Skip to main content
Microbiology Resource Announcements logoLink to Microbiology Resource Announcements
. 2020 May 7;9(19):e00214-20. doi: 10.1128/MRA.00214-20

Draft Genome Sequence of Clostridium senegalense Strain AGRFS4, Isolated from a Dairy Farm in New Zealand

Tanushree B Gupta a, Ruy Jauregui b, Amila Srilal Nawarathana a, Gale Brightwell a, Paul Maclean b,
Editor: Julie C Dunning Hotoppc
PMCID: PMC7206488  PMID: 32381610

We report the draft genome sequence of a new Clostridium senegalense strain, AGRFS4, which was isolated from a dairy farm environment in the Manawatu region in New Zealand. The genome is 3.98 Mb, with a GC content of 27%. The genome sequence was found to be 86.6% similar to that of the type strain Clostridium senegalense JC122. Until now, no Clostridium senegalense strain from New Zealand has been reported.

ABSTRACT

We report the draft genome sequence of a new Clostridium senegalense strain, AGRFS4, which was isolated from a dairy farm environment in the Manawatu region in New Zealand. The genome is 3.98 Mb, with a GC content of 27%. The genome sequence was found to be 86.6% similar to that of the type strain Clostridium senegalense JC122. Until now, no Clostridium senegalense strain from New Zealand has been reported.

ANNOUNCEMENT

The genus Clostridium consists of more than 180 species of obligate and facultative anaerobic rod-shaped bacilli that are capable of producing highly heat- and chemical-resistant endospores (1, 2). While some species, such as Clostridium botulinum, Clostridium difficile, Clostridium tetani, and Clostridium perfringens, are known pathogens (1, 36), Clostridium butyricum can be used as a probiotic (7, 8).

Clostridium senegalense JC122 is a type strain that was first isolated from a stool sample from a healthy male subject in Dielmo, Senegal; its draft genome sequence was published in 2012 (9). Here, we report the whole-genome sequence of a new C. senegalense strain, AGRFS4, which was isolated from a soil sample from a New Zealand dairy farm. The sequences obtained will be used to investigate any pathogenic or beneficial traits of this isolate.

Bacteria were isolated using previously described methods (10). Briefly, 10 g of soil was suspended in 50 ml of phosphate buffer (PB) and centrifuged at 3,466 × g for 1 h. The pellet was resuspended in 5 ml of PB and heated at 80°C for 10 min. One milliliter of the heated sample was added to cooked meat-glucose-starch medium (11) and incubated anaerobically at 35°C for 48 h. The growth suspension was serially diluted, plated on Shahidi-Ferguson agar (12), and incubated anaerobically for 24 h to yield pure colonies. Genomic DNA was extracted from the pure cultures grown in tryptic soy broth (Fort Richard Laboratories, New Zealand) by using a phenol-chloroform extraction method (13). The quality and concentration of DNA were determined using a Qubit 2.0 fluorometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA). Initial identification was conducted using 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing with the forward primer pA (5′-AGAGTTTGATCCTGGCTCAG-3′) and the reverse primer pH* (5′-AAGGAGGTGATCCAGCCGCA-3′) (14). The amplification method consisted of 93°C for 3 min; 92°C for 1 min, 55°C for 1 min, and 72°C for 2 min for 30 cycles; and a final extension at 72°C for 3 min.

The whole genome of C. senegalense strain AGRFS4 was prepared with the NuGEN Celero PCR workflow with enzymatic fragmentation DNA library preparation kit and sequenced using the Illumina MiSeq version 3 sequencing platform (Massey Genome Services, Palmerston North, New Zealand) to produce 500,848 read pairs of 300 nucleotides and 301,510,496 bp, giving ∼75-fold coverage. The reads were quality trimmed, filtered, and assembled via the A5-miseq pipeline version 20160825 with default settings (15). The assembly produced 95 contigs with a total genome size of 3.98 Mb, an N50 value of 14 kb, and a GC content of 27%. A BUSCO version 3.0.2 (16) test using the bacterial reference produced a completeness score of 98%.

Analysis of 16S rRNA sequencing data showed 98.2% sequence similarity between C. senegalense AGRFS4 and C. senegalense JC122T. A comparative genomic analysis was performed with the genome sequences of these organisms using the Type (strain) Genome Server (TYGS) (https://tygs.dsmz.de). In silico digital DNA-DNA hybridization (dDDH) was used to calculate genome-to-genome distances (17), which resulted in a dDDH (d6) value of 86.6%, indicating the same species but with probable differences at the strain level. Further studies are required to investigate these differences.

Data availability.

The raw reads have been deposited in the NCBI database under accession number PRJNA605262. This whole-genome shotgun project has been deposited in DDBJ/ENA/GenBank under accession number JAAGPU000000000.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This work was funded by the Strategic Science Investment Fund, AgResearch Ltd., New Zealand.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Wells CL, Wilkins TD. 1996. Chapter 18. Clostridia: sporeforming anaerobic bacilli In Baron S. (ed), Medical microbiology, 4th ed University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston, TX. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Brown K. 2000. Control of bacterial spores. Br Med Bull 56:158–171. doi: 10.1258/0007142001902860. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Hatheway CL. 1993. Clostridium botulinum and other clostridia that produce botulinum neurotoxin, p 3–20. In Hauschild AHW, Dodds KL (ed), Clostridium botulinum: ecology and control in foods. CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Kelly CP, LaMont JT. 1998. Clostridium difficile infection. Annu Rev Med 49:375–390. doi: 10.1146/annurev.med.49.1.375. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Brook I. 2008. Current concepts in the management of Clostridium tetani infection. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 6:327–336. doi: 10.1586/14787210.6.3.327. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Uzal FA, Freedman JC, Shrestha A, Theoret JR, Garcia J, Awad MM, Adams V, Moore RJ, Rood JI, McClane BA. 2014. Towards an understanding of the role of Clostridium perfringens toxins in human and animal disease. Future Microbiol 9:361–377. doi: 10.2217/fmb.13.168. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Yang C, Cao G, Ferket P, Liu T, Zhou L, Zhang L, Xiao Y, Chen A. 2012. Effects of probiotic, Clostridium butyricum, on growth performance, immune function, and cecal microflora in broiler chickens. Poult Sci 91:2121–2129. doi: 10.3382/ps.2011-02131. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Pan X, Wu T, Zhang L, Song Z, Tang H, Zhao Z. 2008. In vitro evaluation on adherence and antimicrobial properties of a candidate probiotic Clostridium butyricum CB2 for farmed fish. J Appl Microbiol 105:1623–1629. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2008.03885.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Mishra AK, Lagier J-C, Robert C, Raoult D, Fournier P-E. 2012. Non-contiguous finished genome sequence and description of Clostridium senegalense sp. nov. Stand Genomic Sci 6:386–395. doi: 10.4056/sigs.2766062. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Gupta TB, Brightwell G. 2017. Farm level survey of spore‐forming bacteria on four dairy farms in the Waikato region of New Zealand. Microbiologyopen 6:e00457. doi: 10.1002/mbo3.457. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Murray PR, Baron EJ, Jorgensen JH, Pfaller MA, Yolken RH (ed). 2003. Manual of clinical microbiology, 8th ed ASM Press, Washington, DC. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Shahidi SA, Ferguson AR. 1971. New quantitative, qualitative, and confirmatory media for rapid analysis of food for Clostridium perfringens. Appl Environ Microbiol 21:500–506. doi: 10.1128/AEM.21.3.500-506.1971. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Gupta SK, Haigh BJ, Seyfert H-M, Griffin FJ, Wheeler TT. 2017. Bovine milk RNases modulate pro-inflammatory responses induced by nucleic acids in cultured immune and epithelial cells. Dev Comp Immunol 68:87–97. doi: 10.1016/j.dci.2016.11.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Böddinghaus B, Wolters J, Heikens W, Böttger EC. 1990. Phylogenetic analysis and identification of different serovars of Mycobacterium intracellulare at the molecular level. FEMS Microbiol Lett 70:197–203. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.1990.tb13978.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Coil D, Jospin G, Darling AE. 2015. A5-miseq: an updated pipeline to assemble microbial genomes from Illumina MiSeq data. Bioinformatics 31:587–589. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu661. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Simão FA, Waterhouse RM, Ioannidis P, Kriventseva EV, Zdobnov EM. 2015. BUSCO: assessing genome assembly and annotation completeness with single-copy orthologs. Bioinformatics 31:3210–3212. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv351. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Meier-Kolthoff JP, Göker M. 2019. TYGS is an automated high-throughput platform for state-of-the-art genome-based taxonomy. Nat Commun 10:2182. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-10210-3. [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

The raw reads have been deposited in the NCBI database under accession number PRJNA605262. This whole-genome shotgun project has been deposited in DDBJ/ENA/GenBank under accession number JAAGPU000000000.


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

RESOURCES