New genome assemblies reveal patterns of domestication and adaptation across Brettanomyces (Dekkera) species.
Brettanomyces
Diploid assembly
Genome comparison
Wine
Yeast
Journal
BMC genomics
ISSN: 1471-2164
Titre abrégé: BMC Genomics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100965258
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 Mar 2020
02 Mar 2020
Historique:
received:
27
10
2019
accepted:
19
02
2020
entrez:
4
3
2020
pubmed:
4
3
2020
medline:
23
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Yeasts of the genus Brettanomyces are of significant interest, both for their capacity to spoil, as well as their potential to positively contribute to different industrial fermentations. However, considerable variance exists in the depth of research and knowledgebase of the five currently known species of Brettanomyces. For instance, Brettanomyces bruxellensis has been heavily studied and many resources are available for this species, whereas Brettanomyces nanus is rarely studied and lacks a publicly available genome assembly altogether. The purpose of this study is to fill this knowledge gap and explore the genomic adaptations that have shaped the evolution of this genus. Strains for each of the five widely accepted species of Brettanomyces (Brettanomyces anomalus, B. bruxellensis, Brettanomyces custersianus, Brettanomyces naardenensis, and B. nanus) were sequenced using a combination of long- and short-read sequencing technologies. Highly contiguous assemblies were produced for each species. Structural differences between the species' genomes were observed with gene expansions in fermentation-relevant genes (particularly in B. bruxellensis and B. nanus) identified. Numerous horizontal gene transfer (HGT) events in all Brettanomyces species', including an HGT event that is probably responsible for allowing B. bruxellensis and B. anomalus to utilize sucrose were also observed. Genomic adaptations and some evidence of domestication that have taken place in Brettanomyces are outlined. These new genome assemblies form a valuable resource for future research in Brettanomyces.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Yeasts of the genus Brettanomyces are of significant interest, both for their capacity to spoil, as well as their potential to positively contribute to different industrial fermentations. However, considerable variance exists in the depth of research and knowledgebase of the five currently known species of Brettanomyces. For instance, Brettanomyces bruxellensis has been heavily studied and many resources are available for this species, whereas Brettanomyces nanus is rarely studied and lacks a publicly available genome assembly altogether. The purpose of this study is to fill this knowledge gap and explore the genomic adaptations that have shaped the evolution of this genus.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Strains for each of the five widely accepted species of Brettanomyces (Brettanomyces anomalus, B. bruxellensis, Brettanomyces custersianus, Brettanomyces naardenensis, and B. nanus) were sequenced using a combination of long- and short-read sequencing technologies. Highly contiguous assemblies were produced for each species. Structural differences between the species' genomes were observed with gene expansions in fermentation-relevant genes (particularly in B. bruxellensis and B. nanus) identified. Numerous horizontal gene transfer (HGT) events in all Brettanomyces species', including an HGT event that is probably responsible for allowing B. bruxellensis and B. anomalus to utilize sucrose were also observed.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Genomic adaptations and some evidence of domestication that have taken place in Brettanomyces are outlined. These new genome assemblies form a valuable resource for future research in Brettanomyces.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32122298
doi: 10.1186/s12864-020-6595-z
pii: 10.1186/s12864-020-6595-z
pmc: PMC7052964
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
194Références
Genome Res. 2017 May;27(5):801-812
pubmed: 27940952
Eukaryot Cell. 2007 Apr;6(4):721-33
pubmed: 17277171
J Appl Microbiol. 2016 Sep;121(3):721-33
pubmed: 27277532
Nucleic Acids Res. 2009 Jan;37(Database issue):D32-6
pubmed: 18927115
J Ind Microbiol. 1995 Jun;14(6):456-60
pubmed: 7662287
FEMS Yeast Res. 2015 Mar;15(2):
pubmed: 25673756
BMC Bioinformatics. 2018 Nov 29;19(1):460
pubmed: 30497373
Genome Res. 2009 Sep;19(9):1639-45
pubmed: 19541911
Nat Methods. 2012 Mar 04;9(4):357-9
pubmed: 22388286
J Bacteriol. 2014 Jun;196(12):2210-5
pubmed: 24706738
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2019 Feb 6;85(4):
pubmed: 30552183
G3 (Bethesda). 2017 May 5;7(5):1475-1485
pubmed: 28292787
Nucleic Acids Res. 2006 Jul 1;34(Web Server issue):W435-9
pubmed: 16845043
Genome Res. 2012 May;22(5):908-24
pubmed: 22369888
Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1994 Oct;44(4):781-6
pubmed: 7981104
Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 1970;36(3):458-60
pubmed: 5312520
Genome Biol. 2004;5(2):R12
pubmed: 14759262
PLoS Genet. 2005 Jul;1(1):66-71
pubmed: 16103919
Bioinformatics. 2014 May 1;30(9):1236-40
pubmed: 24451626
Food Microbiol. 2014 Sep;42:188-95
pubmed: 24929736
Microorganisms. 2019 Oct 26;7(11):
pubmed: 31717754
Eukaryot Cell. 2009 Nov;8(11):1739-49
pubmed: 19717738
J Comput Biol. 2015 Jun;22(6):498-509
pubmed: 25658651
Bioinformatics. 2015 Oct 1;31(19):3210-2
pubmed: 26059717
Nucleic Acids Res. 2006 Jul 1;34(Web Server issue):W609-12
pubmed: 16845082
G3 (Bethesda). 2017 Oct 5;7(10):3243-3250
pubmed: 28983066
Mol Biol Evol. 2017 Nov 1;34(11):2870-2878
pubmed: 28961859
Genome Res. 2017 May;27(5):722-736
pubmed: 28298431
Sci Rep. 2018 Mar 7;8(1):4136
pubmed: 29515178
FEMS Yeast Res. 2015 Nov;15(7):
pubmed: 26205244
J Appl Microbiol. 2007 Feb;102(2):538-47
pubmed: 17241360
Curr Opin Microbiol. 2015 Feb;23:110-20
pubmed: 25461581
Bioinformatics. 2005 Aug 15;21(16):3448-9
pubmed: 15972284
PLoS One. 2012;7(3):e33840
pubmed: 22470482
Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 1961;27:332-6
pubmed: 14038011
Mol Biol Evol. 2015 Jan;32(1):268-74
pubmed: 25371430
Bioinformatics. 2013 Apr 15;29(8):1072-5
pubmed: 23422339
Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 2017 May;110(5):657-664
pubmed: 28160110
J Mol Biol. 2016 Feb 22;428(4):726-731
pubmed: 26585406
Nat Biotechnol. 2018 Apr;36(4):338-345
pubmed: 29431738
PLoS Genet. 2014 Feb 13;10(2):e1004161
pubmed: 24550744
Bioinformatics. 2009 Sep 1;25(17):2283-5
pubmed: 19542151
Environ Microbiol. 2016 Apr;18(4):1148-61
pubmed: 26549518
Int J Food Microbiol. 2012 Jul 2;157(2):202-9
pubmed: 22663979
Springerplus. 2014 Jan 20;3:38
pubmed: 24498580
Eukaryot Cell. 2005 Jun;4(6):1102-15
pubmed: 15947202
PLoS One. 2014 Nov 19;9(11):e112963
pubmed: 25409509
Cell. 2016 Sep 8;166(6):1397-1410.e16
pubmed: 27610566
Nat Methods. 2015 Aug;12(8):733-5
pubmed: 26076426
Mol Biol Evol. 2011 Jan;28(1):131-42
pubmed: 20660490
FEMS Yeast Res. 2018 Nov 1;18(7):
pubmed: 29982550
J Biol Chem. 1997 Mar 7;272(10):6766-76
pubmed: 9045710
Nat Biotechnol. 2012 Jul 01;30(7):693-700
pubmed: 22750884
Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 1984;50(2):143-8
pubmed: 6465876
Biochemistry. 2000 Aug 1;39(30):8825-9
pubmed: 10913293
Nat Genet. 2017 Jun;49(6):913-924
pubmed: 28416820
Cell. 2018 Nov 29;175(6):1533-1545.e20
pubmed: 30415838
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Apr 12;113(15):4116-21
pubmed: 27035945
Bioinformatics. 2018 Sep 15;34(18):3094-3100
pubmed: 29750242
Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 1994 Oct;58(10):1803-8
pubmed: 7765506
Mol Biol Evol. 2018 Jul 1;35(7):1712-1727
pubmed: 29746697
Curr Biol. 2016 Oct 24;26(20):2750-2761
pubmed: 27720622
Genome Biol. 2015 Aug 06;16:157
pubmed: 26243257
J Biosci Bioeng. 2004;97(4):278-80
pubmed: 16233628
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2009 Jan;81(6):1117-27
pubmed: 18839169
Nucleic Acids Res. 2004 Mar 19;32(5):1792-7
pubmed: 15034147
Annu Rev Microbiol. 2018 Sep 08;72:377-398
pubmed: 29927707
Nat Commun. 2011;2:302
pubmed: 21556056
Yeast. 2018 Mar;35(3):299-309
pubmed: 29065215
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2015 Nov;99(21):9123-34
pubmed: 26135985
Mol Biol Evol. 2010 Feb;27(2):221-4
pubmed: 19854763
FEMS Yeast Res. 2007 Sep;7(6):1013-26
pubmed: 17596183
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2014 Jul;80(14):4398-413
pubmed: 24814796