The reduction in small ribosomal subunit abundance in ethanol-stressed cells of Bacillus subtilis is mediated by a SigB-dependent antisense RNA

One of the best-characterized general stress responses in bacteria is the sigma(B)-mediated stress response of the Gram-positive soil bacterium Bacillus subtilis. The sigma(B) regulon contains approximately 200 protein-encoding genes and 136 putative regulatory RNAs. One of these sigma(B)-dependent RNAs, named S1136-S1134, was recently mapped as being transcribed from the S1136 promoter on the opposite strand of the essential rpsD gene, which encodes the ribosomal primary-binding protein S4. Accordingly, S1136-S1134 transcription results in an rpsD-overlapping antisense RNA (asRNA). Upon exposure of B. subtilis to ethanol, the S1136 promoter was found to be induced, while rpsD transcription was downregulated. By quantitative PCR, we show that the activation of transcription from the S1136 promoter is directly responsible for the downregulation of rpsD upon ethanol exposure. We also show that this downregulation of rpsD leads to a reduced level of the small (30S) ribosomal subunit upon ethanol stress. The activation of the S1136 promoter thus represents the first example of antisense transcription-mediated regulation in the general stress response of B. subtilis and implicates the reduction of ribosomal protein abundance as a new aspect in the sigma(B)-dependent stress response. We propose that the observed reduction in the level of the small ribosomal subunit, which contains the ribosome-decoding center, may protect B. subtilis cells against misreading and spurious translation of possibly toxic aberrant peptides under conditions of ethanol stress. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.</p

External quality assessment of SARS-CoV-2-sequencing: An ESGMD-SSM pilot trial across 15 European laboratories

Objective: This first pilot on external quality assessment (EQA) of SARS-CoV-2 whole genome sequencing, initiated by the ESCMID Study Group for Genomic and Molecular Diagnostics (ESGMD) and Swiss Society for Microbiology (SSM), aims to build a framework between laboratories in order to improve pathogen surveillance sequencing.Methods: Ten samples with varying viral loads were sent out to 15 clinical laboratories who had free choice of sequencing methods and bioinformatic analyses. The key aspects on which the individual centres were compared on were identification of 1) SNPs and indels, 2) Pango lineages, and 3) clusters between samples.Results: The participating laboratories used a wide array of methods and analysis pipelines. Most were able to generate whole genomes for all samples. Genomes were sequenced to varying depth (up to 100-fold difference across centres). There was a very good consensus regarding the majority of reporting criteria, but there were a few discrepancies in lineage and cluster assignment. Additionally, there were inconsistencies in variant calling. The main reasons for discrepancies were missing data, bioinformatic choices, and interpretation of data.Conclusions: The pilot EQA was an overall success. It was able to show the high quality of participating labs and provide valuable feedback in cases where problems occurred, thereby improving the sequencing setup of laboratories. A larger follow-up EQA should, however, improve on defining the variables and format of the report. Additionally, contamination and/or minority variants should be a further aspect of assessment.</p

External quality assessment of SARS-CoV-2-sequencing: An ESGMD-SSM pilot trial across 15 European laboratories.

OBJECTIVE This first pilot on external quality assessment (EQA) of SARS-CoV-2 whole genome sequencing, initiated by the ESCMID Study Group for Genomic and Molecular Diagnostics (ESGMD) and Swiss Society for Microbiology (SSM), aims to build a framework between laboratories in order to improve pathogen surveillance sequencing. METHODS Ten samples with varying viral loads were sent out to 15 clinical laboratories who had free choice of sequencing methods and bioinformatic analyses. The key aspects on which the individual centres were compared on were identification of 1) SNPs and indels, 2) Pango lineages, and 3) clusters between samples. RESULTS The participating laboratories used a wide array of methods and analysis pipelines. Most were able to generate whole genomes for all samples. Genomes were sequenced to varying depth (up to 100-fold difference across centres). There was a very good consensus regarding the majority of reporting criteria, but there were a few discrepancies in lineage and cluster assignment. Additionally, there were inconsistencies in variant calling. The main reasons for discrepancies were missing data, bioinformatic choices, and interpretation of data. CONCLUSIONS The pilot EQA was an overall success. It was able to show the high quality of participating labs and provide valuable feedback in cases where problems occurred, thereby improving the sequencing setup of laboratories. A larger follow-up EQA should, however, improve on defining the variables and format of the report. Additionally, contamination and/or minority variants should be a further aspect of assessment