Next Article in Journal
A Scalable Data Structure for Efficient Graph Analytics and In-Place Mutations
Previous Article in Journal
Can We Mathematically Spot the Possible Manipulation of Results in Research Manuscripts Using Benford’s Law?
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Data Descriptor

Draft Genome Sequence Data of Lysinibacillus sphaericus Strain 1795 with Insecticidal Properties

by
Maria N. Romanenko
1,2,
Maksim A. Nesterenko
1,
Anton E. Shikov
1,2,
Anton A. Nizhnikov
1,2 and
Kirill S. Antonets
1,2,*
1
All-Russia Research Institute for Agricultural Microbiology, 196608 St. Petersburg, Russia
2
Faculty of Biology, St. Petersburg State University, 199034 St. Petersburg, Russia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Data 2023, 8(11), 167; https://doi.org/10.3390/data8110167
Submission received: 8 September 2023 / Revised: 1 November 2023 / Accepted: 1 November 2023 / Published: 3 November 2023

Abstract

:
Lysinibacillus sphaericus holds a significant agricultural importance by being able to produce insecticidal toxins and chemical moieties of varying antibacterial and fungicidal activities. In this study, the genome of the L. sphaericus strain 1795 is presented. Illumina short reads sequenced on the HiSeq X platform were used to obtain the genome’s assembly by applying the SPAdes v3.15.4 software. The genome size based on a cumulative length of 23 contigs reached 4.74 Mb, with a respective N50 of 1.34 Mb. The assembled genome carried 4672 genes, including 4643 protein-encoding ones, 5 of which represented loci coding for insecticidal toxins active against the orders Diptera, Lepidoptera, and Blattodea. We also revealed biosynthetic gene clusters responsible for the synthesis of secondary metabolites with predicted antibacterial, fungicidal, and growth-promoting properties. The genomic data provided will be helpful for deepening our understanding of genetic markers determining the efficient application of the L. sphaericus strain 1795 primarily for biocontrol purposes in veterinary and medical applications against several groups of blood-sucking insects.
Dataset: The raw genome sequencing data of Illumina HiSeq X were submitted to the NCBI SRA database in a FASTQ format with BioSample SAMN37209907, under BioProject PRJNA1011199. The assembled genome is available in the NCBI GeneBank under ASM3119793v1.
Dataset License: CC-BY

1. Summary

Lysinibacillus sphaericus (formerly called Bacillus sphaericus) is a spore-forming bacterium first described as an insect pathogen nearly six decades ago by Kellen et al. [1,2]. Despite being initially perceived as a highly effective mosquito control agent [3,4,5], this species was later shown to exhibit a wide range of other characteristics, including insecticidal activity against species other than Diptera, and bactericidal, fungicidal, plant growth-promoting, and bioremediation activities, among others, thus being potentially useful in agriculture [1,6,7]. The majority of L. sphaericus strains produce spore-associated larvicidal binary toxins comprised of two subunits called Tpp1 and Tpp2. These subunits were formerly known as BinA and BinB, respectively [1,8]. Some strains are also capable of producing the 3-domain cry-toxin Cry48, requiring binary Tpp49 protein to activate toxicity [9]. An extensive usage of the spore–crystal complex does not fully exploit the insecticidal potential of strains secreting other toxins during the vegetative stage, leading to the emergence of resistant insects [1,7,10]. Given the aforementioned information, there is a high demand for isolating, characterizing, and testing novel strains, especially those synthesizing previously unreported proteins and compounds with agriculturally valuable activities [11]. In this context, the ongoing accumulation of genomic data provides insights into possible mechanisms delineating the potential usefulness of the isolates and could ease the selection of promising strains.

2. Data Description

2.1. Isolation of Lysinibacillus sphaericus Strain 1795 and Characterization of Its Morphology and Insecticidal Activity

The Lysinibacillus sphaericus strain 1795 was isolated from a freshwater pond inhabited by Aedes sp. larvae located in Babolovsky park, Pushkin, St. Petersburg, Russia. When cultivated on a Lysogeny broth agar nutrient medium [12], the strain forms yellow-white, smooth, flat, shiny, and circular colonies (Figure 1a). The vegetative cells are rod-shaped, 0.6–1.0 × 1.5–5.0 µm in size, and capable of forming subterminal spores (Figure 1b).
The strain was deposited in the joint Russian Collection of Agricultural Microorganisms (RCAM) at the All-Russia Research Institute for Agricultural Microbiology, Saint-Petersburg (http://62.152.67.70/cryobank/login.jsp, accessed on 30 August 2023), in 2014, under the registration number RCAM02787 (Supplementary Data S1).
According to the information given in the certificate of deposition, the strain is highly toxic to the second instar larvae of a set of harmful mosquito species: Aedes caspis, Aedes communis, Aedes dorsalis, Aedes dorsalis, Aedes flavescens, Aedes leucomelas, and Culex pipiens molestus (Supplementary Data S1).
It does not affect hydrobionts accompanying mosquito larvae, including flatworms (Planaria torva), gastropods (Limnaea palustris, Limnaea stagnalis), crustaceans (Asellus aquaticus, Cyclops strenuus, Cypridopsis sp., Cypris sp., Daphnia magna, Daphnia pulex), springtails (Podura aquatica), and insects (Cloeon dipterum, Cloeon inscriptum, Lestes nympha, Lestes sponsa, Lestes virens, Nemoura cinerea, Sympetrum danae, Sympetrum flaveolum) (Supplementary Data S1).
These data suggest the suitability of the Lysinibacillus sphaericus strain 1795 for the development of biological preparations against blood-sucking insects and determine the importance of studying its genome to decipher the molecular determinants of insecticidal properties.

2.2. Genome Assembly and Annotation

The whole genome of the 1795 strain was sequenced using the Illumina HiSeq X platform with 150 bp paired-end reads. According to the quality control reported using the FastQC v0.12.1 [13] and fastP v0.23.2 [14] programs, the sequencing data of the short-read DNA libraries, both raw and devoid of adapters, were of high quality, i.e., presented uniform distributions of quality scores, GC content, etc. The draft, de novo genome assembly generated using the SPAdes v3.15.4 software [15] consisted of 23 contigs with a total size and N50 of 4.74 Mb and 1.34 Mb, respectively. The genome’s completeness was equal to 99%, while contamination constituted only 1%, as revealed with CheckM v1.2.2 [16] (Supplementary Data S2). Other properties of the assembly are presented in Table 1.
When utilizing the BUSCO v5.4.2 program [18], we found that the number of fully assembled single-copy orthologues was at least 99.8% percent, when compared with both the Bacillales_odb10 and Bacilli_odb10 databases (Table 2). Therefore, the results indicate the high quality and completeness of the genome assembly.
We then picked 10 phylogenetically closest genome assemblies of bacteria belonging to the Bacillaceae family deposited in the NCI Refseq database [19], based on the ANI (average nucleotide identity) values calculated using the fastANI v1.33 tool [20]. The genomes with the highest overall similarity of nucleotide sequences almost exclusively belonged to the L. sphaericus strains, thus corroborating the valid taxonomic attribution of the strain 1795 (Table 3).
The annotation with the Prokka v1.14.6 tool [21] showed that the genome of the studied strain contained 4672 genes, 4643 of which were coding sequences, with 1128 of them marked as hypothetical proteins and lacking annotations (Supplementary Data S3). The BtToxin_Digger v1.0.10 tool indicated that the genome analyzed housed loci coding for insecticidal toxins, namely, Mtx1Aa1, Mpp3Aa1, Tpp1Aa2, Tpp2Aa2, and Spp1Aa1. The respective toxins were shown to exert an effect on a wide range of insects belonging to the orders Diptera, Lepidoptera, and Blattodea. According to the inferences obtained with the BtToxin_Digger v1.0.10 [22] and CryProcessor v1.0 [23] utility, the genome did not contain cry genes (Table 4).
The biosynthetic gene clusters in the L. sphaericus strain 1795’s genome revealed with the DeepBGC v0.1.30 tool [25] belonged to seven gene clusters responsible for the synthesis of secondary metabolites with predicted bactericidal properties. The usage of the antiSMASH v6.1.1 tool [26], in turn, resulted in the eight biosynthetic gene clusters listed in Table 5. The clusters with the highest similarity to the known entities were fencing and petrobactin. The former is known for its strong fungicidal activity, whereas the latter, being a siderophore, serves as a metal-chelating peptide that diminishes iron accessibility to pathogens, thereby contributing to the reduction in pathogenic microorganisms within the soil [27,28,29]. Siderophores could also exert a potential growth-promoting effect on plants, providing them with essential iron [30].
Having analyzed the gathered genomic data, we might conclude that the strain possesses insecticidal efficacy, along with potential bactericidal and fungicidal properties. It follows, therefore, that it may find its further application primarily, but not limited to, as a biological control agent against blood-sucking insects.

3. Methods

3.1. DNA Extraction

For total DNA isolation, the bacterial culture was grown for 12 h on a liquid Spizizen nutrient medium [31,32] with aeration at +28 °C. It was then centrifuged and washed three times with the buffer (EDTA 0.01M, NaCl 0.15 M pH 8.0). Next, we added 500 µL of the above buffer and 15 µL of a 10 mg/mL Ribonuclease A solution (VWR International Ltd., Poole, UK) to the washed cells. To perform cell lysis, the samples were incubated for 60 min at +37 °C with 10 µL of lysozyme (PanReac AppliChem, Darmstadt, Germany) and 5 µL of mutanolysin (Sigma Chemical Co., St. Louis, MO, USA) added to the solution. The lysozyme had previously been diluted in a buffer (20 mM TrisCl pH 8.0, 2 mM EDTA, 1.2% Triton X-100) to a 10 mg/mL concentration. A mutanolysin working solution (1 mg/mL) was also prepared using the buffer with the following chemical composition: 0.05 M of TES, 1 mM of MgCl2, a pH of 7.0. The purification of the sample from polysaccharides and proteins was carried out by adding 3 μL of proteinase K (600 U/mL; ThermoFisher Scientific, Bremen, Germany) to the cell lysate (3 μL, 30 min incubation at +37 °C). The samples were then incubated with 10% of sodium dodecyl sulfate (50 μL, 10 min incubation at +65 °C) and 80 μL of cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) and NaCl solution in a ratio of 1:10 to achieve the effective denaturation of the proteins. A further DNA purification was performed through phenol-chloroform extraction, without the addition of isoamyl alcohol. The DNA was precipitated by adding isopropanol to the samples, followed by washing three times with 70% of freshly prepared ethanol solution. At the last stage, 30 µL of Tris-EDTA (TE) buffer (pH 8.0) was added to dissolve the DNA, and the samples were left in a refrigerator at +4 °C for 18–24 h.

3.2. DNA Quality Control

The concentration of the isolated genomic DNA was assessed using a Qubit® 3.0 fluorimeter and a Qubit dsDNA BR Assay kit (Life Technologies, Eugene, ON, USA). The contamination with proteins, phenol, or other contaminating agents was evaluated using 260 nm/280 nm and 260 nm/230 nm absorbance ratios, with a value of ≥1.8 indicating the purity of the sample. The measurements were carried out on a CLARIOstar Plus multimodal reader (BMG labtech, Germany). Additional qualitative and quantitative analyses of the DNA samples were performed using electrophoresis in 1% of agarose gel stained with 0.002% of ethidium bromide via comparison with the λ DNA/HindIII marker (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., Waltham, MA, USA).

3.3. Whole Genome Sequencing, De Novo Genome Assembly, and Annotation

The whole genome sequencing was conducted on the Illumina HiSeq X platform (Illumina) in the paired-end mode, with a read length of 2 × 150 bp, by Macrogen Inc. (Seoul, Republic of Korea). Quality control of the short nucleotide reads was executed with FastQC v0.12.1 [13]. The removal of the adapter sequences and the additional quality control of the reads was performed using fastp v0.23.2 [14]. The de novo assembly of the genome was made using SPAdes v3.15.4 [15] in the “--careful” mode. The obtained assembly was then quality-controlled with QUAST v5.2.0 [17]. The taxonomy-wise completeness of the assembly was evaluated by calculating the percentage of the one-copy orthologs from the “Bacillales_odb10” and “Bacilli_odb10” databases using the BUSCO v5.4.2 software [18]. The benchmarking datasets used in the analysis were based on the v10 release of the OrthoDB database [33]. We also verified the taxonomical attribution by assessing the completeness and contamination level utilizing CheckM v1.2.2 [16].
In the next stage, we used fastANI v1.33 [20] to reveal the phylogenetically closest genomes belonging to the Lysinibacillus spp. downloaded from the NCBI RefSeq database [19] by picking ten genomes with the highest average nucleotide identity (ANI) values when compared with our assembly. The selected dataset was then applied to train a model for Prodigal v2.6.3 [34], which was further used for the accurate prediction of coding sequences with the Prokka v1.14.6 [21]. To increase the number of meaningful annotations, we included more than 700,000 protein sequences of the Bacillus spp. from the Identical Protein Groups database [35] as the most-trusted proteins for Prokka-derived annotations.
Next, we mined for the genes encoding various insecticidal toxins using the BtToxin_Digger v1.0.10 [22] and CryProcessor v1.0 [23] tools. The target species of insects against which the revealed virulence factors are active were derived from the BPPRC (Bacterial Pesticidal Protein Resource Center) specificity database [24]. The biosynthetic gene clusters, as well as the spectrum of their activities, were predicted using the DeepBGC v0.1.30 [25] and antiSMASH v6.1.1 [26] tools.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/data8110167/s1, Supplementary Data S1: The registration certificate of the L. sphaericus strain 1795 in the RCAM collection (Russian Collection of Agricultural Microorganisms); Supplementary Data S2: The report from the CheckM v1.2.2 tool run on the annotation results; Supplementary Data S3: The annotation results in the GBK format made using Prokka v1.14.6, based on the Prodigal v2.6.3 model trained on the 10 closest assemblies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.S.A.; methodology, K.S.A. and M.A.N.; software, M.A.N.; validation, M.N.R. and A.E.S.; formal analysis, M.N.R. and A.E.S.; investigation, M.N.R.; resources, A.A.N.; data curation, M.A.N. and K.S.A.; writing—original draft preparation, M.N.R. and A.E.S.; writing—review and editing, M.N.R., A.E.S., K.S.A., M.A.N. and A.A.N.; visualization, M.N.R.; supervision, K.S.A.; project administration, K.S.A.; funding acquisition, A.A.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The article was made with the support of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation in accordance with agreement No. 075-15-2021-1055, date 28 September 2021, on providing a grant in the form of subsidies from the federal budget of the Russian Federation. The grant was provided for the implementation of the following project: “Mobilization of the genetic resources of microorganisms on the basis of the Russian Collection of Agricultural Microorganisms (RCAM) at the All-Russia Research Institute for Agricultural Microbiology (ARRIAM) according to the network principle of organization”.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The raw genome sequencing data of Illumina HiSeq X were submitted to the NCBI SRA database in a FASTQ format with BioSample SAMN37209907, under BioProject PRJNA1011199. The assembled genome is available in the NCBI GeneBank under ASM3119793v1.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Berry, C. The Bacterium, Lysinibacillus sphaericus, as an Insect Pathogen. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 2012, 109, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Kellen, W.R.; Clark, T.B.; Lindegren, J.E.; Ho, B.C.; Rogoff, M.H.; Singer, S. Bacillus sphaericus Neide as a Pathogen of Mosquitoes. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 1965, 7, 442–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Silva Filha, M.H.N.L.; Berry, C.; Regis, L. Lysinibacillus sphaericus: Toxins Mode of Action, Applications for Mosquito Control and Resistance Management. In Advances in Insect Physiology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 89–176. ISBN 9780128001974. [Google Scholar]
  4. Priest, F.G. Biological Control of Mosquitoes and Other Biting Flies by Bacillus sphaericus and Bacillus thuringiensis. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 1992, 72, 357–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Charles, J.-F.; Nielson-LeRoux, C.; Delécluse, A. Bacillus sphaericus Toxins: Molecular Biology and Mode of Action. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1996, 41, 451–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Onajobi, I.B.; Idowu, E.O.; Adeyemi, J.O.; Samson, O.J.; Ogunyinka, P.I.; Fagade, O.E. In Vitro Antibacterial Activities and Molecular Characterization of Bacterial Species Isolated from Farmlands against Selected Pathogens. Biotechnol. Rep. 2020, 27, e00513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Nielsen-Leroux, C.; Charles, J.-F.; Thiery, I.; Georghiou, G.P. Resistance in a Laboratory Population of Culex quinquefasciatus (Diptera: Culicidae) to Bacillus sphaericus Binary Toxin Is Due to a Change in the Receptor on Midgut Brush-Border Membranes. Eur. J. Biochem. 1995, 228, 206–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hire, R.S.; Hadapad, A.B.; Dongre, T.K.; Kumar, V. Purification and Characterization of Mosquitocidal Bacillus sphaericus BinA Protein. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 2009, 101, 106–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Glare, T.R.; Jurat-Fuentes, J.-L.; O’Callaghan, M. Basic and Applied Research: Entomopathogenic Bacteria. In Microbial Control of Insect and Mite Pests; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 47–67. [Google Scholar]
  10. Wirth, M.C.; Georghiou, G.P.; Malik, J.I.; Abro, G.H. Laboratory Selection for Resistance to Bacillus sphaericus in Culex quinquefasciatus (Diptera: Culicidae) from California, USA. J. Med. Entomol. 2000, 37, 534–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lozano, L.C.; Dussán, J. Metal Tolerance and Larvicidal Activity of Lysinibacillus sphaericus. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2013, 29, 1383–1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bertani, G. Studies on lysogenesis I. J. Bacteriol. 1951, 62, 293–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Andrews, S. FastQC: A Quality Control Tool for High Throughput Sequence Data. Available online: https://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc/ (accessed on 4 May 2023).
  14. Chen, S.; Zhou, Y.; Chen, Y.; Gu, J. Fastp: An Ultra-Fast All-in-One FASTQ Preprocessor. Bioinformatics 2018, 34, i884–i890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Bankevich, A.; Nurk, S.; Antipov, D.; Gurevich, A.A.; Dvorkin, M.; Kulikov, A.S.; Lesin, V.M.; Nikolenko, S.I.; Pham, S.; Prjibelski, A.D.; et al. SPAdes: A New Genome Assembly Algorithm and Its Applications to Single-Cell Sequencing. J. Comput. Biol. 2012, 19, 455–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Parks, D.H.; Imelfort, M.; Skennerton, C.T.; Hugenholtz, P.; Tyson, G.W. CheckM: Assessing the Quality of Microbial Genomes Recovered from Isolates, Single Cells, and Metagenomes. Genome Res. 2015, 25, 1043–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Gurevich, A.; Saveliev, V.; Vyahhi, N.; Tesler, G. QUAST: Quality Assessment Tool for Genome Assemblies. Bioinformatics 2013, 29, 1072–1075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Manni, M.; Berkeley, M.R.; Seppey, M.; Simão, F.A.; Zdobnov, E.M. BUSCO Update: Novel and Streamlined Workflows along with Broader and Deeper Phylogenetic Coverage for Scoring of Eukaryotic, Prokaryotic, and Viral Genomes. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2021, 38, 4647–4654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. O’Leary, N.A.; Wright, M.W.; Brister, J.R.; Ciufo, S.; Haddad, D.; McVeigh, R.; Rajput, B.; Robbertse, B.; Smith-White, B.; Ako-Adjei, D.; et al. Reference Sequence (RefSeq) Database at NCBI: Current Status, Taxonomic Expansion, and Functional Annotation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016, 44, D733–D745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Jain, C.; Rodriguez-R, L.M.; Phillippy, A.M.; Konstantinidis, K.T.; Aluru, S. High Throughput ANI Analysis of 90K Prokaryotic Genomes Reveals Clear Species Boundaries. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 5114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Seemann, T. Prokka: Rapid Prokaryotic Genome Annotation. Bioinformatics 2014, 30, 2068–2069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Liu, H.; Zheng, J.; Bo, D.; Yu, Y.; Ye, W.; Peng, D.; Sun, M. BtToxin_Digger: A Comprehensive and High-Throughput Pipeline for Mining Toxin Protein Genes from Bacillus thuringiensis. Bioinformatics 2021, 38, 250–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Shikov, A.E.; Malovichko, Y.V.; Skitchenko, R.K.; Nizhnikov, A.A.; Antonets, K.S. No More Tears: Mining Sequencing Data for Novel Bt Cry Toxins with CryProcessor. Toxins 2020, 12, 204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Panneerselvam, S.; Mishra, R.; Berry, C.; Crickmore, N.; Bonning, B.C. BPPRC Database: A Web-Based Tool to Access and Analyse Bacterial Pesticidal Proteins. Database 2022, 2022, baac022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Hannigan, G.D.; Prihoda, D.; Palicka, A.; Soukup, J.; Klempir, O.; Rampula, L.; Durcak, J.; Wurst, M.; Kotowski, J.; Chang, D.; et al. A Deep Learning Genome-Mining Strategy for Biosynthetic Gene Cluster Prediction. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019, 47, e110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Blin, K.; Shaw, S.; Kloosterman, A.M.; Charlop-Powers, Z.; van Wezel, G.P.; Medema, M.H.; Weber, T. AntiSMASH 6.0: Improving Cluster Detection and Comparison Capabilities. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021, 49, W29–W35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Beneduzi, A.; Ambrosini, A.; Passaglia, L.M.P. Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR): Their Potential as Antagonists and Biocontrol Agents. Genet. Mol. Biol. 2012, 35, 1044–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Vanittanakom, N.; Loeffler, W.; Koch, U.; Jung, G. Fengycin—A Novel Antifungal Lipopeptide Antibiotic Produced by Bacillus subtilis F-29-3. J. Antibiot. 1986, 39, 888–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ongena, M.; Jacques, P. Bacillus Lipopeptides: Versatile Weapons for Plant Disease Biocontrol. Trends Microbiol. 2008, 16, 115–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Saha, M.; Sarkar, S.; Sarkar, B.; Sharma, B.K.; Bhattacharjee, S.; Tribedi, P. Microbial Siderophores and Their Potential Applications: A Review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016, 23, 3984–3999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Saleem, F.; Shakoori, A. The First Cry2Ac-Type Protein Toxic to Helicoverpa armigera: Cloning and Overexpression of cry2ac7 Gene from SBS-BT1 Strain of Bacillus thuringiensis. Toxins 2017, 9, 358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Spizizen, J. Transformation of biochemically deficient strains of Bacillus subtilis by deoxyribonucleate. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1958, 44, 1072–1078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kriventseva, E.V.; Kuznetsov, D.; Tegenfeldt, F.; Manni, M.; Dias, R.; Simão, F.A.; Zdobnov, E.M. OrthoDB V10: Sampling the Diversity of Animal, Plant, Fungal, Protist, Bacterial and Viral Genomes for Evolutionary and Functional Annotations of Orthologs. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019, 47, D807–D811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hyatt, D.; Chen, G.-L.; LoCascio, P.F.; Land, M.L.; Larimer, F.W.; Hauser, L.J. Prodigal: Prokaryotic Gene Recognition and Translation Initiation Site Identification. BMC Bioinform. 2010, 11, 119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Agarwala, R.; Barrett, T.; Beck, J.; Benson, D.A.; Bollin, C.; Bolton, E.; Bourexis, D.; Brister, J.R.; Bryant, S.H.; Canese, K.; et al. Database Resources of the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018, 46, D8–D13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. The morphology of the L. sphaericus strain 1795’s colonies (a) and sporulating culture stained with Coomassie brilliant blue (100× objective) (b) after four days of cultivation on an LB nutrient medium.
Figure 1. The morphology of the L. sphaericus strain 1795’s colonies (a) and sporulating culture stained with Coomassie brilliant blue (100× objective) (b) after four days of cultivation on an LB nutrient medium.
Data 08 00167 g001
Table 1. The main characteristics of the draft genome assembly of the L. sphaericus strain 1795 obtained using the QUAST v5.2.0 [17] and CheckM v1.2.2 [16] utilities.
Table 1. The main characteristics of the draft genome assembly of the L. sphaericus strain 1795 obtained using the QUAST v5.2.0 [17] and CheckM v1.2.2 [16] utilities.
Total amount of contigs23
Largest contig (number of nucleotides)1,459,849
Total length (number of nucleotides)4,737,839
GC-content (%)37
N50 value1,336,327
N90 value144,621
L50 value2
L90 value9
Number of properly paired reads (%)99.09
Average depth of coverage226
Assembly completeness (%)99.34
Suspected contamination (%)0.99
Table 2. Estimation of the presence of BUSCO v5.4.2 markers [18] in the protein-coding genes presented in the assembly. Presented are the number of orthologs found in the assembly, coupled with their respective percentages.
Table 2. Estimation of the presence of BUSCO v5.4.2 markers [18] in the protein-coding genes presented in the assembly. Presented are the number of orthologs found in the assembly, coupled with their respective percentages.
DatabaseBacillales_Odb10Bacilli_Odb10
Single-copy orthologues assembled completely449 (99.8%)302 (100.0%)
Orthologues present in one copy445 (98.9%)301 (99.7%)
Multi-copies orthologues4 (0.9%)1 (0.3%)
Fragmented sequences0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)
Orthologues missing from the assembly1 (0.2%)0 (0.0%)
Total number of single-copy orthologues in the database450302
Table 3. The list of the phylogenetically closest assemblies relative to the genome of the studied strain according to the ANI value calculated with the fastANI v1.33 software [20].
Table 3. The list of the phylogenetically closest assemblies relative to the genome of the studied strain according to the ANI value calculated with the fastANI v1.33 software [20].
NCBI RefSeq AssemblyTaxonANI
GCF_001598075.1L. sphaericus99.9977
GCF_001581875.1L. sphaericus99.997
GCF_015335425.1L. sphaericus99.9962
GCF_000568835.1L. sphaericus99.9962
GCF_015845635.1L. sphaericus99.9956
GCF_015845625.1L. fusiformis99.995
GCF_024753545.1L. sphaericus99.9947
GCF_015845595.1L. sphaericus99.9942
GCF_001629735.1L. sphaericus99.9705
GCF_001623495.1L. sphaericus99.9702
Table 4. The repertoire of insecticidal toxins identified in the genome of the analyzed strain using the BtToxin_Digger v1.0.10 program [22]. The target species describe experimentally derived data deposited in the BPPRC [24] (Bacterial Pesticidal Protein Resource Center) specificity database.
Table 4. The repertoire of insecticidal toxins identified in the genome of the analyzed strain using the BtToxin_Digger v1.0.10 program [22]. The target species describe experimentally derived data deposited in the BPPRC [24] (Bacterial Pesticidal Protein Resource Center) specificity database.
ToxinPercent of IdentityTarget OrderTarget Species
Mtx1Aa198.5DipteraAedes aegypti, Chironomus riparius, Culex quinquefasciatus, Toxorhynchites splendens
Mpp3Aa1100DipteraAedes aegypti, Culex quinquefasciatus
Tpp1Aa2100DipteraAedes aegypti, Aedes atropalpus,
Anopheles albimanus, Anopheles gambiae, Anopheles quadrimaculatus, Anopheles stephensi, Culex pipiens, Culex quinquefasciatus
Tpp2Aa2100DipteraAedes aegypti, Aedes atropalpus, Anopheles albimanus, Anopheles gambiae, Anopheles quadrimaculatus, Anopheles stephensi, Culex pipiens, Culex quinquefasciatus
Spp1Aa1100LepidopteraSpodoptera litura
BlattodeaBlattella germanica
Table 5. Biosynthetic gene clusters harbored in the genomic assembly predicted with the antiSMASH v6.1.1 [26] and DeepBGC v0.1.30 [25] programs. The score reflects the accuracy of cluster prediction obtained with the DeepBGC v0.1.30 program, while the similarity to the known clusters is calculated with the antiSMASH v6.1.1 program. The “–” symbol indicates that the biosynthetic cluster was found by only one program out of the two used.
Table 5. Biosynthetic gene clusters harbored in the genomic assembly predicted with the antiSMASH v6.1.1 [26] and DeepBGC v0.1.30 [25] programs. The score reflects the accuracy of cluster prediction obtained with the DeepBGC v0.1.30 program, while the similarity to the known clusters is calculated with the antiSMASH v6.1.1 program. The “–” symbol indicates that the biosynthetic cluster was found by only one program out of the two used.
ContigToolType/ActivityLocation
(Relative Coordinate, b.p.)
Most Similar Known
Cluster
SimilarityScore
1antiSMASHTerpene329,114–349,935
(total: 20,822)
DeepBGCAntibacterial561,520–562,288
(total: 768)
0.87
DeepBGCAntibacterial1,323,667–1,325,923
(total: 2256)
0.60
2antiSMASH/DeepBGCSiderophore/
Antibacterial
345,655–359,195
(total: 13,541)
Petrobactin33%0.56
antiSMASHNon-ribosomal peptide synthetase532,592–578,510
(total: 4519)
antiSMASHNon-ribosomal peptide synthetase628,420–690,347
(total: 61,928)
Molybdenum cofactor23%
antiSMASH/DeepBGCagrD-like cyclic lactone autoinducer peptides, linear azol(in)e-containing peptides, thiopeptide/
Antibacterial
1,302,324–1,334,433
(total: 32,109)
0.76
DeepBGCAntibacterial792,182–805,500
(total: 13,318)
0.64
DeepBGCAntibacterial807,568–810,289
(total: 2721)
0.56
3antiSMASHType III PKS114,878–155,960
(total: 41,083)
4antiSMASHBeta-lactone containing protease inhibitor1–17,474
(total: 17,474)
Fengycin46%
5antiSMASHNRPS-like fragment15,196–58,363
(total: 43,168)
Kijanimicin4%
6DeepBGCAntibacterial192–1770
(total: 1578)
0.92
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Romanenko, M.N.; Nesterenko, M.A.; Shikov, A.E.; Nizhnikov, A.A.; Antonets, K.S. Draft Genome Sequence Data of Lysinibacillus sphaericus Strain 1795 with Insecticidal Properties. Data 2023, 8, 167. https://doi.org/10.3390/data8110167

AMA Style

Romanenko MN, Nesterenko MA, Shikov AE, Nizhnikov AA, Antonets KS. Draft Genome Sequence Data of Lysinibacillus sphaericus Strain 1795 with Insecticidal Properties. Data. 2023; 8(11):167. https://doi.org/10.3390/data8110167

Chicago/Turabian Style

Romanenko, Maria N., Maksim A. Nesterenko, Anton E. Shikov, Anton A. Nizhnikov, and Kirill S. Antonets. 2023. "Draft Genome Sequence Data of Lysinibacillus sphaericus Strain 1795 with Insecticidal Properties" Data 8, no. 11: 167. https://doi.org/10.3390/data8110167

APA Style

Romanenko, M. N., Nesterenko, M. A., Shikov, A. E., Nizhnikov, A. A., & Antonets, K. S. (2023). Draft Genome Sequence Data of Lysinibacillus sphaericus Strain 1795 with Insecticidal Properties. Data, 8(11), 167. https://doi.org/10.3390/data8110167

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop