Next Article in Journal
Insecticidal Traits of Variants in a Genotypically Diverse Natural Isolate of Anticarsia Gemmatalis Multiple Nucleopolyhedrovirus (AgMNPV)
Previous Article in Journal
Synergistic Effect of Treatment with Highly Pathogenic Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus and Lipopolysaccharide on the Inflammatory Response of Porcine Pulmonary Microvascular Endothelial Cells
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Viruses
Volume 15
Issue 7
10.3390/v15071525
viruses-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Four Novel Caudoviricetes Bacteriophages Isolated from Baltic Sea Water Infect Colonizers of Aurelia aurita

by
Melissa Stante
1,
Nancy Weiland-Bräuer
1,
Urska Repnik
2,
Almut Werner
1,
Marc Bramkamp
1,2,
Cynthia M. Chibani
1 and
Ruth A. Schmitz
1,*
1
Institute for General Microbiology, Christian Albrechts University, Am Botanischen Garten 1-9, D-24118 Kiel, Germany
2
Central Microscopy Facility, Christian Albrechts University, Am Botanischen Garten 1-9, D-24118 Kiel, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Viruses 2023, 15(7), 1525; https://doi.org/10.3390/v15071525
Submission received: 14 June 2023 / Revised: 4 July 2023 / Accepted: 6 July 2023 / Published: 9 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Bacterial Viruses)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The moon jellyfish Aurelia aurita is associated with a highly diverse microbiota changing with provenance, tissue, and life stage. While the crucial relevance of bacteria to host fitness is well known, bacteriophages have often been neglected. Here, we aimed to isolate virulent phages targeting bacteria that are part of the A. aurita-associated microbiota. Four phages (Pseudomonas phage BSwM KMM1, Citrobacter phages BSwM KMM2–BSwM KMM4) were isolated from the Baltic Sea water column and characterized. Phages KMM2/3/4 infected representatives of Citrobacter, Shigella, and Escherichia (Enterobacteriaceae), whereas KMM1 showed a remarkably broad host range, infecting Gram-negative Pseudomonas as well as Gram-positive Staphylococcus. All phages showed an up to 99% adsorption to host cells within 5 min, short latent periods (around 30 min), large burst sizes (mean of 128 pfu/cell), and high efficiency of plating (EOP > 0.5), demonstrating decent virulence, efficiency, and infectivity. Transmission electron microscopy and viral genome analysis revealed that all phages are novel species and belong to the class of Caudoviricetes harboring a tail and linear double-stranded DNA (formerly known as Siphovirus-like (KMM3) and Myovirus-like (KMM1/2/4) bacteriophages) with genome sizes between 50 and 138 kbp. In the future, these isolates will allow manipulation of the A. aurita-associated microbiota and provide new insights into phage impact on the multicellular host.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Bacteriophages, or phages for short, are viruses that infect bacteria. They are widespread in nature and are considered the Earth’s most abundant biological entities [1,2]. Phages can be classified based on their replication cycle, morphology, nucleic acid type, and host range. Particularly, their replication mode, such as virulent or temperate, is an essential characteristic [3]. Virulent phages cause lysis of the host bacterium [4], whereas temperate phages integrate their genetic material into the host bacterium’s genome and can remain dormant until conditions favor their activation into the lytic cycle [3,5,6]. In the earlier days of phage research, phages were primarily classified based on morphological characteristics. The morphological classification scheme was initially proposed by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) which provided a framework for organizing phages into different families, genera, and species. However, with the advent of molecular biology techniques and the availability of whole-genome sequencing, the focus of phage taxonomy has shifted towards genetic and genomic information [7]. Genomic data, sequence similarities, and phylogenetic analyses assign phages to different taxonomic ranks, including families, subfamilies, genera, and species [8]. Efforts are constantly underway to improve phage taxonomy within a novel ICTV framework [9,10]. Nevertheless, morphological characteristics are still considered in the classification process and used for phage characterization.
In recent years, the interest in the role of phages in host-associated microbiomes has increased [11,12,13,14]. Researchers have recognized the significance of phages as key regulators of microbial communities and their potential impact on host health and disease [15,16]. This heightened attention reflects the growing recognition of phages as essential players in understanding the complexity and dynamics of microbiome ecosystems, particularly under the holobiont/metaorganism concept [17,18,19,20]. However, bacteriophages are still neglected [21,22,23], although the presence and activity of temperate and virulent phages in microbiomes can significantly impact the microbial community composition and function and consequently affect host health [24,25]. The temperate phage (prophage) replicates with the host genome and is transmitted to daughter cells during cell division [26]. Integrated into the host genome, they can impact the microbiome by altering the gene expression of the host bacterium, leading to changes in its physiology and metabolism [27]. Additionally, the prophage can provide additional new genes to the host bacterium and confer advantages, such as antibiotic resistance or enhanced metabolic capabilities (so-called auxiliary genes), but diseases caused directly by prophage-encoded virulence factors, such as botulism, diphtheria, and cholera, are also known to occur [28,29,30,31]. Virulent phages have the ability to reduce the population of the host bacteria in a host-associated microbiome [32], which in turn can have a significant impact on the microbiome’s structure and function, as it changes the relative abundance of different bacterial species and alters the metabolic activities of the community. Well-known examples include phages that have been shown to play an important role in the microbiomes of many invertebrates [33,34], including sponges [35], and within the squid’s light organ [36].
One approach to studying the role of phages in metaorganisms is metagenomic sequencing to analyze the phage populations in the microbiome [37,38,39]. Such studies can provide insights into the diversity, abundance, infection cycles (lytic or lysogenic), and activity of the phages and their interactions with the bacterial populations in the microbiome [24,40]. However, functional studies on the role of phages in microbiomes require the isolation of phages, which are, due to methodological challenges, primarily focusing on virulent phages [1,41]. Virulent phages can be isolated from various sources, including soil, water, and sewage, using a cultivation-dependent enrichment and isolation procedure. The cultivation-dependent approach includes sample collection and preparation, enrichment using selected host bacteria, isolation, and propagation [42]. Isolated novel phages can subsequently be characterized to provide a comprehensive understanding of the phage’s morphology, genetics, and behavior, which can be useful for functional studies to elucidate their role in the metaorganism and applications in phage therapy and biotechnology [43].
This study aimed to isolate virulent phages from Baltic Sea water infecting bacterial colonizers of our metaorganism model, the moon jellyfish Aurelia aurita. A. aurita is a Cnidarian jellyfish found in many parts of the world’s oceans, particularly common in coastal areas and estuaries [44]. A. aurita has a relatively short lifespan as a mature medusa, usually living only for a few months to a year [45]. During this time, A. aurita undergoes a complex life cycle that includes both asexual and sexual reproduction [45]. A. aurita is associated with a highly diverse microbiota depending on its provenance, tissue, and life stage [21]. This specific microbiota is crucial for the survival, growth, and asexual reproduction of the host [23]. A total of 132 bacterial representatives of the associated microbiota were derived from different sub-populations and life stages of A. aurita [22], representing different taxonomic groups, including Proteobacteria (Pseudomonas, Alteromonas, Pseudoalteromonas, Vibrio, Paracoccus, Ruegeria, Shewanella, Sulfitobacter), Actinomycetota (Rhodococcus, Brevibacterium, Microbacterium, Micrococcus), Bacilli (Bacillus, Enterococcus, Streptococcus), and Flavobacteriia (Chryseobacterium, Maribacter, Olleya). Though the importance and impact of bacteria on the health and fitness of A. aurita have already been demonstrated [21,22,23,46], bacteriophages have not previously been considered in this context. The present study reports on the morphological, microbiological, and genomic characterization of four newly isolated virulent phages (Pseudomonas phage BSwM KMM1, Citrobacter phages BSwM KMM2, BSwS KMM3, and BSwM KMM4) infecting colonizers of A. aurita’s microbiota, which in the future can be used to manipulate the A. aurita-associated microbiota to provide new insights into phage impact on the multicellular host.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Bacterial Strains and Growth Conditions

The bacterial strains used in this study are listed in Table 1 with their respective culture media and growth conditions. Bacterial strains of marine origin were grown in a Marine Bouillon (MB; 10 g/L yeast extract, 10 g/L peptone (Carl Roth, Karlsruhe, Germany), 30 practical salinity units (PSU) Tropical Marine Salts, pH 7.3). Other bacterial strains were cultivated, following recommendations, in Trypticase Soy Yeast Broth (TSYB, Carl Roth, Karlsruhe, Germany), Caso-Bouillon (CASO, Carl Roth, Karlsruhe, Germany), Lysogeny Broth (LB, Carl Roth, Karlsruhe, Germany), and Nutrient Broth (NB, Carl Roth, Karlsruhe, Germany) according to the DSMZ (German Collection of Microorganisms and Cell Cultures GmbH, Braunschweig, Germany).

2.2. Taxonomic Classification of Bacterial Isolates

Bacteria were enriched and isolated from A. aurita medusae collected in the Baltic Sea as described in the previous study by Weiland-Bräuer et al., 2020 [22]. Additional isolates previously not published were taxonomically classified in the present study. The bacterial isolates were grown, and genomic DNA was isolated from overnight cultures (5 mL) using the Wizard Genomic DNA Purification Kit (Promega GmbH, Walldorf, Germany) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Overall, 16S rRNA genes were PCR-amplified from 50 ng of isolated genomic DNA using the bacterium-specific 16S rRNA gene primer 27F (5′-AGAGTTTGATCCTGGCTCAG-3′) and the universal primer 1492R (5′-GGTTACCTTGTTACGACTT-3′) [48] resulting in a 1.5 kb PCR fragment. The fragments were Sanger sequenced at the sequencing facility at the Institute of Clinical Molecular Biology, University of Kiel (IKMB). Sequence analysis was conducted using CodonCode Aligner v. 9.0. Sequence data of full-length 16S rRNA genes were deposited under GenBank accession numbers OQ397638-OQ397653 and OQ398153-OQ398172.

2.3. Phage Enrichment, Isolation, and Purification

Water columns were sampled in the Baltic Sea at the Kiel fjord (54.329649, 10.149129) in March 2020 and June 2021. Samples were taken from the surface (<50 cm depth) using a sterile 20 L canister. A total of 50 mL of the seawater samples and 50 mL of MB medium were mixed with 1 mL of an overnight culture of a mixture of potential host bacterial strains (Table 1, column “Use in the study”, category “Enrichment/first screening”, a total of 55 strains) and placed on a shaking incubator (120 rpm) at 30 °C for 24 h. The mixture was centrifuged at 4000× g for 30 min, and the supernatant passed through a 0.22 μm pore-size polycarbonate syringe filter (Sartorius, Goettingen, Germany) to remove the residual bacterial cells.
The spot test assay, a procedure based on the double-layer plaque technique [49], was used as an initial test to detect virulent phages by plaques on all 55 bacterial strains, separately grown in top-agar on agar plates. Briefly, 10 µL of each filtered mixture was spotted on an MB 1.5% agar plate containing a second solidified layer of 3 mL 0.6% MB top agar mixed with 100 µL of a single bacterial host strain. The plates were incubated overnight at 30 °C. Plaques generated by bacteriophage-induced bacterial lysis were detected the following day. Plaques were exclusively detected for bacterial isolates No. 8 (Pseudomonas sp. MK967010.1), No. 7 (Citrobacter sp., OQ398154), and No. 6 (C. freundii, OQ398153). Those three bacterial isolates were used as bacterial host strains for the following assays to study phage characteristics.

2.4. Phage Purification, Titration, and Propagation

Original phage plaques were used for further purification of phages. Morphologically distinct plaques were picked from the agar plate using a sterile toothpick and streaked on a freshly prepared double-agar plate with the respective host strain in the top agar. The procedure was repeated three times to ensure pure and single phages. Phage lysate preparations were conducted from top agar plates with approx. 105 plaque-forming units per mL (pfu/mL). Phage-containing top agar was collected with a sterile loop and transferred into a 15 mL Falcon tube (Sarstedt, Nümbrecht, Germany). A total of 3 mL of liquid MB was added. The mixture was vortexed and centrifuged at 4000× g for 10 min. The supernatant was filtered through a 0.22 μm polycarbonate syringe filter (Sartorius, Goettingen, Germany) to remove bacterial cells and agar debris. The respective pfu/mL of the resulting phage lysate was determined, and the lysate was stored at 4 °C. Phage stability at 4 °C was analyzed every 2 days for 2 weeks using the double-layer agar method with no significant variance in pfu/mL.
Phage propagation was performed in liquid culture. A total of 1 mL of the respective bacterial host (overnight culture) was inoculated into 48 mL of MB in a 100 mL Erlenmeyer flask and incubated at 30 °C and 120 rpm until OD600nm = 0.2–0.3 was reached. Then, 1 mL of the phage lysate (106 pfu/mL) was added to the cultures, which were further incubated for 3 h at 30 °C with shaking. The culture was transferred to a 50 mL Falcon tube (Sarstedt, Germany) and centrifuged at 4000× g for 10 min. The supernatant was sterile-filtered using a 0.22 μm syringe filter (Sartorius, Goettingen). Phage lysates were stored at 4 °C.

2.5. Transmission Electron Microscopy

In total, 50 mL of freshly prepared phage lysate (>108 pfu/mL) was ultracentrifuged (Optima XE-100 ultracentrifuge, Beckman Coulter, Brea, CA, USA) at 109,800× g for 30 min. Phage pellets were resuspended in 1 mL of Ultra-pure water (Carl Roth, Karlsruhe, Germany) overnight at 4 °C on a 3D shaker. Subsequently, TEM grids (copper, 400 square mesh, formvar-coated) were glow-discharged for 60 s at a 0.6 mbar air pressure and a 10 mA glow current using a Safematic CCU-010 unit and then incubated with 8 μL of the phage lysate (>108 pfu/mL) for 5 min. Grids were washed briefly on six drops of water, stained with 1% uranyl acetate for 10 s, blotted to remove the excess stain, and air dried. Samples were imaged with a Tecnai G2 Spirit BioTwin transmission electron microscope operated with a LaB6 filament at 80 kV, and equipped with an Eagle 4k HS CCD camera, TEM User interface (v. 4.2), and TIA software (v. 2.5) (all FEI/Thermo Fisher Scientific, Hessen, Germany). Open-source Fiji software was used to measure the head width (perpendicular to the vertical axis) and the tail length of phages.

2.6. One-Step Growth Curve Analysis

Bacterial host strains were grown overnight in 5 mL MB. A total of 500 µL of the overnight culture was incubated in 50 mL MB at 30 °C until turbidity at 600 nm of T600 = 0.1–0.2 (107 cells/mL) was reached. A total of 10 mL of the bacterial culture was centrifuged at 4000× g for 10 min at 4 °C. The cell pellets were resuspended in 5 mL of an MB medium, and 5 mL of phage lysate (107 pfu/mL) was added with a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 1.0, expressing that one phage particle is exposed to one bacterial host cell [50,51,52]. Initial tests using MOIs of 0.01 and 0.1 did not result in a sufficient latent period and burst size detection. The phage titer was immediately determined by double-agar layer plaque assay (t0) after centrifuging at 4000× g for 10 min to remove the free phage particles before resuspending the samples in 10 mL MB. Phages were allowed to adsorb to the bacterial host cells within 5 min of incubation at 30 °C. Afterwards, the phage titer was again determined by double-agar layer plaque assay (t5min) for calculating the adsorption rate and constant k with the following formula [53]:
k = (−1/B × t) × ln (P/P0).
B, initial concentration of bacteria (cells/mL); t, time (min); P, concentration of free phage per ml; P0, initial concentration of phage per mL.
Further aliquots were collected in 10 min intervals over a 120 min period, and phage titers were determined. Three independent experiments were performed for each phage.

2.7. Efficiency of Plating and Host Range

The host range of isolated bacteriophages was initially determined by the spot assay and verified by the double-layer agar method. A selection of 43 strains belonging to different genera (Table 1, column “Use in the study”, category “Host range”) was tested. The bacterial strains were individually grown overnight in 5 mL cultures. An aliquot of 100 μL of each culture and 3 mL of the respective culture medium containing 0.6% agar was mixed and poured onto an agar plate. After 15 min at room temperature, to allow the top agar to solidify, 10 μL of the 10-fold serially diluted phage lysate (original 109 pfu/mL, diluted in MB) were spotted onto the soft agar. The plates were then incubated at the respective incubation temperature of the host strain (Table 1). Plaques were examined after 16 h of incubation. The Efficiency of Plating (EOP) was calculated by the ratio of the average pfu on a tested host to the average pfu on a corresponding reference (original) host. The variation of EOP values is represented as a heat map using Excel.

2.8. Viral DNA Isolation

Genomic DNA was isolated from the phage lysates using a modified phenol–chloroform–isoamyl alcohol method [54]. Briefly, 500 µL of phage lysates (1012 pfu/mL) were treated with 1 U/mL of DNase I and 1 U/mL of RNase A (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Hessen, Germany) in a Reaction Buffer (100 mM Tris-HCl, 25 mM MgCl2, 1 mM CaCl2) (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Hessen, Germany) and incubated for1 h at 37 °C to remove external nucleic acids. Afterwards, 0.5 M of EDTA, 40 µL of Proteinase K (20 mg/mL, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Hessen, Germany), 1 M of CaCl2, and a 20% sodium dodecyl sulfate (Roth, Karlsruhe, Germany) were added before incubating at 37 °C for 2 h. Following this, samples were incubated for a further 2 h at 65 °C. Viral DNA was extracted with an equal volume (vol) of phenol–chloroform–isoamyl alcohol (25:24:1, Roth, Karlsruhe, Germany) and centrifuged at 3000× g for 15 min. The step was repeated, and the supernatant was transferred to phase lock tubes (Quantabio, Hilden, Germany). The aqueous phase was mixed with an equal volume of chloroform and centrifuged at 1600× g for 15 min. The aqueous layer was mixed with 3 M of sodium acetate and 1 vol of isopropanol to precipitate the DNA. After incubation overnight at −20 °C, the DNA was pelleted by centrifugation at 12,600× g for 30 min at 4 °C. The pellet was washed with a 70% ethanol, air dried, and dissolved in Ultra-pure water (Roth, Karlsruhe, Germany). DNA was stored at −20 °C before sequencing. DNA quality and quantity were analyzed using a NanoDrop1000 spectrophotometer and a Qubit double-stranded BR assay kit on a Qubit fluorometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Hessen, Germany).

2.9. Sequencing, Bioinformatic Analysis, and Annotation of Viral Genomes

Long sequencing reads were obtained using the Oxford Nanopore Technologies MinION platform (R9.4.1 flow cell). The MinION sequencing library was prepared according to the manufacturer’s guidelines using the SQK-RBK004 Rapid Barcoding Kit. MinION sequencing was performed with MinKNOW v. 22.08.4. The raw sequencing data (fast5 format) were base-called using Guppy v. 6.2.7, and finally, demultiplexing was performed using qcat v.1.1.0. Quality assessment and adapter trimming of the MinION long-read sequences of the four viral genomes was performed using LongQC v1.2.0 [55] and Filtlong v.0.2.1 (https://github.com/rrwick/Filtlong, accessed on 25 October 2022). Filtered sequence reads with an average length > 1000 bps were selected, omitting the worst 5% of reads. Reads per genome were assembled using the assembler Flye v2.9 [56], resulting in complete, single-contig genomes. The number of sequenced reads before and after filtration, the GC content, reads coverage, and N50 values are provided in Table 2. The completeness and contamination of the assembled viral genomes were assessed using CheckV [57].
Viral genomes were annotated using Prokka v.1.14.6 [58] and the “--kindgom Viruses” option. Functional annotation of the four isolated phages was performed using EggNOG mapper v2.1.9 [59] and the eggNOG database v5.0 [60], and the sequence searches were performed using DIAMOND [61]. Putative Auxiliary metabolic genes were additionally annotated (AMG) using DRAM-v with default databases [62], the viral mode of DRAM (Distilled and Refined Annotation of Metabolism). For this purpose, the four isolated genomes were processed through Virsorter2 v2.2.4 [63] with the “--prep-for-dramv” parameter to generate an “affi-contigs.tab” needed by DRAM-v to identify AMGs. Putative AMGs were identified based on the resulting assigned auxiliary score (AMG score ≤3) and metabolic flag (M flag, no V flag, no A flag). COG [64] and KEGG [65] annotations were derived from the EggNOG mapper and DRAM-V results. vConTACT v2.0 [66] with default settings were used to cluster the four viral genomes together with the sequences from the “ProkaryoticViralRefSeq207-Merged” to generate Viral Clusters (VCs) and determine the genus-level taxonomy of the viral genomes.
Relationships between the four isolated phages and reference genomes were analyzed using nucleic acid-based intergenomic similarities calculated with VIRIDIC (Virus Intergenomic Distance Calculator) v1.0r3.6 using default settings [67]. VIRIDIC identifies intergenomic nucleotide similarities between viruses using BLASTN pairwise comparisons and organizes viruses into clusters (genera ≥ 70% similarities and species ≥ 95% similarities). These cut-offs assign viruses into ranks following the ICTV genome identity thresholds. The reference genomes were selected based on the results of the gene-sharing network analysis where the four isolated phages clustered with viruses from the Prokaryotic Viral RefSeq Database. Genome-based phylogeny and classification of the four isolated viruses together with the same reference prokaryotic viruses were performed using the VICTOR web service (Virus Classification and Tree Building Online Resource). VICTOR is a Genome-BLAST Distance Phylogeny (GBDP) method that computes pairwise comparisons of the amino acid sequences (including 100 pseudo-bootstrap replicates) and uses them to infer a balanced minimum evolution tree with branch support via FASTME, including subtree pruning and regrafting postprocessing [68] for each of the formulas D0, D4, and D6, respectively. Trees were rooted at the midpoint [69] and visualized with ggtree [70]. The OPTSIL algorithm [71], the suggested clustering thresholds [72], and an F-value (fraction of linkages necessary for cluster fusion) of 0.5 were used to estimate taxon boundaries at the species, genus, and family levels for prokaryotic viruses [73]. The position and annotation of predicted viral genes in the phage genomes were visualized using Clinker v0.0.27 [74]. Isolated viruses were compared and visualized to the closest related species determined based on intergenomic similarity analysis. Clinker generates global alignments of amino acid sequences based on the BLOSUM62 substitution matrix. A 0.5 identity threshold was used to display the alignments. The complete phage genome sequences (assemblies) are available at NCBI under accession numbers OP902292–OP902295. Raw sequence reads were deposited on the Sequence Read Archive (SRA) under BioProject PRJNA908753 and accession numbers SRR22580853, SRR22580850, SRR22580849, and SRR22580845.

3. Results

Bacteriophages were isolated from the Baltic Sea water. Four novel phages infecting bacterial colonizers of the Cnidarian moon jellyfish A. aurita were identified and characterized.

3.1. Isolation of Bacteriophages from Baltic Seawater Targeting Marine Bacteria Associated with A. aurita

Seawater samples from the Kiel fjord (Baltic Sea) were used for phage enrichments with a pool of 55 different bacteria associated with A. aurita. The bacteria chosen were previously described [22] and represent a diverse set of abundant species associated with A. aurita, possessing varying forms, colors, and colony morphologies (Table 1, [21]). One virulent phage targeting Pseudomonas sp. (isolate No. 8, MK967010.1), one targeting Citrobacter freundii (isolate No. 6, OQ398153), and two phages targeting Citrobacter sp. (isolate No. 7, OQ398154) were isolated. Those bacteriophages were designated as Pseudomonas phage BSwM KMM1, Citrobacter phage BSwM KMM2, Citrobacter phage BSwS KMM3, and Citrobacter phage BSwM KMM4. In the following, phage designations are abbreviated to KMM1–KMM4.

3.2. Plaque and Virion Morphology Assign the Phages to the Class of Caudoviricetes

The identified virulent bacteriophages KMM1 (Pseudomonas phage), KMM2 (Citrobacter freundii phage), KMM3 and KMM4 (Citrobacter sp. phages) formed clear plaques with well-defined boundaries when infecting the respective host–bacterial strain after 16 h of incubation at 30 °C. Notably, infection with KMM3 resulted in a clear center and a turbid surrounding halo (Figure 1A and Table 3). Lysis plaques were further differentiated by halo size. Phages KMM1, KMM2, and KMM4 generated plaques with a diameter varying between 0.8 mm and 1.2 mm, while KMM3 showed plaques with a diameter of 3 mm (Figure 1A and Table 3).
Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) images revealed a pre-classification of all phages to the class of Caudoviricetes, characterized by long tails with a collar, base plates with short spikes, six long kinked tail fibers, and isometric heads (Figure 1 and Figure S1). Imaging further indicated that all phages could be assigned to the class of Caudoviricetes. KMM1, KMM2, and KMM4 showed long contractile tails typical for Myovirus-like phages, while KMM3 displayed a long non-contractile tail characteristic for Siphovirus-like phages (Figure 1, Table 3, and Figure S2). The width of the phage heads of KMM2, KMM3, and KMM4 ranged from 50 ± 1.9 nm to 58.2 ± 2.7 nm. The tail length was similar for KMM2 and KMM4, with an average length of 90.7 ± 4.2 nm, while the tail length of KMM3 was 131.7 ± 9.3 nm. Phage KMM1 was the largest of the isolated phages, with a head width of 75.8 ± 3 nm and a tail length of 176.4 ± 8.4 nm (Table 3).

3.3. Phages KMM1, KMM2, and KMM4 Have a Shorter Lytic Cycle Than Phage KMM3

To assess each phage’s capacity for infection, one-step growth curves were conducted with the respective host strains in an MB medium at 30 °C for 120 min in three independent biological replicates (Figure 2). The adsorption rate and constant k were calculated within 5 min of adsorption time, resulting in 99% of already adsorbed phage particles after 5 min leading to an adsorption constant ranging between 1.08 × 10−7 and 8.70 × 10−8 (Table 4). The calculated values for latent time and burst size are displayed in Table 3. KMM1 and KMM2 each showed an approximately 20 min latent period resulting in a burst size of 55 pfu/cell after 100 min (KMM1), while KMM2 released an average yield of 280 pfu/cell after 110 min. KMM4 infection resulted in a prolonged latent period of 30 min leading to 120 released phages (pfu/cell) after 100 min. KMM3 showed the most extended latent period with 45 min and was characterized by a burst size of 60 pfu/cell, reached after 90 min.

3.4. KMM1 Is a Powerful Broad-Host-Range Phage, Whereas KMM2, KMM3, and KMM4 Are Narrow-Host-Range Phages

The KMM1 phage was initially found to infect Pseudomonas sp., while KMM2, KMM3, and KMM4 were shown to infect Citrobacter spp., which are phylogenetically classified in the Pseudomonadaceae and Enterobacteriaceae, respectively. The host range of the phages was determined by spot assays on 43 strains (Table 1, column “Use in the study”, category “Host range”) belonging to the same genera, Pseudomonas and Citrobacter.
Furthermore, phages were tested against representatives of Shewanellaceae and Rhodobacteraceae of phylum Proteobacteria, Staphylococcaceae and Streptococcaceae of Bacilli, and Chryseobacterium, Olleya, and Maribacter of the abundant class of Flavobacteriia present in the A. aurita-associated microbiota. Bacterial sensitivity to a given bacteriophage was evaluated based on the occurrence of a lysis halo. Additionally, the respective phage efficiency of plating (EOP) was determined with those bacteria showing lysis in the spot tests. EOP for each host bacterium was calculated by comparing it with a score of 109 pfu/mL obtained for the original host infection. As shown by the heatmap in Figure 3, KMM1 infects, in addition to the primary host, two strains of Pseudomonas, one Shewanella strain also belonging to Gamma-Proteobacteria, one Sulfitobacter strain belonging to Alpha-Proteobacteria, and 14 strains of the Gram-positive family Staphylococcaceae, two of them with a slightly higher EOP. The phages KMM2, KMM3, and KMM4 showed comparable and narrow host ranges within the genus Citrobacter. However, the observed phage titres and EOP were different as indicated by the color coding dependent on the value (Figure 3). Phages KMM2 and KMM4 were further able to infect the Enterobacteriaceae bacterium Shigella flexneri. In contrast, phage KMM3 infected two Escherichia coli strains of Enterobacteriaceae. The phages infected none of the Flavobacteriia representatives.

3.5. Novel Phage Species Confirmed by Genome Sequencing Analysis

The viral genomes of the highly effective virulent phages were sequenced using Nanopore technology. Complete phage genomes were assembled (NCBI Accession Nos. OP902292-OP902295) from Nanopore long reads of the double-stranded DNA. Table 2 summarizes the key information regarding sequencing, assembly, and annotation. Three of the four viral genomes were assigned “high-quality” (>90% completeness), while phage KMM2 was assigned as “complete” due to the presence of direct terminal repeats (DTR), which may indicate a circular genome. KMM1 has a 137 kbp genome with a GC content of 31%, while KMM2 and KMM4 showed genome sizes of approx. 87 kbp bp with an average GC content of 39%. The KMM3 genome was found to be the smallest, with 49 kbp but with the highest GC content of 43%. In total, 259 putative ORFs were predicted in the genome of phage KMM1, 137 and 138 ORFs were predicted in KMM2 and KMM4 genomes, respectively, and 92 ORFs in the KMM3 genome (Table 2). Phages were clustered into species and higher-order groups to investigate phage genomic diversity and identify closely related groups of phages. Viral Clusters (VCs) and genus-level taxonomy of the four isolated and sequenced viral genomes were generated (Table S1). VICTOR (based on pairwise whole genome distance comparisons) was used to compare 96 previously described viral taxa with the phage genomes of KMM1–KMM4. The results indicated that the four identified phages belong to three different ranks within the class Caudoviricetes, as they are grouped into three different clades in the phylogenetic tree (Figure 4, Table S1). More precisely, based on the latest ICTV classification framework, the four phages are assigned to the phylum Uroviricota. KMM1 assignment was resolved until the family Herelleviridae. KMM2 and KMM4 were classified until the genus level Suspvirus, belonging to the subfamily Ounavirinae. KMM3 belongs to the Drexlerviridae family, Tempevirinae subfamily, and subclusters into the genera Hicfunavirus and Tlsvirus due to gene homologies to both genera. Based on VICTOR and vConTACT2 analysis, the four isolated phages belong to four predicted genera and three species (Figure 4; Table S1). VIRIDIC (Virus Intergenomic Distance Calculator) was used to determine the pairwise intergenomic similarities between the phage genomes characterized in this work compared to reference genomes. The intergenomic analysis provided evidence that the isolated viral genomes are four novel species (Figure S2, Table S1).
Although experimental results revealed four different phages; genome analyses using VICTOR and VIRIDIC resulted in contrasting statements. Both programs confirmed that KMM1 and KMM3 are novel species. However, those analyses did not determine whether KMM2 and KMM4 were one or two species or whether they were novel. In the next step, genomes were annotated and compared to their best homologs (Figure 5). Open reading frames (ORFs) were identified, encoding basic phage-related functions, including phage DNA metabolic proteins, phage structural proteins, lysis-related proteins, and hypothetical proteins (Figure 5 and Table S2). Genome annotations of KMM2 and KMM4 showed minor differences in their direct comparison, such as the length of genes and the presence or absence of specific genes (Figure 5B), suggesting that these are two different and novel phages, verifying phage genome analysis using VIRIDIC.
In summary, four new phages from the Baltic Sea water column were identified and characterized that efficiently and effectively infect Pseudomonas and Citrobacter bacteria, members of the complex microbiota of the moon jellyfish A. aurita. Particularly, phage KMM1 is a highly virulent, efficient phage infecting Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacterial species of genera Pseudomonas and Staphylococcus.

4. Discussion

Viruses are found in all habitats on Earth [75], but their importance is probably most evident in the ocean, where they are considered a source of diversity in genetic variation [76,77,78]. Estimates suggest that phage numbers are tenfold higher than those of bacteria in the ocean, with phage particle estimates of 1023, resulting in turnover rates of 1025 infections and lysis events per second in the ocean impacting nutrient cycling [79,80]. The relative proportions of virulent and temperate phages vary depending on various environmental factors, such as temperature, salinity, and nutrient availability [81,82]. In general, virulent phages tend to dominate in nutrient-rich environments with high microbial diversity and abundance and are thus more prevalent in surface waters, while temperate phages are more prevalent in nutrient-poor environments in deeper (oligotrophic) waters [83]. For instance, in the Baltic Sea, it has previously been demonstrated that virulent viruses are more common in surface waters, whereas lysogeny predominates in deep marine waters [77,84]. Lytic representatives of Siphovirus-like (52%), Myovirus-like (42%), and Podovirus-like (6%) phages of the Caudoviricetes class were consistent in the surface water throughout all seasons within the Baltic Sea [84,85,86,87]. Those phages can have several roles particularly in the microbiomes of marine animals and plants, e.g., to maintain a healthy microbiome and prevent the spread of diseases [24,88,89,90]. Further, phages appear responsible for several diseases that harm corals and their symbionts [91,92,93,94]. Besides, phages promote the evolution of new traits or the acquisition of beneficial genes within a microbiome by mediating horizontal gene transfer between bacteria by transduction [95,96]. Lastly, the impact mentioned above on nutrient cycling in marine ecosystems by breaking down bacterial cells and releasing nutrients into the environment can have important implications for marine organisms’ overall health and productivity [97]. Although the role of Cnidarian bacterial communities has already been intensively investigated [22,98,99,100], the impact of (virulent) phages on Cnidarian and particularly on A. aurita’s bacterial colonizers has yet only rarely been studied. However, different Hydra species have been shown to harbor a diverse host-associated virome predominated by bacteriophages [39,101,102]. Changes in environmental conditions altered the associated virome, increased viral diversity, and affected the metabolism of the metaorganism [102]. The specificity and dynamics of the virome point to a potential viral involvement in regulating microbial associations in the Hydra metaorganism [101].
In this study, four phages (Pseudomonas phage KMM1, Citrobacter phages KMM2, KMM3, and KMM4) were isolated from the Baltic Sea water column (Kiel fjord) surrounding A. aurita individuals by a cultivation-based approach, infecting previously isolated bacteria, Pseudomonas and Citrobacter, both present in the associated microbiota of A. aurita [21,22]. Both genera, Pseudomonas and Citrobacter, are Gram-negative bacteria widely distributed in marine environments, including seawater, sediments, and marine eukaryotes [103,104,105,106]. Pseudomonas species play a critical role in the marine nitrogen cycle, as they are capable of nitrogen fixation and denitrification [107]. While less is known about Citrobacter-specific ecological roles in marine environments, it can cycle degrading organic matter [108]. Both Pseudomonas and Citrobacter are opportunistic pathogens that can cause infections in marine multicellular organisms [103,104,109]. However, they are likewise considered essential players in maintaining the health and balance of marine ecosystems [110,111]. Consequently, virulent phages infecting those bacteria might disturb the ecosystem and metaorganism homeostasis. Bacteriophages that infect Pseudomonas and Citrobacter have been identified in marine environments, and they may play essential roles in regulating the abundance and activity of these bacteria [82,108,109]. For example, bacteriophages that infect Pseudomonas can control its population size and limit its ability to degrade organic matter, significantly impacting nutrient cycling in marine ecosystems [112,113]. Similarly, bacteriophages that infect Citrobacter can reduce the abundance of this bacterium and thus limit its ability to colonize and persist in marine environments, potentially reducing the risk of animal diseases and human exposure to this pathogen, e.g., through seafood consumption [103,114,115].
Phages KMM1, KMM2, and KMM4 showed a clear, roundish plaque morphology, as previously described for most Caudoviricetes with long contractile tails (formerly known as Myovirus-like phages) [116]. Phage KMM3, on the other hand, showed larger plaques with a clear center surrounded by a turbid halo, commonly referred to as a “bull’s eye” plaque [117,118]. The clear halo in the plaque’s center represents the phage’s lytic activity. The turbid ring surrounding the clear halo is formed by accumulating uninfected or partially infected host bacterial cells. These cells can resist phage infection (acquired resistance, defense systems) or have only been partially infected, potentially based on the aging of the bacterial lawn (non-infective after log phase), associated increases in the size of microcolonies making up the bacterial lawn, or because of less general phenomena such as the lysis inhibition phenotype [51,119]. However, it is important to note that phage plaque morphology can vary depending on the specific phage–host system and experimental conditions [120,121].
KMM1 reflects a broad host range phage capable of infecting a wide range of bacterial hosts, whereas KMM2/3/4 reflect narrow host range phages, infecting only a limited number of bacterial strains or species [80,122]. Remarkably, KMM1 efficiently infects Gram-negative Pseudomonas strains as well as a variety of strains of various Gram-positive Staphylococcus species. Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria differ in cell walls and membrane characteristics [123,124]. Gram-positive bacteria have thick multilayered peptidoglycan in their cell envelope, while Gram-negative bacteria’s cell walls have only a thin layer of peptidoglycan covered by an outer membrane. Consequently, phages require strain-, species-, or even higher-order-specific characteristics for bacteria recognition, attachment, and lysis. Phages usually use their tail fibers or spikes to recognize and attach to specific receptors on the bacterial cell wall of Gram-negatives, such as lipopolysaccharides (LPS) or outer membrane proteins [125,126]. The tail fibers or spikes bind to these receptors through specific interactions, which can be highly selective. Gram-positive bacteria are likewise precisely recognized and infected by teichoic acids or other surface proteins [127,128,129]. Moreover, phages replicate differently inside their host cells, depending on the bacterial structures. Gram-negative-specific phages enter the host cell by injecting their genetic material directly into the cytoplasm, where it replicates and assembles new phage particles [130]. In contrast, Gram-positive phages usually enter the host cell by binding to receptors on the host surface, replicating and assembling new phage particles in the cytoplasm [131,132]. To the best of our knowledge, only a few characterized phages in the marine environment have such a broad host range as the phage KMM1. However, four characterized phages are already isolated from activated sludge samples, and one phage identified from a freshwater sample capable of infecting both types [133,134,135]. We can only speculate that KMM1 might recognize and bind to conserved structural components of bacterial cells. KMM1 might have evolved in the marine environment due to the frequent presence of Pseudomonas and Staphylococcus, allowing recognition and infection of a wide range of bacterial hosts. Potentially, KMM1 prefers the highly abundant Pseudomonas as a host, but it can also infect Staphylococcus under certain, possibly stressful, environmental conditions that promote Staphylococcus abundance. Genome analysis of KMM1 supports the experimentally collected data, i.e., that it is capable of infecting both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. In this respect, we identified several features within the KMM1 genome indicative of Gram-negative bacteria infection, such as Pseudomonas. In more detail, we identified YbiA-like superfamily proteins (IPR037238) derived from various Gram-negative bacteria (Table S2), such as E. coli K-12 [136], and Pseudomonas, suggesting the infection of Gram-negative bacteria. Similarly, the invasin/intimin cell-adhesion domain (IPR008964) was found in the phage genome, common in phages that infect Gram-negative bacteria such as Erwinia [137]. In contrast, we further identified the CHAP (cysteine, histidine-dependent amidohydrolase/peptidase) domain (IPR007921) in the KMM1 genome. This domain has been shown to be specifically responsible for the major catalytic activity of the endolysin in degrading cell wall peptidoglycan of staphylococci, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus [138,139,140]. Future studies will reveal more insights into the complex attachment and infection mechanisms of phage KMM1 and disclose the underlying mechanisms of its broad host range.
All phages identified in this study showed effective and efficient lysis of Pseudomonas and Citrobacter by fast and effective binding of the phage to the host cells, short latency periods, and high burst sizes (Table 3 and Table 4). Those characteristics are important features affecting natural microbiomes and relevant for potential therapeutic applications. Phage therapy uses intact natural phages or phage compounds to treat bacterial infections [141]. Due to the growing number of antibiotic-resistant bacterial species and the ban on the use of antibiotics in the aquatic environment [78,142,143,144], the interest in phage therapy particularly for aquaculture increased during the last few decades [145,146,147]. Phage therapy relies on extraordinary qualities of phages, including host specificity, self-replication, wide distribution, and safety [43,141,146,148]. Since phages are a natural way of managing bacterial infections, their usage does not contribute to the development of antibiotic resistance or the deposition of harmful residues in the environment. Finally, phages are versatile since they may be used alone or in cooperation with antibiotics or other therapies to improve their potency against bacterial infections. These features are entirely applicable in aquaculture, where traditional approaches to deal with pathogenic bacteria, such as antibiotics, are impossible [114,115]. Particularly the identified broad host range bacteriophage KMM1 targets various bacteria, increasing its convenience in aquaculture where different bacterial species can cause infections [43]. KMM1’s high infectivity rate can quickly and effectively reduce bacterial populations, limiting the spread of infection. This phage’s stability, safety, and cost-effective production under different environmental conditions, such as pH and temperature, must be tested for potential use as an effective alternative to antibiotics in controlling bacterial infections in aquaculture.
Lastly, our study demonstrated that phage research methods are still in their infancy, although several benchmarking studies on genomic and seasonal variation and diversity of tailed phages in the Baltic Sea were already published [84,85]. Bioinformatics tools specifically developed explicitly for phages still lag behind similar tools used in bacterial research [149,150,151]. However, some improved tools in recent years include Phaster, a web-based tool for identifying and annotating phage sequences in bacterial genomes and predicting their completeness [152]. VirSorter, VirFinder, and Phage AI implement machine learning to identify viral sequences in metagenomic datasets, distinguish between viral genomes, plasmids, and transposons, and predict phage host ranges and other characteristics [153,154]. In the present study, we used VICTOR for pairwise distance-based comparisons of the whole genome, vConTACT2 to determine the genus-level taxonomy of viral genomes, and VIRIDIC for calculating the intergenomic distance of viruses. The results obtained on species assignment of KMM2 and KMM4 using VICTOR and vConTACT2 demonstrate that phage softwares result in contrasting statements and must be improved. Using VICTOR and vConTACT2 did not allow for the differentiation of highly similar phages. Experimental data on differences within the lytic cycle and host range (Figure 2 and Figure 3), in combination with genome annotation, pointed to different species assignments of KMM2 and KMM4 (Figure 5). However, by improving estimates of phage genome similarity, particularly for distantly related phages, analyzing datasets including thousands of phage genomes, and creating an informative heatmap that includes not only the similarity values but also information about the genome lengths and aligned genome fraction, VIRIDIC finally confirmed taxonomic rank assignments (Figure S2 and Table S1).
In summary, the present study describes the identification and characterization of four novel bacteriophages. The broad-host-range phage KMM1 infects members of genera Pseudomonas and Staphylococcus. Likely, KMM1 adapted its attachment and infection mechanisms through co-evolution with its bacterial hosts. Phages KMM2–4 infect Citrobacter and close relatives of Enterobacteriaceae, thus possessing a narrow host range. Although all identified phages demonstrated effective and efficient virulent properties relevant for phage application, future studies on the impact of those phages on the native microbiome of the moon jellyfish A. aurita, a model in metaorganism research, are of particular interest. Such studies may provide insights into the complex interdependence of phages and their bacterial hosts and how these relationships affect microbiomes to investigate the impact on the eukaryotic host A. aurita. It is conceivable that the infection of A. aurita with phages KMM1–4 might cause substantial changes in the bacterial community, potentially disrupting the multicellular host’s homeostasis. Even assuming that the phages impact A. aurita’s microbiome structure, it may be that the eukaryotic host has mechanisms to maintain its homeostasis. Future studies will focus on the characterization of attachment and infection mechanisms, particularly of phage KMM1, and the impact of the identified phages on the microbiome and, consequently, the health of A. aurita.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/v15071525/s1, Figure S1. Transmission electron microscopy micrographs of isolated phages KMM1–KMM4. Figure S2. Intergenomic similarities of phages KMM1–KMM4. Table S1. Details on phage homologs used for phylogenetic classification of KMM1–KMM4. Table S2. Annotation of phage genomes KMM1–KMM4.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.A.S. and N.W.-B.; methodology, M.S.; investigation, M.S.; formal analysis, M.S.; microscopy and micrographs analysis, U.R. and M.B.; bioinformatics analysis, C.M.C. and A.W.; writing—original draft preparation, M.S., N.W.-B. and R.A.S.; writing—review and editing, all authors; supervision, N.W.-B. and R.A.S.; project administration, R.A.S.; funding acquisition, R.A.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was conducted with the financial support of the DFG-funded Collaborative Research Center CRC1182 “Origin and Function of Metaorganisms” within the B2.1 Schmitz–Streit project.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The phage genomes are available at NCBI under the accession numbers OP902294: Pseudomonas phage BSwM KMM1, OP902295: Citrobacter phage BSwM KMM2, OP902292: Citrobacter phage BSwS KMM3, and OP902293: Citrobacter phage BSwM KMM4. Sequences were deposited on the Sequence Read Archive (SRA) under BioProject PRJNA908753 and raw sequence accession numbers SRR22580853, SRR22580850, SRR22580849, and SRR22580845. Bacterial sequence data derived from Sanger sequencing of the 16S rRNA genes of bacterial isolates is deposited under GenBank accession numbers OQ397638–OQ397653, OQ398153–OQ398172.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Institute of Clinical Molecular Biology in Kiel, Germany, for providing Sanger sequencing.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study, in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data, in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Salmond, G.P.; Fineran, P.C. A century of the phage: Past, present and future. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2015, 13, 777–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Batinovic, S.; Wassef, F.; Knowler, S.A.; Rice, D.T.; Stanton, C.R.; Rose, J.; Tucci, J.; Nittami, T.; Vinh, A.; Drummond, G.R.; et al. Bacteriophages in natural and artificial environments. Pathogens 2019, 8, 100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Hobbs, Z.; Abedon, S.T. Diversity of phage infection types and associated terminology: The problem with ‘Lytic or lysogenic’. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2016, 363, fnw047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Węgrzyn, G. Should bacteriophages be classified as parasites or predators? Pol. J. Microbiol. 2022, 71, 3–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Bertani, G. Studies on lysogenesis I: The mode of phage liberation by lysogenic Escherichia coli. J. Bacteriol. 1951, 62, 293–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Lwoff, A. Lysogeny. Bacteriol. Rev. 1953, 17, 269–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Siddell, S.G.; Smith, D.B.; Adriaenssens, E.; Alfenas-Zerbini, P.; Dutilh, B.E.; Garcia, M.L.; Junglen, S.; Krupovic, M.; Kuhn, J.H.; Lambert, A.J.; et al. Virus taxonomy and the role of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV). J. Gen. Virol. 2023, 104, 001840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Turner, D.; Shkoporov, A.N.; Lood, C.; Millard, A.D.; Dutilh, B.E.; Alfenas-Zerbini, P.; van Zyl, L.J.; Aziz, R.K.; Oksanen, H.M.; Poranen, M.M.; et al. Abolishment of morphology-based taxa and change to binomial species names: 2022 taxonomy update of the ICTV bacterial viruses subcommittee. Arch. Virol. 2023, 168, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Zhu, Y.; Shang, J.; Peng, C.; Sun, Y. Phage family classification under Caudoviricetes: A review of current tools using the latest ICTV classification framework. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 1032186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zerbini, F.M.; Siddell, S.G.; Lefkowitz, E.J.; Mushegian, A.R.; Adriaenssens, E.M.; Alfenas-Zerbini, P.; Dempsey, D.M.; Dutilh, B.E.; García, M.L.; Hendrickson, R.C.; et al. Changes to virus taxonomy and the ICTV Statutes ratified by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. Arch. Virol. 2023, 168, 175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Welsh, R.M.; Zaneveld, J.R.; Rosales, S.M.; Payet, J.P.; Burkepile, D.E.; Thurber, R.V. Bacterial predation in a marine host-associated microbiome. ISME J. 2016, 10, 1540–1544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Adair, K.L.; Douglas, A.E. Making a microbiome: The many determinants of host-associated microbial community composition. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2017, 35, 23–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Parfrey, L.W.; Moreau, C.S.; Russell, J.A. Introduction: The host-associated microbiome: Pattern, process and function. Mol. Ecol. 2018, 27, 1749–1765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Greenspan, S.E.; Migliorini, G.H.; Lyra, M.L.; Pontes, M.R.; Carvalho, T.; Ribeiro, L.P.; Moura-Campos, D.; Haddad, C.F.; Toledo, L.F.; Romero, G.Q.; et al. Warming drives ecological community changes linked to host-associated microbiome dysbiosis. Nat. Clim. Change 2020, 10, 1057–1061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Jaspers, C.; Fraune, S.; Arnold, A.E.; Miller, D.J.; Bosch, T.C.; Voolstra, C.R. Resolving structure and function of metaorganisms through a holistic framework combining reductionist and integrative approaches. Zoology 2019, 133, 81–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ainsworth, T.D.; Renzi, J.J.; Silliman, B.R. Positive interactions in the coral macro and microbiome. Trends Microbiol. 2020, 28, 602–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ley, R.E.; Lozupone, C.A.; Hamady, M.; Knight, R.; Gordon, J.I. Worlds within worlds: Evolution of the vertebrate gut microbiota. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2008, 6, 776–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Bang, C.; Dagan, T.; Deines, P.; Dubilier, N.; Duschl, W.J.; Fraune, S.; Hentschel, U.; Hirt, H.; Hülter, N.; Lachnit, T.; et al. Metaorganisms in extreme environments: Do microbes play a role in organismal adaptation? Zoology 2018, 127, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Esser, D.; Lange, J.; Marinos, G.; Sieber, M.; Best, L.; Prasse, D.; Bathia, J.; Rühlemann, M.C.; Boersch, K.; Jaspers, C.; et al. Functions of the microbiota for the physiology of animal metaorganisms. J. Innate Immun. 2019, 11, 393–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. He, J.; Lange, J.; Marinos, G.; Bathia, J.; Harris, D.; Soluch, R.; Vaibhvi, V.; Deines, P.; Hassani, M.; Wagner, K.-S.; et al. Advancing our functional understanding of host–microbiota interactions: A need for new types of studies. BioEssays 2020, 42, 1900211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Weiland-Bräuer, N.; Neulinger, S.C.; Pinnow, N.; Künzel, S.; Baines, J.F.; Schmitz, R.A. Composition of bacterial communities associated with Aurelia aurita changes with compartment, life stage, and population. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2015, 81, 6038–6052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Weiland-Bräuer, N.; Prasse, D.; Brauer, A.; Jaspers, C.; Reusch, T.B.; Schmitz, R.A. Cultivable microbiota associated with Aurelia aurita and Mnemiopsis leidyi. MicrobiologyOpen 2020, 9, e1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Weiland-Bräuer, N.; Pinnow, N.; Langfeldt, D.; Roik, A.; Güllert, S.; Chibani, C.M.; Reusch, T.B.; Schmitz, R.A. The native microbiome is crucial for offspring generation and fitness of Aurelia aurita. MBio 2020, 11, e02336-20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Mirzaei, M.K.; Maurice, C.F. Ménage à trois in the human gut: Interactions between host, bacteria and phages. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2017, 15, 397–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Zuppi, M.; Hendrickson, H.L.; O’Sullivan, J.M.; Vatanen, T. Phages in the gut ecosystem. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2022, 11, 1348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Canchaya, C.; Proux, C.; Fournous, G.; Bruttin, A.; Brüssow, H. Prophage genomics. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2003, 67, 238–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Howard-Varona, C.; Hargreaves, K.R.; Abedon, S.T.; Sullivan, M.B. Lysogeny in nature: Mechanisms, impact and ecology of temperate phages. ISME J. 2017, 11, 1511–1520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Pfeifer, E.; Bonnin, R.A.; Rocha, E.P. Phage-Plasmids spread antibiotic resistance genes through infection and lysogenic conversion. MBio 2022, 13, e0185122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Tuttle, M.J.; Buchan, A. Lysogeny in the oceans: Lessons from cultivated model systems and a reanalysis of its prevalence. Environ. Microbiol. 2020, 22, 4919–4933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Thompson, L.R.; Zeng, Q.; Kelly, L.; Huang, K.H.; Singer, A.U.; Stubbe, J.; Chisholm, S.W. Phage auxiliary metabolic genes and the redirection of cyanobacterial host carbon metabolism. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, E757–E764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Abedon, S.T.; LeJeune, J.T. Why bacteriophage encode exotoxins and other virulence factors. Evol. Bioinform. 2005, 1, 117693430500100001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Miller-Ensminger, T.; Garretto, A.; Brenner, J.; Thomas-White, K.; Zambom, A.; Wolfe, A.J.; Putonti, C. Bacteriophages of the urinary microbiome. J. Bacteriol. 2018, 200, e00738-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Kirsch, J.M.; Brzozowski, R.S.; Faith, D.; Round, J.L.; Secor, P.R.; Duerkop, B.A. Bacteriophage-bacteria interactions in the gut: From invertebrates to mammals. Annu. Rev. Virol. 2021, 8, 95–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Zhou, K.; Xu, Y.; Zhang, R.; Qian, P.-Y. Phages associated with animal holobionts in deep-sea hydrothermal vents and cold seeps. Deep. Sea Res. Part I Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 2022, 190, 103900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Schmittmann, L.; Jahn, M.T.; Pita, L.; Hentschel, U. Decoding cellular dialogues between sponges, bacteria, and phages. In Cellular Dialogues in the Holobiont; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2020; pp. 49–63. [Google Scholar]
  36. Lynch, J.B.; Bennett, B.D.; Merrill, B.D.; Ruby, E.G.; Hryckowian, A.J. Independent host-and bacterium-based determinants protect a model symbiosis from phage predation. Cell Rep. 2022, 38, 110376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Benler, S.; Yutin, N.; Antipov, D.; Rayko, M.; Shmakov, S.; Gussow, A.B.; Pevzner, P.; Koonin, E.V. Thousands of previously unknown phages discovered in whole-community human gut metagenomes. Microbiome 2021, 9, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Casas, V.; Rohwer, F. Phage metagenomics. Methods Enzymol. 2007, 421, 259–268. [Google Scholar]
  39. Deines, P.; Lachnit, T.; Bosch, T.C. Competing forces maintain the Hydra metaorganism. Immunol. Rev. 2017, 279, 123–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Federici, S.; Nobs, S.P.; Elinav, E. Phages and their potential to modulate the microbiome and immunity. Cell. Mol. Immunol. 2021, 18, 889–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hyman, P.; Abedon, S.T. Practical Methods for Determining Phage Growth Parameters; Humana Press: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 175–202. [Google Scholar]
  42. Jofre, J.; Muniesa, M. Bacteriophage Isolation and Characterization: Phages of Escherichia coli; Humana Press: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 61–79. [Google Scholar]
  43. Hyman, P. Phages for phage therapy: Isolation, characterization, and host range breadth. Pharmaceuticals 2019, 12, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Hubot, N.D.; Giering, S.L.; Füssel, J.; Robidart, J.; Birchill, A.; Stinchcombe, M.; Dumousseaud, C.; Lucas, C.H. Evidence of nitrification associated with globally distributed pelagic jellyfish. Limnol. Oceanogr. 2021, 66, 2159–2173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ceh, J.; Gonzalez, J.; Pacheco, A.S.; Riascos, J.M. The elusive life cycle of scyphozoan jellyfish–metagenesis revisited. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 12037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Jensen, N.; Weiland-Bräuer, N.; Joel, S.; Chibani, C.M.; Schmitz, R.A. Asexual reproduction of Aurelia aurita depends on the presence of a balanced microbiome at polyp stage; Research Square: Durham, NC, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hanahan, D. Studies on transformation of Escherichia coli with plasmids. J. Mol. Biol. 1983, 166, 557–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Zavaleta, A.I.; Martinez-Murcia, A.J.; Rodríguez-Valera, F. 16S–23S rDNA intergenic sequences indicate that Leuconostoc oenos is phylogenetically homogeneous. Microbiology 1996, 142, 2105–2114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Cormier, J.; Janes, M. A double layer plaque assay using spread plate technique for enumeration of bacteriophage MS2. J. Virol. Methods 2014, 196, 86–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Pires, D.P.; Vilas Boas, D.; Sillankorva, S.; Azeredo, J. Phage therapy: A step forward in the treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections. J. Virol. 2015, 89, 7449–7456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Tzipilevich, E.; Pollak-Fiyaksel, O.; Shraiteh, B.; Ben-Yehuda, S. Bacteria elicit a phage tolerance response subsequent to infection of their neighbors. EMBO J. 2022, 41, e109247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Abedon, S.T.; Katsaounis, T.I. Basic Phage Mathematics; Humana Press: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 3–30. [Google Scholar]
  53. Zurabov, F.; Zhilenkov, E. Characterization of four virulent Klebsiella pneumoniae bacteriophages, and evaluation of their potential use in complex phage preparation. Virol. J. 2021, 18, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Nale, J.Y.; Spencer, J.; Hargreaves, K.R.; Buckley, A.M.; Trzepiński, P.; Douce, G.R.; Clokie, M.R. Bacteriophage combinations significantly reduce Clostridium difficile growth in vitro and proliferation in vivo. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2016, 60, 968–981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Fukasawa, Y.; Ermini, L.; Wang, H.; Carty, K.; Cheung, M.-S. LongQC: A quality control tool for third generation sequencing long read data. G3 Genes Genomes Genet. 2020, 10, 1193–1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Kolmogorov, M.; Yuan, J.; Lin, Y.; Pevzner, P.A. Assembly of long, error-prone reads using repeat graphs. Nat. Biotechnol. 2019, 37, 540–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Nayfach, S.; Camargo, A.P.; Schulz, F.; Eloe-Fadrosh, E.; Roux, S.; Kyrpides, N.C. CheckV assesses the quality and completeness of metagenome-assembled viral genomes. Nat. Biotechnol. 2021, 39, 578–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Seemann, T. Prokka: Rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics 2014, 30, 2068–2069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Cantalapiedra, C.P.; Hernández-Plaza, A.; Letunic, I.; Bork, P.; Huerta-Cepas, J. eggNOG-mapper v2: Functional annotation, orthology assignments, and domain prediction at the metagenomic scale. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2021, 38, 5825–5829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Huerta-Cepas, J.; Szklarczyk, D.; Heller, D.; Hernández-Plaza, A.; Forslund, S.K.; Cook, H.; Mende, D.R.; Letunic, I.; Rattei, T.; Jensen, L.J.; et al. eggNOG 5.0: A hierarchical, functionally and phylogenetically annotated orthology resource based on 5090 organisms and 2502 viruses. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019, 47, D309–D314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  61. Buchfink, B.; Reuter, K.; Drost, H.-G. Sensitive protein alignments at tree-of-life scale using DIAMOND. Nat. Methods 2021, 18, 366–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Shaffer, M.; Borton, M.A.; McGivern, B.B.; Zayed, A.A.; La Rosa, S.L.; Solden, L.M.; Liu, P.; Narrowe, A.B.; Rodríguez-Ramos, J.; Bolduc, B. DRAM for distilling microbial metabolism to automate the curation of microbiome function. Nucleic Acids Res. 2020, 48, 8883–8900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Guo, J.; Bolduc, B.; Zayed, A.A.; Varsani, A.; Dominguez-Huerta, G.; Delmont, T.O.; Pratama, A.A.; Gazitúa, M.C.; Vik, D.; Sullivan, M.B.; et al. VirSorter2: A multi-classifier, expert-guided approach to detect diverse DNA and RNA viruses. Microbiome 2021, 9, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Galperin, M.Y.; Makarova, K.S.; Wolf, Y.I.; Koonin, E.V. Expanded microbial genome coverage and improved protein family annotation in the COG database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015, 43, D261–D269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kanehisa, M.; Araki, M.; Goto, S.; Hattori, M.; Hirakawa, M.; Itoh, M.; Katayama, T.; Kawashima, S.; Okuda, S.; Tokimatsu, T.; et al. KEGG for linking genomes to life and the environment. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007, 36, D480–D484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Bin Jang, H.; Bolduc, B.; Zablocki, O.; Kuhn, J.H.; Roux, S.; Adriaenssens, E.M.; Brister, J.R.; Kropinski, A.M.; Krupovic, M.; Lavigne, R.; et al. Taxonomic assignment of uncultivated prokaryotic virus genomes is enabled by gene-sharing networks. Nat. Biotechnol. 2019, 37, 632–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  67. Moraru, C.; Varsani, A.; Kropinski, A.M. VIRIDIC—A novel tool to calculate the intergenomic similarities of prokaryote-infecting viruses. Viruses 2020, 12, 1268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Lefort, V.; Desper, R.; Gascuel, O. FastME 2.0: A comprehensive, accurate, and fast distance-based phylogeny inference program. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2015, 32, 2798–2800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  69. Farris, J.S. Estimating phylogenetic trees from distance matrices. Am. Nat. 1972, 106, 645–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Yu, G. Using ggtree to visualize data on tree-like structures. Curr. Protoc. Bioinform. 2020, 69, e96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Göker, M.; García-Blázquez, G.; Voglmayr, H.; Tellería, M.T.; Martín, M.P. Molecular taxonomy of phytopathogenic fungi: A case study in Peronospora. PLoS ONE 2009, 4, e6319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Meier-Kolthoff, J.P.; Göker, M. VICTOR: Genome-based phylogeny and classification of prokaryotic viruses. Bioinformatics 2017, 33, 3396–3404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Meier-Kolthoff, J.P.; Hahnke, R.L.; Petersen, J.; Scheuner, C.; Michael, V.; Fiebig, A.; Rohde, C.; Rohde, M.; Fartmann, B.; Goodwin, L.A.; et al. Complete genome sequence of DSM 30083 T, the type strain (U5/41 T) of Escherichia coli, and a proposal for delineating subspecies in microbial taxonomy. Stand. Genom. Sci. 2014, 9, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Gilchrist, C.L.; Chooi, Y.-H. Clinker & clustermap. js: Automatic generation of gene cluster comparison figures. Bioinformatics 2021, 37, 2473–2475. [Google Scholar]
  75. Abedon, S.T. Phages, Ecology, Evolution; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2008; Volume 15, pp. 1–28. [Google Scholar]
  76. Rousset, F.; Depardieu, F.; Miele, S.; Dowding, J.; Laval, A.-L.; Lieberman, E.; Garry, D.; Rocha, E.P.; Bernheim, A.; Bikard, D. Phages and their satellites encode hotspots of antiviral systems. Cell Host Microbe 2022, 30, 740–753.e745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Weinbauer, M.G.; Brettar, I.; Höfle, M.G. Lysogeny and virus-induced mortality of bacterioplankton in surface, deep, and anoxic marine waters. Limnol. Oceanogr. 2003, 48, 1457–1465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Broniewski, J.M.; Meaden, S.; Paterson, S.; Buckling, A.; Westra, E.R. The effect of phage genetic diversity on bacterial resistance evolution. ISME J. 2020, 14, 828–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  79. Jacquet, S.; Miki, T.; Noble, R.; Peduzzi, P.; Wilhelm, S. Viruses in aquatic ecosystems: Important advancements of the last 20 years and prospects for the future in the field of microbial oceanography and limnology. Adv. Oceanogr. Limnol. 2010, 1, 97–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Breitbart, M.; Bonnain, C.; Malki, K.; Sawaya, N.A. Phage puppet masters of the marine microbial realm. Nat. Microbiol. 2018, 3, 754–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Munn, C.B. Viruses as pathogens of marine organisms—From bacteria to whales. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U. K. 2006, 86, 453–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Zhang, Z.; Zhao, H.; Mou, S.; Nair, S.; Zhao, J.; Jiao, N.; Zhang, Y. Phage Infection Benefits Marine Diatom Phaeodactylum tricornutum by Regulating the Associated Bacterial Community. Microb. Ecol. 2022, 86, 144–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Warwick-Dugdale, J.; Buchholz, H.H.; Allen, M.J.; Temperton, B. Host-hijacking and planktonic piracy: How phages command the microbial high seas. Virol. J. 2019, 16, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  84. Jakubowska-Deredas, M.; Jurczak-Kurek, A.; Richert, M.; Łoś, M.; Narajczyk, M.; Wróbel, B. Diversity of tailed phages in Baltic Sea sediment: Large number of siphoviruses with extremely long tails. Res. Microbiol. 2012, 163, 292–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Nilsson, E.; Li, K.; Fridlund, J.; Šulčius, S.; Bunse, C.; Karlsson, C.M.; Lindh, M.; Lundin, D.; Pinhassi, J.; Holmfeldt, K. Genomic and seasonal variations among aquatic phages infecting the Baltic Sea gammaproteobacterium Rheinheimera sp. strain BAL341. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2019, 85, e01003–e01019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  86. Šulčius, S.; Holmfeldt, K. Viruses of microorganisms in the Baltic Sea: Current state of research and perspectives. Mar. Biol. Res. 2016, 12, 115–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Von Scheibner, M.; Herlemann, D.P.; Lewandowska, A.M.; Jürgens, K. Phyto-and bacterioplankton during early spring conditions in the Baltic Sea and response to short-term experimental warming. Front. Mar. Sci. 2018, 5, 231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Pratama, A.A.; Terpstra, J.; de Oliveria, A.L.M.; Salles, J.F. The role of rhizosphere bacteriophages in plant health. Trends Microbiol. 2020, 28, 709–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Brown, T.L.; Charity, O.J.; Adriaenssens, E.M. Ecological and functional roles of bacteriophages in contrasting environments: Marine, terrestrial and human gut. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2022, 70, 102229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Rolain, J.M.; Fancello, L.; Desnues, C.; Raoult, D. Bacteriophages as vehicles of the resistome in cystic fibrosis. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2011, 66, 2444–2447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Marhaver, K.L.; Edwards, R.A.; Rohwer, F. Viral communities associated with healthy and bleaching corals. Environ. Microbiol. 2008, 10, 2277–2286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Work, T.M.; Weatherby, T.M.; Landsberg, J.H.; Kiryu, Y.; Cook, S.M.; Peters, E.C. Viral-like particles are associated with endosymbiont pathology in Florida corals affected by stony coral tissue loss disease. Front. Mar. Sci. 2021, 8, 750658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Soffer, N.; Brandt, M.E.; Correa, A.; Smith, T.B.; Thurber, R.V. Potential role of viruses in white plague coral disease. ISME J. 2014, 8, 271–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Brüwer, J.D.; Voolstra, C.R. First insight into the viral community of the cnidarian model metaorganism Aiptasia using RNA-Seq data. PeerJ 2018, 6, e4449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Juhas, M.; Van Der Meer, J.R.; Gaillard, M.; Harding, R.M.; Hood, D.W.; Crook, D.W. Genomic islands: Tools of bacterial horizontal gene transfer and evolution. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2009, 33, 376–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Arnold, B.J.; Huang, I.-T.; Hanage, W.P. Horizontal gene transfer and adaptive evolution in bacteria. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2022, 20, 206–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Middelboe, M. Microbial Disease in the Sea: Effects of Viruses on Carbon and Nutrient Cycling; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  98. Tinta, T.; Kogovšek, T.; Malej, A.; Turk, V. Jellyfish modulate bacterial dynamic and community structure. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e39274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Lee, M.D.; Kling, J.D.; Araya, R.; Ceh, J. Jellyfish life stages shape associated microbial communities, while a core microbiome is maintained across all. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 1534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  100. Augustin, R.; Bosch, T.C. Cnidarian immunity: A tale of two barriers. In Invertebrate Immunity; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2010; pp. 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  101. Bosch, T.C.; Grasis, J.A.; Lachnit, T. Microbial ecology in Hydra: Why viruses matter. J. Microbiol. 2015, 53, 193–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Grasis, J.A.; Lachnit, T.; Anton-Erxleben, F.; Lim, Y.W.; Schmieder, R.; Fraune, S.; Franzenburg, S.; Insua, S.; Machado, G.; Haynes, M.; et al. Species-specific viromes in the ancestral holobiont Hydra. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e109952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  103. Tkachenko, H.; Buyun, L.; Terech-Majewska, E.; Osadowski, Z. Antibacterial activity of ethanolic leaf extracts obtained from various Ficus species (Moraceae) against the fish pathogen, Citrobacter freundii. J. Ecol. Prot. Coastline 2016, 20, 117–136. [Google Scholar]
  104. Lü, A.; Hu, X.; Zheng, L.; Zhu, A.; Cao, C.; Jiang, J. Isolation and characterization of Citrobacter spp. from the intestine of grass carp Ctenopharyngodon idellus. Aquaculture 2011, 313, 156–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Kimata, N.; Nishino, T.; Suzuki, S.; Kogure, K. Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated from marine environments in Tokyo Bay. Microb. Ecol. 2004, 47, 41–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Ravi, K.; García-Hidalgo, J.; Nöbel, M.; Gorwa-Grauslund, M.F.; Lidén, G. Biological conversion of aromatic monolignol compounds by a Pseudomonas isolate from sediments of the Baltic Sea. AMB Express 2018, 8, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  107. Zhang, M.; Li, A.; Yao, Q.; Wu, Q.; Zhu, H. Nitrogen removal characteristics of a versatile heterotrophic nitrifying-aerobic denitrifying bacterium, Pseudomonas bauzanensis DN13-1, isolated from deep-sea sediment. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 305, 122626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Gatidou, G.; Drakou, E.-M.; Vyrides, I. Assessment of Bilge Water Degradation by Isolated Citrobacter sp. and Two Indigenous Strains and Identification of Organic Content by GC-MS. Water 2022, 14, 1350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Thanigaivel, S.; Vijayakumar, S.; Gopinath, S.; Mukherjee, A.; Chandrasekaran, N.; Thomas, J. In vivo and in vitro antimicrobial activity of Azadirachta indica (Lin) against Citrobacter freundii isolated from naturally infected Tilapia (Oreochromis mossambicus). Aquaculture 2015, 437, 252–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Marinho, P.R.; Moreira, A.P.B.; Pellegrino, F.L.P.C.; Muricy, G.; Bastos, M.d.C.d.F.; Santos, K.R.N.d.; Giambiagi-deMarval, M.; Laport, M.S. Marine Pseudomonas putida: A potential source of antimicrobial substances against antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Memórias Do Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 2009, 104, 678–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  111. Sun, B.; Zhao, H.; Zhao, Y.; Tucker, M.E.; Han, Z.; Yan, H. Bio-precipitation of carbonate and phosphate minerals induced by the bacterium Citrobacter freundii ZW123 in an anaerobic environment. Minerals 2020, 10, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  112. Wommack, K.E.; Colwell, R.R. Virioplankton: Viruses in aquatic ecosystems. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2000, 64, 69–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  113. Knezevic, P.; Obreht, D.; Curcin, S.; Petrusic, M.; Aleksic, V.; Kostanjsek, R.; Petrovic, O. Phages of Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Response to environmental factors and in vitro ability to inhibit bacterial growth and biofilm formation. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2011, 111, 245–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Dy, R.L.; Rigano, L.A.; Fineran, P.C. Phage-based biocontrol strategies and their application in agriculture and aquaculture. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 2018, 46, 1605–1613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Edeh, I.; Nsofor, C. Utilization of antibiotics in aquaculture.; present status and future alternatives in the post COVID-19 pandemic era. Biosci. J. 2023, 11, 57–70. [Google Scholar]
  116. Fathy, M.; Ahmed, A.; Abd El-Azeem, M.W.; Hassan, S.; Sultan, S. Investigation of Antibacterial Efficiency of Various Lytic Bacteriophages Isolated from Chickens Against Characterized Multidrug-resistant Pathogenic Bacterial Strains. J. Adv. Vet. Res. 2022, 12, 265–277. [Google Scholar]
  117. Trofimova, E.; Jaschke, P.R. Plaque Size Tool: An automated plaque analysis tool for simplifying and standardising bacteriophage plaque morphology measurements. Virology 2021, 561, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Sanders, E.R. Aseptic laboratory techniques: Plating methods. JoVE (J. Vis. Exp.) 2012, 63, e3064. [Google Scholar]
  119. Tabassum, R.; Shafique, M.; Khawaja, K.A.; Alvi, I.A.; Rehman, Y.; Sheik, C.S.; Abbas, Z.; Rehman, S.U. Complete genome analysis of a Siphoviridae phage TSK1 showing biofilm removal potential against Klebsiella pneumoniae. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 17904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  120. Gallet, R.; Kannoly, S.; Wang, I.-N. Effects of bacteriophage traits on plaque formation. BMC Microbiol. 2011, 11, 181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  121. Abedon, S.T. Detection of Bacteriophages: Phage Plaques; Springer Nature: Basel, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 507–538. [Google Scholar]
  122. Ross, A.; Ward, S.; Hyman, P. More is better: Selecting for broad host range bacteriophages. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 1352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  123. Elson, G.; Dunn-Siegrist, I.; Daubeuf, B.; Pugin, J. Contribution of Toll-like receptors to the innate immune response to Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria. Blood 2007, 109, 1574–1583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  124. Dziarski, R.; Gupta, D. Role of MD-2 in TLR2-and TLR4-mediated recognition of Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria and activation of chemokine genes. J. Endotoxin Res. 2000, 6, 401–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Datta, D.B.; Arden, B.; Henning, U. Major proteins of the Escherichia coli outer cell envelope membrane as bacteriophage receptors. J. Bacteriol. 1977, 131, 821–829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  126. Proft, T.; Baker, E. Pili in Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria—Structure, assembly and their role in disease. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2009, 66, 613–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. de Carvalho, F.F.C.H. Role of Wall Teichoic Acid L-rhamnosylation in Listeria Monocytogenes Resistance to Antimicrobial Peptides and Surface Protein Anchoring. Doctoral Disseration, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  128. Frias, M.J.R. Lysis Strategy of Streptococcus pneumoniae bacteriophages: Mechanisms and Host Implications. Doctoral Disseration, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  129. Mahony, J.; McDonnell, B.; Casey, E.; van Sinderen, D. Phage-host interactions of cheese-making lactic acid bacteria. Annu. Rev. Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 7, 267–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Zampara, A.; Sørensen, M.C.H.; Grimon, D.; Antenucci, F.; Vitt, A.R.; Bortolaia, V.; Briers, Y.; Brøndsted, L. Exploiting phage receptor binding proteins to enable endolysins to kill Gram-negative bacteria. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 12087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Perea, L.; Rodríguez-Rubio, L.; Nieto, J.C.; Zamora, C.; Cantó, E.; Soriano, G.; Poca, M.; Blanco-Picazo, P.; Navarro, F.; Muniesa, M.; et al. Bacteriophages immunomodulate the response of monocytes. Exp. Biol. Med. 2021, 246, 1263–1268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Dunne, M.; Hupfeld, M.; Klumpp, J.; Loessner, M.J. Molecular basis of bacterial host interactions by Gram-positive targeting bacteriophages. Viruses 2018, 10, 397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  133. Khan, M.A.; Satoh, H.; Katayama, H.; Kurisu, F.; Mino, T. Bacteriophages isolated from activated sludge processes and their polyvalency. Water Res. 2002, 36, 3364–3370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Wang, F.; Xiong, Y.; Xiao, Y.; Han, J.; Deng, X.; Lin, L. MMPphg from the thermophilic Meiothermus bacteriophage MMP17 as a potential antimicrobial agent against both Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria. Virol. J. 2020, 17, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Lin, L.; Han, J.; Ji, X.; Hong, W.; Huang, L.; Wei, Y. Isolation and characterization of a new bacteriophage MMP17 from Meiothermus. Extremophiles 2011, 15, 253–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Quin, M.B.; Berrisford, J.M.; Newman, J.A.; Basle, A.; Lewis, R.J.; Marles-Wright, J. The bacterial stressosome: A modular system that has been adapted to control secondary messenger signaling. Structure 2012, 20, 350–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  137. Born, Y.; Fieseler, L.; Marazzi, J.; Lurz, R.; Duffy, B.; Loessner, M.J. Novel virulent and broad-host-range Erwinia amylovora bacteriophages reveal a high degree of mosaicism and a relationship to Enterobacteriaceae phages. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2011, 77, 5945–5954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  138. O’flaherty, S.; Coffey, A.; Meaney, W.; Fitzgerald, G.; Ross, R.P. The recombinant phage lysin LysK has a broad spectrum of lytic activity against clinically relevant staphylococci, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J. Bacteriol. 2005, 187, 7161–7164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  139. Fenton, M.; Cooney, J.C.; Ross, R.P.; Sleator, R.D.; McAuliffe, O.; O’Mahony, J.; Coffey, A. In silico modeling of the staphylococcal bacteriophage-derived peptidase CHAPK. Bacteriophage 2011, 1, 198–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  140. Sanz-Gaitero, M.; Keary, R.; Garcia-Doval, C.; Coffey, A.; van Raaij, M.J. Crystallization of the CHAP domain of the endolysin from Staphylococcus aureus bacteriophage K. Acta Crystallogr. Sect. F Struct. Biol. Cryst. Commun. 2013, 69, 1393–1396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  141. Nilsson, A.S. Phage therapy—Constraints and possibilities. Upsala J. Med. Sci. 2014, 119, 192–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Frieri, M.; Kumar, K.; Boutin, A. Antibiotic resistance. J. Infect. Public Health 2017, 10, 369–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  143. Chuah, L.-O.; Effarizah, M.; Goni, A.M.; Rusul, G. Antibiotic application and emergence of multiple antibiotic resistance (MAR) in global catfish aquaculture. Curr. Environ. Health Rep. 2016, 3, 118–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Hossain, A.; Habibullah-Al-Mamun, M.; Nagano, I.; Masunaga, S.; Kitazawa, D.; Matsuda, H. Antibiotics, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and resistance genes in aquaculture: Risks, current concern, and future thinking. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 11054–11075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  145. Culot, A.; Grosset, N.; Gautier, M. Overcoming the challenges of phage therapy for industrial aquaculture: A review. Aquaculture 2019, 513, 734423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  146. Ramos-Vivas, J.; Superio, J.; Galindo-Villegas, J.; Acosta, F. Phage therapy as a focused management strategy in aquaculture. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 10436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  147. Nakai, T.; Park, S.C. Bacteriophage therapy of infectious diseases in aquaculture. Res. Microbiol. 2002, 153, 13–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  148. Skurnik, M.; Pajunen, M.; Kiljunen, S. Biotechnological challenges of phage therapy. Biotechnol. Lett. 2007, 29, 995–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Schackart, K.E., III; Graham, J.B.; Ponsero, A.J.; Hurwitz, B.L. Evaluation of computational phage detection tools for metagenomic datasets. Front. Microbiol. 2023, 14, 1078760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Coclet, C.; Roux, S. Global overview and major challenges of host prediction methods for uncultivated phages. Curr. Opin. Virol. 2021, 49, 117–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Martinez-Vaz, B.M.; Mickelson, M.M. In silico phage hunting: Bioinformatics exercises to identify and explore bacteriophage genomes. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 577634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Arndt, D.; Grant, J.R.; Marcu, A.; Sajed, T.; Pon, A.; Liang, Y.; Wishart, D.S. PHASTER: A better, faster version of the PHAST phage search tool. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016, 44, W16–W21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  153. Fang, Z.; Tan, J.; Wu, S.; Li, M.; Xu, C.; Xie, Z.; Zhu, H. PPR-Meta: A tool for identifying phages and plasmids from metagenomic fragments using deep learning. GigaScience 2019, 8, giz066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Lenneman, B.R.; Fernbach, J.; Loessner, M.J.; Lu, T.K.; Kilcher, S. Enhancing phage therapy through synthetic biology and genome engineering. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2021, 68, 151–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Viruses 15 01525 g001 550
Figure 1. Plaque and virion morphology of isolated bacteriophages KMM1-KMM4. (A) Plaque morphologies were detected on MB double-agar layer plates after 16 h of incubation at 30 °C. Plaques formed on a lawn of Pseudomonas sp., MK967010.1 (KMM1), Citrobacter freundii, OQ398153 (KMM2), and Citrobacter sp., OQ398154 (KMM3, KMM4). Scale bars represent 1 mm. (B) Transmission electron micrographs of phage lysates KMM1–KMM4, scale bars represent 50 nm.
Figure 1. Plaque and virion morphology of isolated bacteriophages KMM1-KMM4. (A) Plaque morphologies were detected on MB double-agar layer plates after 16 h of incubation at 30 °C. Plaques formed on a lawn of Pseudomonas sp., MK967010.1 (KMM1), Citrobacter freundii, OQ398153 (KMM2), and Citrobacter sp., OQ398154 (KMM3, KMM4). Scale bars represent 1 mm. (B) Transmission electron micrographs of phage lysates KMM1–KMM4, scale bars represent 50 nm.
Viruses 15 01525 g001
Viruses 15 01525 g002 550
Figure 2. Infection cycles of isolated phages. One-step growth curves over 120 min were performed to calculate the latent period (green arrow) and burst size (orange arrow). (A) KMM1-infected Pseudomonas sp. (MK967010.1) after 27 min with the release of 55 pfu/cell, (B) KMM2-infected Citrobacter freundii (OQ398153) after 20 min with the release of 280 pfu/cell, (C) KMM3- and (D) KMM4-infected Citrobacter sp. (OQ398154) after 45 and 30 min, respectively, with the release of 60 and 120 pfu/cell, respectively. Values represent the mean of three biological replicates.
Figure 2. Infection cycles of isolated phages. One-step growth curves over 120 min were performed to calculate the latent period (green arrow) and burst size (orange arrow). (A) KMM1-infected Pseudomonas sp. (MK967010.1) after 27 min with the release of 55 pfu/cell, (B) KMM2-infected Citrobacter freundii (OQ398153) after 20 min with the release of 280 pfu/cell, (C) KMM3- and (D) KMM4-infected Citrobacter sp. (OQ398154) after 45 and 30 min, respectively, with the release of 60 and 120 pfu/cell, respectively. Values represent the mean of three biological replicates.
Viruses 15 01525 g002
Viruses 15 01525 g003 550
Figure 3. Host range of isolated phages. Phages KMM1–KMM4 were used for infection assays with selected taxons (color code on the right categorizes taxons into classes). The efficiency of plating (EOP) for each host bacterium was calculated by comparing it with a score of 109 pfu/mL for the original host infection (value = 1). Missing coloring indicates no infection.
Figure 3. Host range of isolated phages. Phages KMM1–KMM4 were used for infection assays with selected taxons (color code on the right categorizes taxons into classes). The efficiency of plating (EOP) for each host bacterium was calculated by comparing it with a score of 109 pfu/mL for the original host infection (value = 1). Missing coloring indicates no infection.
Viruses 15 01525 g003
Viruses 15 01525 g004 550
Figure 4. Taxonomic classification of phages KMM1–KMM4. Phylogenetic tree of isolated phages KMM1–KMM4 (red rectangles) was generated with the whole genome-based VICTOR analysis. Phages belonging to different families, subfamilies, genera, and species were color coded. The scale represents homology in %.
Figure 4. Taxonomic classification of phages KMM1–KMM4. Phylogenetic tree of isolated phages KMM1–KMM4 (red rectangles) was generated with the whole genome-based VICTOR analysis. Phages belonging to different families, subfamilies, genera, and species were color coded. The scale represents homology in %.
Viruses 15 01525 g004
Viruses 15 01525 g005 550
Figure 5. Genome annotations. The position and annotation of predicted viral genes in the phage genomes were visualized using Clinker. Coding domain sequences (CDS) are shown as arrows given the transcription direction; colors indicate their predicted function and amino acid sequence homologies to best homologs (nucleotide identity > 70%) are presented by corresponding alignments. (A) KMM1 (OP902294), (B) KMM2 (OP902295) and KMM4 (OP902293), and (C) KMM3 (OP902292).
Figure 5. Genome annotations. The position and annotation of predicted viral genes in the phage genomes were visualized using Clinker. Coding domain sequences (CDS) are shown as arrows given the transcription direction; colors indicate their predicted function and amino acid sequence homologies to best homologs (nucleotide identity > 70%) are presented by corresponding alignments. (A) KMM1 (OP902294), (B) KMM2 (OP902295) and KMM4 (OP902293), and (C) KMM3 (OP902292).
Viruses 15 01525 g005
Table
Table 1. Bacterial strains used in this study. Bacterial strains were isolated in the study [22]. Isolates are sorted by the last column and phylum level. The column “Use in This study” refers to the use of the strains in the study. If not stated differently, the listed numbers in column “Reference” reflect NCBI Accession Numbers.
Table 1. Bacterial strains used in this study. Bacterial strains were isolated in the study [22]. Isolates are sorted by the last column and phylum level. The column “Use in This study” refers to the use of the strains in the study. If not stated differently, the listed numbers in column “Reference” reflect NCBI Accession Numbers.
Strain
No.		StrainReferencePhylumClassOrderFamilySourceGrowth MediumGrowth Temp.Use in This Study
74Micrococcus luteusMK967048.1ActinomycetotaActinomycetiaMicrococcalesMicrococcaceaeA. aurita polyp Baltic Sea husbandryMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
75Arthrobacter sp. MK967049.1ActinomycetotaActinomycetiaMicrococcalesMicrococcaceaeA. aurita polyp Baltic Sea husbandryMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
83Gordonia terraeMK967057.1ActinomycetotaActinomycetiaMycobacterialesGordoniaceaeA. aurita polyp Baltic Sea husbandryMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
15Sulfitobacter sp. MK967015.1PseudomonadotaAlphaproteobacteriaRhodobacteralesRhodobacteraceaeA. aurita medusa Baltic SeaMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
20Sulfitobacter pontiacusMK967020.1PseudomonadotaAlphaproteobacteriaRhodobacteralesRhodobacteraceaeA. aurita medusa Baltic Sea husbandryMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
23Sulfitobacter sp. MK967023.1PseudomonadotaAlphaproteobacteriaRhodobacteralesRhodobacteraceaeA. aurita medusa Baltic Sea husbandryMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
69Rhodobacter sp.MK967043.1PseudomonadotaAlphaproteobacteriaRhodobacteralesRhodobacteraceaeM. leidyi Baltic Sea husbandryMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
78Sulfitobacter sp.MK967052.1PseudomonadotaAlphaproteobacteriaRhodobacteralesRhodobacteraceaeA. aurita polyp Baltic Sea husbandryMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
86Ruegeria sp.MK967060.1PseudomonadotaAlphaproteobacteriaRhodobacteralesRhodobacteraceaeA. aurita polyp Baltic Sea husbandryMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
89Ruegeria sp. MK967063.1PseudomonadotaAlphaproteobacteriaRhodobacteralesRhodobacteraceaeA. aurita polyp Baltic Sea husbandryMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
100Sulfitobacter sp.MK967074.1PseudomonadotaAlphaproteobacteriaRhodobacteralesRhodobacteraceaeA. aurita polyp North Sea husbandryMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
117Ruegeria mobilisMK967091.1PseudomonadotaAlphaproteobacteriaRhodobacteralesRhodobacteraceaeA. aurita polyp North Atlantic husbandryMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
147Phaeobacter gallaeciensisMK967120.1PseudomonadotaAlphaproteobacteriaRhodobacteralesRhodobacteraceaeArtificial Seawater 18 PSUMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
188Sulfitobacter pseudonitzschiaeMK967160.1PseudomonadotaAlphaproteobacteriaRhodobacteralesRhodobacteraceaeArtificial Seawater 30 PSUMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
13Bacillus cereusMK967013.1BacillotaBacilliBacillalesBacillaceaeA. aurita medusa Baltic SeaMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
16Bacillus sp.MK967016.1BacillotaBacilliBacillalesBacillaceaeA. aurita medusa Baltic SeaMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
17Bacillus cereusMK967017.1BacillotaBacilliBacillalesBacillaceaeA. aurita medusa Baltic SeaMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
19Bacillus sp.MK967019.1BacillotaBacilliBacillalesBacillaceaeA. aurita medusa Baltic Sea husbandryMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
76Bacillus weihenstephanensisMK967050.1BacillotaBacilliBacillalesBacillaceaeA. aurita polyp Baltic Sea husbandryMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
85Staphylococcus warneriMK967059.1BacillotaBacilliBacillalesStaphylococcaceaeA. aurita polyp Baltic Sea husbandryMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
88Staphylococcus sp.MK967062.1BacillotaBacilliBacillalesStaphylococcaceaeA. aurita polyp Baltic Sea husbandryMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
73Enterococcus casseliflavusMK967047.1BacillotaBacilliLactobacillalesEnterococcaceaeA. aurita polyp Baltic Sea husbandryMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
24Maribacter sp.MK967024.1BacteroidotaFlavobacteriiaFlavobacterialesFlavobacteriaceaeA. aurita medusa Baltic Sea husbandryMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
57Olleya marilimosaMK967032.1BacteroidotaFlavobacteriiaFlavobacterialesFlavobacteriaceaeM. leidyi Baltic SeaMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
79Olleya sp. MK967053.1BacteroidotaFlavobacteriiaFlavobacterialesFlavobacteriaceaeA. aurita polyp Baltic Sea husbandryMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
181Chryseobacterium sp.MK967154.1BacteroidotaFlavobacteriiaFlavobacterialesWeeksellaceaeArtificial Seawater 30 PSUMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
257Chryseobacterium sp.MK967218.1BacteroidotaFlavobacteriiaFlavobacterialesWeeksellaceaeM. leidyi Baltic Sea husbandryMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
22Pseudolateromonas sp.MK967022.1PseudomonadotaGammaproteobacteriaAlteromonadalesPseudoalteromonadaceaeA. aurita medusa Baltic Sea husbandryMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
91Pseudoalteromonas prydzensisMK967065.1PseudomonadotaGammaproteobacteriaAlteromonadalesPseudoalteromonadaceaeA. aurita polyp Baltic Sea husbandryMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
101Pseudoalteromonas issachenkoniiMK967075.1PseudomonadotaGammaproteobacteriaAlteromonadalesPseudoalteromonadaceaeA. aurita polyp North Sea husbandryMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
167Pseudoalteromonas sp.MK967140.1PseudomonadotaGammaproteobacteriaAlteromonadalesPseudoalteromonadaceaeArtificial Seawater 18 PSUMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
203Pseudoalteromonas espejianaMK967174.1PseudomonadotaGammaproteobacteriaAlteromonadalesPseudoalteromonadaceaeArtificial Seawater 30 PSUMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
219Pseudoalteromonas tunicataMK967188.1PseudomonadotaGammaproteobacteriaAlteromonadalesPseudoalteromonadaceaeM. leidyi Baltic SeaMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
224Pseudoalteromonas lipolyticaMK967191.1PseudomonadotaGammaproteobacteriaAlteromonadalesPseudoalteromonadaceaeM. leidyi Baltic SeaMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
105Shewanella basaltisMK967079.1PseudomonadotaGammaproteobacteriaAlteromonadalesShewanellaceaeA. aurita polyp North Sea husbandryMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
21Cobetia amphilectiMK967021.1PseudomonadotaGammaproteobacteriaOceanospirillalesHalomonadaceaeA. aurita medusa Baltic Sea husbandryMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
55Marinomonas hwangdonensisMK967030.1PseudomonadotaGammaproteobacteriaOceanospirillalesOceanospirillaceaeM. leidyi Baltic SeaMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
222Marinomonas ponticaMK967189.1PseudomonadotaGammaproteobacteriaOceanospirillalesOceanospirillaceaeM. leidyi Baltic SeaMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
262Oceanospirillaceae bacteriumMK967222.1PseudomonadotaGammaproteobacteriaOceanospirillalesOceanospirillaceaeM. leidyi Baltic SeaMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
11Pseudomonas sp.MK967012.1PseudomonadotaGammaproteobacteriaPseudomonadalesPseudomonadaceaeA. aurita medusa Baltic SeaMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
90Pseudomonas putidaMK967064.1PseudomonadotaGammaproteobacteriaPseudomonadalesPseudomonadaceaeA. aurita polyp Baltic Sea husbandryMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
92Pseudomonas putidaMK967066.1PseudomonadotaGammaproteobacteriaPseudomonadalesPseudomonadaceaeA. aurita polyp Baltic Sea husbandryMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
93Pseudomonas sp.MK967067.1PseudomonadotaGammaproteobacteriaPseudomonadalesPseudomonadaceaeA. aurita polyp Baltic Sea husbandryMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
94Pseudomonas sp.MK967068.1PseudomonadotaGammaproteobacteriaPseudomonadalesPseudomonadaceaeA. aurita polyp Baltic Sea husbandryMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
132Pseudomonas fluorescensMK967106.1PseudomonadotaGammaproteobacteriaPseudomonadalesPseudomonadaceaeArtificial Seawater 18 PSUMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
196Pseudomonas syringaeMK967168.1PseudomonadotaGammaproteobacteriaPseudomonadalesPseudomonadaceaeArtificial Seawater 30 PSUMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
77Vibrio anguillarumMK967051.1PseudomonadotaGammaproteobacteriaVibrionalesVibrionaceaeA. aurita polyp Baltic Sea husbandryMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
80Vibrio anguillarumMK967054.1PseudomonadotaGammaproteobacteriaVibrionalesVibrionaceaeA. aurita polyp Baltic Sea husbandryMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
18Staphylococcus aureusOQ398157BacillotaBacilliBacillalesStaphylococcaceaeA. aurita medusa Baltic Sea husbandryMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
134Staphylococcus aureusOQ398164BacillotaBacilliBacillalesStaphylococcaceaeArtificial Seawater 18 PSUMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
87Staphylococcus aureusOQ398160BacillotaBacilliBacillalesStaphylococcaceaeA. aurita polyp Baltic Sea husbandryMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
14Staphylococcus warneriOQ398156BacillotaBacilliBacillalesStaphylococcaceaeA. aurita medusa Baltic SeaMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening
6Citrobacter freundiiOQ398153PseudomonadotaGammaproteobacteriaEnterobacteralesEnterobacteriaceaeA. aurita medusa Baltic SeaMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening/
host range
7Citrobacter sp.OQ398154PseudomonadotaGammaproteobacteriaEnterobacteralesEnterobacteriaceaeA. aurita medusa Baltic SeaMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening/
host range
8Pseudomonas sp.MK967010.1PseudomonadotaGammaproteobacteriaPseudomonadalesPseudomonadaceaeA. aurita medusa Baltic SeaMarine Bouillon30 °Cenrichment/
first screening/
host range
62Sulfitobacter pontiacusOQ398158PseudomonadotaAlphaproteobacteriaRhodobacteralesRhodobacteraceaeM. leidyi Baltic SeaMarine Bouillon30 °Chost range
97Shewanella sp. OQ398161PseudomonadotaGammaproteobacteriaAlteromonadalesShewanellaceaeA. aurita polyp North Sea husbandryMarine Bouillon30 °Chost range
199Staphylococcus aureusOQ398168BacillotaBacilliBacillalesStaphylococcaceaeArtificial Seawater 30 PSUMarine Bouillon30 °Chost range
DSMZ 11823Staphylococcus aureusDSMZ 11823BacillotaBacilliBacillalesStaphylococcaceaeclinical materialTrypticase Soy Yeast Broth37 °Chost range
67Staphylococcus aureusOQ398159BacillotaBacilliBacillalesStaphylococcaceaeM. leidyi Baltic Sea husbandryMarine Bouillon30 °Chost range
102Staphylococcus aureusOQ398162BacillotaBacilliBacillalesStaphylococcaceaeA. aurita polyp North Sea husbandryMarine Bouillon30 °Chost range
158Staphylococcus aureusOQ398165BacillotaBacilliBacillalesStaphylococcaceaeArtificial Seawater 18 PSUMarine Bouillon30 °Chost range
161Staphylococcus aureusOQ398166BacillotaBacilliBacillalesStaphylococcaceaeArtificial Seawater 18 PSUMarine Bouillon30 °Chost range
127Staphylococcus aureusOQ398163BacillotaBacilliBacillalesStaphylococcaceaeA. aurita polyp North Atlantic husbandryMarine Bouillon30 °Chost range
DSMZ 28319Staphylococcus epidermidisDSMZ 28319BacillotaBacilliBacillalesStaphylococcaceaecatheter sepsisTrypticase Soy Yeast Broth37 °Chost range
DSMZ 20328Staphylococcus hominisDSMZ 20328BacillotaBacilliBacillalesStaphylococcaceaehuman skinTrypticase Soy Yeast Broth37 °Chost range
DSMZ 100616Staphylococcus warneriDSMZ 100616BacillotaBacilliBacillalesStaphylococcaceaecleanroom facility, TASTrypticase Soy Yeast Broth30 °Chost range
DSMZ 12643Streptococcus mitisDSMZ 12643BacillotaBacilliLactobacillalesStreptococcaceaeoral cavity, humanTrypticase Soy Yeast Broth37 °Chost range
DSMZ 20523Streptococcus mutansDSMZ 20523BacillotaBacilliLactobacillalesStreptococcaceaecarious dentineTrypticase Soy Yeast Broth37 °Chost range
296Citrobacter braakiiOQ398170PseudomonadotaGammaproteobacteriaEnterobacteralesEnterobacteriaceaeA. aurita polyp North Atlantic husbandryMarine Bouillon30 °Chost range
283Citrobacter freundiiOQ398169PseudomonadotaGammaproteobacteriaEnterobacteralesEnterobacteriaceaeA. aurita polyp Baltic Sea husbandryMarine Bouillon30 °Chost range
321Citrobacter freundiiOQ398172PseudomonadotaGammaproteobacteriaEnterobacteralesEnterobacteriaceaeArtifical Seawater 30 PSUMarine Bouillon30 °Chost range
313Citrobacter sp.OQ398171PseudomonadotaGammaproteobacteriaEnterobacteralesEnterobacteriaceaeArtifical Seawater 18 PSUMarine Bouillon30 °Chost range
DSMZ 18039Escherichia coliDSMZ 18039PseudomonadotaGammaproteobacteriaEnterobacteralesEnterobacteriaceaeunknown sourceLuria-Bertani Bouillon37 °Chost range
strain 8Escherichia coli[47]PseudomonadotaGammaproteobacteriaEnterobacteralesEnterobacteriaceaeunknown sourceLuria-Bertani Bouillon37 °Chost range
DSMZ 30083Escherichia coliDSMZ 30083PseudomonadotaGammaproteobacteriaEnterobacteralesEnterobacteriaceaeurineLuria-Bertani Bouillon37 °Chost range
DSMZ 13698Escherichia fergusoniiDSMZ 13698PseudomonadotaGammaproteobacteriaEnterobacteralesEnterobacteriaceaefaeces of 1-year-old boyLuria-Bertani Bouillon37 °Chost range
strain 27Klebsiella oxytocaProf. Dr. Podschun, (National Reference Laboratory for Klebsiella species, Kiel University)PseudomonadotaGammaproteobacteriaEnterobacteralesEnterobacteriaceaeunknown sourceNutrient Broth30 °Chost range
DSMZ
30104		Klebsiella pneumoniaeDSMZ 30104PseudomonadotaGammaproteobacteriaEnterobacteralesEnterobacteriaceaeunknown sourceNutrient Broth30 °Chost range
DSMZ 4782Shigella flexeneriDSMZ 4782PseudomonadotaGammaproteobacteriaEnterobacteralesEnterobacteriaceaeunknown sourceCaso Bouillon37 °Chost range
DSMZ 1707Pseudomonas aeruginosaDSMZ 1707PseudomonadotaGammaproteobacteriaPseudomonadalesPseudomonadaceaeunknown sourceCaso Bouillon30 °Chost range
9Pseudomonas sp.OQ398155PseudomonadotaGammaproteobacteriaPseudomonadalesPseudomonadaceaeA. aurita medusa Baltic SeaMarine Bouillon30 °Chost range
170Pseudomonas sp.OQ398167PseudomonadotaGammaproteobacteriaPseudomonadalesPseudomonadaceaeArtificial Seawater 18 PSUMarine Bouillon30 °Chost range
DSMZ 50256Pseudomonas syringaeDSMZ 50256PseudomonadotaGammaproteobacteriaPseudomonadalesPseudomonadaceaeTriticum aestivum, glume rot of wheatCaso Bouillon30 °Chost range
24Maribacter sp.MK967024.1BacteroidotaFlavobacteriiaFlavobacterialesFlavobacteriaceaeA. aurita medusa Baltic Sea husbandryMarine Bouillon30 °Chost range
79Olleya sp.MK967053.1BacteroidotaFlavobacteriiaFlavobacterialesFlavobacteriaceaeA. aurita polyp Baltic Sea husbandryMarine Bouillon30 °Chost range
98Olleya marilimosaMK967072.1BacteroidotaFlavobacteriiaFlavobacterialesFlavobacteriaceaeA. aurita polyp North Sea husbandryMarine Bouillon30 °Chost range
108Chryseobacterium hominisMK967082.1BacteroidotaFlavobacteriiaFlavobacterialesFlavobacteriaceaeA. aurita polyp North Sea husbandryMarine Bouillon30 °Chost range
57Olleya marilimosaMK967032.1BacteroidotaFlavobacteriiaFlavobacterialesFlavobacteriaceaeM. leidyi Baltic SeaMarine Bouillon30 °Chost range
199Maribacter sp. MK967170.1BacteroidotaFlavobacteriiaFlavobacterialesFlavobacteriaceaeArtificial Seawater 30 PSUMarine Bouillon30 °Chost range
Table
Table 2. Viral genome characteristics and overview of assembly-related metrics.
Table 2. Viral genome characteristics and overview of assembly-related metrics.
PhageNCBI Accession No.No. of ReadsNo. of Filtered ReadsSequence CoverageN50Genome Length (bps)GC Content (%)Predicted ORFsUnknown Proteins
Pseudomonas phage BSwM KMM1OP9022944.0853.214247.48817.553137.38631.77259200
Citrobacter phage BSwM KMM2OP90229581059574.16322.11888.53739.5513794
Citrobacter phage BSwS KMM3OP902292837598130.67620.51749.16443.179258
Citrobacter phage BSwM KMM4OP9022936.4335.371544.32723.89486.91139.02138100
Table
Table 3. Characteristics of isolated bacteriophages KMM1–KMM4. Plaque properties (N = 10), phage morphology (tail, N= 20; head, N = 10), latent period, and burst size (N = 3) are listed.
Table 3. Characteristics of isolated bacteriophages KMM1–KMM4. Plaque properties (N = 10), phage morphology (tail, N= 20; head, N = 10), latent period, and burst size (N = 3) are listed.
KMM1KMM2KMM3KMM4
Plaques propertiesSmall, round, and clear
Size: 0.8–1 mm		Small, round, and clear
Size: 1–1.5 mm		Big, round with a clear center and surrounding turbid halo
Size: 2.5–3.5 mm		Small, round, and clear
Size: 1.2–1.5 mm
Phage morphology
Tail length (nm)
Head width (nm)
Head shape
176.4 ± 8.4
75.8 ± 3
icosahedral
90.9 ± 3.9
58.2 ± 2.7
icosahedral
131.7 ± 9.3
50 ± 1.9
icosahedral
90.5 ± 4.5
57.5 ± 2.8
icosahedral
Latent period (min)27204530
Burst size (phages/infected bacterial cell)5528060120
Taxonomy predictionCaudoviricetes (Myovirus-like)Caudoviricetes (Myovirus-like)Caudoviricetes
(Siphovirus-like)		Caudoviricetes (Myovirus-like)
Table
Table 4. Adsorption dynamics of bacteriophages KMM1–KMM4. Adsorption rates were determined 5 min after phage addition to the primary hosts (Pseudomonas sp., Citrobacter freundii, and Citrobacter sp.). The number of phages adsorbed to the cells generated a decrease in phage titer. The percentage of adsorbed phages and the adsorption constant (k) were calculated. Values are the mean of three biological replicates with corresponding standard deviations.
Table 4. Adsorption dynamics of bacteriophages KMM1–KMM4. Adsorption rates were determined 5 min after phage addition to the primary hosts (Pseudomonas sp., Citrobacter freundii, and Citrobacter sp.). The number of phages adsorbed to the cells generated a decrease in phage titer. The percentage of adsorbed phages and the adsorption constant (k) were calculated. Values are the mean of three biological replicates with corresponding standard deviations.
BacteriophagePhage Titre,
0 min (pfu/mL)		Phage Titre,
5 min (pfu/mL)		% of Adsorbed PhagesAdsorption Constant, k (mL/min)
KMM12.3 × 107 ± 1.2 × 1073.4 × 104 ± 3.9 × 10499.91.08 × 10−7
KMM23.1 × 107 ± 2.0 × 1074.8 × 104 ± 1.2 × 10499.94.62 × 10−8
KMM32.0 × 107 ± 1.3 × 1075.7 × 103 ± 4.7 × 10299.81.26 × 10−7
KMM44.5 × 107 ± 2.8 × 1071.4 × 105 ± 1.3 × 10599.88.70 × 10−8
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Stante, M.; Weiland-Bräuer, N.; Repnik, U.; Werner, A.; Bramkamp, M.; Chibani, C.M.; Schmitz, R.A. Four Novel Caudoviricetes Bacteriophages Isolated from Baltic Sea Water Infect Colonizers of Aurelia aurita. Viruses 2023, 15, 1525. https://doi.org/10.3390/v15071525

AMA Style

Stante M, Weiland-Bräuer N, Repnik U, Werner A, Bramkamp M, Chibani CM, Schmitz RA. Four Novel Caudoviricetes Bacteriophages Isolated from Baltic Sea Water Infect Colonizers of Aurelia aurita. Viruses. 2023; 15(7):1525. https://doi.org/10.3390/v15071525

Chicago/Turabian Style

Stante, Melissa, Nancy Weiland-Bräuer, Urska Repnik, Almut Werner, Marc Bramkamp, Cynthia M. Chibani, and Ruth A. Schmitz. 2023. "Four Novel Caudoviricetes Bacteriophages Isolated from Baltic Sea Water Infect Colonizers of Aurelia aurita" Viruses 15, no. 7: 1525. https://doi.org/10.3390/v15071525

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop