1887

Abstract

Two Gram-stain-negative, aerobic, non-spore forming and rod-shaped bacterial strains, designated DHOM06 and 7MK8-2, were isolated from forest soil sampled at Dinghushan Biosphere Reserve, Guangdong Province, PR China. Strain DHOM06 grew at 12–37 °C (optimum, 28–33 °C), pH 4.5–7.5 (pH 5.5) and in the presence of 0–0.5 % NaCl (w/v); while strain 7MK8-2 grew at 12–42 °C (28–33 °C), pH 4.0–8.5 (pH 4.5–5.5) and in the presence of 0–1.0 % NaCl (w/v). Strains DHOM06 and 7MK8-2 each has a 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity of 97.1–98.9 % as well as 97.4–97.9 % to Trinickia strains, respectively. In the 16S rRNA gene sequence phylogram, both strains and all five currently described Trinickia species formed a clade but they were all distinct from each other. The average nucleotide identity and digital DNA–DNA hybridization values for strains DHOM06 and 7MK8-2 and all Trinickia species were in the range of 77.4–82.6 % and 21.7–26.2 %, respectively. The DNA G+C content of DHOM06 and 7MK8-2 was 63.2 and 63.5 mol%, respectively, based on total genome calculations. These two strains contained ubiquinone 8 as the major respiratory quinone and C16 : 0, C17 : 0cyclo, C19 : 0cyclo ω8c, summed feature 3 (C16 : 1 ω7c/C16 : 1 ω6c) and summed feature 8 (C18 : 1 ω7c/C18 : 1 ω6c) as the major cellular fatty acids. The major polar lipids of DHOM06 and 7MK8-2 were phosphatidylethanolamine, phosphatidylglycerol and diphosphatidylglycerol. On the basis of phenotypic, chemotaxonomic, phylogenetic and genomic analysis data, strains DHOM06 and 7MK8-2 represent two novel species of the genus Trinickia , for which the names Trinickia dinghuensis sp. nov. (type strain DHOM06=GDMCC 1.1280=LMG 30259) and Trinickia fusca sp. nov. (type strain 7MK8-2=GDMCC 1.1449=KCTC 62469) are proposed.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.003324
2019-02-28
2019-09-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Estrada-de Los Santos P, Palmer M, Chávez-Ramírez B, Beukes C, Steenkamp ET et al. Whole genome analyses suggests that Burkholderia sensu lato contains two additional novel genera (Mycetohabitans gen. nov., and Trinickia gen. nov.): implications for the evolution of diazotrophy and nodulation in the Burkholderiaceae. Genes 2018;9:389 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Oren A, Garrity GM. List of new names and new combinations previously effectively, but not validly, published. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2018;68:3379–3393 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Ys F, Yan R, Liu DL, Jiang SW, Cui L et al. Trinickia diaoshuihuensis sp. nov., a plant growth promoting bacterium isolated from soil. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2018
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Sawana A, Adeolu M, Gupta RS. Molecular signatures and phylogenomic analysis of the genus Burkholderia: proposal for division of this genus into the emended genus Burkholderia containing pathogenic organisms and a new genus Paraburkholderia gen. nov. harboring environmental species. Front Genet 2014;5:429 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Dobritsa AP, Samadpour M. Transfer of eleven species of the genus Burkholderia to the genus Paraburkholderia and proposal of Caballeronia gen. nov. to accommodate twelve species of the genera Burkholderia and Paraburkholderia. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2016;66:2836–2846 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Lopes-Santos L, Castro DBA, Ferreira-Tonin M, Corrêa DBA, Weir BS et al. Reassessment of the taxonomic position of Burkholderia andropogonis and description of Robbsia andropogonis gen. nov., comb. nov. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 2017;110:727–736 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Yabuuchi E, Kosako Y, Oyaizu H, Yano I, Hotta H et al. Proposal of Burkholderia gen. nov. and transfer of seven species of the genus Pseudomonas homology group II to the new genus, with the type species Burkholderia cepacia (Palleroni and Holmes 1981) comb. nov. Microbiol Immunol 1992;36:1251–1275 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Yoo SH, Kim BY, Weon HY, Kwon SW, Go SJ et al. Burkholderia soli sp. nov., isolated from soil cultivated with Korean ginseng. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2007;57:122–125 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Sheu SY, Chou JH, Bontemps C, Elliott GN, Gross E et al. Burkholderia symbiotica sp. nov., isolated from root nodules of Mimosa spp. native to north-east Brazil. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2012;62:2272–2278 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Zhu H, Guo J, Chen M, Feng G, Yao Q et al. Burkholderia dabaoshanensis sp. nov., a heavy-metal-tolerant bacteria isolated from Dabaoshan mining area soil in China. PLoS One 2012;7:e50225 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Gerhardt P. Methods for general and molecular bacteriology. Methods Gen Mol Microbiol 1994
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Harley JP, Prescott LM. Laboratory Exercises in Microbiology, 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2002
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Brown AE. Bensons Microbiological Applications: Laboratory Manual in General Microbiology, 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1985
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Atlas RM. Composition of media. In Parks LC. (editor) Handbook of Microbiology Media, 2nd. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 1993
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Kim SJ, Ahn JH, Weon HY, Hong SB, Seok SJ et al. Parasegetibacter terrae sp. nov., isolated from paddy soil and emended description of the genus Parasegetibacter. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2015;65:113–116 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Miller LT. Single derivatization method for routine analysis of bacterial whole-cell fatty acid methyl esters, including hydroxy acids. J Clin Microbiol 1982;16:584–586[PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Kuykendall LD, Roy MA, O'Neill JJ, Devine TE. Fatty acids, antibiotic resistance, and deoxyribonucleic acid homology groups of bradyrhizobium japonicum. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1988;38:358–361 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Minnikin DE, O'Donnell AG, Goodfellow M, Alderson G, Athalye M et al. An integrated procedure for the extraction of bacterial isoprenoid quinones and polar lipids. J Microbiol Methods 1984;2:233–241 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Kroppenstedt RM. Separation of bacterial menaquinones by hplc using reverse phase (rp18) and a silver loaded ion exchanger as stationary phases. J Liq Chromatogr 1982;5:2359–2367 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Delong EF. Archaea in coastal marine environments. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1992;89:5685–5689 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Yoon SH, Ha SM, Kwon S, Lim J, Kim Y et al. Introducing EzBioCloud: a taxonomically united database of 16S rRNA gene sequences and whole-genome assemblies. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2017;67:1613–1617 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Thompson JD, Higgins DG, Gibson TJ. CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Res 1994;22:4673–4680 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Tamura K, Peterson D, Peterson N, Stecher G, Nei M et al. MEGA5: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis using maximum likelihood, evolutionary distance, and maximum parsimony methods. Mol Biol Evol 2011;28:2731–2739 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Saitou N, Nei M. The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol Biol Evol 1987;4:406–425 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Fitch WM. Toward defining the course of evolution: minimum change for a specific tree topology. Syst Zool 1971;20:406–416 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Felsenstein J. Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: a maximum likelihood approach. J Mol Evol 1981;17:368–376 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Kimura M. A simple method for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. J Mol Evol 1980;16:111–120 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Felsenstein J. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 1985;39:783–791 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Na SI, Kim YO, Yoon SH, Ha SM, Baek I et al. UBCG: Up-to-date bacterial core gene set and pipeline for phylogenomic tree reconstruction. J Microbiol 2018;56:281–285 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Eddy SR. A new generation of homology search tools based on probabilistic inference. Genome Inform 2009;23:211–215[PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Price MN, Dehal PS, Arkin AP. FastTree 2-approximately maximum-likelihood trees for large alignments. PLoS One 2010;5:e9490 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Meier-Kolthoff JP, Auch AF, Klenk HP, Göker M. Genome sequence-based species delimitation with confidence intervals and improved distance functions. BMC Bioinformatics 2013;14:60 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Yoon SH, Ha SM, Lim J, Kwon S, Chun J. A large-scale evaluation of algorithms to calculate average nucleotide identity. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 2017;110:1281–1286 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Chun J, Oren A, Ventosa A, Christensen H, Arahal DR et al. Proposed minimal standards for the use of genome data for the taxonomy of prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2018;68:461–466 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Wayne LG, Moore WEC, Stackebrandt E, Kandler O, Colwell RR et al. Report of the ad hoc committee on reconciliation of approaches to bacterial systematics. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 1987;37:463–464 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.003324
Loading
/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.003324
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplementary File 1

PDF

Most Cited This Month

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error