Next Article in Journal
Selecting 16S rRNA Primers for Microbiome Analysis in a Host–Microbe System: The Case of the Jellyfish Rhopilema nomadica
Previous Article in Journal
Antimicrobial Drug Resistance in Poultry Production: Current Status and Innovative Strategies for Bacterial Control
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Characterization and Association of Rips Repertoire to Host Range of Novel Ralstonia solanacearum Strains by In Silico Approaches

by
Juan Carlos Ariute
1,2,
Andrei Giachetto Felice
3,
Siomar Soares
3,
Marco Aurélio Siqueira da Gama
4,
Elineide Barbosa de Souza
4,
Vasco Azevedo
5,
Bertram Brenig
6,
Flávia Aburjaile
1,*,† and
Ana Maria Benko-Iseppon
2,*,†
1
Preventive Veterinary Medicine Departament, Veterinary School, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte 31270-901, Minas Gerais, Brazil
2
Genetics Department, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife 50740-600, Pernambuco, Brazil
3
Institute of Biological and Natural Sciences, Universidade Federal do Triângulo Mineiro, Uberaba 38025-180, Minas Gerais, Brazil
4
Department of Agronomy, Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Recife 52171-900, Pernambuco, Brazil
5
Genetics, Ecology and Evolution Department, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte 31270-901, Minas Gerais, Brazil
6
Institute of Veterinary Medicine, University Göttingen, 37077 Göttingen, Germany
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Microorganisms 2023, 11(4), 954; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11040954
Submission received: 27 September 2022 / Revised: 24 December 2022 / Accepted: 28 January 2023 / Published: 6 April 2023

Abstract

:
Ralstonia solanacearum species complex (RSSC) cause several phytobacteriosis in many economically important crops around the globe, especially in the tropics. In Brazil, phylotypes I and II cause bacterial wilt (BW) and are indistinguishable by classical microbiological and phytopathological methods, while Moko disease is caused only by phylotype II strains. Type III effectors of RSSC (Rips) are key molecular actors regarding pathogenesis and are associated with specificity to some hosts. In this study, we sequenced and characterized 14 newly RSSC isolates from Brazil’s Northern and Northeastern regions, including BW and Moko ecotypes. Virulence and resistance sequences were annotated, and the Rips repertoire was predicted. Confirming previous studies, RSSC pangenome is open as α 0.77 . Genomic information regarding these isolates matches those for R. solanacearum in NCBI. All of them fit in phylotype II with a similarity above 96%, with five isolates in phylotype IIB and nine in phylotype IIA. Almost all R. solanacearum genomes in NCBI are actually from other species in RSSC. Rips repertoire of Moko IIB was more homogeneous, except for isolate B4, which presented ten non-shared Rips. Rips repertoire of phylotype IIA was more diverse in both Moko and BW, with 43 common shared Rips among all 14 isolates. New BW isolates shared more Rips with Moko IIA and Moko IIB than with other public BW genome isolates from Brazil. Rips not shared with other isolates might contribute to individual virulence, but commonly shared Rips are good avirulence candidates. The high number of Rips shared by new Moko and BW isolates suggests they are actually Moko isolates infecting solanaceous hosts. Finally, infection assays and Rips expression on different hosts are needed to better elucidate the association between Rips repertoire and host specificities.

1. Introduction

Per year, around 20% of yield losses are due to infection by soil borne microbes [1,2]. Bacterial wilt, caused by Ralstonia solanacearum species complex (RSSC), is a cosmopolitan phytobacteriosis of difficult management and control in the field. It is responsible for significant yield losses in many crops in tropical regions and worldwide, affecting potato, tomato, eggplant, peppers, banana, eucalyptus, and ginger, among others [1,3,4,5].
In the state of Pernambuco, Brazil, this bacterium was detected in all mesoregions, being responsible for total loss in crops where the disease was identified [6,7]. In the last decade, many phylogenetic studies proposed the reclassification of RSSC into three distinct species according to their phylotype position and center of origins: R. pseudosolanacearum (phylotypes I and III, from Asia and Africa), R. solanacearum (phylotypes IIA and IIB, from America), and R. syzygii (phylotype IV, from Indonesia) [8,9,10]. Due to the broad range of hosts of RSSC, they’re commonly described in ecotypes according to the infected host and disease caused. All species in RSSC cause bacterial wilt (BW). Moko disease of Musa, brown rot of potato, and non-pathogenic to banana (NPB) are caused only by R. solanacearum, with brown rot and NPB being positioned in IIB as recent R. solanacearum strains derived from Moko. In turn, Sumatra disease of clove and blood disease bacterium (BDB) are caused by R. syzygii [8,11]. In Brazil, no occurrences of R. syzygii have been reported, whereas R. pseudosolanacearum and R. solanacearum are pointed out as being responsible for all BW cases [11]. Furthermore, Moko disease is highly prevalent in Latin America, considered an A2-level quarantine disease in the Northern (Amazonas, Pará, Rondônia, and Roraima) and Northeastern (Pernambuco and Sergipe) regions [12]. However, no phenotypic characteristics or symptoms displayed by infected plants enable distinguishing RSSC in phylotypes.
A relevant molecular mechanism in RSSC related to pathogenicity and virulence is their type III effectors (T3Es), commonly referred to as Ralstonia injected proteins (Rips). Those proteins are essential in pathogenicity success because they interfere with plant basal immunity and act on specific targets within cascade reactions in the cell, eliciting or attenuating hypersensitive responses [13]. Effectors triggering hypersensitive responses are related to avirulence traits, while effectors eliciting immune responses are related to virulence traits. Moreover, a series of studies has been carried out to identify the role of those effectors in host infection success. For instance, the absence of RipAA and RipP1 are linked to infection success in tobacco [14], RipS1 is linked to virulence contribution in African daisy and eggplant [15,16], and RipAZ1 is linked to avirulence in black nightshade plants [17]. Only 16% of the currently known Rips subfamilies compose the core effectome of RSSC [13,18]. Therefore, Rips repertoire tends to vary significantly with isolates’ phylotype, ecotype, and local area of occurrence.
In this study, we aimed to apply in silico approaches to predict the pangenome and identify the exact taxonomy of RSSC isolates causing Moko disease and BW in Brazil’s Northern and Northeastern regions, as well as investigate resistance and virulence genes, predict their Rips repertoire, and compare with previously identified Rip candidates related to host specificity.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Genomes Database

In total, 120 complete genomes were used for this study, 118 of R. solanacearum and 2 genomes of R. pseudosolanacearum; 106 of them were retrieved from the public genome repository of the National Center for Biotechnology (NCBI) and 14 unpublished private genomes were isolated from the Northern and Northeastern regions of Brazil, from which 12 cause Moko disease and 2 cause BW in tomato. These 14 isolates were previously sequenced on the Illumina Hi-Seq 2500 platform in a paired-end library of 2 × 150 bp at the University of Göttingen (Germany).

2.2. Quality Control and Assembly

The sequencing quality was estimated using the FastQC (v0.11.8) metrics report [19]. Subsequently, we used SPAdes (v3.14) [20] for genome assembly with default parameters. For genome completeness verification and assembly parameters, assembled genomes underwent evaluation through BUSCO (v4.1.2) (Benchmarking Universal Single-Copy Orthologs) [21] against the bacteria_odb10 database. Assemblies with completeness below 90% were discarded. In parallel, we also used QUAST (v5.2.0) (Quality Assessment Tool for Genome Assemblies) [22] with default parameters. The information regarding the strain name, collection site, host, and disease caused for all genomes used is available in Table A1.

2.3. Genome Annotation and T3Es Recovery

All genomes underwent automatic annotation through Prokka (v1.13.4) [23], a specific annotation tool for prokaryotes, to identify coding sequences (CDS) and non-coding RNAs using default parameters and databases. Further, we used PanViTa (https://github.com/dlnrodrigues/panvita, accessed on 15 December 2022) [24] to predict virulence and metal resistance genes for all 120 genomes, using VFDB [25] and BacMet [26] databases. Finally, Rips were predicted for the new 14 isolates plus 2 public genomes of Brazilian R. solanacearum BW isolates using the RalstoT3E’s database (https://iant.toulouse.inra.fr/bacteria/annotation/site/prj/T3Ev3/, accessed on 16 February 2022) [27] with default parameters. In this step, we only considered Rips with at least one copy in one of the isolates. From the Rips repertoire prediction, we tried to find candidate Rips for host specificity in each ecotype and compared them to previously found candidates for Moko disease [28]: RipAA, RipAB, RipAC, RipAD, RipAE, RipAI, RipAN, RipAO, RipAP, RipAU, RipAY, RipB, RipC1, RipD, RipE2, RipF1, RipG2, RipG3, RipG6, RipH1, RipH2, RipP, RipV1, and RipW. For visualization and comparison, both the absence–presence heatmaps and Venn diagrams were plotted using R standard packages.

2.4. Prediction of the RSSC Pangenome

To identify clusters of similar genomes, the RSSC pangenome was estimated with Roary (v3.13.0) [29] with subsequent visualization of the matrix and phylogenetic tree on Phandango (https://jameshadfield.github.io/phandango/#/main, accessed on 6 June 2022) [30] and Roary’s built-in R script. A phylogenomic tree inferred on single-copy orthologs was plotted using OrthoFinder (v2.5.4) and iTOL (v6.0) [31,32]. The pangenome’s alpha value was calculated with an in-house script using OrthoFinder’s outputs with a formula based on the Heap’s Law model, in which α < 1 indicates an open pangenome [33,34]:
n = k × N γ
In which: n = number of genes, N = number of genomes, and k and γ are constants defined to fit the specific curve. Following, γ can be calculated as:
α = 1 γ
By that, α < 1 indicates an open pangenome, in which the more genomes are sequenced and added to the analysis, the more genes will be discovered. On the other hand, α > 1 indicates a closed pangenome, meaning despite more genomes being added, no significant increase in new genes would be discovered. Additionally, we also used the Least Squares Fit Principle to predict the number of singletons added to each genome and a probable number of genes for core genome stabilization, following:
n = k × e ( x τ ) + t g θ
In which: n = number of genes, x = number of genomes, e is the Euler number, and k, τ and tgΘ are constants.

2.5. Whole-Genome Methods for Taxonomy Insights

Furthermore, all genomes underwent two distinct approaches for species classification: first, an Average Nucleotide Identity (ANI) analysis was conducted through the MUMmer alignment method using pyANI (v3.0) [35], considering a ≥ 96 % similarity criteria for different genomes belonging to the same species. Afterward, an in silico DDH (DNA–DNA hybridization) analysis was performed in the GGDC web server (v3.0) [36,37] (https://ggdc.dsmz.de/ggdc.php#, accessed on 30 June 2022), with subsequent visualization in Morpheus (https://software.broadinstitute.org/morpheus/, accessed on 8 January 2022). Due to the limitation in the number of genomes allowed in GGDC web server, we only used 77 of 120 genomes from the database, including the 14 newly sequenced ones. A ≥ 70 % similarity criterion was considered for different genomes belonging to the same species, and ≥79– 80 % similarity criterion for subspecies classification [38].

3. Results

3.1. Genome Sequencing and Characterization of New Brazilian RSSC Isolates

The QUAST report revealed that the isolates B4 and CCRMRs121 had the largest and smallest genomes, with 5,858,492 and 5,364,378 base pairs, respectively. All genome sizes were similar to the average genome size for R. solanacearum at NCBI (5,059,182 bp). Other quality metrics for all isolates are available in Table 1. Furthermore, the BUSCO report revealed all genomes were complete considering single-copy orthologous genes. None of the assembled genomes had missing genes from the database. However, most had at least one fragmented or duplicated gene, which did not interfere with further analyses (Figure 1).
Genomes presented between 5034 and 4592 coding sequences and 61 to 66 non-coding RNAs (including tRNAs, rRNAs, tmRNAs, and others). According to NCBI, the average count of coding sequences in R. solanacearum is 4774. No direct correlation was found between CDS-ncRNA amounts and the type of disease caused by each isolate. Overall, 19 virulence genes (adeG, cheA, cheB, cheD, cheW, cheY, cyaB, flgG, fliA, fliM, fliP, htpB, icl, katG, motA, pilT, sodB, tsr, tufA, and motA) and 29 metal resistance genes (adeB, adeG, bcrC, chrA1, chrB1, chrF, cnrA, cnrT, copA, copR, cueA, czcA, dpsA, mdtB, mdtB/yegN, merA, merP, merR, merT, mexK, oprJ, pbrA, pstA, pstB, pstC, rcnA/yohM, ruvB, silA, and smrA) were predicted for the isolates. All predicted genes had a similarity of ≥60%. The most abundant genes were adeG, cheY, htpB, and pilT, present in 118 of 120 genomes. Similarly, for metal resistance genes, the most abundant were adeG, bcrC, czcA, dpsA, pstB, and ruvB. Strains UW386, T110, and SL3022, isolated from soil and infected potato, exhibited the most quantity of metal resistance genes, with 17 and 16, respectively. In parallel, strains T110 and SL3730, exhibited the highest amounts of virulence genes, although all genomes presented 10 to 7 virulence genes. The newly sequenced genomes presented 9 to 7 virulence genes and 10 to 8 metal resistance genes. Neither host/source nor isolate origins seemed to have a correlation to genetic virulence of resistance. The clustermaps for VFDB and BacMet are available in Figure 2 and Figure 3.

3.2. RSSC Pangenome and Genomic Taxonomy of Newly Sequenced R. solanacearum Isolates

A total of 29,507 genes were predicted for the RSSC pangenome, of which 22,002 are unique genes, 6040 are in the accessory genome, and 1465 are in the core pangenome. The predicted pangenome clusterized the 120 genomes in at least four different groups, which match the phylotype classification of RSSC based on their centers of origin and phylotypes (Figure 4). Applying the OrthoFinder results to Heap’s Law, n 4517.340 × n ( 0.223 ) resulted in 12,094 ortholog families in the pangenome, with α 0.77 indicating an open pangenome. Moreover, the value of tgΘ the Least Squares Fit Principle revealed that 2883 ortholog families compose the RSSC core genome (as n = 1663.212 × e x p [ x / 444.977 ] + 1561.917 ) , and 28 ortholog families are strain-specific (as n = 90.024 × e x p [ x / 101.874 ] + 0.1905 ) . By that, we predict that at each new genome added to the RSSC pangenome, 0.1905 new ortholog genes would be discovered, and the core genome would stabilize in around 1562 genes. Overall, the RSSC pangenome tends to stabilize once a steady low number of conserved genes was maintained through all genomes (Figure 5).
In ANI analysis, three groups of genomes were formed, separated by similarity below 90% (Figure 6). First, R. solanacearum genomes from public databases isolated in China and Japan clustered with R. pseudosolanacearum genomes isolated in Brazil, indicating they all belong to phylotype I. Next, in phylotype III, three R. solanacearum genomes isolated in Africa composed a much smaller cluster relatively similar to the previous one, indicating they’re also R. pseudosolanacearum genomes. The following cluster was composed of R. solanacearum genomes isolated in South Korea, but since they were not similar to the previous or next cluster, they make up phylotype IV or R. syzygii. None of the new isolates clustered within the clusters mentioned up to now. The reminiscent cluster was composed of American isolates, except for CFBP strains from Iran. Among this last cluster, there was a clear division of more similar genomes: isolates CCRMRs283, CCRMRs286, CCRMRs294, and CCRMRs317 formed a smaller cluster (Cluster 1), and B75, B106, CCRMRs91, CCRMRs121, CCRMRs223, CCRMRs279, CCRMRs302, CCRMRs314, and CCRMRs339 formed a more significant cluster (Cluster 2). The genome from isolate B4 was the most distinct of all 14 but still more similar to Cluster 1 than Cluster 2 genomes. The new isolates present in Cluster 1 caused only Moko disease, while public genomes in it were obtained from isolates of other ecotypes, including NPB and brown rot. New isolates present in Cluster 2 caused Moko disease or BW on tomato only, indicating they are, respectively, phylotypes IIB and IIA, and part of the actual R. solanacearum species. This distribution of strains was also true for the phylogenomic tree based on gene family conservation found on OrthoFinder (Figure 7); however, it is possible to notice that isolate B4 was more distant from other IIB isolates than in ANI profile, clustering a clade with CFBP8695, CFBP8697, RS488, UY031, and UW163. That being the case, all sequenced isolates causing BW in this study are phylotype II strains.
Even though the ANI analysis and phylogenomic tree evidence two distinct clades within the newly sequenced isolates, the in silico DDH values varied significantly from pairwise comparison, and it was not possible to find a consensus that separated IIA and IIB isolates in subspecies (Figure 8).

3.3. Prediction of Rips Repertoire of R. solanacearum Strains and Ecotype Correlation

In total, 88 subfamilies of Rips were present in the new 14 isolates. Overall, B4 and B76 had the lowest and the highest number of predicted Rips, with 67 and 76 out of 88, respectively. The Rips repertoire of each isolate is available in Figure 9.
Cluster IIB Rips repertoire was more homogeneous than Cluster IIA’s, despite a higher number of isolates causing Moko in the latter. Considering both clusters, only six events of Rip duplication occurred: RipA5, RipEI1, RipE2, RipS1, RS_T3E_Hyp7, and RS_T3E_Hyp8. There was no duplication event in common for both Clusters, and there was no Rip absent in all 14 isolates besides the hypothetical ones. Congruently with the profile observed in ANI, B4 also exhibited the most distinct pattern of Rips presence–absence–duplication compared to the other 13 isolates. Starting with Cluster IIB, they commonly shared 55 Rips, and B4 presented ten exclusive Rips: RipAQ, RipAW, RipBD, RipF1, RipM, RipS6, RipV2, RS_T3E_Hyp3, RS_T3E_Hyp4, and RS_T3E_Hyp7. All isolates shared a duplication of RipA5; however, only B4 did not share a duplication of RipE1, and B4 and CCRMRs294 shared an absence of RipA4. In Cluster IIA, isolates causing Moko disease commonly shared 51 Rips. The isolates CCRMRs279, CCRMRs302, and CCRMRs314 had remarkably similar repertoires, except for the absence of RipAT and RipBC in CCRMRs302, and the absence of RipF1 in CCRMRs279. Finally, the new BW isolates commonly shared 63 Rips. Both isolates have almost the same repertoire, except for the absence of RipAR, RipAX2, RipH3, RipP3, and RS_T3E_Hyp7 in CCRMRs121, and the absence of RipH2 in CCRMRs223. Moko IIA, Moko IIB, and BW isolates commonly shared 43 Rips. These comparisons also revealed that very few Rips were ecotype-specific; the 12 isolates causing Moko disease only commonly shared RipH3. Moko IIA isolates exclusively shared RipAR, while Moko IIB isolates exclusively shared four Rips (RipAA, RipJ, and RS_T3E_Hyp10), and BW isolates exclusively shared six Rips (RipA4, RipAX1, RipK, RipS7, RipT, and RipV2). More Rips were exclusively shared among Moko IIB and BW isolates (RipAT, RipE2, RipN, RipTPS, RipU, RipZ, RS_T3E_Hyp8, and RS_T3E_Hyp9) than among Moko IIA and BW (RipAQ, RipAW, RipAZ1, RipF2, RipM, and RipY) (Figure 10). Of the 22 candidate Rips for Moko disease suggested by Ailloud et al. [28], only 4 were not commonly shared by the 12 Moko isolates: RipAA, RipE2, and RipF1 in Moko IIA and RipF1 and RipH2 in Moko IIB. However, it is important to highlight that only three of those Moko candidate Rips were not commonly shared by BW isolates: RipF1, RipH2, and RipAA. In contrast to public genomes of other Brazilian R. solanacearum infecting tomato, RS488 and RS489 (BW2) shared 44 Rips with CCRMRs121 and CCRMRs223 (BW1), with 16 Rips exclusively shared by BW1. Interestingly, isolates in BW1 shared more Rips with Moko IIA and IIB isolates than BW2, resting only 29 Rips shared by all four groups from the 43 early found (Figure 11). The Rips repertoire comparison of BW1 and BW2 is available in Figure A1.

4. Discussion

4.1. Pangenome and Nucleotide Identity Analysis Reveal Global Misclassification of RSSC Isolates in Public Databases and Genetic Diversity of New Brazilian Isolates

Our study used a large dataset of high-quality publicly available R. solanacearum complete genomes, elucidating their taxonomy via robust in silico whole-genome approaches confirming many previous findings [9,10,35,39,40]. The misclassification of older R. solanacearum genomes has recently been addressed by Sharma et al. [41], who also pointed out the discrepancy in representative genomes from African and South Asian isolates available at NCBI. As the sequevar/biovar classification has been shown to fail at represent the diversity of highly recombinogenic isolates [41], whole genome methods, such as ANI, isDDH and phylogenomic inferences are more prone to accurately provide the genetic diversity on RSSC and other bacterial phytopathogens with controversial taxonomy [35]. The open pangenome profile observed through our analysis corroborates up-to-date studies, with similar values found for core, accessory, and unique genomes [42] (Geng et al., 2022). As soil borne microbes, the resistance of Ralstonia strains to heavy metals was described a long time ago [5,43,44], but no recent analyses have included Brazilian isolates. Considering that pesticides and fertilizers commonly used in high-production crops typically comprise heavy metals in their composition [45,46], these findings raise an alert for small and big producers in countries such as Brazil that struggle with R. solanacearum infestation. As for the new RSSC isolates from Brazil’s Northern and Northeastern regions, they fit in R. solanacearum, but are from separate phylotypes. The fact that 12 isolates infecting Musa in close geographic spots still differ in phylotype sublevel only shows how diverse Brazilian RSSC isolates are, which corroborates with the hypothesis of the Amazon region being the diversity center of phylotypes IIA and IIB [7,47]. At first look, most of the newly sequenced isolates fitting in phylotype IIA might seem a surprise, as most of the Brazilian isolates are actually included in phylotype IIB, followed by phylotypes IIA and I. However, it has also been reported that phylotype IIA isolates have a higher proportional presence in Brazil’s North and Northeastern regions. In contrast, phylotype IIB has a higher abundance in Central, Southeastern and South regions [7,48]. Since phylotype IIA isolates have been characterized as more genetically diverse and recombinant than IIB [47], a less diverse repertoire of Rips was expected for the latter, and also because at least two different ecotypes were suspected for IIA isolates. Analyzing the Rips repertoire is important because each subfamily of Rip plays distinct roles throughout the infection process, depending on the environment, tissue, and signals recognized within the host [49]. On that thought, we suggest here that Rips that were not commonly shared by all isolates of their respective ecotype might contribute to their individual virulence when infecting the host. In this sense, a good indicator is that B4 was isolated from a banana plant with more severe symptoms on roots, while all other Moko isolates were isolated from banana plants with wilted leaves and healthy roots. The presence of more than one copy of Rips and paralog subfamilies in RSSC is largely documented. Even though it has been described as genetic redundancy, it is also seen as a general strategy for giving bacterial virulence robustness via acting on similar targets, participating in the same molecular functions and biological processes [18,50].

4.2. Rips Repertoire of Brazilian Isolates Are More Correlated to Genomic Similarity Rather Than Ecotype

As for the duplicated Rips, RipA5 (AWR5), and RipE act as typical avirulence factors eliciting hypersensitive responses on Arabidopsis thaliana and Nicotiana benthamiana and suppressing the expression of jasmonic-acid-dependent genes and salicylic acid synthesis [51,52]; however, RipAC and RipAY inhibit RipE1-mediated HR [18]. In contrast, RipS1 acts as a virulence factor that inhibits key targets on reactive oxygen species (ROS) pathways [51], considering that alone, CCRMRs279, CCRMRs302, and CCRMRs314 would have a higher potential for more virulent behavior.
A few Rips have been correlated with host specificity in South Asian RSSC strains infecting solanaceous hosts, with RipAS3 and RipH3 linked to pathogenicity in tomato and RipAC linked to pathogenicity in eggplants [53]. However, in RS488 no copy for RipS3 was predicted (see Figure A1), even though it caused BW in tomato. Indeed, this reinforces the hypothesis that a repertoire of Rips is keener to the success of pathogenicity in some hosts than in a few groups of Rips. We suggest that the presence of previous Moko candidates was more accurate for IIB isolates because it compared different ecotypes present only in phylotype IIB, such as NPB and brown rot, and also due to their clonal behavior. Therefore, the greater difference observed in Moko IIA isolates might indicate different selective pressure on those strains derived from the higher genetic diversity observed in this phylotype, making Rips gain or loss more probable. The broad presence of Moko candidates in the new BW isolates and their broadly shared Rips repertoire can be explained by two main arguments: the first one is that the most common recent ancestor of Ralstonia isolates was already capable of infecting banana and host-adapted polymorphisms (HAP) would be present in the Rips derived from it, making them functionally specialized either for solanaceous and musaceous hosts respective defense mechanisms [28].
Moreover, it has been shown that NPB and Moko disease strains have minimal genomic differences and still have high gene expression differences when infecting their respective hosts [54]. Thus, even if Moko and BW isolates have no significant differences in their Rip sequences, their gene expression would still differ when infecting different hosts. The second argument is that these BW isolates are actually from Moko ecotype infecting solanaceous hosts due to the optimal environmental conditions found in Brazil’s Northeastern region, as it has been previously reported in environments with high temperatures and humidity conditions [55,56]. This argument gains strength when considering that the pan-effectome of R. solanacearum is clearly diverse with a small core effectome of 16 Rips [13,18] contrasting with the 43 Rips present in all 14 isolates of two different ecotypes. Moreover, their Rips repertoire was more similar with Moko isolates than with RS488 and RS489. Hence, based on what we found and considering the second argument, only 14 Rips would be eligible candidates for Moko disease: RipA2, RipAS, RipAU, RipG3, RipG4, RipG6, RipH1, RipL, RipS1, RipS2, RipS3, RipS4, and RS_T3E_Hyp12.

5. Conclusions

The present study is the first to include Brazilian isolates of Ralstonia and use a robust effector database to characterize the effectome of Brazilian isolates. The commonly shared Rips by isolates in different ecotypes might aid in further phytopathology studies by providing target avirulence proteins in hosts when searching for breeds resistant to bacterial wilt, Moko, and so on. It is important to note that further research efforts, preferably with in vitro and in vivo data on gene expression and infection essays on different hosts are required to determine whether the Rips identified here are essential candidates for ecotype specificity. In addition, more phylotype IIA isolates causing bacterial wilt in Solanaceae to identify commonly shared Rips in this ecotype are needed. Finally, even though Rips presence/absence is an excellent indication for host specificity association, it is not the final determinant. The whole-genome approaches were essential in correctly identifying these isolates’ taxonomy, proving their potential for solving complicated bacterial species complexes, such as RSSC. Efforts to characterize hypothetical and redundant Rips are essential to elucidate missing roles on molecular pathways linked to triggered and innate immunity in plants.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, supervision, and writing—review and editing: F.A. and A.M.B.-I.; methodology, formal analysis, and data curation: J.C.A. and A.G.F.; writing—original draft preparation: J.C.A.; writing—review and editing: S.S., M.A.S.d.G., E.B.d.S., V.A. and B.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All 14 newly announced sequenced genomes from Brazilian Northern and Northeastern regions are available on GenBank/NCBI under BioProject PRJNA763940 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/?term=PRJNA763940, accessed on 30 January 2022). All other publicly available genomes are listed in Table A1.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the agencies Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES), National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), Pró-Reitoria de Pesquisa (PRPq) at UFMG, and Minas Gerais Research Funding Foundation (FAPEMIG) for the Post-Graduate Support Program (PAPG) scholarship ID-11713 5.18/2022. We would also like to thank the Post Graduate Program in Bioinformatics at the Federal University of Minas Gerais.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
BWBacterial Wilt
RipsRalstonia Injected Proteins
T3EsType III Effectors
MDPIMultidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
DOAJDirectory of open access journals
TLAThree letter acronym
LDLinear dichroism

Appendix A

Table A1. General information regarding genomes used in this work.
Table A1. General information regarding genomes used in this work.
StrainsGenBankBioprojectOriginHostDisease
R. pseudosolanacearum RSNZ_CP046674PRJNA594457China (YN)TobaccoBacterial wilt
R. pseudosolanacearum RS476NZ_CP021762PRJNA388859Brazil (MA)TomatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum B106JAIVFC000000000PRJNA763940Benjamin Constant, AM, BRBananaMoko disease
R. solanacearum B4JAIVEX000000000PRJNA763940Anamã, AM, BRBananaMoko disease
R. solanacearum B75JAIVFE000000000PRJNA763940Tefé, AM, BRBananaMoko disease
R. solanacearum CCRMRs121JAIVEU000000000PRJNA763940Belém de São Francisco, PE, BRTomatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum CCRMRs223JAIVEY000000000PRJNA763940Bezerros, PE, BRTomatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum CCRMRs279JAIVFD000000000PRJNA763940Manicoré, AM, BRBananaMoko disease
R. solanacearum CCRMRs283JAIVEZ000000000PRJNA763940Benjamin Constant, AM, BRBananaMoko disease
R. solanacearum CCRMRs286JAIVEV000000000PRJNA763940Benjamin Constant, AM, BRBananaMoko disease
R. solanacearum CCRMRs294JAIVEW000000000PRJNA763940Benjamin Constant, AM, BRBananaMoko disease
R. solanacearum CCRMRs302JAIVFA000000000PRJNA763940Fonte Boa, AM, BRBananaMoko disease
R. solanacearum CCRMRs314JAIVFB000000000PRJNA763940Tefé, AM, BRBananaMoko disease
R. solanacearum CCRMRs317JAIVFF000000000PRJNA763940Tefé, AM, BRBananaMoko disease
R. solanacearum CCRMRs339JAIVET000000000PRJNA763940Coari, AM, BRBananaMoko disease
R. solanacearum CCRMRs91JAIVFG000000000PRJNA763940Igreja Nova, AL, BRBananaMoko disease
R. solanacearum 202NZ_CP049789PRJNA609910China (GD)TobaccoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum 203NZ_CP049791PRJNA609906China (GD)TobaccoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum 204NZ_CP049793PRJNA609905China (GD)TobaccoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum 362200NZ_CP065531PRJNA668065China (FJ)PeanutBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum B2NZ_CP049787PRJNA609907China (GD)TobaccoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum CFBP8695CP047138PRJNA596809IranPotatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum CFBP8697CP047136PRJNA596668IranPotatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum CIAT078NZ_CP051295PRJNA608676ColombiaPlaintainMoko disease
R. solanacearum CQPS1NZ_CP016914PRJNA331070China (SD)TobaccoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum EP1NZ_CP015115PRJNA288736China (GD)EggplantBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum FJAT1303F1NZ_CP052128PRJNA622642China (FJ)TomatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum FJAT1303F50NZ_CP052126PRJNA622642China (FJ)TomatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum FJAT1303F8NZ_CP052130PRJNA622642China (FJ)TomatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum FJAT1452F1NZ_CP052124PRJNA622642China (FJ)TomatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum FJAT1452F50NZ_CP052122PRJNA622642China (FJ)TomatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum FJAT1458NZ_CP016554PRJNA329182China (FJ)TomatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum FJAT1458F1NZ_CP052120PRJNA622642China (FJ)TomatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum FJAT1458F50NZ_CP052118PRJNA622642China (FJ)TomatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum FJAT1463F50NZ_CP052114PRJNA622642China (FJ)TomatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum FJAT1463F1NZ_CP052116PRJNA622642China (FJ)TomatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum FJAT15244F1NZ_CP052112PRJNA622642China (FJ)TomatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum FJAT15244F50NZ_CP052110PRJNA622642China (FJ)TomatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum FJAT15244F8NZ_CP059376PRJNA647244China (FJ)--
R. solanacearum FJAT15249F1NZ_CP052108PRJNA622642China (FJ)TomatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum FJAT15249F50NZ_CP052106PRJNA622642China (FJ)TomatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum FJAT15252F1NZ_CP052104PRJNA622642China (FJ)TomatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum FJAT15252F50NZ_CP052102PRJNA622642China (FJ)TomatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum FJAT15304F1NZ_CP052100PRJNA622642China (FJ)TomatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum FJAT15304F50NZ_CP052098PRJNA622642China (FJ)TomatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum FJAT15304F6NZ_CP052096PRJNA622642China (FJ)TomatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum FJAT15340F1NZ_CP052094PRJNA622642China (FJ)TomatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum FJAT15340F50NZ_CP052092PRJNA622642China (FJ)TomatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum FJAT15340F6NZ_CP052090PRJNA622642China (FJ)TomatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum FJAT15353F1NZ_CP052088PRJNA622642China (FJ)TomatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum FJAT15353F50NZ_CP052086PRJNA622642China (FJ)TomatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum FJAT15353F8NZ_CP052084PRJNA622642China (FJ)TomatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum FJAT442F1NZ_CP052082PRJNA622642China (FJ)TomatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum FJAT442F50NZ_CP052080PRJNA622642China (FJ)TomatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum FJAT445F1NZ_CP052078PRJNA622642China (FJ)TomatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum FJAT445F50NZ_CP052076PRJNA622642China (FJ)TomatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum FJAT448F1NZ_CP052074PRJNA622642China (FJ)TomatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum FJAT448F50NZ_CP052072PRJNA622642China (FJ)TomatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum FJAT454F1NZ_CP052070PRJNA622642China (FJ)TomatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum FJAT454F501NZ_CP060701PRJNA622642China (FJ)TomatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum FJAT91NZ_CP016612PRJNA329188China (FJ)Tomato (healthy)Bacterial wilt
R. solanacearum FJAT91F1NZ_CP056083PRJNA640736China (FJ)--
R. solanacearum FJAT91F50NZ_CP052068PRJNA622642China (FJ)TomatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum FJAT91F8NZ_CP056085PRJNA622642China (FJ)TomatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum GM1000NC_003295 AL646057-AL646075PRJNA13-Arabdopsis thalianaBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum HA41NZ_CP022481PRJNA392775China (HB)PeanutBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum IBSBF1503NZ_CP012943PRJNA297402BrazilPepinoNPB (non-pathogenic to banana)
R. solanacearum IBSBF2571NZ_CP026307PRJNA431203Brazil (SE)PlaintainMoko disease
R. solanacearum KACC10709NZ_CP016904PRJNA314721South Korea (GY)PotatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum KACC10722NZ_CP014702PRJNA314571South Korea (JE)PotatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum MAFF211471NZ_AP024097PRJDB10588Japan (Kochi)GingerBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum MAFF211472NZ_AP024157PRJDB9507Japan (Kyushu)GingerBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum MAFF211479NZ_AP024099PRJDB10588Japan (Kochi)GingerBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum MAFF211491NZ_AP024101PRJDB10588Japan (Kochi)GingerBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum MAFF241647NZ_AP024105PRJDB10588Japan (Kochi)GingerBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum MAFF241648NZ_AP024107PRJDB10588Japan (Kochi)GingerBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum MAFF301560NZ_AP024103PRJDB10588Japan (Kochi)GingerBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum MAFF311693NZ_AP024161PRJDB9507Japan (Kyushu)Wild turmericBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum OE11NZ_CP009763PRJDB4012Japan (Kochi)EggplantBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum Po82NC_017574PRJNA66837MexicoPotatoBacterial wilt/Moko disease
R. solanacearum PSI07NC_014310PRJEA50683-TomatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum RS488NZ_CP021652PRJNA388430Brazil (PR)TomatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum RS489NZ_CP021766PRJNA388980Brazil (PR)TomatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum RSCMNZ_CP025985PRJNA422474China (GD)PumpkinBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum SEPPX05NZ_CP021448PRJNA379485China (JX)SesameBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum SL2064NZ_CP022798PRJNA396777South Korea (JE)PotatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum SL2312NZ_CP022796PRJNA396777South Korea (JE)PotatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum SL2330NZ_CP022794PRJNA396777South Korea (JE)PotatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum SL2729NZ_CP022792PRJNA396777South Korea (JE)PotatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum SL3022CP023016PRJNA396777South Korea (JE)PotatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum SL3103NZ_CP022790PRJNA396777South Korea (JE)PotatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum SL3175NZ_CP022788PRJNA396777South Korea (JE)PotatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum SL3300NZ_CP022786PRJNA396777South Korea (JE)PotatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum SL3730NZ_CP022784PRJNA396777South Korea (JE)PotatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum SL3755NZ_CP022782PRJNA396777South Korea (JE)PotatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum SL3822NZ_CP022780PRJNA396777South Korea (JE)PotatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum SL3882NZ_CP022778PRJNA396777South Korea (JE)PotatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum T101NZ_CP022757PRJNA396777South Korea (JE)PotatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum T11NZ_CP022776PRJNA396777South Korea (JE)PotatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum T110CP023012PRJNA396777South Korea (JE)PotatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum T117NZ_CP022755PRJNA396777South Korea (JE)PotatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum T12NZ_CP022774PRJNA396777South Korea (JE)PotatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum T25CP023014PRJNA396777South Korea (JE)PotatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum T42NZ_CP022772PRJNA396777South Korea (JE)PotatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum T51NZ_CP022770PRJNA396777South Korea (JE)PotatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum T60NZ_CP022768PRJNA396777South Korea (JE)PotatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum T78NZ_CP022765PRJNA396777South Korea (JE)PotatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum T82NZ_CP022763PRJNA396777South Korea (JE)PotatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum T95NZ_CP022761PRJNA396777South Korea (JE)PotatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum T98NZ_CP022759PRJNA396777South Korea (JE)PotatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum UW163NZ_CP012939PRJNA297400Peru (NA)PlaintainMoko disease
R. solanacearum UW386NZ_CP039339PRJNA531204NigeriaSoil-
R. solanacearum UW576NZ_CP051175PRJNA591018SenegalTomatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum UW763NZ_CP051173PRJNA591018SenegalTomatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum UW773NZ_CP051171PRJNA591018SenegalTomatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum UW774NZ_CP051169PRJNA591018SenegalTomatoBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum UY031NZ_CP012687PRJNA278086UruguayWild potatoBrown rot
R. solanacearum YC40MNZ_CP015850PRJNA314427China (GD)GalangalBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum YC45CP011997PRJNA286156China (GD)GingerBacterial wilt
R. solanacearum YQNZ_CP059489PRJNA648113China (ZJ)Casuarina pineBacterial wilt
Figure A1. Heatmap of Rips repertoire of newly sequenced (Bac. Wilt 1) and publicly available (Bac. Wilt 2) genomes from isolates causing bacterial wilt in Brazil. The genomes on the right have notably fewer Rips than the newly sequenced ones, despite all causing diseases in tomato.
Figure A1. Heatmap of Rips repertoire of newly sequenced (Bac. Wilt 1) and publicly available (Bac. Wilt 2) genomes from isolates causing bacterial wilt in Brazil. The genomes on the right have notably fewer Rips than the newly sequenced ones, despite all causing diseases in tomato.
Microorganisms 11 00954 g0a1

References

  1. Manda, R.R.; Addanki, V.A.; Srivastava, S. Bacterial wilt of solanaceous crops. Int. J. Chem. Stud. 2020, 8, 1048–1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Yuliar, N.; Nion, Y.A.; Toyota, K. Recent trends in control methods for bacterial wilt diseases caused by Ralstonia solanacearum. Microbes Environ. 2015, 30, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Guji, M.J.; Yetayew, H.T.; Kidanu, E.D. Yield loss of ginger (Zingiber officinale) due to bacterial wilt (Ralstonia solanacearum in different wilt management systems in Ethiopia. Agric. Food Secur. 2019, 8, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Lopes, C.A.; Rossato, M. History and Status of Selected Hosts of the Ralstonia solanacearum Species Complex Causing Bacterial Wilt in Brazil. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 1228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Genin, S.; Boucher, C. Lessons learned from the genome analysis of ralstonia solanacearum. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2004, 42, 107–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Costa, K.D.D.S.; dos Santos, P.R.; dos Santos, A.M.M.; Silva, A.M.F.; Chagas, J.T.B.; de Carvalho Filho, J.L.S.; Pereira, J.W.d.L.; Silva, M.D.O.; da Silva, J.R.; Menezes, D. Genetic control of tomato resistance to Ralstonia solanacearum. Euphytica 2019, 215, 136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Santiago, T.R.; Lopes, C.A.; Caetano-Anollés, G.; Mizubuti, E.S.G. Phylotype and sequevar variability of Ralstonia solanacearum in Brazil, an ancient centre of diversity of the pathogen. Plant Pathol. 2017, 66, 383–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Genin, S.; Denny, T.P. Pathogenomics of the Ralstonia solanacearum Species Complex. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2012, 50, 67–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Safni, I.; Cleenwerck, I.; De Vos, P.; Fegan, M.; Sly, L.; Kappler, U. Polyphasic taxonomic revision of the Ralstonia solanacearum species complex: Proposal to emend the descriptions of Ralstonia solanacearum and Ralstonia syzygii and reclassify current R. syzygii strains as Ralstonia syzygii subsp. syzygii subsp. nov., R. solanacearum phylotype IV strains as Ralstonia syzygii subsp. indonesiensis subsp. nov., banana blood disease bacterium strains as Ralstonia syzygii subsp. celebesensis subsp. nov. and R. solanacearum phylotype I and III strains as Ralstonia pseudosolanacearum sp. nov. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2014, 64, 3087–3103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Zhang, Y.; Qiu, S. Phylogenomic analysis of the genus Ralstonia based on 686 single-copy genes. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 2016, 109, 71–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Santiago, T.R.; Lopes, C.A.; Mizubuti, E.S. Diversidade e Variabilidade de Ralstonia spp. In Estado da Arte em Fitobacterioses Tropicais; EDFRPE-Editora Universitária da UFRPE: Recife, Pernambuco, Brasil, 2016; pp. 243–256. [Google Scholar]
  12. Albuquerque, G.M.R.; Santos, L.A.; Felix, K.C.S.; Rollemberg, C.L.; Silva, A.M.F.; Souza, E.B.; Cellier, G.; Prior, P.; Mariano, R.L.R. Moko Disease-Causing Strains of Ralstonia solanacearum from Brazil Extend Known Diversity in Paraphyletic Phylotype II. Phytopathology® 2014, 104, 1175–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Sabbagh, C.R.R.; Carrere, S.; Lonjon, F.; Vailleau, F.; Macho, A.P.; Genin, S.; Peeters, N. Pangenomic type III effector database of the plant pathogenic Ralstonia spp. PeerJ 2019, 7, e7346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Chen, L.; Dahal, A.; Zhang, Y.; Rokunuzzaman, M.; Kiba, A.; Hikichi, Y.; Ohnishi, K. Involvement of avirulence genes avrA and popP1 of Japanese Ralstonia solanacearum strains in the pathogenicity to tobacco. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2018, 102, 154–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bocsanczy, A.M.; Bonants, P.; van der Wolf, J.; Bergsma-Vlami, M.; Norman, D.J. Identification of candidate type 3 effectors that determine host specificity associated with emerging Ralstonia pseudosolanacearum strains. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2022, 163, 35–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Chen, L.; Lei, N.; Kiba, A.; Hikichi, Y.; Ohnishi, K. Contribution of RipS type III effector family of Ralstonia solanacearum Japanese strain OE1-1 to disease development in eggplant. J. Gen. Plant Pathol. 2021, 87, 77–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Moon, H.; Pandey, A.; Yoon, H.; Choi, S.; Jeon, H.; Prokchorchik, M.; Jung, G.; Witek, K.; Valls, M.; McCann, H.C.; et al. Identification of RipAZ1 as an avirulence determinant of Ralstonia solanacearum in Solanum americanum. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2021, 22, 317–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Landry, D.; González-Fuente, M.; Deslandes, L.; Peeters, N. The large, diverse, and robust arsenal of Ralstonia solanacearum type III effectors and their in planta functions. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2020, 21, 1377–1388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bioinformatics, B. FastQC: A Quality Control Tool for High Throughput Sequence Data; Babraham Institute: Cambridge, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  20. Bankevich, A.; Nurk, S.; Antipov, D.; Gurevich, A.A.; Dvorkin, M.; Kulikov, A.S.; Lesin, V.M.; Nikolenko, S.I.; Pham, S.; Prjibelski, A.D.; et al. SPAdes: A New Genome Assembly Algorithm and Its Applications to Single-Cell Sequencing. J. Comput. Biol. 2012, 19, 455–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Simão, F.A.; Waterhouse, R.M.; Ioannidis, P.; Kriventseva, E.V.; Zdobnov, E.M. BUSCO: Assessing genome assembly and annotation completeness with single-copy orthologs. Bioinformatics 2015, 31, 3210–3212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Gurevich, A.; Saveliev, V.; Vyahhi, N.; Tesler, G. QUAST: Quality assessment tool for genome assemblies. Bioinformatics 2013, 29, 1072–1075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Seemann, T. Prokka: Rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics 2014, 30, 2068–2069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Rodrigues, D.L.; Ariute, J.C.; Rodrigues, F.; Benko-Iseppon, A.; Barh, D.; Azevedo, V.; Aburjaile, F. PanViTa-Pan Virulence and resisTance Analysis. Front. Bioinform. 2023, 3, 1–4. Available online: https://github.com/dlnrodrigues/panvita (accessed on 26 July 2020). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Liu, B.; Zheng, D.; Zhou, S.; Chen, L.; Yang, J. VFDB 2022: A general classification scheme for bacterial virulence factors. Nucleic Acids Res. 2022, 50, D912–D917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Pal, C.; Bengtsson-Palme, J.; Rensing, C.; Kristiansson, E.; Larsson, D.J. BacMet: Antibacterial biocide and metal resistance genes database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014, 42, D737–D743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Peeters, N.; Carrère, S.; Anisimova, M.; Plener, L.; Cazalé, A.C.; Genin, S. Repertoire, unified nomenclature and evolution of the Type III effector gene set in the Ralstonia solanacearum species complex. BMC Genom. 2013, 14, 859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ailloud, F.; Lowe, T.; Cellier, G.; Roche, D.; Allen, C.; Prior, P. Comparative genomic analysis of Ralstonia solanacearum reveals candidate genes for host specificity. BMC Genom. 2015, 16, 270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Page, A.J.; Cummins, C.A.; Hunt, M.; Wong, V.K.; Reuter, S.; Holden, M.T.; Fookes, M.; Falush, D.; Keane, J.A.; Parkhill, J. Roary: Rapid large-scale prokaryote pan genome analysis. Bioinformatics 2015, 31, 3691–3693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Hadfield, J.; Croucher, N.J.; Goater, R.J.; Abudahab, K.; Aanensen, D.M.; Harris, S.R. Phandango: An interactive viewer for bacterial population genomics. Bioinformatics 2018, 34, 292–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Emms, D.M.; Kelly, S. OrthoFinder: Phylogenetic orthology inference for comparative genomics. Genome Biol. 2019, 20, 238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Letunic, I.; Bork, P. Interactive Tree Of Life (iTOL) v5: An online tool for phylogenetic tree display and annotation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021, 49, W293–W296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Costa, S.S.; Guimarães, L.C.; Silva, A.; Soares, S.C.; Baraúna, R.A. First Steps in the Analysis of Prokaryotic Pan-Genomes. Bioinform. Biol. Insights 2020, 14, 1177932220938064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Tettelin, H.; Riley, D.; Cattuto, C.; Medini, D. Comparative genomics: The bacterial pan-genome. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2008, 11, 472–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Pritchard, L.; Glover, R.H.; Humphris, S.; Elphinstone, J.G.; Toth, I.K. Genomics and taxonomy in diagnostics for food security: Soft-rotting enterobacterial plant pathogens. Anal. Methods 2016, 8, 12–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Meier-Kolthoff, J.P.; Carbasse, J.S.; Peinado-Olarte, R.L.; Göker, M. TYGS and LPSN: A database tandem for fast and reliable genome-based classification and nomenclature of prokaryotes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2022, 50, D801–D807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Meier-Kolthoff, J.P.; Auch, A.F.; Klenk, H.P.; Göker, M. Genome sequence-based species delimitation with confidence intervals and improved distance functions. BMC Bioinform. 2013, 14, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Meier-Kolthoff, J.P.; Hahnke, R.L.; Petersen, J.; Scheuner, C.; Michael, V.; Fiebig, A.; Rohde, C.; Rohde, M.; Fartmann, B.; Goodwin, L.A.; et al. Complete genome sequence of DSM 30083T, the type strain (U5/41T) of Escherichia coli, and a proposal for delineating subspecies in microbial taxonomy. Stand. Genom. Sci. 2014, 9, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Cellier, G.; Remenant, B.; Chiroleu, F.; Lefeuvre, P.; Prior, P. Phylogeny and Population Structure of Brown Rot- and Moko Disease-Causing Strains of Ralstonia solanacearum Phylotype II. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2012, 78, 2367–2375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Paudel, S.; Dobhal, S.; Alvarez, A.M.; Arif, M. Taxonomy and Phylogenetic Research on Ralstonia solanacearum Species Complex: A Complex Pathogen with Extraordinary Economic Consequences. Pathogens 2020, 9, 886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Sharma, P.; Johnson, M.A.; Mazloom, R.; Allen, C.; Heath, L.S.; Lowe-Power, T.M.; Vinatzer, B.A. Meta-analysis of the Ralstonia solanacearum species complex (RSSC) based on comparative evolutionary genomics and reverse ecology. Microb. Genom. 2022, 8, 000791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Geng, R.; Cheng, L.; Cao, C.; Liu, Z.; Liu, D.; Xiao, Z.; Wu, X.; Huang, Z.; Feng, Q.; Luo, C.; et al. Comprehensive Analysis Reveals the Genetic and Pathogenic Diversity of Ralstonia solanacearum Species Complex and Benefits Its Taxonomic Classification. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 854792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mergeay, M.; Monchy, S.; Vallaeys, T.; Auquier, V.; Benotmane, A.; Bertin, P.; Taghavi, S.; Dunn, J.; van der Lelie, D.; Wattiez, R. Ralstonia metallidurans, a bacterium specifically adapted to toxic metals: Towards a catalogue of metal-responsive genes. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2003, 27, 385–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Pugazhendhi, A.; Boovaragamoorthy, G.M.; Ranganathan, K.; Naushad, M.; Kaliannan, T. New insight into effective biosorption of lead from aqueous solution using Ralstonia solanacearum: Characterization and mechanism studies. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 174, 1234–1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Dang, F.; Lin, J.; Chen, Y.; Li, G.X.; Guan, D.; Zheng, S.J.; He, S. A feedback loop between CaWRKY41 and H2O2 coordinates the response to Ralstonia solanacearum and excess cadmium in pepper. J. Exp. Bot. 2019, 70, 1581–1595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Sarowar, S.; Kim, Y.J.; Kim, E.N.; Kim, K.D.; Hwang, B.K.; Islam, R.; Shin, J.S. Overexpression of a pepper basic pathogenesis-related protein 1 gene in tobacco plants enhances resistance to heavy metal and pathogen stresses. Plant Cell Rep. 2005, 24, 216–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Wicker, E.; Lefeuvre, P.; de Cambiaire, J.C.; Lemaire, C.; Poussier, S.; Prior, P. Contrasting recombination patterns and demographic histories of the plant pathogen Ralstonia solanacearum inferred from MLSA. ISME J. 2012, 6, 961–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  48. Santiago, T.R.; Lopes, C.A.; Caetano-Anollés, G.; Mizubuti, E.S.G. Genetic Structure of Ralstonia solanacearum and Ralstonia pseudosolanacearum in Brazil. Plant Dis. 2020, 104, 1019–1025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. de Pedro-Jové, R.; Puigvert, M.; Sebastià, P.; Macho, A.P.; Monteiro, J.S.; Coll, N.S.; Setúbal, J.C.; Valls, M. Dynamic expression of Ralstonia solanacearum virulence factors and metabolism-controlling genes during plant infection. BMC Genom. 2021, 22, 170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ghosh, S.; O’Connor, T.J. Beyond Paralogs: The Multiple Layers of Redundancy in Bacterial Pathogenesis. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2017, 7, 467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Nakano, M.; Mukaihara, T. Comprehensive Identification of PTI Suppressors in Type III Effector Repertoire Reveals that Ralstonia solanacearum Activates Jasmonate Signaling at Two Different Steps. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 5992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Solé, M.; Popa, C.; Mith, O.; Sohn, K.H.; Jones, J.D.G.; Deslandes, L.; Valls, M. The awr Gene Family Encodes a Novel Class of Ralstonia solanacearum Type III Effectors Displaying Virulence and Avirulence Activities. Mol.-Plant-Microbe Interact. 2012, 25, 941–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Cho, H.; Song, E.S.; Heu, S.; Baek, J.; Lee, Y.K.; Lee, S.; Lee, S.W.; Park, D.S.; Lee, T.H.; Kim, J.G.; et al. Prediction of Host-Specific Genes by Pan-Genome Analyses of the Korean Ralstonia solanacearum Species Complex. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  54. Ailloud, F.; Lowe, T.M.; Robène, I.; Cruveiller, S.; Allen, C.; Prior, P. In planta comparative transcriptomics of host-adapted strains of Ralstonia solanacearum. PeerJ 2016, 4, e1549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Cellier, G.; Prior, P. Deciphering phenotypic diversity of Ralstonia solanacearum strains pathogenic to potato. Phytopathology 2010, 100, 1250–1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Ramírez, M.; Moncada, R.N.; Villegas-Escobar, V.; Jackson, R.W.; Ramírez, C.A. Phylogenetic and pathogenic variability of strains of Ralstonia solanacearum causing moko disease in Colombia. Plant Pathol. 2020, 69, 360–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Genome completeness for Northern and Northeastern sequenced RSSC isolates.
Figure 1. Genome completeness for Northern and Northeastern sequenced RSSC isolates.
Microorganisms 11 00954 g001
Figure 2. Clustermap for virulence genes presence and similarity against VFDB.
Figure 2. Clustermap for virulence genes presence and similarity against VFDB.
Microorganisms 11 00954 g002
Figure 3. Clustermap for metal resistance genes presence and similarity against BacMet database.
Figure 3. Clustermap for metal resistance genes presence and similarity against BacMet database.
Microorganisms 11 00954 g003
Figure 4. R. solanacearum species complex (RSSC) pangenome profile. From left to right, blue regions homogeneously distributed represent the core genome, while blue spots represent the unique genome. Blocks underneath red line make up the core genome, whilst blocks underneath purple line make up the accessory genome. From the presence–absence profile, it is possible to identify 4 major patterns in the pangenome profile, delimited by the green dotted lines.
Figure 4. R. solanacearum species complex (RSSC) pangenome profile. From left to right, blue regions homogeneously distributed represent the core genome, while blue spots represent the unique genome. Blocks underneath red line make up the core genome, whilst blocks underneath purple line make up the accessory genome. From the presence–absence profile, it is possible to identify 4 major patterns in the pangenome profile, delimited by the green dotted lines.
Microorganisms 11 00954 g004
Figure 5. Pangenome development considering conserved genes throughout the 120 genomes.
Figure 5. Pangenome development considering conserved genes throughout the 120 genomes.
Microorganisms 11 00954 g005
Figure 6. ANI analysis clustermap of public R. solanacearum genomes on NCBI and 14 new Brazilian R. solanacearum genomes. Upwards, there are phylotypes I (orange box), III (brown box), IV (blue box), IIA, and IIB clusters (black box), composing R. pseudosolanacearum, R. syzygii, and R. solanacearum, respectively. Newly sequenced genomes are in bold and highlighted in red and yellow according to their respective ecotypes.
Figure 6. ANI analysis clustermap of public R. solanacearum genomes on NCBI and 14 new Brazilian R. solanacearum genomes. Upwards, there are phylotypes I (orange box), III (brown box), IV (blue box), IIA, and IIB clusters (black box), composing R. pseudosolanacearum, R. syzygii, and R. solanacearum, respectively. Newly sequenced genomes are in bold and highlighted in red and yellow according to their respective ecotypes.
Microorganisms 11 00954 g006
Figure 7. Phylogenomic tree of R. solanacearum species complex (RSSC) strains used in this work. Strains’ names are colored according to Figure 6 pattern: phylotypes I in orange, phylotypes III in brown, phylotypes IV in blue, and phylotypes II in black. Newly sequenced genomes are also highlighted according to their respective ecotypes.
Figure 7. Phylogenomic tree of R. solanacearum species complex (RSSC) strains used in this work. Strains’ names are colored according to Figure 6 pattern: phylotypes I in orange, phylotypes III in brown, phylotypes IV in blue, and phylotypes II in black. Newly sequenced genomes are also highlighted according to their respective ecotypes.
Microorganisms 11 00954 g007
Figure 8. Heatmap representing the in silico DNA–DNA hybridization (isDDH) of genomes from R. solanacearum species complex (RSSC). The value for each DDH is available inside each dot.
Figure 8. Heatmap representing the in silico DNA–DNA hybridization (isDDH) of genomes from R. solanacearum species complex (RSSC). The value for each DDH is available inside each dot.
Microorganisms 11 00954 g008
Figure 9. Heatmap of Rips repertoire of each new Brazilian R. solanacearum isolates IIB (left) and IIA (right).
Figure 9. Heatmap of Rips repertoire of each new Brazilian R. solanacearum isolates IIB (left) and IIA (right).
Microorganisms 11 00954 g009
Figure 10. Rips shared among the sequenced isolates used in this study only.
Figure 10. Rips shared among the sequenced isolates used in this study only.
Microorganisms 11 00954 g010
Figure 11. Rips shared among newly sequenced isolates (Moko IIA, Moko IIB, and BW1) plus public Brazilian BW isolates, RS488 and RS489 (BW2).
Figure 11. Rips shared among newly sequenced isolates (Moko IIA, Moko IIB, and BW1) plus public Brazilian BW isolates, RS488 and RS489 (BW2).
Microorganisms 11 00954 g011
Table 1. Quality metrics for Northern and Northeastern sequenced RSSC isolates.
Table 1. Quality metrics for Northern and Northeastern sequenced RSSC isolates.
IsolateSize (Mb)ContigsN50L50
B1065.5046399,4545
B45.8550574,9945
B755.4277333,1796
CCRMRs1215.3635504,5734
CCRMRs2235.5753296,5405
CCRMRs2795.7044146,71634
CCRMRs2835.4681204,9138
CCRMRs2865.4681185,7539
CCRMRs2945.4781204,9128
CCRMRs3025.6438037,22242
CCRMRs3145.6938137,22242
CCRMRs3175.5080205,1387
CCRMRs3395.50249238,6148
CCRMRs915.4681105,71818
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ariute, J.C.; Felice, A.G.; Soares, S.; da Gama, M.A.S.; de Souza, E.B.; Azevedo, V.; Brenig, B.; Aburjaile, F.; Benko-Iseppon, A.M. Characterization and Association of Rips Repertoire to Host Range of Novel Ralstonia solanacearum Strains by In Silico Approaches. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 954. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11040954

AMA Style

Ariute JC, Felice AG, Soares S, da Gama MAS, de Souza EB, Azevedo V, Brenig B, Aburjaile F, Benko-Iseppon AM. Characterization and Association of Rips Repertoire to Host Range of Novel Ralstonia solanacearum Strains by In Silico Approaches. Microorganisms. 2023; 11(4):954. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11040954

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ariute, Juan Carlos, Andrei Giachetto Felice, Siomar Soares, Marco Aurélio Siqueira da Gama, Elineide Barbosa de Souza, Vasco Azevedo, Bertram Brenig, Flávia Aburjaile, and Ana Maria Benko-Iseppon. 2023. "Characterization and Association of Rips Repertoire to Host Range of Novel Ralstonia solanacearum Strains by In Silico Approaches" Microorganisms 11, no. 4: 954. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11040954

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