Skip to main content
Microbiology Resource Announcements logoLink to Microbiology Resource Announcements
. 2023 Jan 18;12(2):e01048-22. doi: 10.1128/mra.01048-22

Complete Genome Sequences of Two Lytic Phages of Salmonella enterica Isolated from Wastewater in Ecuador

Manuela Parra a, Rosa de los Ángeles Bayas-Rea a, Teresa Guerrero a, Stuart Torres a, Giuseppe D’Auria b, Mariana Reyes-Prieto b, Sonia Zapata a,✉
Editor: Kenneth M Stedmanc
PMCID: PMC9933735  PMID: 36651741

ABSTRACT

Salmonella enterica is one of the most common causes of foodborne diseases. Bacteriophages provide an option to reduce the presence of Salmonella. Here, we describe the isolation of two lytic Salmonella bacteriophages. The complete genomes were annotated and show similarity to that of the lytic phage NBSal001, in the Drexlerviridae family.

ANNOUNCEMENT

Salmonella enterica is one of the most common causes of foodborne diseases. Poultry meat and derivatives are the main sources of human infections. In Latin America, the prevalence of nontyphoid Salmonella (NTS) has increased, as well as the antimicrobial resistance (AMR). The use of bacteriophages for the control of Salmonella enterica colonization in the poultry industry is an alternative to reduce this prevalence. We report the complete genome sequences of two lytic Salmonella bacteriophages that are related to NBSal001, which was described previously; for this reason, we named Salmonella phages F115 and F61 NBSal001-like (1).

The lytic phages were isolated from wastewater collected on 12 February 2019 from the Machangara River (0°15′3.5″S, 78°31′28.0″W), which is the most contaminated river in Quito, the capital of Ecuador. We performed an enrichment of phages from a 45-mL river water sample using Salmonella enterica serovars Infantis and Typhimurium as hosts (2). We carried out 10-fold serial dilutions of phage stock solution to 10−9. Phages were purified from single plaque isolates using the double agar overlay assay described by Brown (2) with some modifications (brain heart infusion broth was used instead of Trypticase soy broth, and we supplemented the medium with Ca2+ instead of Mg2+).

We carried out five rounds of single plaque isolation for each phage (F115 and F61). The titer for each phage was 1 × 108 PFU/ml. We used a Salmonella enterica serovar Infantis strain isolated from a poultry farm and Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium strain ATCC 14028 as hosts for the isolation of F115 and F61, respectively. We extracted DNA from 2 × 109 PFU using a commercial kit (PureLink; Invitrogen) with the addition of RNase and DNase (3).

The library preparation for sequencing was performed as described in the Nextera DNA Flex library preparation protocol; the sequencing assay was performed using the Illumina MiSeq platform with the Nano 2 × 250-bp standard sequencing kit. With the resulting raw data, read trimming and quality assessment were performed with fastp v0.23.1 (4), and a report was generated using MultiQC v1.11 (5). The sequencing assay produced 228,241 and 314,602 reads for F115 and F61, respectively. The contig assembly was performed using MEGAHIT through SqueezeMeta v1.4.0 (6). Assembly resulted in 90 and 49 contigs for the F115 and F61 phages, respectively. In both cases, the resulting contigs included a single largest contig with high coverage, while the remaining contigs were very short and with low coverage. This finding was indicative of a complete phage genome (7). With BLASTn (8), phage NBSal001 (GenBank accession number MN994500) was assigned as the reference genome for our sequence queries because of its identity level (Table 1). To facilitate the comparison between genomes, the assembled contigs were reordered based on the direction and position of the NBSal001 genome (GenBank accession number MN994500) using a script by Wang et al. (mummer_direction.py) (9). Genome annotation was performed using RASTtk v1.073 (10–12). Default parameters were used for all software unless otherwise specified.

TABLE 1.

Characteristics of phages F115 and F61

Parameter Finding for phage:
F115 F61
GenBank accession no. OP292673 OP292674
No. of reads (thousands) 228.2 314.6
Genome length (bp) 48,162 46,635
Coverage (×) 252 252
No. of genes 77 76
No. of genes with predicted functions 52 51
GC content (%) 42.3 42.2
% identity with NBSal001 (GenBank accession no. MN994500) 99.72 99.71
% identity with FSL_SP126 (GenBank accession no. NC_042066) 93.09 93.10

We report two Salmonella bacteriophage genomes, with genome coverage of 252× and genome lengths of 48,162 bp and 46,635 bp. The average GC content is 42%. Phage F115 has 77 predicted coding genes, while phage F61 has 76. At the nucleotide level, these phages share more than 99% identity with NBSal001 (GenBank accession number MN994500) and 93.01% with phage FSL_SP126 (GenBank accession number NC_042066), both in the Drexlerviridae family (Table 1).

Data availability.

The annotated genome assemblies have been deposited in GenBank under the accession numbers OP292673 (F115) and OP292674 (F61). The raw data are available in the NCBI Sequence Read Archive (SRA) under BioProject accession number PRJNA893638, SRA accession numbers SRS15587974 and SRS15587975, and BioSample accession numbers SAMN31429972 and SAMN31429973.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are thankful to Juan Mosquera for his technical support in the molecular analysis.

Footnotes

[This article was published on 18 January 2023 with errors in the title, article text, and Acknowledgments section. These errors were corrected in the current version, posted on 24 January 2023.]

Contributor Information

Sonia Zapata, Email: szapata@usfq.edu.ec.

Kenneth M. Stedman, Portland State University

REFERENCES

  • 1.Llanos CD, Ortega J, Bardales JA. 2020. Complete genome sequences of five Salmonella enterica Phages, NBSal001, NBSal002, NBSal003, NBSal004, and NBSal005. Microbiol Resour Announc 9:e00301-20. doi: 10.1128/MRA.00301-20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Brown AE. 2005. Benson’s microbiological applications: laboratory manual in general microbiology, 9th ed. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Sathiamoorthy S, Malott RJ, Gisonni-Lex L, Ng S. 2018. Selection and evaluation of an efficient method for the recovery of viral nucleic acids from complex biologicals. NPJ Vaccines 3:31. doi: 10.1038/s41541-018-0067-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.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]
  • 5.Ewels P, Magnusson M, Lundin S, Käller M. 2016. MultiQC: summarize analysis results for multiple tools and samples in a single report. Bioinformatics 32:3047–3048. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btw354. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Tamames J, Puente-Sánchez F. 2018. SqueezeMeta, a highly portable, fully automatic metagenomic analysis pipeline. Front Microbiol 9:3349. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.03349. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Shen A, Millard A. 2021. Phage genome annotation: where to begin and end. Phage (New Rochelle) 2:183–193. doi: 10.1089/phage.2021.0015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ. 1990. Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol 215:403–410. doi: 10.1016/S0022-2836(05)80360-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Wang W, Schalamun M, Morales-Suarez A, Kainer D, Schwessinger B, Lanfear R. 2018. Assembly of chloroplast genomes with long- and short-read data: a comparison of approaches using Eucalyptus pauciflora as a test case. BMC Genomics 19:977. doi: 10.1186/s12864-018-5348-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.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]
  • 11.Overbeek R, Olson R, Pusch GD, Olsen GJ, Davis JJ, Disz T, Edwards RA, Gerdes S, Parrello B, Shukla M, Vonstein V, Wattam AR, Xia F, Stevens R. 2014. The SEED and the Rapid Annotation of microbial genomes using Subsystems Technology (RAST). Nucleic Acids Res 42:D206–D214. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkt1226. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Brettin T, Davis JJ, Disz T, Edwards RA, Gerdes S, Olsen GJ, Olson R, Overbeek R, Parrello B, Pusch GD, Shukla M, Thomason JA, Stevens R, Vonstein V, Wattam AR, Xia F. 2015. RASTtk: a modular and extensible implementation of the RAST algorithm for building custom annotation pipelines and annotating batches of genomes. Sci Rep 5:8365. doi: 10.1038/srep08365. [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 annotated genome assemblies have been deposited in GenBank under the accession numbers OP292673 (F115) and OP292674 (F61). The raw data are available in the NCBI Sequence Read Archive (SRA) under BioProject accession number PRJNA893638, SRA accession numbers SRS15587974 and SRS15587975, and BioSample accession numbers SAMN31429972 and SAMN31429973.


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

RESOURCES