Advertisement

Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry

, Volume 410, Issue 22, pp 5439–5444 | Cite as

Serogroup-level resolution of the “Super-7” Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli using nanopore single-molecule DNA sequencing

  • Adam Peritz
  • George C. Paoli
  • Chin-Yi Chen
  • Andrew G. Gehring
Communication
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Food Safety Analysis

Abstract

DNA sequencing and other DNA-based methods are now broadly used for detection and identification of bacterial foodborne pathogens. For the identification of foodborne bacterial pathogens, taxonomic assignments must be made to the species or even subspecies level. Long-read DNA sequencing provides finer taxonomic resolution than short-read sequencing. Here, we demonstrate the potential of long-read shotgun sequencing obtained from the Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) MinION single-molecule sequencer, in combination with the Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST) with custom sequence databases, for foodborne pathogen identification. A library of mixed DNA from strains of the “Super-7” Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) serogroups (O26, O45, O103, O111, O121, O145, and O157[:H7]) was sequenced using the ONT MinION resulting in 44,245 long-read sequences. The ONT MinION sequences were compared to a custom database composed of the E. coli O-antigen gene clusters. A vast majority of the sequence reads were from outside of the O-antigen cluster and did not align to any sequences in the O-antigen database. However, 58 sequences (0.13% of the total sequence reads) did align to a specific Super-7 O-antigen gene cluster, with each O-antigen cluster aligning to at least four sequence reads. BLAST analysis against a custom whole-genome database revealed that 5096 (11.5%) of the MinION sequence reads aligned to one and only one sequence in the database, of which 99.6% aligned to a sequence from a “Super-7” STEC. These results demonstrate the ability of the method to resolve STEC to the serogroup level and the potential general utility of the MinION for the detection and typing of foodborne pathogens.

Keywords

MinION Nanopore DNA sequencing Shiga toxin-producing E. coli, STEC Foodborne pathogen detection 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by the USDA, Agricultural Research Service, National Program 108 Food Safety in-house projects. The authors would like to thank Dr. Pina Fratamico reviewing the manuscript. We would also like to thank Drs. Rebecca Lindsey and Nancy Strockbine from CDC for providing the non-O157:H7 STEC strains. Mention of brand or firm names does not constitute an endorsement by the USDA over others of a similar nature not mentioned. The USDA is an equal opportunity employer. BLAST® is a Registered Trademark of the National Library of Medicine.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

216_2018_877_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (172 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 171 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    WHO. WHO estimates of the global burden of foodborne diseases: foodborne diseases burden epidemiology reference group 2007–2015. Geneva: WHO; 2015. http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/foodborne_disease/fergreport/en/. Accessed 20 Nov 2017Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Scallan E, Griffin PM, Angulo FJ, Tauxe RV, Hoekstra RM. Foodborne illness acquired in the United States—unspecified agents. Emerg Infect Dis. 2011;17(1):16–22.  https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1701.P11101. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hoffman, S, Maculloch, B, Batz, M. Economic burden of major foodborne illnesses acquired in the United States. USDA Economic Research Service: Economic Information Bulletin Number 140. USDA, Washington, DC, USA. 2015. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/43984/52807_eib140.pdf? Accessed 28 Nov 2017.
  4. 4.
    Umesha S, Manukumar HM. Advanced molecular diagnostic techniques for detection of food-borne pathogens: current applications and future challenges. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2017;8:1–21.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2015.1126701. Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    JW-F L, Ab Mutalib N-S, Chan K-G, Lee L-H. Rapid methods for the detection of foodborne bacterial pathogens: principles, applications, advantages and limitations. Front Microbiol. 2014;5:770.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2014.00770. Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mangal M, Bansal S, Sharma SK, Gupta RK. Molecular detection of foodborne pathogens: a rapid and accurate answer to food safety. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2016;56:1568–84.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2013.782483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhao X, Lin CW, Wang J, Oh DH. Advances in rapid detection methods for foodborne pathogens. J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2014;24:297–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sandrin TR, Goldstein JE, Schumaker S. MALDI TOF MS profiling of bacteria at the strain level: a review. Mass Spectrom Rev. 2013;32:188–217.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mas.21359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Allard MW, Strain E, Melka D, Bunning K, Musser SM, Brown EW, et al. Practical value of food pathogen traceability through building a whole-genome sequencing network and database. J Clin Microbiol. 2016;54:1975–83.  https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.00081-16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gilchrist CA, Turner SD, Riley MF, Petri WA Jr, Hewlett EL. Whole-genome sequencing in outbreak analysis. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2015;28:541–63.  https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.00075-13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Benítez-Páez A, Portune KJ, Sanz Y. Species-level resolution of 16S rRNA gene amplicons sequenced through the MinION™ portable nanopore sequencer. Gigascience. 2016;5:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13742-016-0111-z. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Quick J, Ashton P, Calus S, Chatt C, Gossain S, Hawker J, et al. Rapid draft sequencing and real-time nanopore sequencing in a hospital outbreak of Salmonella. Genome Biol. 2015;16:114.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-015-0677-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schmidt K, Mwaigwisya S, Crossman LC, Doumith M, Munroe D, Pires C, et al. Identification of bacterial pathogens and antimicrobial resistance directly from clinical urines by nanopore-based metagenomic sequencing. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2017;72:104–14.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkw397. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Debroy C, Fratamico PM, Yan X, Baranzoni GM, Liu Y, Needleman DS, et al. Comparison of O-antigen gene clusters of all O-serogroups of Escherichia coli and proposal for adopting a new nomenclature for O-typing. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0147434.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Loman NJ, Quinlan AR. Poretools: a toolkit for analyzing nanopore sequence data. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:3399–401.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btu555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kunin CM, Beard MV, Halmagyi NE. Evidence of common hapten associated with endotoxin fractions of E. coli and other Enterobacteriaceae. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1962;111:160–6.  https://doi.org/10.3181/00379727-111-27734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jensen SO, Reeves PR. Deletion of the Escherichia coli O14:K7 O antigen gene cluster. Can J Microbiol. 2004;50:299–302.  https://doi.org/10.1139/w04-010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Iguchi A, Iyoda S, Kikuchi T, Ogura Y, Katsura K, Ohnishi M, et al. A complete view of the genetic diversity of the Escherichia coli O-antigen biosynthesis gene cluster. DNA Res. 2014;22:101–7.  https://doi.org/10.1093/dnares/dsu043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jain M, Fiddes I, Miga KH, Olsen HE, Paten B, Akeson M. Improved data analysis for the MinION nanopore sequencer. Nat Methods. 2016;12:351–6.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3290. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McIntyre ABR, Rizzardi L, Yu AM, Alexander N, Rosen GL, Botkin DJ, et al. Nanopore sequencing in microgravity. NPJ Microgravity. 2016;2:16035.  https://doi.org/10.1038/npjmgrav.2016.35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jain M, Tyson JR, Loose M, CLC I, Eccles DA, O’Grady JO, et al. NinION analysis and reference consortium. MinION analysis and reference consortium: phase 2 data release and analysis of R9.0 chemistry. F1000Res. 2017;6:760.  https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11354.1. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sadiq, AM, Hazen TH, Rasko, DA, Eppinger M. Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli genomics: past, present, and future. Microbiol Spect. 2014; 2:EHEC-0020-2013. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1128/microbiolspec.EHEC-0020-2013.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Molecular Characterization of Foodborne Pathogens Research Unit, Eastern Regional Research CenterAgricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of AgricultureWyndmoorUSA

Personalised recommendations