Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Applied and Environmental Microbiology, April 2004, p. 2193-2203, Vol. 70, No. 4
0099-2240/04/$08.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/AEM.70.4.2193-2203.2004
Copyright © 2004, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.
Poultry Processing and Meat Quality Research Unit, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Athens, Georgia 30604,1 Department of Food Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 148532
Received 20 October 2003/ Accepted 22 December 2003
|
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
Accurate tracing of Listeria strains is important for clinical epidemiology, food safety, and public health. Molecular tracing can help to manage and contain L. monocytogenes contamination in food-processing plants by giving a means to accurately evaluate the source of a specific contaminant. The last decade has seen a flurry of published studies in which inexpensive and rapid methods to type Listeria spp. have been designed and tested (5, 10, 11, 17, 29, 30, 32, 33). The overall goal has been to develop methods that are more discriminatory than existing serotyping and phage-typing methods. Ribotyping (10, 32) and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis of macrorestriction enzyme-digested chromosomal DNA (11) have demonstrated good discrimination of Listeria spp. However, the results are difficult to standardize between laboratories, making cooperative or retrospective studies difficult.
The current study began as an attempt to identify genes in L. monocytogenes with high levels of polymorphism that might serve as the basis for a discriminatory sequence-based typing method. Patterns of polymorphisms were evaluated in the partial DNA sequences of genes expected to be hypervariable, i.e., genes that demonstrated polymorphism in 10% or more of their DNA sequences in cross-strain comparisons of known sequences. However, a low degree of discrimination was found in each of 11 different genes tested, and the initial objective was not satisfied. The focus of our study thus shifted to examining the population genetics of L. monocytogenes and to understanding the biological underpinnings that may explain the lack of discriminatory power of the 11-gene multilocus sequencing analysis developed and implemented as described before.
Multilocus sequence typing was invented to enhance the study of the population genetics of bacteria (15). Multilocus sequence typing data can be analyzed to show probable recombination of genes between lineages in the evaluated population (15) and to probe for indications of recombination within genes (7). By combining ribotype and limited DNA sequence information, Wiedmann et al. (32) previously defined three distinct lineages of L. monocytogenes. Further DNA sequence analyses have confirmed the three lineages (4, 25), but the basis for the distinction of the lineages has not yet been defined. The multilocus sequence analysis described here allowed us to evaluate inheritance, mutation, and horizontal gene transfer in L. monocytogenes and uncover the recombinant construction of mosaic genes in three different patterns that were unique for each of the three previously described L. monocytogenes lineages.
|
|
|---|
Nine genes (Table 1) with 80 to 90% identity between the two strains of L. monocytogenes and two genes (gyrB and rnhB) with approximately 97% identity were chosen for further study. Primers were designed in conserved sequence segments to amplify these genes by PCR to give amplicons from 332 bp to as much as 1,331 bp.
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 1. Primers used for PCR and sequencing
|
Template preparation and DNA sequencing.
One loopful of cells was taken from an overnight culture of each strain grown on BHI plates at 35°C. The cells were washed once in 0.5 ml of sterile distilled water and resuspended in 0.5 ml of sterile distilled water. The cells were then placed in a 100°C dry bath for 10 min. One microliter of the lysed cells was used for the PCR template. The conditions for PCR were as follows: denaturation at 95°C for 1 min, annealing at the appropriate temperature for each primer (Table 1) for 30 s, and extension at 72°C for 1 min, for a total of 30 cycles. PCR products were purified with the Qiagen PCR purification system (Qiagen, Valencia, Calif.), and Big Dye terminator sequencing reactions were performed with the protocol recommended by the manufacturer (Perkin-Elmer, Boston, Mass.) and the same primers that generated the templates for forward and reverse sequence determination. Sequences were read with an ABI 3700 capillary automated DNA sequencer (Perkin-Elmer), and a minimum of one forward and one reverse sequence reaction was used for each sequence. Table 1 indicates the lengths of the sequences that were analyzed, ranging from 275 bp to 1,048 bp.
Alignments and sequence analyses.
DNA sequences were aligned with ClustalX (28). No gaps were introduced into any of the alignments, and no additional editing was necessary. Clustering of the sequences was performed by the neighbor-joining algorithm with Jukes-Cantor distances by using the computer program PAUP* version 4.0b10 (27). Trees were rooted with sequences from the genomic sequence of Listeria innocua (9). Nucleotide diversity scores were determined by the method of Nei (20) as implemented in DnaSP (26). Sawyer's runs test for detecting recombination intervals based on the detection of shared patterns of polymorphisms was performed with the computer program GENECONV (S. A. Sawyer, 1999, Washington University, St. Louis, Mo., available at http://www.math.wustl.edu/
sawyer). Each allotype, the genetically determined individual type, was assigned a two-part code. The first part of the code represented the allogroup, which was determined by cluster analysis of all the allotypes as described below, and the second part represented an identifier for each unique sequence.
|
|
|---|
![]() View larger version (15K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 1. Distribution of differences between paired genes of L. monocytogenes EGD and L. monocytogenes ATCC 19115 serotype 4b.
|
![]() ![]() ![]() View larger version (87K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 2. Ribbon diagrams of polymorphism sites for representatives of allogroups for each locus that was sequenced. Vertical bars within the locus indicate sites that differ from the consensus sequence. The analyses were weighted so that allogroup A1 for each locus is closest to the consensus. Under each set of ribbons are the results of Sawyer's analysis of recombination. The numbers indicate the regions of the sequences that are possible recombination junctions. An asterisk indicates recombination junctions that were not significant (P > 0.05) after Bonferroni's correction was applied.
|
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 2. Summary of sequence diversity for each gene for all the data and by lineage type
|
When all the data were analyzed as a combined (concatenated) sequence, 33 allotypes were distinguished among the 34 isolates characterized. The level of allotype diversity demonstrated by gyrB was surprising, given the small number of polymorphic sites in this gene and the incomplete resolving power of the other genes that were chosen based on the large differences seen in previously known sequences. In another recently completed study with the Cornell University collection of isolates, the sequences of actA demonstrated complete resolution of all 15 isolates (4), whereas in this study, the sequences of a minimum of seven genes (aroE, comEA, gyrB, hisC, purM, ribC, and rnhB) were required to achieve the same resolution.
To help understand the diversity patterns observed for the 11 genes analyzed, cluster analyses were performed for each of the genes by the neighbor-joining algorithm implemented in PAUP* with Jukes-Cantor distances, with L. innocua gene sequences used to serve as roots for the trees. The resulting trees should not be interpreted as phylogenetic reconstructions because of the evidence of recombination discussed below but do serve as a means of classifying the alleles. The trees demonstrated a spectrum of shapes that were generally characterized by the existence of two populations that were deeply removed from a common node. The spectrum of tree topologies varied from that seen for addB (Fig. 3), in which there appeared to be only very recent divergence from two clones, to that seen for truB (Fig. 3), in which there were several clusters branching closer to the root. The clonal history of the strains was greatly simplified yet still informative if the isolates were assigned to allogroups rather than individual allotypes. Allotypes were assigned the letter A if they clustered on the side of the root that was characteristic of lineage I organisms. Conversely, allotypes that were characteristic of lineage II allotypes were assigned the letter B. In two cases, aroE and rnhB, there were allotypes that branched close enough to the root to deserve a separate group designation of C.
![]() View larger version (23K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 3. Dendrograms for addB (left) and truB (right). The dendrograms were constructed by neighbor joining of Jukes-Cantor's distances as implemented in PAUP* version 4. The allogroups are illustrated by the ellipses.
|
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 3. Allelic assignments for each strain testeda
|
The differences in the tree topologies could be explained with respect to the effects of bottlenecks and recombination on the origins of the allogroups. The tree seen for addB (Fig. 3) would be expected for a recent severe bottleneck that only allowed two clones to survive. Since housekeeping genes are very unlikely to be subject to loss and recovery, a purifying selection that would put only one housekeeping gene through a bottleneck cannot occur; so all the genes (i.e., all the housekeeping genes in the genome) were put through a bottleneck at the same time. Assuming that such a bottleneck did occur, the allogroups that clustered apart from the characteristic types may have arisen by one of two possible mechanisms: disparate allogroups may have been pulled through the bottlenecks by virtue of linkage to the trait needed for success in the bottleneck, or the noncharacteristic allogroups may represent recombination junctions within the genes that were sequenced, resulting in mosaic genes, and thus average the distance between the extremely different genes.
Recombination analyses were performed with the data from all the sequenced genes to test the latter possibility. Sawyer's test for recombination (http://www.math.wustl.edu/
sawyer), implemented in the program GENECONV, was performed with each of the sequence alignments. The results are illustrated in Fig. 2. Sawyer's test is not the most sensitive method of detecting recombination, but it is one of the few tests that annotate the breakpoints in individual sequences, also illustrated in Fig. 2. Many of the indicated recombination intervals were not significant (P > 0.05) after correction when Bonferroni's correction for multiple pairwise comparisons (http://www.math.wustl.edu/
sawyer) was applied (denoted by *), but inspection of the ribbon diagrams demonstrates that some of the putative recombination junctions may not have been statistically significant due to the short length of the possible recombinant fragment (such as seen with addB, comEA, and ribC) or the paucity of polymorphisms in the possible recombinant region (e.g., in cbiE and gyrB).
The only test for recent bottlenecks relies on the overrepresentation of heterozygotes and hence is limited to diploid organisms. Therefore, we could only rely on the structure of cluster analysis dendrograms (especially Fig. 3, addB) to conclude that there was a bottleneck. Recombination will result in the reconstruction of trees that are not accurate phylograms. The effect of recombination is seen as a homogenization of the populations, meaning that the average difference between the populations will be reduced. Therefore, recombination will obscure signs of bottlenecks in phylogenetic trees, and to still have a clear signal of bottlenecks in such a phylogram may indicate a bottleneck of great magnitude or one that occurred fairly recently.
It can also be concluded that the lineage I L. monocytogenes strains are clonal and the lineage II organisms are active in recombination, with recombination intervals that transfer entire genes (evident from Table 3) and in events that create mosaic genes (as seen in Fig. 2). The lineage III L. monocytogenes were more similar to the lineage I organisms than the lineage II organisms, but they also demonstrated evidence of recombination with lineage II organisms at the whole-gene level (Table 3). The only significant (P < 0.05 after Bonferroni's correction) recombination interval within the sequences found for lineage III organisms was found in truB. Since lineage III L. monocytogenes strains are rare, it is possible that some allotypes were pulled through the bottlenecks, but we believe that they probably represent mosaic genes constructed in recombination-active organisms that otherwise would have been lineage I. Perhaps sequence analysis of a larger population will clarify this incomplete analysis.
Given a clonally developing lineage, the number of base changes between isolates can be used to estimate the time since the last common ancestor. Since the lineage I organisms appeared to be clonal, we applied evolutionary clock analysis to estimate when the founder to this lineage existed. With a divergence rate for synonymous nucleotide changes of 0.90% per million years (22, 23) and Li's estimate of the rate of synonymous base changes (26), the time since the founder of lineage I existed was estimated to be about one-half million years. If Nei and Gojobori's estimate of the rate of synonymous base changes (21) is used instead, the estimated time since the founder existed was extended to about one million years ago. This observation may indicate that lineage I L. monocytogenes arose before any influence from high-density human populations could be expected. Similar analyses to find the most recent common ancestor for lineage I organisms and organisms that have all B1 allotypes (thus, lineage II organisms with the least amount of evident recombination with lineage I) gave estimates of 30 to 67 million years by the two methods of estimation of the synonymous substitution rate. However, the times to the most recent common ancestor could be influenced by the selection of the genes that were sequenced.
The sequences used in the analyses presented here (i.e., sequences that were chosen as being hypervariable) may be diverging at a rate approximating two to threefold that seen for most L. monocytogenes genes. Also, the clock that was applied was developed for Salmonella enterica and Escherichia coli, and the accuracy of this clock would be affected by the population size and the number of generations the organism has per year. Since L. monocytogenes can replicate at lower temperatures than Salmonella spp. or E. coli, it is possible that there are more generations per year for Listeria in environmental niches, and thus the estimates of the time to the founder member of the clones are overly long. Our estimate for the time to the most recent common ancestor of lineage I and lineage II L. monocytogenes was about half as long as that since the last common ancestor of S. enterica serovar Typhimurium and E. coli (23).
It is also noteworthy that we were able to isolate 17 different strains of L. monocytogenes representing both lineage I and lineage II organisms from one food-processing plant. While we are unable to describe any environmental factors that may segregate these two types, it is possible that strains representing lineages occupy microniches within a food-processing plant that are not easily defined. Given the wide variety of environments in which L. monocytogenes is found and the variety of conditions in which the organism can grow (6), we would expect that bottlenecks due to environmental constraints would affect only a limited portion of the clones existing at the time, so an environmental bottleneck seems unlikely. An alternative explanation is that a clone arose that had a greatly increased selective advantage and replaced all the noncompetitive clones. If this successful clone was a lineage I organism, it is possible that lineage II and III organisms, because of their recombination ability, were able to obtain the gene(s) required for the selective advantage and thus were able to avoid extinction.
The population structure that we observed for L. monocytogenes is similar to the one described for species in the genus Mycobacterium. The commonly pathogenic mycobacteria (M. tuberculosis, M. leprae, and M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis) appeared to have suffered a bottleneck as recently as 10 to 15 thousand years ago, and the species of mycobacteria that are commonly environmental were not clonal (8, 14). L. monocytogenes lineage I strains are significantly more common among human clinical cases and have been responsible for more than 80% of human listeriosis outbreaks (12). Furthermore, the vast majority of serotype 1/2b and 4b strains are lineage I (19), and these two serotypes are the most common ones responsible for human listeriosis outbreaks (32). All epidemic-associated serotype 4b and 1/2b strains characterized to date were classified as lineage I (12; M. Wiedmann, B. Saunders, E. Fortes, and K. Windham, unpublished data). While some human listeriosis outbreaks have been associated with lineage II strains (i.e., serotype 1/2a strains), no human outbreaks have been linked to lineage III strains (12, 31). Lineage III strains are occasionally involved in human cases (12) but represented about 10% of the animal clinical isolates characterized by Jeffers et al. (12).
Interestingly, our study shows that for L. monocytogenes, as was seen for Mycobacterium spp., the more virulent strains are clonal. According to Muller's ratchet hypothesis, asexual populations will accumulate deleterious mutations over time through random genetic drift (2). It can therefore be concluded that the clonal lineages have become inextricably linked in their association with a host because of losses of capabilities for more general environmental proliferation. This is not to say that lineage I strains are dependent on humans for survival, but that there may be a human-related bottleneck that results in the cohesion of the observed lineages. An assumption of Muller's ratchet hypothesis is that all mutations are neutral or deleterious, i.e., advantageous mutations are rare enough to be ignored entirely (2). However, advantageous mutations do occur, albeit rarely. It is possible that rare advantageous mutations gave a single clone a selective advantage that allowed the clone to sweep the pathogenic niche (16), but the apparent simultaneous bottleneck in less virulent L. monocytogenes strains suggests that replacement of clones with a fitter clone was not likely due to a new advantageous mutation.
Variation in the mutation rate over different fragments of a genome has been observed (13), and the distance of our "hypervariable" genes between lineage I and lineage II may be due to localized increased mutation rate. As noted above, the frequency of genes with a 10 to 20% difference between the two types showed a slight overrepresentation that may indicate a distinct population of genes, possibly a set of genes that were involved in cross-species recombination. However, recombination clearly occurred within sequenced conserved genes (gyrB and rnhB) (Table 3) as well, and recombination appears evident only in strains representing lineages II and III. More data from related species will be beneficial in demonstrating the role of cross-species recombination. While a study with a larger population would be helpful to further probe the population structure and recombination history of L. monocytogenes lineages, a widely and randomly collected L. monocytogenes isolate set is not currently available. Further studies on the different L. monocytogenes lineages may be helpful to improve our understanding of host-parasite adaptation and the food-borne transmission characteristics of the three L. monocytogenes lineages.
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»