Open Access

Genome sequence of Haemophilus parasuis strain 29755

  • Michael A. Mullins1,
  • Karen B. Register1Email author,
  • Darrell O. Bayles2,
  • David W. Dyer3,
  • Joanna S. Kuehn4 and
  • Gregory J. Phillips4
Standards in Genomic Sciences20115:5010061

https://doi.org/10.4056/sigs.2245029

Published: 15 October 2011

Abstract

Haemophilus parasuis is a member of the family Pasteurellaceae and is the etiologic agent of Glässer’s disease in pigs, a systemic syndrome associated with only a subset of isolates. The genetic basis for virulence and systemic spread of particular H. parasuis isolates is currently unknown. Strain 29755 is an invasive isolate that has long been used in the study of Glässer’s disease. Accordingly, the genome sequence of strain 29755 is of considerable importance to investigators endeavoring to understand the molecular pathogenesis of H. parasuis. Here we describe the features of the 2,224,137 bp draft genome sequence of strain 29755 generated from 454-FLX pyrosequencing. These data comprise the first publicly available genome sequence for this bacterium.

Keywords

Haemophilus parasuis Glässer’s disease swine

Introduction

H. parasuis is an obligate pathogen of swine [1]. The bacterium is often carried in the nasal passages [2], but not the lungs [3], of healthy pigs. Through unknown mechanisms some strains can spread systemically and may be isolated from the meninges, lungs, serosa, joints, and blood. H. parasuis strain 29755 (IA84-29755), though not the type strain, has been used extensively in a variety of investigations [48] and is the most fully characterized strain of the species. Originally cultured at Iowa State University from a pig exhibiting Glässer’s disease, 29755 is a serovar 5 isolate [9], a class recognized as highly virulent and frequently isolated from respiratory and systemic sites [9,10]. Of the 15 recognized serovars, serovar 5 strains are isolated more frequently worldwide than any other [11]. Strain 29755 has been used as a component of at least one commercially available H. parasuis vaccine (Suvaxyn M. hyo – parasuis, Fort Dodge Animal Health).

Classification and features

The genus Haemophilus belongs to the Gammaproteobacteria and is classified in the family Pasteurellaceae [12] (Table 1). A phylogenetic tree based on 16S ribosomal RNA sequences is depicted in Figure 1 for H. parasuis and related organisms.
Figure 1.

Phylogenetic tree based on 16S rRNA of H. parasuis 29755 and type strains of some closely related species and other genera within the Pasteurellaceae. Also included is the only additional H. parasuis strain for which a genome sequence has been reported, SH0165. The tree was generated with the tree-builder available from the Ribosomal Database Project[27] using the Weighbor (weighted neighbor-joining) algorithm [28] with Jukes-Cantor distance correction [29]. Numbers to the left of branches indicate the percentage of trees in which each branch was represented in 100 replicates. An E. coli type strain was used as an outgroup.

Table 1.

MIGS classification and general features of H. parasuis strain 29755.

MIGS ID

Property

Term

Evidence code

 

Current classification

Domain Bacteria

TAS [13]

 

Phylum Proteobacteria

TAS [14]

 

Class Gammaproteobacteria

TAS [15,16]

 

Order Pasteurellales

TAS [15,17]

 

Family Pasteurellaceae

TAS [18,19]

 

Genus Haemophilus

TAS [2022]

 

Species Haemophilus parasuis

TAS [20,23]

 

Strain 29755

 
 

Serotype 5

 
 

Gram stain

negative

TAS [1]

 

Cell shape

rods (pleomorphic)

TAS [1]

 

Motility

nonmotile

TAS [1]

 

Sporulation

non-sporulating

TAS [1]

 

Temperature range

mesophile (20°C–37°C)

TAS [12]

 

Optimum temperature

35°C–37°C

TAS [12]

 

Carbon source

saccharolytic

TAS [24]

 

Energy source

chemoorganotroph

TAS [24]

 

Terminal electron receptor

Oxygen

TAS [25]

MIGS-6

Habitat

Host, swine upper respiratory tract

TAS [1]

MIGS-6.3

Salinity

1–1.5%

TAS [12]

MIGS-22

Oxygen requirement

facultative

TAS [12]

MIGS-15

Biotic relationship

obligate pathogen of swine

TAS [1]

MIGS-14

Pathogenicity

mild to severe

TAS [1]

MIGS-4

Geographic location

Iowa

NAS

MIGS-5

Sample collection time

1970s

NAS

MIGS-4.1

Latitude

not reported

 

MIGS-4.2

Longitude

not reported

 

MIGS-4.3

Depth

not reported

 

MIGS-4.4

Altitude

not reported

 

Evidence codes - 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 [26]

H. parasuis is a small, non-motile, rod-shaped bacterium [1] (Figure 2). The presence of a capsule is variable and may affect colony and cellular morphology [30]. Growth of the bacterium in vitro is dependent on the coenzyme nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD, or V factor) [31] but, in contrast to some other members of the genus, does not require porphyrins like hemin (X factor) [32]. Plating on Casman Agar Base (BBL) supplemented with 1% (w/v) NAD (Sigma) and 5% GIBCO filtered horse serum (Invitrogen) or on chocolate agar produces small, translucent colonies that appear within 24 hours and reach full size in approximately two days. Colonies are nonhemolytic when grown on blood agar [1].
Figure 2.

Scanning electron micrograph of H. parasuis 29755

H. parasuis grows under normal atmosphere at 37°C, although added humidity and 5% CO2 may improve growth.

Genome sequencing and annotation

Genome project history

H. parasuis strain 29755 was selected for sequencing because it has long been used in the study of Glässer’s disease. Pyrosequencing (454 Life Sciences) was performed at the State University of New York, University at Buffalo Center of Excellence in Bioinformatics and Life Sciences. The draft genome sequence is deposited in GenBank (NZ_ABKM00000000). Summary project information is shown in Table 2 according to the Minimum Information about a Genomic Sequence (MIGS) recommendations [34] and the genome content is summarized in Table 3.
Table 2.

Genome sequencing project information

MIGS ID

Property

Term

MIGS-28

Libraries used

one 454 pyrosequence standard library

MIGS-29

Sequencing platforms

454 (FLX)

MIGS-30

Assemblers

Newbler

MIGS-31

Finishing quality

draft

MIGS-31.2

Fold coverage

28×

MIGS-32

Gene calling method

Glimmer, GeneMark [33]

 

Genome Database release

February 14, 2008

 

Genbank ID

NZ_ABKM00000000

 

Genbank Date of Release

February 14, 2008

 

GOLD ID

-

 

Project relevance

food animal pathogenesis

Table 3.

Genome statistics

Attribute

Value

% of totala

Size (bp)

2,224,137

100.0%

G+C content (bp)

867,413

39.0%

Coding region (bp)

1,890,516

85.0%

Total genes

2,309

100.0%

RNA genes

58

2.5%

Protein-coding genes

2,244

97.2%

Pseudogenes

noneb

0.0%

Genes in paralog clusters

ndc

-

Genes assigned to COGs

1,926

83.4%

PSORT cytoplasmic

1,181

50.4%

PSORT extracellular

5

0.2%

PSORT outer membrane

51

2.2%

PSORT periplasmic

52

2.2%

PSORT unknown

1,055

45.0%

a Based either on the size of the genome in base pairs or the total number of protein coding genes in the annotated genome

b Based on preliminary analysis the of draft genome

c nd = not determined

Growth conditions and DNA isolation

H. parasuis 29755 was grown from a frozen seed stock for two days under 5% CO2 at 37°C on Casman Agar Base (BBL) supplemented with 1% (w/v) NAD (Sigma) and 5% GIBCO filtered horse serum (Invitrogen). Following growth, a single colony was used to inoculate 5 ml of brain-heart infusion medium supplemented with 10 µg/ml NAD and 10 µg/ml hemin (sBHI) and the culture was incubated overnight at 37°C and 185 rpm. The next day, 2 ml of the culture were added to 100 ml of sBHI and the bacterium was again allowed to grow overnight to stationary phase at 37°C and 185 rpm. Bacterial cells were pelleted by centrifugation at 4000 × g for 10 minutes. The pellet was resuspended and used as the source of genomic DNA purified with the QIAGEN Blood & Cell Culture DNA Kit, as recommended by the manufacturer. The final preparation contained 1.12 µg/ul genomic DNA as determined by UV absorption spectrometry.

Genome sequencing and assembly

Library preparation yielded 9.65 × 108 molecules/µl of DNA with a mean size of approximately 600 nucleotides, as determined with a RNA6000 Pico chip on an Agilent 2100 Bioanalyzer. Emulsion PCR was performed at a concentration of 2 molecules per bead. Following sequencing, contigs were assembled using the 454 Newbler assembler.

Genome annotation

Genes were identified manually using GeneMark and automatically using Glimmer as part of the NCBI draft genome submission pipeline. Translated protein sequences were analyzed using PSORTb v.2.0 [35] to predict final location within the cell and assigned to COG functional categories (Table 4).
Table 4.

Number of genes associated with the general COG functional categories

Code

Value

%agea

Description

J

168

6.55

Translation

A

1

0.03

RNA processing and modification

K

127

4.96

Transcription

L

166

6.48

Replication, recombination and repair

B

0

0.00

Chromatin structure and dynamics

D

33

1.29

Cell cycle control, mitosis and meiosis

Y

0

0.00

Nuclear structure

V

32

1.25

Defense mechanisms

T

48

1.87

Signal transduction mechanisms

M

134

5.23

Cell wall/membrane biogenesis

N

16

0.62

Cell motility

Z

0

0.00

Cytoskeleton

W

24

0.94

Extracellular structures

U

75

2.93

Intracellular trafficking and secretion

O

101

3.94

Posttranslational modification, protein turnover, chaperones

C

115

4.49

Energy production and conversion

G

139

5.42

Carbohydrate transport and metabolism

E

175

6.83

Amino acid transport and metabolism

F

57

2.22

Nucleotide transport and metabolism

H

97

3.78

Coenzyme transport and metabolism

I

43

1.68

Lipid transport and metabolism

P

116

4.53

Inorganic ion transport and metabolism

Q

25

0.96

Secondary metabolites biosynthesis, transport and catabolism

R

234

9.13

General function prediction only

S

197

7.69

Function unknown

-

440

17.16

Not in COGs

a Based on the total number of protein coding genes in the annotated genome

Genome properties

The draft genome is 2,224,137 bp and is likely comprised of one circular chromosome with a G+C content of approximately 39% (Figure 3). For display, contigs were assembled end-to-end with twenty “N” bases between contigs. Orientation and order of contigs will change when the genome sequence is closed.
Figure 3.

Graphical circular map of the H. parasuis 29755 draft pseudogenome. From the outside to the center: open reading frames (ORFs) on the forward strand (one ring for each reading frame), start and stop codons for forward and reverse strands, ORFs on the reverse strand, GC content, and GC skew. The map was generated using CGView Server [36,37].

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank David Alt, USDA/ARS/National Animal Disease Center for technical advice and the State University of New York, University at Buffalo Center of Excellence in Bioinformatics and Life Sciences for performing pyrosequencing. This work was supported, in part, by grants from the NIH/NCRR (D.W. Dyer, Grant #P2PRR016478), National Pork Board (G.J. Phillips and D.W. Dyer) and Iowa Healthy Livestock Initiative (G.J. Phillips and K.B. Register).

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Virus and Prion Research Unit, USDA/Agricultural Research Service/National Animal Disease Center
(2)
Bacterial Diseases of Livestock Research Unit, USDA/Agricultural Research Service/National Animal Disease Center
(3)
Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center Biomedical Research Center
(4)
Department of Veterinary Microbiology and Preventive Medicine, Iowa State University College of Veterinary Medicine

References

  1. Rapp-Gabrielson VJ, Oliveira SR, Pijoan C. Haemophilus parasuis. In: Straw BE, Zimmerman JJ, D’Allaire S, Taylor DJ (eds), Diseases of Swine, Ninth Edition, Wiley-Blackwell, Ames, Iowa, 2006, p. 681–690.Google Scholar
  2. Harris DL, Ross RF, Switzer WP. Incidence of certain microorganisms in nasal cavities of swine in Iowa. Am J Vet Res 1969; 30:1621–1624. PubMedPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Little TW. Haemophilus infection in pigs. Vet Rec 1970; 87:399–402. PubMed doi:10.1136/vr.87.14.399View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Blanco I, Galina-Pantoja L, Oliveira S, Pijoan C, Sanchez C, Canals A. Comparison between Haemophilus parasuis infection in colostrums-deprived and sow-reared piglets. Vet Microbiol 2004; 103:21–27. PubMed doi:10.1016/j.vetmic.2004.06.011View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Sgales J, Domingo M, Solano GI, Pijoan C. Immunohistochemical detection of Haemophilus parasuis serovar 5 in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues of experimentally infected swine. J Vet Diagn Invest 1997; 9:237–243. PubMed doi:10.1177/104063879700900303View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Solano GI, Segalés J, Collins JE, Molitor TW, Pijoan C. Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSv) interaction with Haemophilus parasuis. Vet Microbiol 1997; 55:247–257. PubMed doi:10.1016/S0378-1135(96)01325-9View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Oliveira S, Galina L, Blanco I, Canals A, Pijoan C. Naturally-farrowed, artificially-reared pigs as an alternative model for experimental infection by Haemophilus parasuis. Can J Vet Res 2003; 67:146–150. PubMedPubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Solano-Aguilar GI, Pijoan C, Rapp-Gabrielson V, Collins J, Carvalho LF, Winkelman N. Protective role of maternal antibodies against Haemophilus parasuis infection. Am J Vet Res 1999; 60:81–87. PubMedPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Rapp-Gabrielson VJ, Gabrielson DA. Prevalence of Haemophilus parasuis serovars among isolates from swine. Am J Vet Res 1992; 53:659–664. PubMedPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Blackall PJ, Rapp-Gabrielson VJ, Hampson DJ. Serological characterisation of Haemophilus parasuis isolates from Australian pigs. Aust Vet J 1996; 73:93–95. PubMed doi:10.1111/j.1751-0813.1996.tb09984.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Oliveira S, Pijoan C. Haemophilus parasuis: new trends on diagnosis, epidemiology and control. Vet Microbiol 2004; 99:1–12. PubMed doi:10.1016/j.vetmic.2003.12.001View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kilian M. Genus III. Haemophilus. In: Garrity GM, Brenner DJ, Krieg NR, Staley JT (eds), Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, Second Edition, Volume Two, The Proteobacteria, Part B, Springer, New York, 2005, p. 883–904.Google Scholar
  13. Woese CR, Kandler O, Wheelis ML. Towards a natural system of organisms: proposal for the domains Archaea, Bacteria, and Eucarya. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1990; 87:4576–4579. PubMed doi:10.1073/pnas.87.12.4576PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Garrity GM, Bell JA, Lilburn T. Phylum XIV. Proteobacteria phyl. nov. In: Garrity GM, Brenner DJ, Krieg NR, Staley JT (eds), Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, Second Edition, Volume 2, Part B, Springer, New York, 2005, p. 1.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. List Editor. Validation of publication of new names and new combinations previously effectively published outside the IJSEM. List no. 106. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2005; 55:2235–2238. doi:10.1099/ijs.0.64108-0Google Scholar
  16. Garrity GM, Bell JA, Lilburn T. Class III. Gammaproteobacteria class. nov. In: Garrity GM, Brenner DJ, Krieg NR, Staley JT (eds), Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, Second Edition, Volume 2, Part B, Springer, New York, 2005, p. 1.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Garrity GM, Bell JA, Lilburn T. Order XIV. Pasteurellales ord. nov. In: Garrity GM, Brenner DJ, Krieg NR, Staley JT (eds), Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, Second Edition, Volume 2, Part B, Springer, New York, 2005, p. 850.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. List Editor. Validation List no. 7. Validation of the publication of new names and new combinations previously effectively published outside the IJSB. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1981; 31:382–383. doi:10.1099/00207713-31-3-382Google Scholar
  19. Pohl SPD. Dissertation, Phillips-Universität Marburg, 1979.Google Scholar
  20. Skerman VBD, McGowan V, Sneath PHA. Approved Lists of Bacterial Names. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1980; 30:225–420. doi:10.1099/00207713-30-1-225View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Winslow CEA, Broadhurst J, Buchanan RE, Krumwiede C, Rogers LA, Smith GH. The Families and Genera of the Bacteria: Preliminary Report of the Committee of the Society of American Bacteriologists on Characterization and Classification of Bacterial Types. J Bacteriol 1917; 2:505–566. PubMedPubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Zinnemann KS, Biberstein EL. Genus Haemophilus Winslow, Broadhurst, Buchanan, Krumwiede, Rogers and Smith 1917, 561. In: Buchanan RE, Gibbons NE (eds), Bergey’s Manual of Determinative Bacteriology, Eighth Edition, The Williams and Wilkins Co., Baltimore, 1974, p. 364–370.Google Scholar
  23. Biberstein EL, White DC. A proposal for the establishment of two new Haemophilus species. J Med Microbiol 1969; 2:75–78. PubMed doi:10.1099/00222615-2-1-75View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Fink DK, St. Geme JW, III. The Genus Haemophilus. In: Dworkin M, Falkow S, Rosenberg E, Schleifer K, Stackebrandt E. (eds), The Prokaryotes, A Handbook on the Biology of Bacteria: Proteobacteria: Gamma Subclass, Third Edition, Volume 6, Springer, New York, 2006, p. 1034–1061.Google Scholar
  25. Kroppenstedt RM, Mannheim W. Lipoquinones in members of the family Pasteurellaceae. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 1989; 39:304–308.Google Scholar
  26. Ashburner M, Ball CA, Blake JA, Botstein D, Butler H, Cherry JM, Davis AP, Dolinski K, Dwight SS, Eppig JT, et al. Gene Ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nat Genet 2000; 25:25–29. PubMed doi:10.1038/75556PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Ribosomal Database Project. http://rdp.cme.msu.edu/treebuilderpub/treeHelp.jsp
  28. Bruno WJ, Socci ND, Halpern AL. Weighted neighbor joining: a likelihood-based approach to distance-based phylogeny reconstruction. Mol Biol Evol 2000; 17:189–197. PubMedView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Som A. Theoretical foundation to estimate the relative efficiencies of the Jukes-Cantor+gamma model and the Jukes-Cantor model in obtaining the correct phylogenetic tree. Gene 2006; 385:103–110. PubMed doi:10.1016/j.gene.2006.03.027View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Morozumi T, Nicolet J. Morphological variations of Haemophilus parasuis strains. J Clin Microbiol 1986; 23:138–142. PubMedPubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Biberstein EL, Gunnarsson A, Hurvell B. Cultural and biochemical criteria for the identification of Haemophilus spp from swine. Am J Vet Res 1977; 38:7–11. PubMedPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Biberstein EL, Mini PD, Gills MG. Action of Haemophilus cultures on δ-aminolevulinic acid. J Bacteriol 1963; 86:814–819. PubMedPubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Lukashin AV, Borodovsky M. GeneMark.hmm: new solutions for gene finding. Nucleic Acids Res 1998; 26:1107–1115. PubMed doi:10.1093/nar/26.4.1107PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Field D, Garrity G, Gray T, Morrison N, Selengut J, Sterk P, Tatusova T, Thomson N, Allen MJ, Angiuoli SV, et al. The minimum information about a genome sequence (MIGS) specification. Nat Biotechnol 2008; 26:541–547. PubMed doi:10.1038/nbt1360PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Gardy JL, Laird MR, Chen F, Rey S, Walsh CJ, Ester M, Brinkman FS. PSORTb v.2.0: expanded prediction of bacterial protein subcellular localization and insights gained from comparative proteome analysis. Bioinformatics 2005; 21:617–623. PubMed doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/bti057View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Grant JR, Stothard P. The CGView Server: a comparative genomics tool for circular genomes. Nucleic Acids Res 2008; 36:W181–W184. PubMed doi:10.1093/nar/gkn179PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. CGView Server. http://stothard.afns.ualberta.ca/cgview_server/index.html

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2011