Skip to main content
Microbiology Resource Announcements logoLink to Microbiology Resource Announcements
. 2019 Jul 18;8(29):e00741-19. doi: 10.1128/MRA.00741-19

Complete Genome Sequence of Serratia marcescens Myophage Moabite

Lyndsey Price a, Matthew Rohren a, Heather Newkirk a, Mei Liu a, Jolene Ramsey a,
Editor: Simon Rouxb
PMCID: PMC6639629  PMID: 31320439

Serratia marcescens is a Gram-negative nosocomial pathogen causing various hospital-acquired infections. Here, we describe the complete genome sequence of S. marcescens myophage Moabite. The genome of Moabite is 273,933 bp long, with 337 predicted coding sequences and two tRNA genes, and it shares its highest amino acid identity with Serratia phage 2050HW.

ABSTRACT

Serratia marcescens is a Gram-negative nosocomial pathogen causing various hospital-acquired infections. Here, we describe the complete genome sequence of S. marcescens myophage Moabite. The genome of Moabite is 273,933 bp long, with 337 predicted coding sequences and two tRNA genes, and it shares its highest amino acid identity with Serratia phage 2050HW.

ANNOUNCEMENT

Serratia marcescens is a Gram-negative nosocomial pathogen often causing hospital-acquired urinary tract, bloodstream, and other infections (1). Treating S. marcescens infections can prove difficult due to its panresistance, including that to metallo-beta-lactamases (2). Due to this wide range of antibiotic resistance, bacteriophage therapy may be a more effective treatment. To that end, the novel myophage Moabite was isolated, and we present its genome sequence here.

Moabite was isolated from a combination of filtered (0.22 μm) and chloroform-sterilized U.S. swine farm samples based on its ability to grow on S. marcescens D1 (catalog no. 8887172; Ward’s Science). Both the host and phage were cultured as described by Adams at 30°C in LB broth and agar (BD), and phage were propagated by the soft-agar overlay method (3). The morphology of Moabite was determined by samples negatively stained with 2% (wt/vol) uranyl acetate and imaged by transmission electron microscopy at the Texas A&M University Microscopy and Imaging Center (4). The genomic DNA for Moabite was purified with the Promega Wizard DNA clean-up kit according to the modification in the shotgun library preparation protocol given by Summer (5), and then genomic libraries were generated with an Illumina TruSeq nano low-throughput kit. Prepared genomic DNA was sequenced using an Illumina MiSeq platform with 250-bp paired-end reads. We used FastQC (http://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc/) to quality control the 413,089 total reads in the phage-containing index. These reads were trimmed by the FASTX-Toolkit v0.0.14 (http://hannonlab.cshl.edu/fastx_toolkit/). Assembly into a single contig at 287-fold coverage was accomplished with SPAdes v3.5.0, with default parameters (6). The contig was confirmed to be complete by PCR (forward, 5′-CCTGCGTATGTATTCCTGGATAA-3′; reverse, 5′-TTCTTGGTGACATCGTGGTC-3′ primers) and Sanger sequencing. Gene prediction was achieved using GLIMMER v3.0 and MetaGeneAnnotator v1.0 (7, 8). tRNA genes were found with ARAGORN v2.36 (9). The presence of rho-independent terminators was predicted with TransTermHP v2.09 (10). Gene functions were predicted using InterProScan v5.22-61, TMHMM v2.0, and BLAST v2.2.31, with a minimum expectation cutoff of 0.001 against the NCBI nonredundant, UniProtKB Swiss-Prot, and TrEMBL databases (1114). HHpred with ummiclust30_2018_08 for multiple-sequence alignment (MSA) generation and PDB_mmCIF70 for modeling in the HHsuite v3.0 release provided supplementary evidence for functional prediction (15). Whole-genome sequence identities were calculated with progressiveMauve v.2.4.0 (16). These annotation tools are available on the Center for Phage Technology Galaxy and Web Apollo instances (https://cpt.tamu.edu/galaxy-pub) (17, 18).

Moabite is a myophage with a 273,933-bp genome, 340 predicted protein-coding genes, a G+C content of 46.8%, and a coding density of 94.1%. Functions were predicted for 111 coding regions. The G+C content on Moabite is lower than that of its host, S. marcescens, which has G+C contents ranging from 50.9% to 59.6%, depending on the strain (19). PhageTerm predicts that Moabite uses a headful packaging mechanism, and the genome was reopened in front of the terminase genes (20). From the BLASTp analysis, Moabite shares 312 proteins with Serratia phage 2050HW (GenBank accession no. MF285618), and progressiveMauve shows overall 93.57% nucleotide identity with the same phage (21). Unlike for 2050HW, the i-spanin/o-spanin (NCBI accession no. QDB71172 and QDB71173, respectively) and endolysin (NCBI accession no. QDB71048) genes were predicted for Moabite, but no holin gene was positively identified based on sequence similarity.

Data availability.

The genome sequence and associated data for phage Moabite were deposited under GenBank accession no. MK994515, BioProject accession no. PRJNA222858, SRA accession no. SRR8869230, and BioSample accession no. SAMN11360396.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by funding from the National Science Foundation (awards EF-0949351 and DBI-1565146). Additional support came from the Center for Phage Technology (CPT), an Initial University Multidisciplinary Research Initiative supported by Texas A&M University and Texas AgriLife, and from the Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics at Texas A&M University.

We are grateful for the advice and support of the CPT staff.

This announcement was prepared in partial fulfillment of the requirements for BICH464 Bacteriophage Genomics, an undergraduate course at Texas A&M University.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Mahlen SD. 2011. Serratia infections: from military experiments to current practice. Clin Microbiol Rev 24:755–791. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00017-11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Gruber TM, Göttig S, Mark L, Christ S, Kempf VAJ, Wichelhaus TA, Hamprecht A. 2015. Pathogenicity of pan-drug-resistant Serratia marcescens harbouring blaNDM-1. J Antimicrob Chemother 70:1026–1030. doi: 10.1093/jac/dku482. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Adams MH. 1956. Bacteriophages. Interscience Publishers, Inc; New York, NY. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Valentine RC, Shapiro BM, Stadtman ER. 1968. Regulation of glutamine synthetase. XII. Electron microscopy of the enzyme from Escherichia coli. Biochemistry 7:2143–2152. doi: 10.1021/bi00846a017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Summer EJ. 2009. Preparation of a phage DNA fragment library for whole genome shotgun sequencing. Methods Mol Biol 502:27–46. doi: 10.1007/978-1-60327-565-1_4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.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]
  • 7.Delcher AL, Harmon D, Kasif S, White O, Salzberg SL. 1999. Improved microbial gene identification with GLIMMER. Nucleic Acids Res 27:4636–4641. doi: 10.1093/nar/27.23.4636. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Noguchi H, Taniguchi T, Itoh T. 2008. MetaGeneAnnotator: detecting species-specific patterns of ribosomal binding site for precise gene prediction in anonymous prokaryotic and phage genomes. DNA Res 15:387–396. doi: 10.1093/dnares/dsn027. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Laslett D, Canback B. 2004. ARAGORN, a program to detect tRNA genes and tmRNA genes in nucleotide sequences. Nucleic Acids Res 32:11–16. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkh152. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Kingsford CL, Ayanbule K, Salzberg SL. 2007. Rapid, accurate, computational discovery of Rho-independent transcription terminators illuminates their relationship to DNA uptake. Genome Biol 8:R22. doi: 10.1186/gb-2007-8-2-r22. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Jones P, Binns D, Chang H-Y, Fraser M, Li W, McAnulla C, McWilliam H, Maslen J, Mitchell A, Nuka G, Pesseat S, Quinn AF, Sangrador-Vegas A, Scheremetjew M, Yong S-Y, Lopez R, Hunter S. 2014. InterProScan 5: genome-scale protein function classification. Bioinformatics 30:1236–1240. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu031. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Camacho C, Coulouris G, Avagyan V, Ma N, Papadopoulos J, Bealer K, Madden TL. 2009. BLAST+: architecture and applications. BMC Bioinformatics 10:421. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-10-421. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.The UniProt Consortium. 2018. UniProt: the universal protein knowledgebase. Nucleic Acids Res 46:2699. doi: 10.1093/nar/gky092. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Krogh A, Larsson B, Heijne von G, Sonnhammer EL. 2001. Predicting transmembrane protein topology with a hidden Markov model: application to complete genomes. J Mol Biol 305:567–580. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.2000.4315. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Zimmermann L, Stephens A, Nam S-Z, Rau D, Kübler J, Lozajic M, Gabler F, Söding J, Lupas AN, Alva V. 2018. A completely reimplemented MPI bioinformatics toolkit with a new HHpred server at its core. J Mol Biol 430:2237–2243. doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2017.12.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Darling AE, Mau B, Perna NT. 2010. progressiveMauve: multiple genome alignment with gene gain, loss and rearrangement. PLoS One 5:e11147. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0011147. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Afgan E, Baker D, Batut B, van den Beek M, Bouvier D, Cech M, Chilton J, Clements D, Coraor N, Grüning BA, Guerler A, Hillman-Jackson J, Hiltemann S, Jalili V, Rasche H, Soranzo N, Goecks J, Taylor J, Nekrutenko A, Blankenberg D. 2018. The Galaxy platform for accessible, reproducible and collaborative biomedical analyses: 2018 update. Nucleic Acids Res 46:W537–W544. doi: 10.1093/nar/gky379. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Lee E, Helt GA, Reese JT, Munoz-Torres MC, Childers CP, Buels RM, Stein L, Holmes IH, Elsik CG, Lewis SE. 2013. Web Apollo: a Web-based genomic annotation editing platform. Genome Biol 14:R93. doi: 10.1186/gb-2013-14-8-r93. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Li P, Kwok AHY, Jiang J, Ran T, Xu D, Wang W, Leung FC. 2015. Comparative genome analyses of Serratia marcescens FS14 reveals its high antagonistic potential. PLoS One 10:e0123061. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0123061. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Garneau JR, Depardieu F, Fortier L-C, Bikard D, Monot M. 2017. PhageTerm: a tool for fast and accurate determination of phage termini and packaging mechanism using next-generation sequencing data. Sci Rep 7:8292. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-07910-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Tian C, Zhao J, Zhang Z, Chen X, Wei X, Li H, Lin W, Ke Y, Hu L, Jiang A, Feng R, Yang W, Jing Y, Yuan J, Luo Y, Zhao X. 2019. Identification and molecular characterization of Serratia marcescens phages vB_SmaA_2050H1 and vB_SmaM_2050HW. Arch Virol 164:1085–1094. doi: 10.1007/s00705-019-04169-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The genome sequence and associated data for phage Moabite were deposited under GenBank accession no. MK994515, BioProject accession no. PRJNA222858, SRA accession no. SRR8869230, and BioSample accession no. SAMN11360396.


Articles from Microbiology Resource Announcements are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES