Request for an Opinion: Conservation of the Name with DSM 20284 as the Neotype Strain and Rejection of the Previous Neotype Strain NCDO 1859 (= IFO 3884 = DSM 20333 = ATCC 33314) Free

Abstract

Strain NCDO 1859 (= IFO 3884) was selected as the neotype strain of by Garvie in 1974 and was confirmed as such on the Approved Lists in 1980. and are difficult to separate by using only phenotypic data, and the choice of NCDO 1859 relied on such data. Subsequently, two independent deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)-DNA homology studies have shown that the DNA of NCDO 1859 has high levels of homology with the DNAs of strains of , including the type strain (93 to 100%), but low levels of homology (20 to 34%) with authentic strains of Moreover, the guanine-plus-cytosine content of the DNA of NCDO 1859 is within the range of guanine-pluscytosine contents, which are 4 to 5 mol% below the guanine-plus-cytosine contents of strains of Clearly, at some point, NCDO 1859 was misidentified by using only phenotypic data and should be rejected as the neotype strain of In addition, I propose that should be conserved, with DSM 20284 as the neotype strain. This action is not in line with strict application of the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria but will ensure the continuity of nomenclature and avoid the confusion which would result from the alterations necessary if the code were followed in this instance.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/00207713-36-4-579
1986-10-01
2024-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/ijsem/36/4/ijsem-36-4-579.html?itemId=/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/00207713-36-4-579&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Back W. 1978; Zur Taxonomie der Gattung Pediococcus.. Brauwissenschaft 31:237–250312–320336–343
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Back W., Stackebrandt E. 1978; DNS/DNS Homologiestudien innerhalb der Gattung Pediococcus.. Arch. Microbiol. 118:79–85
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Dellaglio F., Trovatelli L. D., Sarra P. G. 1981; DNA-DNA homology among representative strains of the genus Pediococcus.. Zentralbl. Bakteriol. Parasitenkd. Infektionskr. Hyg. Abt. 1 Orig. Reihe C 2:140–150
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Garvie E. I. 1974; Nomenclatural problems of the pediococci. Request for an opinion. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 24:301–306
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Judicial Commission 1976; Opinion 52. Conservation of the generic name Pediococcus Claussen with the type species Pediococcus damnosus Claussen. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol 26:292
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Kitahara K. 1974 Genus III Pediococcus Balcke 1884. 257514 Buchanan R. E., Gibbons N. E.ed Bergey’s manual of determinative bacteriology, 8th ed.. The Williams & Wilkins Co.; Baltimore:
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Lapage S. P., Sneath P. H. A., Lessel E. F., Skerman V. B. D., Seeliger H. P. R., Clark W. A.ed 1975 International code of nomenclature of bacteria. 1976 Revision. American Society for Microbiology; Washington, D.C:
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Nakagawa A., Kitahara K. 1959; Taxonomic studies on the genus Pediococcus.. J. Gen. Appl. Microbiol. 5:95–126
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Sakaguchi K., Mori H. 1969; Comparative study on Pediococcus halophilus, P. soyae, P. homari, P. urinae-equiand related species. J. Gen. Appl. Microbiol. 16:159–167
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Skerman V. D. B., McGowan V., Sneath P. H. A.ed 1980 Approved lists of bacterial names. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 30:255–420
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Suzuki J., Kitahara K. 1964; Base composition of deoxyribonucleic acid in Sporolactobacillus inulinus and other lactic acid bacteria. J. Gen. Appl. Microbiol. 10:305–311
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/00207713-36-4-579
Loading

Most cited Most Cited RSS feed