Detecting Bacillus anthracis

Abstract

The present invention utilizes unique DNA signatures to identify Bacillus anthracis. The DNA signatures can also be used in other types of detection. These signatures have been found to be unique to Bacillus anthracis, and can be used to understand how these DNA regions are being used to make this species different from closely related Bacillus species. Mechanisms of virulence, invasion, evolution, interactions with other microbes, antibiotic resistance etc. can be investigated with these regions once they are known. The method comprises using a multiplex polymerase chain reaction analysis of separate loci on the Bacillus anthracis chromosome to produce a set of chromosomal DNA signatures, and using at least one of the chromosomal DNA signatures to detect genetically the Bacillus anthracis.

Description

BACKGROUND

1. Field of Endeavor

The present invention relates to DNA diagnostics and more particularly to detecting Bacillus anthracis.

2. State of Technology

U.S. Pat. No. 6,664,104 to Farzad Pourahmadi et al and assigned to Cepheid for a “Device Incorporating a Microfluidic Chip for Separating Analyte from a Sample” issued Dec. 16, 2003 provides the following state of technology information, “Abstract: A device for separating an analyte from a fluid sample comprises a cartridge incorporating a flow-through microfluidic chip. The microfluidic chip includes an extraction chamber having an array of microstructures for capturing the analyte and for subsequently releasing the captured analyte into an elution fluid. Each of the microstructures has an aspect ratio of at least 2:1. The cartridge also includes channels and at least one low controller (e.g., one or more valves) for directing the flow of the sample and elution fluid through the microfluidic chip. The cartridge may optionally include a lysing region for lysing sample components (e.g., cells spores, or microorganisms), a waste chamber for storing waste fluid, and reaction or detection chambers for amplifying or detecting the analyte.”

U.S. Patent Application No. 2002/0045246 to William A. McMillan et al and assigned to Cepheid for a “Device for Lysing Cells, Spores, or Microorganisms” published Apr. 18, 2002 provides the following state of technology information, “Abstract: A device for use with an ultrasonic transducer to lyse components of a fluid sample comprises a cartridge having a lysing chamber, an inlet port in fluid communication with the lysing chamber, and an outlet port for exit of the sample from the lysing chamber. The inlet and outlet ports are positioned to permit flow of the sample through the lysing chamber, and the chamber contains at least one solid phase for capturing the sample components to be lysed as the sample flows through the chamber. The lysing chamber is defined by at least one wall having an external surface for contacting the transducer to effect the transfer of ultrasonic energy to the chamber.”

U.S. Pat. No. 6,569,630 to Jeevalatha Vivekananda and Johnathan L. Kiel for “Methods and Compositions for Aptamers Against Anthrax” issued May 27, 2003 provides the following state of technology information, “There is a great need for the development of methods, compositions and apparatus capable of detecting and identifying known or unknown chemical and biological agents (herein referred to as analytes), which include but are not limited to nucleic acids, proteins, illicit drugs, explosives, toxins, pharmaceuticals, carcinogens, poisons, allergens, contaminants, pathogens and infectious agents . . . . Within the field of biological warfare, there is a great need for a rapid, sensitive method to detect and identify pathogenic spores of Bacillus anthrax (hereafter “anthrax”). Anthrax is a highly pathogenic biological agent that is relatively simple to produce and distribute in the field. Present methods for detection of anthrax are not sufficiently rapid, sensitive, and robust to allow early detection of exposure to anthrax under field conditions, such as might be encountered on a battlefield. No good method presently exists for neutralization of anthrax under field conditions.”

U.S. Patent Application No. 2003/0124556 by David, J. Ecker for “Method for Rapid Detection and Identification of Bioagents” published Jul. 3, 2003 provides the following state of technology information, “Rapid and definitive microbial identification is desirable for a variety of industrial, medical, environmental, quality, and research reasons. Traditionally, the microbiology laboratory has functioned to identify the etiologic agents of infectious diseases through direct examination and culture of specimens. Since the mid-1980s, researchers have repeatedly demonstrated the practical utility of molecular biology techniques, many of which form the basis of clinical diagnostic assays. Some of these techniques include nucleic acid hybridization analysis, restriction enzyme analysis, genetic sequence analysis, and separation and purification of nucleic acids (See, e.g., J. Sambrook, E. F. Fritsch, and T. Maniatis, Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual, 2nd Ed., Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y., 1989). These procedures, in general, are time-consuming and tedious. Another option is the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or other amplification procedure which amplifies a specific target DNA sequence based on the flanking primers used. Finally, detection and data analysis convert the hybridization event into an analytical result.”

SUMMARY

Features and advantages of the present invention will become apparent from the following description. Applicants are providing this description, which includes drawings and examples of specific embodiments, to give a broad representation of the invention. Various changes and modifications within the spirit and scope of the invention will become apparent to those skilled in the art from this description and by practice of the invention. The scope of the invention is not intended to be limited to the particular forms disclosed and the invention covers all modifications, equivalents, and alternatives falling within the spirit and scope of the invention as defined by the claims.

The present invention utilizes unique DNA signatures to identify Bacillus anthracis. The DNA signatures can also be used in other types of detection. These signatures have been found to be unique to Bacillus anthracis, and the signatures can be used to help understand how these DNA regions are being used to make this species different from closely related Bacillus species. Mechanisms of virulence, invasion, evolution, interactions with other microbes, antibiotic resistance etc. can be investigated with these regions. These DNA signatures can also be used to identify unique regions that could be targets for protein-based diagnostics and research; and to identify targets for vaccine development, protein recognition mechanisms, basic research to understand evolutionary aspects of proteins, and how they are used among different applications. In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method of detecting Bacillus anthracis, comprising selecting at least one individual locus on a Bacillus anthracis chromosome, using a multiplex polymerase chain reaction analysis of the individual loci on a Bacillus anthracis chromosome to produce at least one chromosomal DNA signature, and using the at least one chromosomal DNA signature to detect genetically the Bacillus anthracis.

The invention is susceptible to modifications and alternative forms. Specific embodiments are shown by way of example. It is to be understood that the invention is not limited to the particular forms disclosed. The invention covers all modifications, equivalents, and alternatives falling within the spirit and scope of the invention as defined by the claims.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The accompanying drawings, which are incorporated into and constitute a part of the specification, illustrate specific embodiments of the invention and, together with the general description of the invention given above, and the detailed description of the specific embodiments, serve to explain the principles of the invention.

FIG. 1 shows a Phylogenetic tree of B. anthracis, B. cereus, and B. thuringiensis isolates.

FIG. 2 is a graphic representation of the locations of the tester-specific clones on the B. anthracis A2012 genome.

FIG. 3 shows a multiplex analysis of four separate loci on the B. anthracis genome. Four B. anthracis-specific primers yielded predicted products of 133, 163, 196, and 241 bp.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

Referring now to the drawings, to the following detailed description, and to incorporated materials, detailed information about the invention is provided including the description of specific embodiments. The detailed description serves to explain the principles of the invention. The invention is susceptible to modifications and alternative forms. The invention is not limited to the particular forms disclosed. The invention covers all modifications, equivalents, and alternatives falling within the spirit and scope of the invention as defined by the claims.

The present invention provides a method of detecting Bacillus anthracis, comprising selecting at least one individual locus on a Bacillus anthracis chromosome, using a multiplex polymerase chain reaction analysis of the individual locus on a Bacillus anthracis chromosome to produce at least one chromosomal DNA signature, and using at least one chromosomal DNA signature to detect genetically the Bacillus anthracis. The article, “Genome Differences That Distinguish Bacillus anthracis from Bacillus cereus and Bacillus thuringiensis” by Lyndsay Radnedge, Peter G. Agron, Karen K. Hill, Paul J. Jackson, Lawrence O. Ticknor, Paul Keim, and Gary L. Andersen, in Applied and Environmental Microbiology, May 2003, Volume 69, Issue 5, provides information about the present invention. The article, “Genome Differences That Distinguish Bacillus anthracis from Bacillus cereus and Bacillus thuringiensis” is incorporated herein in its entirety by this reference.

The three species of the group 1 bacilli, Bacillus anthracis, B. cereus, and B. thuringiensis, are genetically very closely related. All inhabit soil habitats but exhibit different phenotypes. B. anthracis is the causative agent of anthrax and is phylogenetically monomorphic, while B. cereus and B. thuringiensis are genetically more diverse. An amplified fragment length polymorphism analysis demonstrates genetic diversity among a collection of non-anthrax-causing Bacillus species, some of which show significant similarity to B. anthracis. Suppression subtractive hybridization was then used to characterize the genomic differences that distinguish three of the non-anthrax-causing bacilli from B. anthracis Ames. Ninety-three DNA sequences that were present in B. anthracis but absent from the non-anthrax-causing Bacillus genomes were isolated. Furthermore, 28 of these sequences were not found in a collection of 10 non-anthrax-causing Bacillus species but were present in all members of a representative collection of B. anthracis strains. These sequences map to distinct loci on the B. anthracis genome and can be assayed simultaneously in multiplex PCR assays for rapid and highly specific DNA-based detection of B. anthracis.

In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method that comprises using a multiplex polymerase chain reaction analysis of four separate loci on the Bacillus anthracis chromosome to produce a set of twenty eight chromosomal DNA signatures, and using at least one of the twenty eight chromosomal DNA signatures to detect genetically the Bacillus anthracis. The present invention utilizes unique DNA signatures to identify Bacillus anthracis. Systems for utilizing DNA signatures for identification are known in the art. For example, systems for utilizing DNA signatures for identification are described in U.S. Patent Application No. 2003/0124556 and the other publications identified in the patent application. U.S. Patent Application No. 2003/0124556 and the other publications are incorporated herein by this reference. The DNA signatures can also be used in other types of detection. These signatures have been found to be unique to Bacillus anthracis, and can be used to understand how these DNA regions are being used to make this species different from closely related Bacillus species. Mechanisms of virulence, invasion, evolution, interactions with other microbes, antibiotic resistance etc. can be investigated with these regions once they are known. These DNA signatures can also be used to identify unique regions that could be targets for protein-based diagnostics and research and to identify targets for vaccine development, protein recognition mechanisms, basic research to understand evolutionary aspects of proteins and how they are used among different applications. The DNA signatures fulfill the national need better, rapid DNA diagnostics that are highly specific for Bacillus anthracis.

Bacillus anthracis, B. cereus, and B. thuringiensis are genetically very closely related members of the group 1 bacilli, a fact which has led to the proposal that they should be considered a single species. B. cereus is frequently isolated as a contaminant of various foods and can occasionally be an opportunistic human pathogen. B. thuringiensis has been widely exploited in agriculture as an insecticide by virtue of the presence of plasmid-borne crystal toxin genes. B. anthracis is a virulent pathogen of mammals and is the causative agent of anthrax. All three species are readily isolated from soil environments.

Extensive genetic diversity among environmental isolates of B. cereus and B. thuringiensis has been demonstrated by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis, multienzyme electrophoresis, and amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) analysis. AFLP analysis proved sensitive enough to classify B. cereus and B. thuringiensis into five phylogenetic groups. Significantly, the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) reference strains of B. cereus and B. thuringiensis did not seem to be represented in the collection of environmental isolates used in that study. There was little correlation between species designation and the five phylogenetic groups identified by AFLP analysis, indicating significant genetic variability within and between B. cereus and B. thuringiensis. Furthermore, in two separate studies, the B. anthracis strains appeared to cluster together with a group containing periodontal B. cereus pathogens.

In contrast to the genomic diversity within B. cereus and B. thuringiensis, B. anthracis appears to be genetically clonal. Genetic identity among different B. anthracis isolates has necessitated fastidious analysis of their genomes for strain identification. Accurate discrimination is now possible by analysis of variable-number tandem repeats, which enumerates small tandem repeats at several locations in the B. anthracis genome. A collection of 426 B. anthracis environmental isolates that contains representatives from worldwide origins was subdivided by variable-number tandem repeat analysis into just six genetically distinct groups.

Several strains of B. cereus and B. thuringiensis which appear to be genetically related to B. anthracis have been isolated. Isolation and characterization of the genome regions unique to B. anthracis will provide clues to its genetic relationship to these strains and ultimately direct pathogenicity studies. AFLP analysis provides a rapid method for measuring phylogenetic distances. AFLP analysis generates a strain-specific fingerprint of amplified DNA fragments that demonstrate genomic variations in a microbial population based on an analysis of a portion of their genome sequences and DNA fragment length polymorphisms. The great advantage of AFLP analysis is its ability to analyze rapidly many loci, resulting in a phylogenetic resolution higher than those obtained with other methods. However, AFLP analysis provides little information about the genetic differences responsible for these polymorphisms. Suppression subtractive hybridization (SSH) is a highly efficient technique for the isolation and characterization of the large genomic differences that often drive bacterial genome evolution. SSH reveals DNA sequence differences that are responsible for many AFLPs.

Unique genomic differences can be exploited as “DNA signatures” for the discrimination of B. anthracis from its closest relatives. Plasmid-encoded toxin genes have proved a useful source of targets for rapid DNA-based assays. However, a plasmid-based test may not detect the occurrence of non-plasmid-containing strains of B. anthracis, which have been isolated from the environment. Furthermore, plasmids can be readily engineered and can be transferred to other bacteria for heterologous gene expression, and there is concern that pXO1 and pXO2 sequences that are present in other Bacillus strains may be encountered in previously uncharacterized genomes. There are many published examples of chromosomal regions that can be examined for B. anthracis identification, but all require time-consuming downstream analysis. Two recent examples of real-time PCR targeting of the rpoB gene of B. anthracis were useful but reported examples of false-positive results with some strains of B. cereus and targeted only a single locus.

This Application demonstrates the phylogenetic relationships of a collection of non-anthrax-causing Bacillus species to each other and to B. anthracis, as determined by AFLP analysis. SSH with B. anthracis and three of these close relatives identified a set of unique DNA regions that represent genomic differences between B. anthracis and these non-anthrax-causing Bacillus species. One immediate product of these experiments was a robust set of chromosomal DNA signatures which are capable of quickly detecting all six genetically distinct groups of B. anthracis and which can be used with any rapid DNA-based detection platform. A multiplex PCR analysis with four separate loci of the B. anthracis chromosome provides a rapid and highly specific means for the identification of B. anthracis.

Materials and Methods—AFLP analysis of DNA samples. AFLP analysis was accomplished as previously described. Briefly, DNA (100 ng) was digested with EcoRI and MseI, and the resulting fragments were ligated to double-stranded adaptors. The digested and ligated DNA was then amplified by PCR with EcoRI and MseI +0/+0 primers. The +0/+0 PCR product was analyzed by agarose gel electrophoresis to determine the size range of amplified fragments. Three microliters was used in subsequent selective amplifications with 6-carboxyfluorescein-labeled +1/+1 primers EcoRI-C (5′-GTAGACTGCGTACCAATTCC-3′, SEQ ID NO: 29) and MseI-G (5′-GACGATGAGTCCTGAGTAAG-3′, SEQ ID NO: 30). Selective amplifications were performed with 20-μl reaction mixtures. The resulting products (0.5 to 1.0 μl) were mixed with a solution containing the DNA size standards Genescan-500 (Applied Biosystems, Inc., Foster City, Calif.) and MapMarker-400 (BioVentures, Inc., Murfreesburo, Tenn.), both labeled with N,N,N,N-tetramethyl-6-carboxyrhodamine. Following heat denaturation at 90° C. for 2 min, the reaction mixtures were loaded into a 5% Long Ranger DNA sequencing gel (BioWhittaker Molecular Applications, Rockland, Me.) and visualized with an ABI 377 automated fluorescence sequencer (Applied Biosystems). GeneScan analysis software (Applied Biosystems) was used to determine the lengths of the sample fragments by comparison to the DNA fragment length size standards included with each sample. AFLP data analysis was performed as described by Ticknor et al.

Preparation of genomic DNA—The bacterial strains used for genomic DNA preparation and their geographic origins, where known, are listed in Table 1. DNA was extracted from cell pellets from overnight cultures grown in L broth by using a MasterPure DNA purification kit (Epicentre, Madison, Wis.) according to the manufacturer's instructions. Genomic DNA was prepared from enteric bacteria by using Wizard Genomic DNA Preps (Promega, Madison, Wis.) according to the manufacturer's instructions. Human genomic DNA was purchased from Clontech (Palo Alto, Calif.), and bovine genomic DNA was purchased from Novagen (Madison, Wis.). Soil DNA was extracted by using an UltraClean soil DNA kit (MoBio, Solana Beach, Calif.) according to the manufacturer's instructions. DNA isolated from organisms present in the air was prepared from filters as previously described. Both soil and air filter DNAs were prepared from samples originating in Livermore, Calif. After ethanol precipitation, all genomic DNAs were dissolved in 10 mM Tris HCl (pH 8.0) to a concentration of approximately 0.2 μg/ml.

TABLE 1
Strains used in this Study
	Phylogenetic	Geographic
Strain	Group	Origin(s)
B. anthracis
G3	A1.a	North America, Europe,
		Brazil
G20	A1.a	Italy
G25	A1.b	U.S.
G29	A2	Pakistan
G38	A3.a	Germany
G62 (Ames)	A3.b	U.S., U.K.
G67	A3	South Africa
G77 (Vollum)	A4	U.K., Spain, Zimbabwe
G80	B2	France
G87	B1	South Africa
Non-anthrax-causing
Bacillus species
B. cereus ATCC 14579	NA	NR
B. cereus ATCC 4342	NA	NR
B. cereus D17	NA	U.S.
B. cereus 3A	NA	U.S.
B. cereus S2-8	NA	U.S.
B. cereus F1-15	NA	U.S.
B. thuringiensis 97-27	NA	Bosnia
B. thuringiensis Al Hakam	NA	Iraq
B. thuringiensis ATCC 10792	NA	Israel
B. thuringiensis HD-571	NA	USDA

SSH—Genome comparisons by SSH were performed as previously described, except for the differences noted below. Briefly, the tester-specific DNA was digested with restriction endonucleases (RsaI and MseI; New England Biolabs, Beverly, Mass.) used according to the manufacturer's instructions. The fragments were first marked by ligation to specialized oligonucleotide adaptors. When the marked DNA was denatured and hybridized to excess unmarked driver-specific DNA that had been digested with the same enzymes, most tester-specific sequences formed heterohybrids with the driver. Some tester-specific sequences, however, self-hybridized to form amplifiable fragments that were then enriched by PCR, cloned, and sequenced. Agarose gel electrophoresis determined that the restriction endonucleases MseI and RsaI cut the genomic DNA to generate fragments in the optimal size range (200 to 1,000 bp). Modified adaptors were constructed to allow for subtractions with MseI-digested DNA as previously described. Namely, adaptor 1 was formed by annealing the “adaptor 1 long” oligonucleotide with the oligonucleotide 5′-TAACCTGCCCGG (SEQ ID NO: 31) to form an adaptor with appropriate cohesive ends. Adaptor 2 was formed by annealing the “adaptor 2 long” oligonucleotide with the oligonucleotide 5′-TAACCTCGGCCG (SEQ ID NO: 32). T4 DNA ligase (New England Biolabs) was inactivated by incubation at 72° C. for 20 min. Three separate SSH experiments were performed with B. anthracis Ames as the tester and three of the non-anthrax-causing Bacillus strains listed in Table 1 as the drivers: B. cereus ATCC 14579, B. cereus 3A, and B. thuringiensis Al Hakam.

DNA sequencing—Nonpurified PCR products were cloned by using a pGEM-T Easy TA cloning kit (Promega). Recombinant clones were picked by using a BioPick automated colony picker (BioRobotics, Woburn, Mass.), and plasmid templates were prepared by boiling lysis and magnetic bead capture with a high-throughput procedure. Sequencing of plasmid templates was performed by using an Applied Biosystems Big-Dye Terminator system and either an ABI 377 or an ABI 3700 automated sequencer. The sequencing primers used were 5′-TGTAAAACGACGGCCAGT (forward) (SEQ ID NO: 33) and 5′-CAGGAAACAGCTATGACC (reverse) (SEQ ID NO: 34). The resulting data were analyzed by using ABI sequencing analysis software, version 3.2, and then assembled and edited by using Phred, Phrap, and Consed 7.0. BLAST searches with the tester-specific DNA sequences were performed by using the National Center for Biotechnology Information website www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/BLAST identity was considered significant only when the expected probability of a fortuitous match (E value) was less than 10⁻⁴. Comparison of the sequence candidates to plasmids pXO1 and pXO2 and determination of their coordinates on the published B. anthracis genome were performed by using the crossmatch program, which is part of the Consed software package.

PCRs.—Oligonucleotide primers were designed from the putative tester-specific sequences and were supplied by Sigma-Genosys (The Woodlands, Tex.) or Invitrogen (Carlsbad, Calif.). The primers were designed by using Primer3 software; they had a melting temperature of >65° C., contained no more than three identical consecutive nucleotides, and possessed a two-nucleotide 3′ GC clamp. The primers were initially screened against genomic DNAs from both the tester and the driver. To determine whether a primer pair was tester specific, 1 ng each of tester- and driver-specific DNAs was used as a template in PCRs with Accuprime polymerase, primers at 10 μM (Invitrogen), and the following cycling parameters: 94° C. for 15 s, 65° C. for 15 s, and 72° C. for 30 s for 32 cycles. The products were visualized on a 1.5% agarose gel run in 0.5× Tris-borate-EDTA; if a product was present with tester-specific DNA as a template and absent with driver-specific DNA, then that sequence was designated tester specific. The tester-specific oligonucleotides were then used to prime PCRs with the B. anthracis, B. cereus, and B. thuringiensis strains listed in Table 1 and the same reaction conditions as those described above. The integrity of the genomic DNA template was tested in all PCRs with primers specific for a region of the 23S gene conserved in Bacillus species: 5′-CTACCTTAGGACCGTTATAGTTAC (SEQ ID NO: 35) and 5′-AGGTAGGCGAGGAGAGAATCC (SEQ ID NO: 36). Multiplex PCRs were performed as described above, except that template DNA was added to a final concentration of 10 ng/μl. The primers (see Table 5) were used at the following concentrations: 23S primers at 3 μM (288 bp), dhp73.017 (241 bp) at 20 μM, dhp73.019 (196 bp) at 10 μM, dhp61.183 (163 bp) at 5 μM, and dhp77.002 (133 bp) at 20 μM.

TABLE 5
Primers designed from the twenty-eight B. anthracis specific DNA signatures, and
their coordinates on the B. anthracis A2012 genome (Accession number: NC_003995).
		Length				Pre-
		of				dicted
		Differ-				PCR
		ence	GC	Reverse	Reverse	pro-
	Fragment	Product	Per-	Primer	Primer	duct
	Name	(bp)	cent	sequence	sequence	(bp)	Strand(1)
Tester:B anthracis Ames; Driver: B. centus ATCC14579
1	R.Ctg132	94	36.7	ACCTTTTGCTAAAGTGATTTCACCTTTTG	ACTGAAGTTGTTTCACCAGAGGGTATTGA	90	C
2	R.Ctg139	268	35.6	CAAAGTGGCAAAAGGGGAATTTAGA	CGCCCAACAACTTGAGAGCCTACAA	157	C
3	R.Ctg152	425	32.8	TCCCAATACATATGAGCGATTCGCC	GGTGGTATGTAAAAATCAAATAGGACGGA	155
4	R.Ctg177	612	31.9	TTGGATCAGCGTTTCTGAATTCAGC	TCCCCATATCGCTCAATTCCATCTA	160
5	M.Ctg032	342	34.7	GGCCCCATAACTTGATTTCTCTTCA	ATCTTGCTCCAGCTGAAGGAATGGC	151
6	M.Ctg037	151	36.2	GAAATGAATGCAGAAAAATTAGAGCTTG	TACAAATGCTTGTTTACCTTCTTCTCCAC	135
				CGC
Tester B. anthracis Ames; Driver; Bacillus Al Hakam
7	dhp61.159	420	31.7	AATTCTCATCCTACAGCATCTCC	TGAAGAAGCACCCTCTGTTG	151
8	dhp61.178	479	31.3	GGTGGGTAAATGATGAGTGTTTC	TTTTTGATTTGACCAGCCTTTTTAG	145	C
9	dhp61.161	1597	36.8	TGTGGAAGAATCCACTGTCC	TCTGTCTCTTTCATTTCCTCAAC	110	C
10	dhp61.1832	645	31.6	GAAGGACGATACAGACATTTATTGG	ACCGCAAGTTGAATAGCAAG	163	C
11	dhp64.177	482	43.6	TCGCAAGATAAATGGGAAG	TCCTCCCGTACCAATCAC	101	C
12	dhp64.188	531	35.8	TTGGTAAAGTAGAAGCATCTTGG	CCATCTTATCTGACCCTTGG	134	C
13	dhp64.252	451	36.6	ATATGTGGTTAGGAGCCAATG	ACAAATCGAGTCCAATAATCACC	137
14	dhp64.208	596	42.0	ACTACTCGACAAGGACGTTTGTATTTCC	CCATGTTTCCCATTTGCTTC	152	C
Tester: B.anthracis Ames; Driver: B. census 3A
15	dhp77.002	248	33.9	TGATATTTATGACCAAGATTCAATATACG	GCCATAGCTCAAGGTCAATAGG	133	C
16	dhp77.003	229	41.6	CCAGGTCCATCCTATGTTGC	ACTACAATCCGCGTGTCTCC	178
17	dhp77.004	300	38.1	CACGTGAGTTTACACCATACGC	CTAGCACTTGCTCTCATTTCG	243
18	dhp77.047	175	42.4	GGAACAACTTTCCCACAAGC	TCATTCGTGAACCCAATAAGC	148	C
19	dhp77.056	179	42.0	AGGAACGTGCGACGACTAGC	CACCCGATATGTTCAACAGG	167	C
20	dhp73.001	490	32.2	TTTCTTATCCAACAGGTGTATGC	GCGAGTGTGACGTTGATAAGC	211	C
21	dhp73.009	438	30.6	TCAAACGTTGCCGAATAAGC	GACGATTCGACACAACATATCG	166	C
22	dhp73.011	387	33.3	TTGGCATTGTGTTAGATGAGG	TGTGATAAAGCCAAAGCAACC	204
23	dhp73.016	467	28.9	CAGAGCGTTTCTTAAATGAAGAGG	TTCATCATATGCCTCAATTTGG	166	C
24	dhp73.017	497	33.8	AAAGGCGGTTTAGAATTTGG	TGCTGCTCTTTACCCATGC	241	C
25	dhp73.019	327	38.5	TGTAAATGAACGCCTTGACC	CCGACTCCTTCTATCAATTCC	196
26	dhp73.022	244	39.8	AAACAATGTTGGATGGTAAATGG	CCATTCGCAAATTCACTCC	144	C
27	dhp73.026	548	27.7	CCGAGCTTTAATGGAAATGG	CCTTTACCTTCAGCCTCTAGC	236
28	dhp73.029	242	30.6	GGAGAAACAGATAGTGGTGAAAGC	ACTCTAAAGCCTTGTATTAGATTTCC	133
	BLASTX, against B. anthracis A2012 genome (NC_003995)	BLASTX against GenBank database
	5′ Co-	3′ Co-	BA A2012	BA A2012			Accession
	ordinate	ordinate	BLASTX	Gene	E Value	Description	Number	E Value
Tester:B anthracis Ames; Driver: B. centus ATCC14579
1	1,396,681	1,396,592	NP_654829	BA_489	3.0E−09	S-layer protein	P49051	3.0E−09
						[Bacillus anthracis
2	3,923,298	3,923,035	NP_657605	BA_4245	6.0E−44	Hypothetical phage protein	NP_606634	9.0E−05
						(Streptococcus pyogenes)
3	4,227,290	4,227,710	NP_657938	BA_4578	4.0E−12	Novel
4	996,045	996,652	NP_654415	BA_1055	4.0E−89	Novel
5	344,770	345,109	NP_653725	BA_0365	2.0E−63	Galactosyltranserase	NP_349903	7.0E−08
						[Clostridium acetobutylicum]
6	690,508	990,656	NP_654413	BA_1053	1.0E−08	Novel
Tester B. anthracis Ames; Driver; Bacillus Al Hakam
7	4,870,037	4,870,457	NP_658848	BA_5288	1.0E−29	Novel	—	—
8	349,630	349,192	NP_653729	BA_0369	1.0E−76	Novel	—	—
9	4,209,359	4,207,762	NP_657910	BA_4550	1.0E−179	BH0961: unknown conserved	NP_241827	4.0E−04
						protein (Bacillus
						halodurans)
10	186,609	185,965	NP_653563	BA_0203	4.0E−42	Novel	—	—
11	3,427,212	3,426,731	NP_657087	BA_3727	8.0E−82	Penicillin binding protein	BAB69972	1.0E−67
						[Bacillus cerus]
12	4,203,832	4,203,302	NP_657908	BA_4548	1.0E−100	Novel	—	—
13	192,470	192,922	NP_653575	BA_0215	9.0E−47	Putative phage laminase	NP_562034	5.0E−08
						[Clostridium perfringens]
14	3,951,710	3,951,115	NP_657641	BA_4281	7.0E−83	Cytosine-specific methyl-	NP_244375	2.0E−03
						transferase [Bacillus
						halodurans]
Tester: B.anthracis Ames; Driver: B. census 3A
15	980,947	961,187	NP_654400	BA_1040	5.0E−42	Phage terminese Phi SLT	NP_075501	1.0E−06
						[Staphylococcus aureus]
16	3,701,825	3,702,023	Intergenic	—	—	Novel	—	—
17	1,292,142	1,292,441	NP_654715	BA_1355	7.0E−52	Novel	—	—
18	965,870	965,695	NP_654367	BA_1007	1.0E−26	hypothetical protein nanH	140868	2.0E−06
						region [Clostridium
						perfringens]
19	3,927,774	3,927,596	Intergenic	—	—	Novel	—	—
20	699,664	699,175	NP_654100	BA_0740	2.0E−15	L-glutamine-D-fructose-6-	BAA04741	2.1E−12
						phosphate amidotransferase
						[Bacillus subt.
21	3,223,428	3,222,991	NP_656951	BA_3491	3.0E−22	Novel	—	—
22	2,472,346	2,472,732	NP_655986	BA_2526	1.0E−67	ABC transporter (ATP-	NP_561360	5.0E−32
						binding protein)
						[Clostridium perfringens]
23	3,945,582	3,945,125	NP_657634	BA_4274	8.0E−72	Novel	—	—
24	4,198,535	4,198,039	NP_657898	BA_4538	1.0E−82	Novel	—	—
25	3,920,569	3,920,882	NP_657604	BA_4244	8.0E−45	Novel	—	—
26	4,205,247	4,205,004	NP_657908	BA_4548	1.0E−42	Novel	—	—
27	1,472,742	1,473,289	Intergenic	—	—	BH2522: unknown conserved	NP_243388	1.0E−13
						protein [Bacillus
						halodurans]
28	—	—	—	—	—	Novel	—	—
(1)C Indicates identity to the complimentary strand.
(2)The underlined primers indicate those used in the multiplex PCR assays shown in FIG. 3.

Results—Genetic relatedness of B. anthracis to B. cereus and B. thuringiensis, as determined by AFLP.—The phylogenetic tree derived from the fluorescent AFLP data is shown in FIG. 1.

Referring now to FIG. 1, a Phylogenetic tree of B. anthracis, B. cereus, and B. thuringiensis isolates is shown. The phylogenetic tree was derived from fluorescent AFLP analyses of 12 B. anthracis (Ba), B. cereus (Bc), and B. thuringiensis (Bt) isolates. The phylogenetic tree was based on 34 to 40 amplified DNA fragments per sample (the number per sample is shown in parentheses) generated from EcoRI/MseI digestion of genomic DNAs. Jaccard coefficients for the fragments common in three replicate gels for each isolate were analyzed by using the unweighted pair-group method with arithmetic means to produce the dendrogram.

The Bacillus isolates used in this study were chosen from a previous AFLP study of over 300 Bacillus isolates (K. K. Hill and P. J. Jackson, unpublished data). They included several B. cereus and B. thuringiensis isolates that were found to be the most closely related to B. anthracis and two more distantly related B. cereus and B. thuringiensis strains (ATCC type strains 14579 and 10792, respectively). The other Bacillus isolates represented on the tree include pathogenic and nonpathogenic isolates; details for these isolates are shown in Table 1. B. anthracis is represented in this tree by the Ames and Vollum strains. A large number of B. anthracis isolates were previously tested and found to possess AFLP profiles indistinguishable from those of these two strains (data not shown). The isolate most closely related to B. anthracis is B. thuringiensis 97-27. This isolate was collected from the wound of a French soldier and was shown to be capable of infecting and killing immunocompetent mice in subsequent studies. The three other B. thuringiensis isolates on the tree are HD-571, obtained from the U.S. Department of Agriculture B. thuringiensis collection; Al Hakam, collected by the United Nations Special Commission at a suspected bioweapons facility in Iraq; and the ATCC type strain (ATCC 10792). The B. cereus isolates also include pathogenic and nonpathogenic members of this species. Three B. cereus isolates (F1-15, 3A, and D17) were collected from food sources that caused human illness, and one (S2-8) was a soil isolate. The B. cereus ATCC type strain (ATCC 14579) and ATCC 4342, an isolate from milk, were also included.

Data were analyzed by using three or more replicates of the AFLP profiles to compare each isolate to the other isolates. AFLP fragments that appeared in every replicate for an isolate were used to define a fingerprint for that isolate. Each gel contained one or more control DNA samples to allow comparisons of profiles on the different gels. Jaccard coefficients for the fingerprints of the isolates being compared were analyzed by using an unweighted pair-group method with arithmetic means to produce the dendrogram. Based on an analysis of control DNA samples, the variability within the analysis was less than about 0.2 for the Jaccard coefficients. Any differences below this level therefore may be due to experimental or analytical variability and cannot be considered significant. Differences above this level are reproducible and carry a high degree of confidence.

Isolation of tester-specific DNA sequences by SSH.—SSH identifies DNA sequences that are specific to one genome (tester) and absent from the other genome (driver). Typically these DNA sequences range in length from 200 to 1,000 bp and are referred to as difference products. Three subtractions were undertaken to increase the yield and representation of B. anthracis-specific regions. B. cereus ATCC 14579 was selected because it represents one of the two most distantly related strains in this study and would be most likely to yield difference products. B. cereus 3A was chosen because it represents one of the closest relatives of B. anthracis, while B. thuringiensis Al Hakam represents intermediate relatedness.

A total of 256 candidate sequences were generated from subtractions by using genomic DNA from B. cereus ATCC 14579 as the driver (Table 2). Sequences that do not occur on plasmids pXO1 and pXO2 of B. anthracis were of primary interest, since some plasmid sequences are conserved in closely related Bacillus species. Sequences identical to pXO1 and pXO2 were eliminated by computer comparisons to published nucleotide sequences (see Materials and Methods). The remaining sequences were used to design oligonucleotide primers for PCR analysis, to determine their representation in the tester and driver genomes. PCR experiments with B. anthracis Ames and B. cereus ATCC 14579 DNA as a template identified 39 B. anthracis Ames-specific sequences (15% of the tester-specific candidates). Six of the tester-specific candidates (2%) did not amplify a product when DNA from the collection of non-anthrax-causing pathogens was used as a template. Similarly, 28 out of 48 sequences (58%) were absent from B. thuringiensis Al Hakam; 8 of these (16%) did not occur in the collection of closely related non-anthrax-causing pathogens (Table 2). Finally, 48 sequences each were generated from two separate subtractions by using genomic DNAs prepared from B. cereus 3A and B. thuringiensis Al Hakam as drivers. A total of 26 out of 48 sequences (54%) were present in B. anthracis Ames but absent from B. cereus 3A; 14 of these did not occur in the collection of closely related non-anthrax-causing pathogens (Table 2).

TABLE 2
Isolation of 28 B. anthracis-specific DNA signatures
from three SSH experiments
			No. (%)
			of candidates
Tester	Driver	Candidate Sequence	remaining
B. anthracis	B. cereus	From SSH	256 (100)
Ames	ATCC 14579	Tester specific	39 (15)
		After screening with	6 (2)
		non-anthrax-causing
		Bacillus pathogens
B. anthracis	B. thuringiensis	From SSH	48 (100)
Ames	Al Hakam	Tester specific	28 (58)
		After screening with	8 (17)
		non-anthrax-causing
		Bacillus pathogens
B. anthracis	B. cereus 3A	From SSH	48 (100)
Ames		Tester specific	26 (54)
		After screening with	14 (29)
		non-anthrax-causing
		Bacillus pathogens

It is crucial that DNA signatures intended for DNA-based detection of B. anthracis show no false-negative results with all isolates that might be encountered in environmental samples. All of the B. anthracis-specific candidates successfully amplified a PCR product when DNAs from the eight representatives of B. anthracis (Table 1) were used as templates (data not shown).

Distribution of tester-specific loci in B. cereus and B. thuringiensis.—Genomic variations within the collection of non-anthrax-causing pathogens were observed as the presence or absence of 39 tester-specific regions isolated from the subtraction in which genomic DNA from B. cereus ATCC 14579 was used as the driver and DNA from B. anthracis Ames was used as the tester (Table 3). The tester-specific primers are listed in Table 3 in decreasing order of the number of products amplified from this panel of non-anthrax-causing pathogens. Since, by definition, the driver will always be negative, there will be a maximum of nine loci possible in the 10 non-anthrax-causing Bacillus species. Similarly, the tester will always be positive, so that the minimum number of products possible will be one. The data in Table 3 show that seven primer sets are present in nine templates (excluding the driver), while six candidates (shown in bold type) are represented in B. anthracis only. The columns of data for non-anthrax-causing pathogens are arranged from left to right in Table 3 according to the number of tester-specific sequences seen in their respective genomes. The maximum number of candidates possible for each non-anthrax-causing Bacillus species is 39 for the tester (B. anthracis), while the minimum is 0 for the driver (B. cereus ATCC 14579). Strains that have more markers in common are suggested to be more closely related to B. anthracis. The data in Table 3 show that B. cereus 3A is the most closely related (31 out of 39 sequences), followed by B. cereus S2-8 and D17 (29 out of 39 sequences); as expected, B. thuringiensis ATCC 10792 is the least closely related (10 out of 39 sequences). The presence or absence of these loci is not correlated with the current species designations of B. cereus and B. thuringiensis. Table 4 shows data obtained with primers designed from the subtraction with the most closely related DNA as a driver. Far fewer primer candidates detect the non-anthrax-causing Bacillus species, with 14 (shown in bold type) being found only for B. anthracis Ames.

TABLE 3
TABLE 3 Presence or absence of B. anthracts Ames-specific nucleotide sequences in the genomes of 10
non-anthrax-causing Bacillus pathogens as determined by PCR with B. cereus ATCC 14579 as the driver
	Presence (+) or absence (−) of B. anthracis Ames-specific nucleotide sequences in:
											B.
	B.							B.			cereus
	anthracis	B.	B.	B.	B.	B.	B.	cereus	B.	B.	ATCC
	Ames	cereus	cereus	cereus	thuringiensis	thuringiensis	thuringiensis	ATCC	cereus	thuringiensis	14579
Primera	(tester)	3A	S2-8	D17	97-27	HD-571	Al Hakam	4342	F1-15	ATCC 10792	(driver)
M.	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	−
Ctg015
R.	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	−	+	+	−
Ctg013
R.	+	+	+	+	+	−	+	+	+	−	−
Ctg048
R.	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	−	−
Ctg102
R.	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	−
Ctg107
R.	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	−	−
Ctg137
R.	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	−
Ctg173
M.	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	−
Ctg011
M.	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	−	−
Ctg013
M.	+	+	+	+	+	−	+	+	+	−	−
Ctg033
M.	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	−	−	−
Ctg038
M.	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	−	−	−
Ctg039
R.	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	−	−	−
Ctg070
R.	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	−	−	−
Ctg116
R.	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	−	−
Ctg153
R.	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	−	−
Ctg168
R.	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	−	−	−
Ctg018
R.	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	−	−	−
Ctg036
R.	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	−	−	−
Ctg087
M.	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	−	+	−	−
Crg025
R.	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	−	+	−	−
Crg079
R.	+	+	+	+	+	+	−	−	+	−	−
Ctg108
M.	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	−	−	−	−
Ctg003
R.	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	−	−	−	−
Ctg119
R.	+	+	+	−	+	+	+	+	−	−	−
Ctg156
M.	+	+	−	+	+	+	+	−	+	−	−
Ctg056
R.	+	+	+	+	+	−	−	−	−	−	−
Ctg100
M.	+	+	+	+	−	−	−	−	−	−	−
Ctg016
R.	+	+	+	−	−	−	−	+	−	−	−
Ctg185
R.	+	+	+	−	−	−	−	+	−	−	−
Crg197
M.	+	+	−	−	−	−	−	+	−	+	−
Ctg007
M.	+	−	−	+	−	−	−	+	−	−	−
Ctg031
M.	+	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−
Ctg012
M.	+	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−
Ctg032
M.	+	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−
Ctg037
R.	+	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−
Crg132
R.	+	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−
Crg139
R.	+	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−
Crg152
R.	+	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−
Ctg177
a Bold rype indicates primers that are specific for B. anthracis.

TABLE
TABLE 4 Presence or absence of B. anthracis Ames-specific nucleotide sequences in the genomes of 10
non-anthrax-causing Bacillus pathogens as determined by PCR with B. Cereus 3A as the driver.
	Presence (+) or absence (−) of B. anthracis Ames-specific nucleotide sequences in:
	B.					B.			B.		B.
	anthracis	B.	B.	B.	B.	cereus	B.	B.	cereus	B.	cereus
	Ames	cereus	thuringlenis	thuringlenis	cereus	ATCC	thuringiensis	thuringiensis	ATCC	cereus	3A
Primera	(tester)	D17	HD-571	Al Hakam	F1-15	4342	97-27	ATCC 10792	14579	S2-8	(driver)
dhp77.46	+	+	+	−	+	−	+	−	−	−	−
dhp73.18	+	+	+	−	−	+	−	−	−	−	−
dhp73.03	+	+	+	−	+	+	−	−	−	−	−
dhp77.38	+	−	+	+	−	−	−	+	−	−	−
dhp73.04	−−	−	−	+	−	−	+	−	−	−	−
dhp73.21	+	+	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−
dhp77.50	+	+	−	−	−	−	−	−	−
dhp77.21	−	−	−	−	+	−	−	−	−	−	−
dhp77.27	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−
dhp77.42	−	−	−	+	−	−	−	−	−	−	−
dhp77.36	+	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−
dhp73.12	+	−	−	−	+	−	+	−	−	−	−
dhp73.01	+	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−
dhp73.09	+	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−
dhp73.11	+	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−
dhp73.16	+	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−
dkp73.17	+	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−
dhp73.19	+	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−
dhp73.22	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−
dhp73.26	+	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−
dhp73.29	+	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−
dhp77.02	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−
dhp77.03	+	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−
dhp77.04	+	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−
dhp77.47	+	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−
dhp77.56	+	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−
a Bold type indicates primers that are specific for B. anthracis.

B. anthracis-specific DNA sequences and primers.—From the original collection of 352 fragments isolated from three subtractions, 28 were specific for B. anthracis and did not amplify a product with the near neighbors. All 93 tester-specific primers, some of which can be used to distinguish the B. cereus and B. thuringiensis strains used in this study, can be found at http:/bbrp.llnl.gov /htm/BAspc.htm. All primers successfully amplified a PCR product of the predicted size, showing no evidence of variations at these loci in the B. anthracis strains (data not shown). These 28 B. anthracis-specific candidates were used to screen DNAs from common enteric pathogens—Yersinia pestis, Y. pseudotuberculosis, Y. enterocolitica, and Escherichia coli—species that may be encountered in environmental samples in suspected anthrax cases (soil, air, human, and bovine samples). All 28 candidates failed to amplify a product from these bacterial DNAs (data not shown). The average G+C content of these sequences was 35% (28 to 44%), a value consistent with that of B. anthracis.

All but 1 of the 28 B. anthracis-specific DNA sequences can be mapped to the 5.23-Mb genome of B. anthracis A2012 (GenBank accession number NC_—003995). BLASTX analysis showed that 24 of the remaining 27 DNA sequences map to the open reading frames defined therein, while the remainder map to intergenic regions. The coordinates for nucleotide identity to B. anthracis A2012, open reading frame identity, and gene identity are listed in Table 5. BLASTX identities with E values of less than 10⁻³ are also listed. BLAST data for the candidates from the B. cereus ATCC 14579 subtraction show that three of the six DNA sequences have no previously ascribed function, based on similarity searches of the GenBank database. One of the remaining three shows identity with the S-layer protein of B. anthracis, and the other two show identity with a hypothetical phage protein from Streptococcus pyogenes and a galactosyl transferase-related protein from Clostridium acetobutylicum. BLAST data for the candidates from the B. thuringiensis Al Hakam subtraction show that four of the eight DNA sequences have no previously ascribed function. The remaining four share sequence identity with a hypothetical protein in B. halodurans, a penicillin binding protein of B. cereus, a putative phage terminase of C. perfringens, and a cytosine-specific methyltransferase of B. halodurans. BLAST data for the candidates from the B. cereus 3A subtraction show that 9 of the 14 DNA signatures have no previously ascribed function. The remaining five show sequence identity with the Staphylococcus aureus terminase large subunit, a hypothetical protein from the nanH region and an ATP binding cassette transporter of C. perfringens, a glucosamine synthetase of B. subtilis, and an unknown conserved protein of B. halodurans.

Referring now to FIG. 2, a visualization of the distribution of the tester-specific sequences for each of the three subtractive hybridization experiments is shown. FIG. 2 provides a Graphic representation of the locations of the tester-specific clones on the B. anthracis A2012 genome. The outermost circle maps the locations of the clones isolated from the subtraction by using DNA from B. cereus ATCC 14579 as the driver (circles), the second circle maps clones isolated from the subtraction by using DNA from B. thuringiensis Al Hakam as the driver (diamonds), and the third circle maps clones isolated from the subtraction by using DNA from B. cereus 3A as the driver (squares). The innermost circle shows the coordinates of the B. anthracis genome (5.23 Mb); the arrow shows the location of the first nucleotide. The sequences that are seen in B. anthracis but that are not seen in any non-anthrax-causing pathogens are represented by closed symbols. Gray boxes A to E, adjacent to the innermost circle, indicate the five regions that contain more than two B. anthracis-specific DNA sequences within 50 kb of each other; these represent putative B. anthracis-specific genomic islands.

There are five regions that have more than two B. anthracis-specific loci that lie within 50 kb of each other, suggesting genomic islands that are found only in B. anthracis. Similar genomic islands have been observed when genomes of different strains of the same bacterial species have been compared (e.g., Y. pestis and E. coli.

Multiplex PCR analysis for the simultaneous detection of four B. anthracis-specific loci.—Multiplex PCR is a powerful tool for the simultaneous detection of multiple loci within bacterial genomes. The simultaneous detection of four separate loci (A, C, D, and E) on the B. anthracis genome was achieved here by selecting primers (shown in bold type in Table 5) that target these loci while providing sufficient size discrimination for resolution by gel electrophoresis on 4% agarose (163, 133, 196, and 241 bp, respectively). An internal positive control (288 bp) was designed from a region of the 23S gene conserved in Bacillus species (see Material and Methods) and confirmed the integrity of the DNA template.

Referring now to FIG. 3, a multiplex analysis of four separate loci on the B. anthracis genome is shown. FIG. 3 shows that the Bacillus 23S control primer yielded a 288-bp PCR product for all DNA templates (10 ng) tested.

One internal positive control yielded a predicted product of 288 bp. The DNA templates used for the multiplex analysis were as follows: lanes 1, 12, and 13, size markers as indicated; lane 2, B. cereus ATCC 14579; lane 3, B. cereus ATCC 4342; lane 4, B. cereus D17; lane 5, B. cereus 3A; lane 6, B. cereus S2-8; lane 7, B. cereus F1-15; lane 8, B. thuringiensis 97-27; lane 9, B. thuringiensis Al Hakam; lane 10, B. thuringiensis ATCC 10792; lane 11, B. thuringiensis HD-571; lane 14, B. anthracis G3; lane 15, B. anthracis G20; lane 16, B. anthracis G25; lane 17, B. anthracis G29; lane 18, B. anthracis G38; lane 19, B. anthracis G62 (Ames); lane 20, B. anthracis G67; lane 21, B. anthracis G77 (Vollum); lane 22, B. anthracis G80; lane 23, B. anthracis G87; and lane 24, no-template negative control.

Furthermore, the four predicted B. anthracis-specific bands were seen for all strains (FIG. 3, lanes 13 to 23) and were absent from B. cereus and B. thuringiensis strains (lanes 2 to 11). This multiplex PCR was capable of detecting all four loci with as little as 100 pg of template DNA (data not shown). FIG. 3 shows Multiplex analysis of four separate loci on the B. anthracis genome. Four B. anthracis-specific primers yielded predicted products of 133, 163, 196, and 241 bp. One internal positive control yielded a predicted product of 288 bp. The DNA templates used for the multiplex analysis were as follows: lanes 1, 12, and 13, size markers as indicated; lane 2, B. cereus ATCC 14579; lane 3, B. cereus ATCC 4342; lane 4, B. cereus D17; lane 5, B. cereus 3A; lane 6, B. cereus S2-8; lane 7, B. cereus F1-15; lane 8, B. thuringiensis 97-27; lane 9, B. thuringiensis Al Hakam; lane 10, B. thuringiensis ATCC 10792; lane 11, B. thuringiensis HD-571; lane 14, B. anthracis G3; lane 15, B. anthracis G20; lane 16, B. anthracis G25; lane 17, B. anthracis G29; lane 18, B. anthracis G38; lane 19, B. anthracis G62 (Ames); lane 20, B. anthracis G67; lane 21, B. anthracis G77 (Vollum); lane 22, B. anthracis G80; lane 23, B. anthracis G87; and lane 24, no-template negative control.

Discussion—. anthracis is a potent mammalian pathogen and bioterrorist agent. This pathogenic Bacillus species shares so much genetic material with B. cereus and B. thuringiensis that its discrimination from the other species can be problematic. All three Bacillus species are prevalent in many environments, and it is important to define the genetic differences specific to B. anthracis in order to design specific DNA-based identification protocols. We surmised that the most efficient approach to finding B. anthracis-specific DNA sequences would be to find the Bacillus species that are most closely related to B. anthracis and then to compare their genomes in vitro by using SSH.

AFLP analysis was used to reveal genetic diversity among non-anthrax-causing Bacillus strains and to determine which are most closely related to the highly pathogenic B. anthracis. The phylogenetic tree shown in FIG. 1 indicates that B. cereus 3A, B. cereus S2-8, and B. thuringiensis 97-27 are the strains most genetically similar to B. anthracis of the 10 strains examined. B. cereus ATCC 4342 was shown previously by multienzyme electrophoresis and AFLP analysis to be very closely related to B. anthracis. The AFLP analysis presented here shows that seven strains are even more closely related to B. anthracis. The relationships do not correlate with the species designation for B. cereus or B. thuringiensis, providing another example of how the species designations for B. cereus and B. thuringiensis appear to cross the boundaries of various phylogenetic analyses. It may be necessary to develop new criteria for species designations within this group, as information about more Bacillus genomes becomes available.

Although AFLP analysis provides a sensitive method for defining the genetic relationships between bacterial genomes, it provides no information regarding the genetic rearrangements responsible for these differences. Such information can be attained by in vitro genome comparison by SSH, a proven, efficient method for the identification of nucleotide sequences that differ between two genomes. The complementary techniques of AFLP analysis and SSH provide a powerful means of defining accurate phylogenetic models and characterizing their underlying genetic components. Three subtractions were performed to identify B. anthracis-specific nucleotide sequences that were absent from the non-anthrax-causing Bacillus species. B. cereus ATCC 14579 represents the most distantly related strain in this study. B. cereus 3A was chosen because it represents one of the closest relatives of B. anthracis. The third strain, of intermediate relatedness, was B. thuringiensis Al Hakam. It would be expected that strains with more sequence identity to B. anthracis (in this situation, B. cereus 3A) would yield more sequences that would not be found in the closely related B. cereus and B. thuringiensis. Indeed, the subtraction with B. cereus 3A yielded 29% B. anthracis-specific sequences, compared to 17 and 2% for B. thuringiensis Al Hakam and B. cereus ATCC 14579, respectively (Table 2), confirming the prediction from AFLP analysis.

The genetic diversity demonstrated within this strain collection by AFLP analysis was mirrored by the results of subsequent PCR analysis. Bacterial evolution is driven by rearrangements of large genomic islands associated with lateral gene transfer. Analysis of the G+C contents of the difference products reveals an average of 35.4%, typical of B. anthracis. This finding suggests that any lateral gene transfer has ameliorated the G+C content over a long period of evolution or has been received from species with a similar G+C content. The presence or absence of each of the tester-specific sequences in the non-anthrax-causing pathogens was determined by PCR amplification with primers designed for the difference products. If the number of loci shared by B. anthracis indicates relatedness among the whole panel of non-anthrax-causing Bacillus strains, then B. cereus 3A is the most closely related (Table 3). This result is in agreement with the phylogenetic analysis shown in FIG. 1. The phylogenetic tree shows two pairs of isolates that cannot be distinguished by AFLP analysis: Bacillus strains Vollum and Ames and B. cereus strains 3A and S2-8. SSH with B. cereus ATCC 14579 as a driver yielded two primer sets (M.Ctg056 and M.Ctg007) that can distinguish B. cereus 3A from S2-8 (Table 3). Primers from the same subtraction cannot distinguish B. thuringiensis HD-571 from Al Hakam. Table 4 demonstrates that the number of loci that are shared between the non-anthrax-causing Bacillus species and B. anthracis decreases when the driver strain is much more closely related to B. anthracis. This subtraction also yielded two primer sets (dhp73.03 and dhp73.04) that can distinguish B. thuringiensis HD-571 from Al Hakam, which are indistinguishable by the primer sets listed in Table 3.

The most important criteria for effective DNA signatures are the absence of false-positive results with closely related organisms and their representation in all isolates of the target (i.e., no false-negative results). Given the monomorphic nature of the B. anthracis genome, it was not surprising to find that there was no variation in the signatures within the strains of the collection. Twenty-eight B. anthracis-specific candidates isolated in these experiments fulfilled these criteria and are listed in Table 5. None amplified a PCR product from any of the non-anthrax-causing Bacillus pathogens used in this study (no false-positive results). We were also able to exploit a collection of genetically distinct and geographically diverse isolates of B. anthracis. The twenty-eight DNA signatures amplified a PCR product of the predicted size for every isolate. A comparison of the DNA sequences against the completed genomes of B. halodurans and B. subtilis and the unfinished Bacillus genomes showed no significant sequence identity.

The non-anthrax-causing Bacillus species described here are so closely related to B. anthracis that they would be highly likely to give false-positive results in DNA-based identification assays based on chromosomal loci. The isolation of multiple B. anthracis-specific chromosomal regions allowed the development of a single multiplex assay for the rapid and highly specific detection of B. anthracis. The DNA signatures presented here have the advantage over previous detection methods that require time-consuming analysis, are prone to false-positive results, and are based on few nucleotide differences at a single chromosomal locus.

BLAST analysis of the nucleotide sequences of these DNA signatures shows that many are not represented in current DNA databases, other than the previously reported B. anthracis A2012 genome (Table 5). The strongest identity seen was to the penicillin binding protein of B. cereus (dhp64.177; E value, 10⁻⁶⁷). R.Ctg122 showed identity to the S-layer protein of B. anthracis. This cell surface protein is also seen in some isolates of B. cereus and B. thuringiensis. However, there is sufficient nucleotide sequence divergence at the oligonucleotide primer binding sites to allow for successful discrimination of B. anthracis from the other two species.

The genomes of several strains of B. anthracis are currently being sequenced, and these data will be extremely useful for strain attribution in forensic analyses. We envisage that these DNA signatures can be used for real-time specific detection of B. anthracis, the source of which may then be attributed by monitoring the small nucleotide differences identified by these sequencing projects. The B. anthracis-specific DNA sequences identified in this work provide the largest collection of chromosomal markers that distinguish B. anthracis from other closely related Bacillus species. There are five regions in the B. anthracis genome where several of the specific DNA sequences are located within 50 kb of each other. Such genomic islands may define B. anthracis as a species and distinguish it from the closely related species B. cereus and B. thuringiensis. Future detailed analysis of these B. anthracis-specific regions may ultimately identify chromosome-encoded virulence factors, provide starting points for possible vaccine candidates, and help to reveal the mode of pathogenicity of this important pathogen.

Preparation of genomic template DNA for PCR—The bacterial strains used for genomic DNA preparations, and their geographic origin are listed where known in Table 1. DNA was extracted from cell pellet from overnight cultures grown in L-broth using the MasterPure DNA Purification Kit from Epicentre (Madison, Wis.) according to the manufacturer's instructions. Genomic DNA prepared from enteric bacteria using Wizard Genomic DNA Preps (Promega; Madison, Wis.) according to manufacturer's instructions. Human genomic DNA was purchased from Clontech (Palo Alto, Calif.) and bovine genomic DNA was purchased from Novagen (Madison, Wis.). Soil DNA was extracted using UltraClean Soil DNA Kit from MoBio (Solana Beach, Calif.) according to the manufacturer's instructions. DNA isolated from organisms present in the air was prepared from filters as previously described. Both soil and air filter DNA was prepared from samples that originated in Livermore, Calif., After ethanol precipitation, all genomic DNA was dissolved in 10 mM Tris HCl, pH8.0, to a concentration of approximately 0.2 μg/ml.

Polymerase Chain Reactions—Oligonucleotide primers were designed from the putative tester-specific sequences and were supplied by Sigma-Genosys (The Woodlands, Tex.) or Invitrogen (Carlsbad, Calif.). The primers were designed using Primer3 software, and have a melting temperature of >65° C., contain no more than three identical consecutive nucleotides and possess a two nucleotide 3′ GC clamp. The primers were initially screened against genomic DNAs from both the tester and the driver DNA. To determine whether a primer pair was tester-specific, 1 ng each of the tester and driver DNA was used as template in PCR reactions using Accuprime polymerase and primers at 10 μM (Invitrogen; Carlsbad, Calif.) with the following cycling parameters: 94° C. for 15 seconds, 65° C. for 15 seconds, 72° C. for 30 seconds for 32 cycles. The products were visualized on 1.5% agarose gel run in 0.5×TBE; if a product was present with tester DNA as template and absent with the driver that sequence was designated tester-specific. The tester-specific oligonucleotides were then used to prime PCRs using the B. anthracis, B. cereus and B. thuringiensis strains listed in Table 1, and the same reaction conditions described above. The integrity of the genomic DNA template was tested in all PCRs using primers specific for a region of the 23S gene conserved in Bacillus species: 5′-CTACCTTAGGACCGTTATAGTTAC (SEQ ID NO: 35), and 5′-AGGTAGGCGAGGAGAGAATCC (SEQ ID NO: 36). Multiplex PCR reactions were performed as above, except that template DNA was added to a final concentration of 10 ng/μl. The primers used are listed in Table 4 and were used at the following concentrations: 23S primers at 3 μM (288 bp), dhp73.017 (241 bp) at 20 μM, dhp73.019 (196 bp) at 10 μM, dhp61.183 (163 bp) at 5 μM, and dhp77.002 (133 bp) at 20 μM.

Descriptions of the set of twenty eight chromosomal DNA signatures are provided in Table 6 and are included as part of this Application.

TABLE 6
Set of twenty eight chromosomal DNA signatures.
SEQ ID NO:
1.	R.Ctg132	ACCTTTTGCTAAAGTGATTTCACCTTTTGCATTAATTTTTTC
		TGCAGCTGGCGTTACAAATTCAATACCCTCTGGTGAAACAAC
		TTCAGT
2.	R.Ctg139	CAAAGTGGCAAAAGGGGAATTTAGAATATGCTAGTTTCCGTT
		CTATGACAATCGATGAATTTATTGATCCGTTGPCTTTTCTTA
		AAAAGATTGCTTCTTTGTTTGAATTAGAAATTCAATATCGTG
		CTGGAGTTGTAGGCTCTCAAGTTGTTGGGCG
3.	R.Ctg152	TCCCAATACATATGAGCGATTCGCCTTTATAAACGACGTATT
		CCTTTGAACTCGTTATGACACTCATTACTCAACTCCCCTTTT
		CTACTAAAATAGCGTTTTTGTTTGGTTTTTTTCTTCACATAA
		TCCGTCCTATTTGATTTTTACATACCACC
4.	R.Ctg177	TTGGATCAGCGTTTCTGAATTCAGCTAATAATACAACGTCTT
		CTGGATCTAATGAATATAATCTTGTTAATGCAAGTGGAGTTG
		ATATAAACGTAGCACAGAAACTTAGGGGAATACGTAATTATA
		GCATTAAAGTAGATGGAATTGAGCGATATGGGGA
5.	M.Ctg032	GGCCCCATAACTTGATTTCTCTTCAATATGAAAGTTGCTGCC
		TCATCAACATTTTCGAAAATAAAATCTTCATCATAAATCGTA
		TGACAACCTTCCCACCTTATAATTATAGGAAAGGCACCCGAC
		GCCATTCCTTCAGCTGGAGCAAGAT
6.	M.Ctg037	GAAATGAATGCAGAAAAATTAGAGCTTGCGAAAAATCCACCT
		GACAGTGCAGCAGTACAAGAAATATTTGCTCAATTAGAAGGT
		TGGGGTAAAGCTATTGCTAAAGGTGGAGAAGAAGGTAAACAA
		GCATTTGTA
7.	dhp61.159	AATTCTCATCCTACAGCATCTCCAATAATATATATTCCAACC
		AAAAGATGACCATGTTACGGTTATAAAATACCAATCTATTAT
		TTCATCGCGTCCTTCACAACATCTTGAATCATAACGACTTCT
		GTTTTCATATCAACAGAGGGTGCTTCTTCA
8.	dhp61.178	GGTGGGTAAATGATGAGTGTTTCAACAAAAATTAATCAGCTA
		ATAAGTCTTAGAGAAAAAATCGCTAAAGATTTAGGGTTTTAT
		GTTAACTTTGATTTAGCGAATTCAAGTTGGTCATACTCTAAA
		AAGGCTGGTCAAATCAAAAA
9.	dhp61.181	TGTGGAAGAATCCACTGTCCAAGAACGTGAGCGTGTGCTATG
		GGATGAAATGGCTTCACCAATAGGATGGACTCCTGTTACTGG
		GCAAGTTGAGGAAATGAAAGAGACAGA
10.	dhp61.183	GAAGGACGATACAGACATTTATTGGGAACTACACATGCACTA
		GGGTCATTGTTCATTAGCTCATCGATTGCATTATTAACAACG
		GCTTTTATTGTCCTTACGCATTTATCTAGCTTTATGAACAAT
		TACTATTTTTGGATAGGGCTTGCTATTCAACTTGCGGT
11.	dhp64.177	TCGCAAGATAAATGGGAAGACGAAAAGCGGGCTGGACAATAT
		TCTCCGACATACCAGGGACAGCTTCCAAGTGAAATGGTAAAT
		GTGATTGGTACGGGAGGA
12.	dhp64.188	TTGGTAAAGTAGAAGCATCTTGGTTAAGAGCAGGATTACTCA
		TGGGTATGACGATAAAAACAAGCAATACAAATGAACATTTGC
		ATATGGAAAACCAGGTGATGCGTTTTGTAAACCAAGGGTCAG
		ATAAGATGG
13.	dhp64.202	ATATGTGGTTAGGAGCCAATGAAGGTGATGGTGACTTCTTTG
		TAGATAAACATACTTTACAAAAAAGCTTGTACAAGCCAGCTT
		CTGATTGGGAATGGTGGAGAGGAAAACGTCAGGTGATTATTG
		GACTCGATTTGT
14.	dhp64.208	ACTACTCGACAAGGACGTTTGTATTTCCGGCTGTCAGTGTCG
		GCGCGCCGCATCAAAGATACCGGACATTTATTGTTGGCCACT
		CCAACGACAAGTCAAAATTACAAACCGATCCGAGAGTTGTGC
		CCTTCAGAAGCAAATGGGAAACATGG
15.	dhp77.002	TGATATTTATGACCAAGATTCAATATACGAATATAATCCCAA
		AAGAGCCAATCATGCAATGGAGTTCATTGAGAATTTTTGCAA
		GCATTCAAAGGGGAAATGGGCTGGAAAACCTATTGACCTTGA
		GCTATGGC
16.	dhp77.003	CCAGGTCCATCCTATGTTGCAGTAGAAACGTATGTTACAGTA
		GAAGCGTATTTTAGCAAACGTGAGTACGCACTACCTCCAGCT
		AGATACTATCATCAAGAAACGCGAGATGGGATGATATATTCT
		GGTTACCTTACCAGACATAGTTATGCATCAACGGGAGACACG
		CGGATTGTAGT
17.	dhp77.004	CACGTGAGTTTACACCATACGCGGCGAACGCAAAGCGTTCAA
		GATTAGAACAAGAAGTGAATATTGATTTTTATAAAAGAGAAA
		TTTTCACATATGCAGATGCTTGTATCGTCACAGTAAGGATTA
		CAAATCCAGATGGCTCAACTGAGTATCAAAAAGGAGAAATAA
		GTACAGAAAACATTGTATGTACTAATATCGTATGGGGCGAGG
		ATGAAGTTTCATTCGAAATGAGAGCAAGTGCTAG
18.	dhp77.047	GGAACAACTTTCCCACAAGCTGAACTTGAGTAGAAGCCAGAT
		CAAAAACTGGGAAACTGATCGGTATCAGCCAGATATAGATAC
		GTTGGTTATCATCGCCTCCTTCTTCAATGTTTCGGTAGACGC
		GCTTATTGGGTTCACGAATGA
19.	dhp77.056	AGGAACGTGCGACGACTAGCTGAAAAGCGTAGGGTGTAAGCC
		AATGACATCCGAAATGGGGAGCATCTTATATAAAAGATGATG
		ATATAGTCTGGTCTGTATAGTGATATACAGAAGTTCATAAGA
		GAACTGGCAGGATGTTGCGAGTCCTGTTGAACATATCGGGTG
20.	dhp73.001	TTTCTTATCCAACAGGTGTATGCTTATGTTTTATAAAAAAGT
		TTGATCATAGCTTATTTACAATTCTTTGATTAAAGAGATAAA
		GCATCGCACCTTTTTTATAAACGTCTTAACTTTATTTCAAAA
		CTACACTATATTTACTAACCTACTAATCTCCTACTCAACCGT
		AACAGACTTAGCTAAGTTACGTGGCTTATCAACGTCACACTC
		GC
21.	dhp73.009	TCAAACGTTGCCGAATAAGCCAATTCATTTAGATGCGTTACT
		TAATAAACTATTTTTAGGTAATACGAAGGACCGTATTAAAGC
		AGCAATTGAGTTAATTGAGTGGGTGCTTCATAAATAATATTG
		TCTAATATTGTCGGTAAATCGATATGTTGTGTCGAATCGTC
22.	dhp73.011	TTGGCATTGTGTTAGATGAGGGGTATTTCTATGATGAATTAA
		CATTGAAAGAAATGAAAAATGTGATTGCCCCTTCTTATACTG
		ACTGGGATGAAGCAGTCTTCTTATCTTATATTAAACAATTTA
		ATTTAAATCTAAGACAAAAAATTTCTACTCTATCTAAAGGGA
		TGCGGATGAAATTTGCGGTTGCTTTGGCTTTATCACA
23.	dhp73.016	CAGAGCGTTTCTTAAATGAAGAGGATTTAATTGGAGAGCATT
		TAGAGAGAGAAGATATTGATATCACATATTTAGATGACACGA
		TGTATATATTGTTGCCATATAAGAATGATCAAGAATTAAAAC
		AGAAAAAGTTAGATAAAATCCAAATTGAGGCATATGATGAA
24.	dhp73.017	AAAGGCGGTTTAGAATTTGGACCGTATCAAAATTTAAAACAA
		GTTGAGTCGATAGCAGAAAAGCCAATTCAAGCATTTCAAGTT
		TTAAATACCATTCTTGAGAAAATGGAAGAGAAAATGTTCTAT
		ATGAAGGAAAGACATTATACAAACGTTGTAGAAACAAATATA
		AAAGAGCGTCATTTCATTATAGTTGATGAAGGGGCTGAACTT
		TGTCCTGATAAAAGCATGGGTAAAGAGCAGCA
25.	dhp73.019	TGTAAATGAACGCCTTGACCAATCACCAGCAGGGAATTCAGT
		TTGTAGATTTTCTGTCCATGATCCGTTGATAAATTGGAATAC
		AAGAAAAGTAACGTAAACATCATTTTGAAGATCGACACTGAA
		TGTCATGTCTTTACCTTTTTCAAAATTACCCATCTTAGTATT
		ATCTAAATGGAATTGATAGAAGGAGTCGG
26.	dhp73.022	AAACAATGTTGGATGGTAAATGGCATTACTTCCACGGCAAAT
		TAAAAGTTGTGGATGGGAAAGTGCGTGTTTACTTTGGGATGT
		TGAAGACGGGAAATGTAAAAGGTGCTAAAACAAGAATAACCG
		GAGTGAAATTTGCGAATGG
27.	dhp73.026	CCGAGCTTTAATGGAAATGGAGAATTATTATATGATTTTAGG
		GATTTCATATTTTAATATTTTTTGTATTGTAGTGATTATCTT
		GTTTTTCTTTATTTTTTGGAGATTGCATGTATGGTATAACAA
		GAAACACAATGTTCCTAAGGTTTTTCAATGGTTTCCTAGAAA
		ATGGGGTAAAAGAAAAGTGTCAGAGCATTTATCACAATTGAA
		TGAAAAGCTAGAGGCTGAAGGTAAAGG
28.	dhp73.029	GGAGAAACAGATAGTGGTGAAAGCTGGGAGTATATTTACTTC
		TTAGATGAAATAAAGCATCAAGCCATTAGTTTAAGTGTCTTT
		AATAGATTATTAGATTATGAAGAAGGAAATCTAATACAAGGC
		TTTAGAGT

While the invention may be susceptible to various modifications and alternative forms, specific embodiments have been shown by way of example in the drawings and have been described in detail herein. However, it should be understood that the invention is not intended to be limited to the particular forms disclosed. Rather, the invention is to cover all modifications, equivalents, and alternatives falling within the spirit and scope of the invention as defined by the following appended claims.

A paper copy disclosing the nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences is attached as the “Sequence Listing.” In addition, a copy of the “Sequence Listing” is being submitted in computer readable form. The computer readable form is a copy of the “Sequence Listing.”

Claims

1. A method of detecting Bacillus anthracis, comprising the steps of: selecting at least one individual locus on a Bacillus anthracis chromosome, using a multiplex polymerase chain reaction analysis of said individual locus on a Bacillus anthracis chromosome to produced at least one chromosomal DNA signature, and using said at least one chromosomal DNA signature to detect genetically Bacillus anthracis.

2. The method of detecting Bacillus anthracis of claim 1 wherein said step of using a multiplex polymerase chain reaction analysis of said individual locus on a Bacillus anthracis chromosome to produced at least one chromosomal DNA signature comprises using a multiplex polymerase chain reaction analysis of said individual locus on a Bacillus anthracis chromosome to produced a set of twenty eight chromosomal DNA signatures.

3. The method of detecting Bacillus anthracis of claim 1 wherein said at least one chromosomal DNA signature comprises:

4. The method of detecting Bacillus anthracis of claim 1 wherein said at least one chromosomal DNA signature comprises:

5. The method of detecting Bacillus anthracis of claim 1 wherein said at least one chromosomal DNA signature comprises:

6. The method of detecting Bacillus anthracis of claim 1 wherein said at least one chromosomal DNA signature comprises:

7. The method of detecting Bacillus anthracis of claim 1 wherein said at least one chromosomal DNA signature comprises:

8. The method of detecting Bacillus anthracis of claim 1 wherein said at least one chromosomal DNA signature comprises:

9. The method of detecting Bacillus anthracis of claim 1 wherein said at least one chromosomal DNA signature comprises:

10. The method of detecting Bacillus anthracis of claim 1 wherein said at least one chromosomal DNA signature comprises:

11. The method of detecting Bacillus anthracis of claim 1 wherein said at least one chromosomal DNA signature comprises:

12. The method of detecting Bacillus anthracis of claim 1 wherein said at least one chromosomal DNA signature comprises:

13. The method of detecting Bacillus anthracis of claim 1 wherein said at least one chromosomal DNA signature comprises:

14. The method of detecting Bacillus anthracis of claim 1 wherein said at least one chromosomal DNA signature comprises:

15. The method of detecting Bacillus anthracis of claim 1 wherein said at least one chromosomal DNA signature comprises:

16. The method of detecting Bacillus anthracis of claim 1 wherein said at least one chromosomal DNA signature comprises:

17. The method of detecting Bacillus anthracis of claim 1 wherein said at least one chromosomal DNA signature comprises:

18. The method of detecting Bacillus anthracis of claim 1 wherein said at least one chromosomal DNA signature comprises:

19. The method of detecting Bacillus anthracis of claim 1 wherein said at least one chromosomal DNA signature comprises:

20. The method of detecting Bacillus anthracis of claim 1 wherein said at least one chromosomal DNA signature comprises:

21. The method of detecting Bacillus anthracis of claim 1 wherein said at least one chromosomal DNA signature comprises:

22. The method of detecting Bacillus anthracis of claim 1 wherein said at least one chromosomal DNA signature comprises:

23. The method of detecting Bacillus anthracis of claim 1 wherein said at least one chromosomal DNA signature comprises:

24. The method of detecting Bacillus anthracis of claim 1 wherein said at least one chromosomal DNA signature comprises:

25. The method of detecting Bacillus anthracis of claim 1 wherein said at least one chromosomal DNA signature comprises:

26. The method of detecting Bacillus anthracis of claim 1 wherein said at least one chromosomal DNA signature comprises:

27. The method of detecting Bacillus anthracis of claim 1 wherein said at least one chromosomal DNA signature comprises:

28. The method of detecting Bacillus anthracis of claim 1 wherein said at least one chromosomal DNA signature comprises:

29. The method of detecting Bacillus anthracis of claim 1 wherein said at least one chromosomal DNA signature comprises:

30. The method of detecting Bacillus anthracis of claim 1 wherein said at least one chromosomal DNA signature comprises:

31. A method of detecting Bacillus anthracis, comprising the steps of: utilizing four separate loci on a Bacillus anthracis chromosome, using a multiplex polymerase chain reaction analysis of the four separate loci on the Bacillus anthracis chromosome to produced a set of twenty eight chromosomal DNA signatures, and using at least one of said twenty eight chromosomal DNA signatures to detect genetically Bacillus anthracis.

32. The method of detecting Bacillus anthracis of claim 31 wherein said step of using at least one of said twenty eight chromosomal DNA signatures to detect genetically Bacillus anthracis uses one or more of the following chromosomal DNA signatures: