Skip to main content
Microbiology Resource Announcements logoLink to Microbiology Resource Announcements
. 2021 Dec 16;10(50):e00893-21. doi: 10.1128/MRA.00893-21

Draft Genome Sequences of Four Streptomycin-Sensitive Erwinia amylovora Strains Isolated from Commercial Apple Orchards in Ohio

A M Jimenez Madrid a,*,#, T Klass b,#, V Roman-Reyna b, J Jacobs b,c, M L Lewis Ivey a,
Editor: David A Baltrusd
PMCID: PMC8675263  PMID: 34913716

ABSTRACT

Erwinia amylovora is the causative agent of fire blight, a devastating disease of apples and pears worldwide. Here, we report draft genome sequences of four streptomycin-sensitive strains of E. amylovora that were isolated from diseased apple trees in Ohio.

ANNOUNCEMENT

Fire blight, which is caused by Erwinia amylovora, is among the most devastating bacterial diseases of apples worldwide and occurs annually in Ohio orchards. Antibiotics, especially streptomycin sulfate, are the most effective strategy to control this disease (1). However, widespread use of streptomycin has led to the emergence of streptomycin-resistant (SmR) E. amylovora strains in orchards across the United States (2). We sequenced the genomes of four streptomycin-sensitive (SmS) strains of E. amylovora that had been isolated from diseased commercial apple trees in Ohio.

Bacterial isolations from symptomatic shoots were conducted using Crosse-Goodman medium and nutrient broth yeast (NBY) agar as described previously (3). Erwinia amylovora strains (Table 1) were screened for SmR using a bioassay test (4). Single colonies were restored from 30% glycerol stocks by streaking on NBY medium, and total genomic DNA was extracted using the Nextera DNA Flex microbial colony extraction protocol (5). Extracted DNA was quantified by spectrophotometry and adjusted to 20 ng/μl for library preparation. Sequencing libraries were prepared using the Illumina DNA preparation kit, and the libraries were sequenced on the Illumina iSeq 100 platform with 150-bp paired-end sequencing. Default parameters were used for all software unless otherwise specified. Illumina Local Run Manager software was used to convert and trim the resulting sequences. The quality of sequenced reads was assessed with FastQC v0.11.9 (6). SPAdes v3.14.1 was used to de novo assemble the E. amylovora genomes and determine genome coverage (7). Genomes were annotated using the NCBI Prokaryotic Genome Annotation Pipeline (PGAP) v5.2 (810).

TABLE 1.

Genomic information for the sequenced draft genomes of four Erwinia amylovora strains isolated from commercial apple orchards in Ohio

Species Strain City and county of isolation Host No. of reads Genome coverage (×) Genome size (Mb) No. of contigs G +C content (%) N50 (bp) NCBI accession no.
ANI (%) vs E. amylovora ATCC 49946 LINbase no. LINbase best match (ANI [%]) ANI (%) vs strain:
GenBank SRA BioSample MLI90-17 MLI90-17 MLI90-17 MLI90-17
Erwinia amylovora MLI90-17 Wooster, Wayne County, Ohio Apple 584,484 16 3.8 53 53.5 123,502 JAIMFV000000000 SRR16598628 SAMN20930864 99.98 51A0B0C1D0E0F0G0H0I1J0K0L0M0N1O0P0Q8R0S0T E. amylovora NHSB01-1 (99.968) 100.00 99.90 99.989 99.90
Erwinia amylovora MLI181-18 Lexington, Richland County, Ohio Apple 369,454 11 3.8 63 53.5 192,887 JAIMFW000000000 SRR16598627 SAMN20930865 99.90 51A0B0C1D0E0F0G0H0I1J0K0L0M0N0O0P1Q1R0S0T E. amylovora MAGFLF 2 (99.957) 99.90 100.00 99.894 100.00
Erwinia amylovora MLI217-18 Laurelville, Hocking County, Ohio Apple 387,771 15 3.8 163 53.6 172,997 JAIMFX000000000 SRR16598626 SAMN20930866 99.98 51A0B0C1D0E0F0G0H0I1J0K0L0M0N1O0P2Q0R0S0T E. amylovora LA635 (99.943) 99.99 99.89 100 99.90
Erwinia amylovora MLI200-18 Medina, Medina County, Ohio Apple 270,374 10 3.8 190 53.6 156,483 JAIMFY000000000 SRR16598625 SAMN20930867 99.89 51A0B0C1D0E0F0G0H0I1J0K0L0M0N3O0P0Q0R0S0T 99.90 100.00 99.90 100

Classification of the assembled genomes was conducted by average nucleotide identity (ANI) analysis using the enveomics collection (11) and LINbase with genome sequence as the identification method (1216). SmR in E. amylovora occurs either from the presence of strA and strB on plasmids pEA29 or pEA34 or through a mutation in codon 43 of rpsL (17, 18). The presence of SmR genes was analyzed by mapping strain reads to E. amylovora plasmid pEA34 (GenBank accession number M96392.1) and rpsL (GenBank accession number NC_013961.1) with the programs BWAv0.17 and IGVv2.10.3 and by conducting BLAST searches for these genes against the assembled genomes (1921). The four E. amylovora strains were nearly identical to the reference strain (E. amylovora ATCC 49946 [GenBank accession number FN666575.1]), with ANI values ranging from 99.89% to 99.98% (Table 1). LINbase results confirmed E. amylovora as the best match for each sequenced genome. All four Ohio strains contained the E. amylovora strain Ea88 ubiquitous plasmid pEA29 (GenBank accession number NC_005706.1) but not strA, strB, or pEA34, indicating an SmS genotype (17, 18).

The genome sequences and genomic analysis workflow for the SmS strains provide a baseline to screen and monitor for SmR in Ohio apple orchards. Further genomic analysis of E. amylovora will increase our understanding of the genetic basis for resistance, allowing us to better address the sustainability of streptomycin use for fire blight management.

Data availability.

Data were deposited in NCBI GenBank (BioProject accession number PRJNA756955). The partial genomes were also deposited in LINbase. The BioSample accession number, GenBank accession number, and LINbase number for each E. amylovora strain are presented in Table 1.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was partially funded by the Ohio Department of Agriculture Specialty Crop Block Program (award AM190100XXXXG021) and the Ohio State University College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences (CFAES)-Wooster through Hatch funds received from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Contributor Information

M. L. Lewis Ivey, Email: ivey.14@osu.edu.

David A. Baltrus, University of Arizona

REFERENCES

  • 1.Russo NL, Aldwinckle H. 2009. Fire blight and streptomycin: the reality of resistance. N Y Fruit Q 17:17–19. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.McManus PS, Stockwell VO, Sundin GW, Jones AL. 2002. Antibiotic use in plant agriculture. Annu Rev Phytopathol 40:443–465. doi: 10.1146/annurev.phyto.40.120301.093927. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Svircev AM, Kim W, Lehman SM, Castle AJ. 2009. Erwinia amylovora: modern methods for detection and differentiation. Methods Mol Biol 508:115–129. doi: 10.1007/978-1-59745-062-1_10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Tancos KA, Cox KD. 2017. Effects of consecutive streptomycin and kasugamycin applications on epiphytic bacteria in the apple phyllosphere. Plant Dis 101:158–164. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-06-16-0794-RE. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Illumina. 2018. Nextera DNA Flex microbial colony extraction. Illumina, San Diego, CA. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Andrews S. 2010. FastQC: a quality control tool for high throughput sequence data. https://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc.
  • 7.Prjibelski A, Antipov D, Meleshko D, Lapidus A, Korobeynikov A. 2020. Using SPAdes de novo assembler. Curr Protoc Bioinformatics 70:e102. doi: 10.1002/cpbi.102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Haft DH, DiCuccio M, Badretdin A, Brover V, Chetvernin V, O'Neill K, Li W, Chitsaz F, Derbyshire MK, Gonzales NR, Gwadz M, Lu F, Marchler GH, Song JS, Thanki N, Yamashita RA, Zheng C, Thibaud-Nissen F, Geer LY, Marchler-Bauer A, Pruitt KD. 2018. RefSeq: an update on prokaryotic genome annotation and curation. Nucleic Acids Res 46:D851–D860. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkx1068. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Li W, O'Neill KR, Haft DH, DiCuccio M, Chetvernin V, Badretdin A, Coulouris G, Chitsaz F, Derbyshire MK, Durkin AS, Gonzales NR, Gwadz M, Lanczycki CJ, Song JS, Thanki N, Wang J, Yamashita RA, Yang M, Zheng C, Marchler-Bauer A, Thibaud-Nissen F. 2021. RefSeq: expanding the Prokaryotic Genome Annotation Pipeline reach with protein family model curation. Nucleic Acids Res 49:D1020–D1028. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkaa1105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.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]
  • 11.Rodriguez-R LM, Konstantinidis KT. 2016. The enveomics collection: a toolbox for specialized analyses of microbial genomes and metagenomes. PeerJ Prepr 4:e1900v1. doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.1900v1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Weisberg AJ, Elmarakeby HA, Heath LS, Vinatzer BA. 2015. Similarity-based codes sequentially assigned to ebolavirus genomes are informative of species membership, associated outbreaks, and transmission chains. Open Forum Infect Dis 2:ofv024. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofv024. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Tian L, Huang C, Mazloom R, Heath LS, Vinatzer BA. 2020. LINbase: a web server for genome-based identification of prokaryotes as members of crowdsourced taxa. Nucleic Acids Res 48:W529–W537. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkaa190. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Vinatzer BA, Tian L, Heath LS. 2017. A proposal for a portal to make earth’s microbial diversity easily accessible and searchable. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 110:1271–1279. doi: 10.1007/s10482-017-0849-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Vinatzer BA, Weisberg AJ, Monteil CL, Elmarakeby HA, Sheppard SK, Heath LS. 2017. A proposal for a genome similarity-based taxonomy for plant-pathogenic bacteria that is sufficiently precise to reflect phylogeny, host range, and outbreak affiliation applied to Pseudomonas syringae sensu lato as a proof of concept. Phytopathology 107:18–28. doi: 10.1094/PHYTO-07-16-0252-R. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ. 1990. Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol 215:403–410. doi: 10.1016/S0022-2836(05)80360-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Chiou CS, Jones AL. 1991. The analysis of plasmid-mediated streptomycin resistance in Erwinia amylovora. Phytopathology 81:710–714. doi: 10.1094/Phyto-81-710. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Chiou C-S, Jones AL. 1995. Molecular analysis of high-level streptomycin resistance in Erwinia amylovora. Phytopathology 85:324–328. doi: 10.1094/Phyto-85-324. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Marakeby H, Badr E, Torkey H, Song Y, Leman S, Monteil CL, Heath LS, Vinatzer BA. 2014. A system to automatically classify and name any individual genome-sequenced organism independently of current biological classification and nomenclature. PLoS One 9:e89142. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0089142. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Li H, Durbin R. 2009. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics 25:1754–1760. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp324. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Thorvaldsdóttir H, Robinson JT, Mesirov JP. 2013. Integrative Genomics Viewer (IGV): high-performance genomics data visualization and exploration. Brief Bioinform 14:178–192. doi: 10.1093/bib/bbs017. [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

Data were deposited in NCBI GenBank (BioProject accession number PRJNA756955). The partial genomes were also deposited in LINbase. The BioSample accession number, GenBank accession number, and LINbase number for each E. amylovora strain are presented in Table 1.


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

RESOURCES