ABSTRACT
Lactobacillus helveticus D75 and D76 were isolated from the intestinal tract of a healthy child. Both strains possess symbiotic, probiotic, and antagonistic activities. We have sequenced and annotated the whole genomes of L. helveticus D75 and D76 and have conducted a preliminary genome comparative analysis.
GENOME ANNOUNCEMENT
Lactobacillus helveticus D75 and D76 have pronounced fermentative and probiotic activities (1). It was important to have information that was as complete as possible about the genomes of L. helveticus strains D75 and D76 to understand the mechanisms of regulation of their probiotic activity and syntrophic interactions.
L. helveticus D75 and D76 were grown on de Man-Rogosa-Sharpe (MRS) medium (2) at 37°C up to the mid-exponential-growth phase. The modified method of cell lysis of Gram-positive bacteria and the conventional method of DNA extraction with organic solvents were used to obtain the chromosomal DNA (3). The cell lysis consisted of two phases. Initially, a Tris-EDTA buffer containing mutanolysin (final concentration, 300 U/ml) and lysozyme (final concentration, 2 mg/ml) was added to the cell pellet, and the resulting mixture was incubated at 37°C for 1 h. Then, a solution containing sodium dodecyl sulfate (final concentration, 1.5%) and proteinase K (final concentration, 1 mg/ml) was added, and the mixture was incubated at 50°C for 1 h.
Both genomic DNAs were sequenced using the PacBio RS II platform (Macrogen, Inc., Republic of Korea) (4–7). Genome libraries consisting of 150,292 and 166,471 reads with N50 values of 22,778 bp and 10,700 bp were obtained for L. helveticus D75 and D76, respectively. The HGAP algorithm in the SMRT Analysis pipeline version 2.3.0 was used to assemble the genomes of L. helveticus D75 and D76 from PacBio RS raw reads (8). The lengths of the whole genomes obtained were 2,053,066 bp (with 422× read multiplicity) and 2,058,319 bp (with 375× read multiplicity) for the L. helveticus D75 and D76 strains, respectively.
The genome annotations of L. helveticus D75 and D76 were done using the Prokaryotic Genome Annotation Pipeline (PGAP) algorithm of the National Center for Biotechnological Information (NCBI) (9). The annotated genome of L. helveticus D75 contained 2,092 coding sequences (CDS), with 1,693 protein-coding genes, 64 tRNA genes, and 15 rRNA genes. The total number of pseudogenes was 317. L. helveticus D76 includes 2,068 CDS, with 1,986 protein-coding genes, 64 tRNA genes, and 15 rRNA genes. The total number of pseudogenes was 265. The BLASTn algorithm was applied for preliminary genome comparative analysis of L. helveticus D75 and D76 with the genomes of L. helveticus DPC4571 and L. helveticus R0052, which were annotated and deposited in GenBank (10, 11). The L. helveticus D75 and D76 strains had 99.18% identity (90.65% coverage) and 97.73% identity (80.45% coverage) to the genomes of the DPC4571 and R0052 strains, respectively.
Calculating the average nucleotide identity (ANI) (12–14) showed that the genome sequences of L. helveticus D75 and D76 were 99.22% identical (with 76.3% coverage of the genome) to the genomes of L. helveticus species. Therefore, D75 and D76 strains, previously attributed to L. acidophilus species (based both on phenotype and 16S rRNA genetic analysis), were reclassified as L. helveticus D75 and D76.
Accession number(s).
These whole-genome shotgun projects have been deposited in DDBJ/ENA/GenBank under the accession no. CP020029 (L. helveticus D75) and CP016827 (L. helveticus D76). The versions described in this paper are the first versions.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The study was financially supported exclusively by the State Research Institute of Highly Pure Biopreparations of the FMBA of the Russian Federation.
Footnotes
Citation Toropov VA, Vakhitov TY, Shalaeva ON, Roshchina EK, Sitkin SI. 2018. Complete genome sequences of the probiotic lactic acid bacteria Lactobacillus helveticus D75 and D76. Genome Announc 6:e01552-17. https://doi.org/10.1128/genomeA.01552-17.
REFERENCES
- 1.Vakhitov TY, Verbitskaya NB, Dobrolezh OV, Polevaya EV, Kobatov AI. 2013. The effect of probiotic and pathogenic bacteria metabolites on antagonistic activity of Lactobacillus acidophilus D No. 75. Sci J KubSAU 92:339–357. [Google Scholar]
- 2.De Man JC, Rogosa M, Sharpe ME. 1960. A medium for the cultivation of lactobacilli. J Appl Bacteriol 23:130–135. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.1960.tb00188.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Bollet C, Gevaudan MJ, de Lamballerie X, Zandotti C, de Micco P. 1991. A simple method for the isolation of chromosomal DNA from Gram positive or acid-fast bacteria. Nucleic Acids Res 19:1995. doi: 10.1093/nar/19.8.1955. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Khan IU, Yadav JS. 2004. Development of a single-tube, cell lysis-based, genus-specific PCR method for rapid identification of mycobacteria: optimization of cell lysis, PCR primers and conditions, and restriction pattern analysis. J Clin Microbiol 42:453–457. doi: 10.1128/JCM.42.1.453-457.2004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Van Soolingen D, Hermans PW, de Haas PE, Soll DR, van Embden JD. 1991. Occurrence and stability of insertion sequences in Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex strains: evaluation of an insertion sequence-dependent DNA polymorphism as a tool in the epidemiology of tuberculosis. J Clin Microbiol 29:2578–2586. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Rhoads A, Au KF. 2015. PacBio sequencing and its applications. Genomics Proteomics Bioinformatics 13:278–289. doi: 10.1016/j.gpb.2015.08.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Zhu L, Zhong J, Jia X, Liu G, Kang Y, Dong M, Zhang X, Li Q, Yue L, Li C, Fu J, Xiao J, Yan J, Zhang B, Lei M, Chen S, Lv L, Zhu B, Huang H, Chen F. 2016. Precision methylome characterization of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTBC) using PacBio single-molecule real-time (SMRT) technology. Nucleic Acids Res 44:730–743. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkv1498. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Chin CS, Alexander DH, Marks P, Klammer AA, Drake J, Heiner C, Clum A, Copeland A, Huddleston J, Eichler EE, Turner SW, Korlach J. 2013. Nonhybrid, finished microbial genome assemblies from long-read SMRT sequencing data. Nat Methods 10:563–569. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2474. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Tatusova T, DiCuccio M, Badretdin A, Chetvernin V, Nawrocki EP, Zaslavsky L, Lomsadze A, Pruitt KD, Borodovsky M, Ostell J. 2016. NCBI prokaryotic genome annotation pipeline. Nucleic Acids Res 44:6614–6624. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkw569. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Callanan M, Kaleta P, O’Callaghan J, O’Sullivan O, Jordan K, McAuliffe O, Sangrador-Vegas A, Slattery L, Fitzgerald GF, Beresford T, Ross RP. 2008. Genome sequence of Lactobacillus helveticus, an organism distinguished by selective gene loss and insertion sequence element expansion. J Bacteriol 190:727–735. doi: 10.1128/JB.01295-07. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Tompkins TA, Barreau G, Broadbent JR. 2012. Complete genome sequence of Lactobacillus helveticus R0052, a commercial probiotic strain. J Bacteriol 194:6349. doi: 10.1128/JB.01638-12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Arahal DR. 2014. Whole-genome analyses: average nucleotide identity. Methods Microbiol 41:103–122. [Google Scholar]
- 13.Goris J, Konstantinidis KT, Klappenbach JA, Coenye T, Vandamme P, Tiedje JM. 2007. DNA-DNA hybridization values and their relationship to whole-genome sequence similarities. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 57:81–91. doi: 10.1099/ijs.0.64483-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Konstantinidis KT, Tiedje JM. 2005. Genomic insights that advance the species definition for prokaryotes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102:2567–2572. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0409727102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]