ABSTRACT
We present the genome sequences of 18 Streptococcus isolates from 8 different dietary supplements and 9 cultured food products. Strains from this species naturally colonize the human mouth and upper respiratory tract. Studies have shown that S. thermophilus and S. salivarius strains confer oral health benefits to their host with little to no risk of pathogenic infection.
ANNOUNCEMENT
Streptococcus is a Gram-positive, lactic acid bacterium found in dairy products and dietary supplements. S. thermophilus use in fermentation of milk products has been linked to the facilitation of dairy product digestion (1, 2). S. salivarius naturally resides in the mouth and upper respiratory tract and is one of the first beneficial microbes to colonize infants (3). This species is thought to be beneficial in the reduction of dental plaque and periodontal health when administered orally (4, 5). It has proven difficult to distinguish S. thermophilus from S. salivarius using medium plating methods, but genomic sequencing accurately identified them within fecal samples from individuals who had consumed dairy products (6). Dietary supplements containing these strains are becoming more prevalent; thus, the need for high-quality genomic sequences representing commonly used strains is crucial for proper identification. Here, we present the draft genome sequences of 2 S. salivarius and 16 S. thermophilus strains isolated from dietary supplements and cultured food products for classification (Table 1).
TABLE 1.
Species | Strain | Source | Sequence platform | SRA no. | BioSample no. | GenBank WGS accession no. | No. of reads | Genome coverage (×) | No. of contigs | No. of predicted genes | Largest contig (bp) | Total length (bp) | N50 (bp) | GC (%) | BUSCO assessment (Benchmarking Universal Single-Copy Orthologs) |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lineage_dataset | Complete | Missing | Total | % | |||||||||||||||
S. salivarius | DS85_40Ba | Dietary supplementb | NextSeq 500/550 | SRR11910125 | SAMN15078926 | JAIQWT000000000 | 3,817,804 | 119 | 58 | 2,181 | 307,204 | 2,320,947 | 124,435 | 39.4 | lactobacillales_odb10 | 400 | 2 | 402 | 99.5 |
S. salivarius | DS85_40Aa | Dietary supplementb | NextSeq 500/550 | SRR11910126 | SAMN15078925 | JAIQWS000000000 | 3,984,844 | 69 | 84 | 2,154 | 176,391 | 2,290,943 | 65,821 | 39.4 | lactobacillales_odb10 | 400 | 2 | 402 | 99.5 |
S. thermophilus | DS14_14 | Dietary supplementc | MiSeq | SRR5310871 | SAMN06464115 | JAIQWG000000000 | 3,061,692 | 392 | 62 | 1,836 | 207,436 | 1,776,323 | 73,135 | 38.9 | lactobacillales_odb10 | 399 | 3 | 402 | 99.3 |
S. thermophilus | CF2_14 | Yogurt product | MiSeq | SRR5310876 | SAMN06464117 | JAIQWF000000000 | 814,748 | 92 | 76 | 1,824 | 194,267 | 1,742,651 | 53,094 | 39.0 | lactobacillales_odb10 | 399 | 3 | 402 | 99.3 |
S. thermophilus | CF1_14 | Kefir product | MiSeq | SRR5310877 | SAMN06464116 | JAIQWE000000000 | 4,348,482 | 238 | 44 | 1,814 | 203,892 | 1,742,991 | 124,918 | 39.0 | lactobacillales_odb10 | 388 | 14 | 402 | 95.5 |
S. thermophilus | DS76_14 | Dietary supplementb | NextSeq 500/550 | SRR11910219 | SAMN15078890 | JAIQWR000000000 | 6,496,696 | 202 | 62 | 1,822 | 122,821 | 1,736,106 | 63,115 | 38.9 | lactobacillales_odb10 | 392 | 10 | 402 | 97.5 |
S. thermophilus | DS51_14 | Dietary supplementb | NextSeq 500/550 | SRR11910208 | SAMN15078775 | JAIQXB000000000 | 9,984,694 | 20 | 97 | 1,759 | 104,555 | 1,646,584 | 41,717 | 39.2 | lactobacillales_odb10 | 398 | 4 | 402 | 99.0 |
S. thermophilus | CF5_14 | Nondairy yogurt product | NextSeq 500/550 | SRR11910326 | SAMN15078648 | JAIQWM000000000 | 6,256,254 | 565 | 56 | 1,849 | 137,000 | 1,777,217 | 65,705 | 38.9 | lactobacillales_odb10 | 399 | 3 | 402 | 99.3 |
S. thermophilus | DS45_14 | Dietary supplementb | NextSeq 500/550 | SRR11910242 | SAMN15078736 | JAIQWP000000000 | 2,494,996 | 89 | 64 | 1,867 | 122,822 | 1,774,216 | 61,113 | 38.9 | lactobacillales_odb10 | 398 | 4 | 402 | 99.0 |
S. thermophilus | DS03_14 | Dietary supplementb | MiSeq | SRR11910360 | SAMN15078662 | JAIQWK000000000 | 938,788 | 68 | 61 | 1,922 | 175,129 | 1,848,774 | 70,646 | 38.8 | lactobacillales_odb10 | 399 | 3 | 402 | 99.3 |
S. thermophilus | DS30_14 | Dietary supplementb | NextSeq 500/550 | SRR11910418 | SAMN15078680 | JAIQWH000000000 | 1,259,266 | 96 | 81 | 1,853 | 117,608 | 1,766,804 | 52,466 | 39.0 | lactobacillales_odb10 | 399 | 3 | 402 | 99.3 |
S. thermophilus | CF13_14 | Yogurt product | NextSeq 500/550 | SRR11910376 | SAMN15078605 | JAIQWJ000000000 | 1,669,016 | 105 | 46 | 1,892 | 174,923 | 1,808,551 | 93,887 | 38.9 | lactobacillales_odb10 | 399 | 3 | 402 | 99.3 |
S. thermophilus | CF12_14 | Nondairy yogurt product | NextSeq 500/550 | SRR11910216 | SAMN15078601 | JAIQWU000000000 | 9,134,166 | 484 | 55 | 1,925 | 313,755 | 1,848,466 | 100,076 | 38.8 | lactobacillales_odb10 | 399 | 3 | 402 | 99.3 |
S. thermophilus | CF3_14 | Yogurt product | NextSeq 500/550 | SRR11910321 | SAMN15078635 | JAIQWN000000000 | 8,713,470 | 173 | 52 | 1,778 | 204,361 | 1,704,260 | 97,302 | 38.9 | lactobacillales_odb10 | 377 | 25 | 402 | 93.8 |
S. thermophilus | CF10_14 | Cheese product | NextSeq 500/550 | SRR11910350 | SAMN15078596 | JAIQWL000000000 | 1,720,144 | 123 | 59 | 1,847 | 145,424 | 1,759,255 | 70,976 | 39.0 | lactobacillales_odb10 | 399 | 3 | 402 | 99.3 |
S. thermophilus | CF4_14 | Kefir product | NextSeq 500/550 | SRR11910241 | SAMN15078639 | JAIQWQ000000000 | 5,057,426 | 88 | 69 | 1,866 | 158,655 | 1,771,462 | 62,823 | 38.9 | lactobacillales_odb10 | 399 | 3 | 402 | 99.3 |
S. thermophilus | DS61_14 | Dietary supplementb | MiSeq | SRR11910392 | SAMN15078830 | JAIQWI000000000 | 4,364,456 | 550 | 49 | 1,847 | 162,842 | 1,778,590 | 71,039 | 38.9 | lactobacillales_odb10 | 399 | 3 | 402 | 99.3 |
S. thermophilus | CF8_14 | Yogurt product | NextSeq 500/550 | SRR11910258 | SAMN15078656 | JAIQWO000000000 | 1,755,666 | 75 | 68 | 1,851 | 130,762 | 1,773,459 | 58,946 | 38.9 | lactobacillales_odb10 | 399 | 3 | 402 | 99.3 |
Two different strains from the same dietary supplement (DS85).
Dietary supplement for general population.
Dietary supplement for women.
A serving from each product was suspended in 5 mL of saline. Then, 100 μL from serial dilutions was plated on MRS agar plates and incubated at 30°C aerobically and 37°C aerobically, CO2-enriched, microaerophilic and anaerobic conditions. Colonies were selected based on morphologic differences. DNA extraction from overnight cultures of purified colony isolates was performed with the QIAcube using the DNeasy blood and tissue/Gram-positive bacterium or yeast protocol (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany). A DNA clean and concentrator kit (Zymo Research, Irvine, CA) was used to increase the quality of the DNA by removing potential inhibitors that could affect the sequencing process, as well as to concentrate the sample from 150 μL to a final volume of 6 μL. DNA quality and concentration were determined using a Qubit 3.0 fluorometer (Life Technologies, Burlington, CA). Sequencing libraries were prepared with 1 ng of DNA using the Nextera XT DNA library preparation kit and the Nextera XT index kit v2 set A (Illumina, San Diego, CA) and sequenced on either the Illumina MiSeq system using the MiSeq reagent kit v2 (500 cycles) or the NextSeq system using the NextSeq 500/550 midoutput kit v2.5 (300 cycles). The resulting 250-bp (MiSeq) and 150-bp (NextSeq) paired-end reads were quality controlled using FastQC v0.11.9 (Q > 30) (7), and then the reads were trimmed using Trimmomatic v0.38.1 (8) and de novo assembled using SPAdes v3.8.2 (9). The completeness of assemblies was determined using BUSCO v5.0.0 and Lactobacillales_odb10, with genome assemblies completed from 93.7% to 99.5% (10). Species-level taxonomic identification and abundances were inferred for all samples using our in-house kmer database (k = 30) (11). Default parameters were used for all the analytical tools.
Depth of coverage for the draft genomes ranged from 20 to 565×, with genome sizes ranging from 1,646,854 to 2,320,947 bp. The number of contigs ranged from 44 to 97, while the N50 values ranged from 41,717 to 124,918 bp. The GC content varied from 38.8 to 39.4%. The sequences of these 18 Streptococcus isolates were submitted to GenBank and included two S. salivarius strains and 16 S. thermophilus strains.
Data availability.
This whole-genome shotgun project has been deposited at DDBJ/ENA/GenBank under BioProject number PRJNA336518 and under accession numbers JAIQWE000000000 to JAIQXB000000000. The assemblies described in this paper are the first versions. All annotations were done using the NCBI PGAP pipeline v5.2 (12).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), or the U.S. Government. Reference to any commercial materials, equipment, or process does not in any way constitute approval, endorsement, or recommendation by the FDA.
Contributor Information
Carmen Tartera, Email: Carmen.Tartera@fda.hhs.gov.
Steven R. Gill, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry
REFERENCES
- 1.Iyer R, Tomar SK, Maheswari TU, Rameshwar S. 2010. Streptococcus thermophilus strains: multifunctional lactic acid bacteria. Int Dairy J 20:133–141. doi: 10.1016/j.idairyj.2009.10.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Rul F, Ben-Yahia L, Chegdani F, Wrzosek L, Thomas S, Noordine ML, Gitton C, Cherbuy C, Langella P, Thomas M. 2011. Impact of the metabolic activity of Streptococcus thermophilus on the colon epithelium of gnotobiotic rats. J Biol Chem 286:10288–10296. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M110.168666. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Kaci G, Goudercourt D, Dennin V, Pot B, Doré J, Ehrlich SD, Renault P, Blottière HM, Daniel C, Delorme C. 2014. Anti-inflammatory properties of Streptococcus salivarius, a commensal bacterium of the oral cavity and digestive tract. Appl Environ Microbiol 80:928–934. doi: 10.1128/AEM.03133-13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Burton JP, Drummond BK, Chilcott CN, Tagg JR, Thomson WM, Hale J, Wescombe PA. 2013. Influence of the probiotic Streptococcus salivarius strain M18 on indices of dental health in children: a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. J Med Microbiol 62:875–884. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.056663-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Burton JP, Chilcott CN, Moore CJ, Speiser G, Tagg JR. 2006. A preliminary study of the effect of probiotic Streptococcus salivarius K12 on oral malodour parameters. J Appl Microbiol 100:754–764. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2006.02837.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Martinović A, Cocuzzi R, Arioli S, Mora D. 2020. Streptococcus thermophilus: to survive, or not to survive the gastrointestinal tract, that is the question! Nutrients 12:2175. doi: 10.3390/nu12082175. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Andrews S. 2010. FastQC: a quality control tool for high throughput sequence data. http://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc.
- 8.Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B. 2014. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 30:2114–2120. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu170. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Bankevich A, Nurk S, Antipov D, Gurevich A, Dvorkin M, Kulikov AS, Lesin VM, Nikolenko SI, Pham S, Prjibelski AD, Pyshkin AV, Sirotkin AV, Vyahhi N, Tesler G, Alekseyev MA, Pevzner PA. 2012. SPAdes: a new genome assembly algorithm and its applications to single-cell sequencing. J Comput Biol 19:455–477. doi: 10.1089/cmb.2012.0021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.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]
- 11.Leonard SR, Mammel MK, Lacher DW, Elkins CA. 2015. Application of metagenomic sequencing to food safety: detection of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli on fresh bagged spinach. Appl Environ Microbiol 81:8183–8191. doi: 10.1128/AEM.02601-15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.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 BioProject number PRJNA336518 and under accession numbers JAIQWE000000000 to JAIQXB000000000. The assemblies described in this paper are the first versions. All annotations were done using the NCBI PGAP pipeline v5.2 (12).