ABSTRACT
Aeromonas hydrophila is a Gram-negative bacterium that is particularly adapted to freshwater environments and can cause severe infections in fish and humans. Here, we report the draft genomes of three A. hydrophila catfish and tilapia isolates.
GENOME ANNOUNCEMENT
Aeromonas hydrophila is a Gram-negative opportunistic pathogen that is affiliated with the Gammaproteobacteria class in the family Aeromonadales. A. hydrophila is ubiquitously found in aquatic environments and is an etiologic agent of motile aeromonad septicemia (MAS) in fish. It is also able to cause severe infections in mammals, including humans. Aeromonas is a highly diverse genus, inhabiting a variety of aquatic ecosystems and host organisms (1). Since 2009, A. hydrophila has been negatively affecting the catfish aquaculture industry in the southeast United States, and our research group has been investigating its molecular mechanisms of disease.
The A. hydrophila outbreaks on catfish farms are caused by a clonal group of virulent A. hydrophila (vAh) isolates. We have released one complete genome (strain ML09-119) (2) and four draft genomes (strains AL10-121, AL09-79, ML09-121, and ML09-122) that represent this clonal group of vAh affecting catfish (3). For comparison, we have also released one complete genome (strain AL06-06; goldfish isolate) (4) and one draft genome (A. hydrophila TN97-08; bluegill isolate) isolated from other fish species (5). Here, we report the draft genomes of three additional A. hydrophila genomes for comparison purposes, one isolated from diseased catfish (strain Arkansas 2010) and two isolated from diseased tilapia (strains AL97-91 and MN98-04). Comparative genomics of these strains will enable a better understanding of the variation in virulence genes and antigenic structures of fish-pathogenic A. hydrophila.
A. hydrophila Arkansas 2010, AL97-91, and MN98-04 were sequenced using an Illumina Genome Analyzer IIx (11,143,909 reads with 301× coverage, 6,018,377 reads with 168× coverage, and 7,578,657 reads with 211× coverage, respectively). Read trimming, error correction, and contig creation were conducted using CLC Genomics Workbench version 6.5.1 (CLC Bio) and version Sequencher 5.4.5 (Gene Codes Corporation). Plasmids were sequenced by the Massachusetts General Center for Computational and Integrative Biology (https://dnacore.mgh.harvard.edu).
The draft genomes and their plasmids were submitted to the NCBI Prokaryotic Genome Annotation Pipeline (PGAP) (6) for annotation. For additional annotation and analyses, draft genomes were submitted to the Rapid Annotations using Subsystems Technology (RAST) server (7, 8). General features of the draft A. hydrophila genomes are summarized in Table 1. The average nucleotide identity (ANI mean) against the genomes of previously sequenced strains ML09-119 and AL06-06 was calculated using EDGAR (9). Interestingly, the ANI mean between the genomes of strain Arkansas 2010 and vAh strain ML09-119 indicates that Arkansas 2010 is a member of the vAh clonal group. Strain Arkansas 2010 resulted from vAh-infected fish being transported from Alabama to Arkansas.
TABLE 1 .
Summary of genome sequencing results in the present study
| Strain | Genome size (bp) | No. of contigs | Plasmid availability/size | Predicted genes/protein coding sequences | No. of tRNAs | Accession no. | ANIa comparison against A. hydrophila ML09-119 | ANI comparison against A. hydrophila AL06-06 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arkansas 2010 | 4,973,555 | 12 | No | 4,470/4,315 | 93 | LYZH00000000 | 99.99 | 96.98 |
| AL97-91 | 4,830,274 | 42 | Yes/6,741 bp | 4,423/4,257 | 97 | LYZF00000000 | 96.95 | 97.18 |
| MN98-04 | 4,882,939 | 46 | Yes/2,867 bp | 4,476/4,308 | 99 | LYZG00000000 | 96.94 | 97.18 |
ANI, average nucleotide identity.
Compared to previously published A. hydrophila genomes (2, 4), our findings showed that the genomes of strains Arkansas 2010, AL97-91, and MN98-04 carry toxin-antitoxin replicon stabilization system components. Additionally, the AL97-91 and MN98-04 genomes reveal the uniqueness of these strains, in that they are capable of utilizing taurine.
Accession number(s).
The draft genome sequences of A. hydrophila strains Arkansas 2010, AL97-91, and MN98-04 were deposited in GenBank, and their accession numbers are found in Table 1.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work supported by USDA NIFA grant 2013-67015-21313, Mississippi State University College of Veterinary Medicine, and the USDA Agricultural Research Service CRIS project 6402-31000-009-00D.
Footnotes
Citation Tekedar HC, Kumru S, Kalindamar S, Karsi A, Waldbieser GC, Sonstegard T, Schroeder SG, Liles MR, Griffin MJ, Lawrence ML. 2017. Draft genome sequences of three Aeromonas hydrophila isolates from catfish and tilapia. Genome Announc 5:e01509-16. https://doi.org/10.1128/genomeA.01509-16.
REFERENCES
- 1.Janda JM, Abbott SL. 2010. The genus Aeromonas: taxonomy, pathogenicity, and infection. Clin Microbiol Rev 23:35–73. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00039-09. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Tekedar HC, Waldbieser GC, Karsi A, Liles MR, Griffin MJ, Vamenta S, Sonstegard T, Hossain M, Schroeder SG, Khoo L, Lawrence ML. 2013. Complete genome sequence of a channel catfish epidemic isolate, Aeromonas hydrophila strain ML09-119. Genome Announc 1(5):e00755-13. doi: 10.1128/genomeA.00755-13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Tekedar HC, Kumru S, Karsi A, Waldbieser GC, Sonstegard T, Schroeder SG, Liles MR, Griffin MJ, Lawrence ML. 2016. Draft genome sequences of four virulent Aeromonas hydrophila strains from catfish aquaculture. Genome Announc 4(4):e00860-16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Tekedar HC, Karsi A, Akgul A, Kalindamar S, Waldbieser GC, Sonstegard T, Schroeder SG, Lawrence ML. 2015. Complete genome sequence of fish pathogen Aeromonas hydrophila AL06-06. Genome Announc 3(2):e00368-15. doi: 10.1128/genomeA.00368-15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Tekedar HC, Kumru S, Karsi A, Waldbieser GC, Sonstegard T, Schroeder SG, Liles MR, Griffin MJ, Lawrence ML. 2016. Draft genome sequence of Aeromonas hydrophila TN97-08. Genome Announc 4(3):e00436-16. doi: 10.1128/genomeA.00436-16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.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 (meta)genomic annotation. Omics 12:137–141. doi: 10.1089/omi.2008.0017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.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. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-9-75. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Overbeek R, Olson R, Pusch GD, Olsen GJ, Davis JJ, Disz T, Edwards RA, Gerdes S, Parrello B, Shukla M, Vonstein V, Wattam AR, Xia F, Stevens R. 2014. The SEED and the rapid annotation of microbial genomes using subsystems technology (RAST). Nucleic Acids Res 42:D206–D214. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkt1226. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Blom J, Albaum SP, Doppmeier D, Pühler A, Vorhölter FJ, Zakrzewski M, Goesmann A. 2009. EDGAR: a software framework for the comparative analysis of prokaryotic genomes. BMC Bioinformatics 10:154. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-10-154. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]