With the renewed interest in phage research, coupled with the rising accessibility to affordable sequencing, ever increasing numbers of phage genomes are being sequenced. Therefore, there is an increased need to assemble and annotate phage genomes. There is a plethora of tools and platforms that allow phage genomes to be assembled and annotated. The choice of tools can often be bewildering for those new to phage genome assembly. Here we provide an overview of the assembly and annotation process from obtaining raw reads to genome submission, with worked examples, providing those new to genome assembly and annotation with a guided pathway to genome submission. We focus on the use of open access tools that can be incorporated into workflows to allow easy repetition of steps, highlighting multiple tools that can be used and common pitfalls that may occur.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CookR, BrownN, RihtmanB, et al. INfrastructure for a PHAge REference Database: Identification of large-scale biases in the current collection of phage genomes. bioRxiv 2021:2021.05.01.442102. doi: 10.1101/2021.05.01.442102.
2.
Di TommasoP, ChatzouM, FlodenEW, et al.Nextflow enables reproducible computational workflows. Nat Biotechnol. 2017; 35(4):316–319.
3.
MölderF, JablonskiKP, LetcherB, et al.Sustainable data analysis with Snakemake. F1000Res. 2021; 10:33.
4.
RamseyJ, RascheH, MaughmerC. Galaxy and Apollo as a biologist-friendly interface for high-quality cooperative phage genome annotation. PLoS Comput Biol. 2020; 16(11):e1008214.
5.
BlackLW.DNA packaging in dsDNA bacteriophages. Annu Rev Microbiol. 1989; 43:267–292.
6.
PicelliS, BjörklundAK, ReiniusB, et al.Tn5 transposase and tagmentation procedures for massively scaled sequencing projects. Genome Res. 2014; 24(12):2033–2040.
7.
GarneauJ, DepardieuF, FortierL-C, et al.PhageTerm: a tool for fast and accurate determination of phage termini and packaging mechanism using next-generation sequencing data. Sci Rep. 2017; 7:8292.
8.
RihtmanB, MeadenS, ClokieMRJ, et al.Assessing Illumina technology for the high-throughput sequencing of bacteriophage genomes. Peer J. 2016; 4:e2055.
9.
KotW, OlsenNS, NielsonTK, et al.Detection of preQ0 deazaguanine modifications in bacteriophage CAjan DNA using Nanopore sequencing reveals same hypermodification at two distinct DNA motifs. Nucleic Acids Res. 2020; 48(18):10383–10396.
10.
González-EscalonaN, AllardMA, BrownEW, et al.Nanopore sequencing for fast determination of plasmids, phages, virulence markers, and antimicrobial resistance genes in Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli. PLoS One, 2019; 14(7):e0220494.
11.
ThomasJ, OrwenyoJ, WangL-X, et al.The odd ‘RB’ phage—Identification of arabinosylation as a new epigenetic modification of DNA in T4-like phage RB69. Viruses. 2018; 10(6):313.
12.
RihtmanB, PuxtyRJ, HapeshiA, et al.A new family of globally distributed lytic roseophages with unusual deoxythymidine to deoxyuridine substitution. Curr Biol. 2021; 31(14):3199.e4–3206.e4.
13.
KornAM, HillhouseAE, SunL, et al.Comparative genomics of three novel jumbo bacteriophages infecting Staphylococcus aureus. J Virol. 2021; 95(19):e0239120.
14.
LeskinenK, PajunenMI, VilanovaMVG, et al.YerA41, a Yersinia ruckeri bacteriophage: Determination of a non-sequencable DNA bacteriophage genome via RNA-sequencing. Viruses, 2020; 12(6):620.
15.
BioinformaticsB.FastQC: A Quality Control Tool for High Throughput Sequence Data. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Babraham Institute; 2011.
16.
KruegerF.Trim galore. A wrapper tool around Cutadapt and FastQC to consistently apply quality and adapter trimming to FastQ files. [Software]. 2015. Available at https://github.com/FelixKrueger/TrimGalore (accessed November2, 2021).
17.
JoshiNA, FassJN. Sickle: A sliding-window, adaptive, quality-based trimming tool for FastQ files. (Version 1FV3) [Software]. 2011. Available at https://github.com/najoshi/sickle (accessed November2, 2021).
18.
LiH.seqtk Toolkit for processing sequences in FASTA/Q formats. GitHub. Available at https://github.com/lh3/seqtk (accessed November2, 2021).
19.
WickRR.Porechop. Github. 2017. Available at https://githubcom/rrwick (accessed November2, 2021).
LomanNJ, QuinlanAR. Poretools: A toolkit for analyzing nanopore sequence data. Bioinformatics. 2014; 30(23):3399–3401.
22.
LanfearR, SchalamunM, KainerD, et al.MinIONQC: Fast and simple quality control for MinION sequencing data. Bioinformatics. 2019; 35(3):523–525.
23.
Neal-McKinneyJM, LiuKC, LockCM, et al.Comparison of MiSeq, MinION, and hybrid genome sequencing for analysis of Campylobacter jejuni. Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1):5676.
24.
WickRR, JuddLM, CerdeiraLT, et al.Trycycler: Consensus long-read assemblies for bacterial genomes. Genome Biol. 2021; 22(1):266.
25.
CookR, HootonS, TrivediU, et al.Hybrid assembly of an agricultural slurry virome reveals a diverse and stable community with the potential to alter the metabolism and virulence of veterinary pathogens. Microbiome. 2021; 9(1):65.
26.
ZablockiO, MichelsenM, BurrisM, et al.VirION2: A short- and long-read sequencing and informatics workflow to study the genomic diversity of viruses in nature. PeerJ, 9:e11088.
27.
BankevichA, NurkS, AntipovD, et al.SPAdes: A new genome assembly algorithm and its applications to single-cell sequencing. J Comput Biol. 2012; 19(5):455–477.
28.
LiD, LiuCM, LuoR, et al.MEGAHIT: An ultra-fast single-node solution for large and complex metagenomics assembly via succinct de Bruijn graph. Bioinformatics. 2015; 31(10):1674–1676.
29.
BoisvertS, LavioletteF, CorbeilJ. Ray: Simultaneous assembly of reads from a mix of high-throughput sequencing technologies. J Comput Biol. 2010; 17(11):1519–1533.
30.
NamikiT, HachiyaT, TanakaH, et al.MetaVelvet: An extension of Velvet assembler to de novo metagenome assembly from short sequence reads. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012; 40(20):e155.
31.
KolmogorovM, YuanJ, LinY, et al.Assembly of long, error-prone reads using repeat graphs. Nat Biotechnol. 2019; 37(5):540–546.
32.
RuanJ, LiH. Fast and accurate long-read assembly with wtdbg2. Nat Methods, 2020; 17(2):155–158.
33.
WickRR, JuddLM, GorrieCL, et al.Unicycler: Resolving bacterial genome assemblies from short and long sequencing reads. PLoS Comput Biol. 2017; 13(6):e1005595.
LiH.Minimap2: Pairwise alignment for nucleotide sequences. Bioinformatics. 2018; 34(18):3094–3100.
41.
Nayfach CamargoAP, SchulzF, et al.CheckV assesses the quality and completeness of metagenome-assembled viral genomes. Nat Biotechnol. 2021; 39(5):578–585.
42.
PhilipsonCW, VoegtlyLJ, LuederMR, et al.Characterizing phage genomes for therapeutic applications. Viruses. 2018; 10(4):188.
43.
KurtzS, PhillippyA, DelcherAL, et al.Versatile and open software for comparing large genomes. Genome Biol. 2004; 5(2):R12.
44.
KatohK, StandleyDM. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: Improvements in performance and usability. Mol Biol Evol. 2013; 30(4):772–780.
45.
RissmanAI, MauB, BiehlBS, et al.Reordering contigs of draft genomes using the Mauve Aligner. Bioinformatics. 2009; 25(16):2071–2073.
46.
HuntM, KicuchiT, SandersM, et al.REAPR: A universal tool for genome assembly evaluation. Genome Biol. 2013; 14(5):R47.
47.
BrownePD, NielsenTK, KotW, et al.GC bias affects genomic and metagenomic reconstructions, underrepresenting GC-poor organisms. GigaScience. 2020; 9(2):giaa008.
48.
Warwick-DugdaleJ, SolonenkoN, MooreK, et al.Long-read viral metagenomics captures abundant and microdiverse viral populations and their niche-defining genomic islands. Peer J. 2019. doi: 10.7717/peerj.6800.
49.
HyattD, ChenGL, LocascioPF, et al.Prodigal: Prokaryotic gene recognition and translation initiation site identification. BMC Bioinformatics. 2010; 11:119.
50.
BesemerJ, LomsadzeA, BorodovskyM. GeneMarkS: A self-training method for prediction of gene starts in microbial genomes. Implications for finding sequence motifs in regulatory regions. Nucleic Acids Res. 2001; 29(12):2607–2618.
51.
DelcherAL, HarmonD, KasifS, et al.Improved microbial gene identification with GLIMMER. Nucleic Acids Res. 1999; 27(23):4636–4641.
52.
NoguchiH, TaniguchiT, ItohT. MetaGeneAnnotator: Detecting species-specific patterns of ribosomal binding site for precise gene prediction in anonymous prokaryotic and phage genomes. DNA Res. 2008; 15(6):387–396.
53.
McNairK, ZhouC, DinsdaleEA, et al.A. PHANOTATE: A novel approach to gene identification in phage genomes. Bioinformatics. 2019; 35(22):4537–4542.
54.
LaslettD, CanbackB. ARAGORN, a program to detect tRNA genes and tmRNA genes in nucleotide sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004; 32(1):11–16.
55.
HauthA, FichantGA, BurksC. Identifying potential tRNA genes in genomic DNA sequences: TRNASCAN Version 2.0. J Mol Biol. 1995; 220:659–671.
56.
LoweTM, ChanPP. tRNAscan-SE On-line: Integrating search and context for analysis of transfer RNA genes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016; 44(W1):W54–W57.
57.
RutherfordK, ParkhillJ, CrookJ, et al.Artemis: Sequence visualization and annotation. Bioinformatics. 2000; 16(10):944–945.
58.
OkonechnikovK, GolosovaO, FursovM, et al.Unipro UGENE: A unified bioinformatics toolkit. Bioinformatics. 2012; 28(8):1166–1167.
59.
GrazziotinAL, KooninEV, KristensenDM. Prokaryotic Virus Orthologous Groups (pVOGs): A resource for comparative genomics and protein family annotation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017; 45(D1):D491–D498.
60.
TerzianP, Olo NdelaE, GaliezC, et al.PHROG: Families of prokaryotic virus proteins clustered using remote homology. NAR Genom Bioinform. 2021; 3(3):lqab067.
61.
ZhangL, ZhangC, GaoR, et al.An ensemble method to distinguish bacteriophage virion from non-virion proteins based on protein sequence characteristics. Int J Mol Sci. 2015; 16(9):21734–21758.
62.
CantuVA, SalamonP, SeguritanV, et al.PhANNs, a fast and accurate tool and web server to classify phage structural proteins. PLoS Comput Biol. 2020; 16(11):e1007845.
63.
KelleyLA, MezulisS, YatesCM, et al.The Phyre2 web portal for protein modeling, prediction and analysis. Nat Protoc. 2015; 10(6):845–858.
64.
EnaultF, BrietA, BouteilleL, et al.Phages rarely encode antibiotic resistance genes: A cautionary tale for virome analyses. ISME J. 2017; 11(1):237–247.
65.
SeemannT. ABRicate: Mass screening of contigs for antimicrobial and virulence genes. Department of Microbiology andImmunology, The University ofMelbourne, MelbourneAustralia. 2018. Available at https://github.com/tseemann/abricate (last accessed on February28, 2019).
66.
AlcockBP, RaphenyaAR, LauTTY, et al.CARD 2020: Antibiotic resistome surveillance with the comprehensive antibiotic resistance database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2020; 48(D1):D517–D525.
67.
LiuB, ZhengD, JinQ, et al.VFDB 2019: A comparative pathogenomic platform with an interactive web interface. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019; 47(D1):D687–D692.
68.
HockenberryAJ, WilkeCO. BACPHLIP: Predicting bacteriophage lifestyle from conserved protein domains. Peer J, 2021; 9:e11396.
69.
TyneckiP, GuzińskiA, KazimierczakJ, et al.PhageAI—Bacteriophage life cycle recognition with machine learning and natural language processing. bioRxiv, 2020; 2020.07.11.198606. doi: 10.1101/2020.07.11.198606.
70.
McNairK, BaileyBA, EdwardsRA. PHACTS, a computational approach to classifying the lifestyle of phages. Bioinformatics. 2012; 28(5):614–618.
71.
ShitritD, HacklT, LaurenceauR, et al.Genetic engineering of marine cyanophages reveals integration but not lysogeny in T7-like cyanophages. ISME J., 2021. [Epub ahead of print]; DOI: 10.1038/s41396-021-01085-8
72.
MaleyGF, MaleyF, BelfortM. Intervening sequence in the thymidylate synthase gene of bacteriophage T4. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1984; 81(10):3049–3053.
73.
DwivediB, XueB, LundinD, et al.A bioinformatic analysis of ribonucleotide reductase genes in phage genomes and metagenomes. BMC Evol Biol. 2013; 13:33.
74.
DanielA, BonnenPE, Fischetti VDaniel. First complete genome sequence of two Staphylococcus epidermidis bacteriophages. J Bacteriol. 2007; 189(5):2086–2100.
75.
SauderAB, QuinnMR, BrouilletteA, et al.Genomic characterization and comparison of seven Myoviridae bacteriophage infecting Bacillus thuringiensis. Virology. 2016; 489:243–251.
76.
MillardA, ClokieMRJ, ShubDA, et al.Genetic organization of the psbAD region in phages infecting marine Synechococcus strains. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004; 101(30):11007–11012.
77.
LazarevicV, SoldoB, DüsterhöftA. Introns and intein coding sequence in the ribonucleotide reductase genes of Bacillus subtilis temperate bacteriophage SPβ. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998; 95(4):1692–1697.
78.
ImamM, AlrashidB, PatelF, et al.vB_PaeM_MIJ3, a novel jumbo phage infecting Pseudomonas aeruginosa, possesses unusual genomic features. Front Microbiol. 2019; 10:2772.
79.
RajarajanS, IbrahimKS, PandianSK. AP-APSE dpol intein: A novel family A DNA polymerase intein domain. Bioinformation. 2011; 6(4):149–152.
80.
J. Page A, Steinbiss S, Taylor B, et al. GFF3toEMBL: Preparing annotated assemblies for submission to EMBL. J Open Source Softw. 2016; 1:80.
81.
TurnerD, KropinskiAM, AdriaenssensEM. A roadmap for genome-based phage taxonomy. Viruses, 2021; 13(3):506.
82.
MoraruC, VarsaniA, KropinskiAM. VIRIDIC—A novel tool to calculate the intergenomic similarities of. Viruses. 2020; 12(11):1268.
83.
BolducB, JangHB, DoulcierG, et al.vConTACT: An iVirus tool to classify double-stranded DNA viruses that infect Archaea and Bacteria. Peer J. 2017; 5:e3243.
84.
RohwerF, EdwardsR. The phage proteomic tree: A genome-based taxonomy for phage. J Bacteriol. 2002; 184:4529–4535.
85.
NishimuraY, YoshidaT, KuronishiM, et al.ViPTree: The viral proteomic tree server. Bioinformatics. 2017. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btx157.
86.
Meier-kolthofJP, GökerM. VICTOR: Genome-based phylogeny and classification of prokaryotic viruses. Bioinformatics. 2017; 33(21):3393–3404.
87.
PageAJ, CumminsCA, HuntM, et al.Roary: Rapid large-scale prokaryote pan genome analysis. Bioinformatics. 2015; 31(22):3691–3693.
88.
Contreras-MoreiraB, VinuesaP. GET_HOMOLOGUES, a versatile software package for scalable and robust microbial pangenome analysis. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2013; 79(24):7696–7701.
89.
VinuesaP, Ochoa-SánchezLE, Contreras-MoreiraB. GET_PHYLOMARKERS, a software package to select optimal orthologous clusters for phylogenomics and inferring pan-genome phylogenies, used for a critical geno-taxonomic revision of the genus Stenotrophomonas. Front Microbiol. 2018; 9.
90.
RichterF, MortonSU, KimSW, et al.Whole genome de novo variant identification with FreeBayes and neural network approaches. bioRxiv. 2020; 2020.03.24.994160. DOI: 10.1101/2020.03.24.994160.
91.
KoboldtDC, LarsonDE, WilsonRK. Using VarScan 2 for germline variant calling and somatic mutation detection. Curr Protoc Bioinformatics. 2013; 44:15.4.1–17.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
