Advertisement

Archives of Microbiology

, Volume 201, Issue 1, pp 67–80 | Cite as

Some strains that have converged to infect Prunus spp. trees are members of distinct Pseudomonas syringae genomospecies and ecotypes as revealed by in silico genomic comparison

  • Simone Marcelletti
  • Marco ScortichiniEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

A complementary taxonomic and population genetic study was performed to delineate genetically and ecologically distinct species within the Pseudomonas syringae complex by assessing 16 strains including pathovar strains that have converged to infect Prunus spp. trees, and two outgroups. Both average nucleotide identity and genome-to-genome distance comparison methods revealed the occurrence of distinct genomospecies, namely 1, 2, 3 and 8 (sensu Gardan et al.), with the latter two being closely related. Strains classified as P. s. pv. morsprunorum clustered into two distinct genomospecies, namely 2 and 8. Both the AdaptML and hierarchical Bayesian analysis of population structure methods highlighted the presence of three ecotypes, and the taxonomically related genomospecies 3 and 8 strains were members of the same ecotype. The distribution of pathogenic and virulence-associated genetic traits among Pseudomonas strains did not reveal any distinct type III secretion system effector or phytotoxin distribution pattern that characterized single genomospecies and strains that infect Prunus spp. The complete WHOP (Woody HOst and Pseudomonas spp.) genomic region and the entire β-ketoadipate gene cluster, including the catBCA operon, were found only in the members of genomospecies 2 and in the two P. s. pv. morsprunorum strains of genomospecies 8. A reduced gene flow between the three ecotypes suggested that point mutations played a larger role during the evolution of the strains than recombination. Our data support the idea that Prunus trees can be infected by different strains of distinct Pseudomonas genomospecies/ecotypes through diverse mechanisms of host colonization and infection. Such strains may represent particular lineages that emerged from environments other than that of the infected plant upon acquiring genetic traits that gave them the ability to cause plant diseases. The complementary assessment of bacterial strains using both taxonomic approaches and methods that reveal ecologically homogeneous populations has proven useful in confirming the cohesion of bacterial clusters.

Keywords

Pseudomonas syringae ANIb-TETRA GGDC AdaptML Hierarchical BAPS 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The study was funded by the ordinary budget of Council for Agricultural Research and Analysis of Agricultural Economics (CREA)−Research Centre for Olive, Fruit Trees and Citrus.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

No conflict of interest is present for this study.

Supplementary material

203_2018_1573_MOESM1_ESM.tif (98 kb)
Supplementary Figure 1. Genome-wide ML phylogeny of 16 Pseudomonas strains, including the strain that infect Prunus spp. trees (in red). Numbers at the node indicate the number of CDSs shared by the strain in the cluster. Horizontal bar colours: blue: core proteins of the 16 strains; red: genomospecies proteins, green: strain unique proteins. The genomospecies distribution (G) sensu Gardan et al. (1999) and Marcelletti and Scortichini (2014) is reported on the right. Table 1 provides the strain code. (TIF 98 KB)
203_2018_1573_MOESM2_ESM.tif (15 kb)
Supplementary Figure 2. Hierarchical BAPS clustering performed with 16 Pseudomonas strains assessed using ANIb and GGDC methods. Each colour represents an ecotype based on the genome sites not showing recombinant ancestry. G: genomospecies numbering according to Gardan et al. (1999) and Marcelletti and Scortichini (2014). (TIF 14 KB)
203_2018_1573_MOESM3_ESM.tif (157 kb)
Supplementary Figure 3. Distribution of the gene clusters involved in chitinase, β-ketoadipate and nitric oxide metabolism across 14 Pseudomonas strains. The strains that infect Prunus spp. trees are in red. Black box indicates presence. Table 1 provides the strain code. (TIF 157 KB)
203_2018_1573_MOESM4_ESM.tif (3.4 mb)
Supplementary Figure 4. Recombination network trees generated using SplitsTree4 from the alignment of 14 publicly available norR sequences of Pseudomonas strains (a) and from the eight Pseudomonas strains that infect Prunus spp. trees (b). The scale bar indicates the number of substitutions per nucleotide position. Table 1 provides the strain code. (TIF 3500 KB)
203_2018_1573_MOESM5_ESM.tif (3.2 mb)
Supplementary Figure 5. Recombination network trees generated using SplitsTree4 from the alignment of 14 publicly available xylA2 sequences of Pseudomonas strains (a) and from the eight Pseudomonas strains that infect Prunus spp. trees (b). The scale bar indicates the number of substitutions per nucleotide position. Table 1 provides the strain code. (TIF 3233 KB)
203_2018_1573_MOESM6_ESM.xls (24 kb)
Supplementary Table 1. Tetranucleotide frequency correlation coefficients (TETRA) values calculated between genomes of 16 Pseudomonas strains belonging to genomospecies 1, 2, 3, 6, 8 and 9. P. viridiflava UASWS0038 and P. cannabina pv. alisalensis BS91 were used as outgroups. (XLS 24 KB)

References

  1. Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ (1990) Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol 215:403–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andam CP, Mitchell PK, Callendrello A, Chang Q, Corander J, Chaguza G, McGee L, Beall BW et al (2017) Genomic epidemiology of penicillin-non susceptible pneumococci with nonvaccine serotype causing invasive disease in the United States. J Clin Microbiol 55:1104–1115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnold DL, Godfrey S, Jackson RW (2009) Pseudomonas syringae: genomics provides important insights to secretion systems, effector genes and the evolution of virulence. In: Jackson RW (ed). Plant pathogenic bacteria genomics and molecular biology. Caister Academic Press, Norfolk, pp 203–226Google Scholar
  4. Auch AF, Von Jan M, Klenk H-P, Göker M (2010) Digital DNA–DNA hybridization for microbial species delineation by means of genome-to-genome sequence comparison. Stand Genom Sci 2:117–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baltrus DA, Nishimura MT, Romanchuk A, Chang JH, Mukthar MS, Cherkis K, Roach J, Grant SR et al (2011) Dynamic evolution of pathogenicity revealed by sequencing and comparative genomics of 19 Pseudomonas syringae isolates. PLoS Pathog 7:e1002132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baltrus DA, McCann H, Guttman DS (2017) Evolution, genomics and epidemiology of Pseudomonas syringae. Mol Plant Pathol 18:152–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berge O, Monteil CL, Bartoli C, Chandeysson C, Guilbaid C, Sands DC, Morris CE (2014) A user’s guide to a data base of the diversity of Pseudomonas syringae and its application to classifying strains in this phylogenetic complex. PLoS One 9:e105547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bruen T, Philippe H, Bryant D (2006) A simple and robust statistical test for detecting the presence of recombination. Genetics 172:2665–2681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bull CT, De Boer SH, Denny TP, Firrao G, Fischer-Les Saux M, Saddler GS, Scortichini M, Stead DE, Takikawa Y (2010) Comprehensive list of names of plant pathogenic bacteria, 1980–2007. J Plant Pathol 92:551–592Google Scholar
  10. Bultreys A, Kaluzna M (2010) Bacterial cankers caused by Pseudomonas syringae on stone fruit species with special emphasis on the pathovars syringae and morsprunorum race 1 and race 2. J Plant Pathol 92(1, Supp.):S1.21–S1.33Google Scholar
  11. Caballo-Ponce E, Van Dillewijn P, Wittich RM, Ramos C (2017) WHOP, a genomic region associated with woody hosts in Pseudomonas syringae complex contributes to the virulence and fitness of Pseudomonas savastanoi pv. savastanoi in olive plants. Mol Plant Microb Interact 30:113–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cadillo-Quiroz H, Didelot X, Held NL, Herrera A, Darling A, Reno ML, Krause DJ, Whitaker RJ (2012) Patterns of gene flow define species in thermophilic Archaea. PLoS Biol 10:e1001265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cheng L, Connor TR, Sirén J, Aanensen DM, Corander J (2013) Hierarchical and spatial explicit clustering of DNA sequences with BAPS software. Mol Biol Evol 30:1224–1228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chun J, Rainey FA (2014) Integrating genomics into the taxonomy and systematic of Bacteria and Archaea. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 64:316–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cohan FM, Koeppel AF (2008) The origin of ecological diversity in Prokaryotes. Curr Biol 18:1024–1034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Corander J, Marttinen P, Sirén J, Tang J (2008) Enhanced Bayesian modelling in BAPS software for learning genetic structure of populations. BMC Bionform 9:593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Didelot X, Falush D (2007) Inference of bacterial microevolution using multilocus sequence data. Genetics 175:1251–1266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dillon MM, Thakur SH, Almeida RND, Guttman DS (2017) Recombination of ecologically and evolutionarily significant loci maintains genetic cohesion in the Pseudomonas syringae species complex. Bioχriv.  https://doi.org/10.1101/227413 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dixit PD, Pang TY, Maslov S (2017) Recombination-driven genome evolution and stability of bacterial species. Genetics 207:281–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dye DW, Bradbury JF, Goto M, Hayward AC, Lelliott RA, Schroth MN (1980) International standards for naming pathovars of phytopathogenic bacteria and a list of pathovar names and pathotype strains. Rev Plant Pathol 59:153–168Google Scholar
  21. Friedman J, Alm EJ, Shapiro BJ (2013) Sympatric speciation: when is it possible in bacteria ? PLoS One 8:e53539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gardan L, Shafik H, Belouin S, Broch R, Grimont F, Grimont PA (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 49:469–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Garrido-Sanz D, Meier-Kolthoff JP, Göker M, Martin M, Rivilla R, Redondo-Nieto M (2014) Genomic and genetic diversity within the Pseudomonas fluorescens complex. PLoS One 11:e0150183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gomila M, Peña A, Mulet M, Lalucat J, Garcia-Valdes E (2015) Phylogenomics and systematics in Pseudomonas. Front Microbiol 6:214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Guindon S, Gascuel O (2003) A simple, fast, and accurate algorithm to estimate large phylogenies by maximum likelihood. Syst Biol 52:696–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Huerta-Cepas J, Serra F, Bork P (2016) ETE3 reconstruction, analysis, and visualization of phylogenomic data. Mol Biol Evol 33:1635–1638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hulin MT, Armitage AD, Vicente JG, Holub EB, Baxter L, Bates HJ, Mansfield JW, Jackson RW et al (2018) Comparative genomics of Pseudomonas syringae reveals convergent gene gain and loss associated with specialisation onto cherry (Prunus avium). New Phytol 219:672–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hunt DE, David LA, Gevers D, Preheim SP, Alm EJ, Polz MF (2008) Resource partitioning and sympatric differentiation among closely related bacterioplankton. Science 320:1081–1085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Huson DH, Bryant D (2006) Application of phylogenetic networks in evolutionary studies. Mol Biol Evol 23:254–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hwang MS, Morgan RL, Sarkar SF, Wang PW, Guttman DS (2005) Phylogenetic characterization of resistance and virulence phenotypes Pseudomonas syringae.. Appl Environ Microbiol 71:5182–5191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ichinose Y, Taguchi F, Mukaihara T (2013) Pathogenicity and virulence factors in Pseudomonas syringae. J Gen Plant Pathol 79:285–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jimenez JI, Miñambres B, Garcie JL, Diaz E (2002) Genomic analysis of the aromatic catabolic pathways from Pseudomonas putida KT2440. Environ Microbiol 4:824–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kaluzna M, Willems A, Pothier JF, Ruinelli M, Sobiczewski P, Pulawska J (2016) Pseudomonas cerasi sp. nov. (non Griffin, 1911) isolated from diseased tissue of cherry. Syst Appl Microbiol 39:370–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kamiunten H, Nakao T, Oshida S (2000) Pseudomonas syringae pv. cerasicola, pv. nov., the causal agent of bacterial gall of cherry tree. J Gen Plant Pathol 66:219–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Koeppel A, Perry EB, Sikorski J, Krizanc D, Warner A, Ward DM, Rooney AP, Brambilla E et al (2008) Identifying the fundamental units of bacterial diversity: a paradigm shift to incorporate ecology into bacterial systematic. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:2504–2509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Konstantinidis KY, Tiedje JM (2005) Towards a genome-based taxonomy of Prokaryotes. J Bacteriol 187:6258–6264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Librado P, Rozas J (2009) DnaSP v.5: a software for comprehensive analysis of DNA polymorphism data. Bioinformatics 25:1451–1452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Marcelletti S, Scortichini M (2014) Definition of plant-pathogenic Pseudomonas genomospecies of the Pseudomonas syringae complex through multiple comparative approaches. Phytopathology 104:1274–1282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Marcelletti S, Scortichini M (2015) Comparative genomic analysis of multiple Pseudomonas strains infecting Corylus avellana trees reveal the occurrence of two genetic clusters with both common and distinctive virulence and fitness traits. PLoS One 10:e0131112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Marcelletti S, Scortichini M (2016) Genome-wide comparison and taxonomic relatedness of multiple Xylella fastidiosa strains reveal the occurrence of three subspecies and a new Xylella species. Arch Microbiol 198:803–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Marcelletti S, Scortichini M (2017) Xylella fastidiosa CoDiRO strains associated with the olive quick decline syndrome in southern Italy belongs to a clonal complex of the subspecies pauca that evolved in Central America. Microbiology 162:2087–2098Google Scholar
  42. Meier-Kolthoff JP, Auch AF, Klenk H-P, Göker M (2013) Genome sequence-based species delimitation with confidence intervals and improved distance functions. BMC Bioinform 14:60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ménard M, Sutra L, Luisetti J, Prunier JP, Gardan L (2003) Pseudomonas syringae pv. avii (pv. nov), the causal agent of bacterial canker of wild cherries (Prunus avium) in France. Eur J Plant Pathol 109:565–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Monteil CL, Yahara K, Studholme DJ, Mageiros L, Méric G, Swingle B, Morris CR, Vinatzer B et al (2016) Population-genomic insights into emergence, crop adaptation and dissemination of Pseudomonas syringae pathogens. Microb Genom 2:e000089PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Morris CE, Kinkel LL, Xiao K, Prior P, Sands DC (2007) Surprising niches for the plant pathogen Pseudomonas syringae.. Infect Genet Evol 7:84–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Morris CE, Bardin M, Kinkel LL, Moury B, Nicot PC, Sands DC (2009) Expanding the paradigms of plant pathogen life history and evolution of parasitic fitness beyond agricultural boundaries. PLoS Pathog 5:e1000693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Morris CE, Monteil CL, Berge O (2013) The life history of Pseudomonas syringae: linking agriculture to earth system processes. Annu Rev Phytopathol 51:85–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nosil P, Funk DJ, Ortiz-Barrientos D (2009) Divergent selection and heterogeneous genomic divergence. Mol Ecol 18:375–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nowell RW, Green S, Laue BE, Sharp PM (2014) The extent of genome flux and its role in differentiation of bacterial lineages. Genome Biol Evol 6:1514–1529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nowell RW, Laue BE, Sharp PM, Green S (2016) Comparative genomics reveals genes significantly associated with woody hosts in the plant pathogen Pseudomonas syringae. Mol Plant Pathol 17:1409–1424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Oakley BB, Carbonero F, Van der Gast CJ, Hawkins RJ, Purdy KJ (2010) Evolutionary divergence and biogeography of sympatric niche-differentiated bacterial populations. ISME J 4:488–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ochman H, Lawrence JG, Groisman EA (2000) Lateral gene transfer and the nature of bacterial innovation. Nature 405:299–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ochoa-Sanchez LE, Vinuesa P (2017) Ecological and phenotypic differentiation in sympatric population of aquatic Stenotrophomonas uncoverd by evolutionary species delimitation. Front Microbiol 8:1548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Page AJ, Cummins CA, Hunt M, Wong WK, Reuter S, Holden MT, Fookes M, Falush D et al (2015) Roary: a rapid large-scale prokaryote pan genome analysis. Bioinformatics 31:3691–3693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Parkinson N (2011) Rapid phylogenetic identification of members of the Pseudomonas syringae species complex using the rpoD locus. Plant Pathol 60:338–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pearson WR (2013) An introduction to sequence similarity (“homology”) searching. Curr Protoc Bioinform 42:3.1.1–3.1.8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Polz MF, Alm EJ, Hanage WP (2013) Horizontal gene transfer and the evolution of bacterial and Archeal population structure. Trends Genet 29:170–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Richter M, Rosselló-Móra R (2009) Shifting the genomic gold standard for the prokaryotic species definition. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:19126–19131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sarkar SF, Guttman DS (2004) Evolution of the core genome of Pseudomonas syringae, a highly clonal, endemic plant pathogen. Appl Environ Microbiol 70:1999–2012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sarkar SF, Gordon JS, Martin GB, Guttman DS (2006) Comparative genomics of host-specific virulence in Pseudomonas syringae. Genetics 174:1041–1056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Scortichini M, Marcelletti S, Ferrante P, Firrao G (2013) A genomic redefinition of Pseudomonas avellanae species. PLoS One 8:e75794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sentausa E, Fournier PE (2013) Advantages and limitations of genomics in prokaryotic taxonomy. Clin Microbiol Infect 19:790–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Shapiro BJ, Friedman BJ, Cordero OX, Preheim SP, Timberlake SC, Szabó G, Polz M, Alm EJ (2012) Population genomics of early events in the ecological differentiation of bacteria. Science 336:48–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sheppard SK, Didelot X, Jolley KA, Darling AE, Pascoe B, Meric G, Kelly DJ, Cody A et al (2013) Progressive genome-wide introgression in agricultural Campylobacter coli. Mol Ecol 22:1051–1064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Stephens C, Christen B, Fuchs T, Sundaram V, Watanabe K, Jenal U (2007) Genetic analysis of a novel pathway for D-xylose metabolism in Caulobacter crescentus. J Bacteriol 189:2181–2185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tindall BJ, Rosselló-Móra R, Busse HJ, Ludwig W, Kämpfer P (2010) Notes on the characterization of prokaryote strains for taxonomic purposes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 60:249–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tybarenc M, Ayala FJ (2012) Reproductive clonality of pathogens: a perspective on pathogenic viruses, bacteria, fungi, and parasitic protozoa. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:3305–3313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wang PW, Morgan RL, Scortichini M, Guttman DS (2007) Convergent evolution of phytopathogenic pseudomonads onto hazelnut. Microbiology 153:2067–2073CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Council for Agricultural Research and Analysis of Agricultural Economics (CREA)Research Centre for Olive, Fruit Trees and CitrusRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations