Figures
Abstract
The circumscription of bacterial species is a complex task. So far, DNA-DNA hybridization (DDH), 16S rRNA gene sequencing, and multiocus sequence typing analysis (MLSA) are currently the preferred techniques for their genetic determination. However, the average nucleotide identity (ANI) analysis of conserved and shared genes between two bacterial strains based on the pair-wise genome comparisons, with support of the tetranucleotide frequency correlation coefficients (TETRA) value, has recently been proposed as a reliable substitute for DDH. The species demarcation boundary has been set to a value of 95-96% of the ANI identity, with further confirmation through the assessment of the corresponding TETRA value. In this study, we performed a genome-wide MLSA of 14 phytopathogenic pseudomonads genomes, and assessed the ANI and TETRA values of 27 genomes, representing seven out of the nine genomospecies of Pseudomonas spp. sensu Gardan et alii, and their phylogenetic relationships using maximum likelihood and Bayesian approaches. The results demonstrate the existence of a well demarcated genomic cluster that includes strains classified as P. avellanae, P. syringae pv. theae, P. s. pv. actinidiae and one P. s. pv. morsprunorum strain all belonging to the single species P. avellanae. In addition, when compared with P. avellanae, five strains of P. s. pv. tomato, including the model strain DC3000, and one P. s. pv. lachrymans strain, appear as very closely related to P. avellanae, with ANI values of nearly 96% as confirmed by the TETRA analysis. Conversely, one representative strain, previously classified as P. avellanae and isolated in central Italy, is a genuine member of the P. syringae species complex and can be defined as P. s. pv. avellanae. Currently. The core and pan genomes of P. avellanae species consist of 3,995 and 5,410 putative protein-coding genes, respectively.
Citation: Scortichini M, Marcelletti S, Ferrante P, Firrao G (2013) A Genomic Redefinition of Pseudomonas avellanae species. PLoS ONE 8(9): e75794. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075794
Editor: Dawn Arnold, University of the West of England, United Kingdom
Received: July 11, 2013; Accepted: August 20, 2013; Published: September 25, 2013
Copyright: © 2013 Scortichini et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: The work was funded by the Italian Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forestry in the framework of the project ARDICA: “Azioni di ricerca e difesa al cancro batterico dell'Actinidia (Psa)”. No additional external funding was received for this study. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interest exist.
Introduction
A rapid and destructive decline of cultivated hazelnut (Corylus avellana L.) was first observed in northern Greece during the 1970s. Based on biochemical and nutritional tests, and a host range pathogenicity test, the bacterium responsible for the decline was named Pseudomonas syringae pv. avellanae and the disease was defined as bacterial canker of hazelnut [1]. The pathotype strain of the pathovar, namely BPIC631=NCPPB3487, was fully described and officially recognized some years later [2]. During the same period, a similar hazelnut disease was also observed in central Italy, and the causal agent was also identified as P. s. pv. avellanae [3]. Based on 16S rRNA gene sequence and fatty acid analyses, the causal agent of the bacterial canker of hazelnut in Greece and Italy was subsequently elevated to the species level and named P. avellanae [4]. A thorough DNA-DNA hybridization (DDH) study then confirmed P. avellanae as a distinct genomospecies, namely genomospecies 8, within the P. syringae species complex and some other phytopathogenic pseudomonads [5]. Genomospecies 8 also includes P. s. pv. theae [5], and P. s. pv. actinidiae, as subsequently pointed out [6,7]. However, molecular fingerprinting analyses using repetitive-sequence PCR [8] and classical tests such as the production of fluorescent pigments onto culture media [9] showed some clear differences between the P. avellanae populations found in Greece and Italy, and these differences were considered to be representative of the variability of the species. Therefore, two different lineages belonging to the same species were recognized and retained as originating separately [10] but evolving similarly to infect cultivated hazelnut trees [11].
An in-depth multilocus sequence typing (MLST) analysis (MLSA), based on fragments of the housekeeping genes gapA, gltA, gyrB and rpoD, and performed with many strains causing hazelnut bacterial canker isolated in Greece and Italy again placed all the previously classified P. avellanae strains into the P. syringae species complex. In particular, all the strains from Greece grouped into phylogroup 1, whereas the strains isolated in Italy were placed or into this phylogroup or into phylogroup 2 [11]. This reinstatement into the P. syringae species complex as pv. avellanae caused bona fide confusion with regard to naming the strains of the causal agent of hazelnut bacterial canker. In fact, although relevant taxonomic studies and/or reviews continue to confirm and treat P. avellanae as a distinct bacterial species [12,13,14,15], several other relevant studies aimed at comparing phytopathogenic bacteria and/or inferring evolutionary relationships among them, have followed the MLSA analysis of Wang et al. [11] and refer to two P. s. pv. avellanae phylogroups [16,17,18,19,20].
The circumscription of bacterial species is indeed a difficult task [21,22,23]. To date, DDH, 16S rRNA gene sequence analyses and comparison and MLSA analysis are the preferred techniques for genetically determining bacterial species. However, each of these techniques has some basic limitations including the impossibility of assembling cumulative databases based on DDH, the low variability and conservative nature of 16S rRNA genes not allowing sufficient resolution to infer clear taxonomic relationships, and putative bias in the selection of genes for the MLSA [24]. Recently, the average nucleotide identity (ANI) analysis of conserved and shared genes between two bacterial strains based on pair-wise genome comparisons [25], with support of the tetranucleotide frequency correlation coefficients (TETRA) value, has been proposed as a new standard for prokaryotic species definition [24] and is receiving wide acceptance. A genome assessment inferred using ANI well represented the degree of evolutionary distance between the compared genomes and an ANI value of 94% was proposed for replacing the classical DDH value of 70% for species demarcation [25]. A more extensive study largely confirmed the reliability of such an analysis and noted a slightly narrower boundary of 95% identity for the consistent substitution of the DDH value of 70% [26]. However, in confirming the robustness of the ANI analysis, Richter and Rosselló-Móra, set the species demarcation boundary at a value of 95-96% identity, and suggested further confirmation by the assessment of the TETRA value [24].
In this study, in addition to an MLSA based on seven housekeeping genes and maximum likelihood and Bayesian approaches, a genome wide phylogenetic analysis and consensus networks were performed with 14 genomes of phytopathogenic pseudomonads. Moreover, we analyzed the genome of 29 strains belonging to Pseudomonas spp. representing seven out of nine genomospecies sensu Gardan et al. [5] using the ANI analysis and the assessment of the TETRA values, for: a) clarifying the taxonomic relationships between the two Pseudomonas lineages associated with hazelnut bacterial canker in Greece and Italy (i.e., phylogroups 1 and 2), and b) to verify their genomic relationship within the genomospecies 8 and other genomospecies of phytopathogenic pseudomonads.
We revealed the existence of a well-demarcated P. avellanae species that also includes strains classified as P. syringae pv. theae, P. s. pv. actinidiae and one P. s. pv. morsprunorum strain. As the TETRA values confirmed the findings all such strains could putatively belong to P. avellanae. In addition, when compared to P. avellanae, five strains of P. s. pv. tomato, including the model strain DC3000, and one P. s. pv. lachrymans strain, showed ANI values very close to 96% which was confirmed by the TETRA analysis. Finally, one representative strain, previously classified as P. avellanae sensu Janse et al. [4] and isolated in central Italy, is, conversely, a genuine member of the P. syringae species complex and can be identified as P. s. pv. avellanae.
Results
Genome-wide sequence data and bacterial strains
We generated second generation sequence data from five Pseudomonas strains, namely P. avellanae BPIC631 (type-strain of the species), P. avellanae CRAFRUEC1, P. syringae pv. theae NCPPB2598 (type-strain of the pathovar) and P. s. pv. syringae CRAFRU11 and CRAFRU12 (isolated from C. avellana). The genome size of the five strains was within the range of the previously sequenced and published P. syringae draft genomes (i.e., approximately 6 Mb). The main genomic features of the draft genomes are shown in Table 1. The sequences of the assemblies were deposited in NCBI GenBank under the following accession numbers: P. avellanae BPIC631=ATDK00000000; P. avellanae CRAFRUEC1=ATLL00000000; P. s. pv. theae NCPPB2598=ATDJ00000000; P. s. pv. syringae CRAFRU11=ATSU00000000 and P. s. pv. syringae CRFRU12=ATSV00000000. The bacterial strains and the respective accession numbers of their genomes utilized in this study are shown in Table 2.
| PaveBPIC631 | PaveCRAFRUec1 | PthNCPPB2598 | PsyCRAFRU11 | PsyCRAFRU12 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. reads | 5,823,418 | 13,639,825 | 11,607,142 | 3,381,518 | 3,350,210 |
| No. contig | 612 | 547 | 532 | 180 | 248 |
| N50 (nt) | 29,502 | 16,957 | 26,279 | 81.543 | 50.660 |
| Average contig size (nt) | 9,743 | 10,486 | 11,607 | 32.552 | 23.925 |
| Total size (nt) | 5,963,015 | 5,736,089 | 6,210,320 | 5,859,499 | 5,933,506 |
| G+C content (%) | 58.5 | 59.0 | 58.6 | 59.1 | 59.4 |
| Calculated genome coverage | 42 | 118 | 181 | 25 | 27 |
Table 1. General features of draft genomes for the new sequenced Pseudomonas strains.
| Strain | Strain code | Accession No. | Genomospecies |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae | PsyB728a | NC_007005 | 1 |
| Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae | PsyCRAFRU11 | ATSU00000000 | 1 |
| Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae | PsyCRAFRU12 | ATSV00000000 | 1 |
| Pseudomonas syringae pv. aceris | PsacM302273 | AEA000000000 | 1 |
| Pseudomonas syringae pv. pisi | Ppi1704B | AEAI00000000 | 1 |
| Pseudomonas syringae pv. avellanae | PsaveCRAPAV013 | AKCJ00000000 | 1 |
| Pseudomonas syringae pv. aesculi | Psae2250 | ACXT00000000 | 2 |
| Pseudomonas syringae pv. glycinea | PgyRace4 | ADWY00000000 | 2 |
| Pseudomonas syringae pv. mori | Pmo301020 | AEAG00000000 | 2 |
| Pseudomonas syringae pv. phaseolicola | Pph1448A | NC_005773, NC_007274, NC_007275 | 2 |
| Pseudomonas savastanoi | PsvNCPPB3335 | ADMI02000000 | 2 |
| Pseudomonas syringae pv. lachrymans | PlaM302278 | AEAM00000000 | 2 |
| Pseudomonas syringae pv. morsprunorum | PmpM302280 | AEAE00000000 | 3 |
| Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato | PtoDC3000 | NC_004578, NC_004632, NC_004633 | 3 |
| Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato | PtoT1 | ABSM00000000 | 3 |
| Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato | PtoMax13 | ADFZ00000000 | 3 |
| Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato | PtoTK40 | ADFY00000000 | 3 |
| Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato | PtoNCPPB1108 | ADGA00000000 | 3 |
| Pseudomonas syringae pv. oryzae | Por1_6 | ABZR00000000 | 4 |
| Pseudomonas viridiflava | PvirUASWS0038 | AMQP00000000 | 6 |
| Pseudomonas avellanae | PaveBPIC631 | ATDK00000000 | 8 |
| Pseudomonas avellanae | PaveCRAFRUec1 | ATLL00000000 | 8 |
| Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae | PanNCPPB3739 | AFTH00000000 | 8 |
| Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae | PanNCPPB3871 | AFTF00000000 | 8 |
| Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae | PanCRAFRU8.43 | AFTG00000000 | 8 |
| Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae | PanM302091 | AEAL00000000 | 8 |
| Pseudomonas syringae pv. theae | PthNCPPB2598 | ATDJ00000000 | 8 |
| Pseudomonas cannabina pv. alisalensis | PcalBS91 | Taxon ID 2516653056* | 9 |
| Pseudomonas fluorescens | PfA506 | NC_017911 | |
| Pseudomonas putida | PpuUW4 | NC_019670 |
Table 2. Bacterial strain, strain code, genome accession number and genomospecies sensu Gardan et al. [5] regarding the Pseudomonas strains used in this study.
Phylogeny based on MLSA
A ML and a Bayesian phylogenetic trees of the concatenated DNA sequences of seven housekeeping genes, namely argS, dnaQ, gltA, gyrB, recA, rpoB and rpoD (a total of 6,579 nucleotides) of 27 phytopathogenic pseudomonads representative of seven genomospecies sensu Gardan et al. [5] and two Pseudomonas spp. used as outgroups are shown in Figure 1 and Figure S1. Both trees revealed the presence of a cluster composed by two well-defined subclusters, including Pseudomonas members of genomospecies 2 and 3 (P. s. pv. lachrymans and P. s. pv. tomato, respectively) and 8 (P. avellanae, P. s. pv. theae, and P. s. pv. actinidiae) in addition to P. s. pv. morsprunorum M302280 putatively belonging to genomospecies 3. The significance of such clustering is very high in both trees. The strains representative of the species P. s. pv. oryzae, P. viridiflava and P. cannabina pv. alisalensis resulted well distinct from the above described clusters (Figure 1 and Figure S1). The corresponding phylogenetic trees constructed using amino acid alignment and ML and Bayesian approaches after alignment with a hidden Markov model (i.e., a concatenation of 2,193 amino acid sequences) were substantially similar to those based on DNA sequences (Figure 2, Figure S2). In this case, both trees also significantly revealed very close relationships between the strains of genomospecies 3 and 8 and the location of P. s. pv. morsprunorum M302280 within genomospecies 8. Remarkably, the Bayesian tree also showed P. s. pv. tomato and P. s. pv. lachrymans embedded within the strains of genomospecies 8 (Figure 2).
The phylogenetic tree was constructed using 6,579 concatenated nucleotides of seven housekeeping genes (argS, dnaQ, gltA, gyrB, recA, rpoB and rpoD) with bootstrap values greater than 65 per cent (1,000 replicates) shown at the nodes. The phylogenetic relationships were inferred using the maximum likelihood (ML) method and the GTR + I + G as the best model with the PHYLIP package. Strain members of genomospecies 8 (P. avellanae) sensu Gardan et al. [5], including also P. s. pv. morsprunorum M302280, are shown in red, whereas strain members of genomospecies 2 (P. s. pv. lachrymans M302278) and 3 (P. s. pv. tomato) are in blue. P. fluorescens A506 and P. putida UW4 were included as outgroups.
The phylogenetic tree was constructed using 2,193 concatenated amino acid of seven housekeeping genes (argS, dnaQ, gltA, gyrB, recA, rpoB and rpoD) with bootstrap values (100,000 generations) shown at the nodes. Strain members of genomospecies 8 (P. avellanae) sensu Gardan et al. [5], including also P. s. pv. morsprunorum M302280, are shown in red, whereas strain members of genomospecies 2 (P. s. pv. lachrymans M302278) and 3 (P. s. pv. tomato) are in blue. P. fluorescens A506 and P. putida UW4 were included as outgroups. To note that strains of genomospecies 2 and 3 are embedded into strains of genomospecies 8. The interior node values of the tree are clade credibility values based on the posterior credibility values produced by MrBayes.
The split network based on the concatenated alignment of 6,579 nucleotides provided a significant and very similar phylogenetic analysis when compared to the PhyML and Bayesian trees (Figure 3a and 3b). In fact, the strains of genomospecies 3 and 8 and P. s. pv. morsprunorum M302280 clustered together albeit into two separate subclusters. In addition, the strains of genomospecies 1 and 2 clustered separately, with P. s. pv. oryzae, P. viridiflava and P. c. pv. cannabina again appearing as separate taxa from the other genomospecies.
A) Strains of genomospecies 3 (P. s. pv. tomato) and 2 (P. s. pv. lachrymans) and genomospecies 8 (P. avellanae, P. s. pv. actinidiae, P. s. pv. theae) sensu Gardan et al. [5] as well as P. s. pv. morsprunorum M30228, clustered apart from the other representative strains of genomospecies 1, 4, 6 and 9. Bootstraps values higher than 65% are shown.
B) Particular of the split network of Figure 5A regarding strains of Pseudomonas avellanae species and the closely-related P. syringae pv. tomato and P. s. pv. lachrymans strains. Bootstraps values higher than 65% are shown.
Genome-wide phylogeny
The ML tree of the concatenated protein sequences of 1,920 genes (for a total of 612,057 amino acids) in 14 phytopathogenic pseudomonads representative of five genomospecies sensu Gardan et al. [5] is shown in Figure 4a. The tree revealed the presence of well-defined clusters containing: a) the members of genomospecies 1 (P. s. pv. syringae and P. s. pv. avellanae CRAPAV 013); b) members of genomospecies 2 (P. s. pv. lachrymans) and 3 (P. s. pv. tomato); and c) members of genomospecies 3 (P. s. morsprunorum) and 8 (P. avellanae, P. s. pv. theae and P. s. pv. actinidiae). P. cannabina pv. alisalensis BS91 (genomospecies 9) clustered separately. The relatively long distances between the clusters and the high bootstrap values support the notion that the above-described clusters represent distinct evolutionary lineages.
a) Maximum likelihood tree showing the phylogenetic relationships between strain of P. avellanae species (in red) with strains of P. s. pv. tomato/P. s. pv. lachrymans, P. s. pv. syringae/P. s. pv. avellanae and P. cannabina pv. alisalensis; b) split network tree showing a tree-like structure indicating the absence of systematic error in the definition of strain clusters; c) consensus network showing the strictly connected evolutionary history of strains of genomospecies 3 (P. s. pv. tomato and P. s. pv. morsprunorum) and 8 (P. avellanae) sensu Gardan et al. [5].
This concatenation includes a large fraction of the genome thus providing sequences that are long enough to overcome sampling error. Nonetheless, the robustness of the phylogenetic reconstruction might not be easily evaluated even with 100% non parametric bootstrap support [27], as the latter is a statistical technique designed to prevent sampling error and not systematic error [28]. Consequently, an assessment of the robustness of the phylogenetic reconstruction was obtained from the split network shown in Figure 4b, which reveals that the partition of the strains into clusters is substantially tree-like, thus indicating the absence of systematic error in the definition of the strain clusters.
With reference to the strain composition of the individual clusters, we observed a limited, yet detectable presence of contradictory phylogenetic signals associated with complex (i.e., nonbifurcating) evolutionary histories of the individual strains. The lack of full congruence of the individual gene phylogenies, likely due to the role that horizontal DNA transfer from other relatives had in shaping the evolution of the individual strains, was additionally highlighted by a consensus network. Figure 4c shows the consensus network obtained with a cutoff of 0.1 (i.e., showing the edges that occur in a proportion of the gene trees higher than 10%). Therefore, in more than 10% (i.e., 192 trees) cases, the branching order among P. s. pv. morsprunorum, P. avellanae and P. s. pv. actinidiae/P. s. pv. theae is different from that displayed in the ML tree of Figure 4a, highlighting the strictly connected and ongoing evolutionary history of the strains of genomospecies 3 and 8.
Average nucleotide identity (ANI) and tetranucleotide frequency correlation coefficients (TETRA) analysis
The five newly sequenced genomes, together with those of another 22 phytopathogenic Pseudomonas spp. representative of seven of the nine genomospecies described by Gardan et al. after DDH assessment [5], and two Pseudomonas spp., namely P. fluorescens A506 and P. putida UW4 used as outgroups, were cross-compared to reveal their total similarities in terms of the amount of sequence identity. The ANI value calculations, based on the MUMmer alignment of each sequence pair, are reported in Table 3 and Table S1. A graphical representation of the analysis obtained using R statistic-based software is shown in Figure 5. ANI analysis has recently been proposed as a new standard for inferring robust taxonomic relationships between bacterial species based on genome comparison and it has been assumed that values of 95% or 95-96% for ANI correspond to the 70% of the DDH reassociation value for demarcating bacterial species.
| PaveBPIC631 | PthNCPPB2598 | PanNCPPB3739 | PanNCPPB3871 | PanCRAFRU8.43 | PanM302091 | PmpM302280 | PlaM302278 | PtoDC3000 | PtoK40 | PtoMax13 | PtoT1 | PtoNCPPB1108 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PaveBPIC631 | — | 97,59 | 97,63 | 97,62 | 97,60 | 97,70 | 97,83 | 95,92 | 95,86 | 95,83 | 95,84 | 95,79 | 95,78 |
| PthNCPPB2598 | 97,61 | — | 98,94 | 98,94 | 98,91 | 98,96 | 98,06 | 95,80 | 95,75 | 95,74 | 95,74 | 95,73 | 95,72 |
| PanNCPPB3739 | 97,67 | 98,95 | — | 99,92 | 99,51 | 99,92 | 98,04 | 95,78 | 95,69 | 95,68 | 95,66 | 95,61 | 95,69 |
| PanNCPPB3871 | 97,64 | 98,92 | 99,89 | — | 99,46 | 99,91 | 98,02 | 95,77 | 95,66 | 95,66 | 95,64 | 95,60 | 95,66 |
| PanCRAFRU8.43 | 97,60 | 98,91 | 99,49 | 99,48 | — | 99,52 | 97,98 | 95,73 | 95,72 | 95,67 | 95,65 | 95,64 | 95,64 |
| PanM302091 | 97,71 | 98,96 | 99,89 | 99,89 | 99,52 | — | 98,04 | 95,75 | 95,72 | 95,68 | 95,66 | 95,66 | 95,68 |
| PmpM302280 | 97,83 | 98,05 | 98,02 | 98,02 | 97,96 | 98,04 | — | 95,87 | 95,84 | 95,84 | 95,86 | 95,80 | 95,78 |
| PlaM302278 | 95,91 | 95,79 | 95,77 | 95,76 | 95,72 | 95,75 | 95,87 | — | 99,28 | 98,91 | 98,93 | 98,91 | 98,97 |
| PtoDC3000 | 95,86 | 95,76 | 95,68 | 95,66 | 95,70 | 95,71 | 95,84 | 99,29 | — | 98,85 | 98,85 | 98,83 | 98,91 |
| PtoK40 | 95,83 | 95,75 | 95,67 | 95,65 | 95,68 | 95,68 | 95,85 | 98,91 | 98,83 | — | 99,81 | 99,75 | 99,77 |
| PtoMax13 | 95,84 | 95,74 | 95,66 | 95,64 | 95,64 | 95,66 | 95,86 | 98,93 | 98,83 | 99,80 | — | 99,74 | 99,76 |
| PtoT1 | 95,80 | 95,73 | 95,62 | 95,61 | 95,65 | 95,66 | 95,82 | 98,94 | 98,86 | 99,75 | 99,79 | — | 99,73 |
| PtoNCPPB1108 | 95,78 | 95,73 | 95,68 | 95,66 | 95,64 | 95,68 | 95,79 | 98,96 | 98,90 | 99,76 | 99,76 | 99,73 | — |
Table 3. Average nucleotide identity (ANI) values calculated between genomes of 13 Pseudomonas strains belonging to genomospecies 3 and 8 sensu Gardan et al. [5].
The figure shows the ANI analysis values of Pseudomonas avellanae species (P. avellanae, P. s. pv. actinidiae, P. s. pv. theae and P. s. pv. morsprunorum M302280), with P. s. pv. tomato (strains DC3000, T1, Max13 and K40), P. s. pv. lachrymans (M302278) and P. s. pv. avellanae (CRAPAV013).
We found that the strains of P. avellanae, P. s. pv. theae, and P. s. pv. actinidiae (genomospecies 8) displayed ANI values that were consistently higher than 97.5% in any reciprocal comparison. The four P. s. pv. actinidiae strains showed ANI values that were always higher than 99% in intrapathovar comparison. Remarkably, P. s. pv. morsprunorum M302280 showed ANI values that were consistently higher than 97.8% when compared to the strains of genomospecies 8. In addition, P. s. pv. tomato strains DC3000, NCPPB1108, T1, Max13 and K40 and P. s. pv. lachrymans M302278 showed ANI values comprised between 95 and 96% in any reciprocal comparison with strains of genomospecies 8 and P. s. pv. morsprunorum M302280 (Table 3 and Figure 5). Conversely, the Pseudomonas strain CRAPAV013, which was previously known as ISPaVe013, isolated in central Italy in 1992 from a hazelnut tree showing bacterial canker disease, and initially identified as P. syringae pv. avellanae [3], yet later reclassified as P. avellanae [4], showed ANI values lower than 88% when compared to the strains of genomospecies 8. In contrast, CRAPAV013 showed ANI values higher than 95.5% when compared to the P. syringae strains of genomospecies 1 (Table S1). The ANI analysis revealed also values higher than 97.7% in any reciprocal comparison for the strains of genomospecies 2, whereas the ANI values ranged from 95.3% (P. s. pv. aceris M302273 versus P. s. pv. pisi 1704B) to 98.6% (P. s. pv. aceris M302273 versus P. s. pv. syringae B728a) for strains belonging to genomospecies 1. The strains representative of genomospecies 4, 6, and 9, namely P. s. pv. oryzae 1.6, P. viridiflava UASWS0038 and P. c. pv. alisalensis BS91, respectively and the outgroups P. fluorescens A506 and P. putida UW4 showed ANI values lower than 88.2% when reciprocally compared to the other genomospecies strains (Table S1). Concerning the close relationships found for the strains of genomospecies 3 and 8, the TETRA analysis confirmed the results obtained with the ANI analysis, with values that were always higher than 0.997 in any reciprocal comparison, (Table 4). This analysis was intended to verify whether an alignment-free genomic feature can be used to circumscribe bacterial species [24].
| PaveBPIC631 | 0,99831 | 0,99802 | 0,99836 | 0,99846 | 0,99826 | 0,99855 | 0,99805 | 0,99745 | 0,99802 | 0,99804 | 0,99789 | 0,99791 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PthNCPPB2598 | 0,99930 | 0,99946 | 0,99908 | 0,99954 | 0,99929 | 0,99911 | 0,99844 | 0,99921 | 0,99932 | 0,99935 | 0,99920 | |
| PanNCPPB3739 | 0,99987 | 0,99918 | 0,99957 | 0,99902 | 0,99883 | 0,99801 | 0,99881 | 0,99888 | 0,99894 | 0,99889 | ||
| PanNCPPB3871 | 0,99918 | 0,99964 | 0,99914 | 0,99886 | 0,99825 | 0,99884 | 0,99893 | 0,99899 | 0,99893 | |||
| PanCRAFRU8.43 | 0,99902 | 0,99899 | 0,99863 | 0,99793 | 0,99870 | 0,99859 | 0,99851 | 0,99857 | ||||
| PanM302091 | 0,99947 | 0,99938 | 0,99828 | 0,99928 | 0,99937 | 0,99927 | 0,99942 | |||||
| PmpM302280 | 0,99935 | 0,99804 | 0,99908 | 0,99912 | 0,99891 | 0,99908 | ||||||
| PlaM302278 | 0,99872 | 0,99968 | 0,99968 | 0,99947 | 0,99966 | |||||||
| PtoDC3000 | 0,99870 | 0,99861 | 0,99878 | 0,99864 | ||||||||
| PtoK40 | 0,99995 | 0,99983 | 0,99988 | |||||||||
| PtoMax13 | 0,99988 | 0,99988 | ||||||||||
| PtoT1 | 0,99979 | |||||||||||
| PtoNCPPB1108 |
Table 4. Tetranucleotide frequency correlation coefficients (TETRA) values calculated for 13
Pseudomonas strains genomes belonging to genomospecies 3 and 8 sensu Gardan et al. [5], and including also P. s. pv. morsprunorum M302280.
The core and the pan genome of Pseudomonas avellanae species
The core genome consists of the number of genes found in all the sequenced strain genomes of a species, whereas the pan genome comprises the sum of the core genome and genes of the “flexible” genome (i.e., unique genes that are present in different strains of the species and are typically acquired through lateral gene transfer) [29,30]. We applied an analysis solely to the strains which that showed ANI values clearly higher than 96%. We defined the core genome for the seven strains of the species P. avellanae, as defined here by phylogenetic and non-phylogenetic genome analyses, as 3,995 putative protein-coding genes (Figure 6). Each strain exhibited a relatively small set of unique genes comprising the pan genome of the species with 5,410 ORFs (Figure 7). The overall percentage of strain-specific genes varied considerably ranging from 0.6% (P. s. pv. actinidiae NCPPB3871) to 11.9% (P. s. pv. morsprunorum 302280). The pan genome of the species, based on the seven strains here assessed, would seem similar, in terms of CDSs number, to that of the P. syringae species complex which was inferred with 19 strains infecting a vast array of plant species and consisting of 12,829 CDSs [31].
Each strain is represented by an oval that is colored according to the current and traditional strain determination. The number of orthologous coding sequences (CDSs) shared by all strains (i.e., the core genome) is in the center (i.e., 3,995). Numbers in the non-overlapping portions of each oval show the number of CDSs unique to each strain.
The P. avellanae pan genome consists of 5,410 ORFs. The graphic shows also the total putative proteins and protein family number found for each strain.
The type III secretion system effector proteins
A comparison of the effector repertoires of the seven strains of P. avellanae species based on the complete dataset of effector proteins identified in 19 P. syringae as assessed by Baltrus et al. [31], revealed a core set of 14 putative effector genes that are conserved in all strains (Figure 8). In addition, each pathovar belonging to the species complex showed a unique set of effector proteins. The effector hopM1, present in all seven strains of P. avellanae, provides evidence for the pathogenic differentiation of the strains of the P. avellanae species complex from P. s. pv. tomato and P. s. pv. lachrymans. In fact, Baltrus et al. [31] found a recombination event at the hopM1 locus that split the strains of clade I (P. s. pv. actinidiae, P. s. pv. morsprunorum, P. s. pv. tomato and P. s. pv. lachrymans) into two clearly separated groups: P. s. pv. actinidiae M302091-P. s. pv. morsprunorum M302280 and P. s. pv. tomato DC3000-P. s. pv. lachrymans 106.
The diagram is based on the comparison of the same complement of other sequenced plant pathogenic pseudomonads and showing full identity in the reciprocal comparison. The effector proteins conserved among the seven strains are indicated in the centre of the diagram.
Discussion
The technical and conceptual definition of bacterial species continues to be uncertain representing a challenging task [32,33]. Currently, a prokaryotic species is defined as “a category that circumscribes a genomically coherent groups of individual strains sharing a high degree of similarity in independent features, comparatively tested under highly standardized conditions” [34]. Whole-genome DDH has traditionally been considered the gold standard in bacterial taxonomy, with a bacterial species (genomospecies) including strains with approximately 70% or greater DNA-DNA relatedness and with 5°C or less ΔTm [35]. However, due to its high cost, low reproducibility and, mainly, for the impossibility of generating cumulative databases, DDH has been largely replaced by 16S rRNA gene sequencing and comparison even though the latter technique is not deemed a suitable candidate to fully replace DDH [36]. A technical definition indicates that a prokaryotic species is considered as “a group of strains characterized by a certain degree of phenotypic consistency and showing 70% of DNA-DNA binding and over 97% of 16S rRNA gene-sequence identity” [23]. Within phytopathogenic pseudomonads, Gardan et al. [5], by performing an extensive DDH assessment of many P. syringae pathovars, delineated a robust classification based on nine discrete genomospecies. However, according to the international taxonomic rules, a genomospecies should be named formally only when phenotypic characters are available to differentiate them [35]. Since Gardan et al. [5] did not find out reliable phenotypic traits (i.e., carbon source assimilation) to clearly distinguish all nine genomospecies, they could officially describe only two species (i.e., Pseudomonas cannabina, P. tremae). Consequently, most of such genomospecies still have to formally be described.
However, several studies have shown that the sequencing of a single, highly conserved gene, such as the 16S rRNA gene, fails to intercept the true genome-wide divergence between two strains [24,37,38]. More recently, the analysis of several (i.e., four to seven) housekeeping genes or of their fragments, MLSA, was recommended as the primary approach for substituting DDH [22,23]. This technique is now widely used for inferring phylogenetic relationships among bacterial strains and/or single genes in their genomes. However, from a strict taxonomic standpoint, MLSA has some limitation mainly represented by putative bias in the gene selection for the analysis [24].
The advent of genomic has begun to provide complete or draft bacterial genomes that can easily be retrieved from public databases. Based on the opportunity offered by the availability of large gene datasets, MLSA could be extended to a relevant part of the genome, minimizing the gene selection bias and sampling error [39,40]. In the search of criteria to consistently replace DDH and the other techniques by exploiting genomic data, average nucleotide identity (ANI) analysis has been proposed [25,26,41] and validated for the reliable demarcation of bacterial species using a non-phylogenetic approach [24,42]. The boundary for species delineation inferred via ANI is currently set between 95 and 96%, which corresponds to the 70% of the DDH analysis, though a group-specific finer calibration appears to be desirable [24]. In this work, we performed a study to investigate the taxonomic relationships among some phytopathogenic pseudomonads through the extensive application of MLSA and by employing ANI analysis.
We clarified the taxonomic position of a group of strains that are genomically very closely related to each other, constructing a tight and coherent phylogenetic cluster showed ANI values higher than 97.5% and high TETRA scores in all reciprocal comparisons; therefore these strains should belong to the same species. The presence of more than one single and well-characterized biological entity within the species revealed the existence of a complex and phytopathologically diversified species. In fact, we found that P. avellanae, BPIC631 (type-strain), the causal agent of hazelnut bacterial canker in Greece, P. syringae pv. theae NCPPB2598, (type-strain) the causal agent of bacterial tea shoot blight in Japan and P. syringae pv. actinidiae (type-strain and other three strains), the causal agents of Actinidia spp. bacterial canker worldwide, are included in the boundary of the species. According to a DDH study performed by Gardan et al. on P. syringae pathovars and on a subsequent molecular and genomic typing, these phytopathogens all belong to genomospecies 8 [5,6,43]. Of note one P. s. pv. morsprunorum strain, namely M302280, included in our analysis, showed ANI and TETRA values and phylogenetic grouping that consistently suggested its inclusion within the species P. avellanae. However, this pathovar shows an evident genetic variability and two races of the pathogen (race 1 and 2) are clearly distinguishable by means of classical biochemical tests and repetitive-sequence PCR and MLSA [44,45,46]. Therefore, the possibility that these two races represent two distinct pathogens cannot be ruled out. The DDH study of Gardan et al. [5] placed two P. s. pv. morsprunorum strains, namely CFBP2116 (race 1) and NCPPB2995 (race 2 and the pathotype strain of the pathovar), into genomospecies 2 and 3, respectively. Unfortunately, we do not know whether M302280 corresponds to one of these strains. In addition, the transfer of P. s. pv. morsprunorum as a whole into P. avellanae requires further studies using a larger number of representative strains.
Our study also clearly noted that one Pseudomonas strain, isolated from a hazelnut tree showing bacterial canker disease in central Italy, which was originally identified as P. syringae pv. avellanae [3], and later reclassified as P. avellanae [4] does not belong to the species P. avellanae species as outlined in this paper but rather to the genomospecie 1 sensu Gardan et al. [5] of the P. syringae species complex. In fact, genome analyses indicated that this strain is phylogenetically strictly related to other P. s. pv. syringae strains, with ANI values higher than 95% resulting from the comparison with P. syringae pvs syringae B728a, aceris M302273 and pisi 704B. Thus, our study also partly reconciles previous investigations based on MLSA that actually treated the two P. avellanae lineages as belonging to separate phylogroups of the P. syringae species complex [11]. Based on the present study, strains of the phylogroup 1 sensu Wang et al. [11] should now be retained within P. avellanae, whereas CRAPAV013=ISPaVe013 (i.e., phylogroup 2) and, most probably the related strains isolated from hazelnut trees in central Italy, are genuine P. syringae pv. avellanae strains. It should be stressed that in central Italy have been repeatedly isolated, from hazelnut trees showing symptoms of bacterial canker, both P. avellanae and P. s. pv. avellanae as revealed in the present study (i.e., strain CRAFRUEC1) and in previous paper [11].
The phylogenetic analysis performed using with wide-genome data of 1,920 proteins and using ML and a Bayesian approaches with the assessment of both concatenated nucleotide and amino acid sequences belonging to seven housekeeping genes, were all congruent with the ANI and TETRA analysis and with the discussed results. Additionally, recent studies, based on a single housekeeping gene, namely rpoD, or on MLSA of concatenated nucleotide or protein sequences, recently noted the close relationships between P. avellanae BPIC631, P. s. pv. theae NCPPB2598, different strains of P. s. pv. actinidiae, and P. s. pv. morsprunorum NCPPB2995 and M302280 [18,20,47].
Within this context, the assessment of type III effector protein repertoires provided interesting perspectives. In fact, we found both a putative core repertoire of 14 effector proteins and unique effectors for each of the four pathovars in the P. avellanae cluster. The effector hopM1, which is present in all seven strains differentiated the P. s. pv. actinidiae-P. s. pv. morsprunorum strains from the P. s. pv. tomato-P. s. pv. lachrymans strains due to a putative recombination event occurred in the effector locus [31]. It is tempting to speculate that such an event could be involved in the pathogenic specialization of the strains and their consequential taxonomic separation.
The ANI and TETRA analyses, in strict agreement with the phylogenetic analyses, also indicated the close relationships of the five strains of P. s. pv. tomato (genomospecies 3), including DC3000, and one strain of P. s. pv. lacrhymans (genomospecies 2) with the strains of the P. avellanae In fact, all these strains showed ANI values very close to 96%. Richter and Rosselló-Móra [24] established that the species boundary for a robust demarcation of bacterial species is 95-96% using ANI values, and the phylogenetic analysis confirmed such very close relationships. In particular, the Bayesian tree built with the concatenated amino acid sequences revealed that P. s. pv. tomato and P. s. pv. lachrymans strains are embedded within the strains of the P. avellanae species. In this regard, other studies have outlined the close phylogenetic relationships between such strains with the strains of P. avellanae species [18,20,47]. A further and relevant confirmation of the strong relationships between members of the P. avellanae species and strains of genomospecies 3 and P. s. pv. lachrymans can be inferred through the comparison of the core/pan genomes of 19 P. syringae strains by Baltrus et al. [31]. These authors found that the strains of clade I, containing P. s. pv. actinidiae 302091, P. s. pv. morsprunorum 302280, P. s. pv. tomato DC3000 and T1, and P. s. pv. lachrymans 106 clustered apart from the other two P. syringae clades. In addition, this clade, composed by a few strains, contained the highest number of core genes in comparison to the core genomes of the wo larger clades. Whether P. s. pv. tomato and P. s. pv. lachrymans are divergent members of P. avellanae or whether they represent a closely related species deserve further evaluation.
In conclusion, this study demonstrated the existence of a distinct cluster of strains that represent the nucleus of the species P. avellanae. A nomenclatural revision of this taxon should be postponed for the availability of further genomic data that could clarify the position of the strains currently classified as P. s. pv. morsprunorum. The revision should be also elaborated within the overall context of the nomenclatural revision of the P. syringae species complex, to coherently address the issued posed by the strict relationships between the strain clusters. Due to the priority rules according to the International Code of Nomenclatura of Bacteria [48,49], the taxonomic revision of the P. syringae species complex may result in the need for name changes that may be confounding and should, therefore, be attempted with caution [50].
Materials and Methods
Library preparation and genome sequencing
Bacterial genomic DNA was extracted from 1 ml of overnight P. avellanae BPIC631 and CRAFRU EC1, P. s. pv. theae NCPPB2598, P. s. pv. syringae CRAFRU11 and CRAFRU12 cultures grown in KB broth DNA using a Wizard DNA purification kit (Promega Italia, Padova, Italy) following the manufacturer’s instructions. The identification of P. avellanae CRAFRUEC1 and P. s. pv. syringae CRAFRU 11 and 12 was achieved using well established techniques [8,51]. DNA was measured and checked for quality using a NanoDrop (NanoDrop products, Wilmington, DE, USA). A total of 10 mg of DNA from each sample was fragmented by incubation for 70 min with 5 ml of dsDNA Fragmentase (New England Biolabs, MA, USA). The reaction was stopped with EDTA and purified using a QIAquick PCR purification kit (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany). The eluate was end repaired using an End Repair kit (New England Biolabs, MA, USA) for 30 min at 20µC. The end-repaired DNA was Atailed for 30 min at 37µC using a d-A Tailing kit (New England Biolabs, MA, USA). After purification using the MinElute purification kit (QIAGEN), the DNA was ligated using Quick T4 DNA ligase (New England Biolabs) to 500 pmol of Illumina adaptors that had been previously annealed by heating at 98µC for 3 min and then slowly cooling to 16µC in a thermocycler. After further purification using the MinElute purification kit (QIAGEN), 1 ml of each reaction was quantified by labelling with biotin, spotted on nitrocellulose after a serial dilution, and detected using an anti-biotin-AP conjugate (Roche Diagnostics, Monza, Italy) following manufacturer’s instructions. Equal amounts of DNA from samples were pooled together and size fractionated by 2% MS-6 agarose (Conda, Madrid, Spain) gel electrophoresis in TAE buffer at 120 V for 60 min. Gel slices containing DNA in the 400 to 600 bp estimated range were cut and purified using QIAquick gel extraction kit (QIAGEN) and used for sample preparation according to the protocol for genomic DNA sequencing using the Illumina HiSeq2000 (Illumina, USA). The samples were run at the Istituto di Genomica Applicata (Udine, Italy).
Sequencing, assembly, and annotation
Paired reads were assembled into contigs using the de novo (i.e. without using a reference genome) assembly option of the CLC genomic workbench (CLC-bio, Aarhus, Denmark) by setting the default parameters. Contigs sequences were scanned for ORFs by GLIMMER, version 3.02[52]. which had been previously trained on the complete genome sequences of P. s. pv. tomato DC3000 (NC_004578.1, i.e. Pto DC3000), P. s. pv. phaseolicola 1448A (NC_005773.3, i.e. Pph 1448A), and P. s. pv. syringae B728a (NC_007005.1, i.e. Psy B728a). The putative proteins were annotated against the RefSeq database using a PERL script for recursive BLASTX searches. Additional genome sequence analyses was performed with the aid of the software packages MUMmer 3.0 [53] and MAUVE [54]. Several ad hoc PERL scripts were developed to assist the comparison of genome sequence drafts and their putative protein complement with respect to P. avellanae, P. s. pv. theae and P. s. pv. syringae strains, and P. s. pv. tomato DC3000, P. s. pv. phaseolicola 1449A and P. s. pv. syringae B728a.
Average Nucleotide Identity (ANI) and tetranucleotide frequency correlation coefficients (TETRA) analysis
The analysis of sequences for the determination of their relatedness according to the Average Nucleotide Identity (ANI) and tetranucleotide frequency correlation coefficients (TETRA) were performed with the software JSpecies [24]. The analysis regarded 27 genomes belonging to seven out of nine genomospecies sensu Gardan et al. [5]. Due to absence of genomes in databank, strains of genomospecies 5 and 7 were not analysed. In addition, P. fluorescens A506 and P. putida UW4 were included into the assessment as outgroups (see also Table 2). ANI was calculated using algorithms obtained with the data structure named suffix tree and the MUMmer algorithm implementation [53]. TETRA was used as an alignment-free genomic similarity index as oligonucleotide frequencies carry a species-specific signal. The use of a tetranucleotide usage pattern has been shown to be a good compromise between signal strength and need computational power [24]. Pairwise comparison between genomes is performed by plotting the corresponding tetranucleotide frequency and then obtaining a regression line A graphic representation of the pair-wise relationships between members of P. avellanae species has been obtained by using an R statistic software [55].
Phylogeny based on MLSA
In order to evaluate the evolutionary relationships of the 27 phytopathogenic Pseudomonas spp strains, we built five phylogenetic trees. P. fluorescens A506 and P. putida UW4 strains were used as outgroups. Maximum Likelihood (ML) and the Bayesian method analysis were performed with both nucleotide and amino acids sequences using seven housekeeping genes (argS, dnaQ, gltA, gyrB, recA, rpoB and rpoD), for a total of 6,579 nt and 2,193 aa, respectively. ML analysis was inferred with with PhyML version 3.0 [56], with 1,000 bootstrap replicates, whereas for the Bayesian method we used MrBayes version 3.2.1 [57] with 100,000 generations. To select the best fit model for ML and Bayesian trees, we used the jModelTest [58] and ProtTest [59]. GTR + I + G and Dayoff + G + F were used as best substitution models for nucleotide and amino acids, respectively. The four trees were visualized using FigTree software, version 1.1.2 (http://tree.bio.ed.ac.uk/software/figtree/). In addition, a split network tree, based on concatenation of 6,579 nucleotides from 27 phytopathogenic pseudomonads and P. fluorescens A506 and P. putida UW4 strains as outgroups, was built using the neighbor-joining (NJ) algorithm with the Hamming distance method, obtained using the Splits-Tree software [27]. Bootstrap analysis with 1,000 replications was performed by using the same software.
Genome wide phylogeny
A data set containing ortholog alignment was prepared using a multistep procedure based on several ad hoc Perl scripts. First, the predicted protein sequences of all genomes were analyzed for the identification superfamilies of homologs by a procedure based on reciprocal smallest distance algorithm [60]. Subsequent application of the branch clustering algorithm BranchClust [61], allowed delineation of families of orthologs within superfamilies containing one or more paralogous gene families. The families were then selected, excluding those that did not comprise one protein per each genome or that contained more than one protein for at least one genome, those that did not pass a quality check (i.e. with a mean < 0.7 or a standard deviation < 0.05 in the identity values calculated between all pairs of proteins) and those that contained at least one sequence comprising more than 4% of the positions as internal indels. In total, 1,920 protein sequence alignments, spanning 612,057 amino acid sites, were selected for phylogenetic analysis. Such criteria were also used to point out the core and pan genome of P. avellanae species. The trees from each individual DNA sequence alignments were obtained by recursively running PhyML [56] using LC as a substitution model and Nearest Neighbor Interchange (NNI) for tree topology estimate. From the 1,920 protein sequence alignment ML trees, a consensus network was obtained with SplitTree4, using a mean network construction [27]. These networks display edges that occur in a proportion of the gene trees higher than a threshold value. Thus, the presence of reticulation in the network indicates contradictory evidence for grouping [28].
The putatively coded protein sequences were also concatenated to obtain a single large alignment that was submitted to ML analysis with PhyML [56] using LC as a substitution model. Tree topologies were estimated using the better topology obtained using Nearest Neighbor Interchange (NNI) or Subtree Pruning and Regrafting (SPR). The support of the data for each internal branch of the phylogeny was estimated using non-parametric bootstrap with 100 replicated. The number of polymorphic sites analyzed was 59,308. Concatenated gene sequence data were also analyzed using split networks with the aid of the software SplitTree4 [27]. Split networks are used to represent incompatible and ambiguous signals in a data set. The split network used here (i.e., NeighborNet) [62] was computed from ML protein distance estimates using an equal angle algorithm [63] and is depicted as a tree with additional edges, so that the distance between two taxa is equal to the length of the shortest path connecting them. It is therefore capable of highlighting taxa relationships that are not tree-like.
Core and pan genome of P. avellanae species
The data set containing ortholog alignments, prepared as described above in the section “genome wide phylogenetic analysis”, was used for the selection of shared versus specific genes among the seven strains here described as P. avellanae. Concerning the pan genome, for the ORFs assembly we have selected the families as obtained from the genome wide analysis and additionally showing > 60% length hit.
Supporting Information
Figure S1.
Bayesian phylogenetic tree showing relationships among representative strains of phytopathogenic Pseudomonas species and P. syringae pathovars. The phylogenetic tree was constructed using 6,579 concatenated nucleotides of seven housekeeping genes (argS, dnaQ, gltA, gyrB, recA, rpoB and rpoD) with bootstrap values (100,000 generations) shown at the nodes. Strain members of genomospecies 8 (P. avellanae) sensu Gardan et al. [5], including also P. s. pv. morsprunorum M302280, are shown in red, whereas strain members of genomospecies 2 (P. s. pv. lachrymans M302278) and 3 (P. s. pv. tomato) are in blue. P. fluorescens A506 and P. putida UW4 were included as outgroups. The interior node values of the tree are clade credibility values based on the posterior credibility values produced by MrBayes.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075794.s001
(TIF)
Figure S2.
Phylogenetic relationships among representative strains of phytopathogenic Pseudomonas species and P. syringae pathovars. The phylogenetic tree was constructed using 2,193 concatenated amino acid sequences with bootstrap values greater than 65 per cent (1000 replicates) shown at the nodes. The phylogenetic relationships were inferred using the maximum likelihood (ML) method and the Dayoff + G + F as the best model with the PHYLIP package. Strain members of genomospecies 8 (P. avellanae) sensu Gardan et al. [5], including also P. s. pv. morsprunorum M302280, are shown in red, whereas strain members of genomospecies 2 (P. s. pv. lachrymans M302278) and 3 (P. s. pv. tomato) are in blue. P. fluorescens A506 and P. putida UW4 were included as outgroups.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075794.s002
(TIF)
Table S1.
Average nucleotide identity (ANI) values calculated between genomes of 20 representative Pseudomonas strains belonging to genomospecies 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 9 sensu Gardan et al. [5], and P. fluorescens A506 and P. putida UW4 as outgroups. Values higher than 95% are in boldface. The ANI values of P. avellanae species strains and P. s. pv. tomato DC3000 and P. s. pv. lachrymans M32278 are also pointed out in grey.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075794.s003
(DOCX)
Author Contributions
Conceived and designed the experiments: MS GF. Performed the experiments: SM GF PF MS. Analyzed the data: SM MS GF. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: MS SM GF. Wrote the manuscript: MS GF.
References
- 1. Psallidas PG, Panagopoulos CG (1979) A bacterial canker of Corylus avellana in Greece. Phytopath Z 94: 103-111. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0434.1979.tb01540.x.
- 2. Psallidas PG (1993) Pseudomonas syringae pv. avellanae, pathovar nov., the bacterium causing canker disease on Corylus avellana. Plant Pathol 42: 358-363. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3059.1993.tb01512.x.
- 3. Scortichini M, Tropiano FG (1994) Severe outbreak of Pseudomonas syringae pv. avellanae on hazelnut in Italy. J Phytopathol 140: 65-70. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0434.1994.tb00177.x.
- 4. Janse JD, Rossi MP, Angelucci L, Scortichini M, Derks JHJ et al. (1996) Reclassification of Pseudomonas syringae pv. avellanae as Pseudomonas avellanae (spec. nov.), the bacterium causing canker of hazelnut (Corylus avellana L.). Syst Appl Microbiol 19: 589-595. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0723-2020(96)80030-0.
- 5. Gardan L, Shafik H, Belouin S, Broch R, Grimont F et al. (1999) DNA relatedness among the pathovars of Pseudomonas syringae and description of Pseudomonas tremae sp. nov. and Pseudomonas cannabina sp. nov. (ex Sutic and Dowson 1959). Int J Syst Bacteriol 49 Pt 2: 469-478 doi:https://doi.org/10.1099/00207713-49-2-469. PubMed: 10319466.
- 6. Scortichini M, Marchesi U, Di Prospero P (2002) Genetic relatedness among Pseudomonas avellanae, P. syringae pv. theae and P. s. pv. actinidiae, and their identification. Eur J Plant Pathol 108: 269-278.
- 7. Ferrante P, Scortichini M (2011) Molecular and phenotypic variability among Pseudomonas avellanae, P. syringae pv. actinidiae and P. syringae pv. theae: the genomospecies 8 sensu Gardan et al. 1999. J Plant Pathol 93: 659-666.
- 8. Scortichini M, Dettori MT, Rossi MP, Marchesi U, Palombi MA (1998) Differentiation of Pseudomonas avellanae strains from Greece and Italy by rep-PCR genomic fingerprinting. J Phytopathol 146: 417-420. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0434.1998.tb04774.x.
- 9. Scortichini M, Angelucci L (1999) Phenotypic characterization of Pseudomonas avellanae (Psallidas) Janse et al. and occurrence of colony variants. J Plant Pathol 81: 55-61.
- 10. Scortichini M, Natalini E, Marchesi U (2006) Evidence for separate origins of the two Pseudomonas avellanae lineages. Plant Pathol 55: 451-457. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3059.2006.01352.x.
- 11. Wang PW, Morgan RL, Scortichini M, Guttman DS (2007) Convergent evolution of phytopathogenic pseudomonads onto hazelnut. Microbiology 153: 2067–2073. doi:https://doi.org/10.1099/mic.0.2006/001545-0. PubMed: 17600051.
- 12. Anzai Y, Kim H, Park JY, Wakabayashi H, Oyaizu H (2000) Phylogenetic affiliation of the pseudomonads based on 16S rRNA sequence. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 50 Pt Aprel: 1563-1589 doi:https://doi.org/10.1099/00207713-50-4-1563. PubMed: 10939664.
- 13. Moore ERB, Tindall BJ, Martins Dos Santos VAP, Pieper DH, Ramos J-L et al. (2006) Nonmedical: Pseudomonas. In: M. Dworkin. The Prokaryotes, vol 6, Proteobacteria: gamma subclass. New York: Springer Verlag. pp. 21-28.
- 14. Hőfte M, De Vos P (2006) Plant pathogenic Pseudomonas species. In: SS Gnanamanickam. Plant-associated bacteria. Dordrecht: Springer Verlag. pp. 507-533.
- 15. Mulet M, Lalucat J, García-Valdés E (2010) DNA sequence-based analysis of the Pseudomonas species. Environ Microbiol 12: 1513-1530. PubMed: 20192968.
- 16. Bull CT, Clarke CR, Cai R, Vinatzer BA, Jardini TM et al. (2011) Multilocus sequence typing of Pseudomonas syringae sensu lato confirms previously described genomospecies and permits rapid identification of P. syringae pv. coriandricola and P. syringae pv. apii causing bacterial leaf spot on parsley. Phytopathology 101: 847-858. doi:https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-11-10-0318. PubMed: 21323469.
- 17. Murillo J, Bardaji L, Navarro de la Fuente L, Führer ME, Aguilera S et al. (2011) Variation in conservation of the cluster for biosynthesis of the phytotoxin phaseolotoxin in Pseudomonas syringae suggests at least two events of horizontal acquisition. Res Microbiol 162: 253-261. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resmic.2010.10.011. PubMed: 21187143.
- 18. Carrión VJ, Arrebola E, Cazorla FM, Murillo J, de Vicente A (2012) The mbo operon is specific and essential for biosynthesis of mangotoxin in Pseudomonas syringae. PLOS ONE 7: e36709. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036709. PubMed: 22615797.
- 19. Butler MI, Stockwell PA, Black MA, Day RC, Lamont IL et al. (2013) Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae from recent outbreaks of kiwifruit bacterial canker belong to different clones that originated in China. PLOS ONE 8: e57464. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057464. PubMed: 23555547.
- 20. Sarris PF, Trantas EA, Baltrus DA, Bull CT, Wechter WP et al. (2013) Comparative genomics of multiple strains of Pseudomonas cannabina pv. alisalensis, a potential model pathogen of both monocots and dicots. PLOS ONE 8: e59366. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0059366. PubMed: 23555661.
- 21. Cohan FM (2002) What are bacterial species? Annu Rev Microbiol 56: 457-487. doi:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.micro.56.012302.160634. PubMed: 12142474.
- 22. Stackebrandt E, Frederiksen W, Garrity GM, Grimont PA, Kämpfer P et al. (2002) Report of the ad hoc committee for the re-evaluation of the species definition in bacteriology. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 52: 1043-1047. PubMed: 12054223.
- 23. Gevers D, Cohan FM, Lawrence JG, Spratt BG, Coenye T et al. (2005) Opinion: Re-evaluating prokaryotic species. Nat Rev Microbiol 3: 733-739. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro1236. PubMed: 16138101.
- 24. Richter M, Rosselló-Móra R (2009) Shifting the genomic gold standard for the prokaryotic species definition. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106: 19126-19131. doi:https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0906412106. PubMed: 19855009.
- 25. Konstantinidis KT, Tiedje JM (2005) Genomic insights that advance the species definition for prokaryotes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102: 2567–2572. doi:https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0409727102. PubMed: 15701695.
- 26. Goris J, Konstantinidis KT, Klappenbach JA, Coenye T, Vandamme P et al. (2007) DNA-DNA hybridization values and their relationship to whole-genome sequence similarities. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 57: 81-91. doi:https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.64483-0. PubMed: 17220447.
- 27. Huson DH, Bryant D (2006) Application of phylogenetic networks in evolutionary studies. Mol Biol Evol 23: 254–267. PubMed: 16221896.
- 28. Holland BR, Huber KT, Moulton V, Lockhart PJ (2004) Using consensus networks to visualize contradictory evidence for species phylogeny. Mol Biol Evol 21: 1459-1461. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msh145. PubMed: 15084681.
- 29. Medini D, Donati C, Tettelin H, Masignani V, Rappuoli R (2005) The microbial pan-genome. Curr Opin Genet Dev 15: 589-594. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gde.2005.09.006. PubMed: 16185861.
- 30. Tettelin H, Riley D, Cattuto C, Medini D (2008) Comparative genomics: the bacterial pan-genome. Curr Opin Microbiol 11: 472-477. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mib.2008.09.006. PubMed: 19086349.
- 31. Baltrus DA, Nishimura MT, Romanchuk A, Chang JH, Mukhtar MS et al. (2011) Dynamic evolution of pathogenicity revealed by sequencing and comparative genomics of 19 Pseudomonas syringae isolates. PLOS Pathog 7: e1002132. PubMed: 21799664.
- 32. Godreuil S, Cohan F, Shah H, Tibayrenc M (2005) Which species concept for pathogenic bacteria? An E-Debate. Infect Genet Evol 5: 375-387. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meegid.2004.03.004. PubMed: 16168944.
- 33. Vinatzer BA, Bull CT (2009) The impact of genomic approaches on our understanding of diversity and taxonomy of plant pathogenic bacteria. In: RW Jackson. Plant Pathogenic bacteria. Genomics and molecular biology. Norfolk: Caister Academic Press. pp. 37-61.
- 34. Rosselló-Mora R, Amann R (2001) The species concept for prokaryotes. FEMS Microbiol Rev 25: 39-67. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6976.2001.tb00571.x. PubMed: 11152940.
- 35. Wayne LG, Brenner DJ, Colwell RR, Grimont PAD, Kandler O et al. (1987) International committee on systematic bacteriology. Report of the ad hoc committee on reconciliation of approaches to bacterial systematics. Int J Syst Bacteriol 37: 463-464. doi:https://doi.org/10.1099/00207713-37-4-463.
- 36. Stackebrandt E, Goebel BM (1994) Taxonomic note: a place for DNA-DNA reassociation and 16S rRNA sequence analysis in the present species definition in bacteriology. Int J Syst Bacteriol 44: 846-849. doi:https://doi.org/10.1099/00207713-44-4-846.
- 37. Fox GE, Wisotzkey JD, Jurtshuk P Jr. (1992) How close is close: 16S rRNA sequence identity may not be sufficient to guarantee species identity. Int J Syst Bacteriol 42: 166-170. doi:https://doi.org/10.1099/00207713-42-1-166. PubMed: 1371061.
- 38. Janda JM, Abbott SL (2007) 16S rRNA gene sequencing for bacterial identification in the diagnostic laboratory: Pluses, perils, and pitfalls. J Clin Microbiol 45: 2761-2764. doi:https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01228-07. PubMed: 17626177.
- 39. Touchon M, Hoede C, Tenaillon O, Barbe V, Baeriswyl S et al. (2009) Organized genome dynamics in the Escherichia coli species results in highly diverse adaptive paths. PLOS Genet 5: e1000344.
- 40. Kuo CH, Kissinger JC (2008) Consistent and contrasting properties of lineage-specific genes in the apicomplexan parasites Plasmodium and Theilleria. BMC Evol Biol 11: 108.
- 41. Coenye T, Gevers D, Van de Peer Y, Vandamme P, Swings J (2005) Towards a prokaryotic genomic taxonomy. FEMS Microbiol Rev 29: 147-167. PubMed: 15808739.
- 42. Chan JZ, Halachev MR, Loman NJ, Constantinidou C, Pallen MJ (2012) Defining bacterial species in the genomic era: Insights from the genus Acinetobacter. BMC Microbiol 12: 302. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2180-12-302. PubMed: 23259572.
- 43. Marcelletti S, Ferrante P, Petriccione M, Firrao G, Scortichini M (2011) Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae draft genomes comparison reveal strain-specific features involved in adaptation and virulence to Actinidia species. PLOS ONE 6: e27297. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0027297. PubMed: 22132095.
- 44. Vicente J, Roberts S (2007) Discrimination of Pseudomonas syringae isolates from sweet and wild cherry using rep-PCR. Eur J Plant Pathol 117: 383-392. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10658-007-9107-y.
- 45. Gilbert V, Legros F, Maraite H, Bultreys A (2009) Genetic analyses of Pseudomonas syringae isolated from Belgian fruit orchards reveal genetic variability and isolate-host relationships within the pathovar syringae, and help identify both races of the pathovar morsprunorum. Eur J Plant Pathol 124: 199-218. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10658-008-9406-y.
- 46. Kaluzna M, Ferrante P, Sobiczewski P, Scortichini M (2010) Characterization and genetic diversity of Pseudomonas syringae from stone fruits and hazelnut using repetitive-PCR and MLST. J Plant Pathol 92: 781-787.
- 47. Parkinson N, Bryant R, Bew J, Elphinstone J (2011) Rapid phylogenetic identification of members of the Pseudomonas syringae species complex using the rpoD locus. Plant Pathol 60: 338-344. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3059.2010.02366.x.
- 48. Lapage SP, Sneath PHA, Lessel EF, Skerman VBD, Seeliger HPR et al. (1992) International code of nomenclature of bacteria 1990. Revision bacteriological code. Washington, USA: American Society for Microbiology.
- 49. Bull CT, De Boer SH, Denny TP, Firrao , Fischer-Le Saux M et al. (2008) Demystifying the nomenclature of bacterial plant pathogens. J Plant Pathol 90: 403-417.
- 50. Dellaglio F, Felis GE, Germond JE (2004) Should names reflect the evolution of bacterial species? Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 54: 279-281. doi:https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.02782-0. PubMed: 14742494.
- 51. Scortichini M, Marchesi U, Dettori M, Rossi MP (2003) Genetic diversity, presence of syrB gene, host preference and virulence of Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae strains from woody and herbaceous host plants. Plant Pathol 52: 277-286. doi:https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3059.2003.00860.x.
- 52. Delcher AL, Bratke KA, Powers EC, Salzberg SL (2007) Identifying bacterial genes and endosymbiont DNA with Glimmer. Bioinformatics 23: 673-679. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btm009. PubMed: 17237039.
- 53. Kurtz S, Phillippy A, Delcher AL, Smoot M, Shumway M et al. (2004) Versatile and open software for comparing large genomes. Genome Biol 5: R12. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2004-5-6-p12. PubMed: 14759262.
- 54. Darling AC, Mau B, Blattner FR, Perna NT (2004) Mauve: multiple alignment of conserved genomic sequence with rearrangements. Genome Res 14: 1394-1403. doi:https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.2289704. PubMed: 15231754.
- 55. R Development Core Team (2008) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available: http://www.R-project.org.
- 56. Guindon S, Gascuel O (2003) A simple, fast, and accurate algorithm to estimate large phylogenies by maximum likelihood. Syst Biol 52: 696-704. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150390235520. PubMed: 14530136.
- 57. Huelsenbeck JP, Ronquist F (2001) MRBAYES: bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics 17: 754-755. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/17.8.754. PubMed: 11524383.
- 58. Darriba D, Taboada GL, Doallo R, Posada D (2012) jModelTest 2: more models, new heuristics and parallel computing. Nat Methods 9: 772. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2111. PubMed: 22847109.
- 59. Darriba D, Taboada GL, Doallo R, Posada D (2011) ProtTest 3: fast selection of best-fit models of protein evolution. Bioinformatics 27: 1164-1165. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btr088. PubMed: 21335321.
- 60. Wall DP, Fraser HB, Hirsh AE (2003) detecting putative orthologs. Bioinformatics 19: 1710-1711. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btg213. PubMed: 15593400.
- 61. Poptsova MS, Gogarten JP (2007) BranchClust: a phylogenetic algorithm for selecting gene families. BMC Bioinformatics 8: 120. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-8-120. PubMed: 17425803.
- 62. Bryant D, Moulton V (2004) Neighbor-net: An agglomerative method for the construction of phylogenetic networks. Mol Biol Evol 21: 255-265. PubMed: 14660700.
- 63. Dress AW, Huson DH (2004) Constructing splits graphs. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform 1: 109-115. doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/TCBB.2004.27. PubMed: 17048386.