pneumophila
DNA topoisomerase III 748          
Hypothetical protein 170          
Hypothetical protein 415 CagA 1230 5.60E-05 50% (229AA) (649–877) Helicobacter pylori G27
Hpa2 protein@ 166          
DNA primase 334          
Hypothetical protein 60 MavC 482 0.023 69% (29AA) (138–166) L. pneumophila
Helicase 1922 LepB 1294 0.0096 58% (101AA) (906–1006) L. pneumophila
Hypothetical protein 236          
Hypothetical protein 99 Lem27 564 0.048 48% (62AA) (322–383) L. pneumophila
ParA* 220          
Hypothetical protein 128          
Abieii 271          
Hypothetical protein 89 hypothetical 494 0.068 55% (47AA) (445–491) L. pneumophila
TraR 446 RavB 296 0.016 47% (118AA) (77–194) L. pneumophila
Hypothetical protein 187 SdhB 1875 0.014 47% (145AA) (1035–1179) L. pneumophila
Hypothetical protein 73 hypothetical 208 0.00014 53% (60AA) (10–69) L. pneumophila
Hypothetical protein 143          
Hypothetical protein* 67 hypothetical 205 0.00029 46% (39AA) (19–47) L. pneumophila
Hypothetical protein 478          
Hypothetical protein 232          
Open in a new tab

AA: amino acid.

#The homology of putative effector proteins in CON_PiiA and CON_PiiB islands to known bacterial effector proteins based on BLASTp was expressed as % similarity (the number of amino acids used for comparison) (the start and end position of the known bacterial effector proteins that matched).

@Proteins predicted to contain a signal peptide.

*The two proteins in CON_PiiA and CON_PiiB had more than 40% identities and the remaining proteins in these two islands had less than 20% identities.

We found a second genomic island in oral C. concisus strains. A contig in H17O-S1 strain contained the entire island, which was closely examined. Like P3UCB1 strain, H17O-S1 strain had a region containing genes encoding homologues of VirB4 (44% similarity), VirB8 (45%), VirB9 (40%), VirB10 (49%) and VirB11 (49%). Additionally there were proteins homologous to TraQ and various hypothetical proteins. Furthermore, H17O-S1 strain contained genes encoding homologues of VirB5 (33%), VirB6 (32%) and VirD4 (43%) from the Ti plasmid in A. tumefaciens, which were not seen in CON_PiiA (Table 4). Repetitive sequences (AGTCCTGGTGAACCCACCA), indicative of attachment sites, were found between an integrase and tRNA-Met-CAT at the positions of 675,445–675,463 bp and 714,647–714,667 bp. Except for two proteins, this region had less than 20% amino acid identities to proteins in CON_PiiA. We named this region C. concisus plasmid integrative island B (CON_PiiB), which was 38,653 bp in length (Fig. 5B). The nine VirB proteins and some CON_PiiB proteins were also found in the remaining four oral C. concisus strains from two individuals including three strains from one patient with CD (P21CDO-S1, P21CDO-S2, P21CDO-S4), and one strain from a healthy individual (H14O-S1). However, the contigs in the three strains from the patient with CD were not long enough to reveal the entire sequence of CON_PiiB island. CON_PiiB was found in 18.5% (5/27) oral C. concisus strains and none of the enteric strains (0/9), which was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). The prevalence of CON_PiiB in oral strains isolated from healthy individuals and patients with IBD was 20% (2/10) and 18.8% (3/16) respectively, which was not statistically significant (P > 0.05).

Potential effector proteins within CON_PiiA and CON_PiiB islands were found. A number of proteins in both islands had similarities to Legionella pneumophila virulence effector proteins, most of which, such as LepB and LepA, are involved in intracellular survival of the pathogen25,26,27,28,29. One protein had similarities to Helicobacter pylori cytotoxin-associated protein A (CagA), which is a virulence factor associated with more severe disease states in H. pylori infection30. The details of the comparison between proteins in CON_PiiA and CON_PiiB islands and effector proteins are shown in Table 4.

Discussion

We performed comparative genome analysis of 36 C. concisus strains, of which 27 strains were sequenced in this study.

Previous studies using different molecular methods such as AFLP, analysis of housekeeping genes and PCR of the 23S rRNA gene showed that C. concisus has two genomospecies15,16,17,18,19,20,21. There was some evidence that C. concisus strains of these two genomospecies may have different pathogenic potential15,16,17,18,19,20,21. For example, strains invasive to intestinal epithelial cells were often found in GS210,11. Despite these findings, there is a lack of understanding regarding these two C. concisus genomospecies at the genome level.

In this study, for the first time we compared the genomes of C. concisus strains from different genomospecies, which revealed new genomic features of this bacterium. We analysed the nine publically available C. concisus genomes, together with the genomes of additional 27 C. concisus strains that we have sequenced. We generated the C. concisus core-genome from these 36 C. concisus strains. The core-genome, the sequences of six housekeeping genes and the 23S rRNA gene consistently assigned these C. concisus strains into two genomospecies (Figs 1, 2, 3). The enteric strains did not form distinct groups within both genomospecies, further supporting our previous theory that some oral C. concisus strains may cause enteric disease when colonizing the intestinal tract3,31,32. The previous study examining eight C. concisus strains reported that 16S rRNA gene of C. concisus strains was able to differentiate C. concisus strains isolated from patients with CD and gastroenteritis, this was not observed in our study where 36 C. concisus strains were examined (Fig. 4)24.

We found nine genes that were specific to GS1 C. concisus strains and fourteen genes that were specific to GS2 C. concisus strains, some of which encode proteins that may contribute to the survival and pathogenicity of C. concisus (Table 2). For example, three of the nine GS1-specific genes encode proteins involved in phosphate transport (PstS, PstA, PstC), suggesting that strains of GS1 and GS2 may differ in their phosphate uptake. Aquaporin Z was found in all GS2 C. concisus strains, but not in any GS1 strains. Aquaporin Z is a protein that moves water across bacterial membranes to maintain intracellular osmotic pressure33. The finding that GS2 C. concisus strains have aquaporin Z suggests that they may have enhanced abilities in adapting to environments where osmolarity frequently changes.

The type I CRISPR system, which has the Cas3 protein, was found in 78.6% (22/28) of GS2 C. concisus strains (Table 3). However, the number of CRISPR-associated proteins between C. concisus strains varied. Cas6, an endoribonuclease that generates RNAs for defense in the type I CRISPR system, was present in only five C. concisus strains. CRISPR system provides acquired immunity to plasmids and phages34,35. The CRISPR proteins found in C. concisus strains do not seem to be related to CON_phi2 prophage that contains the zonula occludens toxin gene31. The C. concisus Zot was found to damage intestinal epithelial barrier and affect the function of macrophages and the zot gene was detected in C. concisus strains from both GS1 and GS211,23,36.

Two novel C. concisus genomic islands were identified in this study. CON_PiiA and CON_PiiB islands were found in both GS1 and GS2 C. concisus strains. CON_PiiA was found in 37.5% (3/8) of enteric strains isolated from patients with enteric diseases including two patients with IBD and one patient with gastroenteritis, but not in the 27 oral C. concisus strains, a difference that was statistically significant. CON_PiiA was not found in ATCC 51561, an enteric strain isolated from faecal samples of a healthy individual. CON_PiiB was found in 18.5% (5/27) of oral C. concisus strains and none of the enteric strains, this difference did not reach statistical significance. Collectively, these data suggest that the CON_PiiA island may preferably integrate into enteric C. concisus strains isolated from patients with enteric diseases. However, the numbers of enteric C. concisus strains included in this study were small, larger numbers of enteric C. concisus strains need to be examined to confirm this finding.

Both CON_PiiA and CON_PiiB islands contained T4SS homologous proteins. The T4SS system is used by microorganisms to transport macromolecules such as proteins or DNA across the cell envelope37. T4SS may be involved in plasmid conjugation, uptake or release of DNA or transfer effector proteins into host cells38. The well-studied H. pylori cag pathogenicity island encodes proteins homologous to VirB2, VirB4, VirB5, VirB7, VirB9, VirB10, VirB11 and VirD4; these proteins deliver effector proteins such as CagA to host cells through the formation of a pilus39. Putative effector proteins similar to L. pneumophila and H. pylori virulence effector proteins were found in both CON_PiiA and CON_PiiB islands. The virulence effector proteins in L. pneumophila are mainly involved in bacterial survival within macrophages25,26,27,28,29. H. pylori CagA virulence factor is associated with gastric cancer30. Given that the two novel C. concisus genomic islands found in this study contained proteins similar to T4SS and their effector proteins found in human pathogens, CON_PiiA and CON_PiiB islands are likely to be involved in C. concisus virulence. However, the putative effector proteins found in CON_PiiA and CON_PiiB islands had similarities to only a fragment of CagA and L. pneumophila effector proteins. Their true virulence requires confirmation by characterization of individual proteins in these islands.

To our knowledge, this is the first study examining the genomes of C. concisus strains of different genomospecies. We sequenced the genomes of 27 C. concisus strains and performed comparative genome analysis of 36 C. concisus strains. We generated the core-genome from 36 C. concisus strains. The C. concisus core-genome, six housekeeping genes and 23S rRNA gene consistently divided the 36 strains into two genomospecies. We also identified GS1 and GS2 C. concisus specific genes. Furthermore, we identified two novel genomic islands that contained T4SS homologous proteins and putative effector virulence proteins; CON_PiiA appeared to be associated with enteric C. concisus strains isolated from patients with enteric diseases. The new C. concisus genomic features obtained from this study provide novel insights into understanding of the pathogenicity of this emerging opportunistic pathogen.

Methods

C. concisus strains used for genome sequencing

C. concisus strains sequenced in this study were isolated from saliva samples or intestinal biopsies in our previous studies3,6,11,22. The genomes of 27 C. concisus strains were sequenced. C. concisus strains were grown on Horse Blood Agar (HBA) plates as previously described1. DNA was extracted from each C. concisus strain using the Gentra Puregene Yeast/Bacteria Kit according to the manufacturer’s instructions (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany). The quality of DNA was checked using Nanodrop and Qubit Fluorometer. Bacterial genomic DNA (1 ng) was used for genomic library generation in accordance with the Nextera XT protocol (Ver. May 2012). Libraries were sequenced for a 250 bp paired-end sequencing run using Nextera XT V2 on the MiSeq Personal Sequencer running version 1.1.1 MiSeq Control Software (Illumina Inc., San Diego, CA, USA). Reagent contamination was controlled by barcoding all DNA samples and preparation of barcoding index primers for a single use. The quality of reads was assessed based on the Phred quality score of the reads. The reads mapping fold coverage was calculated using qualimap_v2.040. We aimed to get a fold coverage of at least 50X for each genome, which was shown to be adequate for characterization of genomes41.

Draft genome assembly and identification of C. concisus pan- and core-genome

In addition to the above 27 C. concisus strains sequenced in this study, nine C. concisus genomes that are available in NCBI database were also included for analysis, of which seven genomes were from a previous study24. The accession numbers of these nine C. concisus genomes are ANNF00000000, ANNJ00000000, ANNE00000000, AENQ00000000, ANNG00000000, ANNH00000000, ANNI00000000, CP000792.1, NZ_CP012541.1. The genomes of strains 13826 and ATCC 33237 (accession numbers CP000792.1, NZ_CP012541.1) were fully sequenced and the remaining genomes were draft genomes. Thus, a total of 36 C. concisus strains were analysed in this study including 27 oral strains and nine enteric strains.

The raw reads were assembled using St. Petersburg genome assembler to obtain the draft genomes (SPAdes, Ver. 3.6.1)42 (Table 1). Gene annotation was performed using a combination of Rapid Annotations using Subsystems Technology server (RAST, Ver. 2.0) and Prokka (Ver. 1.11)43,44. The pan- and core-genome for the 36 C. concisus strains were defined by the Rapid large-scale prokaryote pan-genome analysis software (Roary, Ver. 3.5.7)45. The genome function analysis was performed as described previously46. Briefly, the protein sequences were extracted from the annotated genomes and blasted against the NCBI COG database (ver. 2014). Genes with COG assignment were then categorised in a list of functional groups.

Phylogenetic analysis based on the C. concisus core-genome, sequences of housekeeping genes, 23S and 16S rRNA genes

The phylogenetic tree based on the C. concisus core-genome was generated using Roary45. The neighbour-joining method was used to generate phylogenetic trees based on housekeeping genes, 23S rRNA genes and 16S rRNA genes of the 36 C. concisus strains examined in this study, which were performed using Molecular Evolutionary Genetic Analysis software version 6.06 (MEGA 6.06) with 1,000 bootstrap replications47. The six housekeeping genes were previously shown to be able to define C. concisus genomospecies, including aspartase A (aspA), glutamine synthetase (glnA), transketolase (tkt), aspartate semialdehyde dehydrogenase (asd), ATP synthase F1 alpha subunit (atpA) and glucose-6-isomerase (pgi)18. The sequences of housekeeping genes, 23S and 16S rRNA genes from a Campylobacter jejuni strain (GenBank accession no. NC_002163) were used as an outgroup.

Identification of genomospecies-specific genes

The annotated genes of the 36 C. concisus strains representing the two genomospecies were compared using Roary to determine candidate genes that were specific to GS1 or GS2. A GS1-specific gene refers to a gene that is present in all GS1 strains and absent in all GS2 strains analysed in this study. Similarly, a GS2-specific gene refers to a gene that is present in all GS2 strains and absent in all GS1 strains. To confirm the presence and absence of genomospecies-specific genes, the assemblies from each of the genome were searched with BLASTn (BLAST+, Ver. 2.2.31) and BLASTx (BLAST+, Ver. 2.2.31)48. To ensure the absence of genomospecies-specific genes were not due to issues with assemblies and sequencing artefacts, raw reads were mapped with Burrows-Wheeler Aligner (BWA, Ver. 0.7.12)49. Finally flanking regions of the absent genes were confirmed to be located on the same contig.

Identification of genomic islands and the putative effector proteins

Two C. concisus genomic islands containing T4SS homologous proteins were identified in this study, which were based on the comparison of the flanked genes in C. concisus strains, the presence of integrases and attachment sites, the sizes of the regions, and the presence of plasmid-associated genes. Clustal Omega was used to compare protein sequences between islands50. The effector proteins were identified by comparing the proteins in the identified genomic islands with the proteins in the T4SS secretion system effector protein database SecReT4 using WU-BLAST on default settings51.

Statistical analysis

Fisher’s exact test (two tailed) was used to compare the prevalence of CON_PiiA and CON_PiiB islands in enteric and oral C. concisus strains. Statistical analysis was performed using GraphPad Prism 6 software (San Diego, CA).

GenBank sequence submission

Raw reads of the 27 C. concisus strains sequenced in this study were submitted to Sequence Reads Archive in GenBank under the BioProject number PRJNA348396.

Additional Information

How to cite this article: Chung, H. K. L. et al. Genome analysis of Campylobacter concisus strains from patients with inflammatory bowel disease and gastroenteritis provides new insights into pathogenicity. Sci. Rep. 6, 38442; doi: 10.1038/srep38442 (2016).

Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Material

Supplementary Information
srep38442-s1.pdf (187.8KB, pdf)

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Faculty Research Grant from the University of New South Wales awarded to LZ (PS35329), NHMRC grant number 572723, the Western Australian Government’s Department of Commerce and Department of Health, and the University of Western Australia’s Special Infrastructure Fund.

Footnotes

Author Contributions H.K.L.C., A.T., S.O., J.Q.C., F.L. and R.M. performed bioinformatics analysis and preparation of bacterial DNA. R.L. and S.O. provided important feedback and guidance on bioinformatics analysis. L.Z., A.T., S.M.R. and M.G. conceived the project. H.K.L.C., L.Z., A.T., S.O., F.L., R.L., M.G., R.M., S.M.R. and J.Q.C. wrote the manuscript.

References

  1. Lee H. et al. Examination of the anaerobic growth of Campylobacter concisus strains. Int J Microbiol 2014, 476047, doi: 10.1155/2014/476047 (2014). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Lastovica A. J., On S. L. W. & Zhang L. In The Prokaryotes: The family Campylobacteraceae 307–335 (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2014). [Google Scholar]
  3. Zhang L. et al. Isolation and detection of Campylobacter concisus from saliva of healthy individuals and patients with inflammatory bowel disease. J Clin Microbiol 48, 2965–2967, doi: 10.1128/JCM.02391-09 (2010). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Zhang L. et al. Detection and isolation of Campylobacter species other than C. jejuni from children with Crohn’s disease. J Clin Microbiol 47, doi: 10.1128/JCM.01949-08 (2009). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Mukhopadhya I. et al. Detection of Campylobacter concisus and other Campylobacter species in colonic biopsies from adults with ulcerative colitis. PLoS One 6, e21490, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0021490 (2011). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Mahendran V. et al. Prevalence of Campylobacter species in adult Crohn’s disease and the preferential colonization sites of Campylobacter species in the human intestine. PLoS One 6, e25417, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0025417 (2011). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Kirk K. F., Nielsen H. L., Thorlacius-Ussing O. & Nielsen H. Optimized cultivation of Campylobacter concisus from gut mucosal biopsies in inflammatory bowel disease. Gut Pathog 8, 27, doi: 10.1186/s13099-016-0111-7 (2016). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Lastovica A. J. Clinical relevance of Campylobacter concisus isolated from pediatric patients. J Clin Microbiol 47, 2360, doi: 10.1128/jcm.00568-09 (2009). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Nielsen H. L., Engberg J., Ejlertsen T. & Nielsen H. Clinical manifestations of Campylobacter concisus infection in children. The Pediatr Infect Dis J 32, 1194–1198, doi: 10.1097/INF.0b013e31829f0aff (2013). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Ismail Y. et al. Investigation of the enteric pathogenic potential of oral Campylobacter concisus strains isolated from patients with inflammatory bowel disease. PLoS One 7, e38217, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0038217 (2012). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Mahendran V. et al. Examination of the effects of Campylobacter concisus zonula occludens toxin on intestinal epithelial cells and macrophages. Gut Pathog 8, 1–10, doi: 10.1186/s13099-016-0101-9 (2016). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Ismail Y., Lee H., Riordan S. M., Grimm M. C. & Zhang L. The effects of oral and enteric Campylobacter concisus strains on expression of TLR4, MD-2, TLR2, TLR5 and COX-2 in HT-29 cells. PLoS One 8, e56888, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0056888 (2013). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Nielsen H. L. et al. Oral and fecal Campylobacter concisus strains perturb barrier function by apoptosis induction in HT-29/B6 intestinal epithelial cells. PLoS One 6, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0023858 (2011). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Vandamme P. et al. Identification of EF group 22 campylobacters from gastroenteritis cases as Campylobacter concisus. J Clin Microbiol 27 (1989). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Aabenhus R., On S. L., Siemer B. L., Permin H. & Andersen L. P. Delineation of Campylobacter concisus genomospecies by amplified fragment length polymorphism analysis and correlation of results with clinical data. J Clin Microbiol 43, doi: 10.1128/JCM.43.10.5091-5096.2005 (2005). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Kalischuk L. & Inglis G. D. Comparative genotypic and pathogenic examination of Campylobacter concisus isolates from diarrheic and non-diarrheic humans. BMC Microbiol 11, doi: 10.1186/1471-2180-11-53 (2011). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Miller W. G. et al. Multilocus sequence typing methods for the emerging Campylobacter species C. hyointestinalis, C. lanienae, C. sputorum, C. concisus, and C. curvus. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 2, 45, doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2012.00045 (2012). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Mahendran V. et al. Delineation of genetic relatedness and population structure of oral and enteric Campylobacter concisus strains by analysis of housekeeping genes. Microbiology 161, 1600–1612, doi: 10.1099/mic.0.000112 (2015). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Engberg J. et al. Campylobacter concisus: an evaluation of certain phenotypic and genotypic characteristics. Clin Microbiol Infect 11, doi: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2005.01111.x (2005). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Istivan T. Molecular characterisation of Campylobacter concisus: a potential etiological agent of gastroenteritis in children, School of Applied Sciences, RMIT University (2005). [Google Scholar]
  21. On S. L. W. e. a. Characterisation of Campylobacter concisus strains from South Africa using amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) profiling and a genomospecies-specific polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay: Identification of novel genomospecies and correlation with clinical data. Afr J Microbiol Res 7, 1845–1851, doi: 10.5897/AJMR12.2182 (2013). [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Nielsen H. L., Nielsen H. & Torpdahl M. Multilocus sequence typing of Campylobacter concisus from Danish diarrheic patients. Gut Pathog 8, 44, doi: 10.1186/s13099-016-0126-0 (2016). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Mahendran V. et al. The prevalence and polymorphisms of zonula occluden toxin gene in multiple Campylobacter concisus strains isolated from saliva of patients with inflammatory bowel disease and controls. PLoS One 8, e75525, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0075525 (2013). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Deshpande N. P., Kaakoush N. O., Wilkins M. R. & Mitchell H. M. Comparative genomics of Campylobacter concisus isolates reveals genetic diversity and provides insights into disease association. BMC Genomics 14, 585–585, doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-14-585 (2013). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Chen J. et al. Legionella effectors that promote nonlytic release from protozoa. Science (New York, N.Y.) 303, 1358–1361, doi: 10.1126/science.1094226 (2004). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Ingmundson A., Delprato A., Lambright D. G. & Roy C. R. Legionella pneumophila proteins that regulate Rab1 membrane cycling. Nature 450, 365–369, doi: 10.1038/nature06336 (2007). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Chang B., Kura F., Amemura-Maekawa J., Koizumi N. & Watanabe H. Identification of a novel adhesion molecule involved in the virulence of Legionella pneumophila. Infect Immun 73, 4272–4280, doi: 10.1128/iai.73.7.4272-4280.2005 (2005). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Campodonico E. M., Chesnel L. & Roy C. R. A yeast genetic system for the identification and characterization of substrate proteins transferred into host cells by the Legionella pneumophila Dot/Icm system. Mol Microbiol 56, 918–933, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2005.04595.x (2005). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. de Felipe K. S. et al. Legionella eukaryotic-like type IV substrates interfere with organelle trafficking. PLoS Pathog 4, e1000117, doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1000117 (2008). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Parsonnet J., Friedman G. D., Orentreich N. & Vogelman H. Risk for gastric cancer in people with CagA positive or CagA negative Helicobacter pylori infection. Gut 40, 297–301 (1997). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Zhang L. et al. Campylobacter concisus and inflammatory bowel disease. World J Gastroenterol 20, 1259–1267, doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i5.1259 (2014). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Zhang L. Oral Campylobacter species: initiators of a subgroup of inflammatory bowel disease? World J Gastroenterol 21, doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i31.9239 (2015). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Ren Z. et al. Cross-immunoreactivity between bacterial aquaporin-Z and human aquaporin-4: potential relevance to neuromyelitis optica. J Immunol 189, 4602–4611, doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1200486 (2012). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Barrangou R. et al. CRISPR provides acquired resistance against viruses in prokaryotes. Science (New York, N.Y.) 315, 1709–1712, doi: 10.1126/science.1138140 (2007). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Hale C. R. et al. RNA-guided RNA cleavage by a CRISPR RNA-Cas protein complex. Cell 139, 945–956, doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2009.07.040 (2009). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Liu F., Lee H., Lan R. & Zhang L. Zonula occludens toxins and their prophages in Campylobacter species. Gut Pathog 8, 43, doi: 10.1186/s13099-016-0125-1 (2016). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Rego A. T., Chandran V. & Waksman G. Two-step and one-step secretion mechanisms in Gram-negative bacteria: contrasting the type IV secretion system and the chaperone-usher pathway of pilus biogenesis. Biochem J 425, 475–488, doi: 10.1042/bj20091518 (2010). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Cascales E. & Christie P. J. The versatile bacterial type IV secretion systems. Nat Rev Microbiol 1, 137–149, doi: 10.1038/nrmicro753 (2003). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Jiménez-Soto L. F. et al. Helicobacter pylori type IV secretion apparatus exploits β1 integrin in a novel RGD-independent manner. PLoS Pathog 5, e1000684, doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1000684 (2009). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Garcia-Alcalde F. et al. Qualimap: evaluating next-generation sequencing alignment data. Bioinformatics 28, 2678–2679, doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts503 (2012). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Desai A. et al. Identification of optimum sequencing depth especially for de novo genome assembly of small genomes using next generation sequencing data. PLoS ONE 8, e60204, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0060204 (2013). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Bankevich A. et al. 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 (2012). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Aziz R. K. et al. The RAST server: rapid annotations using subsystems technology. BMC Genomics 9, 75, doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-9-75 (2008). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Seemann T. Prokka: rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics 30, 2068–2069, doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu153 (2014). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Page A. J. et al. Roary: rapid large-scale prokaryote pan genome analysis. Bioinformatics 31, 3691–3693, doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv421 (2015). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Tatusov R. L. et al. The COG database: an updated version includes eukaryotes. BMC bioinformatics 4, 41, doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-4-41 (2003). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Tamura K., Stecher G., Peterson D., Filipski A. & Kumar S. MEGA6: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 6.0. Mol Biol Evol 30, 2725–2729, doi: 10.1093/molbev/mst197 (2013). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Altschul S. F., Gish W., Miller W., Myers E. W. & Lipman D. J. Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol 215, 403–410, doi: 10.1016/s0022-2836(05)80360-2 (1990). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Li H. & Durbin R. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics 25, doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp324 (2009). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Sievers F. et al. Fast, scalable generation of high-quality protein multiple sequence alignments using Clustal Omega. Mol Syst Biol 7, 539, doi: 10.1038/msb.2011.75 (2011). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Bi D. et al. SecReT4: a web-based bacterial type IV secretion system resource. Nucleic Acids Res 41, D660–665, doi: 10.1093/nar/gks1248 (2013). [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.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Information
srep38442-s1.pdf (187.8KB, pdf)

Articles from Scientific Reports are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES