1887

Abstract

Bacteriophages with genomes larger than 200 kbp are considered giant phages, and the giant Phicbkviruses are the most frequently isolated Caulobacter crescentus phages. In this study, we compare six bacteriophage genomes that differ from the genomes of the majority of Phicbkviruses. Four of these genomes are much larger than those of the rest of the Phicbkviruses, with genome sizes that are more than 250 kbp. A comparison of 16 Phicbkvirus genomes identified a ‘core genome’ of 69 genes that is present in all of these Phicbkvirus genomes, as well as shared accessory genes and genes that are unique for each phage. Most of the core genes are clustered into the regions coding for structural proteins or those involved in DNA replication. A phylogenetic analysis indicated that these 16 Caulobacter Phicbkvirus genomes are related, but they represent four distinct branches of the Phicbkvirus genomic tree with distantly related branches sharing little nucleotide homology. In contrast, pairwise comparisons within each branch of the phylogenetic tree showed that more than 80 % of the entire genome is shared among phages within a group. This conservation of the genomes within each branch indicates that horizontal gene transfer events between the groups are rare. Therefore, the Phicbkvirus genus consists of at least four different phylogenetic branches that are evolving independently from one another. One of these branches contains a 27-gene inversion relative to the other three branches. Also, an analysis of the tRNA genes showed that they are relatively mobile within the Phicbkvirus genus.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jgv/10.1099/jgv.0.001218
2019-01-18
2019-10-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Reche I, D'Orta G, Mladenov N, Winget DM, Suttle CA. Deposition rates of viruses and bacteria above the atmospheric boundary layer. ISME J 2018;12:1154–1162 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Breitbart M, Rohwer F. Here a virus, there a virus, everywhere the same virus?. Trends Microbiol 2005;13:278–284[PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Hatfull GF. Bacteriophage genomics. Current Opinion in Virology200811:447–453
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Ackermann HW. Bacteriophage observations and evolution. Res Microbiol 2003;154:245–251 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  5. NCBI Resource Coordinators Database Resources of the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Nucleic Acids Res 2017;45:D12–D17 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Jacobs-Sera D, Marinelli LJ, Bowman C, Broussard GW, Guerrero Bustamante C et al. On the nature of mycobacteriophage diversity and host preference. Virology 2012;434:187–201 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Poindexter JS. Biological properties and classification of the caulobacter group. Bacteriol Rev 1964;28:231–295[PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Ilk N, Egelseer EM, Sleytr UB. S-layer fusion proteins-construction principles and applications. Curr Opin Biotechnol 2011;22:824–831 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Gill JJ, Berry JD, Russell WK, Lessor L, Escobar-Garcia DA et al. The Caulobacter crescentus phage phiCbK: genomics of a canonical phage. BMC Genomics 2012;13:542 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Ash KT, Drake KM, Gibbs WS, Ely B. Genomic diversity of type B3 bacteriophages of Caulobacter crescentus. Curr Microbiol 2017;74:779–786 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Ash K, Brown T, Watford T, Scott LE, Stephens C et al. A comparison of the Caulobacter NA1000 and K31 genomes reveals extensive genome rearrangements and differences in metabolic potential. Open Biol 2014;4:140128 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Scott D, Ely B. Conservation of the Essential Genome Among Caulobacter and Brevundimonas Species. Curr Microbiol 2016;72:503–510 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Zhan Y, Huang S, Voget S, Simon M, Chen F. A novel roseobacter phage possesses features of podoviruses, siphoviruses, prophages and gene transfer agents. Sci Rep 2016;6:30372 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Agabian-Keshishian N, Shapiro L. Stalked bacteria: properties of deoxriybonucleic acid bacteriophage phiCbK. J Virol 1970;5:795–800[PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Abedon ST. Lysis from without. Bacteriophage 2011;1:46–49 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Milne I, Bayer M, Cardle L, Shaw P, Stephen G et al. Tablet-next generation sequence assembly visualization. Bioinformatics 2010;26:401–402 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Wang IN, Smith DL, Young R. Holins: the protein clocks of bacteriophage infections. Annu Rev Microbiol 2000;54:799–825 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Lowe TM, Chan PP. tRNAscan-SE On-line: integrating search and context for analysis of transfer RNA genes. Nucleic Acids Res 2016;44:W54–W57 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Laslett D, Canback B. ARAGORN, a program to detect tRNA genes and tmRNA genes in nucleotide sequences. Nucleic Acids Res 2004;32:11–16 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Carter CW, Wolfenden R. tRNA acceptor-stem and anticodon bases embed separate features of amino acid chemistry. RNA Biol 2016;13:145–151 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Callahan CT, Wilson KM, Ely B. Characterization of the proteins associated with Caulobacter crescentus bacteriophage CbK particles. Curr Microbiol 2016;72:75–80 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Johnson RC, Ely B. Isolation of spontaneously derived mutants of Caulobacter crescentus. Genetics 1977;86:25–32[PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Nguyen D, Ely B. A Genome comparison of T7-like podoviruses that infect Caulobacter crescentus. Curr Microbiol 2018;75:760–765 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Ely B, Croft RH. Transposon mutagenesis in Caulobacter crescentus. J Bacteriol 1982;149:620–625[PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Johnson RC, Wood NB, Ely B. Isolation and characterization of bacteriophages for Caulobacter crescentus. J Gen Virol 1977;37:323–335 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Patel S, Fletcher B, Scott DC, Ely B. Genome sequence and phenotypic characterization of Caulobacter segnis. Curr Microbiol 2015;70:355–363 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Ash K, Brown T, Watford T, Scott LE, Stephens C et al. A comparison of the Caulobacter NA1000 and K31 genomes reveals extensive genome rearrangements and differences in metabolic potential. Open Biol 2014;4:140128 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Brown SD, Utturkar SM, Klingeman DM, Johnson CM, Martin SL et al. Twenty-one genome sequences from Pseudomonas species and 19 genome sequences from diverse bacteria isolated from the rhizosphere and endosphere of Populus deltoides. J Bacteriol 2012;194:5991–5993 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Abraham WR, Strömpl C, Meyer H, Lindholst S, Moore ER et al. Phylogeny and polyphasic taxonomy of Caulobacter species. Proposal of Maricaulis gen. nov. with Maricaulis maris (Poindexter) comb. nov. as the type species, and emended description of the genera Brevundimonas and Caulobacter. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1999;49 Pt 3:1053–1073 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Overbeek R, Olson R, Pusch GD, Olsen GJ, Davis JJ et al. The SEED and the Rapid Annotation of microbial genomes using Subsystems Technology (RAST). Nucleic Acids Res 2014;42:D206–D214 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Darling AE, Mau B, Perna NT. progressiveMauve: multiple genome alignment with gene gain, loss and rearrangement. PLoS One 2010;5:e11147 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Rice P, Longden I, Bleasby A. EMBOSS: the European molecular biology open software suite. Trends Genet 2000;16:276–277 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Rutherford K, Parkhill J, Crook J, Horsnell T, Rice P et al. Artemis: sequence visualization and annotation. Bioinformatics 2000;16:944–945 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Konstantin O, Golosova O, Fursov M. the UGENE team. Unipro UGENE: A unified bioinformatics toolkit. Bioinformatics 2012;28:1166–1167
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Ding W, Baumdicker F, Neher RA. panX: pan-genome analysis and exploration. Nucleic Acids Res 2018;46:e5 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Huerta-Cepas J, Serra F, Bork P. ETE 3: Reconstruction, analysis, and visualization of phylogenomic data. Mol Biol Evol 2016;33:1635–1638 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Alikhan NF, Petty NK, Ben Zakour NL, Beatson SA. Blast ring image generator (BRIG): simple prokaryote genome comparisons. BMC Genomics 2011;12:402 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/jgv/10.1099/jgv.0.001218
Loading
/content/journal/jgv/10.1099/jgv.0.001218
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary File 1

PDF

Most Cited This Month

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error