Skip to main content
Microbiology Resource Announcements logoLink to Microbiology Resource Announcements
. 2021 Jan 7;10(1):e01258-20. doi: 10.1128/MRA.01258-20

Draft Genome Sequence of Pseudomonas saudiphocaensis Strain AGROB56, Isolated from a Dairy Farm in New Zealand

Tanushree B Gupta a,✉, Alexis N Risson a, Ruy Jauregui b, Paul Maclean b, Gale Brightwell a
Editor: Catherine Putontic
PMCID: PMC8407721  PMID: 33414345

Here, we report the draft genome sequence of a new Pseudomonas saudiphocaensis strain, AGROB56, with lipolytic potential, isolated from a sheep dairy farm in New Zealand. The genome is 3.61 Mbp, with a GC content of 61.1%, and the genome sequence was found closely related to Pseudomonas saudiphocaensis 20 BNT

ABSTRACT

Here, we report the draft genome sequence of a new Pseudomonas saudiphocaensis strain, AGROB56, with lipolytic potential, isolated from a sheep dairy farm in New Zealand. The genome is 3.61 Mbp, with a GC content of 61.1%, and the genome sequence was found closely related to Pseudomonas saudiphocaensis 20 BNT.

ANNOUNCEMENT

Pseudomonas species are ubiquitously found in environments, from soil to humans and plants (1–5). This genus was first proposed in 1894 and so far consists of around 254 species (6). They are Gram-negative bacteria, usually aerobic, but can be facultative anaerobes (7–9). While some Pseudomonas species can be associated with pathogenicity, some species have been applied as bioremediation agents (5, 10–14), and some are known for their dairy spoilage potential, such as Pseudomonas fragi, P. lundensis, and P. fluorescens (15, 16).

A new species of Pseudomonas, P. saudiphocaensis (type strain 20 BN), was isolated in 2012 from air samples in the city environment of Makkah, Saudi Arabia. As yet, limited information is available on this strain, including any beneficial or pathogenic traits (17).

Here, we report the whole-genome sequence of a new Pseudomonas saudiphocaensis strain, AGROB56, that was isolated from woodchip bedding samples from a sheep dairy farm in North Island of New Zealand. The new strain showed lipolytic activity, indicating it to be a food spoilage bacterium. The sequences obtained will be used to compare genomic data of the new strain to those of the type strain available.

Samples were processed using the methodology, with slight modifications, described previously by Gupta and Brightwell (18). Briefly, woodchip bedding material (25 g) was weighed in a stomacher bag, suspended in 100 ml of phosphate buffer (PB), and homogenized well using a stomacher. The suspension was centrifuged at 3,466 × g for 1 h, and the pellet was resuspended in 25 ml of PB. One milliliter of the suspension was serially diluted, plated onto cetrimide-fucidin-cephalosporin (CFC) agar plates, and incubated at 25°C (Fort Richard, New Zealand) to isolate Pseudomonas strain AGROB56 (19). Lipolytic activity was preliminarily investigated by visualizing a fluorescent halo, under UV light, around the colony grown for 48 h at 25°C on rhodamine B plates (20). The new strain was found to be lipolytic, indicating a potential food/dairy spoilage bacterium. Genomic DNA from the pure culture grown in tryptic soy broth at 25°C was extracted using the phenol-chloroform extraction method (21). Quality and concentration of DNA were determined using a Qubit 2.0 fluorometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA).

The whole genome of Pseudomonas species strain AGROB56 was prepared via the NuGEN Celero DNA enzymatic library and sequenced using the Illumina MiSeq sequencing platform version 3 (Massey Genome Services, Palmerston North, New Zealand) to produce 628,743 paired-end reads of 301 base pairs, giving a coverage of 104-fold. The reads were quality trimmed, filtered, and assembled via A5-miseq pipeline version 20160825 with default settings (22). The assembly produced 20 contigs with a total genome size of 3.6 Mb, an N50 value of 481 kb, and a GC content of 61.1%. A BUSCO version 3.0.2 (23) test using the bacterial reference produced a completeness score of 99.3%.

Comparative genomic analysis was performed with the genome sequences of the new strain and Pseudomonas saudiphocaensis 20 BNT using in silico DNA-DNA hybridization (dDDH) via the type (strain) genome server (TYGS; https://tygs.dsmz.de/) (24). A dDDH (d6) value of 92.8% was obtained, indicating the same species but with probable differences at strain level. Further studies are required to investigate these differences. A two-way average nucleotide identity test (http://enve-omics.ce.gatech.edu/ani/) was carried out as well, producing a 98% value matching with Pseudomonas saudiphocaensis 20 BNT (25).

As part of the submission process, NCBI annotated the genomic scaffolds with PGAP version 4.13 (26), resulting in 3,396 genes being annotated in total.

Data availability.

This whole-genome shotgun project has been deposited at DDBJ/ENA/GenBank under the accession number JADDOO000000000. The version described in this paper is the first version, JADDOO010000000. The raw sequencing data have been deposited at the SRA under BioProject accession number PRJNA670249.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was funded by Strategic Science Investment Fund (SSIF), AgResearch Ltd., New Zealand.

We acknowledge the help of sheep dairy farmers in sample collection.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Sørensen J, Nybroe O. 2004. Pseudomonas in the soil environment, vol 1. Springer, Boston, MA. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Hardalo C, Edberg SC. 1997. Pseudomonas aeruginosa: assessment of risk from drinking water. Crit Rev Microbiol 23:47–75. doi: 10.3109/10408419709115130. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Preston GM. 2004. Plant perceptions of plant growth-promoting Pseudomonas. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 359:907–918. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2003.1384. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Vogt R, LaRue D, Parry M, Brokopp C, Klaucke D, Allen J. 1982. Pseudomonas aeruginosa skin infections in persons using a whirlpool in Vermont. J Clin Microbiol 15:571–574. doi: 10.1128/JCM.15.4.571-574.1982. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Seidler D, Griffin M, Nymon A, Koeppen K, Ashare A. 2016. Throat swabs and sputum culture as predictors of P aeruginosa or S. aureus lung colonization in adult cystic fibrosis patients. PLoS One 11:e0164232. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0164232. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Migula W. 1895. Über ein neues System der Bakterien. Arb Bakteriol Inst Karlsruhe 1: 235–238. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Ballard R, Palleroni N, Doudoroff M, Stanier R, Mandel M. 1970. Taxonomy of the aerobic pseudomonads: Pseudomonas cepacia, P. marginata, P. alliicola and P. caryophylli. J Gen Microbiol 60:199–214. doi: 10.1099/00221287-60-2-199. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Arai H. 2011. Regulation and function of versatile aerobic and anaerobic respiratory metabolism in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Front Microbiol 2:103. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2011.00103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Peng J-S, Liu Y, Yan L, Hou T-T, Liu H-C, Zhou Y-G, Liu Z-P. 2019. Pseudomonas nitrititolerans sp. nov., a nitrite-tolerant denitrifying bacterium isolated from a nitrification/denitrification bioreactor. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 69:2471–2476. doi: 10.1099/ijsem.0.003516. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Streeter K, Katouli M. 2016. Pseudomonas aeruginosa: a review of their pathogenesis and prevalence in clinical settings and the environment. Infect Epidemiol Med 2:25–32. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Arnold DL, Preston GM. 2019. Pseudomonas syringae: enterprising epiphyte and stealthy parasite. Microbiology (Reading) 165:251–253. doi: 10.1099/mic.0.000715. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.O'Mahony MM, Dobson ADW, Barnes JD, Singleton I. 2006. The use of ozone in the remediation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon contaminated soil. Chemosphere 63:307–314. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.07.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Samuel MS, Sivaramakrishna A, Mehta A. 2014. Bioremediation of p-nitrophenol by Pseudomonas putida 1274 strain. J Environ Health Sci Eng 12:53. doi: 10.1186/2052-336X-12-53. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Shimada K, Itoh Y, Washio K, Morikawa M. 2012. Efficacy of forming biofilms by naphthalene degrading Pseudomonas stutzeri T102 toward bioremediation technology and its molecular mechanisms. Chemosphere 87:226–233. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2011.12.078. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Mallet A, Guéguen M, Kauffmann F, Chesneau C, Sesboué A, Desmasures N. 2012. Quantitative and qualitative microbial analysis of raw milk reveals substantial diversity influenced by herd management practices. Int Dairy J 27:13–21. doi: 10.1016/j.idairyj.2012.07.009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Ribeiro Júnior JC, Teider Junior PI, Oliveira ALM, Rios EA, Tamanini R, Beloti V. 2018. Proteolytic and lipolytic potential of Pseudomonas spp. from goat and bovine raw milk. Pesq Vet Bras 38:1577–1583. doi: 10.1590/1678-5150-pvb-5645. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Azhar EI, Papadioti A, Bibi F, Ashshi AM, Raoult D, Angelakis E. 2017. “Pseudomonas saudimassiliensis” sp. nov. a new bacterial species isolated from air samples in the urban environment of Makkah, Saudi Arabia. New Microbes New Infect 16:43–44. doi: 10.1016/j.nmni.2016.12.021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Gupta TB, Brightwell G. 2017. Farm level survey of spore‐forming bacteria on four dairy farms in the Waikato region of New Zealand. Microbiologyopen 6:e00457. doi: 10.1002/mbo3.457. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Mead GC. 1985. Enumeration of pseudomonads using cephaloridine-fucidin-cetrimide agar (CFC). Int J Food Microbiol 2:21–26. doi: 10.1016/0168-1605(85)90052-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kouker G, Jaeger K-E. 1987. Specific and sensitive plate assay for bacterial lipases. Appl Environ Microbiol 53:211–213. doi: 10.1128/AEM.53.1.211-213.1987. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Gupta SK, Haigh BJ, Seyfert H-M, Griffin FJ, Wheeler TT. 2017. Bovine milk RNases modulate pro-inflammatory responses induced by nucleic acids in cultured immune and epithelial cells. Dev Comp Immunol 68:87–97. doi: 10.1016/j.dci.2016.11.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Coil D, Jospin G, Darling AE. 2015. A5-miseq: an updated pipeline to assemble microbial genomes from Illumina MiSeq data. Bioinformatics 31:587–589. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu661. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Simão FA, Waterhouse RM, Ioannidis P, Kriventseva EV, Zdobnov EM. 2015. BUSCO: assessing genome assembly and annotation completeness with single-copy orthologs. Bioinformatics 31:3210–3212. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv351. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Meier-Kolthoff JP, Göker M. 2019. TYGS is an automated high-throughput platform for state-of-the-art genome-based taxonomy. Nat Commun 10:1–10. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-10210-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Goris J, Konstantinidis KT, Klappenbach JA, Coenye T, Vandamme P, Tiedje JM. 2007. DNA–DNA hybridization values and their relationship to whole-genome sequence similarities. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 57:81–91. doi: 10.1099/ijs.0.64483-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.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]

Associated Data

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

Data Availability Statement

This whole-genome shotgun project has been deposited at DDBJ/ENA/GenBank under the accession number JADDOO000000000. The version described in this paper is the first version, JADDOO010000000. The raw sequencing data have been deposited at the SRA under BioProject accession number PRJNA670249.


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

RESOURCES