Despite their importance to microbial dynamics involving Bacillus subtilis, we have a limited understanding of the diversity of phages that can lyse this model organism.
Materials and Methods:
Phages were isolated from soil samples collected from various sites in the southwest U.S. deserts on a wild B. subtilis strain. Their genomes were assembled, characterized, and bioinformatically compared.
Results:
Six Siphoviruses with high nucleotide and amino acid similarity to each other (>80%) but very limited similarity to phages currently in GenBank were isolated. These phages have double-stranded DNA genomes (55,312 to 56,127 bp) with 86–91 putative protein coding genes, and a low GC content. Comparative genomics reveal differences in loci encoding proteins that are putatively involved in bacterial adsorption with evidence for genomic mosaicism and a possible role for small genes.
Conclusions:
A comparative approach provides insights into phage evolution, including the role of indels in protein folding.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
KoskellaB, BrockhurstMA. Bacteria-phage coevolution as a driver of ecological and evolutionary processes in microbial communities. FEMS Microbiol Rev, 2014; 38(5):916–931; doi: 10.1111/1574–6976.12072.
2.
ScanlanPD. Bacteria-bacteriophage coevolution in the human gut: Implications for microbial diversity and functionality. Trends Microbiol, 2017; 25(8):614–623; doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2017.02.012
3.
PenadésJR, ChenJ, Quiles-PuchaltN, et al.Bacteriophage-mediated spread of bacterial virulence genes. Curr Opin Microbiol, 2015; 23:171–178; doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2014.11.019
4.
BibbyK. Improved bacteriophage genome data is necessary for integrating viral and bacterial ecology. Microb Ecol, 2014; 67(2):242–244; doi: 10.1007/s00248-013-0325-x
5.
PopeWH, BowmanCA, RussellDA, et al.Whole genome comparison of a large collection of mycobacteriophages reveals a continuum of phage genetic diversity. Elife, 2015; 4:e06416; doi: 10.7554/eLife.06416
6.
RobertsMS, CohanFM. Recombination and migration rates in natural populations of Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus mojavensis. Evolution, 1995; 49(6):1081–1094; doi: 10.1111/j.1558–5646.1995.tb04435.x.
7.
ChanalA, ChaponV, BenzeraraK, et al.The desert of Tataouine: An extreme environment that hosts a wide diversity of microorganisms and radiotolerant bacteria. Environ Microbiol, 2006; 8(3):514–525; doi: 10.1111/j.1462–2920.2005.00921.x
8.
PrestelE, SalamitouS, DuBowMS. An examination of the bacteriophages and bacteria of the Namib desert. J Microbiol, 2008; 46(4):364–372; doi: 10.1007/s12275-008-0007-4
9.
PrestelE, RegeardC, SalamitouS, et al.The bacteria and bacteriophages from a Mesquite Flats site of the Death Valley desert. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek, 2013; 103(6):1329–1341; doi: 10.1007/s10482-013-9914-4
10.
RadhakrishnanR, HashemA, Abd AllahEF. Bacillus: A biological tool for crop improvement through bio-molecular changes in adverse environments. Front Physiol, 2017; 8:667; doi: 10.3389/fphys.2017.00667
11.
LiG, ZhengX, ZhuY, et al.Bacillus symbiont drives alterations in intestinal microbiota and circulating metabolites of lepidopteran host. Environ Microbiol, 2022; doi: 10.1111/1462–2920.15934
12.
VijuN, PunithaSMJ, SatheeshS. Antibiofilm activity of symbiotic Bacillus species associated with marine gastropods. Ann Microbiol, 2020; 70:11; doi: 10.1186/s13213-020-01554-z
13.
HatfullGF, Jacobs-SeraD, LawrenceJG, et al.Comparative genomic analysis of 60 Mycobacteriophage genomes: Genome clustering, gene acquisition, and gene size. J Mol Biol, 2010; 397(1):119–143; doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2010.01.011
DuncanKE, FergusonN, KimuraK, et al. Fine-scale genetic and phenotypic structure in natural populations of Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus licheniformis: Implications for bacterial evolution and speciation Evolution 1994;48(6):2002–2025; doi: 10.1111/j.1558–5646.1994.tb02229.x
16.
IstockCA, FergusonN, IstockNL, et al.Geographical diversity of genomic lineages in Bacillus subtilis (Ehrenberg) Cohn sensu lato. Org Divers Evol, 2001; 1:179–191;doi: 10.1078/1439-6092-00017.
GordonD, GreenP. Consed: A graphical editor for next-generation sequencing. Bioinformatics, 2013; 29(22):2936–2937; doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt515
19.
GarneauJR, DepardieuF, FortierLC, 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; doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-07910-5.
BoratynGM, SchäfferAA, AgarwalaR, et al.Domain enhanced lookup time accelerated BLAST. Biol Direct, 2012; 7:12; doi: 10.1186/1745-6150-7-12
24.
SödingJ, BiegertA, LupasAN. The HHpred interactive server for protein homology detection and structure prediction. Nucleic Acids Res, 2005; 33(Web Server issue):W244–W248; doi: 10.1093/nar/gki408
25.
LaslettD, CanbackB. ARAGORN, a program to detect tRNA genes and tmRNA genes in nucleotide sequences. Nucleic Acids Res, 2004; 32(1):11–16; doi: 10.1093/nar/gkh152
26.
Rodriguez-RLM, KonstantinidisKT. The enveomics collection: A toolbox for specialized analyses of microbial genomes and metagenomes. PeerJ Preprints, 2016; 4:e1900v1. doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.1900v1
27.
KumarS, StecherG, TamuraK. MEGA7: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis Version 7.0 for bigger datasets. Mol Biol Evol, 2016; 33(7):1870–1874; doi: 10.1093/molbev/msw054.
28.
RobertX, GouetP. Deciphering key features in protein structures with the new ENDscript server. Nucleic Acids Res, 2014; 42(Web Server issue):W320–W324; doi: 10.1093/nar/gku316.
29.
CresawnSG, BogelM, DayN, et al.Phamerator: a bioinformatic tool for comparative bacteriophage genomics. BMC Bioinformatics, 2011; 12:395; doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-12-395
30.
YukgehnaishK, RajandasH, ParimannanS, et al.PhageLeads: Rapid assessment of phage therapeutic suitability using an ensemble machine learning approach. Viruses, 2022; 14(2):342; doi: 10.3390/v14020342
31.
HockenberryAJ, WilkeCO. BACPHLIP: Predicting bacteriophage lifestyle from conserved protein domains. PeerJ, 2021; 9:e11396; doi: 10.7717/peerj.11396
32.
HatfullGF. The secret lives of mycobacteriophages. Adv Virus Res, 2012; 82:179–288; doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-394621-8.00015-7
33.
HendrixRW. Bacteriophages: Evolution of the majority. Theor Popul Biol, 2002; 61(4):471–480; doi: 10.1006/tpbi.2002.1590
CasjensSR, Thuman-CommikePA. Evolution of mosaically related tailed bacteriophage genomes seen through the lens of phage P22 virion assembly. Virology, 2011; 411(2):393–415; doi: 10.1016/j.virol.2010.12.046.
36.
RiedeI, DegenM, HenningU. The receptor specificity of bacteriophages can be determined by a tail fiber modifying protein. EMBO J, 1985; 4(9):2343–2346; doi: 10.1002/j.1460–2075.1985.tb03936.x
37.
LingohrEJ, VillegasA, SheYM, et al.The genome and proteome of the Kluyvera bacteriophage Kvp1—Another member of the T7-like Autographivirinae. Virol J, 2008; 5:122; doi: 10.1186/1743-422X-5-122
38.
LeS, HeX, TanY, et al.Mapping the tail fiber as the receptor binding protein responsible for differential host specificity of Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteriophages PaP1 and JG004. PLoS One, 2013; 8(7):e68562; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068562
39.
ChaturongakulS, OunjaiP. Phage-host interplay: Examples from tailed phages and Gram-negative bacterial pathogens. Front Microbiol, 2014; 5:442; doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2014.00442.
40.
AbelesAL, FriedmanSA, AustinSJ. Partition of unit-copy miniplasmids to daughter cells. III. The DNA sequence and functional organization of the P1 partition region.J Mol Biol, 1985; 185(2):261–272; doi: 10.1016/0022–2836(85)90402-4. Erratum in: J Mol Biol, 1986; 185:387. PMID: 3903163.
41.
DedrickRM, MavrichTN, NgWL, et al.Function, expression, specificity, diversity and incompatibility of actinobacteriophage parABS systems. Mol Microbiol, 2016; 101(4):625–644; doi: 10.1111/mmi.13414
42.
ChatterjeeS, RothenbergE. Interaction of bacteriophage l with its E. coli receptor, LamB. Viruses, 2012; 4(11):3162–3178; doi: 10.3390/v4113162
43.
ArpinoJA, ReddingtonSC, HalliwellLM, et al.Random single amino acid deletion sampling unveils structural tolerance and the benefits of helical registry shift on GFP folding and structure. Structure, 2014; 22(6):889–898; doi: 10.1016/j.str.2014.03.014
44.
PorcekNB, ParentKN. Key residues of S. flexneri OmpA mediate infection by bacteriophage Sf6. J Mol Biol, 2015; 427(10):1964–1976; doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2015.03.012
Bertozzi SilvaJ, StormsZ, SauvageauD. Host receptors for bacteriophage adsorption. FEMS Microbiol Lett, 2016; 363(4):fnw002; doi: 10.1093/femsle/fnw002
47.
PiuriM, HatfullGF. A peptidoglycan hydrolase motif within the mycobacteriophage TM4 tape measure protein promotes efficient infection of stationary phase cells. Mol Microbiol, 2006; 62(6):1569–1585; doi: 10.1111/j.1365–2958.2006.05473.x
48.
SuY, LiuC, FangH, et al.Bacillus subtilis: A universal cell factory for industry, agriculture, biomaterials and medicine. Microb Cell Fact, 2020; 19:173; doi: 10.1186/s12934-020-01436-8
49.
Gdoura-Ben AmorM, CulotA, TecherC, et al.Isolation, Partial characterization and application of bacteriophages in eradicating biofilm formation by Bacillus cereus on stainless steel surfaces in food processing facilities. Pathogens, 2022; 11:872; doi: 10.3390/pathogens11080872
50.
NaL, XiaomingY, ChunL, et al.A novel Bacillus cereus bacteriophage DLn1 and its endolysin as biocontrol agents against Bacillus cereus in milk. Int J Food Microbiol, 2022; 369:109615; doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2022.109615
51.
TzipilevichE, BenfeyPN. Phage-resistant bacteria reveal a role for potassium in root colonization. mBio, 2021; 12(4):e0140321; doi: 10.1128/mBio.01403-21
52.
PratamaAA, van ElsasJD. The ‘Neglected’ soil virome—Potential role and impact. Trends Microbiol, 2018; 26(8):649–662; doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2017.12.004.
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.
