Two Groups of Cocirculating, Epidemic Clostridiodes Difficile Strains Microdiversify Through Different Mechanisms

Overview

Journal Genome Biol Evol

Publisher Oxford University Press

Specialties Biology
Genetics
Molecular Biology

Date 2018 Apr 5

PMID 29617810

Citations 5

Authors

Tatiana Murillo

Gabriel Ramirez-Vargas

Thomas Riedel

Jorg Overmann

Joakim M Andersen

Caterina Guzman-Verri

Esteban Chaves-Olarte

Cesar Rodriguez

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Clostridiodes difficile strains from the NAPCR1/ST54 and NAP1/ST01 types have caused outbreaks despite of their notable differences in genome diversity. By comparing whole genome sequences of 32 NAPCR1/ST54 isolates and 17 NAP1/ST01 recovered from patients infected with C. difficile we assessed whether mutation, homologous recombination (r) or nonhomologous recombination (NHR) through lateral gene transfer (LGT) have differentially shaped the microdiversification of these strains. The average number of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in coding sequences (NAPCR1/ST54 = 24; NAP1/ST01 = 19) and SNP densities (NAPCR1/ST54 = 0.54/kb; NAP1/ST01 = 0.46/kb) in the NAPCR1/ST54 and NAP1/ST01 isolates was comparable. However, the NAP1/ST01 isolates showed 3× higher average dN/dS rates (8.35) that the NAPCR1/ST54 isolates (2.62). Regarding r, whereas 31 of the NAPCR1/ST54 isolates showed 1 recombination block (3,301-8,226 bp), the NAP1/ST01 isolates showed no bases in recombination. As to NHR, the pangenome of the NAPCR1/ST54 isolates was larger (4,802 gene clusters, 26% noncore genes) and more heterogeneous (644 ± 33 gene content changes) than that of the NAP1/ST01 isolates (3,829 gene clusters, ca. 6% noncore genes, 129 ± 37 gene content changes). Nearly 55% of the gene content changes seen among the NAPCR1/ST54 isolates (355 ± 31) were traced back to MGEs with putative genes for antimicrobial resistance and virulence factors that were only detected in single isolates or isolate clusters. Congruently, the LGT/SNP rate calculated for the NAPCR1/ST54 isolates (26.8 ± 2.8) was 4× higher than the one obtained for the NAP1/ST1 isolates (6.8 ± 2.0). We conclude that NHR-LGT has had a greater role in the microdiversification of the NAPCR1/ST54 strains, opposite to the NAP1/ST01 strains, where mutation is known to play a more prominent role.

Citing Articles

Diversity, Dynamics and Therapeutic Application of Bacteriophages.

Nale J, Thanki A, Rashid S, Shan J, Vinner G, Dowah A Viruses. 2022; 14(12).

PMID: 36560776 PMC: 9784644. DOI: 10.3390/v14122772.

Higher genome variability within metabolism genes associates with recurrent Clostridium difficile infection.

Kulecka M, Waker E, Ambrozkiewicz F, Paziewska A, Skubisz K, Cybula P BMC Microbiol. 2021; 21(1):36.

PMID: 33509087 PMC: 7842062. DOI: 10.1186/s12866-021-02090-9.

Origin, genomic diversity and microevolution of the B1/NAP1/RT027/ST01 strain in Costa Rica, Chile, Honduras and Mexico.

Guerrero-Araya E, Meneses C, Castro-Nallar E, Guzman D A, Alvarez-Lobos M, Quesada-Gomez C Microb Genom. 2020; 6(5).

PMID: 32176604 PMC: 7371124. DOI: 10.1099/mgen.0.000355.

First genotypic characterization of toxigenic Clostridioides difficile in Lithuanian hospitals reveals the prevalence of the hypervirulent ribotype 027/ST1.

Tratulyte S, Miciuleviciene J, Kuisiene N Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2019; 38(10):1953-1959.

PMID: 31327067 DOI: 10.1007/s10096-019-03633-9.

Genomics of the Pathogenic Clostridia.

Moore R, Lacey J Microbiol Spectr. 2019; 7(3).

PMID: 31215504 PMC: 11257213. DOI: 10.1128/microbiolspec.GPP3-0033-2018.

References

Stabler R, Dawson L, Valiente E, Cairns M, Martin M, Donahue E . Macro and micro diversity of Clostridium difficile isolates from diverse sources and geographical locations. PLoS One. 2012; 7(3):e31559. PMC: 3292544. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0031559. View

Page A, Cummins C, Hunt M, Wong V, Reuter S, Holden M . Roary: rapid large-scale prokaryote pan genome analysis. Bioinformatics. 2015; 31(22):3691-3. PMC: 4817141. DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv421. View

Reynolds C, Emerson J, de la Riva L, Fagan R, Fairweather N . The Clostridium difficile cell wall protein CwpV is antigenically variable between strains, but exhibits conserved aggregation-promoting function. PLoS Pathog. 2011; 7(4):e1002024. PMC: 3080850. DOI: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1002024. View

Gish W, States D . Identification of protein coding regions by database similarity search. Nat Genet. 1993; 3(3):266-72. DOI: 10.1038/ng0393-266. View

Dingle K, Griffiths D, Didelot X, Evans J, Vaughan A, Kachrimanidou M . Clinical Clostridium difficile: clonality and pathogenicity locus diversity. PLoS One. 2011; 6(5):e19993. PMC: 3098275. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0019993. View

Dannheim H, Riedel T, Neumann-Schaal M, Bunk B, Schober I, Sproer C . Manual curation and reannotation of the genomes of Clostridium difficile 630Δerm and C. difficile 630. J Med Microbiol. 2017; 66(3):286-293. DOI: 10.1099/jmm.0.000427. View

Rouli L, Merhej V, Fournier P, Raoult D . The bacterial pangenome as a new tool for analysing pathogenic bacteria. New Microbes New Infect. 2015; 7:72-85. PMC: 4552756. DOI: 10.1016/j.nmni.2015.06.005. View

Seemann T . Prokka: rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics. 2014; 30(14):2068-9. DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu153. View

Slimings C, Riley T . Antibiotics and hospital-acquired Clostridium difficile infection: update of systematic review and meta-analysis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2013; 69(4):881-91. DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkt477. View

10.

Chaves-Olarte E, Weidmann M, Thelestam M . Toxins A and B from Clostridium difficile differ with respect to enzymatic potencies, cellular substrate specificities, and surface binding to cultured cells. J Clin Invest. 1997; 100(7):1734-41. PMC: 508356. DOI: 10.1172/JCI119698. View

11.

Martin-Verstraete I, Peltier J, Dupuy B . The Regulatory Networks That Control Clostridium difficile Toxin Synthesis. Toxins (Basel). 2016; 8(5). PMC: 4885068. DOI: 10.3390/toxins8050153. View

12.

Stabler R, He M, Dawson L, Martin M, Valiente E, Corton C . Comparative genome and phenotypic analysis of Clostridium difficile 027 strains provides insight into the evolution of a hypervirulent bacterium. Genome Biol. 2009; 10(9):R102. PMC: 2768977. DOI: 10.1186/gb-2009-10-9-r102. View

13.

McGlone S, Bailey R, Zimmer S, Popovich M, Tian Y, Ufberg P . The economic burden of Clostridium difficile. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2011; 18(3):282-9. PMC: 3763211. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2011.03571.x. View

14.

Sebaihia M, Wren B, Mullany P, Fairweather N, Minton N, Stabler R . The multidrug-resistant human pathogen Clostridium difficile has a highly mobile, mosaic genome. Nat Genet. 2006; 38(7):779-86. DOI: 10.1038/ng1830. View

15.

Dagan T, Artzy-Randrup Y, Martin W . Modular networks and cumulative impact of lateral transfer in prokaryote genome evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008; 105(29):10039-44. PMC: 2474566. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0800679105. View

16.

McInerney J, McNally A, OConnell M . Why prokaryotes have pangenomes. Nat Microbiol. 2017; 2:17040. DOI: 10.1038/nmicrobiol.2017.40. View

17.

Hanage W . Not So Simple After All: Bacteria, Their Population Genetics, and Recombination. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2016; 8(7). PMC: 4930924. DOI: 10.1101/cshperspect.a018069. View

18.

Stabler R, Gerding D, Songer J, Drudy D, Brazier J, Trinh H . Comparative phylogenomics of Clostridium difficile reveals clade specificity and microevolution of hypervirulent strains. J Bacteriol. 2006; 188(20):7297-305. PMC: 1636221. DOI: 10.1128/JB.00664-06. View

19.

Castillo-Ramirez S, Harris S, Holden M, He M, Parkhill J, Bentley S . The impact of recombination on dN/dS within recently emerged bacterial clones. PLoS Pathog. 2011; 7(7):e1002129. PMC: 3136474. DOI: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1002129. View

20.

Gouy M, Guindon S, Gascuel O . SeaView version 4: A multiplatform graphical user interface for sequence alignment and phylogenetic tree building. Mol Biol Evol. 2009; 27(2):221-4. DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msp259. View