Open Access

Complete genome sequence of the fish pathogen Flavobacterium psychrophilum ATCC 49418T

  • Anson KK Wu1,
  • Andrew M Kropinski1,
  • John S Lumsden1,
  • Brian Dixon2 and
  • Janet I MacInnes1Email author
Standards in Genomic Sciences201510:3

DOI: 10.1186/1944-3277-10-3

Received: 3 July 2014

Accepted: 21 November 2014

Published: 21 January 2015

Abstract

Flavobacterium psychrophilum is the causative agent of bacterial cold water disease and rainbow trout fry mortality syndrome in salmonid fishes and is associated with significant losses in the aquaculture industry. The virulence factors and molecular mechanisms of pathogenesis of F. psychrophilum are poorly understood. Moreover, at the present time, there are no effective vaccines and control using antimicrobial agents is problematic due to growing antimicrobial resistance and the fact that sick fish don’t eat. In the hopes of identifying vaccine and therapeutic targets, we sequenced the genome of the type strain ATCC 49418 which was isolated from the kidney of a Coho salmon (Oncorhychus kisutch) in Washington State (U.S.A.) in 1989. The genome is 2,715,909 bp with a G+C content of 32.75%. It contains 6 rRNA operons, 49 tRNA genes, and is predicted to encode 2,329 proteins.

Keywords

Aerobic Gram negative Psychrotolerant Fish pathogen Flavobacterium Bacterial cold water disease Rainbow trout fry mortality syndrome

Introduction

Flavobacterium psychrophilum is a Gram-negative pathogen that infects all species of salmonid fish and has been found to also infect eel and three species of cyprinids [13]. It causes bacterial cold water disease (BCWD) and rainbow trout fry mortality syndrome (RTFS) in fish and is responsible for significant losses in the salmonid aquaculture industry [1]. Water temperature plays a key role in the infection and development of disease [4] which occurs between 4-16°C and is most prevalent at 10°C or below [5]. It was originally thought to be limited to North America [6] but it is now recognized in almost every country in Europe, in some parts of Asia, and in Australia [1, 7].

Three serotypes and two biovars of F. psychrophilum have been described [7, 8]. In addition, molecular analysis of the population structure of this bacterium suggests that there are a number of distinct lineages [7]. It has been speculated that some strains are species specific [9] while others are location specific [10]. Some strains have also been observed to cause only either BCWD or RTFS [7]. A recent study in Japan showed multiple sequence types infecting ayu (Plecoglossus altivelis) in a closed lake environment [11]. It is also known that phase variation can occur where the colonial phenotype changes between "rough" and "smooth", perhaps to help in evasion of the immune system [12]. Generally F. psychrophilum populations are heterogeneous; however, a recent study showed closely related epidemic clones infecting rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Nordic countries [13]. To date, only one genome sequence [14] of F. psychrophilum has been reported and sequences of other strains are required to gain insight into the molecular mechanisms of virulence and why some strains are more virulent than others. Here we present a summary of classification and features of the F. psychrophilum type strain ATCC 49418 (= DSM 3660 = NCMB = 1947 = LMG 13179 = ATCC 49418) [15] together with a description of the complete genome and its annotation.

Organism Information

Classification and Features

The taxonomy of F. psychrophilum has been changed many times since Borg (1960) classified it as Cytophaga psychrophila based on its biochemical properties [16]. It was later reclassified within the genus Flexibacter based on DNA homology and renamed to Flexibacter psychrophilus [17]. Most recently, it was reclassified to the genus Flavobacterium and renamed to F. psychrophilum based on DNA-RNA hybridization [18]. The genus name was derived from the Latin flavus meaning "yellow" and the ancient Greek βακτήριον (baktḗrion) meaning "a small rod" giving the Neo-Latin word Flavobacterium, a "small yellow rod-shaped bacteria" [19, 20]. The species name was derived from the Greek word psuchros (ψυχρός) meaning "cold" and the Neo-Latin word philum meaning "loving" which translates to "cold loving" [19, 20]. The genus Flavobacterium consists of 119 recognized species [21]; it belongs to the family Flavobacteriaceae [18, 22] and the order Flavobacteriales [23] (Table 1).
Table 1

Classification and general features of Flavobacterium psychrophilum ATCC 49418 T

MIGS ID

Property

Term

Evidence code a

 

Current Classification

Domain Bacteria

TAS [24]

  

Phylum Bacteroidetes

TAS [25]

  

Class Flavobacteriia

TAS [26, 27]

  

Order Flavobacteriales

TAS [23]

  

Family Flavobacteriacea

TAS [18, 22]

  

Genus Flavobacterium

TAS [18, 28]

  

Species Flavobacterium psychrophilum

TAS [18]

  

Type strain ATCC 49418

TAS [15, 18]

 

Gram stain

Negative

TAS [15]

 

Cell shape

Rods

TAS [15]

 

Motility

Gliding

TAS [15]

 

Sporulation

Non-spore forming

TAS [18]

 

Temperature range

Psychrotolerant (4°C to 30°C)

TAS [15, 29, 30]

 

Optimum temperature

15-20°C

TAS [31, 32]

 

Carbon source

Non-saccharolytic

TAS [18]

 

Energy source

Chemoorganotroph

TAS [18]

 

Terminal electron receptor

Oxygen

NAS [33]

MIGS-6

Habitat

Host

TAS [15]

MIGS-6.3

Salinity

Usually grows in 0.5% and stops at 1.0%

TAS [8, 15]

MIGS-22

Oxygen

Aerobic

TAS [15]

MIGS-15

Biotic relationship

Obligate pathogen of fish (but can survive in freshwater for several months)

NAS [7]

MIGS-14

Pathogenicity

Salmonid fishes, eel, and three species of Cyprinids

TAS [1, 15]

MIGS-4

Geographic location

Worldwide including North America, Europe, and Asia

TAS [1, 7]

MIGS-5

Sample collection time

1989

TAS [15]

MIGS-4.1 MIGS-4.2

Latitude – Longitude

Not reported

 

MIGS-4.3

Depth

Not Reported

 

MIGS-4.4

Altitude

Not Reported

 

aEvidence codes - IDA: Inferred from Direct Assay; TAS: Traceable Author Statement (i.e., a direct report exists in the literature); NAS: Non-traceable Author Statement (i.e., not directly observed for the living, isolated sample, but based on a generally accepted property for the species, or anecdotal evidence). These evidence codes are from of the Gene Ontology project [40].

F. psychrophilum ATCC 49418T was isolated in Washington State (U.S.A) from the kidney of a young Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in 1989 [15]. It is a Gram negative, aerobic, and psychrotolerant microorganism [7] (Figure 1). When grown on cytophaga agar, bright yellow, smooth, discreet, circular, convex, and non-adherent colonies are produced [8]. The optimal growth temperature is between 15-20°C [31, 32] with no growth occurring at 30°C or greater [15, 29, 30]. Microscopically it is rod-shaped measuring 3–7 μm long and 0.3-0.5 μm wide [8]. Although gliding motility has been reported the mechanism is yet to be elucidated since F. psychrophilum does not appear to use pili or polysaccharide secretion [1, 15, 17]. API-ZYM tests show that it can produce alkaline phosphatase, esterase, lipase, leucine, valine, and cysteine arylamidases, trypsin, acid phosphatase, and napthol-AS-BI phosphohydrolase [8]. In addition, it has been reported that it can produce catalase [29, 34] and oxidase [17], hydrolyze tributyrin and proteins including casein, gelatin, elastin, albumin, collagen, and fibrinogen [3539]. Although many strains including ATTC 49418T cannot metabolize simple and complex sugars [1] a recent study has shown that some strains are able to produce two or more sugar degrading enzymes including alpha-galactosidase, beta-galactosidase, alpha-glucosidase, beta-glucosidase, and N-acetyl-beta-glucosaminidase [8].
Figure 1

Colonial and cellular morphology of F. psychrophilum ATCC 49418 T grown on cytophaga agar (A) and Gram stained (B) (1000x).

A phylogentic tree was constructed using the 16S rRNA sequences of F. psychrophilum ATCC 49418T, selected strains and species of the same genus, as well as selected species of other genera belonging to the family Flavobacteriaceae (Figure 2). The four F. psychrophilum strains are grouped together in the tree with ATCC 49418T being most similar to JIP02/86 (ATCC 49511), the only other strain to have a complete genome sequence.
Figure 2

Phylogenetic tree displaying the relationship between F. psychrophilum ATCC 49418 T and selected strains and species of the same genus. Other genera from the family Flavobacteriaceae were used as an out group. The phylogenetic tree was constructed using the "One Click" mode with default settings in the Phylogeny.fr platform [41]. This pipeline uses four different programs including MUSCLE [42], Gblock [43], PhyML [44], and TreeDyn [45]. The numbers above the branches are tree support values generated by PhyML using the aLRT statistical test.

Genome sequencing information

Genome project history

The complete genome sequence and annotation data of F. psychrophilum ATCC 49418T have been deposited in DDBJ/EMBL/GenBank under the accession number CP007207. Sequencing and assembly steps as well as finishing were performed at McGill University and Génome Québec Innovation Centre. Annotation was performed using the NCBI Prokaryotic Genome Annotation Pipeline [46] and manually edited in Kodon (Applied Maths, Austin, TX). Table 2 presents a summary of the project information and its association with MIGS version 2.0 compliance [47].
Table 2

Project information

MIGS ID

Property

Term

MIGS-31

Finishing quality

Finished

MIGS-28

Libraries used

None

MIGS-29

Sequencing platforms

PacBio RS II

MIGS-31.2

Fold coverage

184x

MIGS-30

Assemblers

HGAP workflow

MIGS-32

Gene calling method

NCBI Prokaryotic Genome Annotation Pipeline, GeneMarkS+

 

Locus Tag

FPG3

 

GenBank ID

CP007207

 

GenBank Date of Release

September 12, 2014

 

BioProject ID

PRJNA236029

 

GOLD ID

Gi0074339

 

Project relevance

Fish Pathogen

MIGS-13

Source Material Identifier

ATCC

Growth conditions and DNA isolation

F. psychrophilum ATCC 49418T was originally obtained from the American Type Culture Collection [15] and was stored in a frozen glycerol stock (15%) at -70°C. It was grown for 4 days at 12°C on modified cytophaga agar [48] containing 0.06% (w/v) tryptone, 0.05% yeast extract, 0.02% beef extract, 0.02% sodium acetate, 0.05% anhydrous calcium chloride, 0.05% magnesium chloride, 0.05% potassium chloride, 1.5% agar, 0.02% gelatin, pH 7.5. Well isolated colonies were used for genomic DNA isolation. Colonies (~ 4 mm3) were picked using a sterile toothpick and lysed using modified B1 (1 50 mM Tris·Cl, 50 mM EDTA, 0.5% Tween®-20, 0.5% Triton X-100, pH 8.0) and B2 (750 mM NaCl, 50 mM MOPS, 15% isopropanol, 0.15% Triton X-100, pH 7.0) buffers. DNA was purified and eluted using the QIAGEN Plasmid Midi Kit (Qiagen, Germany) following manufacturer's protocol.

Genome sequencing and assembly

Genome sequencing of F. psychrophilum ATCC 49418T was performed using a PacBio RS II instrument. The reads were automatically processed through the Single Molecule Real Time (SMRT) software suite using the Hierarchical Genome Assembly Processing (HGAP) pipeline [49]. The resulting reads (580,625,890 bp in total) were filtered and the longest reads with 20x coverage were selected as seeds for constructing preassemblies. The preassemblies were constructed by aligning the short reads to the long reads (seeds). Each read was mapped to multiple seeds using BLASTR [50]. In total there were 8073 long sequences totaling 90,000,401 bp with an average length of 11148 bp and 162,858 bp short sequences totaling 490,625,489 bp with an average length of 3013 bp. Since errors in PacBio are random, aligning the multiple short reads onto the long reads allows the correction of errors in the long reads. The optimal number of sequences to be mapped onto the seeds is controlled by the "-bestn" parameter and the optimal number was determined to be 12. The preassembled reads for the seeds are generated using PBDAG-Con [51] to create corrected consensus sequences in addition to quality analysis of the seeds. This script uses multiple sequence alignments and a directed acyclic graph to produce the best consensus reads possible. It does so by eliminating the insertion and deletion errors generated during the sequencing process. In addition, it avoids generating chimeric sequences (sequences with artifacts) for assembly because chimeric reads will have no or low short sequence coverage. At the end of the process, only the best preassembled reads without artifacts are sent to the assembler [52].

After quality analysis and eliminating some of the preassembled reads by PBDAG-Con, the remaining 6,009 reads were fed into the Celera assembler which uses an overlap-layout-consensus strategy [49]. A total of 2 contigs were generated with sizes 1,647,861 bp and 1,076,634 bp. These contigs underwent an additional polishing step where they were compared against the raw reads and any artifacts found were removed [49]. The final consensus generated was analyzed and improved by using the multiread consensus algorithm Quiver. Quiver takes the two contigs and the initial sequencing reads and maps the reads onto the assemblies [49]. It then disregards the alignment between the reads and the assemblies and a consensus is created independently from the reads allowing it to remove any fine-scale errors made by the Celera assembler [52]. An approximate copy of the consensus sequences is then generated by Quiver which makes insertions and deletions and those that improve the maximum likelihood are applied to the initial consensus sequence [53]. The two final contigs generated by Quiver were 1,648,613 bp and 1,077,094 bp.

The two contigs underwent a finishing process using SeqMan Pro (DNASTAR Inc., Madison, WI). The two contigs were collapsed into one and the sequence was then opened in a region homologous to the Ori of F. psychrophilum JIP02/86 resulting in another two contigs. These were resealed using SeqMan Pro to create one final complete contig.

Genome annotation

The NCBI Prokaryotic Genome Annotation Pipeline was used to predict protein coding genes, structural RNAs (5S, 16S, 23S), tRNAs, and small non-coding RNAs [54]. Protein coding genes were predicted by protein alignment using ProSplign [55] where only complete alignments with 100% identity to a reference protein are kept for final annotation. Frameshifted or partial alignments were further analyzed by GeneMarkS+ [56] for further analysis and gene prediction. A BLASTN search against a reference set of structural RNA genomes from the NCBI Reference Sequence Collection was conducted to find the structural RNAs since they are highly conserved in closely related prokaryotes. tRNAscan-SE was used to identify the tRNAs [57]. Small RNAs were predicted using a BLASTN search against sequences of selected Rfam families and the results were refined further using Cmsearch [58]. Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPRs) were identified by searching the CRISPR database with the CRISPRfinder program (http://crispr.u-psud.fr/Server/) [5962].

Genome properties

The 2,715,909 bp (32.75% G+C) genome of F. psychrophilum ATCC 49418T contains 6 rRNA operons and 49 tRNA genes and is predicted to encode 2329 proteins (Figure 3 and Table 3). No plasmids were identified during the annotation process. The distribution of genes into COG functions is shown in Table 4. When compared to the JIP02/86 strain, ATCC 49418T had fewer proteins classified as “not in COGs” (43.8% vs. 47.5%) and had slightly more replication, repair, and recombination COGs (96 vs. 82). The two strains differed little in other COG categories. The Average Nucleotide Identity (ANI) between ATCC 49418T and JIP02/86 was calculated to be 99.34% (+/-1.83%) and 99.37% (+/- 1.71%) one way and 99.43% (+/- 1.51%) two way [63]. The estimated distance to distance hybridization (DDH) values between the two strains was calculated to be 96.20% (+/- 1.16%) and the distance was 0.0053. The probability that DDH>70% (i.e. same species) is 97.48% [64].
Figure 3

Comparison of F. psychrophilum ATCC 49418 T and F. psychrophilum JIP02/86 (NC_009613.3) created using CGview [[65]]. From the outside to the center: Genes on forward strand (blue clockwise arrows), genes on reverse strand (blue counter-clockwise arrows), F. psychrophilum JIP02/86 genome (red), RNA genes (tRNAs orange, rRNAs violet, other RNAs gray), GC content (black), GC skew (purple/olive).

Table 3

Nucleotide content and gene count levels of the genome

Attribute

Genome (total)

 

Value

% of total

Genome size (bp)

2,715,909

100.00%

DNA coding (bp)

2,336,075

86.01%

G+C content (bp)

889,460

32.75%

DNA scaffolds

1

 

Total genes

2397

100.00%

Protein-coding genes

2,329

97.00%

RNA genes

68

2.84%

Pseudo genes

24

1.00%

Genes in internal clusters

N/Da

 

Genes with function prediction

1881

78.47%

Genes assigned to COGs

1,438

60.00%

Genes assigned Pfam domains

1,933

80.64%

Genes with signal peptides

236

9.85%

Genes with transmembrane helices

506

21.11%

Number of CRISPR candidates

8

 

Confirmed CRISPR(s)

1

 

Unconfirmed CRISPR(s)

7

 

aN/D = not determined.

Table 4

Number of genes associated with the 25 general COG functional categories

Code

Value

% of total

Description

J

140.0

9.66

Translation

A

0.0

0.00

RNA processing and modification

K

72.0

4.97

Transcription

L

96.0

6.63

Replication, recombination and repair

B

0.0

0.00

Chromatin structure and dynamics

D

18.0

1.24

Cell cycle control, mitosis and meiosis

Y

0.0

0.00

Nuclear structure

V

41.0

2.83

Defense mechanisms

T

32.0

2.21

Signal transduction mechanisms

M

145.0

10.01

Cell wall/membrane biogenesis

N

4.0

0.28

Cell motility

Z

1.0

0.07

Cytoskeleton

W

0.0

0.00

Extracellular structures

U

31.0

2.14

Intracellular trafficking and secretion

O

61.0

4.21

Posttranslational modification, protein turnover, chaperones

C

75.0

5.16

Energy production and conversion

G

51.0

3.52

Carbohydrate transport and metabolism

E

120.0

8.28

Amino acid transport and metabolism

F

54.0

3.73

Nucleotide transport and metabolism

H

96.0

6.63

Coenzyme transport and metabolism

I

63.0

4.35

Lipid transport and metabolism

P

70.0

4.83

Inorganic ion transport and metabolism

Q

26.0

1.79

Secondary metabolites biosynthesis, transport and catabolism

R

164.0

11.32

General function prediction only

S

89.0

6.14

Function unknown

-

1050

43.80

Not in COGs

Insights into the genome sequence

A number of studies have been done to determine the pathogenesis of F. psychrophilum but, to date, the exact mechanisms are still unknown [1]. Some putative and previously characterized virulence factors are listed in Table 5. Proteolytic enzymes are widely used by fish pathogens to cause tissue damage and allow invasion of the host [1]. In the F. psychrophilum ATCC 49418T genome there are four metalloprotease encoding genes including a predicted zinc metalloprotease [FPG3_00455], a predicted zinc peptidase [FPG3_06120] and the previously reported Fpp1 [66] and Fpp2 [67] metalloproteases. Rainbow trout with RTFS are anemic and past studies have reported that the red blood cells of rainbow trout are partially lysed when infected by F. psychrophilum [68, 69]. Homologs of two RTX hemolysin transporters (FPG3_06485, FPG3_10400) were identified, but did not appear to be linked to any toxin or modification genes [70]. Six iron transport genes were also identified; these were anticipated since iron uptake is a well-known characteristic of most pathogens. Moreover, recent research has shown that attenuated F. psychrophilum strains cultured under iron limiting conditions confer greater protection to fish when used as an experimental vaccine [71]. A hydroperoxidase with predicted catalase and peroxidase functions were also identified. In addition, there are 11 cell surface proteins with leucine rich repeats that are predicted to be adhesins; several are listed in Table 5. These were very similar to the ones found in F. psychrophilum JIP/02. Further research is required to determine what functions these adhesins have and how they help F. psychrophilum bind to the host.
Table 5

Some putative virulence factors of F. psychrophilum ATCC 49418

Locus tag

Gene name

Family

Product

FPG3_00455

 

M50

Putative zinc metalloprotease

FPG3_01260

fpp1

M12B

Psychrophilic metalloprotease Fpp1 precursor

FPG3_01265

fpp2

M43

Psychrophilic metalloprotease Fpp2 precursor

FPG3_06120

 

Zn Peptidase

Putative neutral zinc metallopeptidase

FPG3_06485

hlyD

HlyD2

Putative hemolysin D transporter

FPG3_10400

hlyD

HlyD2

Putative hemolysin D transmembrane transporter

FPG3_00420

 

MntH

Mn2+ and Fe2+ transporter of the NRAMP family

FPG3_00490

 

FeoA

Iron transport protein A

FPG3_00495

 

FeoB

Iron transport protein B

FPG3_04340

 

Peptidase M75

Iron-regulated protein A precursor

FPG3_04455

 

TM-ABC Iron Siderophore

ABC iron transporter system, permease component

FPG3_05120

 

FeoB

ABC iron transporter system, binding protein precursor

FPG3_06195

 

CCC1

Probable iron transporter

FPG3_09395

 

Plant peroxidase like

Hydroperoxidase with catalase and peroxidase activities

FPG3_00925

 

LRR5

Cell surface protein precursor with leucine rich repeats

FPG3_00930

 

LRR5

Cell surface protein precursor with leucine rich repeats

FPG3_00935

 

LRR5

Cell surface protein precursor with leucine rich repeats

FPG3_00940

 

LRR5

Cell surface protein precursor with leucine rich repeats

Conclusion

Flavobacterium psychrophilum, the causative agent of BCWD and RTFS in salmonid fishes, causes significant economic losses in the aquaculture industry. The genome sequence of the ATCC 49418T strain will hopefully provide new insights into virulence mechanisms and pathogenesis of F. psychrophilum and help in the identification of suitable targets for vaccines and antimicrobial agents; however, to do this much more analysis will be required.

Abbreviations

BCWD: 

Bacterial cold water disease

RTFS: 

Rainbow trout fry mortality syndrome.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council entitled "Immunity, vaccination and rainbow trout family susceptibility to Flavobacterium psychrophilum". We thank Glenn Soltes for expert technical help.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Pathobiology, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph
(2)
Department of Biology

References

  1. Nematollahi A, Decostere A, Pasmans F, Haesebrouck F: Flavobacterium psychrophilum infections in salmonid fish. J. Fish Dis. 2003,26(10):563–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2761.2003.00488.x 10.1046/j.1365-2761.2003.00488.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Austin B, Austin DA: Bacterial fish pathogens : Disease of farmed and wild fish. Third edition. Chichester: Praxis Publishing; 1999.Google Scholar
  3. Lehmann J, Mock D, Stiirenberg F, Bernardet J: First isolation of Cytophaga psychrophila from a systemic disease in eel and cyprinids. Dis. Aquat. Org. 1991, 10:217–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/dao010217 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Noga EJ: Fish disease: Diagnosis and treatment. Ames, Iowa: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Holt RA: Cytophaga psychrophila , the causative agent of bacterialcold water disease in salmonid fish. PhD thesis. Oregon, USA: University of Oregon; 1987.Google Scholar
  6. Anderson JI, Conroy DA: The pathogenic myxobacteria with special reference to fish diseases. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 1969,32(1):30–9. 10.1111/j.1365-2672.1969.tb02186.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Barnes ME, Brown ML: A review of Flavobacterium psycrhophilum biology, clinical, signs, and bacterial cold water disease prevention and treatment. Open Fish Sci. J. 2011, 4:1–9. 10.2174/1874401X01104010001View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Hesami S, Allen KJ, Metcalf D, Ostland VE, MacInnes JI, Lumsden JS: Phenotypic and genotypic analysis of Flavobacterium psychrophilum isolates from ontario salmonids with bacterial coldwater disease. Can. J. Microbiol. 2008,54(8):619–29. 10.1139/W08-058View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Nagai T, Nakai T: Growth of Flavobacterium psychrophilum in fish serum correlates with pathogenicity. J. Fish Dis. 2011,34(4):303–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2761.2011.01245.x 10.1111/j.1365-2761.2011.01245.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Chakroun C, Grimont F, Urdaci MC, Bernardet JF: Fingerprinting of Flavobacterium psychrophilum isolates by ribotyping and plasmid profiling. Dis. Aquat. Organ. 1998,33(3):167–77.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Nagata EF, Darmon CC, Bernardet JF, Eguchi M, Duchaud E, Nicolas P: Population structure of the fish pathogen Flavobacterium psychrophilum at whole-country and model river levels in Japan. Vet. Res. 2013, 44:34–42. 10.1186/1297-9716-44-34View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Sundell K, Heinikainen S, Wiklund T: Structure of Flavobacterium psychrophilum populations infecting farmed rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss . Dis. Aquat. Organ. 2013,103(2):111–19. 10.3354/dao02573View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Nilsen H, Sundell K, Duchaud E, Nicolas P, Dalsgaard I, Madsen L, Aspan A, Jansson E, Colquhoun DI, Wiklund T: Multilocus sequence typing identifies epidemic clones of Flavobacterium psychrophilum in nordic countries. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2014,80(9):2728–36. 10.1128/AEM.04233-13View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Duchaud E, Boussaha M, Loux V, Bernardet J, Michel C, Kerouault B, Mondot S, Nicolas P, Bossy R, Caron C, Bessières P, Gibrat JF, Claverol S, Dumetz F, Le Hénaff M, Benmansour A: Complete genome sequence of the fish pathogen Flavobacterium psychrophilum . Nat. Biotechnol. 2007,25(7):763–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt1313 10.1038/nbt1313View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Bernardet JF, Kerouault B: Phenotypic and genomic studies of " Cytophaga psychrophila " isolated from diseased rainbow trout (oncorhynchus mykiss) in France. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1989,55(7):1796–1800.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Borg AF: Studies on Myxobacteria associated with diseases in salmonid fishes. 8th edition. Washington, D.C: American Association for the Advancement of Science; 1960.Google Scholar
  17. Bernardet JF, Grimont PAD: Deoxyribonucleic acid relatedness and phenotypic characterization of Flexibacter columnaris sp. nov., nom. rev., Flexibacter psychrophilus sp. nov., nom. rev., and Flexibacter maritimus wakabayashi, hikida, and masumura. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 1989,39(3):346–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1099/00207713-39-3-346 10.1099/00207713-39-3-346View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Bernardet JF, Segers P, Vancanneyt M, Berthe F, Kersters K, Vandamme P: Cutting a gordian knot: Emended classification and description of the genus Flavobacterium , emended description of the family Flavobacteriaceae , and proposal of Flavobacterium hydatis nom. nov. (basonym, Cytophaga aquatilis strohl and tait 1978). Int.J.Syst.Bacteriol. 1996,46(1):128–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1099/00207713-46-1-128 10.1099/00207713-46-1-128View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Euzeby JP: List of bacterial names with standing in nomenclature: A folder available on the internet. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 1997,47(2):590–92. 10.1099/00207713-47-2-590View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Schlegel HG: General microbiology. 7th edition. Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press; 1993.Google Scholar
  21. Parker CT, Wigley S, Garrity GM: Taxonomic Abstract for the genus Flavobacterium. Edited by: Parker CT, Garrity GM. The NamesforLife Abstracts [Internet]. NamesforLife, LLC;http://dx.doi.org/10.1601/tx.8071
  22. Bernardet JF: Family I. Flavobacteriaceae reichenbach 1992b, 327VP (effective publication: Reichenbach 1989b, 2013.) emend. Bernardet, Segers, Vancanneyt, Berthe, Kersters and Vandamme 1996, 145 emend. Bernardet, Nakagawa and Holmes 2002, 1057. In Bergey's manual of systematic bacteriology. Volume 4. Second edition. Edited by: Krieg NR, Staley JT, Brown DR, Hedlund BP, Paster BJ, Ward NL, Ludwig W, Whitman WB. New York: Springer; 2010:106.Google Scholar
  23. Bernardet JF: Order I. Flavobacteriales ord. nov. In Bergey's manual of systematic bacteriology. Volume 4. Second edition. Edited by: Krieg NR, Staley JT, Brown DR, Hedlund BP, Paster BJ, Ward NL, Ludwig W, Whitman WB. New York: Springer; 2010:105.Google Scholar
  24. Woese CR, Kandler O, Wheelis ML: Towards a natural system of organisms: Proposal for the domains Archaea, bacteria , and Eucarya . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 1990,87(12):4576–79. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC54159/ 10.1073/pnas.87.12.4576View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Krieg NR, Ludwig W, Euzéby J, Whitman WB: Phylum XIV. Bacteroidetes phyl. nov. In Bergey's manual of systematic bacteriology. Volume 4. Second edition. Edited by: Krieg NR, Staley JT, Brown DR, Hedlund BP, Paster BJ, Ward NL, Ludwig W, Whitman WB. New York: Springer; 2010:25.Google Scholar
  26. Validation list no. 145. list of new names and new combinations previously effectively, but not validly, published Int. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2012, 62:1017–19. http://ijs.sgmjournals.org/content/62/Pt_5/1017.full
  27. Bernardet JF: Class II. Flavobacteriia class. nov. In Bergey's manual of systematic bacteriology. Volume 4. Second edition. Edited by: Krieg NR, Staley JT, Brown DR, Hedlund BP, Paster BJ, Ward NL, Ludwig W, Whitman WB. New York: Springer; 2010:105.Google Scholar
  28. Reichenbach H: Genus 1. Cytophaga Winogradsky 1929, 577 AL , emend . In Bergey's manual of systematic bacteriology. Volume 3. Edited by: Staley JT, Bryant MP, Pfennig N, Holt JG. Baltimore: The Williams & Wilkins Co; 1989:2015–50.Google Scholar
  29. Pacha RE: Characteristics of Cytophaga psychrophila (borg) isolated during outbreaks of bacterial cold-water disease. Appl. Microbiol. 1968,16(1):97–101.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Cepeda C, Garci´a-Márquez S, Santos Y: Improved growth of Flavobacterium psychrophilum using a new culture medium. Aquaculture 2004,238(1–4):75–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2004.05.013 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Holt RA, Amandi A, Rohovec JS, Fryer JL: Relation of water temperature to bacterial cold water disease in coho salmon, chinook salmon, rainbow trout. J. Aquat. Anim. Health 1989, 1:94–101. 10.1577/1548-8667(1989)001<0094:ROWTTB>2.3.CO;2View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Uddin MN, Wakabayashi H: Effects of temperature on growth and protease production of, Cytophaga psvchrophila. Fish Pathol. 1997,32(4):225–26. 10.3147/jsfp.32.225View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Bernardet JF, Bowman JP: The genus Flavobacterium . In The Prokaryotes. A handbook on the biology of bacteria: Proteobacteria: Delta and epsilon subclasses. deeply rooting bacteria. Volume 7. 3rd edition. Edited by: Dworkin M, Falkow S, Rosenberg E, Schleifer K. New York: Springer; 2006:486–509.Google Scholar
  34. Pacha RE, Porter S: Characteristics of myxobacteria isolated from the surface of freshwater fish. Appl. Microbiol. 1969,16(12):1901–06.Google Scholar
  35. Bertolini JM, Wakabayashi H, Watral VG, Whipple MJ, Rohovec JS: Electrophoretic detection of proteases from selected strains of Flexibacter psychrophilus and assessment of their variability. J.Aquat.Anim.Health 1994,6(3):224–33. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/1548-8667%281994%29006%3C0224%3AEDOPFS%3E2.3.CO%3B2?ai=t8bz&mi=bkerqn&af=R 10.1577/1548-8667(1994)006<0224:EDOPFS>2.3.CO;2View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Ostland VE, Byrne PJ, Hoover G, Ferguson HW: Necrotic myositis of rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss (walbaum): Proteolytic characteristics of a crude extracellular preparation from Flavobacterium psychrophilum . J.Fish Dis. 2000,23(5):329–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2761.2000.00251.x 10.1046/j.1365-2761.2000.00251.xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Moller JD, Ellis AE, Barnes AC, Dalsgaard I: Iron acquisition mechanisms of Flavobacterium psychrophilum . J.Fish Dis. 2005,28(7):391–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2761.2005.00639.x 10.1111/j.1365-2761.2005.00639.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Otis EJ: Lesions of cold water disease in steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri): The role of Cytophaga psychrophila extracellular products. MSc thesis: University of Rhode Island; 1984.Google Scholar
  39. Holt RA, Rohovec JS, Fryer JL: Bacterial cold-water disease. In Bacterial diseases of fish. Edited by: Inglis V, Roberts RJ, Bromage NR. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications; 1993:3–23.Google Scholar
  40. Ashburner M, Ball CA, Blake JA, Botstein D, Butler H, Cherry JM, Davis AP, Dolinski K, Dwight SS, Eppig JT, Harris MA, Hill DP, Issel-Tarver L, Kasarskis A, Lewis S, Matese JC, Richardson JE, Ringwald M, Rubin GM, Sherlock G: Gene ontology: Tool for the unification of biology. the gene ontology consortium. Nat. Genet. 2000,25(1):25–9. 10.1038/75556View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Dereeper A, Guignon V, Blanc G, Audic S, Buffet S, Chevenet F, Dufayard JF, Guindon S, Lefort V, Lescot M, Claverie JM, Gascuel O: Phylogeny.fr: Robust phylogenetic analysis for the non-specialist. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008,36(Web Server issue):W465–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Edgar RC: MUSCLE: Multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004,32(5):1792–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkh340 10.1093/nar/gkh340View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Castresana J: Selection of conserved blocks from multiple alignments for their use in phylogenetic analysis. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2000,17(4):540–52. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a026334View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Guindon S, Gascuel O: A simple, fast, and accurate algorithm to estimate large phylogenies by maximum likelihood. Syst.Biol. 2003,52(5):696–704. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10635150390235520 10.1080/10635150390235520View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Chevenet F, Brun C, Banuls AL, Jacq B, Christen R: TreeDyn: Towards dynamic graphics and annotations for analyses of trees. BMC Bioinformatics 2006, 7:439. 10.1186/1471-2105-7-439View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. NCBI Prokaryotic Genome Annotation Pipeline. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/annotation_prok/
  47. Field D, Garrity G, Gray T, Morrison N, Selengut J, Sterk P, Tatusova T, Thomson N, Allen MJ, Angiuoli SV, Ashburner M, Axelrod N, Baldauf S, Ballard S, Boore J, Cochrane G, Cole J, Dawyndt P, De Vos P, dePamphilis C, Edwards R, Faruque N, Feldman R, Gilbert J, Gilna P, Glockner FO, Goldtein P, Guralnick R, Half D, Hancock D, et al.: The minimum information about a genome sequence (MIGS) specification. Nat. Biotechnol. 2008,26(5):541–47. 10.1038/nbt1360View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Anacker RL, Ordal EJ: Studies on the myxobacterium Chondrococcus columnaris. I. serological typing. J. Bacteriol. 1959,78(1):25–32.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Chin CS, Alexander DH, Marks P, Klammer AA, Drake J, Heiner C, Clum A, Copeland A, Huddleston J, Eichler EE, Turner SW, Korlach J: Nonhybrid, finished microbial genome assemblies from long-read SMRT sequencing data. Nat. Methods 2013,10(6):563–69. 10.1038/nmeth.2474View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Chaisson MJ, Tesler G: Mapping single molecule sequencing reads using basic local alignment with successive refinement (BLASR): Application and theory. BMC Bioinformatics 2012, 13:238–2105–13–238.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. PBDAG-Con. https://github.com/PacificBiosciences/pbdagcon
  52. Chain PS, Grafham DV, Fulton RS, Fitzgerald MG, Hostetler J, Muzny D, Ali J, Birren B, Bruce DC, Buhay C, Cole JR, Ding Y, Dugan S, Field D, Garrity GM, Gibbs R, Graves T, Han CS, Harrison SH, Highlander S, Hugenholtz P, Khouri HM, Kodira CD, Kolker E, Kyrpides NC, Lang D, Lapidus A, Malfatti SA, Markowitz V, Metha T, et al.: Genomics. genome project standards in a new era of sequencing. Science 2009,326(5950):236–37. 10.1126/science.1180614View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Lee C, Grasso C, Sharlow MF: Multiple sequence alignment using partial order graphs. Bioinformatics 2002,18(3):452–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/18.3.452 10.1093/bioinformatics/18.3.452View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Angiuoli SV, Gussman A, Klimke W, Cochrane G, Field D, Garrity G, Kodira CD, Kyrpides N, Madupu R, Markowitz V, Tatusova T, Thomson N, White O: Toward an online repository of standard operating procedures (SOPs) for (meta)genomic annotation. OMICS 2008,12(2):137–41. 10.1089/omi.2008.0017View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Wheeler DL: Database resources of the national center for biotechnology information. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006,34(90001):173–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkj158 10.1093/nar/gkj158View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Besemer J, Lomsadze A, Borodovsky M: 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):2607–18. 10.1093/nar/29.12.2607View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Lowe TM, Eddy SR, tRNAscan-SE: A program for improved detection of transfer RNA genes in genomic sequence. Nucleic Acids Res. 1997,25(5):955–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/25.5.0955 10.1093/nar/25.5.0955View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Griffiths-Jones S, Rfam: An RNA family database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003,31(1):439–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkg006 10.1093/nar/gkg006View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Rousseau C, Gonnet M, Le Romancer M, Nicolas J: CRISPI: A CRISPR interactive database. Bioinformatics 2009,25(24):3317–18. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp586View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Grissa I, Vergnaud G, Pourcel C: The CRISPRdb database and tools to display CRISPRs and to generate dictionaries of spacers and repeats. BMC Bioinformatics 2007, 8:172–82. 10.1186/1471-2105-8-172View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Grissa I, Vergnaud G, Pourcel C: CRISPRFinder: A web tool to identify clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007, 35:W52–7. 10.1093/nar/gkm360View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Grissa I, Vergnaud G, Pourcel C: CRISPRcompar: A website to compare clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008, 36:W145–8. 10.1093/nar/gkn228View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. ANI: Average Nucleotide Index. http://enve-omics.ce.gatech.edu/ani/index
  64. Auch AF, von Jan M, Klenk HP: Digital DNA-DNA hybridization for microbial species delineation by means of genome-to-genome sequence comparison. Stand. Genomic Sci. 2010,2(1):117–34. 10.4056/sigs.531120View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Stothard P, Wishart DS: Circular genome visualization and exploration using CGView. Bioinformatics 2004,21(4):537–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bti054 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Secades P, Alvarez B, Guijarro JA: Purification and characterization of a psychrophilic, calcium-induced, growth-phase-dependent metalloprotease from the fish pathogen Flavobacterium psychrophilum . Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2001,67(6):2436–44. 10.1128/AEM.67.6.2436-2444.2001View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Secades P, Alvarez B, Guijarro JA: Purification and properties of a new psychrophilic metalloprotease (Fpp2) in the fish pathogen Flavobacterium psychrophilum . FEMS Microbiol.Lett. 2003,226(2):273–79. -8 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0378-1097(03)00599 10.1016/S0378-1097(03)00599-8View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Lorenzen E: Study on Flexibacter psychrophilus in relation to rainbow trout fry syndrome (RTFS). PhD thesis. Copenhagen, Denmark: Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University; 1994.Google Scholar
  69. Lorenzen E, Olesen N: Characterization of isolates of Flavobacterium psychrophilum associated with coldwater disease or rainbow trout fry syndrome:Serological studies. Dis.Aquat.Org. 1997, 31:209–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/dao031209 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  70. Koronakis V, Cross M, Senior B, Koronakis E, Hughes C: The secreted hemolysins of Proteus mirabilis , Proteus vulgaris , and Morganella morganii are genetically related to each other and to the alpha-hemolysin of Escherichia coli . J. Bacteriol. 1987,169(4):1509–15.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Long A, Fehringer TR, Swain MA, LaFrentz BR, Call DR, Cain KD: Enhanced efficacy of an attenuated Flavobacterium psychrophilum strain cultured under iron-limited conditions. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2013,35(5):1477–82. 10.1016/j.fsi.2013.08.009View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Wu et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.