Open Access

The complete genome sequence and analysis of vB_VorS-PVo5, a Vibrio phage infectious to the pathogenic bacterium Vibrio ordalii ATCC-33509

  • Alex Echeverría-Vega1, 2,
  • Pablo Morales-Vicencio2,
  • Camila Saez-Saavedra2,
  • Janja Ceh3 and
  • Rubén Araya2, 3Email author
Standards in Genomic Sciences201611:45

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40793-016-0166-6

Received: 25 October 2015

Accepted: 3 May 2016

Published: 4 July 2016

Abstract

The bacterium Vibrio ordalii is best known as the causative agent of vibriosis outbreaks in fish and thus recognized for generating serious production losses in aquaculture systems. Here we report for the first time on the isolation and the genome sequencing of phage vB_VorS-PVo5, infectious to Vibrio ordalii ATCC 33509. The features as well as the complete genome sequence and annotation of the Vibrio phage are described; vB_VorS-PVo5 consists of a lineal double stranded DNA totaling ~ 80.6 Kb in length. Considering its ability to lyse Vibrio ordalii ATCC 33509, the phage is likely to gain importance in future aquaculture applications by controlling the pathogen and as such replacing antibiotics as the treatment of choice.

Keywords

Short genome reportBacteriophage Vibrio ordalii SiphoviridaeDS-DNA virus

Introduction

The Chilean coast is characterized by the Humboldt Current System, a cold, low-salinity ocean current that is considered one of the most productive marine ecosystems on Earth. Cold, nutrient rich waters are constantly upwelled into the photic zone providing sustenance for primary producers [1, 2]. This environment offers highly favorable natural conditions for the growth of heterotrophic bacteria [3], e.g., for Vibrio species, known as the main pathogenic bacterial group in Chilean aquaculture [4, 5]. One of the most frequently isolated marine Vibrio species in the salmon industry is Vibrio ordalii which has been described as highly pathogenic for larvae reared in hatcheries [69], and therefore significantly contributes to production losses. In order to prevent diseases and control infections in fish farms, the intensive use of a wide variety of antimicrobials is applied. However, the poor management of such treatments, e.g., the use of antibiotics in discrete doses as a prophylactic therapy [10, 11], has caused enormous damage to the environment [1214]. Moreover, the increasing development of antimicrobial resistance in natural bacterial communities [10, 15, 16], calls for stricter regulations of antibiotic use [17]. As a consequence, the interest in phage therapy as an alternative control for bacteria in aquaculture systems has recently re-gained momentum [1821].

In our quest to find a natural control for V. ordalii in aquaculture, we focused our research on isolating phages potentially effective against the pathogen, surveying various marine sources, e.g., sea water, sediment and intertidal filter organisms. Amongst others we tested the filter-feeding Perumytilus purpuratus (Lamarck, 1819), an intertidal mussel common to the northern Chilean coast and a promising source organism for phages as it uptakes and concentrates local microbiota in its gut system. We succeeded in isolating and identifying vB_VorS-PVo5 a novel marine phage belonging to the family Siphoviridae that causes lytic infections in the bacterium V. ordalii ATCC 33509 and therefore qualifies as a potent future candidate to control one of the most harmful bacteria in the aquaculture industry. The whole genome sequence of the phage was sequenced on an Illumina MiSeq platform and is described here, presenting the first report of an isolated and sequenced phage that infects the marine bacterium Vibrio ordalii .

Organism information

Classification and features

The Vibrio phage vB_VorS-PVo5 belongs to the Siphoviridae, a family of double-stranded DNA viruses in the order Caudovirales, and forms ~2-mm diameter plaques when infecting V. ordalii type strain ATCC 33509.

The phage was isolated from macerated specimens of the mussel Perumytilus purpuratus, collected in the intertidal zone off the Antofagasta coast in Chile (23°42’00”S; 70°25’88”W). Transmission electron microscopy of purified phage particles (Fig. 1) revealed an icosahedral capsid (~85 nm diameter) and a distinguishable long tail (~150 nm length). The capsid encapsulates a linear double-stranded DNA genome of a length of 80,578 bp. An alignment of the DNA polymerase gene, a method commonly applied as a viral phylogenetic marker [22], demonstrated that vB_VorS-PVo5 phage clusters closely to (a) Vibrio phage pVp_1 GB JQ340389, a known predator of V. parahaemolyticus ATCC 33844 previously isolated from the Yellow Sea coast in Korea [23], and (b) Vibrio phage phi 3 GB AJF40879, associated with Vibrio cholerae 1051 and previously isolated in Russia (Fig. 2). All sequences were collected from NCBI and aligned using CLUSTALW [24]; the evolutionary analysis was inferred through the neighbor-joining method using MEGA6 [25] under auto settings.
Fig. 1

Transmission electron micrograph of Vibrio phage vB_VorS-PVo5. Scale bar = 200 nm

Fig. 2

Phylogenetic tree highlighting the relatedness between the Vibrio phage vB_VorS-PVo5 (shown in bold) and other viruses. The tree is based on aligned sequences of DNA polymerases over 50 % similarity by BLASTP, using the Bacillus phage SP10 as the outgroup. The DNA polymerase sequence is 863 aa in length. The bootstrap consensus was set to 1000 replicates

Genome sequencing information

Genome project history

The bacteriophage vB_VorS-PVo5 was selected for genome sequencing based on its potential as a biological control agent for the pathogenic bacterium Vibrio ordalii ; there are no previous reports describing the isolation and characterization of a lytic phage against this bacterium. The present study represents a first step towards better understanding the roles of bacteriophages in the ecology and virulence of V. ordalii and contributes to the limited data sets of vibriophage and podovirus genomes. All processes, including the isolation, multiplication, count and selection of phages, and their DNA extraction/purification were performed in the Laboratorio de Microbiología Costera at the University of Antofagasta (see following section for more details). The DNA sequencing and assembly was performed at the Molecular Research Laboratory MR-DNA (Shallowater, TX). The annotation and submission was performed in-house, using openly accessible informatics tools (see previous section for more details). The genome project was recorded in the NCBI database under the accession number PRJNA290661 and the genome annotation was deposited in GenBank under the accession number KT345706. A summary of the phage’s features is shown in Table 1 and detailed project information is given in Table 2.
Table 1

Classification and general features of Vibrio phage vB_VorS-PVo5

MIGS ID

Property

Term

Evidence codea

 

Classification

Domain: viruses, dsDNA viruses, no RNA phage

TAS [39]

  

Phylum: unassigned

 
  

Class: unassigned

 
  

Order: Caudovirales

TAS [39]

  

Family: Siphoviridae

TAS [39]

  

Genus: T5likevirus

TAS [39]

  

Species: unassigned

 
  

(Type) strain: vB_VorS-PVo5 (KT345706)

 
 

Particle shape

Icosahedral head with a long tail

IDA

 

Motility

non-motile

IDA

 

Sporulation

Not reported

IDA

 

Temperature range

14–28 °C

IDA

 

Optimum temperature

25 °C

IDA

 

pH range; Optimum

6.5–7.5

IDA

 

Carbon source

Host cell

IDA

MIGS-6

Habitat

Oceanic, coastal

IDA

MIGS-6.3

Salinity

35 % NaCl (w/v)

IDA

MIGS-22

Oxygen requirement

Facultative aerobic

IDA

MIGS-15

Biotic relationship

Obligate intracellular parasite of Vibrio ordalii

IDA

MIGS-14

Pathogenicity

Lytic virus of Vibrio ordalii

IDA

MIGS-4

Geographic location

Chile/Antofagasta

IDA

MIGS-5

Sample collection

Jan 25 2014

IDA

MIGS-4.1

Latitude

23.65 S

IDA

MIGS-4.2

Longitude

70.5 E

IDA

MIGS-4.4

Altitude

0 m

IDA

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 were obtained from the Gene Ontology project [40]

Table 2

Project information

MIGS ID

Property

Term

MIGS 31

Finishing quality

Complete

MIGS-28

Libraries used

 

MIGS 29

Sequencing platforms

Illumina Myseq

MIGS 31.2

Fold coverage

130

MIGS 30

Assemblers

NGEN (DNAstar)

MIGS 32

Gene calling method

PHAST server [29] Glimmer 2.1 [30]

 

Locus Tag

AEO54

 

Genbank ID

KT345706

 

GenBank Date of Release

November 03 2015

 

GOLD ID

Gp0120391

 

BIOPROJECT

PRJNA290661

MIGS 13

Source Material Identifier

Personal culture collection

 

Project relevance

Aquaculture

Growth conditions and genomic DNA preparation

The phage multiplication was performed applying the double-layer agar plates method [26, 27]. Vibrio ordalii cells (conc. 5E + 06 cells/mL) in the soft layer of Tryptone Soy Agar, (Oxoid, UK) were subjected to six serial dilutions (1:10–1:1000000) of phage and the lysis plaques formed were counted to determine the total number of phage. For the DNA extraction each of three plates were inoculated with 1000 PFU phage and incubated for 16 h at 25 °C. Viral particles were re-suspended in 4 mL phage buffer [28] and incubated for 4 h with intervals of gentle shaking at 30 min. Subsequently the supernatant was transferred into 15 mL falcon tubes, a 1 mL chloroform solution was added, gently shaken for 30 s and centrifuged at 5000 rpm for 5 min. The product was filtered through 0.22 μm nitrocellulose filters (Merck-Millipore, Germany) to eliminate bigger cells. For the elimination of all external genomic content, DNase I (Thermo-Fisher, Germany) and RNase-A (Thermo-Fisher, Germany) were added at a final concentration of 5 units mL−1 each, for an incubation time of 30 min at 37 °C. Subsequently the flocculant PEG-80 was added at a 4:10 ratio and incubated overnight at 4 °C. Viral particles were pelleted in a centrifugation step at 10000 × g for 1 h at 4 °C. The supernatant was removed, the pellet dried for ~5 min under a sterile hood, a 50 μl of 10 units mL−1 Proteinase K (Thermo-Fisher, Germany) and phage buffer mix added, and incubated at 50 °C for 30 min to inactivate nucleases. The genomic DNA of the vB_VorS-PVo5 phage was extracted with a Phage DNA Isolation Kit (Norgen Biotek Corp., Canada), and evaluated and quantified with a UV–VIS spectrophotometer (BioTek Epoch, USA). In order to confirm the type of nucleic acid extracted, the product was digested separately in 1 unit/mL DNAse I and RNAse A, respectively. DNAse I, as opposed to RNAse A, degraded the extract, confirming the organism to be a DNA-containing phage.

Genome sequencing and assembly

The genome was sequenced on an Illumina MiSeq platform at the MR-DNA Laboratory (Shallowater, TX). The library for each sample was prepared using a Nextera DNA Sample Preparation Kit (Illumina), following the manufacturer’s instructions. 2 × 130-bp paired-end reads allowed for an estimate of 50.000 output sequences of 287 bp length with 45,367 reads remaining after the quality filtering. The assemblage of quality-filtered reads was executed for the complete genome sequence, using the pipeline by MR-DNA and resulted in an average coverage of 130 fold. A single contig of 80,578 bp corresponding to the linear genome was assembled using NGEN (DNASTAR ®) by MR-DNA.

Genome annotation

The prediction of open reading frames and the comparative analysis were performed combining two methods: the PHAST server [29] and Glimmer 2.1 [30]. For the assignment of protein functions to ORFs a combination of an automatic and a manual method was used, i.e., the PHAST server and BLASTp against the NCBI non-redundant database. Only homologues with E-values <1e-5 were present in the annotations. The tRNA genes were searched using the tRNAscan-SE 1.21 tool [31] and TMHMM [32], and SignalP [33] were used to predict transmembrane helices and signal peptides, respectively.

Genome properties

The genome statistics are summarized in Table 3. The double-stranded and non-redundant DNA genome displayed a length of 80,578 bp with a G + C content of 40.55 %. A total of 10 tRNAs and 93 ORFs were identified, with no bacterial matches found. Putative functions of the identified ORFs were clustered by function [34], revealing DNA genes related to: metabolism (16), head/capsid proteins (7), phage tails (7), phage fibers and fiber assemblies (2), endolysin (1), and transcriptional regulation (1). The remaining 59 ORFs did not match any known function. The COG functional categories of identified genes are presented in Table 4, whereas the gene map is displayed in Fig. 3. The phylogenetic tree was constructed based on aligned sequences of DNA polymerases (Fig. 2). All sequences were collected from NCBI and aligned using CLUSTALW [24]; their evolutionary analysis was inferred through the neighbor-joining method using MEGA6 [25].
Table 3

Genome statistics

Attribute

Value

% of the Totala

Genome size (bp)

80,578

100.00

DNA coding (bp)

72,239

90.00

DNA G + C (bp)

32,674

40.55

DNA scaffolds

0

0.00

Total genes

103

100

Protein coding genes

93

90.29

RNA genes

10

9.71

Pseudo genes

0

0.00

Genes in internal clusters

0

0.00

Genes with function prediction

34

36.56

Genes assigned to COGs

33

35.49

Genes with Pfam domains

0

0.00

Genes with signal peptides

1

1.08

Genes with transmembrane helices

1

1.08

CRISPR repeats

1

-

aThe total is based on either the size of the genome in base pairs or the total number of protein-coding genes in the annotated genome

Table 4

Number of genes associated with general COG functional categories

Code

Value

% of Totala

Description

J

 

0

Translation, ribosomal structure and biogenesis

A

 

0

RNA processing and modification

K

1

1,08

Transcription

L

13

13,98

Replication, recombination and repair

B

 

0

Chromatin structure and dynamics

D

 

0

Cell cycle control, Cell division, chromosome partitioning

V

 

0

Defense mechanisms

T

 

0

Signal transduction mechanisms

M

 

0

Cell wall/membrane biogenesis

N

 

0

Cell motility

U

 

0

Intracellular trafficking and secretion

O

 

0

Posttranslational modification, protein turnover, chaperones

C

 

0

Energy production and conversion

G

 

0

Carbohydrate transport and metabolism

E

 

0

Amino acid transport and metabolism

F

1

1,08

Nucleotide transport and metabolism

H

 

0

Coenzyme transport and metabolism

I

 

0

Lipid transport and metabolism

P

 

0

Inorganic ion transport and metabolism

Q

 

0

Secondary metabolites biosynthesis, transport and catabolism

R

 

0

General function prediction only

S

59

63,44

Function unknown

-

1

1,08

Not in COGs

X

18

19,35

Mobilome: Prophage, Transposons

aThe total is based on the total number of protein coding genes in the genome

Fig. 3

Gene map of the Vibrio phage vB_VorS-PVo5

Insights from the genome sequence

Based on its morphological characteristics, the phage vB_VorS-PVo5 was attributed to the family of the Siphoviridae. Gene comparisons confirmed the relatedness to other members in the family. 93 ORFs code for proteins homologous to known phages, 82 of which show similarity with Vibrio phage pVp-1, (GenBank accession number JQ340389), indicating a close genetic relationship between these two phages (Fig. 4). The phylogenetic tree comparing DNA-Polymerase genes confirms this similarity, forming a robust cluster supported by high bootstrap values (Fig. 3), and therefore suggests a high degree of relatedness between vB_VorS-PVo5 and other Vibrio phages. A whole genome comparison of Vibrio phage vB_VorS-PVo5, and Vibrio phage pVp-1, was performed using the Artemis Comparison Tool [35]. Genomes were aligned by WebACT, using the default tblastx settings (E-value: 10e-4, genetic code: eubacterial). The ACT display was set to show homologous regions with BLAST scores of > 40, and a sequence similarity of >25 %.
Fig. 4

Whole genome comparison between Vibrio phage vB_VorS-PVo5 and Vibrio phage pVp_1. This figure was generated using the Artemis Comparison Tool (ACT)

Phage reproduction may involve either a lytic or a lysogenic cycle with some viruses being capable of performing both. In the lysogenic cycle the viral genome will integrate with host DNA and replicate along with it, whereas the lytic phage will destroy the host cell immediately after the replication, breaking bacterial cells open and allowing the phage progeny to find new hosts to infect. Due to quickly destroying the bacterial cells, lytic phages are more suitable for phage therapy, and the genes coding for the production of endolysin are the key evidence for the phage’s lytic characteristics [36, 37]. A BLASTP comparison of the endolysin sequences displayed a similarity of 94 % and 46 % with the Vibrio phage pVp-1 and Vibrio phage Phi-3, respectively. Furthermore, the enzyme destroys bacterial cell walls and has therefore been discussed for its use as an anti-infective to control pathogens [36, 38].

The specificity of the phage vB_VorS-PVo5 has been tested on Vibrio anguillarum , the most closely related species to Vibrio ordalii [8] and another Chilean strain of Vibrio ordalii , isolated from scallops, and whereas vB_VorS-PVo5 infected both Vibrio ordalii species it did not lyse Vibrio anguillarum . More research has to be done in order to test the effect of vB_VorS-PVo5 phage and its endolysin as a therapy, however, the fact that only Vibrio ordalii strains were lysed indicates that vB_VorS-PVo5 might be highly species specific and may therefore prove to be a very promising candidate for phage therapy against Vibrio ordalii .

Conclusions

Here we report for the first time on the isolation and genome sequencing of vB_VorS-PVo5 a novel phage that belongs to the family of the Siphoviridae and is capable of lysing the pathogen Vibrio ordalii ATCC 33509. The lytic character of the phage, together with the first indication of its specificity for Vibrio ordalii strains indicates the potential for its future use in aquaculture applications, controlling the pathogen either by using the phage or its endolysin.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Roberto Bastías for providing microbial strains. This work was funded by the following grants: Project CORFO FIC-R 13IDL2-18530 to RA, and Beca de Doctorado CONICYT FIC-R N°21092008 and Beca de Apoyo de Tesis, Programa de Doctorado en Ciencias Aplicadas, Mención Sistemas Marinos Costeros 2013–2014 to AE.

Authors’ contributions

AE conceived the study, participated in all samplings, performed sample preparation, conducted all molecular genetic studies and drafted the manuscript. PM participated in samplings, culture maintenance, sample preparation and molecular genetic studies. CS participated in samplings, culture maintenance, sample preparation and molecular genetic studies. JC assisted in drafting the manuscript. RA participated in the experimental design, coordinated the project and assisted in drafting the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. 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.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Programa de Doctorado en Ciencias Aplicadas, Mención Sistemas Marinos Costeros, Facultad de Ciencias del Mar y Recursos Marinos, Universidad de Antofagasta
(2)
Laboratorio de Microbiología Costera, Facultad de Ciencias del Mar y Recursos Biológicos, Universidad de Antofagasta
(3)
Instituto de Ciencias Naturales Alexander von Humboldt, Facultad de Ciencias del Mar y Recursos Biológicos, Universidad de Antofagasta

References

  1. Aravena G, Broitman B, Stenseth NC. Twelve years of change in coastal upwelling along the Central-Northern Coast of Chile: spatially heterogeneous responses to climatic variability. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(2):e90276.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Taylor MH, Wolff M. Trophic modeling of Eastern Boundary Current Systems: a review and prospectus for solving the “Peruvian Puzzle”. Rev Peru Biol. 2007;14:87–100.Google Scholar
  3. Neale P, Sobrino C, Segovia M, Mercado J, Leon P, Cortés M, Tuite P, Picazo A, Salles S, Cabrerizo M, Prasil O, Montecino V, Reul A, and Fuentes-Lema A. Effect of CO2, nutrients and light on coastal plankton. I. Abiotic conditions and biological responses. Aquat Biol. 2014;22:25–41.Google Scholar
  4. Leyton Y, Riquelme C. Vibrios en los sistemas marinos costeros. Rev Biol Mar Oceanogr. 2008;43:441–56.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Paillard C, Le Roux F, Borrego JJ. Bacterial disease in marine bivalves, a review of recent studies: trends and evolution. Aquat Living Resour. 2004;17(04):477–98.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Bohle H, Kjetil F, Bustos P, Riofrío A, Peters C. Fenotipo atípico de Vibrio ordalii, bacteria altamente patogénica aislada desde salmón del Atlántico cultivado en las costas marinas del sur de Chile. Arch Med Vet. 2007;39:43–52.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Muller M, Ilardi P, Avendaño-Herrera R. Eficacia de un desinfectante sobre Vibrio ordalii, Vibrio anguillarum, Francisella sp. y Virus de la necrosis Pancreática infecciosa (IPNV), patógenos de salmón del atlántico (Salmo salar) cultivado en Chile. Arch Med Vet. 2011;43(1):73–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Schiewe M, T. Trust, Crosa J. Vibrio ordalii sp. nov.: a causative agent of vibriosis in fish. Curr Microbiol. 1981;6(6):343–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Silva-Rubio A, Acevedo C, Magariños B, Jaureguiberry B, Toranzo A, Avendaño-Herrera R. Antigenic and molecular characterization of Vibrio ordalii strains isolated from Atlantic salmon Salmo salar in Chile. Dis Aquat Org. 2008;79(1):27–35.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Alderman DJ, Hastings TS. Antibiotic use in aquaculture: development of antibiotic resistance – potential for consumer health risks. Int J Food Sci Technol. 1998;33(2):139–55.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Romero J, Feijoo CG, Navarrete P. Antibiotics in aquaculture – use, abuse and alternatives. In: Gianmarco Silva D, Silva RJ, Carvalho E, editors. Health and environment in aquaculture. Vol. 1. Rijeka: InTech 40; 2012.Google Scholar
  12. Cabello FC. Antibióticos y acuicultura en Chile: consecuencias para la salud humana y animal. Rev Med Chil. 2004;132:1001–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Boyd CE, Massaut L. Risks associated with the use of chemicals in pond aquaculture. Aquac Eng. 1999;20(2):113–32.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Cabello FC. Heavy use of prophylactic antibiotics in aquaculture: a growing problem for human and animal health and for the environment. Environ Microbiol. 2006;8(7):1137–44.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Palmer AC, Angelino E, Kishony R. Chemical decay of an antibiotic inverts selection for resistance. Nat Chem Biol. 2009;6(2):105–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Foster PL. Stress-induced mutagenesis in bacteria. Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol. 2007;42(5):373–97.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Done HY, Halden RU. Reconnaissance of 47 antibiotics and associated microbial risks in seafood sold in the United States. J Hazard Mater. 2015;282:10–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Kutter EM, Kuhl SJ, Abedon ST. Re-establishing a place for phage therapy in western medicine. Future Microbiol. 2015;10(5):685–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Sarhan WA, Azzazy HM. Phage approved in food, why not as a therapeutic? Expert Rev Anti-Infect Ther. 2015;13(1):91–101.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Verbeken G, Huys I, Pirnay J-P, Jennes S, Chanishvili N, Scheres J, Chanishvili N, Scheres J, Górski A, De Vos D, and Ceulemans C. Taking bacteriophage therapy seriously: a moral argument. BioMed Res Int. 2014;2014:8.Google Scholar
  21. Keen EC, Adhya SL. Review of phage therapy: current research and applications. Clin Infect Dis. 2015. doi:10.1093/cid/civ257.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Chen F, Wang K, Huang S, Cai H, Zhao M, Jiao N, and Wommack KE. Diverse and dynamic populations of cyanobacterial podoviruses in the Chesapeake Bay unveiled through DNA polymerase gene sequences. Environ Microbiol. 2009;11(11):2884–92.Google Scholar
  23. Kim JH, Jun JW, Choresca CH, Shin SP, Han JE, Park SC. Complete genome sequence of a novel marine siphovirus, pVp-1, infecting vibrio parahaemolyticus. J Virol. 2012;86(12):7013–4.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Thompson JD, Higgins DG, Gibson TJ. CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Res. 1994;22(22):4673–80.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Tamura K, Stecher G, Peterson D, Filipski A, Kumar S. MEGA6: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 6.0. Mol Biol Evol. 2013;30(12):2725–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Gratia A. Numerical relations between lysogenic bacteria and particles of bacteriophage. Ann Inst Pasteur. 1936;57(652–676):72.Google Scholar
  27. Suttle CA, Chen F. Mechanisms and rates of decay of marine viruses in seawater. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1992;58(11):3721–9.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Boyle JM, Symonds N. Radiation-sensitive mutants of T4D I. T4y: A new radiation-sensitive mutant: Effect of the mutation on radiation survival, growth and recombination. Mutat Res Fundam Mol Mech Mutagen. 1969;8(3):431–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Zhou Y, Liang Y, Lynch KH, Dennis JJ, Wishart DS. PHAST: A Fast Phage Search Tool. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011. 37. Effantin, G., P. Boulanger, E. Neumann, L. Letellier, and J.F. Conway, Bacteriophage T5 structure reveals similarities with HK97 and T4 suggesting evolutionary relationships. Journal of Molecular Biology, 2006. 361(5): p. 993–1002.Google Scholar
  30. Delcher AL, Harmon D, Kasif S, White O, Salzberg SL. Improved microbial gene identification with GLIMMER. Nucleic Acids Res. 1999;27(23):4636–41.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Schattner P, Brooks AN, Lowe TM. The tRNAscan-SE, snoscan and snoGPS web servers for the detection of tRNAs and snoRNAs. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005;33 suppl 2:W686–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Krogh A, Larsson B, von Heijne G, Sonnhammer ELL. Predicting transmembrane protein topology with a hidden Markov model: application to complete genomes. J Mol Biol. 2001;305(3):567–80.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Petersen TN, Brunak S, von Heijne G, Nielsen H. SignalP 4.0: discriminating signal peptides from transmembrane regions. Nat Methods. 2011;8:785–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Lima-Mendez G, Toussaint A, Leplae R. Analysis of the phage sequence space: the benefit of structured information. Virology. 2007;365(2):241–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Carver TJ, Rutherford KM, Berriman M, Rajandream M-A, Barrell BG, Parkhill J. ACT: the Artemis Comparison Tool. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England). 2005;21(16):3422–3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Yang H, Yu J, Wei H. Engineered bacteriophage lysins as novel anti-infectives. Front Microbiol. 2014;5:542.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Wang I-N. Lysis timing and bacteriophage fitness. Genetics. 2006;172(1):17–26.38.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Fischetti VA. Bacteriophage endolysins: a novel anti-infective to control Gram-positive pathogens. Int J Med Microbiol. 2010;300(6):357–62.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  39. King AM, Adams MJ, Carstens EB, Lefkowitz EJ. Virus taxonomy: Ninth report of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. San Diego: Elsevier; 2012.Google Scholar
  40. shburner 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, and Sherlock G. Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nat Genet. 2000;25(1):25–9.Google Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2016