ABSTRACT
Here, we report the draft genome sequences of seven strains of potentially probiotic Limosilactobacillus fermentum isolated from the traditional fermented milk product dahi. The estimated average genome size was 1,955,815 bp, with a median GC content of 52%. Genome annotation predicted an average of 1,871 protein-coding genes and 47 RNAs.
ANNOUNCEMENT
Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) are known for their ability to impart a multitude of health benefits. Recently, Lactobacillus fermentum, a member of LAB, was reclassified as Limosilactobacillus fermentum for its metabolic and ecological properties (1). L. fermentum is a Gram-positive, non-spore-forming, nonmotile, rod-shaped bacterium that can grow singly, in pairs, or in short chains (1). L. fermentum is usually found in habitats that are nutrient rich and are associated with humans, plants, animals, and food (2). L. fermentum is considered a promising potential probiotic candidate due to its lack of antibiotic resistance genes, along with its antioxidative, antimicrobial, and cholesterol reduction properties (3–5). The genome of L. fermentum possesses specific genes that help it to tolerate the immune system of the host, interact with the other microbes of the gut, and colonize the host epithelium (6–8).
We report the genome sequences of seven strains of L. fermentum (QAULFN56, QAULFN64, QAULFN21, QAULFN53, QAULFN54, QAULFN55, and QAULFN62) that were isolated from the traditional fermented milk product dahi. Samples were collected from dairy corner shops of Rawalpindi, Islamabad, Pakistan. For isolation, 100 μl of dahi sample was plated on de Man Rogosa Sharpe (MRS) agar (pH 6.8 ± 2) and incubated at 37°C for 24 h in a GasPak anaerobic system (Sigma-Aldrich). Single colonies from MRS plates were subcultured, and purified cultures were obtained. The cultures were identified as strains of L. fermentum with a microbial identification system explained previously (9), followed by analysis using the ON-rep-seq gene sequencing tool (10).
The pure colonies from agar plates were grown overnight in MRS broth followed by DNA extraction using InstaGene matrix (Bio-Rad Laboratories, California, USA). A Qubit 2.0 fluorometer (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA) was used to quantify the DNA. DNA libraries for high-throughput sequencing were obtained with the commercially available Vazyme TruePrep DNA library prep kit V2 (Vazyme Biotech, Nanjing, China). Sequencing of these libraries was performed on an Illumina HiSeq-2000 sequencing platform (BGI-Shenzhen, Shenzhen, China) with an average read length of 101 bp. FASTQ files were generated, and average total raw reads were 10,294,243. Default parameters were used for all software unless otherwise specified. The quality trimming of the sequencing reads was performed using Trimmomatic version 0.38 (11). The number of filtered average reads was 9,340,781, and these were aligned with the reference genome of L. fermentum IFO 3956 (NCBI RefSeq accession number NC_010610). The assembly of the high-quality reads was performed using the Velvet (v1.2.10) assembler (12). The de novo assembly results were evaluated using Quast software (13). The assembled genomes were annotated through PGAP (14). The subsystem identification in the genomes was determined through RAST (15), while evaluation of orthologous genes was performed via clusters of orthologous genes (COGs) analysis (16) and eggNOG (17). The results are presented in Table 1. The genomes were mined for the presence of bacteriocin, antibiotic resistance, and CRISPR/CRISPR-Cas genes through the online tools BAGEL4, CARD, and CRISPR Finder, respectively (18–22). Except for strains QAULFN54 and QAULFN21, the rest of the five strains had bacteriocin genes. CRISPR sequences were identified in all the strains except QAULFN54. The presence of CRISPRs suggested immunity to foreign attacking agents, like phages, jumping genes, or transfer elements (23).
TABLE 1.
Genome statistics for L. fermentum isolates obtained from the fermented milk product dahi
| Feature | QAULFN56 | QAULFN64 | QAULFN21 | QAULFN53 | QAULFN54 | QAULFN55 | QAULFN62 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GenBank accession no. | JAJAOT000000000 | JAJAOV000000000 | JAJAOP000000000 | JAJAOQ000000000 | JAJAOR000000000 | JAJAOS000000000 | JAJAOU000000000 |
| SRA accession no. | SRR19959948 | SRR19959946 | SRR19959952 | SRR19959951 | SRR19959950 | SRR19959949 | SRR19959947 |
| Raw reads | 10,296,951 | 10,294,952 | 10,293,176 | 10,292,199 | 10,297,350 | 10,292,921 | 10,292,151 |
| Genome coverage | 300× | 300× | 300× | 300× | 300× | 300× | 300× |
| Size (bp) | 1,900,053 | 1,900,053 | 1,867,005 | 2,077,539 | 1,966,551 | 2,011,311 | 1,968,193 |
| % GC | 52.4 | 52.4 | 52.8 | 51.7 | 52 | 51.8 | 52 |
| Contigs | 102 | 102 | 74 | 170 | 129 | 137 | 80 |
| Total genes | 1,919 | 1,919 | 1,848 | 2,148 | 2,059 | 2,041 | 2,001 |
| CDSs with proteins | 1,803 | 1,803 | 1,724 | 2,002 | 1,965 | 1,935 | 1,869 |
| RNAs | 52 | 52 | 63 | 53 | 20 | 29 | 60 |
| Pseudogenes | 64 | 64 | 61 | 80 | 74 | 70 | 72 |
| Subsystem | 207 | 207 | 212 | 220 | 215 | 220 | 213 |
| COGs | 776 | 778 | 795 | 845 | 826 | 840 | 822 |
| eggNOG features | 1,653 | 1,643 | 1,595 | 1,800 | 1,715 | 1,749 | 1,684 |
| Bacteriocin gene | Enterolysin_A | Enterolysin_A | Enterolysin_A | Enterolysin_A | Enterolysin_A | Enterolysin_A | Enterolysin_A |
| CRISPRa | C | C | C | P | Nil | C | C |
P, possible; C, confirmed. No resistance gene was found in any of the strains.
Data availability.
The genomic data reported here have been deposited in GenBank under the accession numbers given in Table 1. The SRA accession numbers are also provided in Table 1. The BioProject number is PRJNA744373, and the relevant BioSample numbers are SAMN20114169 to SAMN20114175.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported by Higher Education Commission, Pakistan (HEC) under NRPU Project no 6167.
Contributor Information
Muhammad Imran, Email: mmimran@qau.edu.pk.
Julie C. Dunning Hotopp, University of Maryland School of Medicine
REFERENCES
- 1.Zheng J, Wittouck S, Salvetti E, Franz CMAP, Harris HMB, Mattarelli P, O'Toole PW, Pot B, Vandamme P, Walter J, Watanabe K, Wuyts S, Felis GE, Gänzle MG, Lebeer S. 2020. A taxonomic note on the genus Lactobacillus: description of 23 novel genera, emended description of the genus Lactobacillus Beijerinck 1901, and union of Lactobacillaceae and Leuconostocaceae. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 70:2782–2858. doi: 10.1099/ijsem.0.004107. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Duar RM, Lin XB, Zheng J, Martino ME, Grenier T, Pérez-Muñoz ME, Leulier F, Gänzle M, Walter J. 2017. Lifestyles in transition: evolution and natural history of the genus Lactobacillus. FEMS Microbiol Rev 41:S27–S48. doi: 10.1093/femsre/fux030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Mikelsaar M, Sepp E, Stsepetova J, Hutt P, Zilmer K, Kullisaar T, Zilmer M. 2015. Regulation of plasma lipid profile by lactobacillus fermentum (probiotic strain ME-3 DSM14241) in a randomised controlled trial of clinically healthy adults. BMC Nutr 1:27. doi: 10.1186/s40795-015-0020-z. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Naghmouchi K, Belguesmia Y, Bendali F, Spano G, Seal BS, Drider D. 2020. Lactobacillus fermentum: a bacterial species with potential for food preservation and biomedical applications. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 60:3387–3399. doi: 10.1080/10408398.2019.1688250. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Ghosh T, Beniwal A, Semwal A, Navani NK. 2019. Mechanistic insights into probiotic properties of lactic acid bacteria associated with ethnic fermented dairy products. Front Microbiol 10:502. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00502. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Garcia-Gonzalez N, Battista N, Prete R, Corsetti A. 2021. Health-promoting role of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum isolated from fermented foods. Microorganisms 9:349. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms9020349. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Fidanza M, Panigrahi P, Kollmann TR. 2021. Lactiplantibacillus plantarum: nomad and ideal probiotic. Front Microbiol 12:712236. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.712236. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Filannino P, De Angelis M, Di Cagno R, Gozzi G, Riciputi Y, Gobbetti M. 2018. How Lactobacillus plantarum shapes its transcriptome in response to contrasting habitats. Environ Microbiol 20:3700–3716. doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.14372. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Klingler JM, Stowe RP, Obenhuber DC, Groves TO, Mishra SK, Pierson DL. 1992. Evaluation of the Biolog automated microbial identification system. Appl Environ Microbiol 58:2089–2092. doi: 10.1128/aem.58.6.2089-2092.1992. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Krych Ł, Castro-Mejia JL, Forero-Junco LM, Moesby DN, Mikkelsen MB, Rasmussen MA, Sykulski M, Nielsen DS. 2019. DNA enrichment and tagmentation method for species-level identification and strain-level differentiation using ON-rep-seq. Commun Biol 2:369. doi: 10.1038/s42003-019-0617-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.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]
- 12.Zerbino DR, Birney E. 2008. Velvet: algorithms for de novo short read assembly using de Bruijn graphs. Genome Res 18:821–829. doi: 10.1101/gr.074492.107. [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.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]
- 15.Aziz RK, Bartels D, Best AA, Dejongh M, Disz T, Edwards RA, Formsma K, Gerdes S, Glass EM, Kubal M, Meyer F, Olsen GJ, Olson R, Osterman AL, Overbeek RA, McNeil LK, Paarmann D, Paczian T, Parrello B, Pusch GD, Reich C, Stevens R, Vassieva O, Vonstein V, Wilke A, Zagnitko O. 2008. The RAST Server: rapid annotations using subsystems technology. BMC Genomics 9:75. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-9-75. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Galperin MY, Makarova KS, Wolf YI, Koonin EV. 2015. Expanded microbial genome coverage and improved protein family annotation in the COG database. Nucleic Acids Res 43:D261–D269. doi: 10.1093/nar/gku1223. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Huerta-Cepas J, Szklarczyk D, Forslund K, Cook H, Heller D, Walter MC, Rattei T, Mende DR, Sunagawa S, Kuhn M, Jensen LJ, von Mering C, Bork P. 2016. eggNOG 4.5: a hierarchical orthology framework with improved functional annotations for eukaryotic, prokaryotic and viral sequences. Nucleic Acids Res 44:D286–D293. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkv1248. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.van Heel AJ, de Jong A, Song C, Viel JH, Kok J, Kuipers OP. 2018. BAGEL4: a user-friendly web server to thoroughly mine RiPPs and bacteriocins. Nucleic Acids Res 46:W278–W281. doi: 10.1093/nar/gky383. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Alcock BP, Raphenya AR, Lau TTY, Tsang KK, Bouchard M, Edalatmand A, Huynh W, Nguyen A-LV, Cheng AA, Liu S, Min SY, Miroshnichenko A, Tran H-K, Werfalli RE, Nasir JA, Oloni M, Speicher DJ, Florescu A, Singh B, Faltyn M, Hernandez-Koutoucheva A, Sharma AN, Bordeleau E, Pawlowski AC, Zubyk HL, Dooley D, Griffiths E, Maguire F, Winsor GL, Beiko RG, Brinkman FSL, Hsiao WWL, Domselaar GV, McArthur AG. 2020. CARD 2020: antibiotic resistome surveillance with the comprehensive antibiotic resistance database. Nucleic Acids Res 48:D517–D525. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Grissa I, Vergnaud G, Pourcel C. 2008. CRISPRcompar: a website to compare clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats. Nucleic Acids Res 36:W145–W148. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkn228. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Grissa I, Vergnaud G, Pourcel C. 2007. The CRISPRdb database and tools to display CRISPRs and to generate dictionaries of spacers and repeats. BMC Bioinformatics 8:172. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-8-172. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Grissa I, Vergnaud G, Pourcel C. 2007. CRISPRFinder: a web tool to identify clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats. Nucleic Acids Res 35:W52–W57. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkm360. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Marraffini L. 2015. CRISPR-Cas immunity in prokaryotes. Nature 526:55–61. doi: 10.1038/nature15386. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The genomic data reported here have been deposited in GenBank under the accession numbers given in Table 1. The SRA accession numbers are also provided in Table 1. The BioProject number is PRJNA744373, and the relevant BioSample numbers are SAMN20114169 to SAMN20114175.
