1887

Abstract

Strain HMF4947, isolated from the bark of a ginkgo tree, was a pale-pink coloured, Gram-stain-negative, non-motile, strictly aerobic and rod-shaped bacterium. The isolate grew optimally on Reasoner's 2A agar at 30 °C, pH 7.0 and with 0 % NaCl. Phylogenetic analysis based on 16S rRNA gene sequences showed that strain HMF4947 belonged to the genus and was most closely related to A2-91 (96.9 % sequence similarity) and 9-2-1-1 (96.5 %). The average nucleotide identity and estimated DNA–DNA hybridization values between strain HMF4947 and DSM 17870 were 74.3 and 20.5 %, respectively. The major fatty acids were summed feature 3 (C ω7 and/or C ω6), iso-C and C ω5. The predominant isoprenoid quinone was menaquinone-7. The polar lipids comprised phosphatidylethanolamine, one unidentified aminoglycolipid, three unidentified aminophospholipids, one unidentified phospholipid, three unidentified aminolipids, two unidentified glycolipids and three unidentified polar lipids. The genomic DNA G+C content was 59.3 mol%. Thus, based on phylogenetic, phenotypic and chemotaxonomic data, strain HMF4947 represents a novel species of the genus , for which the name sp. nov. is proposed. The type strain of the species is strain HMF4947 (=KCTC 72780=NBRC 114271).

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.004343
2020-07-22
2021-08-02
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/ijsem/70/8/4760.html?itemId=/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.004343&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Hirsch P, Ludwig W, Hethke C, Sittig M, Hoffmann B et al. Hymenobacter roseosalivarius gen. nov., sp. nov. from continental Antartica soils and sandstone: bacteria of the Cytophaga/Flavobacterium/Bacteroides line of phylogenetic descent. Syst Appl Microbiol 1998; 21:374–383 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Buczolits S, Denner EBM, Kämpfer P, Busse H-J. Proposal of Hymenobacter norwichensis sp. nov., classification of 'Taxeobacter ocellatus', 'Taxeobacter gelupurpurascens' and 'Taxeobacter chitinovorans' as Hymenobacter ocellatus sp. nov., Hymenobacter gelipurpurascens sp. nov. and Hymenobacter chitinivorans sp. nov., respectively, and emended description of the genus Hymenobacter Hirsch et al. 1999. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2006; 56:2071–2078 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Reddy GS. Phylogenetic analyses of the genus Hymenobacter and description of Siccationidurans gen. nov., and Parahymenobacter gen. nov. J Phylogenetics Evol Biol 2013; 01:122 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Han L, Wu S-J, Qin C-Y, Zhu Y-H, Lu Z-Q et al. Hymenobacter qilianensis sp. nov., isolated from a subsurface sandstone sediment in the permafrost region of Qilian Mountains, China and emended description of the genus Hymenobacter . Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 2014; 105:971–978 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Chung AP, Lopes A, Nobre MF, Morais PV. Hymenobacter perfusus sp. nov., Hymenobacter flocculans sp. nov. and Hymenobacter metalli sp. nov. three new species isolated from an uranium mine waste water treatment system. Syst Appl Microbiol 2010; 33:436–443 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Ten LN, Li W, Lee S-Y, Kang I-K, Cho Y-J et al. Hymenobacter pomorum sp. nov., isolated from apple orchard soil. Curr Microbiol 2019; 76:117–123 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Arrigoni E, Antonielli L, Pindo M, Pertot I, Perazzolli M. Tissue age and plant genotype affect the microbiota of apple and pear bark. Microbiol Res 2018; 211:57–68 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Leff JW, Del Tredici P, Friedman WE, Fierer N. Spatial structuring of bacterial communities within individual Ginkgo biloba trees. Environ Microbiol 2015; 17:2352–2361 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Yoon S-H, Ha S-M, 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]
  10. Pruesse E, Peplies J, Glöckner FO. SINA: accurate high-throughput multiple sequence alignment of ribosomal RNA genes. Bioinformatics 2012; 28:1823–1829 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 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]
  12. Fitch WM. Toward defining the course of evolution: minimum change for a specific tree topology. Syst Zool 1971; 20:406–416 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Felsenstein J. Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: a maximum likelihood approach. J Mol Evol 1981; 17:368–376 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 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]
  15. Felsenstein J. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 1985; 39:783–791 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 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 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Kang H, Kim H, Joung Y, Kim K-J, Joh K. Hymenobacter marinus sp. nov., isolated from coastal seawater. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2016; 66:2212–2217 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Wick RR, Judd LM, Gorrie CL, Holt KE. Unicycler: resolving bacterial genome assemblies from short and long sequencing reads. PLoS Comput Biol 2017; 13:e1005595 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 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][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Tatusova T, DiCuccio M, Badretdin A, Chetvernin V, Nawrocki EP et al. NCBI prokaryotic genome annotation pipeline. Nucleic Acids Res 2016; 44:6614–6624 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Overbeek R, Olson R, Pusch GD, Olsen GJ, Davis JJ et al. The seed and the rapid annotation of microbial genomes using subsystems technology (RAST). Nucleic Acids Res 2014; 42:D206–D214 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 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 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 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 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 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][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Na S-I, Kim YO, Yoon S-H, Ha S-M, Baek I et al. UBCG: up-to-date bacterial core gene set and pipeline for phylogenomic tree reconstruction. J Microbiol 2018; 56:280–285 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 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 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Hucker GJ. A new modification and application of the Gram stain. J Bacteriol 1921; 6:395–397 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Brown AE. Benson's Microbiological Application Laboratory Manual in General Microbiology, 10th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2007
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Bernardet JF, Nakagawa Y, Holmes B. Subcommittee on the taxonomy of Flavobacterium and Cytophaga-like bacteria of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes. Proposed minimal standards for describing new taxa of the family Flavobacteriaceae and emended description of the family. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2002; 52:1049–1070
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Sasser M. Identification of Bacteria by Gas Chromatography of Cellular Fatty Acids, MIDI Technical Note 101. Newark, DE: MIDI Inc; 1990
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 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 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Collins MD. Analysis of isoprenoid quinones. In Gottschalk G. editor Methods in Microbiology 18 New York: Acad Press; 1985 pp 329–366
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Hoang V-A, Kim Y-J, Nguyen NL, Yang D-C. Hymenobacter ginsengisoli sp. nov., isolated from soil of a ginseng field. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2013; 63:661–666 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Montero-Calasanz MdelC, Göker M, Rohde M, Spröer C, Schumann P et al. Chryseobacterium oleae sp. nov., an efficient plant growth promoting bacterium in the rooting induction of olive tree (Olea europaea L.) cuttings and emended descriptions of the genus Chryseobacterium, C. daecheongense, C. gambrini, C. gleum, C. joostei, C. jejuense, C. luteum, C. shigense, C. taiwanense, C. ureilyticum and C. vrystaatense . Syst Appl Microbiol 2014; 37:342–350 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.004343
Loading
/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.004343
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary material 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