Letter

Bacteriophage evolution differs by host, lifestyle and genome

  • Nature Microbiology volume 2, Article number: 17112 (2017)
  • doi:10.1038/nmicrobiol.2017.112
  • Download Citation
Received:
Accepted:
Published online:

Abstract

Bacteriophages play key roles in microbial evolution1,2, marine nutrient cycling3 and human disease4. Phages are genetically diverse, and their genome architectures are characteristically mosaic, driven by horizontal gene transfer with other phages and host genomes5. As a consequence, phage evolution is complex and their genomes are composed of genes with distinct and varied evolutionary histories6,7. However, there are conflicting perspectives on the roles of mosaicism and the extent to which it generates a spectrum of genome diversity8 or genetically discrete populations9,10. Here, we show that bacteriophages evolve within two general evolutionary modes that differ in the extent of horizontal gene transfer by an order of magnitude. Temperate phages distribute into high and low gene flux modes, whereas lytic phages share only the lower gene flux mode. The evolutionary modes are also a function of the bacterial host and different proportions of temperate and lytic phages are distributed in either mode depending on the host phylum. Groups of genetically related phages fall into either the high or low gene flux modes, suggesting there are genetic as well as ecological drivers of horizontal gene transfer rates. Consequently, genome mosaicism varies depending on the host, lifestyle and genetic constitution of phages.

  • Subscribe to Nature Microbiology for full access:

    $59

    Subscribe

Additional access options:

Already a subscriber?  Log in  now or  Register  for online access.

References

  1. 1.

    , & The impact of prophages on bacterial chromosomes. Mol. Microbiol. 53, 9–18 (2004).

  2. 2.

    et al. Prophages mediate defense against phage infection through diverse mechanisms. ISME J. 10, 2854–2866 (2016).

  3. 3.

    et al. Viral and microbial community dynamics in four aquatic environments. ISME J. 4, 739–751 (2010).

  4. 4.

    , & Phages and the evolution of bacterial pathogens: from genomic rearrangements to lysogenic conversion. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 68, 560–602 (2004).

  5. 5.

    et al. Origins of highly mosaic mycobacteriophage genomes. Cell 113, 171–182 (2003).

  6. 6.

    , & Imbroglios of viral taxonomy: genetic exchange and failings of phenetic approaches. J. Bacteriol. 184, 4891–4905 (2002).

  7. 7.

    , , , & Evolutionary relationships among diverse bacteriophages and prophages: all the world's a phage. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 2192–2197 (1999).

  8. 8.

    et al. Whole genome comparison of a large collection of mycobacteriophages reveals a continuum of phage genetic diversity. elife 4, e06416 (2015).

  9. 9.

    et al. Viral tagging reveals discrete populations in Synechococcus viral genome sequence space. Nature 513, 242–245 (2014).

  10. 10.

    , , & Viral dark matter and virus–host interactions resolved from publicly available microbial genomes. eLife 4, e08490 (2015).

  11. 11.

    et al. A broadly implementable research course in phage discovery and genomics for first-year undergraduate students. mBio 5, e01051–13 (2014).

  12. 12.

    et al. Mash: fast genome and metagenome distance estimation using MinHash. Genome Biol. 17, 132 (2016).

  13. 13.

    et al. Exploring the mycobacteriophage metaproteome: phage genomics as an educational platform. PLoS Genet. 2, e92 (2006).

  14. 14.

    et al. Phamerator: a bioinformatic tool for comparative bacteriophage genomics. BMC Bioinformatics 12, 395 (2011).

  15. 15.

    , & Prokaryotic virus orthologous groups (pVOGs): a resource for comparative genomics and protein family annotation. Nucleic Acids Res. 45, D491–D498 (2017).

  16. 16.

    et al. Comparative genomic analysis of 60 mycobacteriophage genomes: genome clustering, gene acquisition, and gene size. J. Mol. Biol. 397, 119–143 (2010).

  17. 17.

    et al. Lytic to temperate switching of viral communities. Nature 531, 466–470 (2016).

  18. 18.

    , & The adaptation of temperate bacteriophages to their host genomes. Mol. Biol. Evol. 30, 737–751 (2013).

  19. 19.

    , , , & Analysis of six prophages in Lactococcus lactis IL1403: different genetic structure of temperate and virulent phage populations. Nucleic Acids Res. 29, 644–651 (2001).

  20. 20.

    , , & Reticulate representation of evolutionary and functional relationships between phage genomes. Mol. Biol. Evol. 25, 762–777 (2008).

  21. 21.

    , , & Genome landscapes and bacteriophage codon usage. PLoS Comput. Biol. 4, e1000001 (2008).

  22. 22.

    et al. Marine phage genomics: the tip of the iceberg. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 363, fnw158 (2016).

  23. 23.

    & Understanding the enormous diversity of bacteriophages: the tailed phages that infect the bacterial family Enterobacteriaceae. Virology 468–470, 421–443 (2014).

  24. 24.

    , & The bacterial species definition in the genomic era. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 361, 1929–1940 (2006).

  25. 25.

    & Bypassing cultivation to identify bacterial species. ASM Microbe Magazine 9, 111–118 (2014).

  26. 26.

    et al. Microbial species delineation using whole genome sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, 6761–6771 (2015).

  27. 27.

    , , , & Genomes in turmoil: quantification of genome dynamics in prokaryote supergenomes. BMC Biol. 12, 66 (2014).

  28. 28.

    et al. Prophage-mediated defence against viral attack and viral counter-defence. Nat. Microbiol. 2, 16251 (2017).

  29. 29.

    , , & Lambda II (Cold Spring Harbor Press, 1983).

  30. 30.

    et al. On the nature of mycobacteriophage diversity and host preference. Virology 434, 187–201 (2012).

  31. 31.

    et al. Propionibacterium acnes bacteriophages display limited genetic diversity and broad killing activity against bacterial skin isolates. mBio 3, e00279-12 (2012).

  32. 32.

    et al. Biopython: freely available Python tools for computational molecular biology and bioinformatics. Bioinformatics 25, 1422–1423 (2009).

  33. 33.

    , & ETE A python environment for tree exploration. BMC Bioinformatics 11, 24 (2010).

  34. 34.

    , & PHACTS, a computational approach to classifying the lifestyle of phages. Bioinformatics 28, 614–618 (2012).

  35. 35.

    , & ACLAME: a CLAssification of Mobile genetic Elements, update 2010. Nucleic Acids Res. 38, D57–D61 (2010).

  36. 36.

    , & Differential codon adaptation between dsDNA and ssDNA phages in Escherichia coli. Mol. Biol. Evol. 31, 1606–1617 (2014).

  37. 37.

    & Listeria phages: genomes, evolution, and application. Bacteriophage 3, e26861 (2013).

  38. 38.

    , , & Synonymous codon usage bias in 16 Staphylococcus aureus phages: implication in phage therapy. Virus Res. 113, 123–131 (2005).

  39. 39.

    et al. CDD: a database of conserved domain alignments with links to domain three-dimensional structure. Nucleic Acids Res. 30, 281–283 (2002).

  40. 40.

    et al. Function, expression, specificity, diversity and incompatibility of actinobacteriophage parABS systems. Mol. Microbiol. 101, 625–644 (2016).

  41. 41.

    et al. Cluster K mycobacteriophages: insights into the evolutionary origins of mycobacteriophage TM4. PLoS ONE 6, e26750 (2011).

  42. 42.

    & Genomic insights that advance the species definition for prokaryotes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 2567–2572 (2005).

  43. 43.

    , & A genomic perspective on protein families. Science 278, 631–637 (1997).

  44. 44.

    & Bacteriophages and their genomes. Curr. Opin. Virol. 1, 298–303 (2011).

  45. 45.

    & webPRANK a phylogeny-aware multiple sequence aligner with interactive alignment browser. BMC Bioinformatics 11, 579 (2010).

  46. 46.

    , & SeaView version 4: a multiplatform graphical user interface for sequence alignment and phylogenetic tree building. Mol. Biol. Evol. 27, 221–224 (2010).

  47. 47.

    Count: evolutionary analysis of phylogenetic profiles with parsimony and likelihood. Bioinformatics 26, 1910–1912 (2010).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank J. Lawrence, R. Hendrix and N. Clark for discussions and R. Dedrick, D. Jacobs-Sera and W. Pope for comments on the manuscript. This research was supported by funding from National Institutes of Health grant GM116884, by Howard Hughes Medical Institute grant 54308198 and by National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship grant 1247842.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260, USA

    • Travis N. Mavrich
    •  & Graham F. Hatfull

Authors

  1. Search for Travis N. Mavrich in:

  2. Search for Graham F. Hatfull in:

Contributions

T.N.M. performed the experiments. T.N.M. and G.F.H. interpreted the results and wrote the paper.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Graham F. Hatfull.

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Information

    Supplementary Figures 1–11.

CSV files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Data 1

    This file contains list of phages used in this study, together with associated information.

  2. 2.

    Supplementary Data 2

    This file contains raw data with all pairwise genome comparisons.