Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Nov 9;15(11):e0241889. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241889

Comparative genome analysis of test algal strain NIVA-CHL1 (Raphidocelis subcapitata) maintained in microalgal culture collections worldwide

Takahiro Yamagishi 1,*, Haruyo Yamaguchi 2,#, Shigekatsu Suzuki 2,#, Mayumi Yoshikawa 3,#, Ian Jameson 4,, Maike Lorenz 5,, David R Nobles 6,, Christine Campbell 7,, Masanori Seki 3,, Masanobu Kawachi 2,, Hiroshi Yamamoto 1,
Editor: Yi Cao8
PMCID: PMC7652255  PMID: 33166324

Abstract

Raphidocelis subcapitata is one of the most frequently used species for algal growth inhibition tests. Accordingly, many microalgal culture collections worldwide maintain R. subcapitata for distribution to users. All R. subcapitata strains maintained in these collections are derived from the same cultured strain, NIVA-CHL1. However, considering that 61 years have passed since this strain was isolated, we suspected that NIVA-CHL1 in culture collections might have acquired various mutations. In this study, we compared the genome sequences among NIVA-CHL1 from 8 microalgal culture collections and one laboratory in Japan to evaluate the presence of mutations. We found single-nucleotide polymorphisms or indels at 19,576 to 28,212 sites per strain in comparison with the genome sequence of R. subcapitata NIES-35, maintained at the National Institute for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba, Japan. These mutations were detected not only in non-coding but also in coding regions; some of the latter mutations may affect protein function. In growth inhibition test with 3,5-dichlorophenol, EC50 values varied 2.6-fold among the 9 strains. In the ATCC 22662–2 and CCAP 278/4 strains, we also detected a mutation in the gene encoding small-conductance mechanosensitive ion channel, which may lead to protein truncation and loss of function. Growth inhibition test with sodium chloride suggested that osmotic regulation has changed in ATCC 22662–2 and CCAP 278/4 in comparison with NIES-35.

Introduction

Raphidocelis subcapitata (= Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata, Selenastrum capricornutum) is a sickle-shaped, freshwater green microalga from the Selenastraceae family. It is one of the most frequently used species in algal growth inhibition tests; some public guidelines such as those of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) recommend this species because of its high growth rate, sensitivity to toxicants, and good reproducibility in comparison with those of other algae [12]. Now, many microalgal culture collections worldwide maintain R. subcapitata for distribution to users.

All strains of R. subcapitata in these collections are derived from the same cultured strain, NIVA-CHL1. This strain was isolated from Nitelva river, Akershus, Norway by O.M. Skulberg in 1959 and deposited to microalgal culture collections worldwide to be used as a standard green algal strain for toxicity assays. Since the OECD eventually adopted the algal growth inhibition test using this strain in 1981, it has been used in some research fields such as ecotoxicology and evaluation of environmental risk of chemical substances. In each culture collection, it has a specific deposition number, e.g. ATCC 22662, CCAP 278/4, UTEX 1648, SAG 61.81 and NIES-35.

Suzuki et al. (2018) sequenced the nuclear, mitochondrial, and plastid genomes of R. subcapitata NIES-35 and compared them with those of other algal species to assess genome evolution and to understand the role of genetic background in environmental adaptation and the mode of action of toxicants. Phylogenetic analysis based on plastid genome sequences suggested that R. subcapitata is in the most basal lineage of the four studied species in Selenastraceae, indicating its early divergence from a common ancestor of the four species [3]. The mitochondrial genome shows dynamic evolution history, with intron expansion in the Selenastraceae. The nuclear genome encodes 13,383 proteins, and is the smallest (51 Mbp) among those of the closely related Sphaeropleales species (68 Mbp in Monoraphidium neglectum, 108 Mbp in Tetradesmus obliquus, 58 Mbp in Chromochloris zofingiensis, and 111 Mbp in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii) [3]. The genome of R. subcapitata encodes an H+/hexose cotransporter that is functionally related to glucose intake, indicating that R. subcapitata might grow mixotrophically using exogenous glucose. The genome of R. subcapitata also encodes multiple nicotianamine transporters. Nicotianamine is an organic chelator of various metals that the higher plants also possess. The presence of these genes indicates that R. subcapitata might take up metals into the cell not only as free ions but also as complexes formed by nicotianamines it secretes into the environment. Thus, the genome sequence of R. subcapitata has revealed some important physiological characteristics of this species and its phylogenetic position.

No full genome sequences of strains other than NIES-35 have been obtained. To evaluate the phylogenetic position of NIVA-CHL1, the rubisco large subunit (rbcL) region of ATCC 22662 has been sequenced [4]. In our previous study, our alignment of the rbcL regions between NIES-35 and ATCC 22662 showed a mismatch of two base pairs in the rbcL gene [5]. Although sequencing errors might explain the mismatch, we suspected that NIVA-CHL1 strains maintained in different collections under different conditions have accumulated some mutations over the 61 years that have passed since NIVA-CHL1 was isolated from the natural environment. Genome mutations are well known to accumulate following long-term sub-culturing because artificial selection of variants occurs when part of the old culture is transferred to a new culture vessel.

In this study, we sequenced the whole nuclear genomes of NIVA-CHL1 strains from 8 microalgal culture collections and one laboratory in Japan to evaluate the mutations accumulated over 61 years. In addition, it is critical issue for the standard strain whether sensitivities to toxicants vary among the strains maintained at culture collections worldwide. To assess the variation in sensitivity to toxicants, we compared the toxicity values (EC50, EC10, and no-observed-effect concentration [NOEC]) of the reference substance 3,5-dichlorophenol (3,5-DCP) among the 9 strains. Also, we attempted to identify the critical mutations to change physiological characteristics with physiological approaches. Finally, we discuss the appropriate maintenance method of the test algal strain in an algal culture collection or laboratory for preserving its genetic homogeneity and the reliability of test results.

Materials and methods

Cultures

The following 9 strains of NIVA-CHL1 were derived from 8 microalgal culture collections and one laboratory: ATCC 22662 from the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC), CCAP 278/4 from the Culture Collection of Algae and Protozoa (CCAP), CS-327-ANACC and CS-327-CSIRO from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), NIES-35 from the Microbial Culture Collection at the National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES), NIVA-CHL1 from the Norwegian Culture Collection of Algae (NORCCA), SAG 61.81 from the Culture Collection of Algae at Göttingen University (SAG), UTEX 1648 from the Culture Collection of Algae at The University of Texas at Austin (UTEX), and one strain from a laboratory in Japan (ATCC 22662–2), which has been maintained for approximately 20 years after it was received from ATCC (Table 1). The strains were propagated under continuous light (60–80 μmol·m−2·s−1) at 23°C in OECD medium [1]. Part of all nine cultures was cryopreserved as follows: cryoprotectant (5% DMSO, final concentration) was added to the culture, and the cells were cooled at a rate of −1°C/min to −35°C in a programmable freezer (Planer Kryo 360–1.7) and then frozen rapidly to –196°C in liquid nitrogen.

Table 1. Raphidocelis subcapitata strains used in this study.

Location Culture collection Strain code
Japan Microbial Culture Collection at the National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES) NIES-35
https://mcc.nies.go.jp/strainList.do?strainId=26&strainNumberEn=NIES-35
Scotland Culture Collection of Algae and Protozoa (CCAP) CCAP 278/4
https://www.ccap.ac.uk/strain_info.php?Strain_No=278/4
USA Culture Collection of Algae at The University of Texas at Austin UTEX 1648
https://utex.org/products/utex-1648
Australia Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (ANACC) CS-327-ANACC
https://www.csiro.au/en/Research/Collections/ANACC/Australian-National-Algae-Supply-service
USA American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) ATCC 22662
https://www.atcc.org/products/all/22662.aspx?geo_country=us
Norway Norwegian Culture Collection of Algae (NORCCA) NIVA-CHL1
https://niva-cca.no/shop/chlorophyceae/raphidocelis/niva-chl-1
Australia Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) CS-327-CSIRO
https://www.csiro.au/en/Research/Collections/ANACC/Australian-National-Algae-Supply-service
Germany Culture Collection of Algae at Göttingen University (SAG) SAG 61.81
https://sagdb.uni-goettingen.de/detailedList.php?str_number=61.81
Japan One laboratory in Japan ATCC 22662–2
This strain was received from ATCC.

Genome sequencing

DNA was extracted from 10 mL cultures with an Agencourt Chloropure kit (Beckman Coulter, Brea, USA) following the manufacturer’s protocol and fragmented to approximately 550 bp using an M220 ultrasonicator (Covaris, Woburn, USA). Genomic libraries of paired-end reads were constructed and barcoded using an NEBNext Ultra II DNA Library Prep Kit for Illumina (New England Biolabs, Ipswich, USA) and NEBNext Multiplex Oligos for Illumina (Index Primers Set 1) (New England Biolabs). The library concentrations and size distributions were determined with NEBNext Library Quant Kit for Illumina (New England Biolabs) and Agilent 2200 Tape Station (Agilent Technologies, USA). Equinanomolar concentrations from each library were pooled. Next-generation sequencing was performed on a HiSeq X Ten system instrument as 150 bp paired-end reads by Novogene Corporation (Beijing, China) or on a MiSeq system instrument as 300 bp paired-end reads. Bases with a quality value of <20 were removed and reads shorter than 30 bases were discarded by using Sickle [6]. The filtered reads were mapped to the reference sequence of NIES-35 [3] in BWA ver.0.7.12 [7]. Duplicated reads were removed in Picard ver.2.0.1 (http://broadinstitute.github.io/picard/). The total number of reads obtained and the number of mapped reads for each strain are shown in Table 2. The data were deposited in DDBJ under accession number DRA010570 (DRR238908-DRR238916). Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and indels were detected in GATK ver.3.6 (https://github.com/broadinstitute/gatk/). The variant calling was performed according to the GATK best practices (http://software.broadinstitute.org/gatk/best-practices). Since there is no known variant data, base quality score recalibration was not performed. SNPs and indels were classified in snpEff ver.4.2 [8] (http://snpeff.sourceforge.net/SnpEff_manual.html).

Table 2. Summary of genome sequencing using Illumina MiSeq.

Strain code Number of reads Total read bases Number of mapped reads % of mapped reads Mean depth
NIES-35 7,942,335 3,613,278,372 7,893,009 99.4 38.1
CCAP 278/4 38,103,886 11,245,438,309 34,603,513 90.8 68.0
UTEX 1648 58,322,119 17,225,893,008 55,801,118 95.7 95.8
CS-327-ANACC 44,493,723 14,735,831,693 12,881,762 29.0 47.6
ATCC 22662 45,928,502 13,546,010,659 43,072,168 93.9 79.6
NIVA-CHL1 47,085452 14,961,236,143 9,832,384 20.8 33.8
CS-327-CSIRO 72,814,874 10,776,103,449 67,699,124 93.0 107.7
ATCC 22662–2 49,731,566 14,685,552,895 46,883,978 94.4 85.4
SAG 61.81 45,520,635 13,442,821,111 43,133,069 94.7 79.5

Phylogenetic analysis

Information on each SNP was extracted by ref_map.pl of Stacks ver.2.2 [9] with default settings, and then used to construct molecular phylogenetic trees by the maximum likelihood method in RAxML ver.8. 2. 9 with the GTR+Γ model [10]. Branch support was evaluated with 100 bootstrap replicates. The tree file was visualized with pgsumtree in Phylogears2 ver.2.0.2015.11.30 (https://www.fifthdimension.jp/products/phylogears/).

Growth inhibition tests

Two chemicals were used: 3,5-DCP (Lot: SDK3769, > 98.0%) and sodium chloride (NaCl) (Lot: 7935, >99.5%), both from Fujifilm Wako Pure Chemical Corporation (Osaka, Japan). Growth inhibition tests with these chemicals were performed according to OECD test guideline TG201 [1]. A preculture of axenic algae in OECD medium was started at least 6 days before the beginning of the test. Algae were harvested from batch culture during exponential growth. Algal suspensions (100 mL; initial concentration 5 × 103 cells mL−1) containing the test chemicals (0.25, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 and 4.0 mg/L in the testing of 3,5-DCP and 111, 333, 1000, 3000 and 9000 mg/L in the testing of NaCl as nominal concentration) were cultured in 300 mL Erlenmeyer flasks. Three replicates for each concentration and six replicates for the control sample were performed. The flasks were shaken continuously with orbital agitation of 100 rpm at 23 ± 1°C under white fluorescent light (60–80 μmol·m−2·s−1). Test culture (1 mL) was collected every 24 h for up to 72 h after the start of exposure to toxicants, diluted to 10 mL with Cellpack (Sysmex, Kobe, Japan), and density and diameter of 3–12 μm cells were measured with a Sysmex CDA-500 electronic particle counter (Sysmex). The cell densities at 0, 24, 48, and 72 h were used to calculate the growth rate and effective concentrations. Toxicity values (NOEC, EC10, and EC50) were calculated with geometric average of measured concentrations at 0h and 72h of 3,5-DCP and nominal concentrations of NaCl. To measure the amount of 3,5-DCP in media, media at 0h and 72 after exposure were sampled (samples at 72h after exposure were filtered with 0.75 μm PTFE membrane filter to remove algae), and solid phase extraction was performed with OASIS HLB Plus cartridge (Waters, Milford, USA). Samples were extracted with methanol, and were analyzed with liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LCMS-2010EV; Shimazu, Kyoto, Japan).

Statistical analysis

Differences in NOEC and EC values were analyzed in the open-source statistical software R (R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, http://www.R-project.org/). A one-tailed Dunnett’s procedure was applied to estimate the NOEC and LOEC. The EC values were calculated by the 2-parameter log-logistic models in R with the extension package drc [11, 12]. The model function f(x) shown in Eq I provides the relative endpoint response to concentration x, where the upper limit is fixed at the mean response in the control (100%) and b and e are parameters:

f(x;b,e,)=1/1+exp(b[log(x)log(e)]), (I)

Results

Comparison of the nuclear genomes of NIVA-CHL1 maintained in different collections is shown in Table 2. The approximate number of high-quality paired reads ranged from approximately 8 million (NIES-35) to 73 million (CS-327-CSIRO), and the number of reads that were mapped to the reference genome of NIES-35 [3] ranged from approximately 8 million to 68 million. The mean coverage depth was 33.8–107.7; those of CS-327-ANACC and NIVA-CHL1 were relatively low because the two strains (Table 2) were not axenic. However, we considered the mapping efficiency of the obtained sequence data to be adequate for comparative genome analysis.

Each genome had SNPs or indels at 19,576 to 28,212 sites in comparison with the genome of NIES-35 (Table 3). Categorization of each SNP and indel using snpEff revealed that most of them were in non-coding regions such as introns (snpEff term: intron_variant) and 5′ and 3′ regions (snpEff terms: upstream_gene and downstream_gene variants); however, variants in coding regions of the genes, such as frameshift mutations (snpEff term: frameshift variant) and nonsense mutations (snpEff term: stop_gained variant), were also found and had various consequences (Fig 1, Table 3).

Table 3. Summary of categorization of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and indels in comparison with the genome of NIES-35.

Strain code Total number of SNPs and indels HIGH LOW MODERATE MODIFIER
CCAP 278/4 23,635 348 2,434 1,898 11,7191
UTEX 1648 28,212 416 2,673 1,926 131,857
CS-327-ANACC 19,576 236 3,027 2,604 100,780
ATCC 22662 25,666 362 2,553 1,921 123,684
NIVA-CHL1 19,958 283 3,239 2,666 101,715
CS-327-CSIRO 27,939 392 2,611 1,953 131,083
ATCC 22662–2 27,481 398 2,673 1,984 129,401
SAG 61.81 26,242 344 2,521 1,901 125,519

Fig 1. Categorization of each single-nucleotide polymorphism and indel by snpEff term.

Fig 1

The terms are explained at http://snpeff.sourceforge.net/snpEff_manual.html.

We categorized the variants into 4 classes according to potential phenotypes: impact HIGH, variants that drastically change protein function such as “stop gained” and “frameshift”; impact LOW, variants that possibly change protein function such as synonymous SNPs; impact MODERATE, variants that hardly affect protein function such as missense mutations (snpEff term: missense variant) and in-frame mutations (snpEff terms: inframe_deletion and insertion variant); and impact MODIFIER, variants in intergenic regions that do not affect protein function. Variants at 236–416 sites were classified as impact HIGH, variants at 2434–3239 sites as impact LOW, variants at 1898–2666 sites as impact MODERATE, and variants at 100,780–131,857 sites as impact MODIFIER (Fig 2 and Table 3). Classification of proteins with “impact HIGH” variants using Clusters of Orthologous Groups of Proteins (COGs) showed no enrichment of variants from specific gene families (Fig 2B). However, the proportion of each category was somewhat different among the strains. For example, the proportion of category A was lower in CS-327-ANACC (2.5%) than in the other strains (4.4%–6.4%), and that of category C was lower in ATCC 22662 and CCAP 278/4 (2.7%) than in the other strains (4.4%–7.1%) (Fig 2B).

Fig 2. Classification of variants by their potential to produce a phenotype, and functional classification of proteins with variants.

Fig 2

(a) Variants were classified into 4 impact categories (HIGH, LOW, MODERATE, and MODIFIER) using snpEff. (b) Proteins with “impact HIGH” variants were functionally classified using Clusters of Orthologous Groups of Proteins (COGs). Uppercase letters are explained at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/COG/.

Phylogenetic analysis based on SNP information showed that NIVA-CHL1 was in the same clade with NIES-35 and CS-327-ANACC, which was supported by a high bootstrap value (100%) (Fig 3). As expected, ATCC 22662 was grouped with ATCC 22662–2, a strain from a laboratory in Japan, because the latter was delivered from ATCC approximately 20 years ago. However, the branch of each of the two strains was very long (Fig 3), indicating that their genomes have diverged considerably over 20 years.

Fig 3. Unrooted molecular phylogenetic tree based on single-nucleotide polymorphisms.

Fig 3

The tree was constructed using the maximum likelihood method with RAxML (GTR+Γ). Bootstrap values (if higher than 50%) are given along the branches. Scale bar shows the number of substitutions per site.

For growth inhibition tests to assess the variation in sensitivity among the 9 strains, we used 3,5-DCP because it is a typical reference substance. All the 9 strains fulfilled the criteria of OECD TG201 that the biomass in the control culture should increase exponentially by a factor of at least 16 within a 72-h test period. However, each factor was different among the 9 strains: the biomass of NIES-35 increased 544-fold in 72 h, whereas that of CS-327-CSIRO increased by only 66-fold. For CS-327-ANACC, the EC10 (0.38 mg/L) and EC50 (0.85 mg/L) values were the lowest among the 9 strains, whereas for SAG 61.81, the EC10 (1.17 mg/L) and EC50 (2.22 mg/L) values were the highest (Fig 4, Table 4).

Fig 4. Dose-response curves based on the data from the growth inhibition test with 3,5-dichlorophenol.

Fig 4

Table 4. Sensitivity to 3,5-dichlorophenol.

NOEC mg/L EC10 mg/L 95% confidence limit EC50 mg/L 95% confidence limit
NIES-35 < 0.25 0.63 0.47–0.79 1.57 1.42–1.72
CCAP 278/4 0.23 0.61 0.54–19.4 1.25 1.19–1.31
UTEX 1648 0.39 0.77 0.72–0.82 1.25 1.20–1.30
CS-327-ANACC <0.18 0.38 0.35–0.41 0.85 0.82–0.88
ATCC 22662 0.44 0.92 0.84–0.10 1.55 1.50–1.61
NIVA-CHL1 <0.20 0.72 0.40–1.03 1.74 1.50–1.99
CS-327-CSIRO <0.39 0.81 0.74–0.89 1.49 1.43–1.54
ATCC 22662–2 0.23 0.68 0.59–0.77 1.34 1.26–1.41
SAG 61.81 0.19 1.17 1.07–1.27 2.22 2.12–2.31

Values were calculated with measured concentrations.

The gene encoding small conductance mechanosensitive (MS) ion channel (Rsub_08752) (Fig 5A) had a one-base substitution at position 2667 (adenine to cytosine) in ATCC 22662–2 and CCAP 278/4 (Fig 5B and 5C). This position was predicted to be a splice acceptor site (two bases before exon start). Therefore, in ATCC 22662–2 and CCAP 278/4, this mutation causes the MS ion channel to be truncated, resulting in loss of function or nonsense-mediated decay; thus, the ability to adapt to external osmotic stress might be changed. Also, a prediction of the presence of signal peptides by ChloroP (http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/services/ChloroP/) evaluated that Rsub_08752 protein possesses a chloroplast transit peptide of 20 amino acids at the N-terminus, indicating that it might localize at the chloroplast envelope (Fig 5A).

Fig 5. Predicted amino acid sequence of small-conductance mechanosensitive (MS) ion channel in strains derived from NIVA-CHL1 and schematic representation of its gene.

Fig 5

(a) The predicted amino acid sequence; amino acid numbers beginning from the initiator methionine are shown on the right. Black underline, signal peptide; red underline, MS channel motif. (b) Structure of the gene (Rsub_08752) encoding MS ion channel. Boxes, exons; lines, introns. (c) Alignment of DNA sequences enclosed in the red box in (b). Single-nucleotide polymorphisms are shown by black boxes.

To evaluate whether this mutation affects the ability to adapt to external osmotic stress, we used a growth inhibition test with NaCl. The growth rate of ATCC 22662–2 and CCAP 278/4 tended to be lower than that of NIES-35 in media without NaCl and with 111 mg/L NaCl; the difference became significant at 333 and 1000 mg/L NaCl (Fig 6A and 6B). At 3000 mg/L, the growth of all three strains was strongly inhibited, with that of NIES-35 being the lowest (Fig 6A), indicating that ATCC 22662–2 and CCAP 278/4 became more tolerant to external osmotic stress than NIES-35. The growth rate of ATCC 22662–2 and CCAP 278/4 increased slightly but significantly in medium containing 333 mg/L NaCl (Fig 6A). The EC50 values of NaCl for ATCC 22662–2 (2304 mg/L) and CCAP 278/4 (2497 mg/L) were higher than that of NIES-35 (1600 mg/L) (Fig 6C). To evaluate the ability to adapt to external osmotic stress, we compared cell diameter at 72 h after the onset of NaCl exposure among the three strains (Fig 6D). Cell diameter tended to be larger in ATCC 22662–2 and CCAP 278/4 than in NIES-35 in the control culture. Cell diameter of ATCC 22662–2 and CCAP 278/4 was larger than that of NIES-35 but decreased slightly in media containing 111, 333, and 1000 mg/L NaCl (Fig 6D). A remarkable increase in cell diameter was found in media containing 3000 or 9000 mg/L in all three strains; at these NaCl concentrations, no clear differences among the strains were observed (Fig 6D).

Fig 6. Growth inhibition test of NIES-35, ATCC 22662–2, and CCAP 278/4 with NaCl.

Fig 6

(a) Specific growth rate (averaged over 0–24, 24–48, and 48–72 h). *** p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; * p < 0.1 vs. control without NaCl. (b) Cell densities in medium without NaCl (Control). (c) Dose-response curves based on the growth inhibition data. (d) Average cell diameter at 72 h after the onset of exposure. Error bars in (a), (b), and (d) denote standard deviation.

Discussion

We found that the genome of the test algal strain R. subcapitata NIVA-CHL1 varied greatly, with many SNPs and indels, among algal culture collections, even though the strains in these collections were originally derived from the same NIVA-CHL1 culture. These mutations were detected not only in non-coding but also in coding regions, where they may affect protein function. Mutations in coding regions are a critical issue for test algal species because they may affect the sensitivity to chemical substances. Actually, the EC50 values in the growth inhibition test with 3,5-DCP varied up to 2.6-fold among the 9 strains. This variability was too large for a test performed in the same laboratory: if a test was performed with different strains in the different laboratories, the difference in sensitivity would be even larger because a result is greatly affected by the differences of handing and test procedure. Thus, we suggest that this difference in sensitivity resulted from genomic mutations. Although it would be very interesting to establish which gene is involved in this difference, this is rather hard to predict because the mode of action of 3,5-DCP in algae is unclear.

We found that the MS ion channel gene has an SNP that may cause protein truncation and loss of function or trigger nonsense-mediated decay in ATCC 22662–2 and CCAP 278/4. In Escherichia coli, the MS ion channel is intrinsically opened in response to stretching of the cell membrane without the participation of cytoskeletal or other components [13, 14]; therefore, it directly mediates the adaptation to osmotic stress and regulates cell volume. Large-conductance MS ion channel (MscL) and small-conductance MS ion channel (MscS) have been identified in the cytoplasmic membrane of E. coli, and the function of these channels has been characterized using the patch clamp technique [1320]. Despite similar functions, the genes encoding the two MS channels are not homologous, indicating a different origin [13]. MscL is present throughout prokaryotes, whereas MscS homologs are also found throughout eukaryotes [13]. In the land plant Arabidopsis thaliana, MS Channel of Small Conductance-Like2 and 3 (MSL2 and MSL3) localize in the plastid envelope [21]. Using an msl2 msl3 Arabidopsis mutant, these authors demonstrated that MSL2 and MSL3 are involved in plastid osmoregulation, and plastid osmotic stress activates cellular stress responses. They also showed that the msl2 msl3 mutant contains large and swollen plastids in comparison with those in the wild type and has defects in leaf morphology and growth because of a defect in cellular osmoregulation, but these phenotypes recover in NaCl-containing media. We did not examine plastid morphology of ATCC 22662–2 and CCAP 278/4, but found that their slower growth in medium without NaCl in comparison with NIES-35 recovered significantly at 333 mg/L NaCl. Also, an increase in cell diameter slightly recovered at 111, 333, or 1000 mg/L NaCl in CCAP 278/4. We also considered that increased tolerance to external osmotic stress in ATCC 22662–2 and CCAP 278/4 results from the recovery of growth rate in NaCl-containing media, as in the msl2 msl3 mutant. These results suggest that the ability to adapt to external osmotic stress was changed by the loss of function of MscS in ATCC 22662–2 and CCAP 278/4. Because the R. subcapitata genome encodes Rsub_5425 (a homolog of Rsub_08752), in which no critical mutation was detected, a double mutation of both genes might result in a stronger phenotype than that of a single mutant. We also detected critical mutations in 9–15 genes involved in inorganic ion transport such as metal ABC transporter permease and metal-nicotianamine transporter-like in all of the 9 strains. Tolerance of these strains to heavy metals and their requirements for trace metals should be analyzed in the future. Thus, the study suggests that genomic alterations in NIVA-CHL1 may result in considerable variation in toxicity values among the strains maintained in different culture collections, especially in the case of a mutation in the target of a test chemical substance.

The main reason that different variants developed in the culture collections is probably long-term sub-culturing under different conditions. For example, at NIES, the strain was maintained under a 10-h light/14-h dark photoperiod (4–10 μmol photons m−2s−1) at 20°C in C medium [22] until 2005. On the other hand, at UTEX, the strain was maintained under a 12-h light/12-h dark photoperiod (approximately 13 μmol photons m−2s−1) at 20°C in Bristol medium [23] from 1968 to 2006. Some mutations might contribute to the gain of useful traits or loss of useless traits under certain culture conditions, as demonstrated in Drosophila: genes encoding an olfactory receptor and a light receptor were mutated by maintaining the flies in the dark for 57 years. In Chlamydomonas reinhardtii that is closely related in R. subcapitata, the strain kept in different laboratory lost nitrate reductase very early in the strain history [24], and METE (Cobalamin-independent methionine synthase) mutant was able to be generated in conditions of high vitamin B12 concentration over ca.500 cell generations [25]. It is easy to predict that environmental adaptive traits such as MscS activity involved in osmoregulation might be useless under constant artificial culture conditions.

It is urgent to standardize the maintenance method of the algal strain among culture collections to prevent or slow down divergent mutagenesis. Cryopreservation would be the most desirable method for long-term maintenance because it is not time consuming and prevents contamination and genetic drift. To the best of our knowledge, only ATCC, NIES, SAG, UTEX and CCAP, and to a lesser degree ANACC already use cryopreservation to maintain algal strains. It is also necessary to re-select any one of the NIVA-CHL1 strains as the standard one. We propose to select the new standard strain based on further researches about the perspective of the degree of mutagenesis: it is important to know each strain exhibits what kind of phenotypes related in the genome mutations, and whether there are any critical mutations affecting results of the growth inhibition tests.

Conclusions

In this study, we found that the genome of the test algal strain R. subcapitata NIVA-CHL1 varied greatly, with many SNPs and indels, among the 9 strains maintained at algal culture collections worldwide or testing laboratory. The sensitivity to 3,5-DCP varied among the 9 strains, and the ability to adapt to external osmotic stress was changed probably by the loss of function of MscS in ATCC 22662–2 and CCAP 278/4. These results suggest that genomic alterations in NIVA-CHL1 may result in considerable variation in sensitivity values against potential toxins among the strains maintained in different culture collections.

Acknowledgments

We thank M. Koshio for the quantitative analyses of 3,5-DCP and A. Kariya and M. Tayama for their great effort and support in algal growth inhibition testing.

Data Availability

The sequence data were deposited in DDBJ under accession number DRA010570 (DRR238908-DRR238916).

Funding Statement

This study was supported by an internal funding from National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES) to TY (There is no specific number for this grant.), and “partially” funded from the National BioResource Project (NBRP) from Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED): we declare there was no additional external funding received for this study. Also, we declare the funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.OECD, 2006. Alga, Growth inhibition test (201) OECD guideline for testing of chemicals Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.USEPA, 1994. Short-term methods for estimating the chronic toxicity of effluents and receiving waters to freshwater organisms, EPA 600-4-91-002 Washington, DC. 1994.
  • 3.Suzuki S, Yamaguchi H, Nakajima N, Kawachi M. Raphidocelis subcapitata (= Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata) provides an insight into genome evolution and environmental adaptations in the Sphaeropleales. Sci. Rep. 2018;8: 8058 10.1038/s41598-018-26331-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Nygaard G, Komarek J, Kristiansen J, Skulberg OM. Taxonomic designations of the bioassay alga NIVA-CHL1 (Selenastrum capiricornum) and some related strains. Opera Bot. 1986;90: 1–46. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Yamagishi T, Haruyo Y, Suzuki S, Horie Y, Tatarazako N. Cell reproductive patterns in the green alga Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata (= Selenastrum capricornutum) and their variations under exposure to the typical toxicants potassium dichromate and 3,5-DCP. PLOS ONE. 2017; 10.1371/journal.pone.0171259 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Joshi NA, Fass JN. Sickle: A sliding-window, adaptive, quality-based trimming tool for FastQ files (Version 1.33) [Software]; 2011. Available from: https://github.com/najoshi/sickle [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Li H, Durbin R. Fast and accurate long-read alignment with Burrows–Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics 2010;26: 589–595. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp698 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Cingolani P, Platts A, Wang LL, Coon M, Nguyen T, Wang L, et al. A program for annotating and predicting the effects of single nucleotide polymorphisms, SnpEff: SNPs in the genome of Drosophila melanogaster strain w 1118; iso-2; iso-3. Fly, 2012;6: 80–92. 10.4161/fly.19695 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Catchen JM, Amores A, Hohenlohe P, Cresko W, Postlethwait JH. Stacks: building and genotyping loci de novo from short-read sequences. G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics, 2011;1: 171–182. 10.1534/g3.111.000240 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Stamatakis A. RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics 2014;30: 1312–1313. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu033 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Ritz C. Toward a unified approach to dose-response modeling in ecotoxicology. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2010;29: 220–229. 10.1002/etc.7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ritz C. Package “drc”. 2015. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/drc/drc.pdf 10.1371/journal.pone.0146021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Levina N, Totemeyer S, Stokes NR, Louis P, Jones MA, Booth IR. Protection of Escherichia coli cells against extreme turgor by activation of MscS and MscL mechanosensitive channels: identification of genes required for MscS activity. EMBO J. 1999;18: 1730–1737. 10.1093/emboj/18.7.1730 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Pliotas C, Ward R, Branigan E, Rasmussen A, Hagelueken G, Huang H, et al. Conformational state of the MscS mechanosensitive channel in solution revealed by pulsed electron-electron double resonance (PELDOR) spectroscopy. PNAS USA 2012;109: E2675–E2682. 10.1073/pnas.1202286109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Cui C, Smith DO, Adler J. Characterization of mechanosensitive channels in Escherichia coli cytoplasmic membrane by whole-cell patch clamp recording. Membr. Biol. 1995;144: 31–42. 10.1007/BF00238414 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Sukharev S. Purification of the small mechanosensitive channel of Escherichia coli (MscS): the subunit structure, conduction, and gating characteristics in liposomes. Biophys. J. 2002;83: 290–298. 10.1016/S0006-3495(02)75169-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Okada K, Moe PC, Blount P. Functional design of bacterial mechanosensitive channels. J. Biol. Chem. 2002;277: 27682–27688. 10.1074/jbc.M202497200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Bass RB., Strop P, Barclay M, Rees DC. Crystal structure of Escherichia coli MscS, a voltage-modulated and mechanosensitive channel. Science 2002;298: 1582–1587. 10.1126/science.1077945 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Koprowski P, Kubalski A. C termini of the Escherichia coli mechanosensitive ion channel (MscS) move apart upon the channel opening. J. Biol. Chem. 2003;278: 11237–11245. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Zhang X, Wang J, Feng Y, Ge J, Li W, Sun W, et al. Structure and molecular mechanism of an anion-selective mechanosensitive channel of small conductance. PNAS 2012;109: 18180–18185. 10.1073/pnas.1207977109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Wilson ME., Basu MR., Bhaskara GB., Verslues PE., Haswell ES. Plastid osmotic stress activates cellular stress response in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 2014;165: 119–128. 10.1104/pp.114.236620 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ichimura T., 1971. Sexual cell division and conjugation-papilla formation in sexual reproduction of Closterium strigosum In Proceedings of the seventh international seaweed symposium. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press; 1971. pp. 208–214. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Bischoff HW, Bold HC. Some soil algae from enchanted rock and related algal species. Phycological Studies IV. Texas: Univ. No. 6318; pp. 95. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Pröschold T, Harris EH, Coleman AW. Portrait of a Species Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. Genetics 2005;170: 1601–10. 10.1534/genetics.105.044503 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Helliwell K, Collins S, Kazamia E, Purton S, Wheeler G, Smith AG. Fundamental shift in vitamin B12 eco-physiology of a model alga demonstrated by experimental evolution. ISME J. 2015;9: 1446–1455. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Yi Cao

25 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-26198

Comparative genome analysis of test algal strain NIVA-CHL1 (Raphidocelis subcapitata) maintained in microalgal culture collections worldwide

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yamagishi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 09 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Yi Cao

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

'This research is partially supported by the National BioResource Project (NBRP) from Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED).

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

a. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

'The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.'

Please ensure your amended statement declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

If partially funded, please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

b. Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an affiliation. Authors’ affiliations should reflect the institution where the work was done (if authors moved subsequently, you can also list the new affiliation stating “current affiliation:….” as necessary).

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to read and review this manuscript. The authors have performed a comparative study looking into the genetic variation of 9 culture collection strains of Raphidocelis subcapitata, all of which were derived from the same isolated strain NIVA-CHL1. Variants (SNPs and indels) were called in each strain relative to the reference genome and were assessed for their potential impacts on protein function. Two strains (ATCC 22662-2 and CCAP 278/4) contained mutations in an ion channel protein and growth inhibition tests with NaCl indicated that these mutations might influence osmotic regulation. All 9 strains additionally showed vast differences in toxicant sensitivity. The authors suggest that these differences may be due to acquired mutations from long-term sub-culturing under different conditions.

The authors present a very interesting study that has clear implications for those studying microalgal strains housed in culture collections. It should not be surprising that genetic variation gets acquired during long-term culturing under different conditions. The results presented here offer convincing evidence that laboratory cultures of the same strain act differently. I would also argue that these points about random genetic mutation should be taken into consideration for all labs that work with model organisms. The authors point out the important need to standardize the maintenance of model algal strains and that cryopreservation offers some benefit.

Overall, I found this manuscript to be well-written and, given the stated goals of the study, the results are convincing and presented well. The methods were appropriate. The figures were useful and designed well. Many of my suggestions that I detail below are to clarify or provide additional details about how some of the methods were performed.

Suggestions:

Line 140: Provide information about whether the libraries were barcoded (single or dual indices) and any pooling details.

Line 143: What was the length of the sequenced reads produced from the HiSeq X Ten and MiSeq systems? Were they single- or paired-end reads?

Line 150: More details should be included about variant calling in GATK. For instance, was the GATK Best Practices followed (https://www.broadinstitute.org/partnerships/education/broade/best-practices-variant-calling-gatk-1), or a modified pipeline? Was indel realignment performed? Was base quality score recalibration performed? Were the initial variants filtered for quality or depth?

Line 254: I would add here in parentheses what the bootstrap values were for these relationships that you are describing.

Line 328: “sensitivity of chemical substances” to “sensitivity to chemical substances.”

Line 364: “in genes of 9-15 genes” to “in 9-15 genes”

Reviewer #2: Generally, Raphidocelis subcapitata was one of the most frequently used species for algal growth inhibition tests. Therefore, genetic characteristics of R. subcapitata was very crucial for its functional applications. This manuscript compared the genome sequences among NIVA-CHL1 from 9 microalgal culture collections to evaluate the presence of mutations. The results was very meaningful for subsequent applications by different mutations. However, some issues need to be addressed as the following point to point:

1) In Introduction Section, the author should describe the significance of this study in investigating mutants.

2) In Materials and Methods Section (line 131), the strains were propagated under continuous light at 23°C in OECD medium. The illumination intensity and the compositions in OECD medium should be shown.

3) In line 138, 10-mL should be changed into 10 mL, please unify this similar situation in the whole manuscript.

4) In line 186, it would be better to note the source of the species by references in Table 1.

5) In the Growth inhibition tests, two chemicals were used: 3,5-DCP (Lot: SDK3769, > 98.0%) and sodium chloride (NaCl) (Lot: 7935, >99.5%), however, the concentrations of the two chemicals in the medium were not mentioned. Please described in detail.

6) Please carefully check grammatical and typing errors in the whole manuscript and please provide a higher resolution data graphs.

In sum, I recommend publication of the paper in PLOS ONE, provided the authors comply with my comments above.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Nov 9;15(11):e0241889. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241889.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


15 Oct 2020

Dear editors,

Thank you very much for your efforts in editing our submission. We revised the manuscript considering the valuable comments by you and the reviewers. Regarding one major point of the suggestions from Reviewer 1 on providing additional information how the genome sequence and analyses were performed, we revised the manuscript adding more information about this. Also, we sincerely apologize for the grammatical and careless typographical errors in original submission. We have made a thorough check of this revised version, and hope that no errors remain.

In addition, we responded to all of Journal Requirements on style, funding information in Acknowledgements, and so on. Please see the following, indicating our responses.

Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to read and review this manuscript. The authors have performed a comparative study looking into the genetic variation of 9 culture collection strains of Raphidocelis subcapitata, all of which were derived from the same isolated strain NIVA-CHL1. Variants (SNPs and indels) were called in each strain relative to the reference genome and were assessed for their potential impacts on protein function. Two strains (ATCC 22662-2 and CCAP 278/4) contained mutations in an ion channel protein and growth inhibition tests with NaCl indicated that these mutations might influence osmotic regulation. All 9 strains additionally showed vast differences in toxicant sensitivity. The authors suggest that these differences may be due to acquired mutations from long-term sub-culturing under different conditions.

The authors present a very interesting study that has clear implications for those studying microalgal strains housed in culture collections. It should not be surprising that genetic variation gets acquired during long-term culturing under different conditions. The results presented here offer convincing evidence that laboratory cultures of the same strain act differently. I would also argue that these points about random genetic mutation should be taken into consideration for all labs that work with model organisms. The authors point out the important need to standardize the maintenance of model algal strains and that cryopreservation offers some benefit.

Overall, I found this manuscript to be well-written and, given the stated goals of the study, the results are convincing and presented well. The methods were appropriate. The figures were useful and designed well. Many of my suggestions that I detail below are to clarify or provide additional details about how some of the methods were performed.

Suggestions:

Line 140: Provide information about whether the libraries were barcoded (single or dual indices) and any pooling details.

Considering this comment, we revised as follows: “Genomic libraries of paired-end reads were constructed and barcoded using an NEBNext Ultra II DNA Library Prep Kit for Illumina (New England Biolabs, Ipswich, USA) and……”(p.7, line 144-146).

Line 143: What was the length of the sequenced reads produced from the HiSeq X Ten and MiSeq systems? Were they single- or paired-end reads?

Considering this comment, we revised as follows: “Genomic libraries of paired-end reads were constructed and barcoded using an NEBNext Ultra II DNA Library Prep Kit for Illumina (New England Biolabs, Ipswich, USA) and NEBNext Multiplex Oligos for Illumina (Index Primers Set 1) (New England Biolabs). The library concentrations and size distributions were determined with NEBNext Library Quant Kit for Illumina (New England Biolabs) and Agilent 2200 Tape Station (Agilent Technologies, USA). Equinanomolar concentrations from each library were pooled. Next-generation sequencing was performed on a HiSeq X Ten system instrument as 150 bp paired-end reads by Novogene Corporation (Beijing, China) or on a MiSeq system instrument as 300 bp paired-end reads.”(p. 7-8, line 144-153).

Line 150: More details should be included about variant calling in GATK. For instance, was the GATK Best Practices followed (https://www.broadinstitute.org/partnerships/education/broade/best-practices-variant-calling-gatk-1), or a modified pipeline? Was indel realignment performed? Was base quality score recalibration performed? Were the initial variants filtered for quality or depth?

Considering this comment, we revised as follows: “The variant calling was performed according to the GATK best practices (http://software.broadinstitute.org/gatk/best-practices). Since there is no known variant data, base quality score recalibration was not performed. SNPs and indels were classified in snpEff ver.4.2 [7](http://snpeff.sourceforge.net/SnpEff_manual.html).”(p. 8, line 161-164).

Line 254: I would add here in parentheses what the bootstrap values were for these relationships that you are describing.

We added the bootstrap value (p. 15, line 270).

Line 328: “sensitivity of chemical substances” to “sensitivity to chemical substances.”

We corrected this (p. 19, line 343).

Line 364: “in genes of 9-15 genes” to “in 9-15 genes”

We corrected this (p. 20, line 386).

Reviewer #2: Generally, Raphidocelis subcapitata was one of the most frequently used species for algal growth inhibition tests. Therefore, genetic characteristics of R. subcapitata was very crucial for its functional applications. This manuscript compared the genome sequences among NIVA-CHL1 from 9 microalgal culture collections to evaluate the presence of mutations. The results was very meaningful for subsequent applications by different mutations. However, some issues need to be addressed as the following point to point:

1) In Introduction Section, the author should describe the significance of this study in investigating mutants.

Considering this comment, we added the following sentence: “In addition, it is critical issue for the standard strain whether sensitivities to toxicants vary among the strains maintained at culture collections worldwide.”(p. 6, line 110-111)

2) In Materials and Methods Section (line 131), the strains were propagated under continuous light at 23°C in OECD medium. The illumination intensity and the compositions in OECD medium should be shown.

Considering this comment, we revised as follows: “The strains were propagated under continuous light (60–80 μmol·m−2·s−1) at 23°C in OECD medium [1].”(p. 7, line 134)

3) In line 138, 10-mL should be changed into 10 mL, please unify this similar situation in the whole manuscript.

We corrected this (p. 7, line 142).

4) In line 186, it would be better to note the source of the species by references in Table 1.

Considering this comment, we added URL of webpage for the strain information in Table 1 (p. 10).

5) In the Growth inhibition tests, two chemicals were used: 3,5-DCP (Lot: SDK3769, > 98.0%) and sodium chloride (NaCl) (Lot: 7935, >99.5%), however, the concentrations of the two chemicals in the medium were not mentioned. Please described in detail.

Considering this comment, we added the following sentence: “(0.25, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 and 4.0 mg/L in the testing of 3,5-DCP and 111, 333, 1000, 3000 and 9000 mg/L in the testing of NaCl as nominal concentration)” (p. 9, line 182-183)

6) Please carefully check grammatical and typing errors in the whole manuscript and please provide a higher resolution data graphs.

We have made a thorough check of this revised version, and provided high resolution figures (TIFF: 300 dpi) to the editorial office together with the revised manuscript.

In sum, I recommend publication of the paper in PLOS ONE, provided the authors comply with my comments above.

Journal Requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

We have made a thorough check of this revised version.

2. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

Regarding the phrase including “data not shown”, we revised as follows: “In our previous study, our alignment of the rbcL regions between NIES-35 and ATCC 22662 showed a mismatch of two base pairs in the rbcL gene [5] (p. 5. Line 100-102)” and “This variability was too large for a test performed in the same laboratory: if a test was performed with different strains in the different laboratories, the difference in sensitivity would be even larger because a result is greatly affected by the differences of handing and test procedure. Thus, we suggest that this difference in sensitivity resulted from genomic mutations (Page 19, line 343-347)”.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

'This research is partially supported by the National BioResource Project (NBRP) from Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED).

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

I removed any funding-related text from the manuscript, and included our updated statement in our cover letter.

4. Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an affiliation. Authors’ affiliations should reflect the institution where the work was done (if authors moved subsequently, you can also list the new affiliation stating “current affiliation:….” as necessary).

We checked this.

We hope that these revisions are satisfactory.

Sincerely Yours,

Takahiro Yamagishi

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Yi Cao

22 Oct 2020

Comparative genome analysis of test algal strain NIVA-CHL1 (Raphidocelis subcapitata) maintained in microalgal culture collections worldwide

PONE-D-20-26198R1

Dear Dr. Yamagishi,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Yi Cao

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you to the authors for considering all comments and making the requested changes to the manuscript. I have read the revised manuscript and have no further comments or suggestions.

Reviewer #2: The author has answered and addressed all of my concerns, so I recommend publication in this journal.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Yi Cao

28 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-26198R1

Comparative genome analysis of test algal strain NIVA-CHL1 (Raphidocelis subcapitata) maintained in microalgal culture collections worldwide

Dear Dr. Yamagishi:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Yi Cao

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The sequence data were deposited in DDBJ under accession number DRA010570 (DRR238908-DRR238916).


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES