Open Access

Complete genome sequence of Peptoclostridium difficile strain Z31

  • Felipe L. Pereira1,
  • Carlos A. Oliveira Júnior2,
  • Rodrigo O. S. Silva2,
  • Fernanda A. Dorella1,
  • Alex F. Carvalho1,
  • Gabriel M. F. Almeida1,
  • Carlos A. G. Leal1,
  • Francisco C. F. Lobato2 and
  • Henrique C. P. Figueiredo1, 3Email author
Contributed equally
Gut Pathogens20168:11

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13099-016-0095-3

Received: 20 November 2015

Accepted: 3 March 2016

Published: 1 April 2016

Abstract

Background

Peptoclostridium (Clostridium) difficile is a spore-forming bacterium responsible for nosocomial infections in humans. It is recognized as an important agent of diarrhea and colitis in several animal species and a possible zoonotic agent. Despite the known importance of P. difficile infection in humans and animals, no vaccine or other effective measure to control the disease is commercially available. A possible alternative treatment for P. difficile infection is the use of a nontoxigenic strain of P. difficile as a competitive exclusion agent. However, a thorough knowledge of this strain is necessary for this purpose. We selected P. difficile Z31, a nontoxigenic strain (PCR ribotype 009), for investigation because it prevents P. difficile infection in a hamster model.

Results

The genome sequence of P. difficile Z31 is a circular chromosome of 4298,263 bp, with a 29.21 % GC content, encoding 4128 proteins, and containing 78 pseudogenes. This strain belongs to ST 3, clade 1, and has five phage regions in its genome. Genes responsible for resistance to tetracycline and erythromycin were detected and more importantly, Z31 also contains genes that promote spore production and stability, cell attachment, intestinal adherence, and biofilm formation.

Conclusion

In this study, we present the first complete genome sequence of nontoxigenic P. difficile strain Z31. When the Z31 genome was compared with those of other isolates available in GenBank, including a draft genome of a nontoxigenic strain, several unique regions were evident. Z31 contains no toxin genes, but encodes several non-toxin virulence factors, which may favor host colonization.

Keywords

Peptoclostridium (Clostridium) difficile Live vaccineGenome sequencingCompetitive exclusion

Background

Peptoclostridium difficile, initially called Bacillus difficilis, was first isolated from the meconium of newborns by Hall and O’Toole in 1935 [1]. The name ‘Clostridium difficile’ was made official in 1980 in the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names [2] based on a phenotypic study by Prevót [3]. Recently, in a study based on 16S rRNA and ribosomal protein sequences, Yutin and Galperin [4] proposed the reallocation of some Clostridium species into six new genera, renaming C. difficilePeptoclostridium difficile’.

The genus Peptoclostridium, in the phylum Firmicutes, class Clostridia, order Clostridiales, and family Peptostreptococcaceae [4], is characterized by strictly anaerobic, motile, pleomorphic Gram-positive bacteria, with dimensions of 0.5–1.9 × 3.0–16.9 µm, which form oval subterminal spores (Fig. 1) with a bacillus cell shape. The bacteria are spore-forming and mesophilic (20–37 °C), with an optimal pH range of neutral to alkaline. They ferment fructose, glucose, levulose, mannitol, mannose, salicin, and usually xylose, but not galactose, glycerol, inulin, lactose, raffinose, or sucrose. They are chemoorganotrophs and can use yeast extract as their sole carbon and energy source and peptone as their nitrogen source. Peptoclostridium difficile liquefies gelatin, but does not attack coagulated serum, milk, or meat proteins and is unable to reduce sulfate. It is negative for lecithinase, lipase, oxidase, and catalase. Acetate is produced as a major end product, but it also produces butyrate, formate, isobutyrate, isocaproate, isovalerate, lactate, and valerate [35].
Fig. 1

Photomicrograph of Peptoclostridium difficile strain Z31

Until the late 1970s, P. difficile was not recognized as pathogenic bacteria. However, in this decade, P. difficile and its toxins were related in fecal contents of human patients with pseudomembranous colitis [6] and the disease was reproduced in hamsters [7], confirming the importance of this microorganism as an enteropathogen. Today, this bacterium is known to be the cause of P. difficile infection (PDI), the main cause of nosocomial diarrhea in humans worldwide and a possible cause of diarrhea in general community [8, 9].

In veterinary medicine, P. difficile is the most important uncontrolled cause of neonatal diarrhea in piglets in the USA and Europe, and also occurs in other domestic animals and some wild species [10, 11]. In piglets, CDI affects animals to 1–7 days of life, and it was demonstrated that until 1 day of life, 68–100 % of the animals are infected by the microorganism [12, 13]. The disease is subclinical, and just few animals show diarrhea, however, the infection can affect the development of the animals causing economic losses to the farmer [14].

The pathogeny of PDI involves the colonization of colon by some toxigenic strain of P. difficile and production of its toxins, the toxin A, an enterotoxin, and toxin B, a cytotoxin, that act synergistically causing cytoskeleton damages, cell rounding, disruption of tight junctions and cell death [15]. The genes responsible to produce toxins, the main difference between toxigenic and nontoxigenic strains, are localized in a pathogenicity locus of 19 kb, called PaLoc [16].

Despite the known importance of P. difficile in humans and animals, no vaccine is yet commercially available. Studies have shown that recombinant and classical immunogens expressing toxins A and B can prevent the occurrence of diarrhea or reduce the severity of P. difficile infection (PDI) in a rodent model [17]. These vaccines might limit, but cannot prevent, the fecal shedding of the microorganism, which is essential because P. difficile is a nosocomial pathogen. Because this bacterium is also a potential zoonotic agent, preventing its colonization of domestic animals should be a priority [10]. Among other alternative preventive strategies examined, the use of nontoxigenic P. difficile strains to prevent PDI has been shown to reduce the occurrence of the disease in humans and piglets by preventing their colonization by toxigenic strains [1821].

There has been no report of the complete genome sequence of a nontoxigenic P. difficile strain, a necessary step in understanding this candidate live vaccine. Therefore, in this study, we determined the complete genome sequence of P. difficile nontoxigenic strain Z31.

Methods

Growth conditions and DNA isolation

Peptoclostridium difficile Z31, ribotype 009, a nontoxigenic strain isolated from a healthy dog on February 1, 2009, in the city of Belo Horizonte (state of Minas Gerais, Brazil), was selected for sequencing because it prevented PDI in hamster model [22], similar to some strains previously reported [23]. This strain was grown in Mueller–Hinton agar supplemented with 5 % blood and 0.1 % taurocholate at 37 °C under anaerobic conditions for 48–72 h. Its genomic DNA was extracted with the Maxwell 16® Research Instrument (Promega, USA) combined with lysozyme (10 mg/mL) and proteinase K (20 mg/mL). Briefly, cells were incubated overnight in lysozyme solution (10 mg/mL) at 37 °C. Proteinase K was added and the mixture was incubated at 56 °C for 30 min. According to the kit instructions: (i) the samples were lysed in the presence of a chaotropic agent and a detergent; (ii) the nucleic acids were bound to silica magnetic particles; (iii) the bound particles were washed, to isolate them from other cell components; and (iv) the nucleic acids were eluted into a formulation for sequencing. The extracted DNA was stored at −80 °C until analysis.

Genome sequencing and assembly

The genome was sequenced with the Ion Torrent PGM™, in a mate-pair sequencing kit with an insert size of 3 kbp (~144-fold coverage) and with a fragment sequencing 400 bp kit (~318-fold coverage). The quality of the raw data was analyzed with FastQC [24] and the sequence was assembled with the Mira 4.9.1 software [25] and Newbler 2.9 (Roche, USA) for the fragment library, and with SPAdes 3.5.0 [26] for the mate-pair library (the parameters for all the assembler software are shown in Additional file 1). This was the ab initio strategy applied to all libraries. The larges contigs obtained with Newbler and Mira were used as input, as trusted-contigs, in SPAdes. We obtained 20 scaffolds, with an N50 value of 698,574 bp, and the largest scaffold had a length size of 1691,449 bp. Gap filling was conducted with CLC Genomics Workbench 7 (Qiagen, USA), after the construction of a super scaffold with the CONTIGuator 2.0 software [27], using the default parameters and P. difficile strain CD196 (GenBank: NC_013315.1) as the reference. The gaps in the rRNA operon regions were filled by consensus mapping to the reference, and the remaining gaps were mapped recursively to the raw data on the gap flanks, and it was repeated several times until an overlap was found.

Genome annotation

The genome was annotated automatically with the Prokka 1.10 software (Rapid Bacterial Genome Annotation) [28], with the default parameters and nested databases in the order: TrEMBL Uniprot containing only (Pepto) Clostridium spp. proteins and RefSeq database. The genome was also curated manually in all putative frameshifts using the Artemis software [29], based on the coverage visualized with the CLC Genomics Workbench 7 software, with corrected indel assembly bias. Genes encoding signal peptides were identified with the SignalP 4.0 software [30] on a local installation, followed by the identification of transmembrane helices with Tmhmm 2.0 [31] and a Pfam domain search with PfamScan [32]. These three tools were used with their default parameters.

Multilocus sequence typing (MLST) and in silico PCR

MLST was performed with PubMLST (available at http://pubmlst.org/cdifficile/) using the complete genome sequence. An in silico PCR search for genes related to virulence factors and antimicrobial resistance was performed with the jPCR software [33], with the default parameters and the primer sets shown in Additional file 2.

Quality assurance

Genomic DNA was isolated from a pure bacterial isolate and confirmed with 16S rRNA gene sequencing. All the raw sequencing data were mapped onto the final genome and the lack of contamination with other genomes was confirmed by the coverage and the low number of unmapped reads.

An alignment was constructed with the 16S rRNA sequence regions on the assembled scaffolds, predicted with the Barrnap software (available at https://github.com/tseemann/barrnap), and the 16S rRNA genes of genomes available in GenBank. A phylogenetic tree was constructed from this alignment with the neighbor-joining method based on 1000 randomly selected bootstrap replicates, using the CLC Genomic Workbench 7.0 software. On the tree, strain Z31 was positioned among other P. difficile strains (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2

Phylogenetic tree of Peptoclostridium difficile strain Z31 representing the relative position in the genus Peptoclostridium based on 16S sequences. The statistical method used was maximum likelihood and the bootstrap number was 1000. Thus, the values next to the nodes represent the percentage on the number of times, in 1000 repetitions, in which that clade was formed

Results and discussion

After the genome assembly, gap filling, and annotation process, an in silico PCR was performed through searching for genes related to virulence factor, antibiotic resistance, and other known toxins. Considering the perspective of using the nontoxigenic strain Z31 to prevent PDI by competitive exclusion, some non-toxin virulence factors are desirable, predominantly those factors responsible for spore production and stability and those that promote cell attachment and host colonization. Z31 is positive for Cwp84 and surface-layer protein A (SlpA). SlpA is considered the major factor responsible for bacterial intestinal adherence, and Cwp84 is essential for the formation of that protein [34, 35]. GroEL, Cwp66, and a fibronectin-binding protein (Fbp68), which are also important in host-cell adherence, were also found [3438]. Strain Z31 was also positive for genes encoding the flagellar proteins FliC and FliD, which play roles in the colonization and adherence of Z31 in vivo and are essential in later stages of biofilm formation [3941]. These factors found in Z31 related to cell attachment are extremely important, because non toxigenic strains have to be able to compete with toxigenic strains by the colonization sites to prevent the disease [23].

The gene encoding the major regulator of sporulation in P. difficile, Spo0A, was detected in this strain. An absence or deficiency of Spo0A can cripple or impair the sporulation process [35, 42]. Genes encoding five spore coat proteins (cotA, cotB, cotC, cotD, and sodA) were also detected. The cotA protein is the most important protein in stabilizing the spore coat and ensures the integrity of this structure [43]. The formation of stable spores is also important for a nontoxigenic strain candidate to prevent the disease, because the bacteria need to pass through the stomach and be able to colonize the colon [23]. Vegetative cells are sensible to low pH, on the other hand, the spores resist to this conditions, allowing a great number of viable particles reaches the colon [44]. Genes responsible for resistance to tetracycline (tetM) and erythromycin (ermG) were also detected with previously described PCR primers [45, 46]. In contrast, none of the genes encoding proteins directly linked to toxin production were detected (tcdA, tcdB, tcdC, cdtA, or cdtB) [47] confirming the absence of the pathogenicity locus (PaLoc), which is essential for P. difficile infection [48].

Furthermore, the complete genomes of this species available at GenBank were selected to perform a similarity analysis with Gegenees software [49] with sequence fragmentation length of 500 nucleotides and a threshold of 30 %. Also, two complete genomes of species of the Clostridium genus were included as an outgroup. The similarity matrix was used to generate a heatplot and a “.nexus” format for phylogenomic analysis (Additional file 3). Although the Z31 strain is a nontoxigenic strain, the Additional file 3 shows that clade of this strain is paraphyletic with the type strain ATCC9689, a known as toxigenic strain, suggesting an evolutionary derivation of a same organism. Thereby, the nontoxigenic behavior of the Z31 strain seems to be occasioned by the losses of the toxin genes.

Initial findings

The P. difficile genome is composed of a circular chromosome of 4298,263 bp. The GC content is 29.21 % and the genome contains 78 pseudogenes. Briefly, the genome has 4206 CDSs, and encodes 29 rRNAs, one transfer–messenger RNA (tmRNA), and 58 tRNAs. Table 1 summarizes the subset of the 3809 genes with predicted functions that are associated with each COG functional categories. In summary, 3324 genes were predicted to have Pfam domains, 166 to have signal peptides, and 1011 to have transmembrane helices. No CRISPR repeats were found. Figure 3 shows the disposition of RNAs and CDSs coding sequences on the forward and reverse strands, the GC content, and the GC skew.
Table 1

Number of genes associated with general COG functional categories [55]

Code

Valueb

%agea

Description

J

238

5.6585

Translation, ribosomal structure and biogenesis

A

0

0

RNA processing and modification

K

479

11.3884

Transcription

L

184

4.3747

Replication, recombination and repair

B

1

0.0237

Chromatin structure and dynamics

D

68

1.6167

Cell cycle control, cell division, chromosome partitioning

V

134

3.1859

Defense mechanisms

T

327

7.7746

Signal transduction mechanisms

M

208

4.9453

Cell wall/membrane biogenesis

N

79

1.8782

Cell motility

U

40

0.9510

Intracellular trafficking and secretion

O

111

2.6390

Posttranslational modification, protein turnover, chaperones

C

219

5.2068

Energy production and conversion

G

310

7.3704

Carbohydrate transport and metabolism

E

321

7.6319

Amino acid transport and metabolism

F

93

2.2111

Nucleotide transport and metabolism

H

147

3.4950

Coenzyme transport and metabolism

I

89

2.1160

Lipid transport and metabolism

P

168

3.9942

Inorganic ion transport and metabolism

Q

57

1.3552

Secondary metabolites biosynthesis, transport and catabolism

R

345

8.2025

General function prediction only

S

251

5.9676

Function unknown

2

0.0475

Not in COGs

aThe percentage is based on the total number of protein coding genes in the annotated genome

bThe total not correspond to the final quantity of CDSs for each genome, because some genes are associated with more than one COG functional categories

Fig. 3

Graphical circular map of Peptoclostridium difficile strain Z31 genome. From outside to the center: predicted phage regions by PHAST; RNAs; CDSs on reverse strand; CDSs on forward strand; Blastn hits with BI9, BJ08, ATCC9689/DSM1296, BI1, 2007855, M120, CF5, CD196, CD630DERM, CD630, Cd5.3 strains; GC skew; and, GC content

When the genome of Z31 was compared with those of other P. difficile strains deposited in GenBank [50], it showed high similarity to them (95.50 ± 2.68 %—Additional file 3), with the exception of some genomic islands (Fig. 3), four of which were predicted with PHAST [51] to be phage regions. A brief description of these phages is given in Table 2.
Table 2

Phage summary predicted by PHAST

Number

Length (kbp)

Completeness

First common name

Keyword

GC content

Phage 1

96.3

Intact

Clostr_phi_CD119

Integrase, terminase, portal, head, capsid, tail, lysin, plate, and protease

28.9

Phage 2

24.1

Incomplete

Clostr_phi_CD119

Tail, lysin, and plate

27.9

Phage 3

63.6

Intact

Clostr_phiC2

Integrase, terminase, portal, head, capsid, tail, and lysin

28.6

Phage 4

138.1

Intact

Bacill_G

Protease, recombinase, tail, transposase, integrase, head, capsid, portal, and terminase

35.7

A robust high-throughput MLST scheme for P. difficile was developed and validated [52], and allowed this species to be genotyped directly. Z31 was typed with MLST at loci adk 1, atpA 1, dxr 2, glyA 1, recA 1, sodA 1, and tpi 1, which classified this strain as ST3 in MLST clade 1. This result corroborates previous work, which reported that strains from PCR ribotype 009 are commonly classified as ST3 [53]. Strain Z31, P. difficile ATCC9689/DSM1296, and P. difficile BI9 were the only three ST3 strains identified among the strains whose complete genomes or near-complete genomes (e.g., one scaffold) are deposited in GenBank. However, Z31 contain some unique regions, as shown in Fig. 3 (U1–U12). In contrast, P. difficile 5.3, described as nontoxigenic by Darling et al. [54], belongs to ST15, clade 1, a common classification for strains of PCR ribotype 010.

Future directions

Further analysis of the P. difficile Z31 genome will provide new information about the adaptation of this strain to the gastrointestinal tract, and new insights into its inhibition of toxigenic P. difficile strains.

Availability of supporting data

This whole-genome shotgun sequence has been deposited in the DDBJ/EMBL/GenBank databases under accession number CP013196. The version described in this paper is the first version CP013196.1.

Notes

Abbreviations

GC content: 

number of G and C nucleotides

rRNA: 

ribosomal RNA

PDI: 

Peptoclostridium difficile infection

PGM: 

Personal Genome Machine

tmRNA: 

transport–messenger RNA

tRNA: 

transport RNA

MLST: 

multilocus sequence typing

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

FLP, HCPF, FAD, ROSS, and CAOJ drafted the manuscript. FAD, AFC, and GMFA performed the laboratory experiments. FLP, FAD, and AFC sequenced, assembled, and annotated the genome. FLP performed the bioinformatics analyses. HCPF and FCFL designed and coordinated all the experiments. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Ministério da Pesca e Aquicultura and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG). We also acknowledge support from the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES).

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
National Reference Laboratory for Aquatic Animal Diseases (AQUACEN), Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Federal University of Minas Gerais
(2)
Veterinary School, Federal University of Minas Gerais
(3)
Department of Preventive Veterinary Medicine, School of Veterinary, Federal University of Minas Gerais

References

  1. Hall IC, O’toole E. Intestinal flora in newborn infants with a description of a new pathogenic anaerobe, Bacillus difficilis. Am J Dis Child. 1935. doi:10.1001/archpedi.1935.01970020105010.Google Scholar
  2. Skerman VBD, Mcgowan V, Sneath PHA. Approved Lists of Bacterial Names. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1980;30:225–420.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Prévot AR. Études de systématique bactérienne IV. Critique de la conception actuelle du genre Clostridium. In: Cato EP, Hash DE, Holdeman LV et al, editors. Electrophoretic study of Clostridium species. J Clin Microbiol. 1982;15:668–702.Google Scholar
  4. Yutin N, Galperin MY. A genomic update on clostridial phylogeny: Gram-negative spore formers and other misplaced clostridia. Environ Microbiol. 2013. doi:10.1111/1462-2920.12173.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Hatheway CL. Toxigenic Clostridia. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1990;3(1):66–98.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  6. George RH, Symonds JM, Dimock F, Brown JD, Arabi Y, Shinagawa N, Keighley MR, Alexander-Williams J, Burdon DW. Identification of Clostridium difficile as a cause of pseudomembranous colitis. Br Med J. 1978;1:695.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Larson HE, Price AB, Honour P, Borrielo SP. Clostridium difficile and the aetiology of pseudomembranous colitis. Lancet. 1978;1:1063–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Khan FY, Elzouki AN. Clostridium difficile infection: a review of the literature. Asian Pac J Trop Med. 2014. doi:10.1016/S1995-7645(14)60197-8.Google Scholar
  9. Ogielska M, Lanotte P, Le Brun C, Valentin AS, Garot D, Tellier AC, Halimi JM, Colombat P, Guilleminault L, Lioger B, Vegas H, De Toffol B, Constans T, Bernard L. Emergence of community-acquired Clostridium difficile infection: the experience of a French hospital and review of the literature. Int J Infect Dis. 2015. doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2015.06.007.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Songer JG. Clostridia as agents of zoonotic disease. Vet Microbiol. 2010. doi:10.1016/j.vetmic.2009.07.003.Google Scholar
  11. Silva RO, D’Elia ML, Teixeira ÉP, Pereira PL, de Magalhaes Soares DF, Cavalcanti ÁR, Kocuvan A, Rupnik M, Santos AL, Junior CA, Lobato FC. Clostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens from wild carnivore species in Brazil. Anaerobe. 2014;31(28):207–11.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Hopman NE, Keessen EC, Harmanus C, Sanders IM, van Leengoed LA, Kuijper EJ, Lipman LJ. Acquisition of Clostridium difficile by piglets. Vet Microbiol. 2011. doi:10.1016/j.vetmic.2010.10.013.Google Scholar
  13. Schneeberg A, Neubauer H, Schmoock G, Baier S, Harlizius J, Nienhoff H, Brase K, Zimmermann S, Seyboldt C. Clostridium difficile genotypes in piglet population in Germany. J Clin Microbiol. 2013. doi:10.1128/JCM.01440-13.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Songer JG, Anderson MA. Clostridium difficile: an important pathogen of food animals. Anaerobe. 2006;12(1):1–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Carter GP, Rood JI, Lyras D. The role of toxin A and toxin B in Clostridium difficile-associated disease. Gut Microbes. 2010. doi:10.4161/gmic.1.1.10768.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Voth DE, Ballard JD. Clostridium difficile toxins: mechanism of action and role in disease. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2005. doi:10.1128/CMR.18.2.247-263.2005.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Leuzzi R, Adamo R, Scarselli M. Vaccines against Clostridium difficile. Hum Vaccines Immunother. 2014. doi:10.4161/hv.28428.Google Scholar
  18. Songer JG, Jones R, Anderson MA, Barbara AJ, Post KW, Trinha HT. Prevention of porcine Clostridium difficile-associated disease by competitive exclusion with nontoxigenic organisms. Vet Microbiol. 2007. doi:10.1016/j.vetmic.2007.04.019.Google Scholar
  19. Merrigan MM, Sambol SP, Johnson S, Gerding DN. New approach to the management of Clostridium difficile infection: colonisation with non-toxigenic C. difficile during daily ampicillin or ceftriaxone administration. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2009. doi:10.1016/S0924-8579(09)70017-2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Villano SA, Seiberling M, Tatarowicz W, Monnot-Chase E, Gerding DN. Evaluation of an oral suspension of VP20621, spores of nontoxigenic Clostridium difficile strain M3, in healthy subjects. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012. doi:10.1128/AAC.00913-12.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Nagaro KJ, Phillips ST, Cheknis AK, Sambol SP, Zukowski WE, Johnson S, Gerdinga DN. Nontoxigenic Clostridium difficile protects hamsters against challenge with historic and epidemic strains of toxigenic BI/NAP1/027 C. difficile. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013. doi:10.1128/AAC.00580-13.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Oliveira CA, Silva ROS, Diniz NA, Pires PS, Lobato FCF, Assis RA. Prevention of Clostridium difficile infection in hamsters using a non-toxigenic strain. Cienc Rural. 2016. doi:10.1590/0103-8478cr20150454.Google Scholar
  23. Sambol SP, Merrigan MM, Tang JK, Johnson S, Gerding DN. Colonization for the prevention of Clostridium difficile disease in Hamsters. J Infect Dis. 2002. doi:10.1086/345676.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. FastQC. Babraham Bioinformatics. http://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc. 2015. Accessed 07 Sept 2015.
  25. Chevreux B, Wetter T, Suhai S. Genome sequence assembly using trace signals and additional sequence information. Comput Sci Biol Proc Ger Conf Bioinform. 1999;99:45–56.Google Scholar
  26. Nurk S, Bankevich A, Antipov D, et al. Assembling genomes and mini-metagenomes from highly chimeric reads. Res Comput Mol Biol. 2013;7821:158–70.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Galardini M, Biondi EG, Bazzicalupo M, Mengoni A. CONTIGuator: a bacterial genomes finishing tool for structural insights on draft genomes. Source Code Biol Med. 2011. doi:10.1186/1751-0473-6-11.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Seemann T. Prokka: rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics. 2014. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btu153.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Rutherford K, Parkhill J, Crook J, et al. Artemis: sequence visualization and annotation. Bioinformatics. 2000;16:944–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Petersen TN, Brunak S, von Heijne G, Nielsen H. SignalP 4.0: discriminating signal peptides from transmembrane regions. Nat Methods. 2011. doi:10.1038/nmeth.1701.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Sonnhammer EL, von Heijne G, Krogh A. A hidden Markov model for predicting transmembrane helices in protein sequences. Proc Int Conf Intell Syst Mol Biol. 1998;6:175–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Mistry J, Bateman A, Finn RD. Predicting active site residue annotations in the Pfam database. BMC Bioinform. 2007. doi:10.1186/1471-2105-8-298.Google Scholar
  33. Kalendar R, Lee D, Schulman AH. Java web tools for PCR, in silico PCR, and oligonucleotide assembly and analysis. Genomics. 2011. doi:10.1016/j.ygeno.2011.04.009.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Merrigan MM, Venugopal A, Roxas JL, Anwar F, Mallozzi MJ, Roxas BAP, et al. Surface-layer protein A (SlpA) is a major contributor to host-cell adherence of Clostridium difficile. PLoS One. 2013. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0078404.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Awad MM, Johanesen PA, Carter GP, Rose E, Lyras D. Clostridium difficile virulence factors: insights into an anaerobic spore-forming pathogen. Gut Microbes. 2014. doi:10.4161/19490976.2014.969632.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Hennequin C, Porcheray F, Waligora-Dupriet A, Collignon A, Barc M, Bourlioux P, Karjalainen T. GroEL (Hsp60) of Clostridium difficile is involved in cell adherence. Microbiology. 2001;147(Pt 1):87–96.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Waligora A, Hennequin C, Mullany P, Bourlioux P, Collignon A, Karjalainen T. Characterization of a cell surface protein of Clostridium difficile with adhesive properties. Infect Immun. 2001. doi:10.1128/IAI.69.4.2144-2153.2001.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Lin Y, Kuo C, Koleci X, McDonough SP, Chang Y. Manganese binds to Clostridium difficile Fbp68 and is essential for fibronectin binding. J Biol Chem. 2011. doi:10.1074/jbc.M110.184523.Google Scholar
  39. Baban ST, Kuehne SA, Barketi-Klai A, Cartman ST, Kelly ML, Hardie KR, Kansau I, Collignon A, Minton NP. The role of flagella in Clostridium difficile pathogenesis: comparison between a non-epidemic and an epidemic strain. PLoS One. 2013. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0073026.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Ðapa T, Leuzzi R, Ng YK, Baban ST, Adamo R, Kuehna SA, Scarselli M, Minton NP, Serruto D, Unnikrishnan M. Multiple factors modulate biofilm formation by the anaerobic pathogen Clostridium difficile. J Bacteriol. 2013. doi:10.1128/JB.01980-12.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Dingle TC, Mulvey GL, Armstrong GD. Mutagenic analysis of the Clostridium difficile flagellar proteins, FliC and FliD, and their contribution to virulence in hamsters. Infect Immun. 2011. doi:10.1128/IAI.05305-11.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Mackin KE, Carter G, Howarth P, Rood JI, Lyras D. Spo0A differentially regulates toxin production in evolutionarily diverse strains of Clostridium difficile. PLoS One. 2013. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0079666.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Permpoonpattana P, Phetcharaburanin J, Mikelsone A, Dembek M, Tan S, Brisson MC, Ragione R, Brisson AR, Fairweather N, Hong HA, Cutting SM. Functional characterization of Clostridium difficile spore coat proteins. J Bacteriol. 2013. doi:10.1128/JB.02104-12.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Jump RLP, Pultz MJ, Donskey CJ. Vegetative Clostridium difficile survives in room air on moist surfaces and in gastric contents with reduced acidity: a potential mechanism to explain the association between proton pump inhibitors ans C. difficile-associated diarrhea? Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007. doi:10.1128/AAC.01443-06.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Patterson AJ, Colangeli R, Spigaglia P, Scott KP. Distribution of specific tetracycline and erythromycin resistance genes in environmental samples assessed by macroarray detection. Environ Microbiol. 2007. doi:10.1111/j.1462-2920.2006.01190.x.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Spigaglia P, Barbanti F, Mastrantonio P. Detection of a genetic linkage between genes coding for resistance to tetracycline and erythromycin in Clostridium difficile. Microb Drug Resist. 2007. doi:10.1089/mdr.2007.723.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Persson S, Torpdahl M, Olsen KEP. New multiplex PCR method for the detection of Clostridium difficile toxin A (tcdA) and toxin B (tcdB) and the binary toxin (cdtA/cdtB) genes applied to a Danish strain collection. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2008. doi:10.1111/j.1469-0691.2008.02092.x.Google Scholar
  48. Dingle KE, Elliot B, Robinson E, Griffiths D, Eyre DW, Stoesser N, Vaughan A, Golubchik T, Fawley WN, Wilcox MH, Peto TE, Walker AS, Riley TV, Crook DW, Didelot X. Evolutionary history of the Clostridium difficile pathogenicity locus. Genome Biol Evol. 2014. doi:10.1093/gbe/evt204.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Agren J, Sundström A, Håfström T, Segerman B. Gegenees: fragmented alignment of multiple genomes for determining phylogenomic distances and genetic signatures unique for specified target groups. PLoS One. 2012;7:e39107.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  50. GenBank. NCBI, USA. 2015. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank. Accessed 22 Sept 2015.
  51. Zhou Y, Liang Y, Lynch KH, Dennis JJ, Wishart DS. PHAST: a fast phage search tool. Nucl Acids Res. 2011. doi:10.1093/nar/gkr485.Google Scholar
  52. Griffiths D, Fawley W, Kachrimanidou M, Bowden R, Crook DW, Fung R, et al. Multilocus sequence typing of Clostridium difficile. J Clin Microbiol. 2010. doi:10.1128/JCM.01796-09.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  53. Kurka H, Ehrenreich A, Ludwig W, Monot M, Rupnik M, Barbut F, Indra A, Dupuy B, Liebl W. Sequence similarity of Clostridium difficile strains by analysis of conserved genes and genome content is reflected by their ribotype affiliation. PLoS One. 2014. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0086535.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  54. Darling AE, Worden P, Chapman TA, Chowdhury PR, Charles IG, Djordjevic SP. The genome of Clostridium difficile 5.3. Gut Pathogens. 2014. doi:10.1186/1757-4749-6-4.Google Scholar
  55. Galperin MY, Makarova KS, Wolf YI, Koonin EVA. Expanded microbial genome coverage and improved protein family annotation in the COG database. Nucl Acids Res. 2015. doi:10.1093/nar/gku1223.Google Scholar

Copyright

© Pereira et al. 2016

Advertisement