1887

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMATIC AND EVOLUTIONARY MICROBIOLOGY logo

Volume 70, Issue 3

Comparative genome sequence analysis of several species in the genus and the description of a novel species sp. nov. Open Access

Abstract

We performed high-quality genome sequencing of eight strains of the species of the genus and examined the genomes of closely related strains from the databases to understand why is the only strain of this genus that utilizes glucose and fructose for growth. We found that the assimilation of these hexoses by was due to the presence of two transporters that are absent in all other genomes of strains of members of the genus examined. Some strains lack genes coding for glucokinase, but the Embden–Meyerhof–Parnas pathway appears to be otherwise complete. The pentose phosphate pathway has a complete set of genes, but genes of the Entner–Doudoroff pathway were not identified in the genomes of any of the strains examined. Genome analysis using average nucleotide identity (ANIb), digital DNA–DNA hybridization (dDDH), average amino acid identity (AAI) and phylogenetic analysis of 400 conserved genes was performed to assess the taxonomic classification of the organisms. Two isolates of the genus from the hot spring at São Pedro do Sul, Portugal, designated SPSP-6 and SPSPC-18 were also examined in this study. These organisms are mixotrophic, have an optimum growth temperature of about 50 ºC, utilize several organic acids and amino acids for growth but do not grow on sugars. Distinctive phenotypic, 16S rRNA gene sequence and genomic characteristics of strains SPSP-6 and SPSPC-18 lead us to propose a novel species based on strain SPSP-6 for which we recommend the name sp. nov. (=CECT 9683=LMG 30884).

  • Received:
  • Accepted:
  • Revised:
  • Published Online:
Keyword(s): Betaproteobacteria , Genome , New taxa and Tepidimonas charontis sp. nov.
Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • Horizon 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100007601 (Award 685474)
© 2020 The Authors
  • This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License.

Erratum

An erratum has been published for this content:
Corrigendum: Comparative genome sequence analysis of several species in the genus Tepidimonas and the description of a novel species sp. nov
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.003942
2020-01-02
2024-05-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/ijsem/70/3/1596.html?itemId=/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.003942&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Moreira C, Rainey FA, Nobre MF, da Silva MT, da Costa MS. Tepidimonas ignava gen. nov., sp. nov., a new chemolithoheterotrophic and slightly thermophilic member of the β-Proteobacteria . Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2000; 50:735–742 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Freitas M, Rainey FA, Nobre MF, Silvestre AJD, da Costa MS et al. Tepidimonas aquatica sp. nov., a new slightly thermophilic β-proteobacterium isolated from a hot water tank. Syst Appl Microbiol 2003; 26:376–381 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Chen T-L, Chou Y-J, Chen W-M, Arun B, Young C-C et al. Tepidimonas taiwanensis sp. nov., a novel alkaline-protease-producing bacterium isolated from a hot spring. Extremophiles 2006; 10:35–40 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Albuquerque L, Tiago I, Veríssimo A, da Costa MS. Tepidimonas thermarum sp. nov., a new slightly thermophilic betaproteobacterium isolated from the Elisenquelle in Aachen and emended description of the genus Tepidimonas . Syst Appl Microbiol 2006; 29:450–456 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Chen W-M, Huang H-W, Chang J-S, Han Y-L, Guo T-R et al. Tepidimonas fonticaldi sp. nov., a slightly thermophilic betaproteobacterium isolated from a hot spring. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2013; 63:1810–1816 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Habib N, Khan IU, Salam N, Xiao M, Ahmed I et al. Tepidimonas sediminis sp. nov. and Tepidimonas alkaliphilus sp. nov., two novel moderately thermophilic species isolated from a hot spring. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 2018; 111:1023–1031 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  7. KS K, Lee NY, WS O, Lee JH, HK K et al. Tepidimonas arfidensis sp. nov., a novel Gram-negative and thermophilic bacterium isolated from the bone marrow of a patient with leukaemia in Korea. Microbiol Immunol 2005; 49:785–788
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Dhakan DB, Saxena R, Chaudhary N, Sharma VK. Draft genome sequence of Tepidimonas taiwanensis strain MB2, a chemolithotrophic thermophile isolated from a hot spring in central India. Genome Announc 2016; 4:1–2 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Valeriani F, Biagini T, Giampaoli S, Crognale S, Santoni D et al. Draft genome sequence of Tepidimonas taiwanensis strain VT154-175. Genome Announc 2016; 4:1–2 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Albuquerque L, Rainey FA, da Costa MS. Thermus. In Whitman WB. editor Bergey's Manual of Systematics of Archaea and Bacteria John Wiley & Sons, Inc., in association with Bergey's Manual Trust; 2018 pp 1–39
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Albuquerque L. Tepidicella. In Whitman WB. editor Bergey's Manual of Systematics of Archaea and Bacteria John Wiley & Sons, Inc., in association with Bergey's Manual Trust; 2018 pp 1–7
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Smibert RM, Krieg NR. General characterization. In Gerhardt P, Murray RGE, Costilow RN, Nester EW, Wood WA. (editors) Manual of Methods for General Bacteriology Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology; 1981 pp 409–442
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Sörbo B. Sulfate: turbidimetric and nephelometric methods. Methods Enzymol 1987; 143:3–6 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Westley RAD. Thiocyanate and thiosulfate. Methods Enzymol 1987; 143:23–25
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Heimbrook ME, Wang WLL, Campbell G. Staining bacterial flagella easily. J Clin Microbiol 1989; 27:2612–2615
     [Google Scholar]
  16. da Costa MS, Albuquerque L, Nobre MF, Wait R. The identification of fatty acids in Bacteria. In Rainey FA, Oren A. (editors) Methods in Microbiology (Taxonomy of Prokaryotes) 38 London: Elsevier Ltd; 2011 pp 183–196
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Nielsen P, Fritze D, Priest FG. Phenetic diversity of alkaliphilic Bacillus strains: proposal for nine new species. Microbiology 1995; 141:1745–1761 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 2014; 30:2114–2120 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Bankevich A, Nurk S, Antipov D, Gurevich AA, Dvorkin M et al. SPAdes: a new genome assembly algorithm and its applications to single-cell sequencing. J Comput Biol 2012; 19:455–477 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Hyatt D, Chen G-L, Locascio PF, Land ML, Larimer FW et al. Prodigal: prokaryotic gene recognition and translation initiation site identification. BMC Bioinformatics 2010; 11:119 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Seemann T. Prokka: rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics 2014; 30:2068–2069 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Apweiler R, Bairoch A, CH W, Barker WC, Boeckmann B et al. UniProt: the universal protein knowledgebase. Nucleic Acids Res 2017; 45:D115–D119
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Pedruzzi I, Rivoire C, Auchincloss AH, Coudert E, Keller G et al. HAMAP in 2015: updates to the protein family classification and annotation system. Nucleic Acids Res 2015; 43:D1064–D1070 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Haft DH, Selengut JD, White O. The TIGRFAMs database of protein families. Nucleic Acids Res 2003; 31:371–373 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Finn RD, Coggill P, Eberhardt RY, Eddy SR, Mistry J et al. The Pfam protein families database: towards a more sustainable future. Nucleic Acids Res 2016; 44:D279–D285 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Parks DH, Imelfort M, Skennerton CT, Hugenholtz P, Tyson GW. CheckM: assessing the quality of microbial genomes recovered from isolates, single cells, and metagenomes. Genome Res 2015; 25:1043–1055 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Edgar RC. Muscle: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res 2004; 32:1792–1797 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Kumar S, Stecher G, Li M, Knyaz C, Tamura K. MEGA X: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis across computing platforms. Mol Biol Evol 2018; 35:1547–1549 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Jukes TH, Cantor CR. Evolution of protein molecules. In Munro HN. editor Mammalian Protein Metabolism New York: Academic Press; 1969 pp 21–132
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Richter M, Rosselló-Móra R. Shifting the genomic gold standard for the prokaryotic species definition. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2009; 106:19126–19131 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Meier-Kolthoff JP, Auch AF, Klenk H-P, Göker M. Genome sequence-based species delimitation with confidence intervals and improved distance functions. BMC Bioinformatics 2013; 14:60 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Segata N, Börnigen D, Morgan XC, Huttenhower C. PhyloPhlAn is a new method for improved phylogenetic and taxonomic placement of microbes. Nat Commun 2013; 4:2304 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Brocker M, Schaffer S, Mack C, Bott M. Citrate utilization by Corynebacterium glutamicum is controlled by the CitAB two-component system through positive regulation of the citrate transport genes citH and tctCBA . J Bacteriol 2009; 191:3869–3880 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Valentini M, Storelli N, Lapouge K. Identification of C4-dicarboxylate transport systems in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1. J Bacteriol 2011; 193:4307–4316 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Stackebrandt E, Frederiksen W, Garrity GM, Grimont PAD, Kämpfer P et al. Report of the ad hoc committee for the re-evaluation of the species definition in bacteriology. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2002; 52:1043–1047 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Richter M, Rosselló-Móra R. Shifting the genomic gold standard for the prokaryotic species definition. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2009; 106:19126–19131 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Konstantinidis KT, Tiedje JM. Genomic insights that advance the species definition for prokaryotes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005; 102:2567–2572 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  38. 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 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  39. França L, Rainey FA, Nobre MF, da Costa MS. Tepidicella xavieri gen. nov., sp. nov., a betaproteobacterium isolated from a hot spring runoff. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2006; 56:907–912 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.003942
Loading
Comparative genome sequence analysis of several species in the genus Tepidimonas and the description of a novel species Tepidimonas charontis sp. nov.
Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 70, 1596 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1099/ijsem.0.003942
/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.003942
/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.003942
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary material 1

PDF

Most cited 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