Open Access

High-quality draft genome sequence of nematocidal Bacillus thuringiensis Sbt003

  • Yingying Liu1,
  • Weixing Ye1,
  • Jinshui Zheng1,
  • Lei Fang1,
  • Donghai Peng1,
  • Lifang Ruan1 and
  • Ming Sun1Email author
Standards in Genomic Sciences20149:9030624

https://doi.org/10.4056/sigs.4738557

Published: 15 June 2014

Abstract

Bacillus thuringiensis represents one of the six species of “Bacillus cereus group” in the genus Bacillus within the family Bacillaceae. Strain Sbt003 was isolated from soil and identified as B. thuringiensis. It harbors at least seven plasmids and produces three shapes of parasporal crystals including oval, bipyramidal and rice. SDS-PAGE analysis of spore-crystal suspension of this strain reveals six major protein bands, which implies the presence of multiple parasporal crystal genes. Bioassay of this strain reveals that it shows specific activity against nematodes and human cancer cells. In this study, we report the whole genomic shotgun sequences of Sbt003. The high-quality draft of the genome is 6,175,670 bp long (including chromosome and plasmids) with 6,372 protein-coding and 80 RNA genes.

Keywords

The Next-Generation sequencing parasporal crystal protein Bacillus thuringiensis

Introduction

Bacillus thuringiensis, B. cereus, B. anthracis and other three species constitute the “Bacillus cereus group”, a nontaxonomic term, within the genus Bacillus and family Bacillaceae [1]. These species were classified as separate species mainly based on their distinct phenotypes, although extensive genomic studies on strains of these species using different techniques have suggested that they form a single species [25]. Strain Sbt003 belongs to the species B. thuringiensis. The type strain of the species produces one or more parasporal crystal proteins showing specific activity against certain larvae from various orders of insects [6]. The specific role and the abundant number of genes encoding of insecticidal crystal proteins of this species have attracted much attention from both academic and industrial researchers. Dozens of B. thuringiensis strains have been sequenced, and dozens more are on their way. In this study, we present a summary classification and a set of features for B. thuringiensis Sbt003, together with the description of the genomic sequencing and annotation.

Classification and features

B. thuringiensis strain Sbt003 harbors at least 7 plasmids and produces three different shapes of parasporal crystals including oval, bipyramidal and rice (Figure 1A, Figure 1B and Table 1). SDS-PAGE analysis of spore-crystal suspension of this strain reveals six major protein bands of 168.8, 148.5, 133.5, 117.2, 107.9 and 103.1 kDa, which implies the presence of multiple parasporal crystal genes (Figure 1C).
Figure 1.

General characteristics of Bacillus thuringiensis Sbt003.(A) Agarose gel electrophoresis of total DNA of Sbt003. Lane M, molecular mass standard, Lambda DNA/HindIII; Lane 1, Sbt003. (B) Phase contrast micrograph of Sbt003 sporulated culture. (C) SDS-PAGE analysis of crystal proteins of Sbt003. Lane M, molecular mass standard; Lane 1, Sbt003.

Table 1.

Classification and general features of B. thuringiensis Sbt003 according to the MIGS recommendations [7]

MIGS ID

Property

Term

Evidence codea

 

Current classification

Domain Bacteria

TAS [8]

 

Phylum Firmicutes

TAS [911]

 

Class Bacilli

TAS [12,13]

 

Order Bacillales

TAS [14,15]

 

Family Bacillaceae

TAS [14,16]

 

Genus Bacillus

TAS [14,17,18]

 

Species Bacillus thuringiensis

TAS [14,19]

 

Type strain HD73

 
 

Gram stain

Gram-positive

NAS

 

Cell shape

Rod-shaped

IDA

 

Motility

Motile

NAS

 

Sporulation

Spore-forming

IDA

 

Temperature range

Room temperature

NAS

 

Optimum temperature

28°C

IDS

 

Carbon source

Organic carbon source

NAS

 

Energy source

Organic carbon source

NAS

MIGS-6

Habitat

Soil

IDA

MIGS-6.3

Salinity

Salt tolerant

NAS

MIGS-22

Oxygen

Aerobic

NAS

MIGS-14

Pathogenicity

Avirulent

NAS

MIGS-4

Geographic location

Hubei, China

IDA

MIGS-4.1

Latitude

29–31N

 

MIGS-4.2

Longitude

111–114E

 

MIGS-4.3

Depth

5–10cm

 

MIGS-4.4

Altitude

About 35m

 

MIGS-5

Sample collection time

2000

IDA

a) Evidence 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 the Gene Ontology project [20].

A representative genomic 16S rDNA sequence of strain Sbt003 was searched against GenBank database using BLAST [21]. Sequences showing more than 97% identity to the 16S rDNA of Sbt003 were selected for phylogentic analysis, and a 16S rDNA sequence from B. subtilis subsp. subtilis str. 168 was used as the outgroup. Nine sequences were aligned with ClustalW algorithm. The tree was reconstructed using neighbor joining with the Kimura 2-parameter substitution model. The phylogenetic tree was assessed by bootstrapping 1,000 times, and the consensus tree is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2.

Neighbor-joining phylogenetic tree generated using MEGA 4 based on 16S rRNA sequences. The strains and their corresponding GenBank accession numbers (and, when applicable, draft sequence coordinates) for 16S rDNA sequences are: A, B. thuringiensis serovar konkukian str. 97-27 (AE017355.1): 9337–10763; B, B. thuringiensis BMB171 (CP001903): 9217–10643; C, B. subtilis subsp. subtilis str. 168 (NC_000964): 9839–11263; D, B. cereus ATCC 10987 (NC_003909): 9335–10761; E, B. anthracis str. ‘Ames Ancestor’ (NC_007530): 9335–10761; F, B. anthracis str. Sterne (NC_005945): 9336–10762; G, B. thuringiensis str. Al Hakam (NC_008600): 9336–10762; H, B. cereus ATCC 14579 (NC_004722): 28956–30382.

Genome sequencing and annotation

Genome project history

This organism was selected for sequencing due to its specific activity against nematodes and human cancer cells. The complete high quality draft genome sequence is deposited in GenBank. The Beijing Genomics Institute (BGI) performed the sequencing and NCBI staff used the Prokaryotic Genome Automatic Annotation Pipeline (PGAAP) to complete the annotation. A summary of the project is given in Table 2.
Table 2.

Genome sequencing project information

MIGS ID

Property

Term

MIGS-31

Finishing quality

High Quality Draft

MIGD-28

Libraries used

Two genomic libraries, one Illumina paired-end library (500 bp inserted size); one Illumina mate-pair library (2 kb inserted size)

MIGS-29

Sequencing platform

Illumina Hiseq 2000

MIGS-31.2

Sequencing coverage

488 ×

MIGS-30

Assemblers

SOAPdenovo 1.05 version

MIGS-32

Gene calling method

Glimmer and GeneMark

 

GenBank Data of Release

Pending

 

NCBI project ID

175950

 

Project relevance

Biotechnological

Growth conditions and DNA isolation

B. thuringiensis Sbt003 was grown in 50 mL Luria broth for 6 hours at 28°C. DNA was isolated by incubating the cells with lysozyme (10 mg/mL) in 2 mL TE (50 mM Tris base, 10 mM EDTA, 20% sucrose, pH8.0) at 4°C for 6 hours. 4 mL 2% SDS was added and the mixture was incubated at 55°C for 30 min; 2 mL 5M NaCl were added, and the mixture was incubated at 4°C for 10 min. DNA was purified by organic extraction and ethanol precipitation.

Genome sequencing and assembly

The genome of B. thuringiensis Sbt003 was sequenced using Illumina Hiseq 2,000 platform (with a combination of a 100-bp paired-end reads sequencing from a 500-bp genomic library and a 90-bp mate-paired reads sequencing from a 2-kb genomic library). Reads with average quality scores below Q30 or having more than 3 unidentified nucleotides were eliminated. Using SOAPdenovo 1.05 version, 22,295,588 paired-end reads (achieving 325 fold coverage [2.01 Gb]) and 11,166,312 mate-paired reads (achieving 163 fold coverage [1.00 Gb]) were assembled de novo [22]. The assembly is considered a high-guality draft and consists of 104 contigs arranged in 61 scaffolds with a total size of 6,175,670 bp. According to bioinformatic analysis, we identified two large plasmids belonging to ori44-type and repB-type plasmids, respectively. The former plasmid has two ori44-type replicons. We propose it represents a fusion of two plasmids and its estimated size is about 200 kb. The latter plasmid has an expected size of at least 90 kb, according to the sequence of contig0027, which is typical of repB-type plasmids (80 90 kb). In addition, we identified five other plasmids from the plasmid pattern (see Figure 1A). The expected sizes of the smaller three are 13 kb, 8kb and 4kb, respectively, while the sizes of the larger two can’t be deduced either from the plasmid pattern or by bioinformatic analysis.

Genome annotation

Genome annotation was completed using the Prokaryotic Genomes Automatic Annotation Pipeline (PGAAP). Briefly, protein-coding genes were predicted using a combination of GeneMark and Glimmer [2325]. Ribosomal RNAs were predicted by sequence similarity searching using BLAST against an RNA sequence database and/or using Infernal and Rfam models [26,27]. Transfer RNAs were predicted using tRNAscan-SE [28]. In order to detect missing genes, a complete six-frame translation of the nucleotide sequence was done and predicted proteins (generated above) were masked. All predictions were then searched using BLAST against all proteins from complete microbial genomes. Annotation was based on comparison to protein clusters and on the BLAST results. Conserved domain Database and Cluster of Orthologous Group information were then added to the annotation.

Genome Properties

The high-quality draft assembly of the genome consists of 104 contigs in 61 scaffolds, with an overall 35.21% G+C content. Of the 6,452 genes predicted, 6,372 were protein-coding genes, and 80 RNAs were also identified. The majority of the protein-coding genes (66.67%) were assigned a putative function while the remaining ones were annotated as hypothetical proteins (Table 3). The distribution of genes into COGs functional categories is presented in Table 4.
Table 3.

Genome Statistics

Attribute

Value

% of total

Genome size (bp)

6,175,670

100.00

DNA coding region (bp)

4,818,828

78.03

DNA G+C content (bp)

2,174,469

35.21

Number of scaffolds

61

-

Extrachromosomal elements

> 300 kb

> 4.86

Total genes

6,452

100.00

tRNA genes

70

1.08

rRNA genes

10

0.16

rRNA operons

0**

-

Protein-coding genes

6,372

98.76

Pseudo gene (Partial genes)

0 (49)

0 (0.76%)

Genes with function prediction (proteins)

4248

66.67%

Genes assigned to COGs

4,334

68.02%

Genes with signal peptides

437

6.86

CRISPR repeats

0

0

**none of the rRNA operons appears to be complete due to unresolved assembly problems.

Table 4.

Number of genes associated with the general COG functional categories

Code

Value

% age

Description

J

224

4.404

Translation, ribosomal structure and biogenesis

A

0

0.0

RNA processing and modification

K

485

9.536

Transcription

L

374

7.354

Replication, recombination and repair

B

1

0.020

Chromatin structure and dynamics

D

48

0.944

Cell cycle control, cell division, chromosome partitioning

Y

0

0

Nuclear structure

V

143

2.812

Defense mechanisms

T

225

4.424

Signal transduction mechanisms

M

254

4.994

Cell wall/membrane/envelope biogenesis

N

59

1.160

Cell motility

Z

1

0.020

Cytoskeleton

W

1

0.020

Extracellular structures

U

65

1.278

Intracellular trafficking, secretion, and vesicular transport

O

122

2.399

Posttranslational modification, protein turnover, chaperones

C

215

4.227

Energy production and conversion

G

310

6.095

Carbohydrate transport and metabolism

E

480

9.438

Amino acid transport and metabolism

F

109

2.143

Nucleotide transport and metabolism

H

156

3.067

Coenzyme transport and metabolism

I

140

2.753

Lipid transport and metabolism

P

309

6.076

Inorganic ion transport and metabolism

Q

124

2.438

Secondary metabolites biosynthesis, transport and catabolism

R

783

15.395

General function prediction only

S

458

9.005

Function unknown

 

2038

31.98

Not in COGs

The whole genomic sequence and the coding sequence of Sbt003 were analyzed by BtToxin_scanner [29], and eight potential crystal protein sequences were identified. Among these, four were considered to be full-length (locus tags: C797_02099, C797_12066, C797_12568 and C797_27783) while the others were considered to be truncated (Locus tags: C797_02094, C797_12046, C797_12061, C797_18417).

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by grants from the National High Technology Research and Development Program (863) of China (2011AA10A203), China 948 Program of Ministry of Agriculture (2011-G25), the National Basic Research Program (973) of China (2009CB118902), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31170047 and 31171901), and the Genetically Modified Organisms Breeding Major Projects of China (2009ZX08009-032B).

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
State Key Laboratory of Agricultural Microbiology, College of Life Science and Technology, Huazhong Agricultural University

Reference

  1. Vilas-Bôas GT, Peruca AP, Arantes OM. Biology and taxonomy of Bacillus cereus, Bacillus anthracis, and Bacillus thuringiensis. Can J Microbiol 2007; 53:673–687. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/W07-029View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Helgason E, Caugant DA, Lecadet MM, Chen Y, Mahillon J, Lovgren A, Hegna I, Kvaloy K, Kolsto AB. Genetic diversity of Bacillus cereus/B. thuringiensis isolates from natural sources. Curr Microbiol 1998; 37:80–87. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s002849900343View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Helgason E, Okstad OA, Caugant DA, Johansen HA, Fouet A, Mock M, Hegna I, Kolsto AB. Bacillus anthracis, Bacillus cereus, and Bacillus thuringiensis—one species on the basis of genetic evidence. Appl Environ Microbiol 2000; 66:2627–2630. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AEM.66.6.2627-2630.2000PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Ticknor LO, Kolsto AB, Hill KK, Keim P, Laker MT, Tonks M, Jackson PJ. Fluorescent amplified fragment length polymorphism analysis of Norwegian Bacillus cereus and Bacillus thuringiensis soil isolates. Appl Environ Microbiol 2001; 67:4863–4873. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AEM.67.10.4863-4873.2001PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Helgason E, Tourasse NJ, Meisal R, Caugant DA, Kolsto AB. Multilocus sequence typing scheme for bacteria of the Bacillus cereus group. Appl Environ Microbiol 2004; 70:191–201. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AEM.70.L191-201.2004PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Schnepf E, Crickmore N, Van Rie J, Lereclus D, Baum J, Feitelson J, Zeigler DR, Dean DH. Bacillus thuringiensis and its pesticidal crystal proteins. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 1998; 62:775–806. PubMedPubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Field D, Garrity G, Gray T, Morrison N, Selengut J, Sterk P, Tatusova T, Thomson N, Allen M, Angiuoli SV, et al. Towards a richer description of our complete collection of genomes and metagenomes “Minimum Information about a Genome Sequence” (MIGS) specification. Nat Biotechnol 2008; 26:541–547. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt1360PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.87.12.4576PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Gibbons NE, Murray RGE. Proposals Concerning the Higher Taxa of Bacteria. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1978; 28:1–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1099/00207713-28-1-1View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Garrity GM, Holt JG. The Road Map to the Manual. In: Garrity GM, Boone DR, Castenholz RW (eds), Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, Second Edition, Volume 1, Springer, New York, 2001, p. 119–169.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Murray RGE. The Higher Taxa, or, a Place for Everything…? In: Holt JG (ed), Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, First Edition, Volume 1, The Williams and Wilkins Co., Baltimore, 1984, p. 31–34.Google Scholar
  12. List of new names and new combinations previously effectively, but not validly, published. List no. 132. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2010; 60:469–472. http://dx.doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.022855-0
  13. Ludwig W, Schleifer KH, Whitman WB. Class I. Bacilli class nov. In: De Vos P, Garrity G, Jones D, Krieg NR, Ludwig W, Rainey FA, Schleifer KH, Whitman WB (eds), Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, Second Edition, Volume 3, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2009, p. 19–20.Google Scholar
  14. Skerman VBD, McGowan V, Sneath PHA. Approved Lists of Bacterial Names. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1980; 30:225–420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1099/00207713-30-1-225View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Prévot AR. In: Hauderoy P, Ehringer G, Guillot G, Magrou. J., Prévot AR, Rosset D, Urbain A (eds), Dictionnaire des Bactéries Pathogènes, Second Edition, Masson et Cie, Paris, 1953, p. 1–692.Google Scholar
  16. Fischer A. Untersuchungen über bakterien. Jahrbücher für Wissenschaftliche Botanik 1895; 27:1–163.Google Scholar
  17. Cohn F. Untersuchungen über Bakterien. Beitr Biol Pflanz 1872; 1:127–224.Google Scholar
  18. Gibson T, Gordon RE. Genus I. Bacillus Cohn 1872, 174; Nom. gen. cons. Nomencl. Comm. Intern. Soc. Microbiol. 1937, 28; Opin. A. Jud. Comm. 1955, 39. In: Buchanan RE, Gibbons NE (eds), Bergey’s Manual of Determinative Bacteriology, Eighth Edition, The Williams and Wilkins Co., Baltimore, 1974, p. 529–550.Google Scholar
  19. Berliner E. Über die Schlaffsucht der Mehlmottenraupe (Ephestia kuhniella Zell) und ihren Erreger Bacillus thuringiensis n. sp. Zeitschrift für angewandte Entomologie Berlin 1915; 2:29–56.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. 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. The Gene Ontology Consortium. Nat Genet 2000; 25:25–29. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/75556PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ. Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol 1990; 215:403–410. PubMedView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Li R, Zhu H, Ruan J, Qian W, Fang X, Shi Z, Li Y, Li S, Shan G, Kristiansen K, et al. De novo assembly of human genomes with massively parallel short read sequencing. Genome Res 2010; 20:265–272. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/gr.097261.109PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 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; 29:2607–2618. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/29.12.2607PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Delcher AL, Harmon D, Kasif S, White O, Salzberg SL. Improved microbial gene identification with GLIMMER. Nucleic Acids Res 1999; 27:4636–4641. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/27.23.4636PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Lukashin AV, Borodovsky M. GeneMark.hmm: new solutions for gene finding. Nucleic Acids Res 1998; 26:1107–1115. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/26.4.1107PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Griffiths-Jones S, Bateman A, Marshall M, Khanna A, Eddy SR. Rfam: an RNA family database. Nucleic Acids Res 2003; 31:439–441. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkg006PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Eddy SR. A memory-efficient dynamic programming algorithm for optimal alignment of a sequence to an RNA secondary structure. BMC Bioinformatics 2002; 3:18. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-3-18PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Lowe TM, Eddy SR. tRNAscan-SE: a program for improved detection of transfer RNA genes in genomic sequence. Nucleic Acids Res 1997; 25:955–964. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/25.5.0955PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Ye W, Zhu L, Liu Y, Crickmore N, Peng D, Ruan L, Sun M. Mining new crystal protein genes from Bacillus thuringiensis on the basis of mixed plasmid-enriched genome sequencing and a computational pipeline. Appl Environ Microbiol 2012; 78:4795–4801. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00340-12PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2014