Using Illumina and Nanopore reads, we assembled a high-quality draft genome sequence of Allorhizobium vitis K309T (= ATCC 49767T, = NCPPB 3554T), a phytopathogenic strain isolated from a grapevine in Australia. The hybrid approach generated 50% fewer contigs and a 3-fold increase in the N50 value compared with the previous Illumina-only assembly.
ABSTRACT
Using Illumina and Nanopore reads, we assembled a high-quality draft genome sequence of Allorhizobium vitis K309T (= ATCC 49767T, = NCPPB 3554T), a phytopathogenic strain isolated from a grapevine in Australia. The hybrid approach generated 50% fewer contigs and a 3-fold increase in the N50 value compared with the previous Illumina-only assembly.
ANNOUNCEMENT
Crown gall disease (CGD) of grapevine is a chronic disease that occurs in vineyards worldwide (1). The causal agent of CGD is commonly referred to as Agrobacterium vitis, which was recently reclassified to the genus Allorhizobium based on whole-genome phylogeny (2, 3). Virulent strains harbor a tumor-inducing (Ti) plasmid that encodes functions that cause unregulated plant cell enlargement and division that leads to the appearance of CGD tumors that synthesize novel compounds known as opines (1, 4, 5). The type strain of Allorhizobium vitis, known as K309, was isolated in 1977 from grapevine in southern Australia. The resulting K309 galls contain octopine, and this strain catabolizes octopine as a sole carbon and nitrogen source (6). The complete genome sequence of A. vitis strain S4 is the only A. vitis genome sequence that has been published to date (7). To further contribute to the genomic resource for this species, we report the high-quality whole-genome sequence of its type strain, Allorhizobium vitis K309.
Approximately 10 bacterial colonies were scraped from a 3-day-old potato dextrose agar culture using a sterile 200-µl pipette tip and transferred into SDS lysis buffer (8). Genomic DNA purification was subsequently performed as previously described (8). For Illumina sequencing, DNA was processed with the Nextera XT library preparation kit (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA) and sequenced on the MiSeq desktop sequencer (2 × 250-bp run configuration). A total of 1 µg of DNA was processed and sequenced using the SQK-MAP-104 kit (Oxford Nanopore, UK) and R9 chemistry, respectively, as previously described (9). Basecalling of the nanopore reads was performed with Albacore v2.3.1 (Oxford Nanopore). Adapter trimming of the Illumina reads was performed using Trimmomatic v0.3.6 (10), and Nanopore reads shorter than 1,000 bp were removed. The processed reads were assembled with Unicycler v0.4.4 (11).
Hybrid assembly of 1.5 million Illumina paired-end reads and 5,224 Nanopore reads generated 22 contigs with a total length of 5.75 megabases (N50 value, 999,201 bp; GC content, 57.55%), presenting a substantial improvement to the unpublished first draft genome sequence of strain K309T (GenBank accession number LMVL01000000; 42 contigs; N50 value, 331,122 bp). The NCBI Prokaryotic Genome Annotation Pipeline (PGAP) (12) predicted 4,998 protein-coding sequences, 3 rRNAs, and 45 tRNAs. A similarity search using the A. vitis Ti plasmid virC gene fragment (GenBank accession number AB465459) as the BLASTN query sequence identified contig8 (∼200 kb) as the putative Ti plasmid of A. vitis strain K309T. The genome size of strain K309 is 500 kb smaller than that of strain S4, with a pairwise average nucleotide identity (ANI) of less than 95% (92.81%) (13). The low pairwise ANI value suggests that strain S4 may represent a different genomospecies than A. vitis given the type strain status of strain K309, thus warranting future taxonomic investigation (14–16).
Data availability.
This whole-genome shotgun project has been deposited at DDBJ/ENA/GenBank under the accession number LMVL00000000. The version described in this paper is the second version, LMVL02000000 (BioProject number PRJNA300487; BioSample number SAMN04223557). Illumina reads are available under SRA accession number SRP154038, and Nanopore basecalled fasta reads have been deposited at the Zenodo database (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1315327).
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
M.A.S. and H.M.G. acknowledge funding for research provided by the Gosnell School of Life Science at Rochester Institute of Technology.
REFERENCES
- 1.Burr TJ, Bazzi C, Süle S, Otten L. 1998. Crown gall of grape: biology of Agrobacterium vitis and the development of disease control strategies. Plant Dis 82:1288–1297. doi: 10.1094/PDIS.1998.82.12.1288. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Mousavi SA, Österman J, Wahlberg N, Nesme X, Lavire C, Vial L, Paulin L, De Lajudie P, Lindström K. 2014. Phylogeny of the Rhizobium–Allorhizobium–Agrobacterium clade supports the delineation of Neorhizobium gen. nov. Syst Appl Microbiol 37:208–215. doi: 10.1016/j.syapm.2013.12.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Gan HM, Savka MA. 2018. One more decade of Agrobacterium taxonomy. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol doi: 10.1007/82_2018_81. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Lowe N, Gan HM, Chakravartty V, Scott R, Szegedi E, Burr TJ, Savka MA. 2009. Quorum-sensing signal production by Agrobacterium vitis strains and their tumor-inducing and tartrate-catabolic plasmids. FEMS Microbiol Lett 296:102–109. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2009.01627.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Szegedi E. 2003. Opines in naturally infected grapevine crown gall tumors. Vitis-Geilweilerhof 42:39–42. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Ophel K, Kerr A. 1990. Agrobacterium vitis sp. nov. for strains of Agrobacterium biovar 3 from grapevines. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 40:236–241. doi: 10.1099/00207713-40-3-236. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Slater SC, Goldman BS, Goodner B, Setubal JC, Farrand SK, Nester EW, Burr TJ, Banta L, Dickerman AW, Paulsen I, Otten L, Suen G, Welch R, Almeida NF, Arnold F, Burton OT, Du Z, Ewing A, Godsy E, Heisel S, Houmiel KL, Jhaveri J, Lu J, Miller NM, Norton S, Chen Q, Phoolcharoen W, Ohlin V, Ondrusek D, Pride N, Stricklin SL, Sun J, Wheeler C, Wilson L, Zhu H, Wood DW. 2009. Genome sequences of three Agrobacterium biovars help elucidate the evolution of multichromosome genomes in bacteria. J Bacteriol 191:2501–2511. doi: 10.1128/JB.01779-08. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Sokolov EP. 2000. An improved method for DNA isolation from mucopolysaccharide-rich molluscan tissues. J Molluscan Stud 66:573–575. doi: 10.1093/mollus/66.4.573. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Gan HM, Lee YP, Austin CM. 2017. Nanopore long-read guided complete genome assembly of Hydrogenophaga intermedia, and genomic insights into 4-aminobenzenesulfonate, p-aminobenzoic acid and hydrogen metabolism in the genus Hydrogenophaga. Front Microbiol 8:1880. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.01880. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B. 2014. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 30:2114–2120. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu170. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Wick RR, Judd LM, Gorrie CL, Holt KE. 2017. Unicycler: resolving bacterial genome assemblies from short and long sequencing reads. PLoS Computat Biol 13:e1005595. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005595. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.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]
- 13.Richter M, Rosselló-Móra R, Oliver Glöckner F, Peplies J. 2016. JSpeciesWS: a Web server for prokaryotic species circumscription based on pairwise genome comparison. Bioinformatics 32:929–931. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv681. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Varghese NJ, Mukherjee S, Ivanova N, Konstantinidis KT, Mavrommatis K, Kyrpides NC, Pati A. 2015. Microbial species delineation using whole genome sequences. Nucleic Acids Res 43:6761–6771. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkv657. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Tran PN, Savka MA, Gan HM. 2017. In-silico taxonomic classification of 373 genomes reveals species misidentification and new genospecies within the genus Pseudomonas. Front Microbiol 8:1296. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.01296. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Figueras MJ, Beaz-Hidalgo R, Hossain MJ, Liles MR. 2014. Taxonomic affiliation of new genomes should be verified using average nucleotide identity and multilocus phylogenetic analysis. Genome Announc 2:e00927-14. doi: 10.1128/genomeA.00927-14. [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.
Data Availability Statement
This whole-genome shotgun project has been deposited at DDBJ/ENA/GenBank under the accession number LMVL00000000. The version described in this paper is the second version, LMVL02000000 (BioProject number PRJNA300487; BioSample number SAMN04223557). Illumina reads are available under SRA accession number SRP154038, and Nanopore basecalled fasta reads have been deposited at the Zenodo database (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1315327).