Skip to main content
Microbiology Resource Announcements logoLink to Microbiology Resource Announcements
. 2023 Jan 4;12(1):e00777-22. doi: 10.1128/mra.00777-22

Metagenome-Assembled Genome Sequence of a Strain of Burkholderia cepacia Isolated from the Gut of Macrotermes bellicosus in Nigeria

Jessica L Lenka a, Bitrus Yakubu b, Richard J Kutshik a, Enoch B Joel a, Aminu Tukur c, Ishaya Y Longdet a,✉
Editor: Julie C Dunning Hotoppd
PMCID: PMC9872617  PMID: 36598235

ABSTRACT

The efficiency of the termite Macrotermes bellicosus at digesting lignocellulose is due to its gut bacterial symbionts. We report the metagenome-assembled genome sequence of Burkholderia cepacia UJ_SKK_1.2, reconstructed from metagenomes produced from Macrotermes bellicosus gut microbiota. The 7,460,271-bp genome obtained consists of 6,763 protein-coding sequences, with 6,719 functionally assigned genes and 59 RNA genes.

ANNOUNCEMENT

Burkholderia species occupy diverse ecological niches (1) and have many uses, including for bioremediation, lignocellulose degradation, pesticides, biofertilizers, natural product discovery, and plant growth promotion (2–6). Here, we present the genome sequence of a strain of Burkholderia cepacia recovered from Macrotermes bellicosus termites, which digest lignocellulose effectively due to their gut symbiotic bacteria (7–9).

Macrotermes bellicosus specimens collected from Illela, Sokoto State, Nigeria (lat 38.973166, long 122.72809), in February 2021 were cleaned 3 times (dipped in 70% ethanol for 3 min and rinsed with sterile water). To select only organisms with the characteristic of interest in this project (lignocellulose degradation), a termite gut was extracted in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) and crushed; it was cultured on plated medium prepared from Kraft lignin, M9 salts, and agar-agar at a ratio of 2:1:2 at 37°C for 72 h and subcultured in four successions on the same medium. We thought that the colonies were pure isolates, but Gram staining revealed a mixture of cocci and rods appearing either in pairs, clusters, chains, or singly. To obtain cell pellets, the mixed organisms were grown overnight in nutrient broth at 37°C. Two sets of 2-mL portions were centrifuged at 14,000 × g for 3 min. The combined cell pellets were washed (in 500 μL phosphate-buffered saline) and centrifuged at 14,000 × g for 3 min twice.

DNA extraction of the cells was performed using the ZymoBIOMICS DNA miniprep kit, according to the manufacturer’s instructions. DNA libraries were prepared using the Nextera XT DNA library preparation kit (Illumina) and Nextera index kit (Illumina), and the genomic DNA was fragmented using Illumina Nextera XT fragmentation enzyme. Combinatory dual indexes were added to each sample, followed by 12 cycles of PCR to construct libraries, which were purified using AMPure magnetic beads. The libraries were then eluted in Qiagen elution buffer (EB), quantified using a Qubit 4 fluorometer and Qubit double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) high-sensitivity (HS) assay kit, and sequenced on an Illumina HiSeq X platform with 2 × 150-bp read lengths, producing 7.208 million raw reads. The raw metagenomic sequencing reads were trimmed and processed using Fastp v0.20.1 (10), with a mean cut quality of 15. The reads were assembled into contigs using MEGAHIT v1.0 (11) and then binned using MetaBAT v2 (12), producing 8 hits, but only two metagenome-assembled genomes (ABHB1_5.1 and ABHB1_5.2) were sizably obtained (completeness, ≥50%; contamination, ≤10%) (13). Here, default parameters were used for all software. The taxonomic classification, completeness, and contamination of the ABHB1_5.1 and ABHB1_5.2 genomes were assessed using QUAST v4.4 (14) and BUSCO v5 (15). The ABHB1_5.1 genome sequence was of poor quality. The ABHB1_5.2 genome was of high quality, with 52 contigs (mean, 143,466.75 bp), an assembly size of 7,460,271 bp, completeness of 92.70%, missing portion of 7.30%, N50 value of 270,795 bp, and a GC content of 67.7%. The BUSCO score was as follows: C:115 (S:114, D:1), F:0, M:9, n:124. The genome was annotated using PGAP v6.1 (16), identifying 6,763 protein-coding sequences, 6,719 proteins with functional assignments, 44 pseudogenes, and 59 RNA genes.

The assembled contigs were processed through the CosmosID core genome single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) typing pipeline to evaluate the phylogenetic placement and SNP differences, using Parsnp (17) as the core genome aligner; the phylogenomic relationships among the genomes were reconstructed using FastTree v2 (18). These relationships were used to generate an SNP tree (Fig. 1), revealing closely related strains of Burkholderia cepacia. Therefore, we named the organism Burkholderia cepacia strain UJ_SKK_1.2.

FIG 1.

FIG 1

SNP tree based on the core genome phylogeny of ABHB1_5.2 (strain UJ_SKK_1.2). CosmosID’s bacterial database was used to determine the species of the sample. Based on the species ID of the sample, reference genomes were downloaded from NCBI’s RefSeq database to be used in the generation of the SNP tree. The genomes were then processed through the CosmosID core genome SNP typing pipeline to evaluate the phylogenetic placement and SNP differences for meaningful epidemiological inferences. Additional details were determined using Parsnp (17) and FastTree v2 (18).

Data availability.

The genome data have been deposited at DDBJ/EMBL/GenBank under accession number JAMDXW000000000. The version described in this paper is JAMDXW010000000. The raw reads were deposited in the Sequence Read Archive under accession number SRR19200149.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project was funded by the TETFund National Research Fund 2019 (Abuja, Nigeria).

We appreciate support from the University of Jos, Applied Biotech (Abuja), COSMOS ID (USA), Natalie Ferry (University of Salford, UK), the Tim Bugg research group (University of Warwick, UK), Inqaba Biotec Industries (Pretoria, SA), and NVRI (Vom).

Contributor Information

Ishaya Y. Longdet, Email: longdeti@unijos.edu.ng.

Julie C. Dunning Hotopp, University of Maryland School of Medicine

REFERENCES

  • 1.Janssen PH. 2006. Identifying the dominant soil bacteria taxa in libraries of 16S rRNA and 16S rRNA genes. Appl Environ Microbiol 72:1719–1728. doi: 10.1128/AEM.72.3.1719-1728.2006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Parke JL, Gurian-Sherman D. 2001. Diversity of the Burkholderia cepacia complex and implications for risk assessment of biological control strains. Annu Rev Phytopathol 39:225–258. doi: 10.1146/annurev.phyto.39.1.225. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Perin L, Martínez-Aguilar L, Paredes-Valdez G, Baldani JI, Estrada-de Los Santos P, Reis VM, Caballero-Mellado J. 2006. Burkholderia silvatlantica sp. nov., a diazotrophic bacterium associated with sugar cane and maize. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 56:1931–1937. doi: 10.1099/ijs.0.64362-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Compant S, Nowak J, Coenye T, Clement C, Barka EA. 2008. Diversity and occurrence of Burkholderia spp. in the natural environment. FEMS Microbiol Rev 32:607–626. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6976.2008.00113.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Dar MA, Xie R, Pandit RS, Danso D, Dong C, Sun J. 2022. Exploring the region-wise diversity and functions of symbiotic bacteria in the gut system of wood-feeding termite, Coptotermes formosanus, toward the degradation of cellulose, hemicellulose, and organic dyes. Insect Science 29:1414–1432. doi: 10.1111/1744-7917.13012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Mullins AJ, Jones C, Bull MJ, Webster G, Parkhill J, Connor TR, Murray JAH, Challis GL, Mahenthiralingam E. 2020. Genomic assemblies of members of Burkholderia and related genera as a resource for natural product discovery. Microbiol Resour Announc 9:e00485-20. doi: 10.1128/MRA.00485-20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Brune A. 2014. Symbiotic digestion of lignocellulose in termite guts. Nat Rev Microbiol 12:168–180. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro3182. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Scharf M. 2015. Termites as targets and models for biotechnology. Annu Rev Entomol 60:77–102. doi: 10.1146/annurev-ento-010814-020902. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Grieco MB, Lopes FAC, Oliveira LS, Tschoeke DA, Popov CC, Thompson CC, Gonçalves LC, Constantino R, Martins OB, Kruger RH, de Souza W, Thompson FL. 2019. Metagenomic analysis of the whole gut microbiota in Brazilian Termitidae termites Cornitermes cumulans, Cyrilliotermes strictinasus, Syntermes dirus, Nasutitermes jaraguae, Nasutitermes aquilinus, Grigiotermes bequaerti, and Orthognathotermes mirim. Curr Microbiol 76:687–697. doi: 10.1007/s00284-019-01662-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Chen S, Zhou Y, Chen Y, Gu J. 2018. Fastp: an ultra-fast all-in-one FASTQ preprocessor. Bioinformatics 34:i884–i890. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty560. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Li D, Luo R, Liu C-M, Leung C-M, Ting H-F, Sadakane K, Yamashita H, Lam T-W. 2016. MEGAHIT v1.0: a fast and scalable metagenome assembler driven by advanced methodologies and community practices. Methods 102:3–11. doi: 10.1016/j.ymeth.2016.02.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kang DD, Li F, Kirton E, Thomas A, Egan R, An H, Wang Z. 2019. MetaBAT 2: an adaptive binning algorithm for robust and efficient genome reconstruction from metagenome assemblies. PeerJ 7:e7359. doi: 10.7717/peerj.7359. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Bowers RM, Kyrpides NC, Stepanauskas R, Harmon-Smith M, Doud D, Reddy TBK, Schulz F, Jarett J, Rivers AR, Eloe-Fadrosh EA, Tringe SG, Ivanova NN, Copeland A, Clum A, Becraft ED, Malmstrom RR, Birren B, Podar M, Bork P, Weinstock GM, Garrity GM, Dodsworth JA, Yooseph S, Sutton G, Glöckner FO, Gilbert JA, Nelson WC, Hallam SJ, Jungbluth SP, Ettema TJG, Tighe S, Konstantinidis KT, Liu W-T, Baker BJ, Rattei T, Eisen JA, Hedlund B, McMahon KD, Fierer N, Knight R, Finn R, Cochrane G, Karsch-Mizrachi I, Tyson GW, Rinke C, Lapidus A, Meyer F, Yilmaz P, Parks DH, Eren AM, Genome Standards Consortium, et al. 2017. Minimum information about a single amplified genome (MISAG) and a metagenome-assembled genome (MIMAG) of bacteria and archaea. Nat Biotechnol 35:725–731. doi: 10.1038/nbt.3893. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.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]
  • 15.Manni M, Berkeley MR, Seppey M, Zdobnov EM. 2021. BUSCO: assessing genomic data quality and beyond. Curr Protoc 1:e323. doi: 10.1002/cpz1.323. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.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]
  • 17.Treangen TJ, Ondov BD, Koren S, Phillippy AM. 2014. The Harvest suite for rapid core-genome alignment and visualization of thousands of intraspecific microbial genomes. Genome Biol 15:524. doi: 10.1186/s13059-014-0524-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Price MN, Dehal PS, Arkin AP. 2010. FastTree 2—approximately maximum-likelihood trees for large alignments. PLoS One 5:e9490. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009490. [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

The genome data have been deposited at DDBJ/EMBL/GenBank under accession number JAMDXW000000000. The version described in this paper is JAMDXW010000000. The raw reads were deposited in the Sequence Read Archive under accession number SRR19200149.


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

RESOURCES