Skip to main content
Microbiology Resource Announcements logoLink to Microbiology Resource Announcements
. 2022 May 31;11(7):e00280-22. doi: 10.1128/mra.00280-22

Draft Genome Sequences of Eight Bacilli Isolated from an Ancient Roman Amphora

Andrea Colautti a, Giuseppe Comi a, Emanuele De Paoli a, Enrico Peterlunger a, Marta Novello b, Elena Braidotti b, Daniele Pasini b, Lucilla Iacumin a,
Editor: David Raskoc
PMCID: PMC9302124  PMID: 35639029

ABSTRACT

Paleomicrobiology, the study of ancient microbiological material, allows us to understand different evolutionary phenomena in bacteria. In this study, eight bacilli isolated from an ancient Roman amphora, which dates to the IV to V sec. AD, were sequenced and functionally annotated.

ANNOUNCEMENT

Bacteria belonging to Bacillus spp. are capable of forming spores, specialized cell forms that can withstand adverse environmental conditions and extreme factors, such as temperature, radiation, and chemicals (1), also allowing for survival in a quiescent state for a long time (2). Isolation of these bacterial species from ancient sources has been previously reported, for example from a mummy (3) or ancient soil (4). In this study, bacilli from an ancient Roman amphora were isolated and sequenced. The amphora (IV to V century AD), found in Aquileia (UD-Italy) (45°45'05.9”N 13°21'03.8”E), was found intact and sealed with cementitious compound, thus preventing microbial contamination. It was opened under aseptic conditions in a laminar flow hood and GMP were followed to avoid contaminations. The inner material was sampled using 10 different culture media for bacteria and fungi by serial dilution method and enrichment steps. Growth (7.26±0.09 log colony forming units/g) was observed only in brain heart infusion and plate count agar (Oxoid, Italy) after 48 h at 30°C under aerobic conditions, showing indented, diffuse mucosal colonies, 1 to 2.5 cm in diameter after 48 h at 30°C. The environmental control made using active/passive methods confirmed the absence of Bacillus spp. in the laboratory air. Twenty-five colonies present on the counting plates were isolated and examined for their morphological characteristics, which were Gram- and catalase-positive. Preliminary identification was performed by sequencing amplicons obtained using primers P1 and P4 (5), targeting V1 to V3 regions of 16S rDNA. Amplification conditions: final volume 50 μL, 10 mM Tris–HCl, pH 8, KCl 50 mM, MgCl2 1.5 mM, dNTPs 0.2 mM, each primer 0.2 μM, 1.25 U Taq-polymerase (Applied Biosystem, I), and 100 ng of DNA. After purification, products were sent to a commercial facility for sequencing (Sanger technology, Eurofins Genomics, Germany). Clones were eliminated by comparing genetic fingerprints (by RAPD, Rep-PCR, SAU-PCR) (6) of isolates and the resulting eight unique individual strains were subjected to whole-genome sequencing. For the sequencing process, each strain was cultured in brain heart infusion broth at 30°C for 48 h. After obtaining the cell pellet by centrifugation for 5 min at 5,000 × g, the DNA was extracted with the MagAttract HMW DNA Kit (Qiagen, Germany). The DNA was fragmented by sonication (BioRuptor-Diagenode, Belgium) and Celero DNA-Seq kit (Tecan, Swiss) was used for the preparation of libraries. The size of the individual fragments making up the library was measured using BioAnlayzer 2100 DNA chip electrophoresis (Agilent Technologies, USA) and sequencing was carried out with the MiSeq platform (Illumina, USA) in paired-end mode with reads of 300 bp length. The obtained. fastq files were analyzed and assembled using WGA-LP pipeline (7) with the following tools used in default mode. Raw reads were quality trimmed and deprived of Illumina adapters via Trimmomatic v0.39 (8). FastQC v0.11.9 (9) and Kraken2 v2.0.8-b (10) were used for quality and contamination control. Assembly was carried out using SPAdes v3.15.2 (11). The quality of the final assemblies was evaluated using CheckM v1.1.3 (12), Quast v5.0.2 (13), and SamTools v1.10 (14). Functional annotation was carried out on the genomes using PGAP 2022-04-14.build6021 (15).

Data availability.

Sequences were deposited in GenBank with PRJNA811801 BioProject accession number. Table 1 reports the GenBank and SRA accession number, the raw reads number, the NCBI taxonomic identification, the isolation source, the sequencing and assembly statistics, and the genome features of strains for each sample.

TABLE 1.

Statistics of assembled genomes

GeneBank accession no. SRA accession no. 16S RNA accession no. Raw readsa Strain Organism name Source Coverage Genome sizeb Scaffoldsb N50b G+C content (%)c CDSc tRNAsc Completeness (%)d
JAKXEE000000000 SRR18190504 ON326590 2,727,696 Aquil_B1 P. simplex Amphora 234× 5,649,653 25 910,271 40.2 5,402 81 98.91
JAKXED000000000 SRR18190503 ON326591 717,606 Aquil_B2 L. fusiformis Amphora 75× 4,643,302 34 1,011,198 37.5 4,546 85 99.93
JAKXEC000000000 SRR18190502 ON326592 494,295 Aquil_B3 B. muralis Amphora 46× 5,057,074 38 641,321 41.3 4,721 84 98.77
JAKXEB000000000 SRR18190501 ON326593 1,480,745 Aquil_B4 B. frigoritolerans Amphora 65× 6,677,279 68 317,977 39.5 6,548 92 98.91
JAKXEA000000000 SRR18190500 ON326594 2,409,430 Aquil_B5 B. muralis Amphora 151× 5,067,063 38 641,321 41.3 4,723 84 98.91
JAKXDZ000000000 SRR18190499 ON326595 1,249,575 Aquil_B6 P. psychrodurans Amphora 108× 4,256,356 79 253,084 35.9 4,213 70 100
JAKXDY000000000 SRR18190498 ON326596 1,122,132 Aquil_B7 B. frigoritolerans Amphora 71× 5,521,551 46 613,520 40.3 5,287 84 98.91
JAKXDX000000000 SRR18190497 ON326597 1,742,298 Aquil_B8 P. simplex Amphora 57× 5,654,249 78 193,610 40.2 5437 81 98.91
a

Determined using FastQC.

b

Determined using Quast.

c

Determined using PGAP.

d

Determined using CheckM.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the Interdepartmental Centre for the Development of the Friulian Language and Culture (CIRF) of the University of Udine for the financial support.

Contributor Information

Lucilla Iacumin, Email: lucilla.iacumin@uniud.it.

David Rasko, University of Maryland School of Medicine.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Setlow P. 2006. Spores of Bacillus subtilis: their resistance to and killing by radiation, heat and chemicals. J Appl Microbiol 101:514–525. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2005.02736.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Setlow P. 2014. Germination of spores of Bacillus species: what we know and do not know. J Bacteriol 196:1297–1305. doi: 10.1128/JB.01455-13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Čavka M, Glasnović A, Janković I, Šikanjić PR, Perić B, Brkljačić B, Mlinarić-Missoni E, Škrlin J. 2010. Microbiological analysis of a mummy from the archeological museum in Zagreb. Coll Antropol 34:803–805. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Southern PM. 2008. Archeology meets clinical microbiology: analysis of the microbial content of soil from archeological sites in Italy and Belize. Lab Med 39:601–602. doi: 10.1309/LMHJGYSGYAPHCNV9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Klijn N, Weerkamp AH, De Vos WM. 1991. Identification of mesophilic lactic acid bacteria by using polymerase chain reaction-amplified variable regions of 16S rRNA and specific DNA probes. Appl Environ Microbiol 57:3390–3393. doi: 10.1128/aem.57.11.3390-3393.1991. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Iacumin L, Comi G, Cantoni C, Cocolin L. 2006. Molecular and technological characterization of Staphylococcus xylosus isolated from naturally fermented Italian sausages by RAPD, Rep-PCR and Sau-PCR analysis. Meat Sci 74:281–288. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2006.03.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Rossi N, Colautti A, Iacumin L, Piazza C. 2021. WGA-LP: a pipeline for whole genome assembly of contaminated reads. Bioinformatics 38:846–848. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btab719. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 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.Andrews S. 2010. FastQC: a quality control tool for high throughput sequence data. https://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc/.
  • 10.Wood DE, Lu J, Langmead B. 2019. Improved metagenomic analysis with Kraken 2. Genome Biol 20–:13. doi: 10.1186/s13059-019-1891-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Bankevich A, Nurk S, Antipov D, Gurevich AA, 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]
  • 12.Parks DH, Imelfort M, Skennerton CT, Hugenholtz P, Tyson GW. 2015. CheckM: assessing the quality of microbial genomes recovered from isolates, single cells, and metagenomes. Genome Res 25:1043–1055. doi: 10.1101/gr.186072.114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Gurevich A, Saveliev V, Vyahhi N, Tesler G. 2013. QUAST: quality assessment tool for genome assemblies. Bioinformatics 29:1072–1075. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt086. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Li H, Handsaker B, Wysoker A, Fennell T, Ruan J, Homer N, Marth G, Abecasis G, Durbin R, 1000 Genome Project Data Processing Subgroup . 2009. The sequence alignment/map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics 25:2078–2079. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp352. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Zhao Y, Wu J, Yang J, Sun S, Xiao J, Yu J. 2012. PGAP: pan-genomes analysis pipeline. Bioinformatics 28:416–418. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr655. [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

Sequences were deposited in GenBank with PRJNA811801 BioProject accession number. Table 1 reports the GenBank and SRA accession number, the raw reads number, the NCBI taxonomic identification, the isolation source, the sequencing and assembly statistics, and the genome features of strains for each sample.

TABLE 1.

Statistics of assembled genomes

GeneBank accession no. SRA accession no. 16S RNA accession no. Raw readsa Strain Organism name Source Coverage Genome sizeb Scaffoldsb N50b G+C content (%)c CDSc tRNAsc Completeness (%)d
JAKXEE000000000 SRR18190504 ON326590 2,727,696 Aquil_B1 P. simplex Amphora 234× 5,649,653 25 910,271 40.2 5,402 81 98.91
JAKXED000000000 SRR18190503 ON326591 717,606 Aquil_B2 L. fusiformis Amphora 75× 4,643,302 34 1,011,198 37.5 4,546 85 99.93
JAKXEC000000000 SRR18190502 ON326592 494,295 Aquil_B3 B. muralis Amphora 46× 5,057,074 38 641,321 41.3 4,721 84 98.77
JAKXEB000000000 SRR18190501 ON326593 1,480,745 Aquil_B4 B. frigoritolerans Amphora 65× 6,677,279 68 317,977 39.5 6,548 92 98.91
JAKXEA000000000 SRR18190500 ON326594 2,409,430 Aquil_B5 B. muralis Amphora 151× 5,067,063 38 641,321 41.3 4,723 84 98.91
JAKXDZ000000000 SRR18190499 ON326595 1,249,575 Aquil_B6 P. psychrodurans Amphora 108× 4,256,356 79 253,084 35.9 4,213 70 100
JAKXDY000000000 SRR18190498 ON326596 1,122,132 Aquil_B7 B. frigoritolerans Amphora 71× 5,521,551 46 613,520 40.3 5,287 84 98.91
JAKXDX000000000 SRR18190497 ON326597 1,742,298 Aquil_B8 P. simplex Amphora 57× 5,654,249 78 193,610 40.2 5437 81 98.91
a

Determined using FastQC.

b

Determined using Quast.

c

Determined using PGAP.

d

Determined using CheckM.


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

RESOURCES