IP Library Granted Patent US 12,362,039
Granted Patent B2
US 12,362,039 · App. 16/901,514 · Granted Jul 15, 2025

Bacterial quantitative trait-locus mapping

Inventors: Joshua K. Michener (Oak Ridge, TN); Daniel A. Jacobson (Oak Ridge, TN); Delyana Vasileva (Knoxville, TN); Jared Streich (Knoxville, TN)
Assignee: UT-Battelle, LLC
G16B20/40C12N15/03C12N15/902C12Q1/02G16B25/00G16B20/00
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,362,039
App. No.
16/901,514
Granted
Jul 15, 2025
Kind
B2
Abstract

This disclosure provides methods for performing quantitative-trait loci (QTL) analysis in bacteria. The methods of the instant disclosure utilize multiple rounds of protoplast fusion-induced genomic recombination to break genetic linkages in bacterial genomes. The methods of the instant disclosure allow determining which genetic elements (QTL) are associated with phenotypic al features.

Claims (39)

1. A method for identifying quantitative trait-loci in bacteria comprising:

providing two starting bacterial strains, wherein the two starting strains comprise selectable markers compatible with each other in that either at least one of the two starting bacterial strains is a wild type prototroph strain without an antibiotic resistance gene and the other starting bacterial strain is double auxotroph and comprises two different antibiotic resistance genes, or the two starting bacterial strains are each a single auxotroph strain comprising an antibiotic resistance gene and differ from each other in auxotrophy and antibiotic resistance;

inducing at least two rounds of genomic recombination, wherein the at least two rounds of genomic recombination comprises

(i) inducing a first round of genomic recombination between a population of a first starting strain and a population of a second starting strain to obtain first generation progeny bacteria,

(ii) selecting among the first generation progeny bacteria to obtain two populations of bacteria that have undergone genomic recombination using two different selective media, wherein each selective medium kills both starting bacterial strains and allows only one of the two populations of the first generation progeny bacteria to live,

(iii) inducing a second round of genomic recombination between one of the two selected populations of the first generation progeny bacteria and a population of bacteria that comprises a selectable marker compatible with the first selected population of the first generation progeny bacteria and that is selected from the group consisting of:

(a) the other of the two selected populations of the first generation progeny bacteria,

(b) a population of a strain that is otherwise genetically identical to one of the two starting strains,

(c) a population of a strain that is different from both starting strains, and

(d) a population of bacteria selected from progeny bacteria from induced genomic recombination between two different starting strains, thereby obtaining second generation progeny bacteria;

(iv) selecting among the second generation progeny bacteria for two populations of bacteria that have undergone genomic recombination using two selective media, wherein each selective medium kills both populations of bacteria used in the second round of genomic recombination, and allows only one of the two populations of the second generation progeny bacteria to live, and

(v) obtaining the selected two populations of the second generation progeny bacteria as two populations of a final generation progeny bacteria, or inducing at least one more round of genomic recombination and selecting between a first selected population of the second generation progeny bacteria and a population of bacteria that comprises a selectable marker compatible with the first selected population of the second generation progeny bacteria to obtain two populations of a final generation progeny bacteria;

determining the sequences of the genomes of the two populations of the final generation progeny bacteria, thereby determining genetic variations within the genomes of the two populations the final generation progeny bacteria;

determining at least one phenotype of the two populations of the final generation progeny bacteria; and

performing a population-wide analysis to identify genetic variations that associate with the at least one phenotype, thereby identifying quantitative-trait loci that are associated with the at least one phenotype.

2. The method of claim 1 , wherein the antibiotic resistance genes are inserted into the bacterial genomes to disrupt genes essential for bacterial survival.

3. The method of claim 1 , wherein the at least one phenotype comprises one or more of bacterial growth rate, resistance to a chemical compound, production of a target biochemical, ability to transfer into new environmental niche, ability to persist in a new environmental niche, ability to modulate a host phenotype when established in the host microbiome, ability to inhibit growth of a target organism, and ability to grow under restrictive conditions.

4. The method of claim 1 , wherein the genomic recombination at each round is achieved by protoplast fusion-induced homologous recombination.

5. The method of claim 1 , wherein the bacteria are Gram-negative.

6. The method of claim 5 , wherein the Gram-negative bacteria are selected from the group consisting of Pseudomonas, Novosphingobium, Sphingobium, Sphingomonas, Escherichia, Zymomonas , and Cupriavidus.

7. The method of claim 5 , wherein the genomic recombination at each round is achieved by protoplast fusion-induced homologous recombination comprising (a) treating the bacterial strains with an antibiotic that inhibits peptidoglycan biosynthesis; and (b) inducing the treated bacterial strains to undergo protoplast fusion in a high osmolarity medium comprising between 0.5 M and 1.2 M sucrose.

8. The method of claim 7 , wherein the antibiotic that inhibits peptidoglycan biosynthesis is Fosfomycin.

9. The method of claim 7 , wherein the protoplast fusion is achieved by chemofusion or electrofusion.

10. The method of claim 9 , wherein the chemofusion is achieved using polyethylene glycol.

11. The method of claim 1 , wherein the bacteria are Gram-positive.

12. The method of claim 11 , wherein the Gram-positive bacteria are selected from the group consisting of genera Bacillus, Corynebacterium, Streptomyces, Propionibacterium, Clostridium , and Lactobacillus.

13. The method of claim 11 , wherein the genomic recombination at each round is achieved by protoplast fusion-induced homologous recombination comprising (a) treating the bacterial strains with lysozyme, and (b) inducing the treated bacterial strains to undergo protoplast fusion in a high osmolarity medium comprising between 0.5 M and 1.2 M sucrose.

14. The method of claim 13 , wherein the protoplast fusion is achieved by chemofusion or electrofusion.

15. The method of claim 14 , wherein the chemofusion is achieved using polyethylene glycol.

16. The method of claim 1 , wherein the population-wide analysis comprises:

(a) mapping the sequences of each strain of the final generation progeny bacteria to the starting bacterial strains; and

(b) determining the presence of single nucleotide polymorphisms and insertions based on the mapping in (a).

17. The method of claim 16 , wherein the method further comprises:

(c) performing de novo assembly of genomes of each strain of the final generation progeny bacteria; and

(d) determining structural variants by comparing the assembled genomes of the final generation progeny bacteria to the genomes of the starting bacterial strains.

18. The method of claim 1 , wherein the population-wide analysis comprises a variant calling step that comprise mapping the genotypes of the final generation progeny bacterial strains to the genotype of the starting bacterial strains.

19. The method of claim 1 , wherein the population-wide analysis comprises a pruning step to cluster away variants that have indistinguishable association to a given phenotype via a parameter sweep function that scans every variant as a potential start position for pruning.

20. The method of claim 1 , wherein the population-wide analysis comprises a haplotype calling step.

21. The method of claim 1 , wherein the population-wide analysis comprises performing a Continuous Wavelet Transform Analysis.

Assignments (3)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Jun 9, 2025
From: JACOBSON, DANIEL A.
To: UT-BATTELLE, LLC
Reel/Frame 071357/0478 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Jun 23, 2022
From: MICHENER, JOSHUA K.; JACOBSON, DANIEL; VASILEVA, DELYANA; STREICH, JARED
To: UT-BATTELLE, LLC
Reel/Frame 060289/0610 →
CONFIRMATORY LICENSE Recorded Nov 20, 2020
From: UT-BATTELLE, LLC
To: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Reel/Frame 054488/0853 →
Continuity (2)
Provisional Application 62861378 · Jun 14, 2019
Related Publication 20200395096A1 · Dec 17, 2020
References Cited (34)
EQTL Analysis. Methods in Molecular Biology. vol. 2082, Humana, New York NY. Online Dec. 18, 2019. (Year: 2019). [cited by examiner]
Vasileva et al. Bacterial quantitative trait-loci (QTL) mapping—a novel method for identification of genetic determinants affecting establishment of allopatric bacteria. Jan. 2020. 2 pages. https://genomicscience.energy… [cited by examiner]
Bauby et al. Microbiology (2003), 149, 689-693 (Year: 2003). [cited by examiner]
Dai et al. Metab Eng. Jan. 2005;7(1):45-52 (Year: 2005). [cited by examiner]
Gong et al. Biotechnology Advances 27 (2009) 996-1005 (Year: 2009). [cited by examiner]
Hegazy & Moharam. Journal of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, 2010, 8(2): 67-74 (Year: 2010). [cited by examiner]
Miles, C. & Wayne, M. (2008) Quantitative trait locus (QTL) analysis. NatureEducation 1(1):208 (Year: 2008). [cited by examiner]
Hopwood. Ann. Rev. Microbial. 1981. 35:237-72 (Year: 1981). [cited by examiner]
Geneious 11.1 User Manual, published Jul. 16, 2018 by Biomatters Ltd (Year: 2018). [cited by examiner]
Calus and Vandenplas Genet Sel Evol (2018) 50:34 (Year: 2018). [cited by examiner]
Weighill et al. Front. Genet., May 30, 2019 Sec. Computational Genomics vol. 10—2019 (Year: 2019). [cited by examiner]
Zojer et al. PeerJ. 2017; 5: e2997 (Year: 2017). [cited by examiner]
Biot-Pelletier, D. et al., “Evolutionary engineering by genome shuffling”, Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol., 98: 3877-3887 (2014). [cited by applicant]
Cowley, L.A. et al., “Evolution via recombination: Cell-to-cell contact facilitates larger recombination events in [cited by applicant]
Croucher, N.J. et al., “A High-Resolution View of Genome-Wide Pneumococcal Transformation”, PLOS Pathog., vol. 8, No. 6, pp. 1-15, e1002745 (2012). [cited by applicant]
Derbyshire, K.M. et al., “Distributive Conjugal Transfer: New Insights into Horizontal Gene Transfer and Genetic Exchange in Mycobacteria” ; Microbiol Spectr, 2, pp. 1-19 (2014). [cited by applicant]
Didelot, X. et al., “Impact of recombination on bacterial evolution”, Trends Microbiol., 18(7): 315-322 (2010). [cited by applicant]
Dordet-Frisoni, E. et al., “Chromosomal Transfers in Mycoplasmas: When Minimal Genomes Go Mobile”, MBio, 5(6): 1-11, e01958 (2014). [cited by applicant]
Dordet-Frisoni, E. et al., “ Mycoplasma Chromosomal Transfer: A Distributive, Conjugative Process Creating an Infinite Variety of Mosaic Genomes”, Front. Microbiol., 10, 2441, pp. 1-16 (2019). [cited by applicant]
Ega, S.L. et al., “Comparative Analysis of Structural Variations Due to Genome Shuffling of Bacillus Subtilis VS15 for Improved Cellulase Production”, International J. of Mol. Sci., 21, 1299, pp. 1-21 (2020). [cited by applicant]
Gray, T.A. et al., “Distributive Conjugal Transfer in Mycobacteria Generates Progeny with Meiotic-Like Genome-Wide Mosaicism, Allowing Mapping of a Mating Identity Locus” , PLOS Biol., 11, e1001602 (2013). [cited by applicant]
Gray, T.A. et al., “Blending genomes: distributive conjugal transfer in mycobacteria, a sexier form of HGT”, Mol. Microbiol., 108(6): 601-613 (2018). [cited by applicant]
Hopwood, D.A. et al., “Genetic recombination protoplast fusion Streptomyces”, Nature, 268, pp. 171-174 (1977). [cited by applicant]
Luna-Flores, C.H. et al., “Improved production of propionic acid using genome shuffling”, Biotechnology Journal, 12.2:1600120, pp. 1-14 (2017). [cited by applicant]
Magocha, T.A. et al., “Improvement of industrially important microbial strains by genome shuffling: Current status and future prospects”, Bioresour. Technol., 257, pp. 281-289 (2018). [cited by applicant]
Mell, J.C. et al., “Extensive Cotransformation of Natural Variation into Chromosomes of Naturally Competent Haemophilus influenzae”, G3 (Bethesda), 4, pp. 717-731 (2014). [cited by applicant]
Mortimer, T.D. et al., “Genomic Signatures of Distributive Conjugal Transfer among Mycobacteria ”, Genome Biol. Evol., 6(9): 2489-2500 (2014). [cited by applicant]
Patnaik, R. et al., “Genome shuffling of Lactobacillus for improved acid tolerance”, Nat. Biotechnol., 20, pp. 707-712 (2002). [cited by applicant]
Petri, R. et al., “Dealing with complexity: evolutionary engineering and genome shuffling”, Curr. Opin. Biotechnol., 15, pp. 298-304 (2004). [cited by applicant]
Schaeffer, P. et al., “ Fusion of bacterial Protoplasts”, PNAS, 73(6): 2151-2155 (1976). [cited by applicant]
She, R. et al., “Mapping Causal Variants with Single-Nucleotide Resolution Reveals Biochemical Drivers of Phenotypic Change”, Cell, 172, pp. 478-490 (2018). [cited by applicant]
Wang, W. et al., “Genome shuffling enhances stress tolerance of Zymomonas mobilis to two inhibitors”, Biotechnol. Biofuels, 12:288, pp. 1-12 (2019). [cited by applicant]
Zhang, Y.X., et al., “Genome shuffling leads to rapid phenotypic improvement in bacteria”, Nature, 415, pp. 644-646 (2002). [cited by applicant]
Wang, W., et al., “Genome shuffling enhances stress tolerance of Zymomonas mobilis to two inhibitors”, Biotechnol Biofuels, Received Mar. 12, 2019, Accepted Dec. 5, 2019, Published online Dec. 16, 2019, pp. 1-12, 12:288. [cited by applicant]