Skip to main content
ARS Home » Midwest Area » Ames, Iowa » National Animal Disease Center » Infectious Bacterial Diseases Research » Research » Publications at this Location » Publication #182521


item Bulach, Dieter
item Seemann, Torsten
item Mcgrath, Annette
item Kuczek, Elizabeth
item Coppel, Ross
item Davies, John
item Rood, Julian
item Alt, David
item Zuerner, Richard
item Adler, Ben

Submitted to: International Leptospirosis Society Meeting Abstracts and Proceedings
Publication Type: Abstract Only
Publication Acceptance Date: 7/1/2005
Publication Date: 11/13/2005
Citation: Bulach, D.M., Seemann, T., Mcgrath, A., Kuczek, E., Coppel, R.L., Davies, J.K., Rood, J.I., Alt, D.P., Zuerner, R.L., Adler, B. 2005. The genome of Leptospira biflexa [abstract]. International Leptospirosis Society Meeting Abstracts and Proceedings. p. 136.

Interpretive Summary:

Technical Abstract: The genome of Leptospira biflexa Background: This saprophyte is not part of the phylogenetic group containing the pathogenic Leptospira, from which four strains have been sequenced. The comparison of the genome sequences of the sequenced, pathogenic strains, which include two strains from L. borgpetersenii (both serovar Hardjo) and two strains from L. interrogans (serovar Lai and Copenhageni) and the L. biflexa genome sequence will enable the evaluation of genetic diversity among Leptospira as well as identify putative virulence-associated genes. Methods: The sequence of the L. biflexa genome was determined using a standard random sequencing approach. Combinational PCR was used to close gaps between contigs. GeneMarkS was used for the preliminary identification of CDS features. BLAST and other similarity searching programs were used for the comparison with the other sequenced leptospiral genomes. Results: Chromosome 2 of the L. biflexa genome is significantly smaller than in the other sequenced, leptospiral genomes. Predomiantly this is attributable to the absence of cobalamin biosynthesis genes. Comparison of the predicted lipoproteins revealed substantial differences between L. biflexa and the other sequenced strains. Among the lipoproteins that are absent from L. biflexa are LipL32 and LipL41. Conclusions: Comparative analysis of the leptospiral genomes has revealed significant differences between the saprophytic strain and the other sequenced leptospiral strains. Given the high proportion of hypothetical proteins that are unique to the genus Leptospira, comparative analysis will facilitate the selection of candidate virulence factors from among this set of proteins. Keywords: Leptospira biflexa, comparative genomics, genome sequencing