Back to all available

Evidencing strain-dependency of metabolic pathways within 1,494 lactic bacteria genomes with the in silico screening Prolipipe pipeline

bioinformatics
genomics
computational-science

Abstract

Genomes from bacteria of interest to the food industry exhibit significant functional variability, yet evaluating this characteristic remains challenging. As public repositories continue to accumulate more genomes, large-scale assessment of metabolic potential emerges as a promising method to highlight this functional variability. The primary challenge lies in automating a workflow to construct metabolic networks from genomes on a massive scale. Here, we present Prolipipe, a pipeline designed for the large-scale assessment of metabolic potential in bacteria, focusing on specific pathways. Given a large dataset of hundreds to thousands of bacterial genomes with known taxonomy and a list of targeted pathways, Prolipipe identifies gene functions through a comprehensive annotation step using three different tools. Then it builds genome-scale metabolic networks for each genome. These networks are then parsed to document the presence or absence of each reaction across all processed genomes. The pipeline evaluates the metabolic potential of each genome to carry out the pathway according to its gene content and highlight the best candidates among the large-scale set of genomes. In this study, Prolipipe was applied to 1,494 genomes of lactic acid bacteria, assessing the completeness ratio of 761 pathways. We classified pathways according to their maximum completeness rate, revealing that 137 pathways can be operated by at least one strain in our dataset. By mapping the identifiers of these pathways onto the pathway ontology graph of the Metacyc database, we highlighted that none of the pathways within four functional classes of Metacyc can be entirely recovered in the strain dataset. We then investigated infraspecific variability, a strong indicator of functional variability, and compared the species in our genome dataset based on their tendency to exhibit infraspecific variability. This analysis revealed species potential for strain-dependency, where phenotypes differ among strains of the same species.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].