Genome Report | Food Borne Pathogens and Food Safety
Microbiol. Biotechnol. Lett. 2023; 51(3): 309-313
https://doi.org/10.48022/mbl.2307.07004
Maike Claussen and Stefan Schmidt*
Discipline of Microbiology, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa
Correspondence to :
Stefan Schmidt, schmidts@ukzn.ac.za
Here we report essential features of the draft genome of an AmpC-β-lactamase-producing bacterial isolate obtained from farm tomatoes in South Africa. The isolate designated strain Tom1 featured a genome of 4950426 bp with a G+C% of 59.83. It was identified as Serratia marcescens by ribosomal multilocus sequence typing (rMLST), digital DNA-DNA hybridization (dDDH), average nucleotide identity (ANI), and phylogenetic analysis using reference genomes. Its genome encoded an AmpC-β-lactamase (blaSST-1), an efflux pump providing tetracycline resistance (tet(41)), and an aminoglycoside acetyltransferase (aac(6')-Ic). Additionally, genes encoding proteins involved in prodigiosin biosynthesis and associated with adherence, biofilm formation, virulence, and pathogenicity were detected.
Keywords: Serratia marcescens, draft genome, AmpC-β-lactamase, antibiotic-resistance, tomato, South Africa
Tomatoes are a typical example of fresh produce frequently consumed raw. Consumption of raw or minimally processed fresh produce is an integral part of a healthy modern diet as it provides vitamins, minerals, fiber, and antioxidants [1]. However, ready-to-eat fresh produce contaminated with antibiotic-resistant pathogenic bacteria is a potential health risk, as such bacteria, upon entering the gut, might render antibiotic therapy ineffective and can contribute to undesirable antibioticresistance gene transfer [2, 3]. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria might contaminate fresh produce at various stages along the farm-to-fork production chain; contamination can occur via irrigation water, soil, fresh manure, or the handling and transportation of fresh produce [2]. Antibiotic-resistant opportunistic pathogens such as
The isolated strain designated Tom1 was originally obtained when assessing the microbial burden of fresh farm tomatoes via establishing aerobic plate counts, with a fraction of plates showing the presence of distinct red colonies after incubation. Using standard methods, a representative isolate was characterized microscopically, phenotypically, and by 16S rRNA gene amplicon Sanger sequencing (Genbank accession number ON630377.1). Shotgun genome sequencing (paired-end 2 × 150 bp, Illumina Nova Seq) was done by Zymo Research (USA) using extracted genomic DNA (ZymoBIOMICS-96 MagBead kit, Zymo, USA) to create a library (Nextera DNA Flex Library Prep Kit, Illumina, USA). The reads obtained were quality checked, trimmed,
Antibiotic susceptibility testing was done following the latest EUCAST disk diffusion procedure (www.eucast.org, 2023) employing 6-mm disks (Oxoid, UK) and the quality control strain
The Gram- and oxidase-negative strain Tom1 formed motile rods (~2 × 0.9 μm), was β-galactosidase- and catalase-positive, hydrolyzed gelatin, and formed typical red colonies evidencing the production of prodigiosin (Fig. 1A and B). The assembled genome yielded 22 contiguous sequences (> 300 bp), was 4950426 bp long, and had a G+C content of 59.83%. The corresponding N50, N75, L50, and L75 values were 1349891 bp, 327775 bp, 2, and 5, and the longest contig measured 1399301 bp. The genome was 99.32% complete based on universal singlecopy ortholog analysis, with a total of 4639 proteincoding (CDS), tRNA and rRNA-coding sequences identified by Prokka (Table 1).
Table 1 . Genome features and representative genes associated with antibiotic resistance, virulence, and pathogenicity of
Feature | Detail |
---|---|
Identity and origin | |
Genbank Accession no. | JANBMM010000000 |
Coverage, number of contigs, N50, N75, G+C content, total length | 300 x, 22, 1349891 bp, 327775 bp, 59.83%, 4950426 bp |
No. of CDS, tRNAs, rRNAs | 4553, 82, 4 |
Plasmid1 | Not detected |
Completeness (BUSCO) | 99.32% |
rMLST profile best match | |
Digital DDH best match | |
Fast ANI best match | |
Human pathogen probability2 | 0.744 |
Antibiotic resistance genes3 | |
Antibiotic resistance phenotype | AMP-AMC-CL-FOX-CPT-TET-TGC |
Detected stress response genes | |
Detected genes associated with virulence and pathogenicity4 | Secretion, adherence, and biofilm formation |
Iron acquisition | |
Exoenzymes and exotoxins | |
1 Established using Plasmidfinder 2.1.
2 Established using Pathogenfinder 1.1.
3 Established using Resfinder 4.1. and CARD 6.02
4 Established using Pathogenfinder 1.1., BV-BRC, and VFDB.
AMP-ampicillin, AMC-amoxicillin-clavulanate, CL-cephalexin, FOX-cefoxitin, CPT-ceftaroline, TET-tetracycline, TGC-tigecycline
Ribosomal MLST identified the isolated strain Tom1 at the species level as
The following resistance genes,
Notably, along with stress response encoding genes (e.g.,
The ability of strain Tom1 to synthesize the pigment prodigiosin, yielding the typical red colonies (Fig. 1B), matched the presence of the prodigiosin biosynthesis gene cluster detected on the genome. The red pigment prodigiosin originating from
As expected on microbiological grounds, given the motile nature of this species, genes associated with the flagellar apparatus and chemotaxis (e.g.,
This is the first report of a multidrug-resistant
This whole genome shotgun project has been deposited at Gen-Bank under the accession JANBMM000000000. The version described in this paper is version JANBMM010000000.
This research was supported by the National research foundation (NRF) of South Africa (134128, SS).
The authors have no financial conflicts of interest to declare.
Yu Jeong Lee, Jae-Cheol Lee, Kira Moon, Aslan Hwanhwi Lee, and Byung Hee Chun
Microbiol. Biotechnol. Lett. 2024; 52(2): 215-217 https://doi.org/10.48022/mbl.2311.11011Lin He, Huan Luo, Mi-Hyun Lee, and Jun Myoung Yu
Microbiol. Biotechnol. Lett. 2023; 51(4): 538-541 https://doi.org/10.48022/mbl.2311.11003Da-Ryung Jung, GyuDae Lee, Kyeongmo Lim, Yeonkyeong Lee, Ga-Yeon Nam, Do-Yeun Won, Na-Yun Park, Young-Jin Seo, and Jae-Ho Shin
Microbiol. Biotechnol. Lett. 2023; 51(4): 535-537 https://doi.org/10.48022/mbl.2310.10001