Open Access

Phylogenomic reconstruction of lactic acid bacteria: an update

Contributed equally
BMC Evolutionary Biology201111:1

DOI: 10.1186/1471-2148-11-1

Received: 30 June 2010

Accepted: 1 January 2011

Published: 1 January 2011

Abstract

Background

Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) are important in the food industry for the production of fermented food products and in human health as commensals in the gut. However, the phylogenetic relationships among LAB species remain under intensive debate owing to disagreements among different data sets.

Results

We performed a phylogenetic analysis of LAB species based on 232 genes from 28 LAB genome sequences. Regardless of the tree-building methods used, combined analyses yielded an identical, well-resolved tree topology with strong supports for all nodes. The LAB species examined were divided into two groups. Group 1 included families Enterococcaceae and Streptococcaceae. Group 2 included families Lactobacillaceae and Leuconostocaceae. Within Group 2, the LAB species were divided into two clades. One clade comprised of the acidophilus complex of genus Lactobacillus and two other species, Lb. sakei and Lb. casei. In the acidophilus complex, Lb. delbrueckii separated first, while Lb. acidophilus/Lb. helveticus and Lb. gasseri/Lb. johnsonii were clustered into a sister group. The other clade within Group 2 consisted of the salivarius subgroup, including five species, Lb. salivarius, Lb. plantarum, Lb. brevis, Lb. reuteri, Lb. fermentum, and the genera Pediococcus, Oenococcus, and Leuconostoc. In this clade, Lb. salivarius was positioned most basally, followed by two clusters, one corresponding to Lb. plantarum/Lb. brevis pair and Pediococcus, and the other including Oenococcus/Leuconostoc pair and Lb. reuteri/Lb. fermentum pair. In addition, phylogenetic utility of the 232 genes was analyzed to identify those that may be more useful than others. The genes identified as useful were related to translation and ribosomal structure and biogenesis (TRSB), and a three-gene set comprising genes encoding ultra-violet resistance protein B (uvrB), DNA polymerase III (polC) and penicillin binding protein 2B (pbpB).

Conclusions

Our phylogenomic analyses provide important insights into the evolution and diversification of LAB species, and also revealed the phylogenetic utility of several genes. We infer that the occurrence of multiple, independent adaptation events in LAB species, have resulted in their occupation of various habitats. Further analyses of more genes from additional, representative LAB species are needed to reveal the molecular mechanisms underlying adaptation of LAB species to various environmental niches.

Background

Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) are Gram-positive bacteria that have been widely used as starter or nonstarter cultures in the plant, meat, and dairy fermentation, and also as probiotic bacteria in human gastrointestinal tract contributing to pathogen inhibition and immunomodulation. At present, nearly 400 LAB species have been recognized [1]. They are generally classified into four families and seven genera, as follows: family Lactobacillaceae (genera Lactobacillus and Pediococcus), family Leuconostocaceae (genera Oenococcus and Leuconostoc), family Enterococcaceae (genus Enterococcus) and family Streptococcaceae (genera Lactococcus and Streptococcus) [24]. Phylogenetic relationships among the LAB species have been hotly disputed. One of the foremost debates in LAB phylogeny concerns the species in the genera Lactobacillus, Pediococcus, Oenococcus, and Leuconostoc, which belong to family Lactobacillaceae and Leuconostocaceae, due to the severe disagreements arising from analyses of different data sets [211]. In the genus Lactobacillus, there are uncertainties about the interspecies affinities within the acidophilus complex [8] that consists of five species Lb. gasseri, Lb. johnsonii, Lb. acidophilus, Lb. helveticus and Lb. delbrueckii. In particular, the divergence between Lb. gasseri/Lb. johnsonii, Lb. acidophilus/Lb. helveticus and Lb. delbrueckii remains unresolved. Based on the analyses of a 16 S rRNA gene and a few nuclear genes [3, 5, 7, 10, 12] and that of 32 ribosomal proteins [9], Lb. delbrueckii was found to be more closely associated with Lb. acidophilus/Lb. helveticus than with Lb. gasseri/Lb. johnsonii. However, a recent study using 141 core proteins from 17 LAB species suggested that Lb. delbrueckii diverged earliest within the acidophilus complex, while Lb. acidophilus/Lb. helveticus and Lb. gasseri/Lb. johnsonii clustered into a sister group [8].

Although the paraphyly of Lactobacillus species is well-established, a general consensus for the placement of the Lactobacillus species, e.g., Lb. salivarius, Lb. plantarum, Lb. brevis, Lb. reuteri, Lb. sakei, and Lb. casei, and their relationship to the genera Pediococcus, Oenococcus, and Leuconostoc has not yet emerged in the 'salivarius' subgroup. For example, in the analysis of four subunits of RNA polymerase, the clade uniting Lb. sakei and Lb. casei is placed at the most basal position, followed by Lb. salivarius. Pediococcus is sister to the clade containing Lb. plantarum and Lb. brevis, while Oenococcus/Leuconostoc clusters with Lb. reuteri [7]. In contrast, an analysis of 141 core proteins suggested that the Lb. sakei/Lb. casei clade is more related to acidophilus complex, while the other Lactobacillus species and Pediococcus, Oenococcus, as well as Leuconostoc group together, in which Oenococcus/Leuconostoc diverged earliest, followed by Lb. salivarius, Pediococcus, Lb. reuteri, and lastly the species most recently diverged, Lb. plantarum and Lb. brevis [8].

These findings highlight the need to gather and analyze larger sequence data sets in order to unravel the phylogenetic relationships among LAB species and clarify specifically those within genera Lactobacillus, Pediococcus, Oenococcus, and Leuconostoc. The increasing availability of LAB genome sequence data provides a good opportunity to understand the evolutionary history of LAB species. In the present study, we studied LAB phylogeny by gathering and analyzing 232 orthologous genes from 28 LAB genome sequences representing all genera from four families. Our objectives were to provide new insights into the relationships of LAB species and to examine the utility of such an analysis in the context of LAB phylogeny, and develop new potential genetic markers for study of LAB systematics. This study not only contributes to clarifying the currently obscure LAB species relationship, but also lays a foundation for further studies on adaptive evolution of LAB species in different environmental niches.

Results and Discussions

Identification of orthologous genes

The use of accurate and reliable methods for the identification of orthologous genes is essential for phylogenetic reconstruction based on analyses of large data sets, especially for those using whole genome sequences [13]. In the present study, the strategy of developing potential orthologous gene sets for LAB phylogenomic studies was different from those used in previous LAB analyses. First, in previous studies of LAB phylogeny, less stringent clusters of orthologous groups (COGs) [6] and reciprocal best hits [8] methods were applied to identify putative orthologs. Here, we applied both Inparanoid [14] and MultiParanoid [15] programs to serve this purpose. Inparanoid [14] exploits a BLAST-based strategy to identify orthologs as reciprocal best hits between two species, and applies additional rules to accommodate in-paralogs that arise from recent duplication events after speciation. Compared with other methods, including COGs [16] and OrthoMCL [17], Inparanoid's superiority lies in the ability to distinguish orthologs from in-paralogs and out-paralogs (those that arose via ancient duplication event before speciation) [1721]. MultiParanoid software [15] performs clustering of orthologs and in-paralogs that are shared by more than two species. By using the conservative searching algorithms, we obtained a total of 310 one-to-one protein coding orthologs (Additional file 1 Table S1).

To make our dataset more conservative, we further excluded potentially problematic orthologs such as those with short sequence lengths and those involved in horizontal gene transfer (HGT). These criteria have not yet been used in previous LAB studies. In the end, a total of 232 orthologous genes, including 225 genes that have clear functional definition and 7 genes that have been annotated as hypothetical proteins (Additional file 2 Table S2), were used to reconstruct LAB phylogeny in this study. This dataset of 232 genes included those encoding 135 out of the 141 core proteins of the Claesson's study [8] that were identified by phylogenomic analyses of 17 LAB species genomes. Noticeably, 6 core proteins included in Claesson's study [8] were discovered as in-paralogs here and hence excluded from further analyses. This suggests that our dataset is more conservative and reliable than those from previous studies aimed at inferring LAB phylogeny.

Reconstruction of LAB phylogenomic tree

Based on the concatenated amino acid alignment of 232 genes, phylogenetic analyses using two gap selection criteria (see Methods) and two tree-building methods, partitioned maximum likelihood (ML) and Bayesian analyses, yielded an identical, well-resolved tree topology with strong supports for all nodes (BS > 99% and PP > 0.99) (Figure 1), suggesting that the accuracy of our phylogenetic inference is independent of tree-building methods. As revealed in Figure 1 the monophyly for families Leuconostocaceae, Enterococcaceae and Streptococcaceae were strongly supported. For Lactobacillaceae, some species were more closely related to Leuconostocaceae than the other Lactobacillaceae species, supporting the paraphyly for family Lactobacillaceae, providing a possibility that Leuconostocaceae and Lactobacillaceae can be combined into a family.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2148-11-1/MediaObjects/12862_2010_Article_1610_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

Partitioned Bayesian/ML tree topology inferred from the selected 232 genes and the 16 S rRNA gene tree of 29 species. For the concatenated tree of 232 genes, ML bootstrap supports and Bayesian posterior probabilities are shown above the branches. The stars imply newly added species in this study compared with that of Claesson et al. [8]. Lb. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus 1 refers to Lb. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus ATCC BAA-365; Lb. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus 2 refers to Lb. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus ATCC 11842; NJ analysis under 1000 bootstrap runs of 16 S rRNA genes from the study by Ventura et al [12] and Kawamura et al 's study [22]. ML bootstrap supports higher than 50 are shown above the branches.

The LAB species were divided into two groups. Group 1 included Enterococcaceae and Streptococcaceae. Group 2 included Lactobacillaceae and Leuconostocaceae. Within Group 1, the monophyly of the genera Enterococcus, Lactococcus and Streptococcus were strongly supported. In Streptococcus, S. mutans and S. thermophilus were grouped together, and S. gordonii was their sister taxon. The relationships within Group 1 observed here were congruent with two other studies [5, 10], but disagreed with the 16 S rRNA gene tree [22] (Figure 1). Within Group 2, LAB species were divided into two clades. One clade composed of acidophilus complex of genus Lactobacillus and two other Lactobacillus species, Lb. sakei and Lb. casei. This result is in contradiction with the RNA polymerase-based study of Liu [7] that suggested that Lb. sakei and Lb. casei are more closely related to other Lactobacillus species and the genera Pediococcus, Oenococcus as well as Leuconostoc. However, our results are in agreement with the RNA polymerase trees [5, 10], ribosomal-protein tree [9] and the 141-core proteins tree [8]. Of the five recognized Lactobacillus species in the acidophilus complex, our results strongly support the notion that Lb. delbrueckii separated first, while Lb. acidophilus/Lb. helveticus and Lb. gasseri/Lb. johnsonii clustered into a sister group. This finding is in accordance with the result derived from the 141-core proteins analyses [8], but disagrees with those derived the single 16 S rRNA gene [3, 8, 12] and the nuclear gene analyses [5, 7, 10, 23] as well as that of 32 ribosomal proteins [9], in which Lb. delbrueckii was seen to be more closely associated with Lb. acidophilus/Lb. helveticus than Lb. gasseri/Lb. johnsonii. Five Lactobacillus species, including Lb. salivarius, Lb. plantarum, Lb. brevis, Lb. reuteri, Lb. fermentum, and the genera Pediococcus, Oenococcus, and Leuconostoc constitute the other clade, the 'salivarius' subgroup within Group 2. In this clade, Lb. salivarius was positioned most basally, followed by two distinct clusters, one corresponding to Lb. plantarum/Lb. brevis group and Pediococcus, and the other including Oenococcus/Leuconostoc group and Lb. reuteri/Lb. fermentum group. The basal position of Lb. salivarius in this clade is consistent with the RNA polymerase tree inferred by Makarova and Koonin [5] as well as by Liu [7], but not with the 16 S rRNA gene tree [12] and studies by Claesson [8] and Cai [10] that indicated that Oenococcus/Leuconostoc group diverged first. In addition, the grouping of Lb. plantarum/Lb. brevis and Pediococcus observed here is supported in most current studies, but is in contradiction with the recent proposal of the connecting of Lb. plantarum/Lb. brevis and Lb. reuteri. In the present study, the close relatedness of Oenococcus/Leuconostoc group and Lb. reuteri/Lb. fermentum is in agreement with RNA polymerase tree inferred by Liu et al. [7]. The possible placement of Oenococcus/Leuconostoc group as the first diverging taxa [8, 10] or as the diverging taxa subsequent to Lb. salivarius [5] was not supported here.

Taken together, our study provides new insights into the evolutionary relationships of these LAB species, and helps to resolve the current controversial issues in LAB phylogeny. Depending on the gene segments or genomes and the tree-building methods used, different phylogenetic hypotheses can be obtained. Interestingly, our study demonstrated that different evolutionary rates among sites may also affect LAB phylogenetic reconstruction. When we repeated the phylogenetic analyses by setting a fixed alpha value of gamma distribution in the optimal amino acid substitution model, the species relationships within acidophilus complex, i.e., that among Lb. gasseri/Lb. johnsonii, Lb. acidophilus/Lb. helveticus and Lb. delbrueckii, became unstable and were poorly supported in partitioned ML and Bayesian analyses (data not shown). Therefore, our study revealed that different evolutionary rate among sites is also an important factor in tracing the evolutionary history of LAB species.

Besides the contribution of phylogenetic resolution, our results revealed the presence of independent adaptation to four types of habitat niches in LAB species (Figure 1), involving human gastrointestinal tract, human oral flora, dairy fermentation and other fermentations of beer, wine, plants, or meat (Table 1). For example, within acidophilus complex, Lb. acidophilus that is isolated from human gastrointestinal tract and Lb. helveticus that is widely applied to dairy fermentation are more closely related to each other than to the other three Lactobacillus species, suggesting an independent adaptation to their respective niches. The independent adaptation events of Lb. plantarum to human gastrointestinal tract were also evidenced by transcriptome analyses [24], although Lb. plantarum strains isolated from the gastrointestinal tract or feces may be derived from human diet and may in fact reflect earlier adaption to other environmental niches such as fermentations of meat, plant, cheese or wine [25]. Otherwise, Lb. brevis is most suitable for meat fermentation in our phylogenetic tree. Given that strains of many LAB species occur in a multitude of ecological niches, further analyses of more genes and functional assays of additional LAB species are needed to reveal the molecular mechanisms underlying the adaptation of LAB species to various environmental survival niches.
Table 1

Summary of 28 LAB taxa and one outgroup (Bacillus subtilis)

Species-Organisms

Association

NCBI RefSeq

Bacillus subtilis subsp. subtilis str. 168

Outgroup

NC_000964

Enterococcus faecalis V583

gastrointestinal tract bacteria

NC_004668

Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM

gastrointestinal tract bacteria

NC_006814

Lactobacillus brevis ATCC 367

other fermentation such as beer, wine, plants, or meat

NC_008497

Lactobacillus casei ATCC 334

dairy fermentation

NC_008526

Lactobacillus casei BL23

dairy fermentation

NC_010999

Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus ATCC 11842

dairy fermentation

NC_008054

Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus ATCC BAA-365

dairy fermentation

NC_008529

Lactobacillus fermentum IFO 3956

other fermentation such as beer, wine, plants, or meat

NC_010610

Lactobacillus gasseri ATCC 33323

gastrointestinal tract bacteria

NC_008530

Lactobacillus helveticus DPC 4571

dairy fermentation (Swiss cheese isolate)

NC_010080

Lactobacillus johnsonii NCC 533

gastrointestinal tract bacteria

NC_005362

Lactobacillus plantarum WCFS1

Human saliva (first), gut, dairy, wine, plants, or meat

NC_004567

Lactobacillus reuteri F275

gastrointestinal tract bacteria

NC_009513

Lactobacillus reuteri JCM 1112

gastrointestinal tract bacteria

NC_010609

Lactobacillus sakei subsp. sakei 23K

other fermentation such as beer, wine, plants, or meat

NC_007576

Lactobacillus salivarius UCC118

gastrointestinal tract bacteria

NC_007929

Lactococcus lactis subsp. cremoris MG1363

dairy fermentation

NC_009004

Lactococcus lactis subsp. cremoris SK11

dairy fermentation

NC_008527

Lactococcus lactis subsp. lactis Il1403

dairy fermentation

NC_002662

Leuconostoc citreum KM20

other fermentation such as beer, wine, plants, or meat

NC_010471

Leuconostoc mesenteroides subsp. mesenteroides ATCC 8293

other fermentation such as beer, wine, plants, or meat

NC_008531

Oenococcus oeni PSU-1

other fermentation such as beer, wine, plants, or meat

NC_008528

Pediococcus pentosaceus ATCC 25745

dairy fermentation

NC_008525

Streptococcus gordonii str. Challis substr. CH1

human oral flora (dental plaque)

NC_009785

Streptococcus mutans UA159

oral streptococci (leading cause of dental caries)

NC_004350

Streptococcus thermophilus CNRZ1066

dairy fermentation

NC_006449

Streptococcus thermophilus LMD-9

dairy fermentation

NC_008532

Utilities of different genes in LAB phylogeny

We also evaluated the phylogenetic utility of different genes used here. According to COG annotation [16], we classified 232 genes into four functional categories (Additional file 2 Table S2) relating to: information storage and processing (ISP; 135 genes), cellular processes and signaling (CPS; 49 genes), metabolism (41 genes), and hypothetical proteins (HP; 7 genes). Among them, the genes with ISP function were further divided into translation, ribosomal structure and biogenesis (TRSB; 69 genes), replication/repair/recombination (RRR; 51 genes), and transcription (15 genes). The phylogenetic analyses of LAB were repeated using each of the above six categories of genes individually. Our results suggested that the analyses of RRR (Figure 2), transcription (Figure 3), CPS (Figure 4), metabolism (Figure 5) and HP (Figure 6) genes produced different tree topologies from that of all concatenated genes (Figure 1), while the analyses of TRSB genes yielded identical tree topologies to those shown in Figure 1 suggesting that the TRSB genes are better indicators of LAB phylogeny than are other subsets of genes. The Robinson-Foulds distances analysis (Additional file 3 Table S3) also showed that there are no differences between the tree of TRSB genes and that of all concatenated genes. The differences among tree topologies based on these functional categories can be caused by various factors, including different selective constraints imposed by the functional categories that were involved in various metabolic networks [2631].
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2148-11-1/MediaObjects/12862_2010_Article_1610_Fig2_HTML.jpg
Figure 2

Tree topologies inferred from 51 replication/repair/recombination genes using ML analyses with 1,000 bootstrap runs. Bootstrap supports higher than 50 are shown above the branches. Compared to the combined tree of 232 genes (Figure 1), taxa with topological differences are underlined. Lb. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus 1 = Lb. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus ATCC BAA-365; Lb. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus 2 = Lb. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus ATCC 11842.

https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2148-11-1/MediaObjects/12862_2010_Article_1610_Fig3_HTML.jpg
Figure 3

Tree topologies inferred from 15 transcription genes using ML analyses with 1,000 bootstrap runs. Bootstrap supports higher than 50 are shown above the branches. Compared to the combined tree of 232 genes (Figure 1), taxa with topological differences are underlined. Lb. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus 1 = Lb. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus ATCC BAA-365; Lb. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus 2 = Lb. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus ATCC 11842.

https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2148-11-1/MediaObjects/12862_2010_Article_1610_Fig4_HTML.jpg
Figure 4

Tree topologies inferred from 49 cellular processes and signaling genes using ML analyses with 1,000 bootstrap runs. Bootstrap supports higher than 50 are shown above the branches. Compared to the combined tree of 232 genes (Figure 1), taxa with topological differences are underlined. Lb. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus 1 = Lb. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus ATCC BAA-365; Lb. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus 2 = Lb. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus ATCC 11842.

https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2148-11-1/MediaObjects/12862_2010_Article_1610_Fig5_HTML.jpg
Figure 5

Tree topologies inferred from 41 metabolism genes using ML analyses with 1,000 bootstrap runs. Bootstrap supports higher than 50 are shown above the branches. Compared to the combined tree of 232 genes (Figure 1), taxa with topological differences are underlined. Lb. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus 1 = Lb. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus ATCC BAA-365; Lb. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus 2 = Lb. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus ATCC 11842.

https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2148-11-1/MediaObjects/12862_2010_Article_1610_Fig6_HTML.jpg
Figure 6

Tree topologies inferred from 7 hypothetical genes using ML analyses with 1,000 bootstrap runs. Bootstrap supports higher than 50 are shown above the branches. Compared to the combined tree of 232 genes (Figure 1), taxa with topological differences are underlined. Lb. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus 1 = Lb. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus ATCC BAA-365; Lb. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus 2 = Lb. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus ATCC 11842.

Ranking single genes in six function categories by their respective phylogenetic resolution to LAB species reveals that 3 of 232 genes, including the ultra-violet resistance protein B gene (uvrB) and the DNA polymerase III gene (polC) from RRR category, and the penicillin binding protein 2B gene (pbpB) from CPS category (Additional file 2 Table S2), produced ML tree topology (Additional file 4 Figure S1a-1c) that was largely consistent with that of the complete analyses (Figure 1), albeit with low supports for some branches (BS < 70%). When we conducted the phylogenetic analyses by combining the three genes, a completely identical tree topology to that shown in Figure 1 with high supports for most of nodes was obtained. Therefore, a combined analysis using uvrB, polC and pbpB together seems to be a better indicator for inferring LAB phylogeny than the other subset of genes including the ribosomal protein families or RNA polymerase subunits that have been widely used in previous LAB phylogenetic studies [57, 9, 10]. The Robinson-Foulds distances analysis (Additional file 3 Table S3) also showed that there are no differences between the tree of combined uvrB, polC and pbpB genes and that of all concatenated genes. In the present study, the assessment of phylogenetic utility and limits of the individual genes makes it possible to preselect subsets of genes for future molecular studies of LAB phylogeny when the complete genome sequences are unavailable.

Conclusions

In this study, phylogenetic relationships among LAB species are presented based on 232 genes from 28 LAB genome sequences. The concatenation of all these genes allowed the recovery of a strongly supported phylogeny, providing a maximum and decisive resolution of the relationships among the LAB species examined. Our phylogenomic analyses provide important insights into not only LAB phylogeny, but also the phylogenetic utility of different genes suggesting that the genes relating to translation, ribosomal structure and biogenesis (TRSB) function and a three-gene set consisting of uvrB, polC and pbpB, may be better indicators for LAB phylogenetic studies than the other subsets of genes. In addition, our study demonstrates the presence of multiple independent adaption events of LAB species to different survival habitats, indicating that further analyses of more genes from representatives of additional LAB species are needed in order to reveal the molecular mechanisms underlying the adaptation of LAB species to various environmental survival niches.

Methods

Sequence Data

A total of 28 available LAB genomes [6, 9, 3244] representing seven genera of four families were used (Table 1). In addition, the genome sequence from Bacillus subtilis was used as an outgroup to root the tree.

Identification of one-to-one orthologs for LAB phylogenetic inference

Based on protein coding genes (pseudogenes are not included) downloaded from 28 LAB and one B. subtilis genome sequences, a search for orthologs was conducted with the program Inparanoid version 2.0 [14]. Several stringent criteria were employed: (1) using a BLAST score cut-off of 50 bits; (2) using an overlap cut-off of 50%; (3) using a confidence value of 95% when searching in-paralogs; (4) using BLOSUM45 amino acid substitution matrix [45]. Automatic clustering of orthologs and inparalogs identified by the program Inparanoid was then performed by program Multiparanoid [15].

Among the candidate orthologous genes selected as above, we excluded those that met the following criteria from subsequent analyses: (1) lesser than 100 amino acid sequence length; (2) involved in potential horizontal gene transfer (HGT) events, as predicted by Horizontal Gene Transfer Database (HGT-DB) http://genomes.urv.es/HGT-DB/ and http://www.tinet.org/~debb/HGT/welcomeOLD.html and by previous studies [6]. In the end, a total of 232 orthologous genes, including 225 that have clear functional definition and 7 that have been annotated to be hypothetical proteins, were used to reconstruct LAB phylogeny in this study (Additional file 2 Table S2).

Phylogenetic Reconstruction of LAB species

In total 232 orthologous genes were concatenated into two supermatrices according to two gap selection criteria in Gblocks [allowed gap positions = none (61,020 amino acids in length) and with half (only positions where 50% or more of the sequences have a gap are treated as a gap position in the final alignment) (63,910 amino acids in length)] [46]. Optimal substitution models were selected by using the program ProtTest version 2.4 [47] according to Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) [48]. The selected substitution models were used in partitioned Bayesian analysis implemented MrBayes v3.2.1 [4951] and partitioned maximum likelihood (ML) analysis implemented in RAxML v7.0.4 [52]. The reliability of ML tree topology was evaluated by bootstrapping sampling (BP) of 1000 replicates. For Bayesian analyses, three independent runs of one-million generations each were used. The trees sampled prior to reaching convergence were discarded as burn-in and the remaining trees were used to construct the consensus tree and posterior probabilities (PP).

Tree topology comparison

The differences between tree topologies were compared using Robinson-Foulds distances that were calculated with program Treedist from the PHYLIP v3.69 package [53].

Notes

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to members of the Shi lab and two anonymous reviewers for valuable comments and Dong-Qiang Chen for technical assistance. This work was supported by grants from General Program of Natural Science Foundation of Yunnan Province of China (Grant No. 2009CD108) and by a start-up fund of "Hundreds Talent Program" from Chinese Academy of Sciences to P.S.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
State Key Laboratory of Genetic Resources and Evolution, Laboratory of Evolutionary and Functional Genomics, Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences
(2)
Laboratory for Conservation and Utilization of Bio-resource & Key Laboratory for Microbial Resources, Ministry of Education, Yunnan University
(3)
Graduate School of the Chinese Academy of Sciences

References

  1. Euzéby JP: List of bacterial names with standing in nomenclature: a folder available on the internet. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1997, 47: 590-592. 10.1099/00207713-47-2-590. [http://www.bacterio.cict.fr/index.html]View ArticlePubMed
  2. Salminen S, von Wright A, Ouwehand Ae: Lactic Acid Bacteria: Microbiological and Functional Aspects (3rd ed.) Revised and Expanded Edition. 2004, Marcel Dekker Inc, New YorkView Article
  3. Collins MD, Rodrigues U, Ash C, Aguirre M, Farrow JAE, Martinez-Murcia A, Phillips BA, Williams AM, Wallbanks S: Phylogenetic analysis of the genus Lactobacillus and related lactic acid bacteria as determined by reverse transcriptase sequencing of 16 S rRNA. FEMS Microbiology Letters. 1991, 77 (1): 5-12. 10.1111/j.1574-6968.1991.tb04313.x.View Article
  4. Carr FJ, Chill D, Maida N: The lactic acid bacteria: a literature survey. Crit Rev Microbiol. 2002, 28 (4): 281-370. 10.1080/1040-840291046759.View ArticlePubMed
  5. Makarova KS, Koonin EV: Evolutionary genomics of lactic acid bacteria. J Bacteriol. 2007, 189 (4): 1199-1208. 10.1128/JB.01351-06.View ArticlePubMedPubMed Central
  6. Makarova K, Slesarev A, Wolf Y, Sorokin A, Mirkin B, Koonin E, Pavlov A, Pavlova N, Karamychev V, Polouchine N, et al: Comparative genomics of the lactic acid bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2006, 103 (42): 15611-15616. 10.1073/pnas.0607117103.View ArticlePubMedPubMed Central
  7. Liu M, Nauta A, Francke C, Siezen RJ: Comparative genomics of enzymes in flavor-forming pathways from amino acids in lactic acid bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2008, 74 (15): 4590-4600. 10.1128/AEM.00150-08.View ArticlePubMedPubMed Central
  8. Claesson MJ, van Sinderen D, O'Toole PW: Lactobacillus phylogenomics - towards a reclassification of the genus. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2008, 58 (12): 2945-2954. 10.1099/ijs.0.65848-0.View ArticlePubMed
  9. Callanan M, Kaleta P, O'Callaghan J, O'Sullivan O, Jordan K, McAuliffe O, Sangrador-Vegas A, Slattery L, Fitzgerald GF, Beresford T, et al: Genome sequence of Lactobacillus helveticus, an organism distinguished by selective gene loss and insertion sequence element expansion. J Bacteriol. 2008, 190 (2): 727-735. 10.1128/JB.01295-07.View ArticlePubMedPubMed Central
  10. Cai H, Thompson R, Budinich M, Broadbent JR, Steele JL: Genome sequence and comparative genome analysis of Lactobacillus casei: insights into their niche-associated evolution. Genome Biol Evol. 2009, evp019
  11. Berger B, Pridmore RD, Barretto C, Delmas-Julien F, Schreiber K, Arigoni F, Brussow H: Similarity and differences in the Lactobacillus acidophilus group identified by polyphasic analysis and comparative genomics. J Bacteriol. 2007, 189 (4): 1311-1321. 10.1128/JB.01393-06.View ArticlePubMedPubMed Central
  12. Ventura M, O'Flaherty S, Claesson MJ, Turroni F, Klaenhammer TR, van Sinderen D, O'Toole PW: Genome-scale analyses of health-promoting bacteria: probiogenomics. Nat Rev Micro. 2009, 7 (1): 61-71. 10.1038/nrmicro2047.View Article
  13. Delsuc F, Brinkmann H, Philippe H: Phylogenomics and the reconstruction of the tree of life. Nat Rev Genet. 2005, 6 (5): 361-375. 10.1038/nrg1603.View ArticlePubMed
  14. Remm M, Storm CEV, Sonnhammer ELL: Automatic clustering of orthologs and in-paralogs from pairwise species comparisons. Journal of Molecular Biology. 2001, 314 (5): 1041-1052. 10.1006/jmbi.2000.5197.View ArticlePubMed
  15. Alexeyenko A, Tamas I, Liu G, Sonnhammer ELL: Automatic clustering of orthologs and inparalogs shared by multiple proteomes. Bioinformatics. 2006, 22 (14): e9-15. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btl213.View ArticlePubMed
  16. Tatusov R, Fedorova N, Jackson J, Jacobs A, Kiryutin B, Koonin E, Krylov D, Mazumder R, Mekhedov S, Nikolskaya A, et al: The COG database: an updated version includes eukaryotes. BMC Bioinformatics. 2003, 4 (1): 41-10.1186/1471-2105-4-41.View ArticlePubMedPubMed Central
  17. Li L, Stoeckert CJ, Roos DS: OrthoMCL: Identification of ortholog groups for eukaryotic genomes. Genome Research. 2003, 13 (9): 2178-2189. 10.1101/gr.1224503.View ArticlePubMedPubMed Central
  18. Fraser AG, Marcotte EM: A probabilistic view of gene function. Nat Genet. 2004, 36 (6): 559-564. 10.1038/ng1370.View ArticlePubMed
  19. Kopelman NM, Lancet D, Yanai I: Alternative splicing and gene duplication are inversely correlated evolutionary mechanisms. Nat Genet. 2005, 37 (6): 588-589. 10.1038/ng1575.View ArticlePubMed
  20. Rhodes DR, Tomlins SA, Varambally S, Mahavisno V, Barrette T, Kalyana-Sundaram S, Ghosh D, Pandey A, Chinnaiyan AM: Probabilistic model of the human protein-protein interaction network. Nat Biotech. 2005, 23 (8): 951-959. 10.1038/nbt1103.View Article
  21. Stelzl U, Worm U, Lalowski M, Haenig C, Brembeck FH, Goehler H, Stroedicke M, Zenkner M, Schoenherr A, Koeppen S, et al: A Human protein-protein interaction network: a resource for annotating the proteome. Cell. 2005, 122 (6): 957-968. 10.1016/j.cell.2005.08.029.View ArticlePubMed
  22. Kawamura Y, Hou X-G, Sultana F, Miura H, Ezaki T: Determination of 16 S rRNA sequences of Streptococcus mitis and Streptococcus gordonii and phylogenetic relationships among members of the genus Streptococcus. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1995, 45 (2): 406-408. 10.1099/00207713-45-2-406.View ArticlePubMed
  23. Naser SM, Dawyndt P, Hoste B, Gevers D, Vandemeulebroecke K, Cleenwerck I, Vancanneyt M, Swings J: Identification of lactobacilli by pheS and rpoA gene sequence analyses. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 2007, 57 (12): 2777-2789. 10.1099/ijs.0.64711-0.View ArticlePubMed
  24. Marco ML, de Vries MC, Wels M, Molenaar D, Mangell P, Ahrne S, de Vos WM, Vaughan EE, Kleerebezem M: Convergence in probiotic Lactobacillus gut-adaptive responses in humans and mice. ISME J. 2010
  25. Siezen RJ, Tzeneva VA, Castioni A, Wels M, Phan HTK, Rademaker JLW, Starrenburg MJC, Kleerebezem M, Molenaar D, Van Hylckama Vlieg JET: Phenotypic and genomic diversity of Lactobacillus plantarum strains isolated from various environmental niches. Environmental Microbiology. 2010, 12 (3): 758-773. 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2009.02119.x.View ArticlePubMed
  26. Tourasse NJ, Li W-H: Selective constraints, amino acid composition, and the rate of protein evolution. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2000, 17 (4): 656-664.View ArticlePubMed
  27. KIMURA M: The neutral theory of molecular evolution. 1983, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, EnglandView Article
  28. LI W-H: Molecular evolution. 1997, Sinauer, Sunderland, Mass
  29. NEI M: Molecular evolutionary genetics. 1987, Columbia University Press, New York
  30. Greenberg AJ, Stockwell SR, Clark AG: Evolutionary constraint and adaptation in the metabolic network of drosophila. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2008, 25 (12): 2537-2546. 10.1093/molbev/msn205.View ArticlePubMedPubMed Central
  31. Castillo-Ramirez S, Gonzalez V: Factors affecting the concordance between orthologous gene trees and species tree in bacteria. BMC Evolutionary Biology. 2008, 8 (1): 300-10.1186/1471-2148-8-300.View ArticlePubMedPubMed Central
  32. Ajdić D, McShan WM, McLaughlin RE, Savić G, Chang J, Carson MB, Primeaux C, Tian R, Kenton S, Jia H, et al: Genome sequence of Streptococcus mutans UA159, a cariogenic dental pathogen. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2002, 99 (22): 14434-14439. 10.1073/pnas.172501299.View ArticlePubMedPubMed Central
  33. Altermann E, Russell WM, Azcarate-Peril MA, Barrangou R, Buck BL, McAuliffe O, Souther N, Dobson A, Duong T, Callanan M, et al: Complete genome sequence of the probiotic lactic acid bacterium Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005, 102 (11): 3906-3912. 10.1073/pnas.0409188102.View ArticlePubMedPubMed Central
  34. Bolotin A, Quinquis B, Renault P, Sorokin A, Ehrlich SD, Kulakauskas S, Lapidus A, Goltsman E, Mazur M, Pusch GD, et al: Complete sequence and comparative genome analysis of the dairy bacterium Streptococcus thermophilus. Nat Biotech. 2004, 22 (12): 1554-1558. 10.1038/nbt1034.View Article
  35. Chaillou S, Champomier-Verges MC, Cornet M, Crutz-Le Coq AM, Dudez AM, Martin V, Beaufils S, Darbon-Rongere E, Bossy R, Loux V, et al: The complete genome sequence of the meat-borne lactic acid bacterium Lactobacillus sakei 23 K. Nat Biotechnol. 2005, 23 (12): 1527-1533. 10.1038/nbt1160.View ArticlePubMed
  36. Claesson MJ, Li Y, Leahy S, Canchaya C, van Pijkeren JP, Cerdeño-Tárraga AM, Parkhill J, Flynn S, O'Sullivan GC, Collins JK, et al: Multireplicon genome architecture of Lactobacillus salivarius. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2006, 103 (17): 6718-6723. 10.1073/pnas.0511060103.View ArticlePubMedPubMed Central
  37. Kim JF, Jeong H, Lee J-S, Choi S-H, Ha M, Hur C-G, Kim J-S, Lee S, Park H-S, Park Y-H, et al: Complete genome sequence of Leuconostoc citreum KM20. J Bacteriol. 2008, 190 (8): 3093-3094. 10.1128/JB.01862-07.View ArticlePubMedPubMed Central
  38. Kleerebezem M, Boekhorst J, van Kranenburg R, Molenaar D, Kuipers OP, Leer R, Tarchini R, Peters SA, Sandbrink HM, Fiers MW, et al: Complete genome sequence of Lactobacillus plantarum WCFS1. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2003, 100 (4): 1990-1995. 10.1073/pnas.0337704100.View ArticlePubMedPubMed Central
  39. Kunst F, Ogasawara N, Moszer I, Albertini AM, Alloni G, Azevedo V, Bertero MG, Bessieres P, Bolotin A, Borchert S, et al: The complete genome sequence of the gram-positive bacterium Bacillus subtilis. Nature. 1997, 390 (6657): 249-256. 10.1038/36786.View ArticlePubMed
  40. Morita H, Toh H, Fukuda S, Horikawa H, Oshima K, Suzuki T, Murakami M, Hisamatsu S, Kato Y, Takizawa T, et al: Comparative genome analysis of Lactobacillus reuteri and Lactobacillus fermentum reveal a genomic island for reuterin and cobalamin production. DNA Res. 2008, 15 (3): 151-161. 10.1093/dnares/dsn009.View ArticlePubMedPubMed Central
  41. Paulsen IT, Banerjei L, Myers GSA, Nelson KE, Seshadri R, Read TD, Fouts DE, Eisen JA, Gill SR, Heidelberg JF, et al: Role of mobile DNA in the evolution of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecalis. Science. 2003, 299 (5615): 2071-2074. 10.1126/science.1080613.View ArticlePubMed
  42. Pridmore RD, Berger B, Desiere F, Vilanova D, Barretto C, Pittet A-C, Zwahlen M-C, Rouvet M, Altermann E, Barrangou R, et al: The genome sequence of the probiotic intestinal bacterium Lactobacillus johnsonii NCC 533. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2004, 101 (8): 2512-2517. 10.1073/pnas.0307327101.View ArticlePubMedPubMed Central
  43. van de Guchte M, Penaud S, Grimaldi C, Barbe V, Bryson K, Nicolas P, Robert C, Oztas S, Mangenot S, Couloux A, et al: The complete genome sequence of Lactobacillus bulgaricus reveals extensive and ongoing reductive evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2006, 103 (24): 9274-9279. 10.1073/pnas.0603024103.View ArticlePubMedPubMed Central
  44. Wegmann U, O'Connell-Motherway M, Zomer A, Buist G, Shearman C, Canchaya C, Ventura M, Goesmann A, Gasson MJ, Kuipers OP, et al: Complete genome sequence of the prototype lactic acid bacterium Lactococcus lactis subsp. cremoris MG1363. J Bacteriol. 2007, 189 (8): 3256-3270. 10.1128/JB.01768-06.View ArticlePubMedPubMed Central
  45. Henikoff S, Henikoff JG: Amino acid substitution matrices from protein blocks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1992, 89 (22): 10915-10919. 10.1073/pnas.89.22.10915.View ArticlePubMedPubMed Central
  46. Castresana J: Selection of conserved blocks from multiple alignments for their use in phylogenetic analysis. Mol Biol Evol. 2000, 17 (4): 540-552.View ArticlePubMed
  47. Abascal F, Zardoya R, Posada D: ProtTest: selection of best-fit models of protein evolution. Bioinformatics. 2005, 21 (9): 2104-2105. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bti263.View ArticlePubMed
  48. Akaike H: Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. Proceedings of 2nd International Symposium on Information Theory, Budapest, Hungary. 1973, 267-281.
  49. Altekar G, Dwarkadas S, Huelsenbeck JP, Ronquist F: Parallel Metropolis-coupled Markov chain Monte Carlo for Bayesian phylogenetic inference. Bioinformatics. 2004, 20 (3): 407-415. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btg427.View ArticlePubMed
  50. Huelsenbeck JP, Ronquist F, Nielsen R, Bollback JP: Bayesian inference of phylogeny and its impact on evolutionary biology. Science. 2001, 294 (5550): 2310-2314. 10.1126/science.1065889.View ArticlePubMed
  51. Nylander JAA, Ronquist F, Huelsenbeck JP, Nieves-Aldrey J: Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of combined Data. Syst Biol. 2004, 53 (1): 47-67. 10.1080/10635150490264699.View ArticlePubMed
  52. Ott M, Zola J, Stamatakis A, Aluru S: Large-scale maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic analysis on the IBM BlueGene/L. Proceedings of the 2007 ACM/IEEE conference on Supercomputing. 2007, Reno, Nevada: ACM, 1-11. full_text.View Article
  53. Felsenstein J: PHYLIP (Phylogeny Inference Package) version 3.6. Distributed by the author Department of Genome Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle. 2005

Copyright

© Zhang et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2011

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement