Genomic comparison of Trypanosoma conorhini and Trypanosoma rangeli to Trypanosoma cruzi strains of high and low virulence

Abstract

BackgroundTrypanosoma conorhini and Trypanosoma rangeli, like Trypanosoma cruzi, are kinetoplastid protist parasites of mammals displaying divergent hosts, geographic ranges and lifestyles. Largely nonpathogenic T. rangeli and T. conorhini represent clades that are phylogenetically closely related to the T. cruzi and T. cruzi-like taxa and provide insights into the evolution of pathogenicity in those parasites. T. rangeli, like T. cruzi is endemic in many Latin American countries, whereas T. conorhini is tropicopolitan. T. rangeli and T. conorhini are exclusively extracellular, while T. cruzi has an intracellular stage in the mammalian host.ResultsHere we provide the first comprehensive sequence analysis of T. rangeli AM80 and T. conorhini 025E, and provide a comparison of their genomes to those of T. cruzi G and T. cruzi CL, respectively members of T. cruzi lineages TcI and TcVI. We report de novo assembled genome sequences of the low-virulent T. cruzi G, T. rangeli AM80, and T. conorhini 025E ranging from ~ 21–25 Mbp, with ~ 10,000 to 13,000 genes, and for the highly virulent and hybrid T. cruzi CL we present a ~ 65 Mbp in-house assembled haplotyped genome with ~ 12,500 genes per haplotype. Single copy orthologs of the two T. cruzi strains exhibited ~ 97% amino acid identity, and ~ 78% identity to proteins of T. rangeli or T. conorhini. Proteins of the latter two organisms exhibited ~ 84% identity. T. cruzi CL exhibited the highest heterozygosity. T. rangeli and T. conorhini displayed greater metabolic capabilities for utilization of complex carbohydrates, and contained fewer retrotransposons and multigene family copies, i.e. trans-sialidases, mucins, DGF-1, and MASP, compared to T. cruzi.ConclusionsOur analyses of the T. rangeli and T. conorhini genomes closely reflected their phylogenetic proximity to the T. cruzi clade, and were largely consistent with their divergent life cycles. Our results provide a greater context for understanding the life cycles, host range expansion, immunity evasion, and pathogenesis of these trypanosomatids.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12864-018-5112-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Assessing Trypanosoma cruzi Parasite Diversity through Comparative Genomics: Implications for Disease Epidemiology and Diagnostics

“…For strains CL-Brener, Dm28c, 231, TCC, SC43, S11, Ycl4, S23b, S92a, S15, S162a, S44a, S154, G, and Bug2148 we used previously published assemblies [ 18 , 44 , 47 , 48 , 77 , 78 , 79 ]. For all the remaining strains, we used raw sequence reads from the SRA database [ 80 ].…”

Biological attributes of the kissing bug Triatoma rubrofasciata from Vietnam

“…lewisi are extracellular kinetoplastid parasites of mammals, evolutionary close to Tryp. cruzi [15, 16]. Both are obligatory parasites of rodents of the genus Rattus with a worldwide distribution [17].…”

Trypanosoma Cruzi Genome: Organization, Multi-Gene Families, Transcription, and Biological Implications

“…Table 1 displays a summary of the recently available genomes in databases for the most studied strains. Some of these genomes were constructed from short-read sequencing methods (i.e., Illumina/Roche 454), such as Y [ 47 ], 231 [ 48 ], Sylvio X10/1 [ 49 ], G [ 50 ], or B7 strain of T. cruzi marinkellei [ 51 ]. Although these methods produce a high number of reads and have a low error rate, a relevant problem is the incapability to generate a complete chromosome reconstruction from short reads, causing very fragmented genomes in the case of complex genomes as trypanosomatids.…”