Back

Genomic diversity of novel strains of mammalian gut microbiome derived Clostridium XIVa strains is driven by mobile genetic element acquisition

Kamat, M.; Ormsby, M. J.; Humphrey, S.; Thummler, K.; Lapsley, C.; Crouch, K.; Jukes, C.; Hulme, H.; Burchmore, R.; Meikle, L.; Pritchard, L.; Wall, D. M.

2024-01-23 microbiology
10.1101/2024.01.22.576618 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Despite advances in sequencing technologies that enable a greater understanding of mammalian gut microbiome composition, our ability to determine a role for individual strains is hampered by our inability to isolate, culture and study such microbes. Here we describe highly unusual Clostridium XIVa group strains isolated from the murine gut. Genome sequencing indicates that these strains, Clostridium symbiosum LM19B and LM19R and Clostridium clostridioforme LM41 and LM42, have significantly larger genomes than most closely related strains. Genomic evidence indicates that the isolated LM41 and LM42 strains diverge from most other Clostridium XIVa strains and supports reassignment of these groups at genus-level. We attribute increased C. clostridioforme LM41 and LM42 genome size to acquisition of mobile genetic elements including dozens of prophages, integrative elements, putative group II introns and numerous transposons including 29 identical copies of the IS66 transposase, and a very large 192 Kb plasmid. antiSmash analysis determines a greater number of biosynthetic gene clusters within LM41 and LM42 than in related strains, encoding a diverse array of potential novel antimicrobial compounds. Together these strains highlight the potential untapped microbial diversity that remains to be discovered within the gut microbiome and indicate that, despite our ability to get a top down view of microbial diversity, we remain significantly blinded to microbe capabilities at the strain level.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.