Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
    • JB Special Collection
    • JB Classic Spotlights
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JB
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Bacteriology
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
    • JB Special Collection
    • JB Classic Spotlights
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JB
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
GENETICS AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY

Determination of Wolbachia Genome Size by Pulsed-Field Gel Electrophoresis

Ling V. Sun, Jeremy M. Foster, George Tzertzinis, Midori Ono, Claudio Bandi, Barton E. Slatko, Scott L. O'Neill
Ling V. Sun
Section of Vector Biology, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut 06520;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jeremy M. Foster
Molecular Parasitology Division, New England Biolabs, Inc., Beverly, Massachusetts 01915; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
George Tzertzinis
Molecular Parasitology Division, New England Biolabs, Inc., Beverly, Massachusetts 01915; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Midori Ono
Section of Vector Biology, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut 06520;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Claudio Bandi
Istituto di Patologia Generale Veterinaria, Universita di Milano, 20133 Milan, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Barton E. Slatko
Molecular Parasitology Division, New England Biolabs, Inc., Beverly, Massachusetts 01915; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Scott L. O'Neill
Section of Vector Biology, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut 06520;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/JB.183.7.2219-2225.2001
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Genome sizes of six different Wolbachia strains from insect and nematode hosts have been determined by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis of purified DNA both before and after digestion with rare-cutting restriction endonucleases. Enzymes SmaI,ApaI, AscI, and FseI cleaved the studied Wolbachia strains at a small number of sites and were used for the determination of the genome sizes ofwMelPop, wMel, and wMelCS (each 1.36 Mb), wRi (1.66 Mb), wBma (1.1 Mb), and wDim (0.95 Mb). The Wolbachia genomes studied were all much smaller than the genomes of free-living bacteria such as Escherichia coli (4.7 Mb), as is typical for obligate intracellular bacteria. There was considerable genome size variability among Wolbachia strains, especially between the more parasitic A group Wolbachia infections of insects and the mutualistic C and D group infections of nematodes. The studies described here found no evidence for extrachromosomal plasmid DNA in any of the strains examined. They also indicated that the Wolbachia genome is circular.

Wolbachia spp. are maternally inherited obligate intracellular bacteria belonging to the α-Proteobacteria. They infect a broad range of insect species, a number of noninsect arthropods such as isopods and mites, and most species of filarial nematodes (3, 34, 37, 38). In arthropods they have been implicated in several host reproductive modifications, including cytoplasmic incompatibility in various insect species (16), parthenogenesis in wasps (33), feminization in isopods (29), and virulence in Drosophila melanogaster(25). Within the Nematoda, it appears thatWolbachia spp. are required for fertility and normal development of the filarial worms they infect (22, 34).

Most research attention to date has been focused on the phenomenology of Wolbachia-host interactions. Little is known about the molecular genetics of Wolbachia. For example, there has been little characterization ofWolbachia genes other than a few loci that have been cloned and used mainly for phylogenetic purposes. This is largely due to the fastidious nature of Wolbachia and the difficulty in obtaining large amounts of pure material for laboratory studies.

In preparation for complete genome sequencing, we have determined the genome sizes of a number of Wolbachia strains using pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) and have developed a method to rapidly purify Wolbachia chromosomal DNA in quantities sufficient for library construction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Wolbachia strains.The sevenWolbachia strains used in this study are listed in Table1. Drosophila simulansRiverside previously treated with tetracycline (DSRT) was used as aWolbachia-free control insect strain.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Wolbachia strains studied

Wolbachia purification fromDrosophila. Drosophila organisms were reared on standard corn flour-sugar-yeast medium at 25°C. Young adults were harvested for extraction of Wolbachia, except for Drosophila melanogaster w1118, which harbors wMelPop. The infection density in this strain rises dramatically with age (25). Newly emerged adults of this strain were transferred to standard egg-laying bottles for aging. Twenty-day-old flies were harvested for wMelPop purification.

All purification methods published to date have been unable to separateWolbachia from Drosophila mitochondria. In this report, the methods used to purify mitochondria fromDrosophila (28, 35) were modified to prepare DNA from Wolbachia in quantities that could be visualized by ethidium bromide staining of agarose gels. Around 5 ml of adult flies (about 1,000) was collected and then homogenized in buffer as previously described (9), except without Lubrol (90 mM KCl, 55 mM CaCl2, 15 mM MgSO4, 30 mM NaCl, 250 mM sucrose) using a Dounce tissue grinder (Wheaton, Millville, N.J.). The homogenate was filtered through a 95-μm-pore-size nylon mesh. The filtrate was centrifuged at 200 × gmaxfor 25 min at 4°C to pellet Drosophila nuclei. The supernatant was then centrifuged at 4,100 × gmax for 5 min at 4°C to pelletWolbachia. The pellet was resuspended at 56°C in a mixture consisting of 1 volume of Tris-EDTA (TE) plus 1 volume of 2% molten GPG low-melting-point agarose (American Bioanalytical, Natick, Mass.), and the resuspension was loaded into a plug module (Bio-Rad, Hercules, Calif.). Plugs were treated with 40 μg of DNase I (Roche, Basel, Switzerland)/ml in DNase I reaction buffer (10 mM Tris-HCl [pH 8.0], 1 mM MgCl2) for 40 min at room temperature (RT) (25°C). After DNase I treatment, the plugs were incubated overnight at 56°C in the lysis buffer (2) (100 mM EDTA [pH 8.0], 10 mM Tris-HCl [pH 8.0], 1% [wt/vol]N-lauroylsarcosine sodium salt [Sigma, St. Louis, Mo.], 200 μg of proteinase K [Roche]/ml). The plugs were stored in this lysis buffer at 4°C before restriction digestion or electrophoresis.

Wolbachia purification from nematodes.Adult female nematodes were selected for purification of Wolbachianot only because they are larger than certain other life cycle stages (e.g., microfilariae) that also have high densities of endosymbionts but also because they were more readily and uniformly homogenized using the Dounce tissue grinder. Typically, 5 mature adult females ofDirofilaria immitis or approximately 275 mature females of the smaller Brugia malayi were used for extractions. The purification procedure for Wolbachia from nematodes was essentially the same as the one for Wolbachia from insects, but with the modifications discussed below.

Live worms, supplied by TRS Laboratories (Athens, Ga.), were placed in a petri dish on ice and chopped into small pieces using a sterile razor blade. The homogenization buffer used was physiological saline (0.85% NaCl) supplemented with 0.001% Nonidet P-40 detergent (Sigma). Inclusion of this very low concentration of detergent in the homogenization buffer was found to decrease the amount ofWolbachia pelleting with the worm tissue fragments without causing any noticeable increase in degradation of DNA. The filtrate was passed through two layers of cheesecloth (Veratec, Walpole, Mass.). The first centrifugation was carried out at 350 × gmax for 25 min at 4°C to pellet nematode nuclei. The supernatant was then centrifuged at 4,100 × gmax for 5 min at 4°C to pelletWolbachia. This final pellet was resuspended in an equal volume of saline without detergent and 2 volumes of molten 2% SeaPlaque (low-melting-point) agarose (FMC, Rockland, Maine) in 0.5× Tris-borate-EDTA (TBE) to give a final concentration of 1% agarose. The sample was allowed to set in 75-μl plug molds (Bio-Rad). Following DNase I treatment, the plugs were transferred to proteinase K lysis buffer (6) (0.5 M EDTA [pH 8.0], 1% lauroylsarcosine, sodium salt supplemented with 2 mg of proteinase K [Gibco BRL, Gaithersburg, Md.]/ml) and incubated at 55°C for 48 h. The proteinase K was diffused out of the plugs by performing a minimum of six washes, each of 30 min, in TE at RT. The plugs were stored short term in TE at 4°C.

Optimization of DNase I treatment.After formation of plugs, DNase I was used to digest any fragmented DNA produced during homogenization. Several concentrations of DNase I (10, 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60 μg/ml) in combination with a time course (0, 5, 10, 15, 22, 28, 35, 40, or 50 min) were used at RT to determine the best conditions for digestion. The limited amounts of nematode sample precluded optimization of DNase I treatment as was carried out for theWolbachia from Drosophila. The conditions determined optimal for Drosophila (40 μg of DNase I/ml for 40 min at RT) were applied.

Plug preparation from cell line culture. Aedes albopictus cell line Aa23 containing Wolbachia strainwAlbB was used (27). Cells were maintained in a 25-mm2 flask at 25°C in 5 ml of medium (45% Mitsuhashi and Maramorosch insect medium [Sigma], 45% Schneider medium [Sigma], and 10% heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum). The cells were harvested and washed in phosphate-buffered saline twice. The end pellet was then used to make agarose plugs as described above and directly placed into the lysis buffer and treated at 56°C overnight.

Restriction digestion of Wolbachia genome DNA.The Drosophila Wolbachia plugs were washed twice with TE buffer, treated twice with TE buffer supplemented with 40 μg of phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride (Life Technologies, Rockville, Md.)/ml to inactivate the proteinase K, and then washed twice with TE buffer again. All washes were done for 30 min each at RT. For the nematodeWolbachia plugs, the proteinase K was diffused out of the plugs before they were stored in TE buffer.

The Drosophila Wolbachia plugs were equilibrated with restriction endonuclease buffer for 1 h at RT and transferred to fresh buffer for endonuclease digestion overnight. Four restriction enzymes were used: AscI (GG∧CGCGCC),ApaI (GGGCC∧C),FseI (GGCCGG∧CC), and SmaI (CCC∧GGG) (New England Biolabs, Beverly, Mass.). The nematodeWolbachia plugs were equilibrated on ice for 2 h in restriction enzyme buffer containing 50% of the final number of enzyme units. The remaining 50% of the enzyme was then added, and the endonuclease digestion continued for 3 h at the appropriate reaction temperature.

PFGE.Contour-clamped homogeneous electric field (CHEF) (10) gels were run to separate DNA fragments that included at least one fragment with a size greater than 50 kb, using either a CHEF Mapper XA (Bio-Rad) or a CHEF-DR II (Bio-Rad). For resolution of DNA fragments of less than 50 kb, field inversion gel electrophoresis (7) gels were used with only the CHEF Mapper XA. All of the electrophoresis was carried out at 14°C using 0.5× TBE as the running buffer. Plugs prepared from filarial nematode samples were equilibrated in 0.5× TBE prior to electrophoresis, whileDrosophila Wolbachia plugs underwent no treatment before electrophoresis. The migration profiles were determined using CHEF Mapper XA interactive software, version 1.2 (Bio-Rad). Fragment lengths and the presence of multiple fragments were determined using Gel-doc and Quantity One one-dimensional analysis software (Bio-Rad).

Southern hybridization.The Wolbachia surface protein (wsp) gene fragment from wRi was amplified by PCR using total DNA from DSRT flies as the template and wsp-specific primers 81F (5′-TGGTCCAATAAGTGATGAAGAAAC-3′) and 691R (5′-AAAAATTAAACGCTACTCCA-3′) as a probe (9). The nematode ftsZ gene fragment was amplified with total DNA from B. malayi as the template and withftsZ-specific primers ftsZ1F (5′-GTTGTCGCAAATACCGATGC-3′) and ftsZ1R (5′-CTTAAGTAAGCTGGTATATC-3′) as a probe (39). The mitochondrial 12S rRNA gene fragment was amplified with primer pair 12SAI (5′-AAACTAGGATTAGATACCCTATTAT-3′) and 12SBI (5′-AAGAGCGACGGGCGATGTGT-3′) (32). The amplification conditions were the same as those previously described (9). Total DNA of Drosophila was extracted using the Holmes-Bonner method (18). PCR products were gel purified with either β-agarase (New England Biolabs) or Qiagen (Valencia, Calif.) gel extraction kits. These probes were radioactively labeled using either the Random Primed DNA labeling kit (Roche) or the NEBlot kit (New England Biolabs) according to the manufacturer's instructions.

A cocktail of seven probes derived from wBma and known from preliminary mapping to be well dispersed around theWolbachia genome was also prepared. These were a 16S rRNA fragment, a 23S rRNA fragment, HSP-60 (GroEL homologue), a DNA mismatch repair protein homologue, the DNA polymerase III γ subunit, the RNA polymerase β subunit, and serine hydroxymethyltransferase. TheseWolbachia sequences had been identified among the expressed sequence tags reported from B. malayi as part of the Filarial Genome Project (see http://neb.com/fgn/filgen1.html ). The sequences were amplified from the appropriate phage stocks representing these cDNA clones using T3 and T7 primers (New England Biolabs). The PCR products were precipitated to remove excess primers, and nucleotides and then labeled by hot PCR (15) with the same primers but using a nucleotide mixture that contained dATP at 1/10 the concentration of the other deoxynucleoside triphosphates but that included [32P]dATP. The labeled PCR products were purified using QIAquick PCR purification columns (Qiagen) according to the manufacturer's instructions and pooled to make aWolbachia probe cocktail.

After gel electrophoresis, Southern transfer was done with a VacuGene XL vacuum blotting system (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech, Uppsala, Sweden), and the filters were hybridized at either 60 or 65°C and washed under high-stringency conditions.

RESULTS

Wolbachia purification.The methods used led to the successful enrichment of Drosophila Wolbachia. When run on a PFGE gel, Wolbachia genomic DNA could be resolved with ethidium bromide staining (Fig. 1a, lane 2, b, lanes 2 and 3, and c, lane 2). This band was not visible in preparations from uninfected Drosophila. Moreover, Southern hybridization using a wsp gene fragment as the probe confirmed that the visible band represented Wolbachiagenomic DNA (Fig. 1a, lane 3, b, lanes 4 and 5, and c, lane 3). This procedure also showed that much of the uncut Wolbachia DNA still remained in the loading wells (Fig. 1). Southern hybridization using labeled total DNA from Wolbachia-free strain DSRT as a probe produced a faint background smear, which indicated the presence of trace amounts of degraded Drosophila DNA but which did not hybridize to any distinct fragments. No extrachromosomal DNA was detected on the gel, indicating an absence of plasmids.

Fig. 1.
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Composite ethidium bromide-stained gel and corresponding autoradiograph of Southern blot probed with a wRiwsp gene fragment. (a) Lane 1, yeast chromosomal size marker; lane 2, undigested wMelPop genome fragment; lane 3, Southern blot. (b) Lane 1, yeast chromosomal size marker; lane 2, undigested wMelCS genome fragment; lane 3, undigestedwMel genome fragment; lane 4, Southern blot (undigestedwMelCS genome fragment); lane 5, Southern blot (undigested wMel genome fragment). (c) Lane 1, yeast chromosomal size marker; lane 2, undigested wRi genome fragment; lane 3, Southern blot.

Optimal DNase I reaction conditions were found to be 40 μg of DNase I/ml for 40 min of treatment at RT. A time course study with DNase I (40 μg/ml) showed that the background DNA smear on gels gradually decreased and finally disappeared with the increasing reaction time (data not shown). Southern hybridization with a mitochondrial DNA 12S rRNA gene fragment as the probe showed that the mitochondrial genome migrated at approximately 500 kb (owing to its circular conformation) and was cleared with increasing DNase I treatment (Fig.2). Excessive DNase I treatment was found to digest Wolbachia DNA completely as well. The final conditions used were found to remove mitochondrial DNA while still maintaining a good yield of Wolbachia DNA.

Fig. 2.
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

Autoradiograph of Southern blot probed with mitochondrial 12S rRNA gene fragment. Shown is a DNase I (40 μg/ml) reaction time course at RT (25°C). Lane 1, 15 min; lane 2, 22 min; lane 3, 28 min; lane 4, 35 min; lane 5, 40 min. Arrow,Drosophila mitochondrial genome fragment.

The methods described above also led to the successful enrichment ofWolbachia from the filarial nematodes. Staining pulsed-field gels with ethidium bromide showed bands of around 1,100 and 950 kb for extracts made from B. malayi and D. immitis, respectively (Fig. 3). There was a sufficient amount of Wolbachia DNA in the extracts made from D. immitis worms for hybridization with the ftsZ gene fragment probe, confirming that the 950-kb band representedWolbachia genomic DNA. For the extracts made from the smaller B. malayi worms it was usually necessary to use theWolbachia probe cocktail to demonstrate that the 1,100-kb band was the Wolbachia genome (Fig. 3). The majority of uncut Wolbachia was found to remain in the well of the gel, paralleling the situation observed for extracts fromDrosophila.

Fig. 3.
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 3.

Pulsed-field gel sizing of Wolbachia genomes from D. immitis (a) and B. malayi (b). Lanes 1, ethidium bromide staining of the uncut genomes; lanes 2, corresponding autoradiographs, which were probed with the ftsZ gene fragment (a) and with the Wolbachia probe cocktail (b); lanes 3, autoradiographs of the genomes after digestion withApaI and probing with the Wolbachia probe cocktail. Sizes of selected DNA standards (yeast chromosome and MidRange II pulsed-field gel markers; New England Biolabs) are indicated.

Restriction digestion of Wolbachia genomic DNA.The sequences of several genes previously cloned fromWolbachia strains suggest that the genomes of these bacteria are A+T rich (8, 9, 17, 23). Therefore, to find rare-cutting restriction enzymes, we utilized those with six- or eight-base GC recognition sites initially using wMelPop and wRi genomic DNA.

Out of a total of 15 restriction enzymes screened,ApaI, SmaI, AscI, andFseI produced small numbers of fragments that facilitated the calculation of the genome size forwMelPop. Among them, ApaI andSmaI cut wMelPop into multiple fragments,AscI cut this chromosome into two fragments, andFseI cut only once (Fig.4a). The size of the genome ofwMelPop was calculated by digestion with multiple enzymes to be 1.36 Mb (Table 2). Digestions of the closely related wMel andwMelCS strains with AscI indicated genome sizes equal to that for wMelPop (Fig. 4b; Table 2).

Fig. 4.
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 4.

CHEF gels of digested genomes of arthropodWolbachia strains wMelPop (a),wMelCS and wMel (b), and wRi (c and d). (a) Lane 1, Saccharomyces cerevisiae chromosomal size marker; lane 2, lambda ladder; lanes 3 to 6, digestedwMelPop genome. (b) Lane 1, S. cerevisiaechromosomal size marker; lane 2, lambda ladder; lane 3, digestedwMelCS genome; lane 4, digested wMel genome. (c) Lane 1, lambda ladder; lane 2, S. cerevisiaechromosomal size marker; lanes 3 to 6, digested wRi genome. (d) Lane 1, S. cerevisiae chromosomal size marker; lane 2, lambda ladder; lanes 3 and 4, digested wRi. Each lane is labeled with the enzyme(s) used.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Sizes of DNA fragments produced by digestions ofWolbachia genomes with selected restriction enzymes

The size of the genome of wRi was obtained via restriction enzyme digestion with ApaI, SmaI, andAscI (Fig. 4c and d). The size estimated fromApaI digestion and ApaI and AscI double digestion was 1.66 Mb (Table 2), while that from SmaI digestion and SmaI and AscI double digestion was 1.65 Mb (Table 2). Thus the genome size of wRi was designated 1.66 Mb, the mean of 1.65 and 1.66 Mb.

A panel of restriction enzymes having GC-rich recognition sequences were also tested for their ability to cut the nematodeWolbachia DNA into only one or a few linear fragments. Several enzymes were found not to cut the genomes of wBma orwDim, while others cut the genome into multiple fragments. The optimal enzyme for wBma was found to be ApaI, whose cut produced only four large fragments (Fig. 3), the sum of which was approximately 1,100 kb (Table 2), confirming the genome size determined from analysis of uncut DNA. Similarly, theWolbachia genome from D. immitis extracts was cut into four bands totaling 950 kb by enzyme ApaI, again confirming the genome size by an independent method (Fig. 3; Table 2). For the Wolbachia genomes enriched from nematode tissues it was necessary to hybridize Southern blots of digested DNA with the probe cocktail in order to identify the individual fragments.

Conformation of the Wolbachia chromosome.To determine if the Wolbachia chromosome was linear or circular, plugs containing intact mosquito cells which harboredWolbachia wAlbB were prepared (27). The plugs of intact Aa23 (wAlbB) were digested withAscI and FseI, respectively. Then, PFGE was performed for both digested and undigested plugs. After PFGE, the gel was Southern blotted. Hybridization with thewRi wsp gene fragment clearly showed that uncut and FseI-digested Wolbachia DNAs were retained in the loading well, while AscI-digested WolbachiaDNA migrated into the gel (Fig. 5). These results suggest that the Wolbachia chromosome is circular.

Fig. 5.
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 5.

Autoradiographs of Southern blot of wAlbB probed with a wRi wsp gene fragment. Lanes 1 to 3, plugs of Aa23 cells (wAlbB) digested with restriction enzymes AscI (lane 1), FseI (lane 2), andAscI and FseI (lane 3); lane 4, uncut DNA. Arrow,Wolbachia genome fragment that migrated into the gel afterAscI digestion.

DISCUSSION

Previous studies of Wolbachia have focused heavily on ultrastructure, reproductive phenotypes, and phylogeny. In the past, the difficulty in culturing and purifying the bacteria has hindered the progress of genetic and biochemical studies. A new protocol based on the purification of Drosophila mitochondria proved to be suitable for purification of Drosophila Wolbachia. Three modifications were key: (i) a change to the composition of the homogenization buffer, (ii) incorporation of a DNase I digestion step to obtain purer Wolbachia DNA, and (iii) the use ofDrosophila adults as starting material. The homogenization buffer had previously been shown to be effective in separatingWolbachia from host materials (9). The detergent Lubrol was removed from the original recipe, however, since its presence increased degradation of DNA (data not shown). A digestion step with DNase I was added to remove sheared DNA, generated during homogenization. Addition of the DNase I step also appeared to remove contaminating host mitochondrial DNA from the preparation. Levels of purification of Drosophila Wolbachia from both adults and embryos were compared, and the latter generated very poor results (data not shown).

Bacterial chromosomes demonstrate different forms by PFGE studies; not all bacteria have circular genomes (5, 13). In circular forms, DNA with a large size is not expected to migrate into pulsed-field gels (31). As such, the fragments resolved on PFGE gels without restriction digestion (Fig. 1a and 3) are likely to be the result of nicking during homogenization. This is also consistent with the observation that most of theWolbachia DNA was retained in the loading wells (Fig. 1a and3). Furthermore, FseI was determined to be a single cutter for the wMelPop strain. If the genome ofwMelPop were linear, then FseI digestion should have resulted in two fragments (complete digestion) or three fragments (partial digestion). However, digestion resulted in a single fragment. Similarly, digestion with AscI produced two fragments. Comparing restriction patterns of wMelPop from single digestion with ApaI or SmaI to those from double digestions with ApaI and AscI orSmaI and AscI clearly showed that AscI cut the chromosome in two places. These data strongly suggest that theWolbachia chromosome is circular.

Studies using either PFGE or whole-genome sequencing have revealed a diversity of bacterial genome sizes, ranging from as low as 0.58 Mb to as high as 9.5 Mb. For all characterized bacterial genomes, the sizes of free-living species are generally larger than the sizes of intracellular species. Within the α-Proteobacteria, reported genome sizes of the free-living species are typically above 3.0 Mb: 3.8 Mb for Rhodobacter capsulatus (14), 3.8 to 4.0 Mb for Caulobacter crescentus (11, 12), 3.4 Mb for Rhizobium meliloti (19), and 8.7 Mb for Bradyrhizobium japonicum (21). The strictly obligate species, on the other hand, typically have genome sizes below 2.0 Mb: 1.6 Mb forBartonella bacilliformis (20), 1.1 Mb forRickettsia prowazekii, and 0.9 to 1.5 Mb forEhrlichia spp. (30). Consistent with these previous results we have also demonstrated reduced genome sizes forWolbachia: 0.95 and 1.1 Mb for the Wolbachiainfecting nematodes and 1.4 to 1.6 Mb for the different A groupWolbachia strains infecting Drosophila.

At the present time four major monophyletic clades ofWolbachia are recognized and referred to asWolbachia groups A, B, C, and D. The A and B groups are found in a range of arthropods and crustaceans. The C and D groups are restricted to filarial nematodes. Infections with A and B groupWolbachia strains are associated with various parasitic traits that indicate a conflict between their own vertical transmission and the normal reproduction of their host. In these casesWolbachia has evolved various mechanisms to increase its vertical transmission including cytoplasmic incompatibility, parthenogenesis, and feminization phenotypes in the hosts they infect (24). In addition phylogenetic and experimental studies indicate that these infections are capable of moving horizontally among hosts, albeit as presumably rare events (26). In contrast C and D group Wolbachia strains infecting nematodes appear to be more like classical mutualists, being required for normal reproduction and development of their hosts, presumably through the supply of metabolic products required by the worm (4, 22). In addition the phylogeny of these Wolbachia strains mirrors that of the host worms, indicating a long period of concordant evolution between host and symbiont (3). At the present time, the lack of a suitable outgroup has prevented resolution of the evolutionary relationships among the four Wolbachia clades.

The large difference between the genome sizes of representatives from these different groups is intriguing. Nematode Wolbachiastrains have a genome 30% smaller than those of the A group counterparts. The reduction in the genome sizes of these strains is consistent with the reduced genome sizes reported for other mutualistic symbionts (1, 36).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Tetsuhiko Sasaki, Henk Braig, and Melinda Pettigrew for technical assistance, Serap Aksoy for providing a CHEF-DR II apparatus, Liangbiao Zheng for providing a gel documentation system, and Elizabeth McGraw for suggestions on the drafts.

This work was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (AI40620 and AI47409), the McKnight Foundation, New England Biolabs, and the UNDP/World Bank/WHO program for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 5 October 2000.
    • Accepted 8 January 2001.
  • Copyright © 2001 American Society for Microbiology

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Andersson S. G.,
    2. Kurland C. G.
    Reductive evolution of resident genomes.Trends Microbiol.61998263268
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. 2.↵
    1. Ausubel F. M.,
    2. Brent R.,
    3. Kingston R. E.,
    4. Moore D. D.,
    5. Seidman J. G.,
    6. Smith J. A.,
    7. Struhl K.
    Current protocols in molecular biology. 1994 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, N.Y
  3. 3.↵
    1. Bandi C.,
    2. Anderson T. J.,
    3. Genchi C.,
    4. Blaxter M. L.
    Phylogeny of Wolbachia in filarial nematodes.Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci.265199824072413
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Bandi C.,
    2. McCall J. W.,
    3. Genchi C.,
    4. Corona S.,
    5. Venco L.,
    6. Sacchi L.
    Effects of tetracycline on the filarial worms Brugia pahangi and Dirofilaria immitis and their bacterial endosymbionts Wolbachia.Int. J. Parasitol.291999357364
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. 5.↵
    1. Baril C.,
    2. Richaud C.,
    3. Baranton G.,
    4. Saint Girons I. S.,
    5. Ferdows M. S.,
    6. Barbour A. G.
    Linear chromosome of Borrelia burgdorferi.Res. Microbiol.1401989507516
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. 6.↵
    1. Birren B.,
    2. Lai E.
    Pulsed field gel electrophoresis: a practical guide. 1993 Academic Press, Inc. San Diego, Calif
  7. 7.↵
    1. Birren B. W.,
    2. Lai E.,
    3. Hood L.,
    4. Simon M. I.
    Pulsed field gel electrophoresis techniques for separating 1- to 50-kilobase DNA fragments.Anal. Biochem.1771989282286
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. 8.↵
    1. Bourtzis K.,
    2. Nirgianaki A.,
    3. Onyango P.,
    4. Savakis C.
    A prokaryotic dnaA sequence in Drosophila melanogaster: Wolbachia infection and cytoplasmic incompatibility among laboratory strains.Insect Mol. Biol.31994131142
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Braig H. R.,
    2. Zhou W.,
    3. Dobson S. L.,
    4. O'Neill S. L.
    Cloning and characterization of a gene encoding the major surface protein of the bacterial endosymbiont Wolbachia pipientis.J. Bacteriol.180199823732378
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Chu G.,
    2. Vollrath D.,
    3. Davis R. W.
    Separation of large DNA molecules by contour-clamped homogeneous electric fields.Science234198615821585
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Ely B.,
    2. Ely T. W.,
    3. Gerardot C. J.,
    4. Dingwall A.
    Circularity of the Caulobacter crescentus chromosome determined by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis.J. Bacteriol.172199012621266
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Ely B.,
    2. Gerardot C. J.
    Use of pulsed-field-gradient gel electrophoresis to construct a physical map of the Caulobacter crescentus genome.Gene681988323333
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Ferdows M. S.,
    2. Barbour A. G.
    Megabase-sized linear DNA in the bacterium Borrelia burgdorferi, the Lyme disease agent.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA86198959695973
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Fonstein M.,
    2. Haselkorn R.
    Chromosomal structure of Rhodobacter capsulatus strain SB1003: cosmid encyclopedia and high-resolution physical and genetic map.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA90199325222526
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Hirst M. C.,
    2. Bassett J. H.,
    3. Roche A.,
    4. Davies K. E.
    Preparation of radiolabelled hybridization probes by STS labelling.Trends Genet.8199267
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    1. Hoffmann A. A.,
    2. Turelli M.
    Cytoplasmic incompatibility in insects Influential passengers. O'Neill S. L., Hoffmann A. A., Werren J. H. 1997 42 80 Oxford University Press Oxford, United Kingdom
  17. 17.↵
    1. Holden P. R.,
    2. Brookfield J. F.,
    3. Jones P.
    Cloning and characterization of an ftsZ homologue from a bacterial symbiont of Drosophila melanogaster.Mol. Gen. Genet.2401993213220
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. 18.↵
    1. Holmes D. S.,
    2. Bonner J.
    Preparation, molecular weight, base composition, and secondary structure of giant nuclear ribonucleic acid.Biochemistry12197323302338
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Honeycutt R. J.,
    2. McClelland M.,
    3. Sobral B. W.
    Physical map of the genome of Rhizobium meliloti 1021.J. Bacteriol.175199369456952
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. Krueger C. M.,
    2. Marks K. L.,
    3. Ihler G. M.
    Physical map of the Bartonella bacilliformis genome.J. Bacteriol.177199572717274
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. Kundig C.,
    2. Hennecke H.,
    3. Gottfert M.
    Correlated physical and genetic map of the Bradyrhizobium japonicum 110 genome.J. Bacteriol.1751993613622
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Langworthy N. G.,
    2. Renz A.,
    3. Mackenstedt U.,
    4. Henkle-Duhrsen K.,
    5. de Bronsvoort M. B.,
    6. Tanya V. N.,
    7. Donnelly M. J.,
    8. Trees A. J.
    Macrofilaricidal activity of tetracycline against the filarial nematode Onchocerca ochengi: elimination of Wolbachia precedes worm death and suggests a dependent relationship.Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci.267200010631069
    OpenUrlPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Masui S.,
    2. Sasaki T.,
    3. Ishikawa H.
    groE-homologous operon of Wolbachia, an intracellular symbiont of arthropods: a new approach for their phylogeny.Zoolog. Sci. (Tokyo)141997701706
    OpenUrl
  24. 24.↵
    1. McGraw E. A.,
    2. O'Neill S. L.
    Evolution of Wolbachia pipientis transmission dynamics in insects.Trends Microbiol.71999297302
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  25. 25.↵
    1. Min K. T.,
    2. Benzer S.
    Wolbachia, normally a symbiont of Drosophila, can be virulent, causing degeneration and early death.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA9419971079210796
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    1. O'Neill S. L.,
    2. Giordano R.,
    3. Colbert A. M.,
    4. Karr T. L.,
    5. Robertson H. M.
    16S rRNA phylogenetic analysis of the bacterial endosymbionts associated with cytoplasmic incompatibility in insects.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA89199226992702
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    1. O'Neill S. L.,
    2. Pettigrew M. M.,
    3. Sinkins S. P.,
    4. Braig H. R.,
    5. Andreadis T. G.,
    6. Tesh R. B.
    In vitro cultivation of Wolbachia pipientis in an Aedes albopictus cell line.Insect Mol. Biol.619973339
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  28. 28.↵
    1. Polan M. L.,
    2. Friedman S.,
    3. Gall J. G.,
    4. Gehring W.
    Isolation and characterization of mitochondrial DNA from Drosophila melanogaster.J. Cell Biol.561973580589
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    1. Rigaud T.
    Inherited microorganisms and sex determination of arthropod hosts Influential passengers. O'Neill S. L., Hoffmann A. A., Werren J. H. 1997 81 101 Oxford University Press Oxford, United Kingdom
  30. 30.↵
    1. Rydkina E.,
    2. Roux V.,
    3. Raoult D.
    Determination of the genome size of Ehrlichia spp., using pulsed field gel electrophoresis.FEMS Microbiol. Lett.17619997378
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Schwartz D. C.,
    2. Cantor C. R.
    Separation of yeast chromosome-sized DNAs by pulsed field gradient gel electrophoresis.Cell3719846775
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  32. 32.↵
    1. Simon C.,
    2. Franke A.,
    3. Martin A.
    Polymerase chain reaction: DNA extraction and amplification Molecular techniques in taxonomy Hewitt G. M., Johnston A. W. B., Young J. P. W. H57 1991 329 355 Springer-Verlag KG Berlin, Germany
    OpenUrl
  33. 33.↵
    1. Stouthamer R.
    Wolbachia-induced parthenogenesis Influential passengers. O'Neill S. L., Hoffmann A. A., Werren J. H. 1997 102 124 Oxford University Press Oxford, United Kingdom
  34. 34.↵
    1. Taylor M. J.,
    2. Hoerauf A.
    Wolbachia bacteria of filarial nematodes.Parasitol. Today151999437442
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  35. 35.↵
    1. Tupper J. T.,
    2. Tedeschi H.
    Microelectrode studies on the membrane properties of isolated mitochondria.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA631969370377
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. 36.↵
    1. Wernegreen J. J.,
    2. Ochman H.,
    3. Jones I. B.,
    4. Moran N. A.
    Decoupling of genome size and sequence divergence in a symbiotic bacterium.J. Bacteriol.182200038673869
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. 37.↵
    1. Werren J. H.,
    2. O'Neill S. L.
    The evolution of heritable symbionts Influential passengers. O'Neill S. L., Hoffmann A. A., Werren J. H. 1997 1 41 Oxford University Press Oxford, United Kingdom
  38. 38.↵
    1. Werren J. H.,
    2. Windsor D. M.
    Wolbachia infection frequencies in insects: evidence of a global equilibrium? Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 267 2000 1277 1285
    OpenUrlPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Werren J. H.,
    2. Zhang W.,
    3. Guo L. R.
    Evolution and phylogeny of Wolbachia: reproductive parasites of arthropods.Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci.26119955563
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Determination of Wolbachia Genome Size by Pulsed-Field Gel Electrophoresis
Ling V. Sun, Jeremy M. Foster, George Tzertzinis, Midori Ono, Claudio Bandi, Barton E. Slatko, Scott L. O'Neill
Journal of Bacteriology Apr 2001, 183 (7) 2219-2225; DOI: 10.1128/JB.183.7.2219-2225.2001

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Bacteriology article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Determination of Wolbachia Genome Size by Pulsed-Field Gel Electrophoresis
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Bacteriology
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Bacteriology.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Determination of Wolbachia Genome Size by Pulsed-Field Gel Electrophoresis
Ling V. Sun, Jeremy M. Foster, George Tzertzinis, Midori Ono, Claudio Bandi, Barton E. Slatko, Scott L. O'Neill
Journal of Bacteriology Apr 2001, 183 (7) 2219-2225; DOI: 10.1128/JB.183.7.2219-2225.2001
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

Genome, Bacterial
Wolbachia

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About JB
  • Editor in Chief
  • Editorial Board
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #Jbacteriology

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0021-9193; Online ISSN: 1098-5530