Genome data vs MLST for exploring intraspecific evolutionary history in bacteria: Much is not always better.

Abstract

Genome-based phylogeny has been proposed to be more accurate than phylogeny based in a few genes as MLST-based phylogeny. However, much is not always better. Here we analyzed 368 complete genomes corresponding to 9 bacterial species in order to address intraspecific phylogeny. The studied species were: Burkholderia pseudomallei, Campylobacter jejuni, Chlamydia trachomatis, Helicobacter pylori, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella enterica, Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pyogenes. The intra-specific phylogenies were inferred using the complete genome sequences of different strains of these species and their MLST schemes. A supermatrix approach was used to infer maximum likelihood phylogenies in both cases. The phylogenetic incongruence between the supermatrix-based genome or MLST tree and individual trees (constructed from genome fragments or MLST genes, respectively) was analyzed. In supermatrix-based trees for genomes, most branches showed a high branch support; however, a high number of branches also showed high percentage of topologically incongruent individual trees. Interestingly, genome and MLST trees showed similar levels of incongruence in the phylogeny for each bacteria specie. Both genome and MLST approaches showed that C. trachomatis and S. aureus have a tree-like evolutionary history (low levels of internal incongruence). Instead, B. pseudomallei and S. pyogenes show high levels of incongruence (network-like evolutionary story) probably caused by HGT (horizontal gene transfer). Concluding, our analysis showed that: high branch supports obtained in genome phylogenies could be an artifact probably caused by data size; MLST is valid to address intraspecific phylogenetic structure; and, each species has its own evolutionary history, which could be affected by HGT to different extents.