Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jun 14;16(6):e0252804. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252804

Differences in the genome, methylome, and transcriptome do not differentiate isolates of Streptococcus equi subsp. equi from horses with acute clinical signs from isolates of inapparent carriers

Ellen Ruth A Morris 1, Ashley G Boyle 2, Miia Riihimäki 3, Anna Aspán 3, Eman Anis 4, Andrew E Hillhouse 5,6, Ivan Ivanov 7, Angela I Bordin 1, John Pringle 3, Noah D Cohen 1,*
Editor: Yung-Fu Chang8
PMCID: PMC8202921  PMID: 34125848

Abstract

Streptococcus equi subsp. equi (SEE) is a host-restricted bacterium that causes the common infectious upper respiratory disease known as strangles in horses. Perpetuation of SEE infection appears attributable to inapparent carrier horses because it neither persists long-term in the environment nor infects other host mammals or vectors, and infection results in short-lived immunity. Whether pathogen factors enable SEE to remain in horses without causing clinical signs remains poorly understood. Thus, our objective was to use next-generation sequencing technologies to characterize the genome, methylome, and transcriptome of isolates of SEE from horses with acute clinical strangles and inapparent carrier horses—including isolates recovered from individual horses sampled repeatedly—to assess pathogen-associated changes that might reflect specific adaptions of SEE to the host that contribute to inapparent carriage. The accessory genome elements and methylome of SEE isolates from Sweden and Pennsylvania revealed no significant or consistent differences between acute clinical and inapparent carrier isolates of SEE. RNA sequencing of SEE isolates from Pennsylvania demonstrated no genes that were differentially expressed between acute clinical and inapparent carrier isolates of SEE. The absence of specific, consistent changes in the accessory genomes, methylomes, and transcriptomes of acute clinical and inapparent carrier isolates of SEE indicates that adaptations of SEE to the host are unlikely to explain the carrier state of SEE. Efforts to understand the carrier state of SEE should instead focus on host factors.

Introduction

Streptococcus equi subsp. equi (SEE) is a host-specific bacterial pathogen that causes the infectious disease of horses known as strangles [1–5]. Infection with SEE occurs primarily in the upper respiratory tract, and is very contagious with a high rate of morbidity in naïve horses [3]. Typically, infection results in lethargy, pyrexia, swollen lymph nodes, guttural pouch empyema, and nasal discharge [3, 4]. Other clinical signs of disease can be observed, including dissemination of infection to other organs and immune-mediated sequelae such as vasculitis and myositis [3, 5]. Strangles is an ancient disease that is prevalent among horses worldwide [1, 6]. The persistence of the disease appears to be attributable to the ability of SEE to survive in horses that are infected but do not show clinical signs. SEE cannot survive in the external environment for extended periods of time: SEE can persist approximately 2 days on surfaces outside its host [7], and from 1 to 4 weeks in a wet environment, dependent upon the season [8]. There are no known biological or mechanical vectors of SEE [3], and horses that have recovered from the disease usually develop prolonged immunity [3, 4]. Consequently, the most likely source of spread and persistence of SEE is horses that appear healthy but shed SEE undetected (so-called inapparent carrier horses) [3, 9, 10]; these carriers transmit SEE to susceptible horses, thereby perpetuating the disease in nature [11, 12].

Several host- and pathogen-associated adaptations have been suggested to give rise to the capacity for SEE to evade the immune system and persist within the host. The ability for some strains to be carried by apparently healthy horses has been attributed to the presence of chondroids (i.e., concretions of inspissated pus) or empyema in the guttural pouches of infected horses recovered from strangles [9, 11]. However, cases have been documented in which no clinical signs or vestiges of inflammation or niduses of infection (such as chondroids) were noted from clinically inapparent carriers of SEE [13, 14]. Truncation of the N-terminus of the M-like protein (SeM) has been hypothesized to contribute to the ability of SEE to remain undetected in the host [15]. Another factor that has been proposed to contribute to inapparent carriage of SEE in horses is its equibactin locus (eqbA–eqbN), the novel iron acquisition element present on the integrative and conjugative element (ICE), ICESe2 [10, 16]. More efficient iron acquisition is theorized to aid in the ability of SEE to better survive in the host without inducing clinical signs [16]. Despite these proposed characteristics of carrier isolates, none has been documented to be identified consistently among isolates of SEE from inapparent carriers. Consequently, it is unclear whether the inapparent carrier state of SEE is attributable to agent factors (adaptations to the host), host factors (such as immunity), or both.

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies such as whole genome sequencing (WGS) or RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) of SEE can be employed to investigate agent-associated adaptions within the bacterial genome or transcriptome that contribute to inapparent carriage. Using WGS, the bacterial genome can be defined by elements that make up the core or accessory genome [17, 18]. Core genome elements (CGE) are those found in the genomes of most isolates of the same bacterial species, whereas accessory genome elements (AGE) are elements that are not found in all isolates of the same bacterial species. Comparison of the AGE has been used to identify differences among isolates from the same bacterial species collected from different environments [17]. Additionally, using PacBio single molecule, real-time (SMRT) WGS allows for characterization of the methylation patterns of bacterial genomes [19]. Methylation of their DNA protects bacteria against bacteriophage or other foreign DNA; methyl groups sharing the same sequence motif as the bacteria’s own DNA protect against enzymatic degradation, whereas the DNA lacking the same methylation is recognized as foreign by endonucleases that cleave at these unmethylated motifs [20, 21]. Methylation can also alter gene expression and even alter virulence in some bacteria [22–24]. Methylated bacterial DNA is most commonly recognized as residues of N6-methyl-adenosine (m6A), N4-methyl-cytosine (m4C), or C5-methyl-cytosine (m5C) [20, 21]. In addition to the genome and the methylome, assessing the transcriptome through RNA-Seq can be used to characterize changes in gene expression that influence phenotype of the organism. For example, RNA-Seq revealed that differing regulation of gene expression resulted in a change in SEE colony morphology [25]. Thus, RNA-Seq might distinguish strains of SEE that result in inapparent carriage from isolates obtained from horses with acute clinical signs.

To our knowledge, however, potential differences in the genome, methylome, and transcriptome of inapparent carrier and acute clinical strains of SEE has not been investigated. Thus, we aimed to compare the AGE, methylomes, and transcriptomes of strains of SEE recovered from horses from within the same geographical regions that recovered from SEE without clinical signs (inapparent carriers) with strains of SEE from those with acute clinical signs of strangles, including some isolates collected by sequential sampling of individual horses. The purpose of these comparisons was to identify evidence of any adaptions of the pathogen to its host. We showed that there were no consistent differences between the 2 phenotypes of SEE strains for the AGE, methylome, or transcriptome that might explain persistence in the host. These findings indicate that pathogen-associated adaptions are highly improbable as an explanation for the ability of SEE to go undetected and persist within its host.

Material and methods

Streptococcus equi subsp. equi isolates

Carrier and clinical SEE isolates from Pennsylvania (PA-USA) were provided by a co-author (AGB), and sequence data of Swedish isolates of SEE predominately from acute clinical cases and their isolates after progression to inapparent carriers were provided by 2 other co-authors (MR and JP) (Table 1). For the purposes of our study, inapparent carriers were defined as horses either recovered from strangles or exposed to strangles cases that were absent of clinical signs for ≥ 6 weeks prior to collection of the isolate. Swedish isolates of SEE (n = 14) were from a single outbreak at an individual farm in Sweden previously described [13] comprised of 8 isolates from inapparent carriers and 6 isolates from those with clinical disease; 5 horses from this herd contributed isolates during both acute disease and the inapparent carrier state. No abnormalities were noted during endoscopy of the guttural pouches of the Swedish horses that were inapparent carriers with the exceptions of 1 horse with chondroids (489_010) and another horse in which a moderate amount of mucus (but no purulent exudate) was noted in the right guttural pouch only (489_007) (S1 Table). Isolates of SEE from PA-USA (n = 21) were from 11 inapparent carriers and 10 acute clinical cases located in a similar geographical area of the state, and isolates spanned different years (2014 to 2017). Results of guttural pouch endoscopy were available for only 5 of 11 (45%) horses from PA-USA from which carrier strains were recovered; all 5 horses had abnormal findings within their guttural pouches (S1 Table).

Table 1. Description of the 14 SEE isolates from Sweden and the 21 SEE isolates from Pennsylvania.

Genome ID Location Status Horse ID Collection Source Collection Date Duration From Resolution of Clinical Signs ST SeM
470_007 Sweden Carrier H1 NL 11/11/2015 20 weeks 179 72
470_006 Sweden Acute H2 NL 5/21/2015 NA 179 72
470_003 Sweden Carrier H2 NL 8/26/2015 12 weeks 179 72
470_002 Sweden Acute H3 NL 5/21/2015 NA 179 72
489_007 Sweden Carrier H3 NL 11/11/2015 24 weeks 179 72
470_001 Sweden Acute H4 NL 5/21/2015 NA 179 72
489_004 Sweden Acute H5 NL 6/6/2015 NA 179 72
470_008 Sweden Carrier H5 NL 11/11/2015 20 weeks 179 72
489_006 Sweden Carrier H5 NL 11/11/2015 20 weeks 179 150a
489_003 Sweden Acute H7 NL 5/21/2015 NA 179 72
489_010 Sweden Carrier H7 GPL 3/3/2016 50 weeks 179 152a
489_002 Sweden Acute H8 NL 5/21/2015 NA 179 72
489_005 Sweden Carrier H8 NL 8/26/2015 12 weeks 179 72
489_009 Sweden Carrier H8 GPL 3/3/2016 50 weeks 179 151
20–080 Pennsylvania Carrier PA1 GPL 7/15/2014 6 weeks 179 39
20–081 Pennsylvania Carrier PA2 GPL 8/20/2014 12 weeks 179 39
20–082 Pennsylvania Carrier PA3 GPL 11/26/2014 20 weeks 179 39
20–083 Pennsylvania Carrier PA4 GPL 12/3/2014 20 weeks 179 39
20–084 Pennsylvania Carrier PA5 NL 7/27/2016 16 weeks 179 28
20–085 Pennsylvania Carrier PA6 NL 12/5/2016 None 179 147
20–086 Pennsylvania Carrier PA7 NL 7/27/2016 8 weeks 179 39
20–087 Pennsylvania Carrier PA8 NL 1/11/2017 8 weeks 179 224
20–088 Pennsylvania Carrier PA9 GPL 4/4/2017 12 weeks 179 147
20–089 Pennsylvania Carrier PA10 GPL 5/17/2017 None 179 225
20–090 Pennsylvania Carrier PA11 GPL 8/8/2017 7 weeks 179 226
20–091 Pennsylvania Acute PA12 GPL 6/6/2014 NA 179 28
20–092 Pennsylvania Acute PA13 GPL 4/24/2014 NA 179 227
20–093 Pennsylvania Acute PA14 NL 2/16/2017 NA 179 224
20–094 Pennsylvania Acute PA15 NL 8/27/2014 NA 179 28
20–095 Pennsylvania Acute PA16 NL 2/1/2016 NA 179 39
20–096 Pennsylvania Acute PA17 NL 3/10/2014 NA 179 228
20–097 Pennsylvania Acute PA18 NL 3/17/2014 NA 179 28
20–098 Pennsylvania Acute PA19 NL 2/17/2016 NA 179 28
20–099 Pennsylvania Acute PA20 NL 3/4/2016 NA 179 28
20–100 Pennsylvania Acute PA21 NL 3/24/2016 NA 179 28

ST, Sequence type; SeM, M-like protein; NL, Nasopharyngeal lavage; GPL, Guttural pouch lavage; NA, Not applicable.

aTruncation noted in SeM protein.

Bacterial DNA extraction and whole genome sequencing

The PA-USA SEE isolates were cultured overnight in 3 ml of Todd Hewitt broth (THB; HIMEDIA®, West Chester, PA, USA) in 5% CO2 at 37°C. Following incubation overnight, bacterial isolates were centrifuged at 3,000 x g for 10 minutes to create a pellet. The supernatants were discarded, and DNA extractions were performed using the DNeasy® UltraClean® Microbial kit (Qiagen®, Hilden, Germany), following the manufacturer’s instructions with some modifications. Briefly, the bacterial pellets were resuspended in 300 μl of PowerBead solution, and transferred into PowerBead tubes. Fifty μl of solution SL was added, and the PowerBead tubes were incubated at 70°C for 10 minutes, followed by horizontal vortexing for an additional 10 minutes. Then, the PowerBead tubes were centrifuged and the supernatants were transferred to new tubes. One hundred μl of solution IRS was added to the supernatants, incubated for 15 minutes at 4°C, and then centrifuged. The supernatants were transferred to another tube without disturbing the pellet, and 900 μl of solution SB was added. Seven hundred μl of this solution was transferred to MB spin column tubes, centrifuged, and, after the flow-through was discarded, this step was repeated. Additionally, 300 μl of solution CB was added to the columns and centrifuged. Another centrifuge step was performed to remove any excess fluid, and the MB spin columns were transferred to new collection tubes. Finally, 50 μl of the solution EB was added to the columns and centrifuged. The quality and concentration of the DNAs were assessed using a NanoDrop spectrophotometer (ND-1000, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA), and sent to the Duke Center for Genomic and Computational Biology (GCB) for WGS using the PacBio Sequel platform.

The Swedish SEE isolates, cultured from horses during a strangles outbreak as described by Riihimäki et al., [13] were retrieved from storage at -70°C, subculture was performed, and then grown overnight on 15-cm-diameter blood agar plates (SVA, Uppsala, Sweden) in 5% CO2 at 37°C. DNAs were extracted by the Genomic-tip 100/G kit (GT) (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) according to the manufacturer’s protocol, but bacterial lysis was performed prior to extraction to obtain high molecular weight DNA. Briefly, SEE growth from the agar plates were harvested by a 10-μl loop into a 2-ml tube and thereafter lysed in 200 μl of 50 mM EDTA pH 8.0 supplemented with 20 μl (100 mg/ml) lysozyme. After incubation on a thermomixer for 4 hours at 37°C / 400 x g, 400 μl GT buffer B1 (provided by the manufacturer of the kit) and 20 μl proteinase K were added, and samples were mixed by inverting the tubes 10 times. This was followed by a further incubation for 4 hours, at 54°C / 400 x g. Samples were frozen at -80°C overnight, flash-thawed at 50°C, and 300 μl of GT buffer B2 was added. Again, samples were mixed by inverting the tubes 10 times. Five μl of RNase was added and after 10 minutes at room temperature, samples were mixed for 30 minutes at 50°C / 400 x g, before DNA extraction. After DNA extraction, the DNA quality was assessed using a NanoDrop spectrophotometer (ND-8000, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA), and concentrations were determined using a Qubit® 2.0 fluorometer (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA). The DNA from the 14 Swedish SEE isolates were then sent to the SciLifeLab (https://www.scilifelab.se/) for PacBio sequencing.

Bacterial RNA extraction and RNA sequencing

Carrier and clinical PA-USA SEE isolates were grown in THB for 4 hours (exponential phase growth) at 37°C in 5% CO2. Following the 4-hour incubation, liquid cultures were centrifuged at 3,000 x g for 10 minutes to pellet the bacterium and the supernatants were discarded. The bacterial RNAs were then extracted using the RiboPure™ RNA Purification kit (Ambion® RiboPure™-Bacteria Kit; Invitrogen™, Carlsbad, CA, USA) following the manufacturer’s instructions. Briefly, the SEE pellets were resuspended in 350 μl of the RNAWIZ solution, and then transferred to tubes with Zirconia beads. The tubes were placed on a horizontal vortex adaptor, beat for 10 minutes at maximum speed, and then centrifuged at 13,000 x g for 5 minutes at 4°C. The supernatants containing the lysed bacteria were transferred to fresh tubes, 0.2 volumes of chloroform were added, and samples were incubated for 10 minutes at room temperature. To separate the organic and aqueous phases, tubes were centrifuged for 5 minutes at 4°C. The aqueous phases were transferred to new tubes, 0.5 volumes of 100% ethanol were added, mixed thoroughly, and transferred to filter cartridges in 2-ml tubes. The filter cartridge tubes were then centrifuged for 1 minute, the flow-through discarded, and the filters were washed by the addition of 700 μl of Wash Solution 1. A second and third wash steps were performed with the addition of Wash Solution 2/3. After the third wash step, the filter cartridges were transferred to new tubes. Finally, the RNA was eluted by 50 μl of Elution Solution, and a DNase treatment was performed. The quality and purity of the RNAs were assessed using the NanoDrop (ND-1000, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA).

At the Texas A&M Institute for Genome Sciences and Society (TIGSS) molecular genomics laboratory, RNA extracted from the 21 PA-USA SEE isolates were quantified using the Qubit fluorometric RNA (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) assay for normalization prior to library preparation. RNA libraries were prepared using the Stranded Total RNA Preparation kit (Illumina©, San Diego, CA, USA) following the manufacturer’s instructions, in which each isolate received a unique barcode. The 21 isolates were pooled, and RNA-Seq was performed on the NovaSeq 6000 (Illumina©, San Diego, CA, USA) instrument that generated 150-base-pair, paired-end sequences. The sequencing run produced approximately 6 million reads per sample and resulted in ~200 X coverage for each sample.

Bioinformatic analysis

Following WGS of the PA-USA and Swedish isolates, the Texas A&M High Performance Research Computing (HPRC) clusters were used to assemble genomes de novo using CANU (v1.7) [26], with the parameters of increased coverage (corOutCoverage = 100) and increased assembly sensitivity (corMhapSensitivity = high). Assembled genomes were confirmed to be SEE through the ribosomal multilocus sequence types database [27], and StrainSeeker [28]. The ST- and SeM-type of each of the assembled genomes of SEE were determined using the PubMLST Streptococcus zooepidemicus database [29, 30]. Then, assembled genomes were annotated using RASTtk (v2.0) [31] via the web-based server. Following annotation, the annotated genomes were inputted into Spine (v0.3.2) [17] to define the core genome (i.e., elements found in all genomes) of SEE. Using the core genome output from Spine, the AGE (i.e., elements found present in some genomes but absent from others) were identified using AGEnt (v0.3.1) [17]. Finally, ClustAGE (v0.8) [32] was implemented to identify and group the AGE that differ within the carrier and clinical SEE isolates. A graphical representation of clustered AGE for each individual genome was generated with the ClustAGE plot (http://vfsmspineagent.fsm.northwestern.edu/cgi-bin/clustage_plot.cgi). AGE were only included if ≥ 95% of the protein was identified. Comparisons of the AGE of carrier and clinical SEE were performed using custom R scripts (S1 Appendix). We conducted separate AGE analyses for SEE isolates from Sweden and PA-USA to avoid potential confounding effects by geographical location. A phylogenetic tree was built to assess the relatedness of the Swedish SEE isolates using PATRIC (v3.6.9) with default parameters [33]. Multiple sequence alignment of the SeM nucleotide sequences was performed using Clustal Omega (v1.2.4) at EMBL-EBI [34, 35].

The complete methylation profiles of carrier and clinical SEE genomes were characterized with the BaseMod (https://github.com/ben-lerch/BaseMod-3.0) pipeline in the PacBio SMRT Link (v8.0) command line tools. Briefly, pbmm2 was used to align the raw sequence read BAM files to the reference genome (SEE 4047). Using the aligned BAM file outputs, the kineticTools function ipdSummary was implemented to generate a GFF and CSV files with base-modification information. Next, the MotifMaker find function was used to generate a second set of CSV files with identified consensus motifs. Finally, the execution of the MotifMaker reprocess function generated GFF files with all the modifications that were associated with motifs. Using R (v4.0.3), the motif GFF files were filtered based on the presence of a known methylation types (m4C or m6A), and a having QV score (a quality score for the detection event) of ≥ 30. The filtered GFF files of carrier and clinical SEE genomes were annotated by the SEE 4047 reference genome with the BedTools (v2.29.2) [36] annotate function. The annotated outputs for both carrier and clinical SEE were then compared by looking for the presence or absence of methylation on proteins throughout the genomes using custom R scripts (S1 Appendix). Identified motifs were then compared to the SEE 4047 genome using the Restriction Enzyme Database (REBASE) [37].

Following sequencing of the RNA of PA-USA SEE isolates at TIGSS, using the HPRC clusters raw RNA reads had their quality checked using FastQC (v0.11.6; www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc/), and low quality reads were trimmed using Trimmomatic (v0.36) [38]. These filtered reads were then aligned and quantified against the reference genome SEE 4047 using Salmon (v1.3.0) [39]. The transcriptomes of all carrier SEE isolates were compared to clinical SEE isolates with edgeR (v3.30.3) [40] to identify any significantly (false discovery rate [FDR] ≤ 0.05) differently expressed genes with a log2-fold change (logFC) of ≤ -1 or ≥ 1 using a quasi-likelihood negative binomial generalized log-linear model (S1 Appendix) [41].

Accession numbers

Genomes and raw sequence files were submitted to NCBI’s GenBank and Sequence Read Archive under BioProject PRJNA704656. The RNA-Seq transcripts were deposited to NCBI’s Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) and are accessible through the GEO Series accession number GSE167862 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE167862) [42]. The specific accession numbers for each genome can be found in S2 Table.

Results

Initially, the WGS data were used to define the AGE of the SEE isolates. The AGE were examined to identify genetic elements that differed between SEE isolates collected from acute and inapparent carrier cases. No consistent or significant differences in AGE were observed between the carrier (n = 8) and acute clinical (n = 6) isolates of SEE from the Swedish outbreak (Fig 1). Similarly, there were no differences identified between AGE of the carrier (n = 11) and acute (n = 10) SEE isolates from PA-USA (Fig 2). Many components identified in the AGE were associated with acquired genetic elements. Markedly fewer AGE elements were identified in the Swedish SEE isolates (S3 Table) than in the PA-USA SEE isolates (S4 Table). The phylogenetic assessment of the Swedish SEE isolates demonstrated that there were minor genomic differences between isolates recovered from either clinical or carrier state from the same individual horses, but these adaptations were not consistent among individuals (S1 Fig). For example, 2 carrier isolates (489_006 [H5], 489_010 [H7]) from Sweden were noted to have a truncated SeM protein (Table 1). Although neither horse had this truncation identified during acute clinical infection, in 1 horse (H5) the truncated isolate was collected via nasopharyngeal lavage simultaneously with a non-truncated isolate. These truncations were found at the beginning of the SeM protein, but ended at nucleotide base 318 and 333 in isolate 489_006 and 489_010, respectively (S2 Appendix). Furthermore, no other truncation in the SeM proteins were identified in the remaining isolates of SEE from Sweden or PA-USA.

Fig 1. Comparison of accessory genome elements (AGE) of inapparent carrier SEE (n = 8), and acute clinical SEE (n = 6) genomes from Sweden.

Fig 1

The outer ring shows the ClustAGE bins that are ≥ 200 base-pairs in size these are ordered clockwise from the largest bin to the smallest bin, and are differentiated by orange and green to define bin borders. The concentric inner bands show the distribution of AGE within each individual isolate. Bands that are blue represents inapparent carrier isolates, and bands that are red represent acute clinical isolates. The central ruler of the figure indicates the cumulative size of the AGE in kilobases.

Fig 2. Comparison of accessory genome elements (AGE) of inapparent carrier SEE (n = 11), and acute clinical SEE (n = 10) genomes from Pennsylvania.

Fig 2

The outer ring shows the ClustAGE bins that are ≥ 200 base-pairs in size these are ordered clockwise from the largest bin to the smallest bin, and are differentiated by orange and green to define bin borders. The concentric inner bands show the distribution of AGE within each individual isolate. Bands that are blue represents inapparent carrier isolates, and bands that are red represent acute clinical isolates. The central ruler of the figure indicates the cumulative size of the AGE in kilobases.

Because some methylation events have been described to influence gene expression in prokaryotes [22–24], we performed additional characterization of these bacterial genomes by examining the methylomes of the carrier and acute clinical strains of SEE. As done for the AGE sequence data, separate analyses of the global methylation patterns determined from PacBio WGS were performed for the Swedish and PA-USA isolates of SEE. In both Swedish and PA-USA SEE isolates, no differences in methylation patterns were observed that consistently differed between the carrier and acute clinical isolates of SEE (Figs 3A and 4A). Using REBASE, we performed comparisons of the identified motifs to those in the reference genome, SEE 4047, in which REBASE used with the GenBank data for SEE 4047 to predict restriction enzyme and DNA methyltransferase genes [37]. We identified novel methylation motifs from the complete methylomes of the Swedish SEE isolates. The first new motif (ANNNGANCGNNNAATNNT) was associated with the m6A modification found in a clinical and a carrier SEE isolate, 470_001 and 470_008, respectively (Table 2). The second new motif (DNRTGCAGB) was observed in 4 carrier SEE isolates at 3 locations with the m6A type modification (Fig 3B); although we found other sites with this motif, we were unable to determine whether they were either m6A or m4C methylation (i.e., Modified Base; Table 2). The most common motif seen among all SEE isolates regardless of location was CTGCAG (Table 2), which was associated with a type II restriction enzyme and methyltransferase according to REBASE. We also observed that the motif CATCC was found among all Swedish SEE isolates, but only in 12 of the 21 PA-USA SEE isolates (Table 2). Specific methylation sites that occurred in at least half the isolates for either disease status were considered. Six sites were identified that fit this criterion in the SEE isolates from Sweden; 2 of these were identified in acute clinical isolates and the remaining 4 were identified in carrier isolates (Fig 3A, S5 Table). Within the genomes of the PA-USA SEE isolates, only 3 sites of methylation occurred in half of the carrier group (Fig 4A), and these sites all had m4C type modification with an unknown motif (Fig 4B, S6 Table).

Fig 3. Methylation locations and motifs from SEE isolates from Sweden.

Fig 3

(A) Depiction of whether methylation occurred at a specified genomic location. Genomic locations are indicated along the x-axis, and whether methylation occurred is indicated on the y-axis as yes (Y) or no (N), by SEE isolates. Circles represent acute clinical isolates, and triangles represent inapparent carrier isolates. (B) Sites of methylation (x-axis), by the methylation motif (y-axis). The type of methylation and exact position in the genome are indicated by different colors. Circles represent acute clinical isolates, and triangles represent inapparent carrier isolates.

Fig 4. Methylation locations and motifs from SEE isolates from Pennsylvania.

Fig 4

(A) Depiction of whether methylation occurred at a specified genomic location. Genomic locations are indicated along the x-axis, and whether methylation occurred is indicated on the y-axis as yes (Y) or no (N) by SEE isolates. Circles represent acute clinical isolates, and triangles represent inapparent carrier isolates. (B) Sites of methylation (x-axis), by the methylation motif (y-axis). The type of methylation and exact position in the genome correspond to the different colors. Circles represent acute clinical isolates, and triangles represent inapparent carrier isolates.

Table 2. The summary of the methylation motif sequences, modification types, and modification percentage for all study SEE isolates from Sweden and Pennsylvania.

Genome ID Location Status Motif Sequence Modification Type Percent Modification
470_001 Sweden Acute ANNNGANCGNNNAATNNT m6A 0.86
470_001 Sweden Acute CATCC m6A 0.99
470_001 Sweden Acute CTGCAG m6A 0.97
470_002 Sweden Acute CATCC m6A 0.98
470_002 Sweden Acute CTGCAG m6A 0.97
470_003 Sweden Carrier CATCC m6A 0.98
470_003 Sweden Carrier CTGCAG m6A 0.97
470_003 Sweden Carrier DNRTGCAGB Modified Base 0.42
470_006 Sweden Acute CATCC m6A 0.98
470_006 Sweden Acute CTGCAG m6A 0.97
470_007 Sweden Carrier CATCC m6A 0.99
470_007 Sweden Carrier CTGCAG m6A 0.97
470_008 Sweden Carrier ANNNGANCGNNNAATNNT m6A 0.85
470_008 Sweden Carrier CATCC m6A 0.98
470_008 Sweden Carrier CTGCAG m6A 0.97
489_001 Sweden Acute CATCC m6A 0.99
489_001 Sweden Acute CTGCAG m6A 0.97
489_002 Sweden Acute CATCC m6A 0.99
489_002 Sweden Acute CTGCAG m6A 0.97
489_003 Sweden Acute CATCC m6A 0.99
489_003 Sweden Acute CTGCAG m6A 0.97
489_004 Sweden Acute CATCC m6A 0.99
489_004 Sweden Acute CTGCAG m6A 0.97
489_005 Sweden Carrier CATCC m6A 0.99
489_005 Sweden Carrier CTGCAG m6A 0.97
489_005 Sweden Carrier DNRTGCAGB Modified Base 0.51
489_006 Sweden Carrier CATCC m6A 0.99
489_006 Sweden Carrier CTGCAG m6A 0.97
489_007 Sweden Carrier CATCC m6A 0.99
489_007 Sweden Carrier CTGCAG m6A 0.97
489_009 Sweden Carrier CATCC m6A 0.99
489_009 Sweden Carrier CTGCAG m6A 0.97
489_009 Sweden Carrier DNRTGCAGB Modified Base 0.57
489_010 Sweden Carrier CATCC m6A 0.98
489_010 Sweden Carrier CTGCAG m6A 0.96
489_010 Sweden Carrier DNRTGCAGB Modified Base 0.49
20–080 Pennsylvania Carrier CTGCAG m6A 0.95
20–081 Pennsylvania Carrier CTGCAG m6A 0.95
20–082 Pennsylvania Carrier CTGCAG m6A 0.95
20–083 Pennsylvania Carrier CTGCAG m6A 0.95
20–084 Pennsylvania Carrier CATCC m6A 0.98
20–084 Pennsylvania Carrier CTGCAG m6A 0.97
20–085 Pennsylvania Carrier CATCC m6A 0.98
20–085 Pennsylvania Carrier CTGCAG m6A 0.97
20–086 Pennsylvania Carrier CTGCAG m6A 0.95
20–087 Pennsylvania Carrier CTGCAG m6A 0.95
20–088 Pennsylvania Carrier CATCC m6A 0.98
20–088 Pennsylvania Carrier CTGCAG m6A 0.97
20–089 Pennsylvania Carrier CATCC m6A 0.98
20–089 Pennsylvania Carrier CTGCAG m6A 0.97
20–090 Pennsylvania Carrier CTGCAG m6A 0.95
20–091 Pennsylvania Acute CATCC m6A 0.97
20–091 Pennsylvania Acute CTGCAG m6A 0.95
20–092 Pennsylvania Acute CATCC m6A 0.97
20–092 Pennsylvania Acute CTGCAG m6A 0.96
20–093 Pennsylvania Acute CTGCAG m6A 0.95
20–094 Pennsylvania Acute CATCC m6A 0.98
20–094 Pennsylvania Acute CTGCAG m6A 0.97
20–095 Pennsylvania Acute CTGCAG m6A 0.95
20–096 Pennsylvania Acute CATCC m6A 0.98
20–096 Pennsylvania Acute CTGCAG m6A 0.97
20–097 Pennsylvania Acute CATCC m6A 0.98
20–097 Pennsylvania Acute CTGCAG m6A 0.97
20–098 Pennsylvania Acute CATCC m6A 0.98
20–098 Pennsylvania Acute CTGCAG m6A 0.97
20–099 Pennsylvania Acute CATCC m6A 0.98
20–099 Pennsylvania Acute CTGCAG m6A 0.97
20–099 Pennsylvania Acute GGATGH m6A 0.21
20–100 Pennsylvania Acute CATCC m6A 0.98
20–100 Pennsylvania Acute CTGCAG m6A 0.97

m6A, N6-methyl-adenosine.

To assess differences in gene expression determined by RNA-Seq between acute clinical and inapparent carrier strains of SEE from PA-USA, we used a similar untargeted approach as was used to analyze the SEE isolate exhibiting phenotype switching among colonies [25]. Our differential gene expression analysis with edgeR did not identify any genes that were significantly (FDR ≤ 0.05, logFC ≤ -1 or ≥ 1) differentially expressed (Fig 5). Two genes (SEQ_0823, SEQ_0834) that were closest to being significant and that had a logFC < -1 and an FDR of 0.055 (S2 Fig, S7 Table) were associated with phage elements of the SEE genome found in the prophage φSeq2 in SEE 4047, but these elements have not been further studied.

Fig 5. Volcano plot of Pennsylvania SEE RNA-Seq genes counts.

Fig 5

The log2 fold-change (logFC) is represented along the x-axis, and the log10-transformed false discovery rate (FDR) is represented along the y-axis. Gray points represent genes that were not identified as significantly differentially expressed (FDR ≤ 0.05), and green points represent genes whose expression had a logFC ≤ -1 or ≥ 1. No genes met the criteria for interest of having an FDR ≤ 0.05 and a logFC ≤ -1 or ≥ 1.

Discussion

Comparing the AGE, methylomes, and transcriptomes of SEE isolates from horses either with acute clinical signs or that were inapparently-infected and that were derived from outbreaks in 2 different continents, we could not identify significant differences between strains of SEE from acute clinical and inapparent carrier strains. The genomic analysis of the AGE of the PA-USA and Swedish strains were considered separately to avoid confounding effects of geographical origin on any observed genomic differences between acute and carrier strains, because geographical clustering has previously been identified [10, 14]. We defined the core genome for all isolates within a region, which differs from the approach taken in another study where the core genome was delineated by removing prophages, and the ICEs- from the SEE 4047 genome, and any regions of other SEE genomes > 200 base-pairs that did not match the core genome were considered as part of the accessory genome [10]. Harris et al. demonstrated that the prophages φSeq2–4, and ICESe1 and ICESe2 were highly conserved among SEE isolates [10]. This finding led us to adapt our AGE definition to include all elements found present in some genomes but absent from others, therefore allowing these prophages and ICEs sequences to be considered as elements of the core genome.

The Swedish SEE isolates (n = 14) were collected throughout a single outbreak that occurred among Icelandic horses as previously reported [13]. Of note, 5 of the horses had isolates from both acute disease and after becoming inapparent carriers. Our 2nd population of SEE isolates (n = 21) were collected from a single region of PA-USA, but were not from a single outbreak. We observed fewer AGE for the Swedish SEE isolates than the PA-USA SEE isolates. The Swedish isolates were collected from a single outbreak and the homogeneity of the Swedish isolates indicates that the outbreak was the result of a single SEE strain. This finding is important because it demonstrates the persistence for over a year of a single strain of SEE in a closed herd. Additionally, the Swedish SEE genomes were more continuous (median number of contigs, 1; range, 1 to 4 contigs) than the genomes of the PA-USA isolates (median number of contigs, 4; range, 1 to 11 contigs) (S2 Table). Among both sets of isolates, we observed no consistent differences in the AGE from isolates collected from inapparent carrier horses when compared to those collected from individuals exhibiting acute clinical signs. These finding are consistent with those previously described, despite the aforementioned difference between studies in how the accessory genome was defined [10]. Many of the observed AGE from these isolates were related to phages, ICEs, and hypothetical proteins that have not been characterized or identified in the reference genome SEE 4047 (S4 Table). These findings are important because they indicate that strains of SEE from inapparent carriers cannot be distinguished by the presence or absence of any specific genes. However, the AGE from SEE isolates collected from different regions of the world do differ [10], regardless of disease status, which illustrates the importance of accounting for geographical effects when comparing genomes of SEE. It should be noted that most 6/8; S1 Table) of the Swedish carrier isolates from this study [13, 43] were collected from individuals that were healthy and lacked evidence of abnormalities including chondroids in their guttural pouches, findings that have been identified in some inapparent carriers [9, 11]. Among the PA-USA carrier isolates, all 5 of the 11 carrier horses for which history was available had gross abnormalities observed via endoscopy in their guttural pouches; endoscopic findings of the remaining 6 horses were not available to the authors (S1 Table). This difference likely reflects differences between following horses from a single herd over a period of time (Swedish isolates) and identifying individual horses from multiple locations that were shedding SEE ≥ 6 weeks after recovering from clinical signs. Although other studies have described potential pathogen-associated genetic changes that could result in a carrier state of SEE [10, 15, 16], we did not identify truncation of the SeM protein in any of the carrier strains from PA-USA (n = 11) and only truncation in 2 of 8 Swedish carrier strains (489_006, 489_010) as previously described [13], and the equibactin locus was found in all SEE strains from both locations (i.e., acute clinical and carrier strains). Although the reasons for the discrepancy between our findings and prior studies is unknown, it is possibly attributable to either geographical differences or clinical phenotypic differences (e.g., isolates obtained from horses with chondroids or guttural pouch empyema [15]) between isolates in our study and isolates from previous studies. The variations within the Swedish SEE isolates collected from the same horse, such as the truncated SeM protein observed in 2 carrier isolates (S1 Fig), likely reflect adaptation of SEE to its host over time. These variations were noted between the 2 disease states (acute clinical or inapparent carrier) and source (guttural pouch or nasopharyngeal lavage; Table 1; S1 Fig). Nevertheless, these pathogen-adaptions cannot fully explain the carrier state because they were not consistent among the SEE isolates from Sweden from within the same horse or from other inapparent carrier isolates of SEE from Sweden or PA-USA.

PacBio WGS results also were used to describe the methylome of the PA-USA and Swedish SEE isolates. Methylation in prokaryotes has primarily been described as a mechanism of defense against invading bacteriophages and other foreign DNA [20, 21]. Lack of methylation at a particular motif that occurs throughout the genome has been shown to produce modifications in the gene expression of microbes [22, 24], even contributing to the virulence of some pathogens [22]. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first detailed comparison of the global methylomes of inapparent carrier and acute clinical isolates of SEE. Despite the more comprehensive scrutiny of genetic elements of our approach, we failed to identify any changes in methylation that differentiated between inapparent carrier and acute clinical isolates of SEE (Figs 3 and 4). As we observed for the AGE analyses, methylation patterns differed between the geographical regions. Among the methylation observed in the SEE strains from Sweden, we identified 2 novel motifs that have not been described previously in SEE isolates. The lower frequency of methylation events associated with the novel motif (DNRTGCAGB) increases the likelihood that the absence of methylation at this motif could influence the gene expression in these isolates. Decreased methylation of target motifs has been reported to inhibit Streptococcus pyogenes from surviving in human neutrophils and to reduce expression of genes involved in immune evasion and adherence [22], to alter the ability of Borrelia burgdorferi to colonize the host [24], and to alter the expression of genes associated with metabolic pathways of Mycobacterium tuberculosis [23]. To evaluate sites with higher prevalence of methylation, we considered sites in which methylation occurred in at least half the isolates from either the carrier group or the acute clinical disease group. Six methylation sites were identified as occurring in at least half of the Swedish isolates of SEE, and only 3 methylation sites were identified in at least half of the PA-USA isolates of SEE (Figs 3 and 4). Of the 9 sites that had more frequent methylation in both geographical locations of SEE isolates, none were common among isolates from both locations. This further demonstrates geographical differences in the methylome of SEE, but methylation patterns did not differ between the 2 different phenotypes. Little can be inferred about the biological effects of the observed differences in methylation between geographical areas without further investigations, but our objective was to determine whether methylation patterns differed consistently between isolates of SEE from inapparent carriers and acute clinical disease.

RNA-Seq has been previously used to assess gene expression in SEE isolates [10, 25]. Changes in transcription identified using untargeted RNA-Seq of an SEE isolate were associated with a difference in the phenotype of colonies of the isolate [25]. A targeted approach to gene expression (viz., quantitative PCR) was used to evaluate gene expression of the has operon which regulated levels of hyaluronic acid capsule expression in SEE isolates where deletions in the has operon were identified [10]. We performed untargeted RNA-Seq on inapparent carrier and acute clinical SEE isolates from the same region of PA-USA. No significantly (FDR ≤ 0.05) differentially expressed genes were identified between the acute and carrier SEE isolates (S7 Table). We did identify, however, 2 CDS, SEQ_0823 and SEQ_0843, that were closest to fitting our defined criteria for significance and magnitude of effect, and both were associated with mobile genetic elements found in the prophage φSeq2 of the SEE 4047 genome. For both genes, the magnitude of expression was only highly elevated in 3/10 of the acute SEE isolates from PA-USA (S2 Fig). Besides being identified as a putative phage portal protein (SEQ_0823) and putative phage tail protein (SEQ_0843), not much is known about either of these genes. Homologs proteins of SEQ_0823 were found in Streptococcus pyogenes, Streptococcus dysagalactiae, and Streptococcus agalactiae with a similarity of 96%, and for SEQ_0843 in Streptococcus equi subsp. zooepidemicus with a similarity of 100%.

This study has a number of limitations. First, the definition of inapparent carriers can be highly variable [9, 12–14]. The inapparent carrier strains of SEE from Sweden were recovered from horses between 12 and 50 weeks after resolution of their clinical signs, whereas the PA-USA inapparent carrier horses were collected between 6 and 20 weeks after resolution of clinical signs, or had no clinical signs observed (Table 1). Nevertheless, we found no evidence from horses from either location of any consistent differences in the genome or methylome of these isolates indicating any specific adaptations to the host environment, even among the Swedish strains representing isolates of acute disease and inapparent carrier phenotypes in the same animal. The PA-USA isolates were not all from the same outbreak or the same year, but even among isolates from within farm and year, there were no consistencies observed. Moreover, none of the PA-USA samples were derived from the same animal, and the number of isolates studied was modest. Nonetheless, this is the first comprehensive analysis of the genomes, methylomes, and transcriptomes of inapparent carrier and acute clinical strains of SEE. We only had isolates of PA-USA available to evaluate using RNA-Seq. Another limitation of the RNA-Seq approach was that SEE were grown in liquid media and this might not reflect transcription within the host [44]. However, an effective approach for studying transcription of SEE within its host’s cells remains limited; to the authors’ knowledge, this study provides comparisons of untargeted gene expression of carrier and acute SEE isolates from the USA that has not been previously available.

The most important finding from this study is that we failed to identify any consistent or specific pathogen-associated changes between the inapparent carrier strains and the acute clinical disease strains of SEE using a few NGS techniques. Although genomic differences were observed between the 2 geographical regions, no changes in the genome, methylome, or transcriptome were identified that could be interpreted as reflecting a consistent mechanism of adaptation of SEE to the host resulting in inapparent carriage. These findings indicate that host-associated differences are a more likely explanation of the bacterium’s ability to persist in horses without resulting in either clinical signs or a robust immune response (i.e., the presentation of clinical disease) [45]. Thus, further evaluation of host immune responses to SEE is warranted to elucidate how to identify and eliminate chronic carriers of SEE to control and prevent this important equine infectious disease.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Phylogenetic tree of 14 SEE isolates from Sweden by horse.

SEE isolates from the outbreak did not cluster by the individual horse from which the isolate was collected, but results demonstrate variation of isolates recovered from the same individual over time. aDenotes truncation in the SeM protein; GPL, Guttural pouch lavage; NL, Nasopharyngeal lavage; SeM, M-like protein.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. RNA-Seq expression values for 2 SEE genes by disease status group.

(A) Expression level (y-axis) of SEQ_0823 by disease presentation (x-axis). Only 3/10 of the acute SEE isolates had elevated expression levels. (B) Expression level (y-axis) of SEQ_0834 by disease presentation (x-axis). Only 3/10 of the acute SEE isolates had higher expression levels.

(TIF)

S1 Table. Guttural pouch endoscopy findings of inapparent carrier horses from Sweden (n = 8) and Pennsylvania, USA (n = 11).

(XLSX)

S2 Table. Genome accession numbers for SEE isolates from Sweden and Pennsylvania.

(XLSX)

S3 Table. Annotation and bin location for the accessory genome elements for the SEE isolates from Sweden.

(XLSX)

S4 Table. Annotation and bin location for the accessory genome elements for the SEE isolates from Pennsylvania.

(XLSX)

S5 Table. Sites of methylation found in at least half (n ≥ 4) of either disease state in Swedish SEE isolates.

(XLSX)

S6 Table. Sites of methylation found in at least half (n ≥ 6) of either disease state in Pennsylvania SEE isolates.

(XLSX)

S7 Table. Transcriptome-wide gene expression identified by edgeR analysis.

(XLSX)

S1 Appendix. Linux and R code used for accessory genome, methylome, and transcriptome analysis.

(TXT)

S2 Appendix. Clustal OMEGA multiple sequence alignment of the SeM protien from SEE isolates from Sweden (n = 14) and Pennsylania (n = 21).

(TXT)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Dr. Bibiana Petri da Silveira, Texas A&M University for her technical assistance, and Ms. Sheri Young from the University of Pennsylvania for her assistance in culturing the isolates from Pennsylvania. For the Swedish outbreak, Karin Nygren, Kamilla Ekström, and Cecilia Ekberg are gratefully thanked for their assistance during sample collection throughout the study. Portions of this research were conducted with the advanced computing resources provided by Texas A&M High Performance Research Computing.

Data Availability

All whole genome sequencing data were uploaded to NCBI’s GenBank and Sequence Read Archive (SRA) under BioProject PRJNA704656 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/?term=PRJNA704656). The RNA sequencing data were uploaded to NCBI’s Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) which are available by the accession number GSE167862 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE167862). For the specific accession number for each individual genome, please see Supplemental S1 to S7 Tables.

Funding Statement

Funding for the whole genome sequencing of the isolates was provided by the Link Equine Research Endowment, College of Veterinary Medicine & Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University. Funding for the RNA-Seq portion of the study was provided by a grant from the Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine & Biomedical Science, Texas A&M University. Dr. Cohen is supported by the Patsy Link Chair in Equine Research. Funding for the Swedish contribution to this work was provided by the Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (FORMAS) grant # 221-2013-606. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Paillot R, Lopez-Alvarez MR, Newton JR, Waller AS. Strangles: A modern clinical view from the 17th century. Equine Vet J. 2017;49(2):141–5. Epub 2017/02/09. doi: 10.1111/evj.12659 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Waller AS, Paillot R, Timoney JF. Streptococcus equi: a pathogen restricted to one host. J Med Microbiol. 2011;60(Pt 9):1231–40. Epub 2011/07/16. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.028233-0 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Boyle AG, Timoney JF, Newton JR, Hines MT, Waller AS, Buchanan BR. Streptococcus equi infections in horses: Guidelines for treatment, control, and prevention of strangles-revised consensus statement. J Vet Intern Med. 2018;32(2):633–47. Epub 2018/02/10. doi: 10.1111/jvim.15043 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Sweeney CR, Timoney JF, Newton JR, Hines MT. Streptococcus equi infections in horses: guidelines for treatment, control, and prevention of strangles. J Vet Intern Med. 2005;19(1):123–34. Epub 2005/02/18. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Slater JD. Strangles, bastard strangles, vives and glanders: archaeological relics in a genomic age. Equine Vet J. 2003;35(2):118–20. Epub 2003/03/18. doi: 10.2746/042516403776114252 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Holden MTG, Heather Z, Paillot R, Steward KF, Webb K, Ainslie F, et al. Genomic evidence for the evolution of Streptococcus equi: Host restriction, increased virulence, and genetic exchange with human pathogens. PLoS Pathog. 2009;5(3):e1000346. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1000346 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Weese JS, Jarlot C, Morley PS. Survival of Streptococcus equi on surfaces in an outdoor environment. Can Vet J. 2009;50(9):968–70. Epub 2009/12/02. . [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Durham AE, Hall YS, Kulp L, Underwood C. A study of the environmental survival of Streptococcus equi subspecies equi. Equine Vet J. 2018;50(6):861–4. Epub 2018/04/15. doi: 10.1111/evj.12840 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Newton JR, Wood JL, Dunn KA, DeBrauwere MN, Chanter N. Naturally occurring persistent and asymptomatic infection of the guttural pouches of horses with Streptococcus equi. Vet Rec. 1997;140(4):84–90. Epub 1997/01/25. doi: 10.1136/vr.140.4.84 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Harris SR, Robinson C, Steward KF, Webb KS, Paillot R, Parkhill J, et al. Genome specialization and decay of the strangles pathogen, Streptococcus equi, is driven by persistent infection. Genome Res. 2015;25(9):1360–71. Epub 2015/07/15. doi: 10.1101/gr.189803.115 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Verheyen K, Newton JR, Talbot NC, de Brauwere MN, Chanter N. Elimination of guttural pouch infection and inflammation in asymptomatic carriers of Streptococcus equi. Equine Vet J. 2000;32(6):527–32. Epub 2000/11/28. doi: 10.2746/042516400777584703 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Newton JR, Verheyen K, Talbot NC, Timoney JF, Wood JL, Lakhani KH, et al. Control of strangles outbreaks by isolation of guttural pouch carriers identified using PCR and culture of Streptococcus equi. Equine Vet J. 2000;32(6):515–26. Epub 2000/11/28. doi: 10.2746/042516400777584721 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Riihimaki M, Aspan A, Ljung H, Pringle J. Long term dynamics of a Streptococcus equi ssp equi outbreak, assessed by qPCR and culture and seM sequencing in silent carriers of strangles. Vet Microbiol. 2018;223:107–12. Epub 2018/09/04. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2018.07.016 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Morris ERA, Hillhouse AE, Konganti K, Wu J, Lawhon SD, Bordin AI, et al. Comparison of whole genome sequences of Streptococcus equi subsp. equi from an outbreak in Texas with isolates from within the region, Kentucky, USA, and other countries. Vet Microbiol. 2020;243:108638. Epub 2020/04/11. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2020.108638 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Chanter N, Talbot NC, Newton JR, Hewson D, Verheyen K. Streptococcus equi with truncated M-proteins isolated from outwardly healthy horses. Microbiology (Reading). 2000;146 (Pt 6):1361–9. Epub 2000/06/10. doi: 10.1099/00221287-146-6-1361 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Heather Z, Holden MT, Steward KF, Parkhill J, Song L, Challis GL, et al. A novel streptococcal integrative conjugative element involved in iron acquisition. Mol Microbiol. 2008;70(5):1274–92. Epub 2008/11/08. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2008.06481.x . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Ozer EA, Allen JP, Hauser AR. Characterization of the core and accessory genomes of Pseudomonas aeruginosa using bioinformatic tools Spine and AGEnt. BMC Genomics. 2014;15:737. Epub 2014/08/30. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-15-737 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Segerman B. The genetic integrity of bacterial species: the core genome and the accessory genome, two different stories. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2012;2. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2012.00116 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Flusberg BA, Webster DR, Lee JH, Travers KJ, Olivares EC, Clark TA, et al. Direct detection of DNA methylation during single-molecule, real-time sequencing. Nat Methods. 2010;7(6):461–5. Epub 2010/05/11. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.1459 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Blow MJ, Clark TA, Daum CG, Deutschbauer AM, Fomenkov A, Fries R, et al. The epigenomic landscape of prokaryotes. PLoS Genet. 2016;12(2):e1005854. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1005854 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Sánchez-Romero MA, Cota I, Casadesús J. DNA methylation in bacteria: from the methyl group to the methylome. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2015;25:9–16. doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2015.03.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Nye TM, Jacob KM, Holley EK, Nevarez JM, Dawid S, Simmons LA, et al. DNA methylation from a Type I restriction modification system influences gene expression and virulence in Streptococcus pyogenes. PLoS Pathog. 2019;15(6):e1007841. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1007841 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Gomez-Gonzalez PJ, Andreu N, Phelan JE, De Sessions PF, Glynn JR, Crampin AC, et al. An integrated whole genome analysis of Mycobacterium tuberculosis reveals insights into relationship between its genome, transcriptome and methylome. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1). doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-41692-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Casselli T, Tourand Y, Scheidegger A, Arnold WK, Proulx A, Stevenson B, et al. DNA methylation by restriction modification systems affects the global transcriptome profile in Borrelia burgdorferi. J Bacteriol. 2018;200(24). doi: 10.1128/JB.00395-18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Steward KF, Robinson C, Waller AS. Transcriptional changes are involved in phenotype switching in Streptococcus equi subspecies equi. Mol Biosyst. 2016;12(4):1194–200. Epub 2016/02/09. doi: 10.1039/c5mb00780a [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Koren S, Walenz BP, Berlin K, Miller JR, Bergman NH, Phillippy AM. Canu: scalable and accurate long-read assembly via adaptive k-mer weighting and repeat separation. Genome Res. 2017;27(5):722–36. Epub 2017/03/17. doi: 10.1101/gr.215087.116 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Jolley KA, Bliss CM, Bennett JS, Bratcher HB, Brehony C, Colles FM, et al. Ribosomal multilocus sequence typing: universal characterization of bacteria from domain to strain. Microbiology (Reading). 2012;158(4):1005–15. doi: 10.1099/mic.0.055459-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Roosaare M, Vaher M, Kaplinski L, Mols M, Andreson R, Lepamets M, et al. StrainSeeker: fast identification of bacterial strains from raw sequencing reads using user-provided guide trees. PeerJ. 2017;5:e3353. Epub 2017/05/24. doi: 10.7717/peerj.3353 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Webb K, Jolley KA, Mitchell Z, Robinson C, Newton JR, Maiden MC, et al. Development of an unambiguous and discriminatory multilocus sequence typing scheme for the Streptococcus zooepidemicus group. Microbiology (Reading). 2008;154(Pt 10):3016–24. Epub 2008/10/04. doi: 10.1099/mic.0.2008/018911-0 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Kelly C, Bugg M, Robinson C, Mitchell Z, Davis-Poynter N, Newton JR, et al. Sequence variation of the SeM gene of Streptococcus equi allows discrimination of the source of strangles outbreaks. J Clin Microbiol. 2006;44(2):480–6. Epub 2006/02/04. doi: 10.1128/JCM.44.2.480-486.2006 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Brettin T, Davis JJ, Disz T, Edwards RA, Gerdes S, Olsen GJ, et al. RASTtk: a modular and extensible implementation of the RAST algorithm for building custom annotation pipelines and annotating batches of genomes. Sci Rep. 2015;5:8365. Epub 2015/02/11. doi: 10.1038/srep08365 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Ozer EA. ClustAGE: a tool for clustering and distribution analysis of bacterial accessory genomic elements. BMC Bioinformatics. 2018;19(1):150. Epub 2018/04/22. doi: 10.1186/s12859-018-2154-x . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Davis JJ, Wattam AR, Aziz RK, Brettin T, Butler R, Butler RM, et al. The PATRIC Bioinformatics Resource Center: expanding data and analysis capabilities. Nucleic acids research. 2019. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkz943 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Sievers F, Wilm A, Dineen D, Gibson TJ, Karplus K, Li W, et al. Fast, scalable generation of high‐quality protein multiple sequence alignments using Clustal Omega. Mol Syst Biol. 2011;7(1):539. doi: 10.1038/msb.2011.75 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Goujon M, McWilliam H, Li W, Valentin F, Squizzato S, Paern J, et al. A new bioinformatics analysis tools framework at EMBL-EBI. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010;38(Web Server):W695–W9. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkq313 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Quinlan AR, Hall IM. BEDTools: a flexible suite of utilities for comparing genomic features. Bioinformatics). 2010;26(6):841–2. Epub 2010/01/30. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq033 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Roberts RJ, Vincze T, Posfai J, Macelis D. REBASE—a database for DNA restriction and modification: enzymes, genes and genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43(Database issue):D298–9. Epub 2014/11/08. doi: 10.1093/nar/gku1046 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics. 2014;30(15):2114–20. Epub 2014/04/04. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu170 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Patro R, Duggal G, Love MI, Irizarry RA, Kingsford C. Salmon provides fast and bias-aware quantification of transcript expression. Nat Methods. 2017;14(4):417–9. Epub 2017/03/07. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.4197 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Robinson MD, McCarthy DJ, Smyth GK. edgeR: a Bioconductor package for differential expression analysis of digital gene expression data. Bioinformatics. 2010;26(1):139–40. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp616 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Lun ATL, Chen Y, Smyth GK. It’s DE-licious: A recipe for differential expression analyses of RNA-seq experiments using quasi-likelihood methods in edgeR. Springer; New York; 2016. p. 391–416. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Edgar R. Gene Expression Omnibus: NCBI gene expression and hybridization array data repository. Nucleic Acids Res. 2002;30(1):207–10. doi: 10.1093/nar/30.1.207 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Pringle J, Venner M, Tscheschlok L, Bächi L, Riihimäki M. Long term silent carriers of Streptococcus equi ssp. equi following strangles; carrier detection related to sampling site of collection and culture versus qPCR. Vet J. 2019;246:66–70. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2019.02.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Mandlik A, Livny J, Robins WP, Ritchie JM, Mekalanos JJ, Waldor MK. RNA-Seq-based monitoring of infection-linked changes in Vibrio cholerae gene expression. Cell Host Microbe. 2011;10(2):165–74. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2011.07.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Durham AE, Kemp-Symonds J. Failure of serological testing for antigens A and C of Streptococcus equi subspecies equi to identify guttural pouch carriers. Equine Vet J. 2021;53(1):38–43. doi: 10.1111/evj.13276 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Yung-Fu Chang

7 May 2021

PONE-D-21-07625

Differences in the Genome, Methylome, and Transcriptome Do Not Differentiate Isolates of Streptococcus equi subsp. equi from Horses with Acute Clinical Signs from Isolates of Inapparent Carriers

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Cohen,

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.

Your manuscript has been reviewed by an expert in your field. The reviewer did have two questions:

Line 116: were any or all of the carriers examined by endoscopy to determine whether guttural pouch pathology was present? If so, it would be helpful to provide further information and to identify which carriers had endoscopically visible guttural pouch pathology. This point is picked up in the discussion (carrier isolates being obtained from animals with and without gross pouch abnormalities) and it would be useful to have more details provided.

Line 258: This is an interesting observation – could the authors speculate on possible reasons for this in the discussion? For example, whether this is potentially due to the Swedish isolates all being obtained from a single outbreak and over a shorter time frame?

Please answer these questions and make the necessary revision.  

Please submit your revised manuscript by two weeks. 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Yung-Fu Chang

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

  1. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

3. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

**********

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

**********

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

**********

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: This is a well written, well designed and interesting paper that addresses an important question about SEE that has been debated for some years: to what extent is the clinical phenotype switch from acute disease to chronic, asymptomatic due to bacterial factors. Previous studies have found some genetic differences between strains isolated from acute cases and those from carriers, leading to the suggestion that pathogen-associated genetic changes represent a form of immune evasion, or result in other pathogen phenotypic changes, that enable the carrier state. This study design is intelligent and compares isolates from acute and carrier cases from an outbreak in Sweden with isolates from acute and carrier cases from outbreaks in the USA (Pennsylvania) for differences at DNA, methylated DNA and RNA levels. The matching of acute and carrier isolates from the same region addresses the geographical variation in SeM and ST that has been previously reported.

The abstract accurately reflects the content of the paper and its conclusions.

The introduction is complete and provides a clear justification and rationale for the study.

The methods are clearly described. The results are well and clearly presented and the tables and figures provided are useful. The discussion is balanced and addresses the points of interest in the results, including

The section discussing limitations is well constructed and addresses the intrinsic difficulties and limitations in defining carriers, the difference in duration of carriage between the Swedish and USA isolates, the limitations of the USA collection of isolates. The authors also make some useful comments about what can be inferred from these limitations, which is helpful to readers. The authors also acknowledge the inherent challenges of performing transcriptomics on isolates grown in vitro due to the alterations in gene expression compared with the in vivo state.

The conclusions are supported by the data presented in the paper.

Overall, this is useful and important study which adds significant new information to the field by addressing a question that is central to SEE pathogenesis.

Specific questions:

Line 116: were any or all of the carriers examined by endoscopy to determine whether guttural pouch pathology was present? If so, it would be helpful to provide further information and to identify which carriers had endoscopically visible guttural pouch pathology. This point is picked up in the discussion (carrier isolates being obtained from animals with and without gross pouch abnormalities) and it would be useful to have more details provided.

Line 258: This is an interesting observation – could the authors speculate on possible reasons for this in the discussion? For example, whether this is potentially due to the Swedish isolates all being obtained from a single outbreak and over a shorter time frame?

**********

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

[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. 2021 Jun 14;16(6):e0252804. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252804.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


19 May 2021

May 19, 2021

Prof. Yung-Fu Chang

Academic Editor

PLoS One

Subject: Revision of manuscript entitled, “Differences in the Genome, Methylome, and Transcriptome Do Not Distinguish Isolates of Streptococcus equi subsp. equi from Horses with Acute Clinical Signs from Isolates of Inapparent Carriers”

Dear Dr. Chang:

Thank you for your electronic message dated May 7, 2021 about the above-referenced manuscript. I also thank the reviewers who carefully considered our report. My coauthors and I have revised the report on the basis of the reviewers’ comments. Below, we detail how each point raised by the reviewers was addressed in the revised report. The revised report with marked changes and an unmarked manuscript will be uploaded to the PLoS One website along with this response letter.

Comments from Reviewer 1:

Line 116: were any or all of the carriers examined by endoscopy to determine whether guttural pouch pathology was present? If so, it would be helpful to provide further information and to identify which carriers had endoscopically visible guttural pouch pathology. This point is picked up in the discussion (carrier isolates being obtained from animals with and without gross pouch abnormalities) and it would be useful to have more details provided.

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for raising this important point. All of the carrier horses were examined endoscopically. Unfortunately, follow-up information with details was not determined for 6 of the 11 horses from Pennsylvania. We have revised the report to include a table summarizing these findings (new Supplemental Table 1), and also included some discussion of these findings.

Line 258: This is an interesting observation – could the authors speculate on possible reasons for this in the discussion? For example, whether this is potentially due to the Swedish isolates all being obtained from a single outbreak and over a shorter time frame?

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for raising another great point. We think that the Swedish isolates had more similar (fewer) AGE because they were from a single outbreak. Interestingly, they were actually collected over a period of > 1 year, which demonstrates persistence of a single strain in horses without clinical signs for over 1 year (albeit with some variation including truncation of SeM). These isolates also had fewer contigs which might have contributed to more consistent results for isolates from the same outbreak. We have revised the report to address these points.

Again, we appreciate your efforts and those of the reviewers. Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns regarding our revised report.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response Letter PLoS One May 19 2021.pdf

Decision Letter 1

Yung-Fu Chang

24 May 2021

Differences in the Genome, Methylome, and Transcriptome Do Not Differentiate Isolates of Streptococcus equi subsp. equi from Horses with Acute Clinical Signs from Isolates of Inapparent Carriers

PONE-D-21-07625R1

Dear Dr. Cohen,

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,

Yung-Fu Chang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Yung-Fu Chang

4 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-07625R1

Differences in the Genome, Methylome, and Transcriptome Do Not Differentiate Isolates of Streptococcus equi subsp. equi from Horses with Acute Clinical Signs from Isolates of Inapparent Carriers

Dear Dr. Cohen:

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. Yung-Fu Chang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Phylogenetic tree of 14 SEE isolates from Sweden by horse.

    SEE isolates from the outbreak did not cluster by the individual horse from which the isolate was collected, but results demonstrate variation of isolates recovered from the same individual over time. aDenotes truncation in the SeM protein; GPL, Guttural pouch lavage; NL, Nasopharyngeal lavage; SeM, M-like protein.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. RNA-Seq expression values for 2 SEE genes by disease status group.

    (A) Expression level (y-axis) of SEQ_0823 by disease presentation (x-axis). Only 3/10 of the acute SEE isolates had elevated expression levels. (B) Expression level (y-axis) of SEQ_0834 by disease presentation (x-axis). Only 3/10 of the acute SEE isolates had higher expression levels.

    (TIF)

    S1 Table. Guttural pouch endoscopy findings of inapparent carrier horses from Sweden (n = 8) and Pennsylvania, USA (n = 11).

    (XLSX)

    S2 Table. Genome accession numbers for SEE isolates from Sweden and Pennsylvania.

    (XLSX)

    S3 Table. Annotation and bin location for the accessory genome elements for the SEE isolates from Sweden.

    (XLSX)

    S4 Table. Annotation and bin location for the accessory genome elements for the SEE isolates from Pennsylvania.

    (XLSX)

    S5 Table. Sites of methylation found in at least half (n ≥ 4) of either disease state in Swedish SEE isolates.

    (XLSX)

    S6 Table. Sites of methylation found in at least half (n ≥ 6) of either disease state in Pennsylvania SEE isolates.

    (XLSX)

    S7 Table. Transcriptome-wide gene expression identified by edgeR analysis.

    (XLSX)

    S1 Appendix. Linux and R code used for accessory genome, methylome, and transcriptome analysis.

    (TXT)

    S2 Appendix. Clustal OMEGA multiple sequence alignment of the SeM protien from SEE isolates from Sweden (n = 14) and Pennsylania (n = 21).

    (TXT)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response Letter PLoS One May 19 2021.pdf

    Data Availability Statement

    All whole genome sequencing data were uploaded to NCBI’s GenBank and Sequence Read Archive (SRA) under BioProject PRJNA704656 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/?term=PRJNA704656). The RNA sequencing data were uploaded to NCBI’s Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) which are available by the accession number GSE167862 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE167862). For the specific accession number for each individual genome, please see Supplemental S1 to S7 Tables.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES