Comparative genomics of European Avian Pathogenic E. coli (APEC)

Background Avian pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC) causes colibacillosis, which results in significant economic losses to the poultry industry worldwide. However, the diversity between isolates remains poorly understood. Here, a total of 272 APEC isolates collected from the United Kingdom (UK), Italy and Germany were characterised using multiplex polymerase chain reactions (PCRs) targeting 22 equally weighted factors covering virulence genes, R-type and phylogroup. Following these analysis, 95 of the selected strains were further analysed using Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS). Results The most prevalent phylogroups were B2 (47%) and A1 (22%), although there were national differences with Germany presenting group B2 (35.3%), Italy presenting group A1 (53.3%) and UK presenting group B2 (56.1%) as the most prevalent. R-type R1 was the most frequent type (55%) among APEC, but multiple R-types were also frequent (26.8%). Following compilation of all the PCR data which covered a total of 15 virulence genes, it was possible to build a similarity tree using each PCR result unweighted to produce 9 distinct groups. The average number of virulence genes was 6-8 per isolate, but no positive association was found between phylogroup and number or type of virulence genes. A total of 95 isolates representing each of these 9 groupings were genome sequenced and analysed for in silico serotype, Multilocus Sequence Typing (MLST), and antimicrobial resistance (AMR). The UK isolates showed the greatest variability in terms of serotype and MLST compared with German and Italian isolates, whereas the lowest prevalence of AMR was found for German isolates. Similarity trees were compiled using sequencing data and notably single nucleotide polymorphism data generated ten distinct geno-groups. The frequency of geno-groups across Europe comprised 26.3% belonging to Group 8 representing serogroups O2, O4, O18 and MLST types ST95, ST140, ST141, ST428, ST1618 and others, 18.9% belonging to Group 1 (serogroups O78 and MLST types ST23, ST2230), 15.8% belonging to Group 10 (serogroups O8, O45, O91, O125ab and variable MLST types), 14.7% belonging to Group 7 (serogroups O4, O24, O35, O53, O161 and MLST type ST117) and 13.7% belonging to Group 9 (serogroups O1, O16, O181 and others and MLST types ST10, ST48 and others). The other groups (2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) each contained relatively few strains. However, for some of the genogroups (e.g. groups 6 and 7) partial overlap with SNPs grouping and PCR grouping (matching PCR groups 8 (13 isolates on 22) and 1 (14 isolates on 16) were observable). However, it was not possible to obtain a clear correlation between genogroups and unweighted PCR groupings. This may be due to the genome plasticity of E. coli that enables strains to carry the same virulence factors even if the overall genotype is substantially different. Conclusions The conclusion to be drawn from the lack of correlations is that firstly, APEC are very diverse and secondly, it is not possible to rely on any one or more basic molecular or phenotypic tests to define APEC with clarity, reaffirming the need for whole genome analysis approaches which we describe here. This study highlights the presence of previously unreported serotypes and MLSTs for APEC in Europe. Moreover, it is a first step on a cautious reconsideration of the merits of classical identification criteria such as R typing, phylogrouping and serotyping

The biogenic approach to cognition

The original publication can be found at www.springerlink.comAfter half a century of cognitive revolution we remain far from agreement about what cognition is and what cognition does. It was once thought that these questions could wait until the data were in. Today there is a mountain of data, but no way of making sense of it. The time for tackling the fundamental issues has arrived. The biogenic approach to cognition is introduced not as a solution but as a means of approaching the issues. The traditional, and still predominant, methodological stance in cognitive inquiry is what I call the anthropogenic approach: assume human cognition as the paradigm and work ‘down’ to a more general explanatory concept. The biogenic approach, on the other hand, starts with the facts of biology as the basis for theorizing and works ‘up’ to the human case by asking psychological questions as if they were biological questions. Biogenic explanations of cognition are currently clustered around two main frameworks for understanding biology: self-organizing complex systems and autopoiesis. The paper describes the frameworks and infers from them ten empirical principles—the biogenic ‘family traits’—that constitute constraints on biogenic theorizing. Because the anthropogenic approach to cognition is not constrained empirically to the same degree, I argue that the biogenic approach is superior for approaching a general theory of cognition as a natural phenomenon