Genomes from bacteria associated with the canine oral cavity: A test case for automated genome-based taxonomic assignment

Taxonomy for bacterial isolates is commonly assigned via sequence analysis. However, the most common sequence-based approaches (e.g. 16S rRNA gene-based phylogeny or whole genome comparisons) are still labor intensive and subjective to varying degrees. Here we present a set of 33 bacterial genomes, isolated from the canine oral cavity. Taxonomy of these isolates was first assigned by PCR amplification of the 16S rRNA gene, Sanger sequencing, and taxonomy assignment using BLAST. After genome sequencing, taxonomy was revisited through a manual process using a combination of average nucleotide identity (ANI), concatenated marker gene phylogenies, and 16S rRNA gene phylogenies. This taxonomy was then compared to the automated taxonomic assignment given by the recently proposed Genome Taxonomy Database (GTDB). We found the results of all three methods to be similar (25 out of the 33 had matching genera), but the GTDB approach was less subjective, and required far less labor. The primary differences in the remaining taxonomic assignments related to proposed taxonomy changes by the GTDB team.

[1]  A. Phillippy,et al.  High throughput ANI analysis of 90K prokaryotic genomes reveals clear species boundaries , 2018, Nature Communications.

[2]  Donovan H. Parks,et al.  A standardized bacterial taxonomy based on genome phylogeny substantially revises the tree of life , 2018, Nature Biotechnology.

[3]  Henrik Christensen,et al.  Proposed minimal standards for the use of genome data for the taxonomy of prokaryotes. , 2018, International journal of systematic and evolutionary microbiology.

[4]  K. Kupkova,et al.  Bioinformatics strategies for taxonomy independent binning and visualization of sequences in shotgun metagenomics , 2016, Computational and structural biotechnology journal.

[5]  G. Garrity A New Genomics-Driven Taxonomy of Bacteria and Archaea: Are We There Yet? , 2016, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[6]  Natalia N. Ivanova,et al.  Microbial species delineation using whole genome sequences , 2015, Nucleic acids research.

[7]  Connor T. Skennerton,et al.  CheckM: assessing the quality of microbial genomes recovered from isolates, single cells, and metagenomes , 2015, Genome research.

[8]  David A. Coil,et al.  Swabs to genomes: a comprehensive workflow , 2015, PeerJ.

[9]  J. Eisen,et al.  Draft Genome Sequences of 26 Porphyromonas Strains Isolated from the Canine Oral Microbiome , 2015, Genome Announcements.

[10]  Aaron E. Darling,et al.  A5-miseq: an updated pipeline to assemble microbial genomes from Illumina MiSeq data , 2014, Bioinform..

[11]  Jizhong Zhou,et al.  A Proposed Genus Boundary for the Prokaryotes Based on Genomic Insights , 2014, Journal of bacteriology.

[12]  J. Chun,et al.  Towards a taxonomic coherence between average nucleotide identity and 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity for species demarcation of prokaryotes. , 2014, International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology.

[13]  J. Chun,et al.  Integrating genomics into the taxonomy and systematics of the Bacteria and Archaea. , 2014, International journal of systematic and evolutionary microbiology.

[14]  Holly M. Bik,et al.  PhyloSift: phylogenetic analysis of genomes and metagenomes , 2014, PeerJ.

[15]  James R. Cole,et al.  Ribosomal Database Project: data and tools for high throughput rRNA analysis , 2013, Nucleic Acids Res..

[16]  Han Zheng,et al.  Whole-genome sequence comparison as a method for improving bacterial species definition. , 2014, The Journal of general and applied microbiology.

[17]  N. Loman,et al.  A Cross-Sectional Survey of Bacterial Species in Plaque from Client Owned Dogs with Healthy Gingiva, Gingivitis or Mild Periodontitis , 2013, PloS one.

[18]  P. Fournier,et al.  Advantages and limitations of genomics in prokaryotic taxonomy. , 2013, Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases.

[19]  J. Eisen,et al.  Systematic Identification of Gene Families for Use as “Markers” for Phylogenetic and Phylogeny-Driven Ecological Studies of Bacteria and Archaea and Their Major Subgroups , 2013, PloS one.

[20]  N. Loman,et al.  Defining bacterial species in the genomic era: insights from the genus Acinetobacter , 2012, BMC Microbiology.

[21]  F. Dewhirst,et al.  The Canine Oral Microbiome , 2012, PloS one.

[22]  Xiaoyu Wang,et al.  A large-scale benchmark study of existing algorithms for taxonomy-independent microbial community analysis , 2012, Briefings Bioinform..

[23]  H. Klenk,et al.  En route to a genome-based classification of Archaea and Bacteria? , 2010, Systematic and applied microbiology.

[24]  Paramvir S. Dehal,et al.  FastTree 2 – Approximately Maximum-Likelihood Trees for Large Alignments , 2010, PloS one.

[25]  R. Rosselló-Móra,et al.  Shifting the genomic gold standard for the prokaryotic species definition , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[26]  Eric P. Nawrocki,et al.  Structural rna homology search and alignment using covariance models , 2009 .

[27]  Rick L. Stevens,et al.  The RAST Server: Rapid Annotations using Subsystems Technology , 2008, BMC Genomics.

[28]  E. Myers,et al.  Basic local alignment search tool. , 1990, Journal of molecular biology.