In this report, we announce the sequences of six genomes of Fusarium proliferatum (isolates MOD1-FUNGI8, -12, -13, -14, -15, and -19), four genomes of Fusarium oxysporum (MOD1-FUNGI9, -10, -11, and -16), and two genomes of the Fusarium incarnatum-Fusarium equiseti species complex (MOD1-FUNGI17 and MOD1-FUNGI18) isolated from moldy peanuts from the Washington, DC, area.
ABSTRACT
In this report, we announce the sequences of six genomes of Fusarium proliferatum (isolates MOD1-FUNGI8, -12, -13, -14, -15, and -19), four genomes of Fusarium oxysporum (MOD1-FUNGI9, -10, -11, and -16), and two genomes of the Fusarium incarnatum-Fusarium equiseti species complex (MOD1-FUNGI17 and MOD1-FUNGI18) isolated from moldy peanuts from the Washington, DC, area.
ANNOUNCEMENT
Foods of plant origin, such as tree nuts, are known to foster the growth of various microorganisms, including toxigenic and pathogenic fungi (1). Members of the genera Aspergillus, Penicillium, and Fusarium are known to be the major mycotoxin-producing fungi (2–4). According to past research, peanuts and tree nuts, such as walnuts, pistachios, and pecans, are frequently colonized by these molds (1). Fusarium species are among the most prevalent toxin-producing fungi and plant pathogens, causing crown rot, head blight, and scab on cereal grains and vascular wilts on a wide range of horticultural crops (5–10). In addition, fusaria produce diverse mycotoxins, including trichothecenes (T-2 toxin, HT-2 toxin, deoxynivalenol, and nivalenol), zearalenone, and fumonisins, and other toxic secondary metabolites (3, 4). These toxins pose a threat to food safety and human health if they enter the food chain. Therefore, comparative genomics provides a means to accurately catalog their pathogenic potential.
In-shell peanuts were tested for the presence of live fungi by direct plating onto dichloran glycerol (DG18) agar as described in the Bacteriological Analytical Manual (BAM), Chapter 18 (11). Colonies were randomly selected (usually one or two of each morphological type were picked). The isolates were microscopically examined and identified to the genus level using conventional culture methods and taxonomical keys (12). The recovered molds were purified by subculturing on potato dextrose agar (BD Difco, Detroit, MI) and incubated at 25°C for 5 days. Mycelium for DNA extraction was obtained by culturing each strain in potato dextrose broth at 25°C for 48 h. Subsequently, the DNA was extracted with the AllPrep fungal DNA/RNA/protein kit (Qiagen, Germantown, MD), following the manufacturer’s instructions. The quality and purity of the genomic DNA (gDNA) was assessed spectrophotometrically using a Nanodrop spectrophotometer (Thermo Scientific, Wilmington, DE), and quality control was performed using a Qubit 2.0 fluorometer (Life Technologies, Burlington, Canada). Whole-genome sequencing was performed using a Nextera XT DNA library prep kit (Illumina, Inc., San Diego, CA) with 2 × 150-bp paired-end sequencing on an Illumina NextSeq sequencer with a NextSeq 500/550 midoutput reagent cartridge V2 (n = 8). Fast QC (Q score, >30) was used to check the raw sequence data for quality control, followed by de novo assembly using SPAdes 3.8.2 (Center for Algorithmic Biotechnology, St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russia) (13). The draft genomes comprised between 325 and 2,370 contigs, with an N50 value that ranged from 63,924 to 262,090 bp, and the depth of coverage ranged from 23× to 110× (Table 1). The genome sizes for Fusarium proliferatum ranged from 43,155,960 to 43,337,992 bp, for Fusarium oxysporum from 44,448,977 to 47,450,651 bp, and for Fusarium incarnatum-Fusarium equiseti species complex (FIESC 29) from 38,253,301 to 38,264,798 bp (Table 1). A custom kmer analysis of the reads determined an initial identification of the species that was confirmed by matching the TEF1 gene sequences from the assemblies against the Fusarium multilocus sequence type (MLST) database (14).
TABLE 1.
BioSample accession no. | Isolate | Species | GenBank accession no. | SRA accession no. | No. of contigs | No. of reads | Genome size (bp) | N50 value | Avg coverage (×) | G+C content (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SAMN10078280 | MOD1-FUNGI8 | F. proliferatum | RBJG00000000 | SRR7889975 | 1,159 | 33,254,726 | 43,155,960 | 68,427 | 27 | 48.8 |
SAMN10078281 | MOD1-FUNGI9 | F. oxysporum | RBCG00000000 | SRR7889959 | 2,370 | 37,245,070 | 47,450,651 | 63,924 | 28 | 48.3 |
SAMN10078282 | MOD1-FUNGI10 | F. oxysporum | RBJF00000000 | SRR7889971 | 1,950 | 37,008,864 | 46,252,701 | 66,395 | 28 | 48.4 |
SAMN10078283 | MOD1-FUNGI11 | F. oxysporum | RBCF00000000 | SRR7889970 | 1,377 | 55,555,690 | 46,282,089 | 176,916 | 82 | 48.4 |
SAMN10078284 | MOD1-FUNGI12 | F. proliferatum | RBCE00000000 | SRR7889969 | 562 | 50,008,512 | 43,124,502 | 172,812 | 79 | 48.8 |
SAMN10078285 | MOD1-FUNGI13 | F. proliferatum | RBCD00000000 | SRR7889968 | 1,006 | 33,134,216 | 43,139,311 | 84,221 | 40 | 48.8 |
SAMN10078286 | MOD1-FUNGI14 | F. proliferatum | RBCC00000000 | SRR7889967 | 563 | 28,820,800 | 43,147,616 | 181,851 | 44 | 48.8 |
SAMN10078287 | MOD1-FUNGI15 | F. proliferatum | RBCB00000000 | SRR7889966 | 578 | 71,676,280 | 43,337,992 | 253,187 | 106 | 48.7 |
SAMN10078288 | MOD1-FUNGI16 | F. oxysporum | RBCA00000000 | SRR7889965 | 944 | 73,866,756 | 44,448,977 | 262,090 | 110 | 48.3 |
SAMN10078289 | MOD1-FUNGI17 | Fusarium sp. FIESC_29 | RBJE00000000 | SRR7889964 | 325 | 37,761,252 | 38,264,798 | 228,787 | 23 | 48.5 |
SAMN10078290 | MOD1-FUNGI18 | Fusaruim sp. FIESC_ 29 | RBBZ00000000 | SRR7889963 | 340 | 46,941,284 | 38,253,301 | 220,485 | 26 | 48.5 |
SAMN10078291 | MOD1-FUNGI19 | F. proliferatum | RBBY00000000 | SRR7889962 | 449 | 54,664,676 | 43,132,928 | 195,358 | 50 | 48.8 |
Data availability.
The draft genome assemblies were deposited in DDBJ/ENA/GenBank under BioProject number PRJNA482816, and the whole-genome sequencing (WGS) and SRA accession numbers for the genomes are listed in the Table 1.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project was supported by the U.S. FDA, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Office of Applied Research and Safety Assessment. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), or the U.S. Government. Reference to any commercial materials, equipment, or process does not in any way constitute approval, endorsement, or recommendation by the FDA.
We thank Kerry O’Donnell at USDA-ARS for assistance in using the Fusarium MLST scheme. We also thank Amit Mukherjee of the Division of Molecular Biology for his critical editing and comments.
REFERENCES
- 1.Tournas VH, Niazi NS, Kohn JS. 2015. Fungal presence in selected tree nuts and dried fruits. Microbiol Insights 8:1–6. doi: 10.4137/MBI.S24308. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Villani A, Moretti A, De Saeger S, Han Z, Di Mavungu JD, Soares CMG, Proctor RH, Venâncio A, Lima N, Stea G, Paciolla C, Logrieco AF, Susca A. 2016. A polyphasic approach for characterization of a collection of cereal isolates of the Fusarium incarnatum-equiseti species complex. Int J Food Microbiol 234:24–35. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2016.06.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Wagacha JM, Muthomi JW. 2008. Mycotoxin problem in Africa: current status, implications to food safety and health and possible management strategies. Int J Food Microbiol 124:1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2008.01.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Darwish WS, Ikenaka Y, Nakayama SM, Ishizuka M. 2014. An overview on mycotoxin contamination of foods in Africa. J Vet Med Sci 76:789–797. doi: 10.1292/jvms.13-0563. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Booth C. 1971. The genus Fusarium. Commonwealth Mycology Institute, Kew, Surrey, England. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Latiffah Z, Nur H, Baharuddin S, Maziah Z. 2009. Morphological and RAPD analysis of Fusarium species associated with root and stem rot of Dendrobium orchid in Northern Peninsula Malaysia. HAYATI J Biosci 16:64–68. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Chang M, Hyun IK, Lee YH, Lee DH. 1998. Leaf spot of Cymbidium hybrida caused by Fusarium proliferatum. Korean J Plant Pathol 14:664–667. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Ichikawa K, Aoki T. 2000. New leaf spot disease of Cymbidium species caused by Fusarium subglutinans and Fusarium proliferatum. J Gen Plant Pathol 66:213–218. doi: 10.1007/PL00012948. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Kim WG, Lee BD, Cho WD, Sung JM. 2002. Occurrence of dry rot on Cymbidium orchids caused by Fusarium spp. in Korea. Korean J Plant Pathol 18:156–160. doi: 10.5423/PPJ.2002.18.3.156. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Nelson PE, Dignani MC, Anaissie EJ. 1994. Taxonomy, biology, and clinical aspects of Fusarium species. Clin Microbiol Rev 7:479–504. doi: 10.1128/CMR.7.4.479. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Tournas V, Stack ME, Mislivec PB, Koch HA, Bandler R. 2001. Chapter 18, Yeasts, molds and mycotoxins In Bacteriological analytical manual (BAM). Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD: https://www.fda.gov/food/foodscienceresearch/laboratorymethods/ucm2006949.htm. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Nelson PE, Toussoun TA, Marasas WFO. 1983. Fusarium species: an illustrated manual for identification. The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, Pennsylvania. [Google Scholar]
- 13.Bankevich A, Nurk S, Antipov D, Gurevich AA, Dvorkin M, Kulikov AS, Lesin VM, Nikolenko SI, Pham S, Prjibelski AD, Pyshkin AV, Sirotkin AV, Vyahhi N, Tesler G, Alekseyev MA, Pevzner PA. 2012. 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. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Geiser DM, Jiménez-Gasco M, Kang S, Makalowska I, Veeraraghavan N, Ward TJ, Zhang N, Kuldau GA, O'Donnell K. 2004. FUSARIUM-ID v. 1.0: a DNA sequence database for identifying Fusarium. Eur J Plant Pathol 110:473–479. doi: 10.1023/B:EJPP.0000032386.75915.a0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The draft genome assemblies were deposited in DDBJ/ENA/GenBank under BioProject number PRJNA482816, and the whole-genome sequencing (WGS) and SRA accession numbers for the genomes are listed in the Table 1.