Towards estimating the number of strains that make up a natural bacterial population.
Journal
Nature communications
ISSN: 2041-1723
Titre abrégé: Nat Commun
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101528555
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Jan 2024
16 Jan 2024
Historique:
received:
19
07
2023
accepted:
19
12
2023
medline:
17
1
2024
pubmed:
17
1
2024
entrez:
16
1
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
What a strain is and how many strains make up a natural bacterial population remain elusive concepts despite their apparent importance for assessing the role of intra-population diversity in disease emergence or response to environmental perturbations. To advance these concepts, we sequenced 138 randomly selected Salinibacter ruber isolates from two solar salterns and assessed these genomes against companion short-read metagenomes from the same samples. The distribution of genome-aggregate average nucleotide identity (ANI) values among these isolates revealed a bimodal distribution, with four-fold lower occurrence of values between 99.2% and 99.8% relative to ANI >99.8% or <99.2%, revealing a natural "gap" in the sequence space within species. Accordingly, we used this ANI gap to define genomovars and a higher ANI value of >99.99% and shared gene-content >99.0% to define strains. Using these thresholds and extrapolating from how many metagenomic reads each genomovar uniquely recruited, we estimated that -although our 138 isolates represented about 80% of the Sal. ruber population- the total population in one saltern pond is composed of 5,500 to 11,000 genomovars, the great majority of which appear to be rare in-situ. These data also revealed that the most frequently recovered isolate in lab media was often not the most abundant genomovar in-situ, suggesting that cultivation biases are significant, even in cases that cultivation procedures are thought to be robust. The methodology and ANI thresholds outlined here should represent a useful guide for future microdiversity surveys of additional microbial species.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38228587
doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-44622-z
pii: 10.1038/s41467-023-44622-z
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
544Subventions
Organisme : National Science Foundation (NSF)
ID : 1831582
Organisme : National Science Foundation (NSF)
ID : 2129823
Organisme : Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness)
ID : PGC2018-096956-B-C41
Organisme : Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness)
ID : PID2021-126114NB-C42
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Konstantinidis, K. T. & Tiedje, J. M. Genomic insights that advance the species definition for prokaryotes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 2567–2572 (2005).
pubmed: 15701695
pmcid: 549018
doi: 10.1073/pnas.0409727102
Richter, M. & Rosselló-Móra, R. Shifting the genomic gold standard for the prokaryotic species definition. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 19126–19131 (2009).
pubmed: 19855009
pmcid: 2776425
doi: 10.1073/pnas.0906412106
Caro‐Quintero, A. & Konstantinidis, K. T. Bacterial species may exist, metagenomics reveal. Environ. Microbiol. 14, 347–355 (2012).
pubmed: 22151572
doi: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2011.02668.x
Rodriguez, R. L., Jain, C., Conrad, R. E., Aluru, S. & Konstantinidis, K. T. Reply to: “Re-evaluating the evidence for a universal genetic boundary among microbial species”. Nat. Commun. 12, 4060 (2021).
doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-24129-1
Parker, C. T., Tindall, B. J. & Garrity, G. M. International code of nomenclature of prokaryotes: prokaryotic code (2008 revision). Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 69, S1–S111 (2019).
doi: 10.1099/ijsem.0.000778
Dijkshoorn, L., Ursing, B. M. & Ursing, J. B. Strain, clone and species: comments on three basic concepts of bacteriology. J. Med. Microbiol 49, 397–401 (2000).
pubmed: 10798550
doi: 10.1099/0022-1317-49-5-397
Viver, T. et al. Distinct ecotypes within a natural haloarchaeal population enable adaptation to changing environmental conditions without causing population sweeps. ISME J. 15, 1178–1191 (2021).
pubmed: 33342997
doi: 10.1038/s41396-020-00842-5
Murray, C. S., Gao, Y. & Wu, M. Re-evaluating the evidence for a universal genetic boundary among microbial species. Nat. Commun. 12, 4059 (2021).
pubmed: 34234129
pmcid: 8263626
doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-24128-2
Andreani, N. A., Hesse, E. & Vos, M. Prokaryote genome fluidity is dependent on effective population size. ISME J. 11, 1719–1721 (2017).
pubmed: 28362722
pmcid: 5520154
doi: 10.1038/ismej.2017.36
McInerney, J. O., McNally, A. & O’Connell, M. J. Why prokaryotes have pangenomes. Nat. Microbiol. 2, 17040 (2017).
pubmed: 28350002
doi: 10.1038/nmicrobiol.2017.40
Pena-Gonzalez, A. et al. Metagenomic signatures of gut infections caused by different Escherichia coli Pathotypes. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 85, e01820–19 (2019).
pubmed: 31585992
pmcid: 6881795
doi: 10.1128/AEM.01820-19
Yan, Y., Nguyen, L. H., Franzosa, E. A. & Huttenhower, C. Strain-level epidemiology of microbial communities and the human microbiome. Genome Med. 12, 1–16 (2020).
doi: 10.1186/s13073-020-00765-y
Antón, J. et al. High metabolic microdiversity within co-ocurring isolates of the extremely halophilic bacterium Salinibacter ruber. PLoS ONE 8, e64701 (2013).
pubmed: 23741374
pmcid: 3669384
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0064701
Knöppel, A. et al. Genetic adaptation to growth under laboratory conditions in Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica. Front. Microbiol. 9, 756 (2018).
pubmed: 29755424
pmcid: 5933015
doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.00756
Dragosits, M. & Mattanovich, D. Adaptive laboratory evolution–principles and applications for biotechnology. Microb. Cell. Fact. 12, 1–17 (2013).
doi: 10.1186/1475-2859-12-64
Van Rossum, T., Ferretti, P., Maistrenko, O. M. & Bork, P. Diversity within species: interpreting strains in microbiomes. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 18, 491–506 (2020).
pubmed: 32499497
pmcid: 7610499
doi: 10.1038/s41579-020-0368-1
Konstantinidis, K. T., Viver, T., Conrad, R. E., Venter, S. N. & Rossello-Mora, R. Solar salterns as model systems to study the units of bacterial diversity that matter for ecosystem functioning. Curr. Op. Biotechnol. 73, 151–157 (2022).
doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2021.07.028
Anton, J., Rossello-Mora, R., Rodriguez-Valera, F. & Amann, R. Extremely halophilic bacteria in crystallizer ponds from solar salterns. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 66, 3052–3057 (2000).
pubmed: 10877805
pmcid: 92110
doi: 10.1128/AEM.66.7.3052-3057.2000
Casamayor, E. O. et al. Changes in archaeal, bacterial and eukaryal assemblages along a salinity gradient by comparison of genetic fingerprinting methods in a multipond solar saltern. Environ. Microbiol. 4, 338–348 (2002).
pubmed: 12071979
doi: 10.1046/j.1462-2920.2002.00297.x
Gomariz, M. et al. From community approaches to single-cell genomics: the discovery of ubiquitous hyperhalophilic Bacteroidetes generalists. ISME J. 9, 16–31 (2015).
pubmed: 24926861
doi: 10.1038/ismej.2014.95
Conrad, R. E. et al. Toward quantifying the adaptive role of bacterial pangenomes during environmental perturbations. ISME J. 16, 1222–1234 (2022).
pubmed: 34887548
doi: 10.1038/s41396-021-01149-9
Viver, T. et al. Predominance of deterministic microbial community dynamics in salterns exposed to different light intensities. Environ. Microbiol. 21, 4300–4315 (2019).
pubmed: 31444990
doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.14790
Sikorski, J., Rosselló-Mora, R. & Lorenz, M. G. Analysis of genotypic diversity and relationships among Pseudomonas stutzeri strains by PCR-based genomic fingerprinting and multilocus enzyme electrophoresis. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 22, 393–402 (1999).
pubmed: 10553292
doi: 10.1016/S0723-2020(99)80048-4
Ursing, J. B., Rossello-Mora, R. A., Garcia-Valdes, E. & Lalucat, J. Taxonomic note: a pragmatic approach to the nomenclature of phenotypically similar genomic groups. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 45, 604–604 (1995).
Rodriguez-R, L. M., Gunturu, S., Tiedje, J. M., Cole, J. R. & Konstantinidis, K. T. Nonpareil 3: fast estimation of metagenomic coverage and sequence diversity. MSystems 3, e00039–18 (2018).
pubmed: 29657970
pmcid: 5893860
doi: 10.1128/mSystems.00039-18
Rosselló-Móra, R. & Amann, R. Past and future species definitions for Bacteria and Archaea. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 38, 209–216 (2015).
pubmed: 25747618
doi: 10.1016/j.syapm.2015.02.001
Rodriguez-R, L. M. et al. An ANI gap within bacterial species that advances the definitions of intra-species units. mBio https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.02696-23 (2023).
Koonin, E. V. & Makarova, K. S. Mobile genetic elements and evolution of CRISPR-Cas systems: all the way there and back. Genome Biol. Evol. 9, 2812–2825 (2017).
pubmed: 28985291
pmcid: 5737515
doi: 10.1093/gbe/evx192
Pinilla-Redondo, R. et al. Type IV CRISPR–Cas systems are highly diverse and involved in competition between plasmids. Nucleic Acids Res 48, 2000–2012 (2020).
pubmed: 31879772
doi: 10.1093/nar/gkz1197
Kislyuk, A. O., Haegeman, B., Bergman, N. H. & Weitz, J. S. Genomic fluidity: an integrative view of gene diversity within microbial populations. BMC genom. 12, 1–10 (2011).
doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-12-32
Pedros-Alió, C. Marine microbial diversity: can it be determined? Trends Microbiol 14, 257–263 (2006).
pubmed: 16679014
doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2006.04.007
Amann, R. I., Ludwig, W. & Schleifer, K. H. Phylogenetic identification and in-situ detection of individual microbial cells without cultivation. Microbiol. Rev. 59, 143–169 (1995).
pubmed: 7535888
pmcid: 239358
doi: 10.1128/mr.59.1.143-169.1995
Konstantinidis, K. & Tiedje, J. M. Prokaryotic taxonomy and phylogeny in the genomic era: advancements and challenges ahead. Curr. Opin. Microbiol 10, 504–509 (2007).
pubmed: 17923431
doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2007.08.006
Rodriguez-Valera, F., Ventosa, A., Juez, G. & Imhoff, J. F. Variation of environmental features and microbial populations with salt concentrations in a multi-pond saltern. Microb. Ecol. 11, 107–115 (1985).
pubmed: 24221299
doi: 10.1007/BF02010483
Viver, T. et al. Diversity of extremely halophilic cultivable prokaryotes in Mediterranean, Atlantic and Pacific solar salterns: evidence that unexplored sites constitute sources of cultivable novelty. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 38, 266–275 (2015).
pubmed: 25752803
doi: 10.1016/j.syapm.2015.02.002
Munoz, R., López-López, A., Urdiain, M., Moore, E. R. & Rosselló-Móra, R. Evaluation of matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight whole cell profiles for assessing the cultivable diversity of aerobic and moderately halophilic prokaryotes thriving in solar saltern sediments. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 34, 69–75 (2011).
pubmed: 21242046
doi: 10.1016/j.syapm.2010.11.012
Urdiain, M. et al. Reclassification of Rhodobium marinum and Rhodobium pfennigii as Afifella marina gen. nov. comb. nov. and Afifella pfennigii comb. nov., a new genus of photoheterotrophic Alphaproteobacteria and emended descriptions of Rhodobium, Rhodobium orientis and Rhodobium gokarnense. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 31, 339–351 (2008).
pubmed: 18774253
doi: 10.1016/j.syapm.2008.07.002
Bankevich, A. et al. SPAdes: a new genome assembly algorithm and its applications to single-cell sequencing. J. Comput. Biol 19, 455–477 (2012).
Hyatt, D. et al. Prodigal: prokaryotic gene recognition and translation initiation site identification. BMC Bioinform 11, 1–11 (2010).
doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-11-119
Boeckmann, B. et al. The SWISS-PROT protein knowledgebase and its supplement TrEMBL in 2003. Nucleic Acids Res 31, 365–370 (2003).
pubmed: 12520024
pmcid: 165542
doi: 10.1093/nar/gkg095
Buchfink, B., Xie, C. & Huson, D. H. Fast and sensitive protein alignment using DIAMOND. Nat. Meth 12, 59–60 (2015).
doi: 10.1038/nmeth.3176
Rodriguez-R, L. M. & Konstantinidis, K. T. The enveomics collection: a toolbox for specialized analyses of microbial genomes and metagenomes. PeerJ. e1900v1 (2016).
Darling, A. C., Mau, B., Blattner, F. R. & Perna, N. T. Mauve: multiple alignment of conserved genomic sequence with rearrangements. Genome Res 14, 1394–1403 (2004).
pubmed: 15231754
pmcid: 442156
doi: 10.1101/gr.2289704
Altschul, S. F., Gish, W., Miller, W., Myers, E. W. & Lipman, D. J. Basic. local alignment search tool. J. Mol. Biol. 215, 403–410 (1990).
pubmed: 2231712
Edgar, R. C. MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res 32, 1792–1797 (2004).
pubmed: 15034147
pmcid: 390337
doi: 10.1093/nar/gkh340
Ludwig, W. et al. ARB: a software environment for sequence data. Nucleic Acids Res 32, 1363–1371 (2004).
pubmed: 14985472
pmcid: 390282
doi: 10.1093/nar/gkh293
Sanner, M. F. Python: a programming language for software integration and development. J. Mol. Graph Model 17, 57–61 (1999).
pubmed: 10660911
Van Rossum, G., Drake, F. L. Python 3 Reference Manual. Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace (2009).
McKinney, W., et al. Data structures for statistical computing in python. Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference. p. 51–56 (2010).
Harris, C. R. et al. Array programming with NumPy. Nature 585, 357–362 (2020).
pubmed: 32939066
pmcid: 7759461
doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2
Virtanen, P. et al. SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in python. Nat. Methods 17, 261–272 (2020).
pubmed: 32015543
pmcid: 7056644
doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2
Seabold, S., Perktold, J. Statsmodels: Econometric and statistical modeling with python. In Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference 2010 Jun 28 (Vol. 57, No. 61, pp. 10-25080).
Hunter, J. D. Matplotlib: A 2D graphics environment. Comput. Sci. Eng. 9, 90–95 (2007).
doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55
Waskom, M. L. Seaborn: statistical data visualization. J. Open Source Softw. 6, 3021 (2021).
doi: 10.21105/joss.03021