Pseudomonas syringae pv. Tomato causes bacterial speck in tomato. We report the genome sequences of two P. syringae pv. Tomato strains, J4 and J6, that are genetically closely related, with >99.9 average nucleotide identity (ANI), but vary in the presence of coronatine-associated genes.
ABSTRACT
Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato causes bacterial speck in tomato. We report the genome sequences of two P. syringae pv. tomato strains, J4 and J6, that are genetically closely related, with >99.9 average nucleotide identity (ANI), but vary in the presence of coronatine-associated genes.
ANNOUNCEMENT
Pseudomonas is a Gram-negative genus of bacteria that belongs to the Gammaproteobacteria in the Pseudomonadaceae family. This genus contains more than 220 validly published species that inhabit diverse environmental niches and are associated with human and plant diseases (1–3). Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato causes bacterial speck disease in tomato and requires a type III secretion system to infect and colonize the host (4). Additionally, P. syringae pv. tomato produces the phytotoxin coronatine, which functions as a defense suppressor (5). Coronatine is reported to mimic methyl jasmonate and promote P. syringae pv. tomato virulence and is important for symptom development resulting in chlorotic lesions in host plants (6–8) and inducing stomatal opening to facilitate entry into stomates (9–11).
In April 2010, two P. syringae pv. tomato strains, J4 and J6, were isolated from tomato fields in Florida using a standard isolation procedure (12). Pathogenicity was confirmed in tomato, and the in planta bacterial populations were quantified by infiltrating strains at ∼105 CFU/ml into tomato leaves (11). Populations of both J4 and J6 were similar 6 days postinfiltration (Fig. 1A). Additionally, tomato plants were dip inoculated using suspensions of both strains at ∼108 CFU/ml. Interestingly, chlorosis was observed in J4- but not J6-inoculated plants (Fig. 1B). To investigate differences, J4 and J6 were subjected to whole-genome sequencing.
FIG 1.
(A) Population study comparison of Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato strains J4 and J6 in tomato. Bacteria multiplied to similar populations 6 days postinoculation. (B) Disease symptom development after inoculation with strains J4 (left) and J6 (right). High yellowing and chlorosis were observed in leaflets inoculated with strain J4 6 days postinoculation. For both experiments, the Bonny Best tomato cultivar was used. Leaves were infiltrated with bacterial suspension at ∼105 CFU/ml for the population study, while dip inoculation was done with bacterial suspension at ∼108 CFU/ml for monitoring the symptom development. (C) Coronafacic and coronatine gene clusters found in DC3000 and J4 strains of Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato. The genomic cluster is missing in strain J6.
Genomic DNA was extracted from cultures grown in nutrient broth for 24 h using a Wizard genomic DNA purification kit (Promega, Chicago, IL). The genomic library was prepared using a Nextera DNA library preparation kit (Illumina, San Diego, CA). Sequencing was performed at the Interdisciplinary Center for Biotechnology Research, University of Florida, using Illumina MiSeq technology, generating 251-bp paired-end reads for each sample. Raw sequences were assembled using a previously described pipeline (13, 14). Briefly, raw reads were trimmed and paired with Trim Galore (15) and then assembled into contigs with Spades v.3.10.1 (16). Contigs smaller than 500 bp and with k-mer coverage less than 2.0 were removed. Validated reads were mapped to filtered contigs using Bowtie 2 v.2.3.3 (17). SAMtools was used for file conversion, and Pilon v.1.22 was used to polish the draft assembly to generate an improved FASTA file (18, 19). Genome assemblies were annotated using the Prokaryotic Genome Annotation Pipeline v.4.13 from the National Center for Biotechnology Information (20).
Genome statistics for J4 and J6 are provided in Table 1. Average nucleotide identity (ANI) based on BLAST, computed using JSpecies (21), showed >99.97% sequence identity between J4 and J6. Meanwhile, ANIs with a representative P. syringae pv. tomato strain, DC3000 (GenBank accession number GCF_000007815.1) were 98.64% and 98.63% for J4 and J6, respectively. Genome annotations of J4 and J6 were compared with that of DC3000 to identify the coronatine coding cluster using the JGI platform (https://img.jgi.doe.gov). J6 lacks the genomic region that encompasses the coronatine and coronafacic genes involved in coronatine production. However, J4 and DC3000 share similar genomic clusters necessary for coronatine production (Fig. 1C). Comparison of the genomic region encompassing the coronatine-associated genes (∼33 kb) indicated more than 97% sequence identity between J4 and DC3000. Previous studies showed that following inoculation with DC3000, stomates closed and later reopened, while with J4, stomates remained open (10, 11). Interestingly, with J6, stomates stayed open but later closed, supporting the possible importance of coronatine for keeping stomates open.
TABLE 1.
Sequencing and genome statistics for Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato strains J4 and J6
| Characteristic | Data for strain: |
|
|---|---|---|
| J4 | J6 | |
| Total no. of reads | 603,606 | 858,404 |
| Genome length (bp) | 6,334,619 | 6,264,625 |
| Genome coverage (×) | 23.9 | 34.4 |
| No. of contigs | 151 | 111 |
| Total no. of genes | 5,678 | 5,591 |
| N50 (bp) | 112,230 | 138,773 |
| GC content (%) | 58.6 | 58.6 |
Data availability.
The whole-genome sequence assemblies for J4 and J6 are deposited in GenBank under accession numbers JADODR000000000 and JADCNI000000000, respectively. The raw data are available under SRA numbers SRR12817639 for J4 and SRR12817638 for J6.
REFERENCES
- 1.Parte AC. 2018. LPSN—list of prokaryotic names with standing in nomenclature (Bacterio.net), 20 years on. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 68:1825–1829. doi: 10.1099/ijsem.0.002786. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Lalucat J, Mulet M, Gomila M, García-Valdés E. 2020. Genomics in bacterial taxonomy: impact on the genus Pseudomonas. Genes (Basel) 11:139. doi: 10.3390/genes11020139. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Mena KD, Gerba CP. 2009. Risk assessment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in water. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 201:71–115. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-0032-6_3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Preston GM. 2000. Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato: the right pathogen, of the right plant, at the right time. Mol Plant Pathol 1:263–275. doi: 10.1046/j.1364-3703.2000.00036.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Geng X, Cheng J, Gangadharan A, Mackey D. 2012. The coronatine toxin of Pseudomonas syringae is a multifunctional suppressor of Arabidopsis defense. Plant Cell 24:4763–4774. doi: 10.1105/tpc.112.105312. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Bender CL, Alarcón-Chaidez F, Gross DC. 1999. Pseudomonas syringae phytotoxins: mode of action, regulation, and biosynthesis by peptide and polyketide synthetases. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 63:266–292. doi: 10.1128/MMBR.63.2.266-292.1999. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Kenyon J, Turner JG. 1990. Physiological changes in Nicotiana tabacum leaves during development of chlorosis caused by coronatine. Physiol Mol Plant Pathol 37:463–477. doi: 10.1016/0885-5765(90)90037-X. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Chakravarthy S, Worley JN, Montes-Rodriguez A, Collmer A. 2018. Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato DC3000 polymutants deploying coronatine and two type III effectors produce quantifiable chlorotic spots from individual bacterial colonies in Nicotiana benthamiana leaves. Mol Plant Pathol 19:935–947. doi: 10.1111/mpp.12579. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Melotto M, Underwood W, Koczan J, Nomura K, He SY. 2006. Plant stomata function in innate immunity against bacterial invasion. Cell 126:969–980. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2006.06.054. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Zeng W, Melotto M, He SY. 2010. Plant stomata: a checkpoint of host immunity and pathogen virulence. Curr Opin Biotechnol 21:599–603. doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2010.05.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Pereira JA, Yu F, Zhang Y, Jones JB, Mou Z. 2018. The Arabidopsis elongator subunit ELP3 and ELP4 confer resistance to bacterial speck in tomato. Front Plant Sci 9:1066. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.01066. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Timilsina S, Minsavage GV, Preston J, Newberry EA, Paret ML, Goss EM, Jones JB, Vallad GE. 2018. Pseudomonas floridensis sp. nov., a bacterial pathogen isolated from tomato. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 68:64–70. doi: 10.1099/ijsem.0.002445. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Fulton JC, Klein JM, Bec S, Fayette J, Garrett KA, Jones JB, Timilsina S, Harmon CL. 2020. Draft genome sequences of plant-pathogenic Klebsiella variicola strains isolated from plantain in Haiti. Microbiol Resour Announc 9:e00336-20. doi: 10.1128/MRA.00336-20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Timilsina S, Pereira-Martin JA, Minsavage GV, Iruegas-Bocardo F, Abrahamian P, Potnis N, Kolaczkowski B, Vallad GE, Goss EM, Jones JB. 2019. Multiple recombination events drive the current genetic structure of Xanthomonas perforans in Florida. Front Microbiol 10:448. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00448. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Martin M. 2011. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet J 17:10. doi: 10.14806/ej.17.1.200. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Prjibelski A, Antipov D, Meleshko D, Lapidus A, Korobeynikov A. 2020. Using SPAdes de novo assembler. Curr Protoc Bioinforma 70:e102. doi: 10.1002/cpbi.102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Langmead B, Salzberg SL. 2012. Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nat Methods 9:357–359. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.1923. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Li H, Handsaker B, Wysoker A, Fennell T, Ruan J, Homer N, Marth G, Abecasis G, Durbin R, 1000 Genome Project Data Processing Subgroup . 2009. The Sequence Alignment/Map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics 25:2078–2079. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp352. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Walker BJ, Abeel T, Shea T, Priest M, Abouelliel A, Sakthikumar S, Cuomo CA, Zeng Q, Wortman J, Young SK, Earl AM. 2014. Pilon: an integrated tool for comprehensive microbial variant detection and genome assembly improvement. PLoS One 9:e112963. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0112963. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Tatusova T, DiCuccio M, Badretdin A, Chetvernin V, Nawrocki EP, Zaslavsky L, Lomsadze A, Pruitt KD, Borodovsky M, Ostell J. 2016. NCBI Prokaryotic Genome Annotation Pipeline. Nucleic Acids Res 44:6614–6624. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkw569. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Richter M, Rosselló-Móra R. 2009. Shifting the genomic gold standard for the prokaryotic species definition. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106:19126–19131. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0906412106. [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 whole-genome sequence assemblies for J4 and J6 are deposited in GenBank under accession numbers JADODR000000000 and JADCNI000000000, respectively. The raw data are available under SRA numbers SRR12817639 for J4 and SRR12817638 for J6.

