1887

Abstract

Phylogenetic analysis of the genus had shown that the type strains of , and shared a very close relationship between each other. The 16S rRNA gene sequences similarity values between each other ranged from 99.65 to 99.93 %. Whole genome sequencing was performed and genomic relatedness values between each pair of the species were 97.49–100 % (ANI) and 79.3–100 % (dDDH), respectively, all higher than the threshold values of 95–96 % ANI and 70 % dDDH suggested for species discrimination, and implicated that the type strains should belong to the same species of the genus . The phenotypic and chemotaxonomic characterizations performed in the original descriptions of and also supported the same conclusion. Due to priority of publication and Lee and Jeon 2017, should be taken as two later heterotypic synonyms of Chen . 2013. Correspondingly, the species description of was emended based on this study.

Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • Guang-Da Feng , the Science and Technology Project of Guangdong Province , (Award 2019B030316009)
  • , the Key Realm R&D Program of Guangdong Provice , (Award 2018B020205003)
  • Hong-Hui Zhu , the GDAS' Project of Science and Technology Development , (Award 2019GDASYL-0401002)
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.003946
2020-01-07
2020-08-08
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/ijsem/70/3/1644.html?itemId=/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.003946&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Stolz A. Degradative plasmids from sphingomonads. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2014; 350:9–19 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Stolz A. Molecular characteristics of xenobiotic-degrading sphingomonads. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2009; 81:793–811 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Aylward FO, McDonald BR, Adams SM, Valenzuela A, Schmidt RA et al. Comparison of 26 sphingomonad genomes reveals diverse environmental adaptations and biodegradative capabilities. Appl Environ Microbiol 2013; 79:3724–3733 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Révész F, Tóth EM, Kriszt B, Bóka K, Benedek T et al. Sphingobium aquiterrae sp. nov., a toluene, meta- and para-xylene-degrading bacterium isolated from petroleum hydrocarbon-contaminated groundwater. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2018; 68:2807–2812 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Liang Q, Lloyd-Jones G. Sphingobium scionense sp. nov., an aromatic hydrocarbon-degrading bacterium isolated from contaminated sawmill soil. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2010; 60:413–416 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Takeuchi M, Hamana K, Hiraishi A. Proposal of the genus Sphingomonas sensu stricto and three new genera, Sphingobium, Novosphingobium and Sphingopyxis, on the basis of phylogenetic and chemotaxonomic analyses. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2001; 51:1405–1417 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Feng G-D, Chen M-B, Zhang X-J, Wang D-D, Zhu H-H. Whole genome sequences reveal the presence of 11 heterotypic synonyms in the genus Sphingobium and emended descriptions of Sphingobium indicum, Sphingobium fuliginis, Sphingobium xenophagum and Sphingobium cupriresistens . Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2019; 69:2161–2165 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Lee Y, Jeon CO. Sphingobium paulinellae sp. nov. and Sphingobium algicola sp. nov., isolated from a freshwater green alga Paulinella chromatophora . Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2017; 67:5165–5171 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Chen H, Jogler M, Rohde M, Klenk H-P, Busse H-J et al. Sphingobium limneticum sp. nov. and Sphingobium boeckii sp. nov., two freshwater planktonic members of the family Sphingomonadaceae, and reclassification of Sphingomonas suberifaciens as Sphingobium suberifaciens comb. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2013; 63:735–743 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Kim M, Oh H-S, Park S-C, Chun J. Towards a taxonomic coherence between average nucleotide identity and 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity for species demarcation of prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2014; 64:346–351 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Lee I, Chalita M, Ha S-M, Na S-I, Yoon S-H et al. ContEst16S: an algorithm that identifies contaminated prokaryotic genomes using 16S RNA gene sequences. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2017; 67:2053–2057 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Yoon S-H, Ha S-M, 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]
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 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 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Richter M, Rosselló-Móra R. Shifting the genomic gold standard for the prokaryotic species definition. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2009; 106:19126–19131 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Goris J, Konstantinidis KT, Klappenbach JA, Coenye T, Vandamme P et al. DNA-DNA hybridization values and their relationship to whole-genome sequence similarities. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2007; 57:81–91 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Táncsics A, Benedek T, Farkas M, Máthé I, Márialigeti K et al. Sequence analysis of 16S rRNA, gyrB and catA genes and DNA-DNA hybridization reveal that Rhodococcus jialingiae is a later synonym of Rhodococcus qingshengii . Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2014; 64:298–301 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Aziz RK, Bartels D, Best AA, DeJongh M, Disz T et al. The RAST server: rapid annotations using subsystems technology. BMC Genomics 2008; 9:75 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.003946
Loading
/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.003946
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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