Next Article in Journal
The Combined Effect of pH and Temperature on the Survival of Salmonella enterica Serovar Typhimurium and Implications for the Preparation of Raw Egg Mayonnaise
Previous Article in Journal
Assessment of Immunogenicity and Efficacy of a Zika Vaccine Using Modified Vaccinia Ankara Virus as Carriers
Previous Article in Special Issue
Fecal Source Tracking in A Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation System Using Multiple Waterborne Gastroenteritis Viruses
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Pathogens
Volume 8
Issue 4
10.3390/pathogens8040217
pathogens-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Metagenomic Analysis of Infectious F-Specific RNA Bacteriophage Strains in Wastewater Treatment and Disinfection Processes

by
Suntae Lee
*,
Mamoru Suwa
and
Hiroyuki Shigemura
Innovative Materials and Resources Research Center, Public Works Research Institute, Ibaraki 305-8516, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Pathogens 2019, 8(4), 217; https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens8040217
Submission received: 24 September 2019 / Revised: 15 October 2019 / Accepted: 2 November 2019 / Published: 3 November 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Enteric Viruses in Aquatic Environments)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

F-specific RNA bacteriophages (FRNAPHs) can be used to indicate water contamination and the fate of viruses in wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). However, the occurrence of FRNAPH strains in WWTPs is relatively unknown, whereas FRNAPH genotypes (GI–GIV) are well documented. This study investigated the diversity of infectious FRNAPH strains in wastewater treatment and disinfection processes using cell culture combined with next-generation sequencing (integrated culture–NGS (IC–NGS)). A total of 32 infectious strains belonging to FRNAPH GI (nine strains), GI-JS (two strains), GII (nine strains), GIII (seven strains), and GIV (five strains) were detected in wastewater samples. The strains of FRNAPH GI and GII exhibited greater resistance to wastewater treatment than those of GIII. The IC–NGS results in the disinfected samples successfully reflected the infectivity of FRNAPHs by evaluating the relationship between IC–NGS results and the integrated culture–reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction combined with the most probable number assay, which can detect infectious FRNAPH genotypes. The diversity of infectious FRNAPH strains in the disinfected samples indicates that certain strains are more resistant to chlorine (DL52, GI-JS; T72, GII) and ultraviolet (T72, GII) disinfection. It is possible that investigating these disinfectant-resistant strains could reveal effective mechanisms of viral disinfection.

1. Introduction

F-specific RNA bacteriophages (FRNAPHs), which are known to infect Escherichia coli that express F pili, have a single-stranded RNA genome enclosed in an icosahedral capsid measuring 20–30 nm in diameter. The sizes, shape structures, and genomes of FRNAPHs are similar to those of noroviruses [1,2], which have caused numerous outbreaks of gastroenteritis in multiple countries [3]. Furthermore, FRNAPH behavior, abundance, and survival in the environment including during water treatment are also similar to those of human enteric viruses [1,2,4,5,6]. Thus, they serve as potential indicators of water contamination and the fates of viruses in aquatic environments and wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) [4,5,6].
FRNAPHs belong to the family Leviviridae and are classified into the genera Levivirus and Allolevivirus, which are subdivided into genotypes I and II (GI and GII) and genotypes III and IV (GIII and GIV), respectively. Each FRNAPH genotype has a different fate in WWTPs [6,7,8,9,10] and a different resistance to disinfection [11,12,13]. For example, genotypes GII and GIII are more prevalent than GI and GIV in municipal raw wastewater samples [6,8,9]. However, GI is the dominant genotype in the secondary effluent of WWTPs because of its higher resistance to wastewater treatment relative to other FRNAPH genotypes [6,8,9]. GI also showed the highest chlorine and ultraviolet resistance among the FRNAPH genotypes [11,12,13]. Particularly, MS2, belonging to GI, showed higher ultraviolet resistance than human pathogenic viruses (poliovirus, rotavirus, hepatitis A virus, and coxsackievirus) [13].
The presence and removal of FRNAPH genotypes in WWTPs have been the subject of numerous studies [6,7,8,9,10]. Moreover, several FRNAPH strains are included in each FRNAPH genotype and have been reported worldwide in bacterial isolates associated with sewage and mammal feces [14,15,16,17,18]. The sources from where different FRNAPH strains were first isolated/detected are shown in Table 1. In the last decade, novel GI-JS strains DL52 and DL54 were isolated, which are recombinant strains of environmental isolates of Leviviridae ssRNA bacteriophages [16]. Unfortunately, information regarding the occurrence of FRNAPH strains in WWTPs is relatively limited [19].
Numerous studies have employed MS2, GA, Qβ, and SP as representative FRNAPH strains of genotypes GI–GIV in spiking experiments to determine their surface properties, including electrostatic surface charge, hydrophobicity, and removal during water treatment processes such as coagulation and membrane filtration [20,21,22]. However, the dominance of these strains among the strains of each FRNAPH genotype is debated. Thus, it is particularly important to identify the dominant strains affecting the concentrations of FRNAPH genotypes.
FRNAPH GI and GIV predominantly occur in the feces and waste generated by animal farms, whereas FRNAPH GII and GIII are dominant in human feces and the raw sewage of WWTPs [23,24]. Thus, the distribution of FRNAPH genotypes has been widely studied in order to determine the source of fecal contamination in river water [7,25,26,27], shellfish [26,28,29], and sediments [27]. However, a previous study [19] suggested that this distribution is not sufficient for tracking the source of fecal pollution. The large diversity of FRNAPH strains in each genotype may be the reason for this limitation because they are found in a diverse range of water bodies (e.g., sewage, river water, and seawater), shellfish (oysters, mussels, and clams), and the feces of birds and mammals (including humans, chicken, swine, calves, and apes) [14,15,16,17,18]. For example, FRNAPH GI strains MS2, DL1, and J20 have been isolated from wastewater, river water, and chicken litter, respectively (Table 1). Therefore, it is important to investigate the diversity of FRNAPH strains.
Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is used to study viral metagenomes in different stages of wastewater treatment [30,31,32,33]. This method provides more conservative estimates of viral occurrence compared with the rates detected using quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) [32]. The advantage of metagenomics is that it allows a comprehensive characterization of FRNAPH strain diversity. However, like qPCR assays, metagenomic methods do not assess infectivity. Therefore, when samples acquired after disinfection using chlorine or ultraviolet light are subjected to NGS, the viral sequences do not reflect infectivity. Conversely, culture combined with PCR (integrated culture–PCR (IC–PCR)) can detect infectious viruses. For example, IC–RT-PCR combined with a most probable number (MPN) assay (IC–RT-PCR–MPN) has been used to quantitatively detect infectious FRNAPH genotypes [6,34,35]. Thus, we hypothesized that the application of NGS for detecting of FRNAPH strains propagated in a liquid medium may be effective for detecting infectious FRNAPH strains. NGS analyses of wastewater samples often show that the majority of genes are from eukaryotes and bacteria, which are more abundant than viruses and bacteriophages. However, propagating infectious FRNAPH strains in samples can result in large yields of FRNAPH sequences; it also differentiates between infective and inactive FRNAPH strains. Recently, known and novel plant viruses, which infect plants such as yams, were detected by NGS combined with robust yam propagation by tissue-culture [36]. NGS combined with cell culture was also used to characterize enteric viruses isolated from wastewater [33]. Thus, integrated culture–NGS (IC–NGS) can be used to detect infectious FRNAPH strains and high fractions of FRNAPH genes in wastewater samples.
To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to use IC–NGS to investigate the diversity of infectious FRNAPH strains in wastewater treatment and disinfection processes. We prepared the influent and secondary effluent of a WWTP as well as disinfected secondary effluent (raw water) treated using chlorine or ultraviolet light. IC–NGS and IC–RT-PCR–MPN were performed to determine the diversity of infectious FRNAPH strains and the concentrations of infectious FRNAPH genotypes, respectively. The relationship between the results of the two assays was investigated to evaluate whether IC–NGS data can effectively reflect the infectivity of FRNAPHs.

2. Results

2.1. Metagenomic and Taxonomic Analyses

A summary of the metagenomic (BLASTn) and taxonomic (MEGAN) analyses is shown in Table 2. The numbers of reads of the 12 samples analyzed using IC–NGS ranged from 887,593 to 5,035,503, and the trimmed sequences were assembled into 611–18,941 contigs. The FRNAPH strains were represented in the contigs of all samples using IC–NGS, and 66–551 sequences represented the reference genomes of FRNAPH strains determined using BLASTn. The percentages of hits for FRNAPH strains relative to the number of contigs in the samples ranged from 3% to 36%. The vast majority of the hit sequences assigned using MEGAN represented bacterial sequences and ranged from 44% to 83%. Specifically, Salmonella enterica sequences dominated in the bacterial sequences (65–92% without 1127 influent sample). The range of contigs that did not correspond to a reference genome was 4–36%.

2.2. Detection of Infectious FRNAPH Strains in Wastewater Treatment and Disinfection Processes

IC–NGS detected 31 stains representing all FRNAPH genotypes in influent, secondary effluent, chlorine-treated, and ultraviolet-treated samples on 11/13, 11/20, and 11/27 (Figure 1). The GI strains MS2, DL1, J20, fr, DL16, JP501, R17, ST4, and M12 were detected in all 12 samples (Figure 1). Specifically, MS2, DL1, and J20 were the most frequently detected GI strains (12/12, 100%). The proportions of GI strains in the secondary effluent samples were higher than those in the influent samples. The proportions of abundant GI strains (MS2, DL1, and J20) decreased from secondary effluent samples to chlorine- and ultraviolet-treated samples.
DL52 and DL54 (FRNAPH GI-JS) were detected in all samples (Figure 1). DL52 was the predominant strain of FRNAPHs in the influent samples together with HL4-9 (FRNAPH GIII). The proportions of DL52 decreased to a greater extent from influent to secondary effluent samples than those of DL54. In contrast, the proportions of DL54 decreased compared to those of DL52 from secondary effluent samples to chlorine-treated and ultraviolet-treated samples. The proportions of DL52 in chlorine-treated and ultraviolet-treated samples were similar or higher than those in the secondary effluent samples; specifically, the proportion of DL52 in the chlorine-treated sample from 11/20 (26.4%) was the highest among all FRNAPH strains.
The FRNAPH GII strains DL20, T72, GA, DL10, JP34, KU1, BZ13, TL2, and TH1 were detected in all 12 samples (Figure 1). Moreover, DL20 was the most predominant strain of FRNAPH GII in influent and secondary effluent samples (34.2–48.5% and 30.0–57.1% of the proportions in GII genotypes, respectively, Supplementary Figure S2). The proportions of GII strains in secondary effluent samples were higher than those in influent samples. DL20 had the highest proportion of all strains in the secondary effluent sample from 11/13 (18.4%). Furthermore, the proportions of FRNAPH GII strains in the chlorine-treated and ultraviolet-treated samples were similar or higher than those in the secondary effluent samples. Specifically, DL20 and T72 had the highest proportion in chlorine-treated and ultraviolet-treated samples from 11/13 (24.7% and 25.8%, respectively) and in chlorine-treated samples from 11/27 (23.6%) and ultraviolet-treated samples from 11/20 (27.8%), respectively.
The FRNAPH GIII strains HL4-9, Qβ, TW18, VK, BR12, BZ1, and M11 were detected in all 12 samples (Figure 1). HL4-9, which was detected in all samples (12/12, 100%), was the most abundant strain of FRNAPH GIII in all samples except chlorine-treated samples from 11/13 (28.6–83.3% of GIII genotypes, Supplementary Figure S2). Moreover, all FRNAPH strains in the influent samples together with DL52 represent FRNAPH GI-JS. The proportions of all strains of FRNAPH GIII in the influent samples was reduced by wastewater treatment (secondary effluent samples) and by chlorine (chlorine-treated samples) and ultraviolet disinfection (ultraviolet-treated samples), with the exception of ultraviolet-treated samples collected on 11/27 for HL4-9.
The FRNAPH GIV strains FI, BR1, BR8, HB-P22, and SP were detected in all 12 samples (Figure 1). FI and BR1 were the predominant FRNAPH GIV strains in all samples (Supplementary Figure S2). SP was detected only once in the ultraviolet-treated samples from 11/13. The proportion of FI increased to a greater extent from influent to secondary effluent samples on 11/13 compared to those on other dates, which were either similar or smaller. There were fewer hits for GIV strains in chlorine-treated and ultraviolet-treated samples (<9, Supplementary Figure S1).

2.3. Comparison of IC–RT-PCR–MPN and IC–NGS Data

The relationship between the results for infectious FRNAPH genotypes detected using IC–RT-PCR–MPN and IC–NGS was investigated to determine whether IC–NGS effectively reflects the infectivity of FRNAPHs. In the IC–RT-PCR–MPN results (Figure 2A), infectious FRNAPH GII was detected in all chlorine-treated samples, whereas GI was not detected. GIII and GIV were detected in chlorine-treated samples collected on 11/20 and 11/27 and 11/13 and 11/20, respectively. GI and GIII were inactivated more effectively by chlorine disinfection (GI, >1.6 to >3.7 log10; GIII, 1.4 to >3.2 log10) than GII and GIV. After ultraviolet disinfection, infectious FRNAPH GII was detected in all ultraviolet-treated samples, whereas GIII was not detected. GI and GIV were detected in ultraviolet-treated samples collected on 11/27 and 11/13, respectively. The highest inactivation among all infectious FRNAPH genotypes was observed for GIII (>2.4–>3.2 log10).
Figure 2B shows the number of hits for each FRNAPH genotype except GI-JS from the sum of the number of hits for each genotype (Supplementary Figure S1) in the secondary effluent, chlorine-treated, and ultraviolet-treated samples collected on 11/13, 11/20, and 11/27. We observed the highest ratio of hits for GII (27–115) among the FRNAPH genotypes from chlorine-treated and ultraviolet-treated samples. In particular, 90 and 115 hits were observed in the 11/27 chlorine-treated sample and the 11/20 ultraviolet-treated sample, respectively. Notably, only GII was detected using IC–RT-PCR–MPN. In contrast, the largest decreases among the infectious FRNAPH genotypes were observed among GI and GIII strains in the chlorine-treated samples (18–87% decrease) and GIII strains in the ultraviolet-treated samples (18–87% decrease). These trends were equivalent to those observed using IC–RT-PCR–MPN.

3. Discussion

The aim of this study was to investigate the diversity of infectious FRNAPH strains in wastewater treatment and disinfection processes using IC–NGS. A total of 32 FRNAPH strains were successfully detected in wastewater samples by IC–NGS (Figure 1). These strains have been first isolated from various sources that include not only sewage and environmental waters but also shellfish and human and animal feces (Table 1). This indicates that multiple FRNAPH strains from various sources accumulate in the influent of WWTPs. DL52 (GI-JS) and HL4-9 (GIII) were predominant, representing more than 30% of FRNAPH strains identified in influent samples from the target WWTP. DL52 and HL4-9 were first isolated from bay water and hog lagoons, respectively (Table 1). HL4-9 has been associated with pig waste. The results of our previous study [6], which investigated the occurrence of FRNAPH genotypes in the same WWTP, suggested that livestock waste was present in the influent. Thus, wastewater related to pig farming may be incorporated into the influent of the target WWTP in this study as well. These results suggest that the identification of FRNAPH strains by IC–NGS could be useful for microbial source tracking; however, further investigation is required to identify infectious FRNAPH strains from more specific sources such as animal feces and abattoir wastewater.
A comparison of the proportions of dominant DL52 and HL4-9 in influent and secondary effluent samples revealed that DL52 decreased to a greater extent than HL4-9 (Figure 1). This indicates that DL52 was more efficiently removed by wastewater treatment than HL4-9. Furthermore, the proportions of most strains of FRNAPH GI and GII were similar or higher in the secondary effluent relative to those in the influent, whereas those of GIII, including HL4-9, were decreased. This suggests that strains of FRNAPH GI and GII are more resistant to wastewater treatment than those of GIII. Previous studies determined by IC–RT-PCR–MPN and RT-qPCR have also shown smaller reductions of GI and GII by wastewater treatment when compared to GIII [6,9]. Thus, the results of this study determined by IC–NGS agree with those of previous research. Conversely, DL52 and DL54, which belong to the same genotype (GI-JS), showed different proportions in influent and secondary effluent samples. The proportions of DL54 in secondary effluent samples collected on 11/20 and 11/27 were similar or higher than those in influent samples, while those of DL52 were significantly lower. This result suggests differences in wastewater treatment efficacy for different strains of the same genotype. However, further investigation is required using RT-qPCR in order to evaluate the removal quantities for each strain.
After chlorine disinfection (Figure 1, Cl), DL20 (GII), DL52 (GI-JS), and T72 (GII) were predominant with >20% for 11/13, 11/20, and 11/27 samples, respectively. In particular, DL52 and T72 were not predominant before chlorination in 11/20 and 11/27 samples (Figure 1, SE), whereas DL20 was predominant in the secondary effluent sample collected on 11/13. This indicates that DL52 and T72 is more resistant to chlorination than other FRNAPH strains. Similarly, whereas DL20 (GII) and HL4-9 (GIII) were predominant before and after ultraviolet disinfection in 11/13 and 11/27 samples (Figure 1, SE and UV), respectively, T72 (GII) was only predominant in the ultraviolet-treated sample collected on 11/20. This also indicates that T72 may be more resistant to ultraviolet disinfection than other FRNAPH strains. Future research should confirm the disinfectant resistance of these strains (DL52 and T72) through experiments using isolates of these strains.
Previous studies of the surface properties and removal of FRNAPH genotypes during water treatment used MS2, GA, Qβ, and SP as representative FRNAPH strains of genotypes GI–GIV [20,21,22]. However, DL20, HL4-9, and FI were more predominant strains of FRNAPH GII, GIII, and GIV in our wastewater samples than GA, Qβ, and SP, respectively. Specifically, SP, which was detected only once (ultraviolet-treated sample collected on 11/13), was rarely found in the wastewater samples. Thus, our results suggest that DL20, HL4-9, and FI are more representative FRNAPH strains of genotypes GII, GIII, and GIV, respectively.
One of the objectives of this study was to evaluate whether IC–NGS data can effectively reflect the infectivity of FRNAPHs by comparing the detection of infectious FRNAPH genotypes using IC–RT-PCR–MPN and IC–NGS. It should be noted that FRNAPH GII showed a higher concentration and number of hits than FRNAPH genotypes GI, GIII, and GIV when IC–RT-PCR–MPN and IC–NGS were used to analyze chlorine-treated and ultraviolet-treated samples (Figure 2A,B). Further, the largest decreases in the number of hits among all infectious FRNAPH genotypes were observed for GI and GIII strains from secondary effluent to chlorine-treated samples as well as GIII strains from secondary effluent to ultraviolet-treated samples (Figure 2B). These data are consistent with those acquired using IC–RT-PCR–MPN (Figure 2A). These results indicate that the infectivity of FRNAPHs is reflected by the IC–NGS data when infectious FRNAPHs are propagated before performing NGS.
Viral diversity measured by NGS varies among studies because of pre-treatment processes such as nucleic-acid extraction and inherent amplification biases during PCR [37,38]. In the IC–NGS results, specific strains that easily propagated during the pre-propagating procedure prior to NGS were more frequently detected by IC–NGS. If specific strains are easily propagated, the distributions of FRNAPH strains would be similar in all samples. However, the distributions of FRNAPH strains differed between influent, secondary effluent, chlorine-treated, and ultraviolet-treated samples, and between those collected on 11/13, 11/20, and 11/27, except for the influent sample (Figure 1). Thus, the propagating bias may not have affected the results of this study. On the other hand, the distribution of FRNAPH strains may have been affected by the culture conditions (temperature, culture time, using the host strain, etc.) in the pre-propagating procedure of IC–NGS. Thus, further studies are needed to investigate the effect of the culture conditions used for IC–NGS on the distribution of FRNAPH strains.
In conclusion, this study revealed that diverse infectious FRNAPH strains are present in wastewater treatment and disinfection processes by IC–NGS. A total of 32 infectious strains belonging to FRNAPH GI (nine strains), GI-JS (two strains), GII (nine strains), GIII (seven strains), and GIV (five strains) were detected in the wastewater samples from a pilot-scale WWTP. The GI and GII strains were more resistant to wastewater treatment than GIII strains. The IC–NGS results from disinfected samples reflected the infectivity of FRNAPHs. Our results suggest that certain strains exhibit greater resistance to chlorine (DL52, GI-JS; T72, GII) and ultraviolet (T72, GII) disinfection than others from the results of laboratory-scale batch disinfection experiments, using secondary effluent samples. The results of this study will be confirmed by investigating full-scale WWTPs. By identifying disinfectant-resistant strains, it is likely that further research will reveal more effective mechanisms for viral disinfection, thereby reducing viruses at WWTPs for ensuring the hygiene and safety of recreational waters.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Wastewater Samples

Influent and secondary effluent samples were collected from a pilot-scale WWTP (capacity of 10 m3/d), which uses conventional activated sludge treatment with 1700–2100 mg/L of mixed-liquor suspended solids. This WWTP is fed by water from the influent of a full-scale WWTP located in Ibaraki Prefecture, Japan. The influent and secondary effluent samples were collected on November 13, 20, and 27, 2017 (designated 11/13, 11/20, and 11/27, respectively). The characteristics of the influent and secondary effluent samples are summarized in Table 3.

4.2. Samples Disinfected Using Chlorine or Ultraviolet Light

Chlorine-treated and ultraviolet-treated samples were collected from laboratory-scale batch disinfection experiments using secondary effluent samples (11/13, 11/20, and 11/27). All batch disinfection experiments employing chlorine or ultraviolet light were performed at room temperature. A free-chlorine stock solution was prepared in Milli-Q water with sodium hypochlorite (Wako, Japan) on the day of use. This stock solution was added to the secondary effluent samples (1000 mL each) at an initial free-chlorine concentration of 2 mg/L for 20 min, after which free-chlorine was neutralized immediately by adding sodium thiosulfate solution (Wako, Osaka, Japan). The residual free-chlorine concentrations were measured every 5 min using the N,N-diethyl-p-phenylenediamine method (Hach, Tokyo, Japan) to calculate concentration-time (CT) values. Free-chlorine CT values were the sum of the residual free-chlorine concentration (C) multiplied by the contact time (T) every 5 min for 20 min. The free-chlorine CT values of the chlorine-treated 11/13, 11/20, and 11/27 samples were 4.8, 2.9, and 2.3 mg·min/L, respectively.
A low-pressure ultraviolet lamp (ULO-6DQ; 254 nm; 6 W; Ushio, Tokyo, Japan) was used for laboratory-scale batch ultraviolet disinfection experiments. The ultraviolet lamp was stabilized before conducting experiments by turning it on for at least 40 min before use. The sample (500 mL) was added to sterilized glassware (Ushio) and exposed to ultraviolet light whilst stirring. Ultraviolet fluence was determined using an iodide–iodate actinometer [39,40]. Ultraviolet fluence values of ultraviolet-treated 11/13, 11/20, and 11/27 samples were 22, 30, and 21 mJ/cm2, respectively.

4.3. IC–NGS Analysis of Infectious FRNAPH Strains

For the NGS analysis, 10 mL of influent samples and 100 mL of secondary effluent, chlorine-treated, and ultraviolet-treated samples were mixed with an equal volume of tryptone-glucose broth (10 g/L tryptone, 1.0 g/L glucose, 8.0 g/L NaCl, 0.3 g/L CaCl2, 0.15 g/L MgSO4, 20 mg/L kanamycin, and 100 mg/L nalidixic acid). The broth also contained Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium WG49, which was harvested during the exponential growth period and incubated at 37 °C overnight in order to propagate infectious FRNAPH strains. The propagated sample mixtures (15 mL) were centrifuged (2000 ×g, 10 min) and the supernatant was passed through a membrane filter (pore size 0.45 μm, hydrophilic cellulose acetate; Dismic-25cs, Advantec, Dublin, CA, USA) to remove bacteria, including the host strain. The filtrate (12 mL) was purified using a centrifugal filtration device (Amicon Ultra-15; Merck, Billerica, MA, USA) to increase the titres in the FRNAPH strains and remove soluble and low molecular weight components from the filtrate.
After purification, the samples (1 mL) were treated with RNase ONE Ribonuclease (Promega, Madison, WI, USA) (1 unit/50 μL of sample), and the mixture was incubated at 37 °C for 60 min to eliminate free RNA. Following RNase treatment, RNA was extracted using a QIAamp Viral RNA Mini QIAcube Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) and QIAcube (Qiagen), according to the manufacturer’s protocol, followed by removal of DNA with Baseline-ZERO DNase (Arbrown, Chuo-ku, Japan). Bacterial ribosomal RNA was removed from the DNase-treated samples using a Ribo-Zero Bacteria Kit (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA) according to the manufacturer’s protocol. Libraries were then prepared using the TruSeq Stranded mRNA Library Prep Kit (Illumina), according to the manufacturer’s protocol, without a purifying mRNA process. The TruSeq Stranded mRNA Library Prep Kit purifies poly(A)-containing mRNAs; however, the mRNAs of FRNAPHs do not contain poly(A) and are therefore excluded from this process. The libraries were subjected to agarose gel electrophoresis using E-Gel EX Agarose Gel (1%; Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA) with an E-Gel iBase Power System (Invitrogen). The cDNAs (300–600 bp) were then purified using a MonoFas DNA Purification Kit (GL Sciences, Torrance, CA, USA). The qualities and concentrations of purified cDNAs were assessed using an Agilent 2100 Bioanalyzer (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) and a Qubit Fluorometer (Invitrogen), respectively. The samples were pooled, and sequencing was performed using a MiSeq paired-end sequencing reaction with the v3 reagent kit (Illumina).
Before assembly of the metagenomic dataset, the quality of the MiSeq paired-end sequences was evaluated using FastQC then quality-trimmed and assembled de novo using Trimmomatic and Trinity, respectively, as implemented in the Galaxy platform (https://galaxy.dna.affrc.go.jp). Contigs >200 bp obtained from the de novo assembly were used as queries to perform a BLASTn version 2.7.1 + search with the NCBI nucleotide collection (nt) to identify significant alignments and the following parameters: A cut-off (e-value) of 10−3 and a maximum of one hit per read. The number of hits for FRNAPH strains was defined in order to count the number of FRNAPH strains identified as best hits according to the BLASTn analyses. The MEGAN program (version 6.12.0) was used to assign BLASTn hits for the taxonomy analysis.

4.4. IC–RT-PCR–MPN Analysis of Infectious FRNAPH Genotypes

IC–RT-PCR–MPN was performed to quantify the infectious FRNAPH genotypes as previously described [6,34,35]. Infectious FRNAPH genotypes in the samples were primarily propagated overnight at 37 °C by mixing with an equal volume of tryptone-glucose broth containing S. enterica WG49 (described above). Genotyping based on RT-PCR was subsequently applied, followed by quantification using the MPN method. The secondary effluent, chlorine-treated, and ultraviolet-treated samples were measured using sample volumes of 100, 10, 1, and 0.1 mL (n = 3 each). The detection limit of the secondary effluent, chlorine-treated, and ultraviolet-treated samples was 0.48 log10 MPN/L.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0817/8/4/217/s1. Figure S1: Numbers of hits for FRNAPH strains representing each genotype in the 12 samples combined with a heat map showing the relative abundance of all FRNAPH strains according to the number of hits in the BLASTn analyses of influent (IN), secondary effluent (SE), chlorine-treated (Cl), and ultraviolet-treated (UV) samples. Blank cells indicate an absence of hits. Green and red cells indicate the lowest and highest values, respectively. Numbers in the heat-map cells indicate the number of hits for samples collected on 11/13, 11/20, and 11/27. Figure S2: Proportions of FRNAPH strains in each genotype combined with a heat map showing the relative abundance of each genotype according to the number of hits in the BLASTn analyses of influent (IN), secondary effluent (SE), chlorine-treated (Cl), and ultraviolet-treated (UV) samples. Blank cells indicate an absence of hits. White and blue (GI), sky blue (GI-JS), red (GII), green (GIII), and purple (GIV) cells indicate the lowest and highest values, respectively. Numbers in the heat-map cells indicate the proportions of FRNAPH strains in each genotype for samples collected on 11/13, 11/20, and 11/27.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.L.; Methodology, S.L.; Validation, S.L., M.S., and H.S.; Investigation, S.L.; Data curation, S.L.; Writing—original draft preparation, S.L.; Writing—review and editing, M.S. and H.S.; Funding acquisition, S.L.

Funding

This research was funded by a KAKENHI grant (18K13863) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS), Japan.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. IAWPRC Study Group on Health Related Water Microbiology. Bacteriophages as model viruses in water quality control. Water Res. 1991, 25, 529–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Grabow, W.O.K. Bacteriophages: Update on application as models for viruses in water. Water SA 2001, 27, 251–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bartsch, S.M.; Lopman, B.A.; Ozawa, S.; Hall, A.J.; Lee, B.Y. Global economic burden of norovirus gastroenteritis. PLoS ONE. 2016, 11, e0151219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Havelaar, A.; Van Olphen, M.; Drost, Y. F-specific RNA bacteriophages are adequate model organisms for enteric viruses in fresh water. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1993, 59, 2956–2962. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  5. Hartard, C.; Leclerc, M.; Rivet, R.; Maul, A.; Loutreul, J.; Banas, S.; Boudaud, N.; Gantzer, C. F-specific RNA bacteriophages, especially members of subgroup II, should be reconsidered as good indicators of viral pollution of oysters. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2018, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Lee, S.; Suwa, M.; Shigemura, H. Occurrence and reduction of F-specific RNA bacteriophage genotypes as indicators of human norovirus at a wastewater treatment plant. J. Water Health 2019, 17, 50–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Haramoto, E.; Otagiri, M.; Morita, H.; Kitajima, M. Genogroup distribution of F-specific coliphages in wastewater and river water in the Kofu basin in Japan. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2012, 54, 367–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Haramoto, E.; Fujino, S.; Otagiri, M. Distinct behaviors of infectious F-specific RNA coliphage genogroups at a wastewater treatment plant. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 520, 32–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Hata, A.; Kitajima, M.; Katayama, H. Occurrence and reduction of human viruses, F-specific RNA coliphage genogroups and microbial indicators at a full-scale wastewater treatment plant in Japan. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2013, 114, 545–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Muniesa, M.; Payan, A.; Moce-Llivina, L.; Blanch, A.R.; Jofre, J. Differential persistence of F-specific RNA phage subgroups hinders their use as single tracers for faecal source tracking in surface water. Water Res. 2009, 43, 1559–1564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Schaper, M.; Durán, A.E.; Jofre, J. Comparative resistance of phage isolates of four genotypes of F-specific RNA bacteriophages to various inactivation processes. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2002, 68, 3702–3707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  12. Blatchley, E.R., III; Shen, C.; Scheible, O.K.; Robinson, J.P.; Ragheb, K.; Bergstrom, D.E.; Rokjer, D. Validation of large-scale, monochromatic UV disinfection systems for drinking water using dyed microspheres. Water Res. 2008, 42, 677–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Hijnen, W.A.M.; Beerendonk, E.F.; Medema, G.J. Inactivation credit of UV radiation for viruses, bacteria and protozoan (oo)cysts in water: A review. Water Res. 2006, 40, 3–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Friedman, S.D.; Cooper, E.M.; Casanova, L.; Sobsey, M.D.; Genthner, F.J. A reverse transcription-PCR assay to distinguish the four genogroups of male-specific (F+) RNA coliphages. J. Virol. Methods 2009, 159, 47–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Friedman, S.D.; Cooper, E.M.; Calci, K.R.; Genthner, F.J. Design and assessment of a real time reverse transcription-PCR method to genotype single-stranded RNA male-specific coliphages (Family Leviviridae). J. Virol. Methods 2011, 173, 196–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Friedman, S.D.; Snellgrove, W.C.; Genthner, F.J.; Division, G.E.; Breeze, G. Genomic sequences of two novel Levivirus single-stranded RNA coliphages (Family Leviviridae): Evidence for recombination in environmental strains. Viruses 2012, 1548–1568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Furuse, K.; Sakurai, T.; Hirashima, A.; Katsuki, M.; Ando, A.; Watanabe, I. Distribution of ribonucleic acid coliphages in South and East Asia. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1978, 35, 995–1002. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  18. Miyake, T.; Shiba, T.; Sakurai, T.; Watanabe, I. Isolation and properties of two new RNA phages SP and FI. Jpn. J. Microbiol. 1969, 13, 375–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Hartard, C.; Rivet, R.; Banas, S.; Gantzer, C. Occurrence of and sequence variation among F-specific RNA bacteriophage subgroups in feces and wastewater of urban and animal origins. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2015, 81, 6505–6515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Langlet, J.; Gaboriaud, F.; Duval, J.F.L.; Gantzer, C. Aggregation and surface properties of F-specific RNA phages: Implication for membrane filtration processes. Water Res. 2008, 42, 2769–2777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Boudaud, N.; Machinal, C.; David, F.; Fréval-Le Bourdonnec, A.; Jossent, J.; Bakanga, F.; Arnal, C.; Jaffrezic, M.P.; Oberti, S.; Gantzer, C. Removal of MS2, Qβ and GA bacteriophages during drinking water treatment at pilot scale. Water Res. 2012, 46, 2651–2664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Dika, C.; Ly-Chatain, M.H.; Francius, G.; Duval, J.F.L.; Gantzer, C. Non-DLVO adhesion of F-specific RNA bacteriophages to abiotic surfaces: Importance of surface roughness, hydrophobic and electrostatic interactions. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2013, 435, 178–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Schaper, M.; Jofre, J.; Uys, M.; Grabow, W.O.K. Distribution of genotypes of F-specific RNA bacteriophages in human and non-human sources of faecal pollution in South Africa and Spain. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2002, 92, 657–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Cole, D.; Long, S.C.; Sobsey, M.D. Evaluation of F+ RNA and DNA coliphages as source-specific indicators of fecal contamination in surface waters. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2003, 73, 22–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Ogorzaly, L.; Tissier, A.; Bertrand, I.; Maul, A.; Gantzer, C. Relationship between F-specific RNA phage genogroups, faecal pollution indicators and human adenoviruses in river water. Water Res. 2009, 43, 1257–1264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Wolf, S.; Hewitt, J.; Rivera-Aban, M.; Greening, G.E. Detection and characterization of F+ RNA bacteriophages in water and shellfish: Application of a multiplex real-time reverse transcription PCR. J. Virol. Methods 2008, 149, 123–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Haramoto, E.; Kitajima, M.; Katayama, H.; Asami, M.; Akiba, M.; Kunikane, S. Application of real-time PCR assays to genotyping of F-specific phages in river water and sediments in Japan. Water Res. 2009, 43, 3759–3764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Gourmelon, M.; Caprais, M.P.; Mieszkin, S.; Marti, R.; Wéry, N.; Jardé, E.; Derrien, M.; Jadas-Hécart, A.; Communal, P.Y.; Jaffrezic, A.; et al. Development of microbial and chemical MST tools to identify the origin of the faecal pollution in bathing and shellfish harvesting waters in France. Water Res. 2010, 44, 4812–4824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Mieszkin, S.; Caprais, M.P.; Le Mennec, C.; Le Goff, M.; Edge, T.A.; Gourmelon, M. Identification of the origin of faecal contamination in estuarine oysters using Bacteroidales and F-specific RNA bacteriophage markers. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2013, 115, 897–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Cantalupo, P.G.; Calgua, B.; Zhao, G.; Hundesa, A.; Wier, A.D.; Katz, J.P.; Grabe, M.; Hendrix, R.W.; Girones, R.; Wang, D.; et al. Raw sewage harbors diverse viral populations. MBio 2011, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Tamaki, H.; Zhang, R.; Angly, F.E.; Nakamura, S.; Hong, P.Y.; Yasunaga, T.; Kamagata, Y.; Liu, W.T. Metagenomic analysis of DNA viruses in a wastewater treatment plant in tropical climate. Environ. Microbiol. 2012, 14, 441–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Bibby, K.; Peccia, J. Identification of viral pathogen diversity in sewage sludge by metagenome analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 1945–1951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Aw, T.G.; Howe, A.; Rose, J.B. Metagenomic approaches for direct and cell culture evaluation of the virological quality of wastewater. J. Virol. Methods 2014, 210, 15–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Hata, A.; Hanamoto, S.; Shirasaka, Y.; Yamashita, N.; Tanaka, H. Quantitative distribution of infectious F-specific RNA phage genotypes in surface waters. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2016, 82, 4244–4252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Lee, S.; Tasaki, S.; Hata, A.; Yamashita, N.; Tanaka, H. Evaluation of virus reduction at a large-scale wastewater reclamation plant by detection of indigenous F-specific RNA bacteriophage genotypes. Environ. Technol. 2019, 40, 2527–2537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Bömer, M.; Rathnayake, A.I.; Visendi, P.; Sewe, S.O.; Paolo, J.; Sicat, A.; Silva, G.; Kumar, P.L.; Seal, S.E. Tissue culture and next-generation sequencing: A combined approach for detecting yam (Dioscorea spp.) viruses. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2019, 105, 54–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Haft, D.H.; Tovchigrechko, A. High-speed microbial community profiling. Nat. Methods 2012, 9, 793–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Tan, B.F.; Ng, C.; Nshimyimana, J.P.; Loh, L.L.; Gin, K.Y.H.; Thompson, J.R. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) for assessment of microbial water quality: Current progress, challenges, and future opportunities. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6, 1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Rahn, R.O. Potassium iodide as a chemical actinometer for 254 nm radiation: Use of iodate as an electron scavenger. Photochem. Photobiol. 1997, 66, 450–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Rahn, R.O.; Stefan, M.I.; Bolton, J.R.; Goren, E.; Shaw, P.S.; Lykke, K.R. Quantum yield of the iodide-iodate chemical actinometer: Dependence on wavelength and concentrations. Photochem. Photobiol. 2003, 78, 146–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Pathogens 08 00217 g001
Figure 1. Proportions of FRNAPH strains representing each genotype in 12 samples combined with a heat map showing the relative abundance of all FRNAPH strains according to the number of hits (Supplementary Figure S1) in the BLASTn analyses of influent (IN), secondary effluent (SE), chlorine-treated (Cl), and ultraviolet-treated (UV) samples. Proportions (%) for FRNAPH strains were calculated as the number of hits for a specific FRNAPH strain relative to the total hits for all FRNAPH strains in each sample. Blank cells indicate an absence of hits. Green and red cells indicate the lowest and highest values, respectively. Numbers in the heat-map cells indicate the proportions for samples collected on 11/13, 11/20, and 11/27.
Figure 1. Proportions of FRNAPH strains representing each genotype in 12 samples combined with a heat map showing the relative abundance of all FRNAPH strains according to the number of hits (Supplementary Figure S1) in the BLASTn analyses of influent (IN), secondary effluent (SE), chlorine-treated (Cl), and ultraviolet-treated (UV) samples. Proportions (%) for FRNAPH strains were calculated as the number of hits for a specific FRNAPH strain relative to the total hits for all FRNAPH strains in each sample. Blank cells indicate an absence of hits. Green and red cells indicate the lowest and highest values, respectively. Numbers in the heat-map cells indicate the proportions for samples collected on 11/13, 11/20, and 11/27.
Pathogens 08 00217 g001
Pathogens 08 00217 g002
Figure 2. Concentrations of infectious FRNAPH genotypes determined using IC–RT-PCR–MPN (A) and number of hits for each FRNAPH genotype determined using IC–NGS (B) in the secondary effluent (SE), chlorine-treated (Cl), and ultraviolet-treated (UV) samples collected on 11/13, 11/20, and 11/27. Numbers of hits for each FRNAPH genotype represent the sum of the number of hits for FRNAPH strains of each genotype except GI-JS.
Figure 2. Concentrations of infectious FRNAPH genotypes determined using IC–RT-PCR–MPN (A) and number of hits for each FRNAPH genotype determined using IC–NGS (B) in the secondary effluent (SE), chlorine-treated (Cl), and ultraviolet-treated (UV) samples collected on 11/13, 11/20, and 11/27. Numbers of hits for each FRNAPH genotype represent the sum of the number of hits for FRNAPH strains of each genotype except GI-JS.
Pathogens 08 00217 g002
Table 1. Sources of F-specific RNA bacteriophage (FRNAPH) strains.
Table 1. Sources of F-specific RNA bacteriophage (FRNAPH) strains.
FRNAPH GenotypeFRNAPH StrainSourceReference
GIMS2Sewage[14,15,16]
M12Sewage[14,15,16]
DL1River water[14,15,16]
DL2Bay water[14,15,16]
DL13Oyster[14,15,16]
DL16Bay water[14,15,16]
J20Chicken litter[14,15,16]
ST4Unknown[14,15,16]
R17Sewage[14,15,16]
FrDung hill[14,16]
JP501Sewage[17]
GI-JSDL52Bay water[16]
DL54Bay water[16]
GIIGASewage[14,15,16,17]
KU1Sewage[14,15,16,17]
DL10Mussel[14,15,16]
DL20Clam[14,15,16]
T72Bird[14,15,16]
BZ13Sewage[17]
TL2Sewage[17]
JP34Sewage[17]
TH1Sewage[17]
GIIIQβHuman feces[14,15,17]
BR12Creek water[14,15]
BZ1Sewage[14,15]
VKSewage[14,15,17]
TW18Sewage[14,15,17]
HL4-9Hog lagoon[14,15]
M11Unknown[14,15]
MX1Sewage[14,15,17]
GIVSPSiamang gibbon[14,15,17,18]
FIInfant[14,15,17,18]
BR1Creek water[14,15]
BR8Creek water[14,15]
HB-P22Bird[14,15]
HB-P24Bird[14,15]
NL95Calf[14,15]
Table 2. Characteristics of influent and secondary effluent samples 1.
Table 2. Characteristics of influent and secondary effluent samples 1.
Date (Month/Day)Sample 2No. of Total ReadsNo. of ContigsNo. of Hits for FRNAPHs (Ratio)No. of Hits for Bacteria (Ratio),
[No. of Hits for Salmonella enterica (ratio)] 3		No. of not Hit Contigs (Ratio) 4
11/13IN1,135,5191218317 (26%)584 (48%), [380 (65%)]200 (16%)
SE1,080,32653787 (16%)343 (64%), [261 (76%)]66 (12%)
Cl887,59361173 (12%)476 (78%), [414 (87%)]30 (5%)
UV1,278,12073266 (9%)608 (83%), [548 (90%)]41 (6%)
11/20IN1,070,3411299468 (36%)570 (44%), [459 (81%)]196 (15%)
SE1,019,493614160 (26%)310 (50%), [220 (71%)]95 (15%)
Cl1,033,97977691 (12%)591 (76%), [532 (90%)]52 (7%)
UV1,025,377821162 (20%)577 (70%), [505 (88%)]36 (4%)
11/27IN4,092,35718,941551 (3%)10,471 (55%), [2521 (24%)]6859 (36%)
SE4,900,8974344247 (6%)2537 (58%), [1825 (72%)]1151 (26%)
Cl5,035,5034370161 (4%)3484 (80%), [3217 (92%)]497 (11%)
UV4,102,1432319106 (5%)1655 (71%), [1416 (86%)]497 (21%)
1 The number of hits for each FRNAPH or bacterial genome refers to the number of sequences registering hits for FRNAPH genomes or bacterial reference genomes. The ratio is the percentage of the number of hits relative to the number of total contigs in the sample. 2 IN: Influent; SE: Secondary effluent; Cl: Chlorine-treated secondary effluent samples; UV: Ultraviolet-treated secondary effluent samples. 3 The ratio shown for Salmonella enterica is the number of hits for Salmonella enterica relative to the number for all bacteria. 4 Not hit contigs refers to the absence of hits for any reference genome.
Table 3. Characteristics of influent and secondary effluent samples.
Table 3. Characteristics of influent and secondary effluent samples.
Parameter 1UnitsRange
IN 2SE 2
pH-7.1–7.36.8–6.9
CODcrmg/L120–14011–14
SSmg/L47–784.7–6.7
TurbidityNTU37–441.2–2.8
T-Nmg/L31–3415–17
T-Pmg/L9.4–9.64.8–5.2
NH4+-Nmg/L20–240.12–0.27
1 COD: Chemical oxygen demand; SS: Suspended solids; T-N: Total nitrogen; T-P: Total phosphorus. 2 IN: Influent; SE: Secondary effluent.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lee, S.; Suwa, M.; Shigemura, H. Metagenomic Analysis of Infectious F-Specific RNA Bacteriophage Strains in Wastewater Treatment and Disinfection Processes. Pathogens 2019, 8, 217. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens8040217

AMA Style

Lee S, Suwa M, Shigemura H. Metagenomic Analysis of Infectious F-Specific RNA Bacteriophage Strains in Wastewater Treatment and Disinfection Processes. Pathogens. 2019; 8(4):217. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens8040217

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lee, Suntae, Mamoru Suwa, and Hiroyuki Shigemura. 2019. "Metagenomic Analysis of Infectious F-Specific RNA Bacteriophage Strains in Wastewater Treatment and Disinfection Processes" Pathogens 8, no. 4: 217. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens8040217

APA Style

Lee, S., Suwa, M., & Shigemura, H. (2019). Metagenomic Analysis of Infectious F-Specific RNA Bacteriophage Strains in Wastewater Treatment and Disinfection Processes. Pathogens, 8(4), 217. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens8040217

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop