DOCSLIB.ORG

Characterization of the Bacterial Communities of the Tonsil of the Soft Palate of Swine

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Characterization of the Bacterial Communities of the Tonsil of the Soft Palate of Swine Characterization of the Bacterial Communities of the Tonsil of the Soft Palate of Swine by Shaun Kernaghan A Thesis Presented to The University of Guelph In partial fulfilment of requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Pathobiology Guelph, Ontario, Canada © Shaun Kernaghan, December, 2013 ABSTRACT CHARACTERIZATION OF THE BACTERIAL COMMUNITIES OF THE TONSIL OF THE SOFT PALATE OF SWINE Shaun Kernaghan Advisor: University of Guelph, 2013 Professor Janet I. MacInnes Terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism (T-RFLP) analysis and pyrosequencing were used to characterize the microbiota of the tonsil of the soft palate of 126 unfit and 18 healthy pigs. The T-RFLP analysis method was first optimized for the study of the pig tonsil microbiota and the data compared with culture-based identification of common pig pathogens. Putative identifications of the members of the microbiota revealed that the phyla Firmicutes, Proteobacteria and Bacteroidetes were the most prevalent. A comparison of the T-RFLP analysis results grouped into clusters to clinical conditions revealed paleness, abscess, PRRS virus, and Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae to be significantly associated with cluster membership. T-RFLP analysis was also used to select representative tonsil samples for pyrosequencing. These studies confirmed Actinobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes, Fusobacteria, and Proteobacteria to be the core phyla of the microbiota of the tonsil of the soft palate of pigs. Acknowledgements I would like to thank my advisor Janet MacInnes for her support and endless patience during this project. I would like to thank my committee, Patrick Boerlin and Emma Allen-Vercoe, for their insights and support, as well as Zvoninir Poljak for his help through this project. I would also like to thank the members of the MacInnes lab, Allen-Vercoe lab, AHL diagnostic lab, and Laboratory Services for their help. Finally, a big thank you to my family for their patience and support throughout my studies. iii Declaration of Work Done All the work described in this thesis was performed by me with the exception of: 1. Julie McDonald aided in DNA extraction comparison by providing two commercial kits and explaining the use of the bead-beater. 2. Dr. Zvonimir Poljak wrote the STATA code for statistical comparisons. 3. Charlotte Swanson performed DNA extractions of several tonsil cultures. 4. Pyrosequencing was performed by Marcio Costa in the laboratory of Dr. Scott Weese. iv Table of Contents Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................. iii Declaration of Work Done .................................................................................................. iv Table of Contents .................................................................................................................. v List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... viii List of Figures .................................................................................................................... viii List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................................... xi Chapter 1 Review of the Literature ....................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Methods for Profiling Bacterial Communities .............................................................. 1 1.1.1. Study of Microbial Communities using 16S rRNA Genes ........................................... 1 1.1.2. Clone Library Analysis .............................................................................................. 2 1.1.3. Biases Associated with Clone and PCR-Based Studies ............................................... 3 1.1.4. Denaturing and Temperature Gradient Gel Electrophoresis ...................................... 6 1.1.5. Terminal Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism Analysis ................................. 8 1.1.6. Diversity Microarrays ............................................................................................. 11 1.1.7. 16S rRNA Gene Pyrosequencing.............................................................................. 13 1.2. Studying Bacterial Communities................................................................................. 16 1.2.1. Studying Bacterial Communities in Macro-Organisms............................................. 16 1.2.2. Tonsil of the Soft Palate of Pigs ............................................................................... 18 1.2.3. Bacteria associated with Pig Tonsils ....................................................................... 19 1.3. References .................................................................................................................... 22 Chapter 2 Objectives ............................................................................................................................ 39 Chapter 3 Optimization of the terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis (T- RFLP) method for the characterization of bacterial communities at the tonsil of the soft palate of swine ..................................................................................................................... 41 v 3.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 41 3.2. Materials & methods ................................................................................................... 43 3.2.1. Sample collection and processing ............................................................................ 43 3.2.2. Comparison of DNA extraction kits ......................................................................... 44 3.2.3. Checking lysis of ‘difficult-to-lyse’ bacteria ............................................................. 45 3.2.4. Tonsil tissue homogenization ................................................................................... 45 3.2.5. T-RFLP analysis PCR amplification and digestion .................................................. 46 3.2.6. Capillary electrophoresis ........................................................................................ 47 3.2.7. Comparison of tissue and culture samples ............................................................... 48 3.2.8. Mock community analysis ........................................................................................ 48 3.2.9. Filtering and binning of results................................................................................ 49 3.2.10. Creation of database for bacterial pathogen identification .................................... 49 3.2.11. Diagnostic Comparison ......................................................................................... 50 3.3. Results .......................................................................................................................... 50 3.3.1. DNA extraction kit comparison ................................................................................ 50 3.3.2. Evaluation of the Qiagen-bb protocol ...................................................................... 51 3.3.3. Tissue homogenization protocol comparison ........................................................... 51 3.3.4. PCR optimization .................................................................................................... 51 3.3.5. Mock community analysis ........................................................................................ 52 3.3.6. Comparison of T-RFLP analysis and culture identifications .................................... 52 3.4. Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 53 3.5. References .................................................................................................................... 62 Chapter 4 T-RFLP analysis of the bacterial communities associated with pig tonsils ...................... 76 4.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 76 4.2. Material & methods ..................................................................................................... 77 4.2.1. Sample collection and T-RFLP analysis................................................................... 77 4.2.2. Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMS) analysis and beta diversity ................. 78 4.2.3. Putative identification of T-RFLP analysis fragments .............................................. 79 4.2.4. Cluster analysis and comparison with clinical information ...................................... 80 vi 4.3. Results & Discussion .................................................................................................... 80 4.3.1. Comparison of OTUs observed in both healthy and unfit pigs .................................. 80 4.3.2. The ability of T-RFLP analysis to match fragments to putative identifications ......... 83 4.3.3. Putative identifications of the bacterial communities from healthy and unfit pigs ..... 84 4.3.4. Comparison of bacterial community data to clinical information collected from unfit pigs ................................................................................................................................... 88 4.4. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Role of Earthworm Gut-Associated Microorganisms in the Fate of Prions in Soil
    THE ROLE OF EARTHWORM GUT-ASSOCIATED MICROORGANISMS IN THE FATE OF PRIONS IN SOIL Von der Fakultät für Lebenswissenschaften der Technischen Universität Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig zur Erlangung des Grades eines Doktors der Naturwissenschaften (Dr. rer. nat.) genehmigte D i s s e r t a t i o n von Taras Jur’evič Nechitaylo aus Krasnodar, Russland 2 Acknowledgement I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Kenneth N. Timmis for his guidance in the work and help. I thank Peter N. Golyshin for patience and strong support on this way. Many thanks to my other colleagues, which also taught me and made the life in the lab and studies easy: Manuel Ferrer, Alex Neef, Angelika Arnscheidt, Olga Golyshina, Tanja Chernikova, Christoph Gertler, Agnes Waliczek, Britta Scheithauer, Julia Sabirova, Oleg Kotsurbenko, and other wonderful labmates. I am also grateful to Michail Yakimov and Vitor Martins dos Santos for useful discussions and suggestions. I am very obliged to my family: my parents and my brother, my parents on low and of course to my wife, which made all of their best to support me. 3 Summary.....................................................………………………………………………... 5 1. Introduction...........................................................................................................……... 7 Prion diseases: early hypotheses...………...………………..........…......…......……….. 7 The basics of the prion concept………………………………………………….……... 8 Putative prion dissemination pathways………………………………………….……... 10 Earthworms: a putative factor of the dissemination of TSE infectivity in soil?.………. 11 Objectives of the study…………………………………………………………………. 16 2. Materials and Methods.............................…......................................................……….. 17 2.1 Sampling and general experimental design..................................................………. 17 2.2 Fluorescence in situ Hybridization (FISH)………..……………………….………. 18 2.2.1 FISH with soil, intestine, and casts samples…………………………….……... 18 Isolation of cells from environmental samples…………………………….……….
    [Show full text]
  • Species Determination – What's in My Sample?
    Species determination – what’s in my sample? What is my sample? • When might you not know what your sample is? • One species • You have a malaria sample but don’t know which species • Misidentification or no identification from culture/MALDI-TOF • Metagenomic samples • Contamination Taxonomic Classifiers • Compare sequence reads against a database and determine the species • BLAST works for a single sequence, too slow for a whole run • Classifiers use database indexing and k-mer searching • Similar accuracy to BLAST but much much faster Wood and Salzberg Genome Biology 2014, 15:R46 Page 3 of 12 http://genomebiology.com/2014/15/3/R46 Kraken taxonomic classifier Figure 1 The Kraken sequence classification algorithm. To classify a sequence, each k-mer in the sequence is mapped to the lowest common ancestor (LCA) of the genomes that contain that k-mer in a database. The taxa associated with the sequence’s k-mers, as well as the taxa’s ancestors, form a pruned subtree of the general taxonomy tree, which is used for classification. In the classification tree, each node has a 15 weight equal to the number of k-mersWood in the and sequence Salzberg associatedGenome with the Biology node’s taxon. 2014 Each root-to-leaf:R46 (RTL) path in the classification tree is scored by adding all weights in the path, and the maximal RTL path in the classification tree is the classification path (nodes highlighted in yellow). The leaf of this classification path (the orange, leftmost leaf in the classification tree) is the classification used for the query sequence.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mysterious Orphans of Mycoplasmataceae
    The mysterious orphans of Mycoplasmataceae Tatiana V. Tatarinova1,2*, Inna Lysnyansky3, Yuri V. Nikolsky4,5,6, and Alexander Bolshoy7* 1 Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 90027, California, USA 2 Spatial Science Institute, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 90089, California, USA 3 Mycoplasma Unit, Division of Avian and Aquatic Diseases, Kimron Veterinary Institute, POB 12, Beit Dagan, 50250, Israel 4 School of Systems Biology, George Mason University, 10900 University Blvd, MSN 5B3, Manassas, VA 20110, USA 5 Biomedical Cluster, Skolkovo Foundation, 4 Lugovaya str., Skolkovo Innovation Centre, Mozhajskij region, Moscow, 143026, Russian Federation 6 Vavilov Institute of General Genetics, Moscow, Russian Federation 7 Department of Evolutionary and Environmental Biology and Institute of Evolution, University of Haifa, Israel 1,2 [email protected] 3 [email protected] 4-6 [email protected] 7 [email protected] 1 Abstract Background: The length of a protein sequence is largely determined by its function, i.e. each functional group is associated with an optimal size. However, comparative genomics revealed that proteins’ length may be affected by additional factors. In 2002 it was shown that in bacterium Escherichia coli and the archaeon Archaeoglobus fulgidus, protein sequences with no homologs are, on average, shorter than those with homologs [1]. Most experts now agree that the length distributions are distinctly different between protein sequences with and without homologs in bacterial and archaeal genomes. In this study, we examine this postulate by a comprehensive analysis of all annotated prokaryotic genomes and focusing on certain exceptions.
    [Show full text]
  • MIB–MIP Is a Mycoplasma System That Captures and Cleaves Immunoglobulin G
    MIB–MIP is a mycoplasma system that captures and cleaves immunoglobulin G Yonathan Arfia,b,1, Laetitia Minderc,d, Carmelo Di Primoe,f,g, Aline Le Royh,i,j, Christine Ebelh,i,j, Laurent Coquetk, Stephane Claveroll, Sanjay Vasheem, Joerg Joresn,o, Alain Blancharda,b, and Pascal Sirand-Pugneta,b aINRA (Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique), UMR 1332 Biologie du Fruit et Pathologie, F-33882 Villenave d’Ornon, France; bUniversity of Bordeaux, UMR 1332 Biologie du Fruit et Pathologie, F-33882 Villenave d’Ornon, France; cInstitut Européen de Chimie et Biologie, UMS 3033, University of Bordeaux, 33607 Pessac, France; dInstitut Bergonié, SIRIC BRIO, 33076 Bordeaux, France; eINSERM U1212, ARN Regulation Naturelle et Artificielle, 33607 Pessac, France; fCNRS UMR 5320, ARN Regulation Naturelle et Artificielle, 33607 Pessac, France; gInstitut Européen de Chimie et Biologie, University of Bordeaux, 33607 Pessac, France; hInstitut de Biologie Structurale, University of Grenoble Alpes, F-38044 Grenoble, France; iCNRS, Institut de Biologie Structurale, F-38044 Grenoble, France; jCEA, Institut de Biologie Structurale, F-38044 Grenoble, France; kCNRS UMR 6270, Plateforme PISSARO, Institute for Research and Innovation in Biomedicine - Normandie Rouen, Normandie Université, F-76821 Mont-Saint-Aignan, France; lProteome Platform, Functional Genomic Center of Bordeaux, University of Bordeaux, F-33076 Bordeaux Cedex, France; mJ. Craig Venter Institute, Rockville, MD 20850; nInternational Livestock Research Institute, 00100 Nairobi, Kenya; and oInstitute of Veterinary Bacteriology, University of Bern, CH-3001 Bern, Switzerland Edited by Roy Curtiss III, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, and approved March 30, 2016 (received for review January 12, 2016) Mycoplasmas are “minimal” bacteria able to infect humans, wildlife, introduced into naive herds (8).
    [Show full text]
  • Genomic Islands in Mycoplasmas
    G C A T T A C G G C A T genes Review Genomic Islands in Mycoplasmas Christine Citti * , Eric Baranowski * , Emilie Dordet-Frisoni, Marion Faucher and Laurent-Xavier Nouvel Interactions Hôtes-Agents Pathogènes (IHAP), Université de Toulouse, INRAE, ENVT, 31300 Toulouse, France; [email protected] (E.D.-F.); [email protected] (M.F.); [email protected] (L.-X.N.) * Correspondence: [email protected] (C.C.); [email protected] (E.B.) Received: 30 June 2020; Accepted: 20 July 2020; Published: 22 July 2020 Abstract: Bacteria of the Mycoplasma genus are characterized by the lack of a cell-wall, the use of UGA as tryptophan codon instead of a universal stop, and their simplified metabolic pathways. Most of these features are due to the small-size and limited-content of their genomes (580–1840 Kbp; 482–2050 CDS). Yet, the Mycoplasma genus encompasses over 200 species living in close contact with a wide range of animal hosts and man. These include pathogens, pathobionts, or commensals that have retained the full capacity to synthesize DNA, RNA, and all proteins required to sustain a parasitic life-style, with most being able to grow under laboratory conditions without host cells. Over the last 10 years, comparative genome analyses of multiple species and strains unveiled some of the dynamics of mycoplasma genomes. This review summarizes our current knowledge of genomic islands (GIs) found in mycoplasmas, with a focus on pathogenicity islands, integrative and conjugative elements (ICEs), and prophages. Here, we discuss how GIs contribute to the dynamics of mycoplasma genomes and how they participate in the evolution of these minimal organisms.
    [Show full text]
  • Effectors of Mycoplasmal Virulence 1 2 Virulence Effectors of Pathogenic Mycoplasmas 3 4 Meghan A. May1 And
    Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 27 September 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201809.0533.v1 1 Running title: Effectors of mycoplasmal virulence 2 3 Virulence Effectors of Pathogenic Mycoplasmas 4 5 Meghan A. May1 and Daniel R. Brown2 6 7 1Department of Biomedical Sciences, College of Osteopathic Medicine, University of New 8 England, Biddeford ME, USA; 2Department of Infectious Diseases and Immunology, College 9 of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville FL, USA 10 11 Corresponding author: 12 Daniel R. Brown 13 Department of Infectious Diseases and Immunology, College of Veterinary Medicine, 14 University of Florida, Gainesville FL, USA 15 Tel: +1 352 294 4004 16 Email: [email protected] 1 © 2018 by the author(s). Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY license. Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 27 September 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201809.0533.v1 17 Abstract 18 Members of the genus Mycoplasma and related organisms impose a substantial burden of 19 infectious diseases on humans and animals, but the last comprehensive review of 20 mycoplasmal pathogenicity was published 20 years ago. Post-genomic analyses have now 21 begun to support the discovery and detailed molecular biological characterization of a 22 number of specific mycoplasmal virulence factors. This review covers three categories of 23 defined mycoplasmal virulence effectors: 1) specific macromolecules including the 24 superantigen MAM, the ADP-ribosylating CARDS toxin, sialidase, cytotoxic nucleases, cell- 25 activating diacylated lipopeptides, and phosphocholine-containing glycoglycerolipids; 2) 26 the small molecule effectors hydrogen peroxide, hydrogen sulfide, and ammonia; and 3) 27 several putative mycoplasmal orthologs of virulence effectors documented in other 28 bacteria.
    [Show full text]
  • Advances in PCR Based Detection of Mycoplasmas Contaminating Cell Cultures
    Downloaded from genome.cshlp.org on October 6, 2021 - Published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press Advances in PCR based Detection of Mycoplasmas Contaminating Cell Cultures Georges Rawadi and Olivier Dussurget Laboratoire des Mycoplasmes, D~partement de Bact&iologie et Mycologie, Institut Pasteur, 75724 Paris, CEDEX 15, France M ycoplasmas (the trivial name for microorganisms belonging to the class Mollicutes) are the smallest free-living, self-replicating bacteria, having diame- ters of 300 to 800 nm. These pleomorph microorganisms have no cell walls. (1~ Be- cause of their small size and flexibility, mollicutes can pass through filters of 450 and 220 nm used commonly in cell culturing. ~,2) Mollicute contamination of primary and continuous eukaryotic cell lines rep- resents a major problem of economic and biological importance in basic re- search, diagnosis, and biotechnological production. This contamination prob- lem is widespread. Surveys show that 5-87% of cell lines are contaminat- ed. (3-6~ There are currently ~120 molli- cute species, (~ but 5 species account for ~>95% of cell contaminations. (3'7-9~ The common contaminants are two bovine mollicutes, Mycoplasma arginini and Acholeplasma laidlawii; two human mol- FIGURE 1 Scanning electron microscopy of 3T6 cell line infected with M. fermentans. Arrows licutes, Mycoplasma orale and Myco- indicate the mycoplasmas adsorbed on the cell surface. plasma fermentans; and a porcine molli- cute, Mycoplasma hyorhinis. (1~ Figure 1 shows a fibroblastic cell line contami- cleic acid and amino acid metabolism, ers or characteristics associated with nated with M. fermentans detected by and production of virus and biologic mollicutes, including DNA fluoro- scanning electron microscopy.
    [Show full text]
  • Microbiome Species Average Counts (Normalized) Veillonella Parvula
    Table S2. Bacteria and virus detected with RN OLP Microbiome Species Average Counts (normalized) Veillonella parvula 3435527.229 Rothia mucilaginosa 1810713.571 Haemophilus parainfluenzae 844236.8342 Fusobacterium nucleatum 825289.7789 Neisseria meningitidis 626843.5897 Achromobacter xylosoxidans 415495.0883 Atopobium parvulum 205918.2297 Campylobacter concisus 159293.9124 Leptotrichia buccalis 123966.9359 Megasphaera elsdenii 87368.48455 Prevotella melaninogenica 82285.23784 Selenomonas sputigena 77508.6755 Haemophilus influenzae 76896.39289 Porphyromonas gingivalis 75766.09645 Rothia dentocariosa 64620.85367 Candidatus Saccharimonas aalborgensis 61728.68147 Aggregatibacter aphrophilus 54899.61834 Prevotella intermedia 37434.48581 Tannerella forsythia 36640.47285 Streptococcus parasanguinis 34865.49274 Selenomonas ruminantium 32825.83925 Streptococcus pneumoniae 23422.9219 Pseudogulbenkiania sp. NH8B 23371.8297 Neisseria lactamica 21815.23198 Streptococcus constellatus 20678.39506 Streptococcus pyogenes 20154.71044 Dichelobacter nodosus 19653.086 Prevotella sp. oral taxon 299 19244.10773 Capnocytophaga ochracea 18866.69759 [Eubacterium] eligens 17926.74096 Streptococcus mitis 17758.73348 Campylobacter curvus 17565.59393 Taylorella equigenitalis 15652.75392 Candidatus Saccharibacteria bacterium RAAC3_TM7_1 15478.8893 Streptococcus oligofermentans 15445.0097 Ruminiclostridium thermocellum 15128.26924 Kocuria rhizophila 14534.55059 [Clostridium] saccharolyticum 13834.76647 Mobiluncus curtisii 12226.83711 Porphyromonas asaccharolytica 11934.89197
    [Show full text]
  • New Insights on the Biology of Swine Respiratory Tract Mycoplasmas From
    Siqueira et al. BMC Genomics 2013, 14:175 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/14/175 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access New insights on the biology of swine respiratory tract mycoplasmas from a comparative genome analysis Franciele Maboni Siqueira1,4, Claudia Elizabeth Thompson2, Veridiana Gomes Virginio1,3, Taylor Gonchoroski1, Luciano Reolon1,3, Luiz Gonzaga Almeida2, Marbella Maria da Fonsêca2, Rangel de Souza2, Francisco Prosdocimi6, Irene Silveira Schrank1,3,5, Henrique Bunselmeyer Ferreira1,3,5, Ana Tereza Ribeiro de Vasconcelos2* and Arnaldo Zaha1,3,4,5* Abstract Background: Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae, Mycoplasma flocculare and Mycoplasma hyorhinis live in swine respiratory tracts. M. flocculare, a commensal bacterium, is genetically closely related to M. hyopneumoniae,the causative agent of enzootic porcine pneumonia. M. hyorhinis is also pathogenic, causing polyserositis and arthritis. In this work, we present the genome sequences of M. flocculare and M. hyopneumoniae strain 7422, and we compare these genomes with the genomes of other M. hyoponeumoniae strain and to the a M. hyorhinis genome. These analyses were performed to identify possible characteristics that may help to explain the different behaviors of these species in swine respiratory tracts. Results: The overall genome organization of three species was analyzed, revealing that the ORF clusters (OCs) differ considerably and that inversions and rearrangements are common. Although M. flocculare and M. hyopneumoniae display a high degree of similarity with respect to the gene content, only some genomic regions display considerable synteny. Genes encoding proteins that may be involved in host-cell adhesion in M. hyopneumoniae and M. flocculare display differences in genomic structure and organization. Some genes encoding adhesins of the P97 family are absent in M.
    [Show full text]
  • Immunofluorescence with Mycoplasma Hyorhinis and a Sterol-Requiring Strain of Mycoplasma Granularum Leon Potgieter Iowa State University
    Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Retrospective Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 1-1-1970 Immunofluorescence with Mycoplasma hyorhinis and a sterol-requiring strain of Mycoplasma granularum Leon Potgieter Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd Recommended Citation Potgieter, Leon, "Immunofluorescence with Mycoplasma hyorhinis and a sterol-requiring strain of Mycoplasma granularum" (1970). Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 18648. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/18648 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Retrospective Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. j' l / I MMUNOF:. :JORESCEI\ CE WITH MYCOPLASMA HYORHINIS AND A STEROL- REQUIRING STRAIN OF MYCOPLASMA GRANULARUM Q!LC /Jlf_? by /_;; ~ x ........, -,., Leon Norman Dirk Potgieter A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Major Subject1 Veterinary Microbiology Signatures have been redacted for privacy Iowa State University Of Science and Technology Amee, Iowa 19?0 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 LITERATURE REVIEW 4 Mycoplasma Hyorhinis 4 History 4 Laboratory propagation and growth charac- teristics 4 Morphology and staining properties 8 Biochemical
    [Show full text]
  • The Mysterious Orphans of Mycoplasmataceae
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/025700; this version posted August 29, 2015. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. The mysterious orphans of Mycoplasmataceae Tatiana V. Tatarinova1,2*, Inna Lysnyansky3, Yuri V. Nikolsky4,5,6, and Alexander Bolshoy7* 1 Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 90027, California, USA 2 Spatial Science Institute, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 90089, California, USA 3 Mycoplasma Unit, Division of Avian and Aquatic Diseases, Kimron Veterinary Institute, POB 12, Beit Dagan, 50250, Israel 4 School of Systems Biology, George Mason University, 10900 University Blvd, MSN 5B3, Manassas, VA 20110, USA 5 Biomedical Cluster, Skolkovo Foundation, 4 Lugovaya str., Skolkovo Innovation Centre, Mozhajskij region, Moscow, 143026, Russian Federation 6 Vavilov Institute of General Genetics, Moscow, Russian Federation 7 Department of Evolutionary and Environmental Biology and Institute of Evolution, University of Haifa, Israel 1,2 [email protected] 3 [email protected] 4-6 [email protected] 7 [email protected] 1 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/025700; this version posted August 29, 2015. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
    [Show full text]
  • Swine Conjunctivitis Associated with a Novel Mycoplasma Species Closely Related to Mycoplasma Hyorhinis
    pathogens Article Swine Conjunctivitis Associated with a Novel Mycoplasma Species Closely Related to Mycoplasma hyorhinis Isabel Hennig-Pauka 1 , Christoph Sudendey 2, Sven Kleinschmidt 3 , Werner Ruppitsch 4, Igor Loncaric 5 and Joachim Spergser 5,* 1 Field Station for Epidemiology in Bakum, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, 49456 Bakum, Germany; [email protected] 2 Tierärztliche Gemeinschaftspraxis Büren FGS-GmbH, 33142 Büren, Germany; [email protected] 3 Lower Saxony State Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety, Food and Veterinary Institute Braunschweig/Hannover, 30173 Hannover, Germany; [email protected] 4 Institute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety, 1096 Vienna, Austria; [email protected] 5 Institute of Microbiology, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, 1210 Vienna, Austria; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Conjunctivitis in swine is a common finding, usually considered to be a secondary symptom of respiratory or viral systemic disease, or a result of irritation by dust or ammonia, or of local infections with Mycoplasma (M.) hyorhinis or chlamydia. In three unrelated swine farms in Germany with a high prevalence of conjunctivitis, a novel mycoplasma species, tentatively named Mycoplasma sp. 1654_15, was isolated from conjunctival swabs taken from affected pigs. Although 16S rRNA gene sequences shared highest nucleotide similarities with M. hyorhinis, matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight (MALDI-TOF) mass spectrometry, partial rpoB sequencing, and comparative whole genome analyses indicated the identification of a novel species within genus Mycoplasma. Noticeable differences between Mycoplasma sp. 1654_15 and M.
    [Show full text]