See the published version of this preprint at BMC Genomics.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Research article
Ilhan Cem Duru
Institute of Biotechnology, University of Helsinki
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3409-5215
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background
Consumption of Listeria monocytogenes contaminated food can cause infection with a high mortality rate in humans and animals. High pressure processing (HPP) is a non-thermal preservation technique adopted by the food industry to inactivate food pathogens, including L. monocytogenes. Strains of L. monocytogenes show different level of resistance to the high pressure. Some strains resist up to 500 MPa pressure. Here, we tested the pressure resistance of 10 different L. monocytogenes strains, including field isolates and widely used type strains, to 400 and 600 MPa pressure treatments. Genome sequencing, and genome comparison of the tested L. monocytogenes strains were performed to investigate the relation between genomic profile and pressure resistance.
Results
In this study, we showed that none of the tested strains were resistant to 600 MPa, more than 5 log 10 reduction observed for all strains after 1 minute 600 MPa pressure treatment. However, L. monocytogenes strain RO15 showed no significant reduction in viable cell counts after 400 MPa for 1 minute and it was defined as barotolerant. Genome sequencing of so far unsequenced L. monocytogenes strain RO15, 2HF33, MB5, AB199, AB120, C7, and RO4 allowed us to compare their gene content. Genome comparison of 10 tested strains showed that the three most pressure tolerant strains had more than one CRISPR system with self-targeting spacers. Further, several anti-CRISPR genes were detected in these strains. Pan-genome wide analysis showed that 10 prophage genes were significantly associated with the three most barotolerant strains.
Conclusions
L. monocytogenes strain RO15 was the most pressure tolerant among the selected strains. Genome comparison suggests that there might be a relationship with prophages, CRISPR systems and pressure resistance in L. monocytogenes .
Keywords
high-pressure processing (HPP), foodborne pathogen, CRISPR, PacBio, comparative genomics, pan-genome.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Genomics.
No community comments so far
Review #1 received
Received 19 May, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 18 May, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 18 May, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 28 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 28 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 28 Apr, 2020
Editor assigned
On 27 Apr, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 27 Apr, 2020
Editor invited
On 26 Apr, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 24 Feb, 2020
Version 1
Posted 26 Feb, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 25 Mar, 2020
Review #4 received
Received 20 Mar, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 19 Mar, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 19 Mar, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 18 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #5 agreed
On 07 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 06 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #4 agreed
On 06 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 04 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 03 Mar, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 02 Mar, 2020
Editor invited
On 24 Feb, 2020
Editor assigned
On 24 Feb, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 23 Feb, 2020
First submitted
On 21 Feb, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Epigenetics & Genomics
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
See the published version of this preprint at BMC Genomics.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Ilhan Cem Duru
Institute of Biotechnology, University of Helsinki
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3409-5215
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Genomics.
No community comments so far
Review #1 received
Received 19 May, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 18 May, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 18 May, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 28 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 28 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 28 Apr, 2020
Editor assigned
On 27 Apr, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 27 Apr, 2020
Editor invited
On 26 Apr, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 24 Feb, 2020
Version 1
Posted 26 Feb, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 25 Mar, 2020
Review #4 received
Received 20 Mar, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 19 Mar, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 19 Mar, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 18 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #5 agreed
On 07 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 06 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #4 agreed
On 06 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 04 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 03 Mar, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 02 Mar, 2020
Editor invited
On 24 Feb, 2020
Editor assigned
On 24 Feb, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 23 Feb, 2020
First submitted
On 21 Feb, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Epigenetics & Genomics
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Genomics.
Background
Consumption of Listeria monocytogenes contaminated food can cause infection with a high mortality rate in humans and animals. High pressure processing (HPP) is a non-thermal preservation technique adopted by the food industry to inactivate food pathogens, including L. monocytogenes. Strains of L. monocytogenes show different level of resistance to the high pressure. Some strains resist up to 500 MPa pressure. Here, we tested the pressure resistance of 10 different L. monocytogenes strains, including field isolates and widely used type strains, to 400 and 600 MPa pressure treatments. Genome sequencing, and genome comparison of the tested L. monocytogenes strains were performed to investigate the relation between genomic profile and pressure resistance.
Results
In this study, we showed that none of the tested strains were resistant to 600 MPa, more than 5 log 10 reduction observed for all strains after 1 minute 600 MPa pressure treatment. However, L. monocytogenes strain RO15 showed no significant reduction in viable cell counts after 400 MPa for 1 minute and it was defined as barotolerant. Genome sequencing of so far unsequenced L. monocytogenes strain RO15, 2HF33, MB5, AB199, AB120, C7, and RO4 allowed us to compare their gene content. Genome comparison of 10 tested strains showed that the three most pressure tolerant strains had more than one CRISPR system with self-targeting spacers. Further, several anti-CRISPR genes were detected in these strains. Pan-genome wide analysis showed that 10 prophage genes were significantly associated with the three most barotolerant strains.
Conclusions
L. monocytogenes strain RO15 was the most pressure tolerant among the selected strains. Genome comparison suggests that there might be a relationship with prophages, CRISPR systems and pressure resistance in L. monocytogenes .
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...