ABSTRACT
Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) is a foodborne pathogen transmitted from animal to humans through contaminated food. Here, we report the draft genome sequences of six STEC isolates (six serotypes) from food (cheese, coriander, and pea protein pellets) in different countries; these isolates were resistant to tetracycline, with MIC values ranging from <1.5 to 256 μg/mL.
ANNOUNCEMENT
Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) can cause bloody diarrhea, hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), and hemorrhagic and even fatal colitis in human. It causes around 2.5 million acute illnesses each year globally, and the consumption of contaminated foods (such as meat, beef, milk, fruits, and vegetables) is the primary source of STEC transmission, contributing 50% of all STEC infections (1, 2). Although E. coli O157:H7 is the most important STEC serotype posing a public health threat, non-O157:H7 STEC serotypes, such as O26, O111, O103, and O145, have frequently been involved in sporadic cases and outbreaks in the United States and other countries (3). In addition, more than 400 serotypes of non-O157:H7 STEC have been reported, and there were at least 42 STEC outbreaks in the United States from 2006 to 2021 (4, 5). Recently, STEC has been elevated to a major global public health concern because of the growing number of infections and major outbreaks with multidrug-resistant (MDR) strains.
Here, we announce six draft genome sequences of STEC isolates sourced from cheese, coriander, and pea protein pellets (Table 1). They were obtained following the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Bacteriological Analytical Manual (BAM) (6). All bacterial isolates were grown from frozen stocks, streaked onto MacConkey agar (FDA BAM media M91), and incubated overnight at 37 ± 1°C. The isolates were serotyped as O2:H1, O146:H21, NEG:+, O6:H10, O8:H30, and O103:H2 at the E. coli Reference Center (Department of Food Science) at the Pennsylvania State University (PA, USA), following the traditional agglutination-based method (7). The MICs were interpreted according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) (8). The MIC data revealed that these strains were resistant to tetracycline; two isolates, 872416 and 886340, were categorized as highly resistant to tetracycline, with MIC values of 64 and 256 μg/mL, respectively (Table 1).
TABLE 1.
Genome features of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli isolates sequenced in this project
| Isolate | Source | Serotype | MIC of tetracycline (μg/mL) | No. of reads | No. of contigs | Contig N50 (bp) | Coverage (×) | G+C content (%) | NCBI accession no. |
Illumina sequencer | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BioSample | SRA | GenBank | ||||||||||
| 879916 | Cheddar cheese, USA | O2:H1 | 2 | 4,803,343 | 63 | 200,856 | 50 | 50.59 | SAMN16454162 | SRR12904588 | JADDRX000000000 | NextSeq 500 |
| 875221 | Coriander, Mexico | O146:H21 | <1.5 | 5,071,407 | 187 | 103,993 | 50 | 50.58 | SAMN16454163 | SRR12904587 | JADDRW000000000 | NextSeq 500 |
| 927095 | Blue cheese, France | NEG:+ | <1.5 | 4,680,969 | 121 | 114,771 | 50 | 50.57 | SAMN16454164 | SRR12904586 | JADDRV000000000 | NextSeq 500 |
| 872416 | Roquefort cheese, France | O6:H10 | 64 | 4,955,756 | 257 | 61,625 | 50 | 50.68 | SAMN16454165 | SRR12904585 | JADDRU000000000 | NextSeq 500 |
| 886340 | Roquefort cheese, France | O8:H30 | 256 | 5,349,033 | 247 | 65,023 | 50 | 50.55 | SAMN16454166 | SRR12904584 | JADDRT000000000 | MiSeq |
| 932783 | Pea protein pellets, Norway | O103:H2 | <2 | 5,099,373 | 310 | 90,199 | 50 | 50.51 | SAMN16454167 | SRR12904583 | JADDRS000000000 | NextSeq 500 |
A single STEC colony isolated from a MacConkey agar plate was inoculated into LB (Luria-Bertani) broth (Becton, Dickinson and Company, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA) and incubated at 37 ± 1°C overnight for genomic DNA preparation. Genomic DNA was extracted using a DNeasy blood and tissue kit (Qiagen, Valencia, CA, USA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. DNA libraries were constructed using a Nextera XT DNA library kit (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA). The library concentration was assessed using a high-sensitivity (HS) kit (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) with a Qubit 4.0 fluorometer (Life Technologies, Carlsbad, CA, USA). The quality of the libraries was analyzed using a 2100 Bioanalyzer instrument (Agilent Technologies). The pooled libraries for all isolates were loaded onto a flow cell and sequenced using the Illumina NextSeq 500 platform (Illumina) with a NextSeq reagent kit v2.5 (2 × 75-bp paired-end reads), except for strain 886340, which was sequenced using the Illumina MiSeq platform with a MiSeq reagent kit v2 (2 × 250-bp paired-end reads) (9). The trimming and assembly were performed using the CLC Genomics Workbench v11 (Qiagen, Germantown, MD, USA), and the quality of the genome assembly and the validity of the final genome were assessed using the quality control tool (QC report) under CLC Workbench. The draft genomes were annotated initially using Pathosystem Resources Integration Center (PATRIC) software v3.6.12, and the data were submitted to the NCBI for final annotation using the Prokaryotic Genome Annotation Pipeline (PGAP) under the accession numbers shown in Table 1 (10). Default parameters were used for all software unless otherwise specified. The average G+C content of these strains was approximately about 50.5% as estimated by the PATRIC database, which was used for annotation with default parameters. The genome sizes for these six strains ranged from 4,680,969 to 5,349,033 bp, the number of contigs ranged from 63 to 310, the N50 values ranged from 61,625 to 200,856 bp, and the coverages were all 50× (Table 1).
Data availability.
All sequenced genome data have been deposited at DDBJ/ENA/GenBank under BioProject accession number PRJNA545531 and BioSample accession numbers SAMN16454162, SAMN16454163, SAMN16454164, SAMN16454165, SAMN16454166, and SAMN16454167.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank John Sutherland, Bruce Erickson, and Huizhong Chen for critical review of the manuscript. We gratefully acknowledge the technical support provided by Bijay Khajanchi.
The opinions expressed in this paper are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views and policy of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Reference to any commercial material, equipment, or process does not in any way constitute approval, endorsement, or recommendation by the FDA.
This project was supported by the internal National Center for Toxicological Research/FDA U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (protocol E0768401).
Contributor Information
Ashraf A. Khan, Email: Ashraf.Khan@fda.hhs.gov.
David A. Baltrus, University of Arizona
REFERENCES
- 1.Hald T, Aspinall W, Devleesschauwer B, Cooke R, Corrigan T, Havelaar AH, Gibb HJ, Torgerson PR, Kirk MD, Angulo FJ, Lake RJ, Speybroeck N, Hoffmann S. 2016. World Health Organization estimates of the relative contributions of food to the burden of disease due to selected foodborne hazards: a structured expert elicitation. PLoS One 11:e0145839. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0145839. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Majowicz SE, Scallan E, Jones-Bitton A, Sargeant JM, Stapleton J, Angulo FJ, Yeung DH, Kirk MD. 2014. Global incidence of human Shiga toxin–producing Escherichia coli infections and deaths: a systematic review and knowledge synthesis. Foodborne Pathog Dis 11:447–455. doi: 10.1089/fpd.2013.1704. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Mellor GE, Fegan N, Duffy LL, McMillan KE, Jordan D, Barlow RS. 2016. National survey of Shiga toxin–producing Escherichia coli serotypes O26, O45, O103, O111, O121, O145, and O157 in Australian beef cattle feces. J Food Prot 79:1868–1874. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-15-507. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2022. Reports of selected E. coli outbreak investigations. https://www.cdc.gov/ecoli/outbreaks.html. Accessed 10 February 2022.
- 5.Gyles C. 2007. Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli: an overview. J Anim Sci 85:E45–E62. doi: 10.2527/jas.2006-508. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Feng P, Weagant SD, Jinneman K. 2011. Diarrheagenic Escherichia coli. In Food and Drug Administration (ed), Bacteriological analytical manual. FDA, Silver Spring, MD. https://www.fda.gov/food/laboratory-methods-food/bam-chapter-4a-diarrheagenic-Escherichia-coli. Accessed 18 May 2022. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Orskov I, Orskov F, Jann B, Jann K. 1977. Serology, chemistry, and genetics of O and K antigens of Escherichia coli. Bacteriol Rev 41:667–710. doi: 10.1128/br.41.3.667-710.1977. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2008. Performance standards for antimicrobial disk and dilution susceptibility tests for bacteria isolated from animals: approved standard, 3rd ed. CLSI document M31-A3. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA. https://www.dbt.univr.it/documenti/OccorrenzaIns/matdid/matdid485539.pdf. Accessed 22 February 2022. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Khan AA, Khajanchi BK, Khan SA, Elkins CA, Foley SL. 2017. Draft genome sequences of ciprofloxacin-resistant Salmonella enterica strains with multiple-antibiotic resistance, isolated from imported foods. Genome Announc 5:e01222-17. doi: 10.1128/genomeA.01222-17. [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]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
All sequenced genome data have been deposited at DDBJ/ENA/GenBank under BioProject accession number PRJNA545531 and BioSample accession numbers SAMN16454162, SAMN16454163, SAMN16454164, SAMN16454165, SAMN16454166, and SAMN16454167.
