1887

Abstract

A Gram-stain-positive and catalase negative coccus, designated strain Gos25-1, isolated from a cotton flower ( L.) collected from Khao Wong district, Kalasin province, Thailand. The taxonomic position of this strain was systematically studied based upon polyphasic taxonomic methods. The strain was facultatively anaerobic and produced -lactic acid from glucose. The predominant cellular fatty acids were the straight-chain fatty acids Cω9 and C. According to 16S rRNA and phenylalanyl-tRNA synthase alpha subunit () gene sequence similarity, this strain was closely related to NBRC 100697, CIP 108559, NBRC 100477 and NBRC 100492 with 98.9–99.1 % and 77.0–82.0 % sequence similarities, respectively. Phylogenetic analysis indicated that strain Gos25-1 was clearly distinguished from closely related species of the genus . Draft genome of Gos25-1 had a size of 3.99 Mb which was contained 3788 coding sequences with G+C content of 42.4 mol%. The ANIb and a digital DNA–DNA hybridisation (dDDH) values between strain Gos25-1 and the closest related species NBRC 100697 were 73.65 and 21.10 %, respectively. According to polyphasic characterisation, this strain represents a novel species of the genus , for which the name sp. nov. is proposed. The type strain is Gos25-1 (=CIP 110956=LMG 29007=NBRC 111461=TISTR 2382).

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.003524
2019-08-01
2022-01-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/ijsem/69/8/2506.html?itemId=/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.003524&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Franz C, Holzapfel WH. The genus Enterococcus: biotechnological and safety issues. In Salminen S, von Wright A, Ouwehand A. (editors) Lactic Acid Bacteria: Microbiological and Functional Aspects, 3rd ed. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc; 2004 pp. 199–247
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Švec P, Devriese LA. et al. Genus I. Enterococcus . In De Vos P, Garrity GM, Jones D, Krieg NR, Ludwig W. (editors) Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, 2nd ed. New York: Springer; 2009 pp. 594–606
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Švec P, Vandamme P, Bryndová H, Holochová P, Kosina M et al. Enterococcus plantarum sp. nov., isolated from plants. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2012; 62:1499–1505 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  4. de Man JC, Rogosa M, Sharpe ME. A medium for the cultivation of lactobacilli. J Appl Bacteriol 1960; 23:130–135 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Tanasupawat S, Thongsanit J, Okada S, Komagata K. Lactic acid bacteria isolated from soy sauce mash in Thailand. J Gen Appl Microbiol 2002; 48:201–209 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Hucker GJ, Conn HJ. Method of gram staining. N Y St Agric Exp Sta Tech Bull 1923; 93:3–37
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Phalip V, Schmitt P, Diviès C. A method for screening diacetyl and acetoin-producing bacteria on agar plates. J Basic Microbiol 1994; 34:277–280 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Barrow GI, Feltham RKA. Cowan and Steel’s Manual for the Identification of Medical Bacteria, 3rd ed. Cambridge: University Press, Cambridge; 1993 pp. 21–45
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Okada S, Toyoda T, Kozaki M. An easy method for the determination of the optical types of lactic acid produced by lactic acid bacteria. Agric Biol Chem 1978; 42:1781–1783
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Sasser M. Identification of Bacteria by Gas Chromatography of Cellular Fatty Acids, MIDI Technical Note 101. DE: MIDI Inc; 1990
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Kämpfer P, Kroppenstedt RM. Numerical analysis of fatty acid patterns of coryneform bacteria and related taxa. Can J Microbiol 1996; 42:989–1005 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Yamada K, Komagata K. Taxonomic studies on coryneform bacteria. III. DNA base composition of coryneform bacteria. J Gen Appl Microbiol 1970; 16:215–224
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Tamaoka J. Determination of DNA base composition. In Goodfellow M, O’Donnell AG. (editors) Chemical Methods in Prokaryotic Systematics Chichester: Wiley; 1994 pp. 463–470
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Tamaoka J, Komagata K. Determination of DNA base composition by reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography. FEMS Microbiol Lett 1984; 25:125–128 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Versalovic J, Schneider M, de Bruijn FJ, Lupski JR. Genomic fingerprinting of bacteria using repetitive sequence-based polymerase reaction. Methods Mol Cell Biol 1994; 5:25–40
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Gevers D, Huys G, Swings J. Applicability of rep-PCR fingerprinting for identification of Lactobacillus species. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2001; 205:31–36 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Lane DJ. 16S/23S rRNA sequencing. In Stackebrandt E, Goodfellow M. (editors) Nucleic Acid Techniques in Bacterial Systematics Chichester: Wiley; 1991 pp. 115–148
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Naser SM, Thompson FL, Hoste B, Gevers D, Dawyndt P et al. Application of multilocus sequence analysis (MLSA) for rapid identification of Enterococcus species based on rpoA and pheS genes. Microbiology 2005; 151:2141–2150 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 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 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Thompson JD, Gibson TJ, Plewniak F, Jeanmougin F, Higgins DG. The CLUSTAL_X windows interface: flexible strategies for multiple sequence alignment aided by quality analysis tools. Nucleic Acids Res 1997; 25:4876–4882 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Saitou N, Nei M. The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol Biol Evol 1987; 4:406–425 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 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 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Nei M, Kumar S. Molecular Evolution and Phylogenetics New York: Oxford University Press; 2000
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Kumar S, Stecher G, Tamura K. MEGA7: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 7.0 for bigger datasets. Mol Biol Evol 2016; 33:1870–1874 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Felsenstein J. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 1985; 39:783–791 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Tanizawa Y, Fujisawa T, Nakamura Y. DFAST: a flexible prokaryotic genome annotation pipeline for faster genome publication. Bioinformatics 2018; 34:1037–1039 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Richter M, Rosselló-Móra R. Shifting the genomic gold standard for the prokaryotic species definition. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2009; 106:19126–19131 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Richter M, Rosselló-Móra R, Oliver Glöckner F, Peplies J. JSpeciesWS: a web server for prokaryotic species circumscription based on pairwise genome comparison. Bioinformatics 2016; 32:929–931 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Meier-Kolthoff JP, Auch AF, Klenk HP, Göker M. Genome sequence-based species delimitation with confidence intervals and improved distance functions. BMC Bioinformatics 2013; 14:60–14 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Sistek V, Maheux AF, Boissinot M, Bernard KA, Cantin P et al. Enterococcus ureasiticus sp. nov. and Enterococcus quebecensis sp. nov., isolated from water. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2012; 62:1314–1320 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.003524
Loading
/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.003524
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary File 1

PDF

Most cited this month Most Cited RSS feed

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