Stenotrophomonas maltophilia is a prevalent nosocomial pathogen with multidrug resistance. Here, we describe the complete genome of S. maltophilia myophage Moby, which shares characteristics with Enterobacteria phage T4 and is closely related to Stenotrophomonas phage IME-SM1. Moby has a 159,365-bp genome with 271 predicted protein-coding genes and 24 predicted tRNAs.
ABSTRACT
Stenotrophomonas maltophilia is a prevalent nosocomial pathogen with multidrug resistance. Here, we describe the complete genome of S. maltophilia myophage Moby, which shares characteristics with Enterobacteria phage T4 and is closely related to Stenotrophomonas phage IME-SM1. Moby has a 159,365-bp genome with 271 predicted protein-coding genes and 24 predicted tRNAs.
ANNOUNCEMENT
Stenotrophomonas maltophilia is a multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacterium with rising prevalence as a nosocomial pathogen (1–3). Although it is a commensal found in diverse environments, including water, rhizospheres, and animal microflora, S. maltophilia carries natural and acquired antibiotic resistance genes (1, 2). As it is a human pathogen—in particular, one of the most common pathogens isolated from the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients—there is interest in finding phages for possible therapeutic use (1–3). Here, we present the annotated genome of S. maltophilia myophage Moby.
Moby was isolated from filtered (0.2-μm pore size) wastewater collected in Bryan, TX. The S. maltophilia host (ATCC 17807) was grown aerobically at 30°C in nutrient broth or agar (BD), and the phage was propagated by the soft-agar overlay method (4). Phage DNA was purified with a modified Promega Wizard DNA clean-up system shotgun library preparation protocol (5). An Illumina TruSeq library prepared with the Nano low-throughput kit was sequenced using Illumina MiSeq v2 500-cycle chemistry with paired-end 250-bp reads. On the 844,502 total reads in the phage-containing index, quality control analysis was done with FastQC (www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc), and trimming was performed using FastX Toolkit v0.0.14 (http://hannonlab.cshl.edu/fastx_toolkit/). Assembly into a single contig with 673.7-fold coverage was performed using SPAdes v3.5.0 (6). The genome was confirmed complete by Sanger sequencing of the PCR product amplified off the contig ends (forward, 5′-CCTCGACAAGAAGAGGAGATTC-3′; reverse, 5′-CCTCGTCAAACATCTGGTTACT-3′). GLIMMER v3.0 and MetaGeneAnnotator v1.0 were used to predict protein-coding genes (7, 8). tRNA genes were predicted with ARAGORN v2.36 (9). Rho-independent termination sites were annotated using TransTermHP v2.09 (10). Gene functions were predicted based on analyses with InterProScan v5.33-72, TMHMM v2.0, and LipoP v1.0 and on BLAST v2.2.31 searches against NCBI nonredundant, UniProtKB Swiss-Prot, and TrEMBL databases with a 0.001 maximum expectation value (11–15). Structural predictions were done with HHSuite v3.0 tool HHPred (multiple sequence alignment generation with HHblits using the ummiclus30_2018_08 database and modeling with the PDB_mmCIF70 database) (16). progressiveMauve v2.4.0 was used to calculate genome-wide DNA sequence similarity (17). All tools are hosted in the Galaxy and Web Apollo instances hosted by the Center for Phage Technology (https://cpt.tamu.edu/galaxy-pub/), and, unless otherwise stated, were executed using default parameters (18, 19). Phage morphology was observed by transmission electron microscopy of samples negatively stained with 2% (wt/vol) uranyl acetate at the Texas A&M Microscopy and Imaging Center (20).
Myophage Moby has a 159,365-bp double-stranded DNA genome with a coding density of 93.0% and a G+C content of 54.1%, which is lower than the 66.7% G+C content of its host (21). The genome encodes 271 predicted protein-coding genes, 73 of which were assigned putative functions, and 24 tRNA genes. PhageTerm analysis predicted permuted termini, consistent with the pac-type headful DNA packaging mechanism used by T4-like phages (22). Moby shares 196 similar proteins and 92.29% nucleotide identity with Stenotrophomonas phage IME-SM1 (GenBank accession no. KR560069), an unclassified myovirus. No introns were identified in Moby, including in the predicted thymidylate synthase and nrdB genes, which contain introns in phage T4 (GenBank accession no. NC_000866) (23).
Data availability.
The genome sequence and associated data for phage Moby were deposited under GenBank accession no. MN095772, BioProject accession no. PRJNA222858, SRA accession no. SRR8893605, and BioSample accession no. SAMN11414490.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by funding from the National Science Foundation (award DBI-1565146) and the Citrus Research and Development Foundation (project C726) to C.F.G. 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 Texas A&M University Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics.
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.Adegoke AA, Stenstrom TA, Okoh AI. 2017. Stenotrophomonas maltophilia as an emerging ubiquitous pathogen: looking beyond contemporary antibiotic therapy. Front Microbiol 8:2276. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.02276. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Singhal L, Kaur P, Gautam V. 2017. Stenotrophomonas maltophilia: from trivial to grievous. Indian J Med Microbiol 35:469–479. doi: 10.4103/ijmm.IJMM_16_430. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Amin R, Waters V. 2016. Antibiotic treatment for Stenotrophomonas maltophilia in people with cystic fibrosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 7:CD009249. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009249.pub4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Adams M. 1959. Bacteriophages. Interscience Publishers, Inc, New York, NY. [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 HY, Fraser M, Li W, McAnulla C, McWilliam H, Maslen J, Mitchell A, Nuka G, Pesseat S, Quinn AF, Sangrador-Vegas A, Scheremetjew M, Yong SY, 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.Krogh A, Larsson B, von Heijne 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]
- 13.Juncker AS, Willenbrock H, Von Heijne G, Brunak S, Nielsen H, Krogh A. 2003. Prediction of lipoprotein signal peptides in Gram-negative bacteria. Protein Sci 12:1652–1662. doi: 10.1110/ps.0303703. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.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]
- 15.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]
- 16.Zimmermann L, Stephens A, Nam SZ, Rau D, Kubler J, Lozajic M, Gabler F, Soding 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]
- 17.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]
- 18.Afgan E, Baker D, Batut B, van den Beek M, Bouvier D, Cech M, Chilton J, Clements D, Coraor N, Gruning 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]
- 19.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]
- 20.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]
- 21.Crossman LC, Gould VC, Dow JM, Vernikos GS, Okazaki A, Sebaihia M, Saunders D, Arrowsmith C, Carver T, Peters N, Adlem E, Kerhornou A, Lord A, Murphy L, Seeger K, Squares R, Rutter S, Quail MA, Rajandream MA, Harris D, Churcher C, Bentley SD, Parkhill J, Thomson NR, Avison MB. 2008. The complete genome, comparative and functional analysis of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia reveals an organism heavily shielded by drug resistance determinants. Genome Biol 9:R74. doi: 10.1186/gb-2008-9-4-r74. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Garneau JR, Depardieu F, Fortier LC, 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]
- 23.Belfort M. 1990. Phage T4 introns: self-splicing and mobility. Annu Rev Genet 24:363–385. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ge.24.120190.002051. [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 Moby were deposited under GenBank accession no. MN095772, BioProject accession no. PRJNA222858, SRA accession no. SRR8893605, and BioSample accession no. SAMN11414490.