4.7 Article

Comparative genomic analysis of Enterococcus faecalis: insights into their environmental adaptations

Journal

BMC GENOMICS
Volume 19, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12864-018-4887-3

Keywords

Enterococcus faecalis; Genome; Environment; Antibiotic resistance gene; Phylogeny

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundations of China [31601451, 31622043]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Enterococcus faecalis is widely studied as a common gut commensal and a nosocomial pathogen. In fact, Enterococcus faecalis is ubiquitous in nature, and it has been isolated from various niches, including the gastrointestinal tract, faeces, blood, urine, water, and fermented foods (such as dairy products). In order to elucidate the role of habitat in shaping the genome of Enterococcus faecalis, we performed a comparative genomic analysis of 78 strains of various origins. Results: Although no correlation was found between the strain isolation habitat and the phylogeny of Enterococcus faecalis from our whole genome-based phylogenetic analysis, our results revealed some environment-associated features in the analysed Enterococcus faecalis genomes. Significant differences were found in the genome size and the number of predicted open reading frames (ORFs) between strains originated from different environments. In general, strains from water sources had the smallest genome size and the least number of predicted ORFs. We also identified 293 environment-specific genes, some of which might link to the adaptive strategies for survival in particular environments. In addition, the number of antibiotic resistance genes was significantly different between strains isolated from dairy products, water, and blood. Strains isolated from blood had the largest number of antibiotic resistance genes. Conclusion: These findings improve our understanding of the role of habitat in shaping the genomes of Enterococcus faecalis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available