1887

Abstract

In the present study, the taxonomic positions of five strains (C, 17-2, LMG 10779, LMG 18969 and LMG 11483) of were re-evaluated by a polyphasic approach, including the analyses of 16S rRNA, and gene sequences, cellular fatty acids, average nucleotide and amino acid identities (ANI and AAI), digital DNA–DNA hybridization (dDDH), and phenotypic features. Based on sequence analysis, the five strains and LMG 11482 were divided into two groups: strains C, LMG 10779 and LMG 18969; strains 17-2, LMG 11483 and LMG 11482. Each of the two groups had almost identical sequences. The sequence similarity between strain LMG 10779 and LMG 11482 was 95.6 %. Strains LMG 11483 and 17-2 had 98.1 and 97.2 % ANI values, 83.5 and 73.2 % dDDH values, and a 97.0 % AAI value with LMG 11482, greater than the threshold for species demarcation, indicating that strains LMG 11483 and 17-2 belong to . Strains LMG 18969 and C shared 97.1 and 98.2 % ANI values, 73.4 and 83.2 % dDDH values, and 96.9 and 96.6 % AAI values with strain LMG 10779, greater than the threshold for species demarcation, indicating that strains LMG 10779, LMG 18969 and C represent the same species. The ANI, dDDH and AAI values between strain LMG 10779 and the type strains of phylogenetically related species were 75.2–92.5, 20.0–48.2 and 75.3–93.9 %, respectively, below the thresholds for species demarcation, indicating that strain LMG 10779 represents a novel species within the genus . On the basis of the results presented here, (i) strains 17-2 and LMG 11483 belong to , and (ii) strains LMG 10779, LMG 18969 and C are considered to represent a novel species within the genus , for which the name sp. nov. is proposed with the type strain LMG 10779 (=CCUG 27119).

Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • ChunTao Gu , National Natural Science Foundation of China , (Award 31471594)
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.004602
2020-12-09
2021-02-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ludwig W, Schleifer KH, Whitman WB et al. Taxonomic outline of the phylum Firmicutes . In De Vos P, Garrity G, Jones D, Krieg NR, Ludwig W et al. (editors) Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology New York: Springer; 2009 pp 15–17
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Zheng J, Wittouck S, Salvetti E, Franz CMAP, Harris HMB et al. A taxonomic note on the genus Lactobacillus: Description of 23 novel genera, emended description of the genus Lactobacillus Beijerinck 1901, and union of Lactobacillaceae and Leuconostocaceae . Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2020; 70:2782–2858 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  3. De Bruyne K, Schillinger U, Caroline L, Boehringer B, Cleenwerck I et al. Leuconostoc holzapfelii sp. nov., isolated from Ethiopian coffee fermentation and assessment of sequence analysis of housekeeping genes for delineation of Leuconostoc species. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2007; 57:2952–2959 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Gu CT, Li CY, Yang LJ, Huo GC. Lactobacillus heilongjiangensis sp. nov., isolated from Chinese pickle. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2013; 63:4094–4099
    [Google Scholar]
  5. An D, Cai S, Dong X. Actinomyces ruminicola sp. nov., isolated from cattle rumen. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2006; 56:2043–2048 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 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 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 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]
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Saitou N, Nei M. The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol Biol Evol 1987; 4:406–425
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Kishino H, Hasegawa M. Evaluation of the maximum likelihood estimate of the evolutionary tree topologies from DNA sequence data, and the branching order in hominoidea. J Mol Evol 1989; 29:170–179 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Rzhetsky A, Nei M. A simple method for estimating and testing minimum evolution trees. Mol Biol Evol 1992; 9:945–967
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 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 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Naser SM, Dawyndt P, Hoste B, Gevers D, Vandemeulebroecke K et al. Identification of lactobacilli by pheS and rpoA gene sequence analyses. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2007; 57:2777–2789 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  13. De Bruyne K, Franz CMAP, Vancanneyt M, Schillinger U, Mozzi F et al. Pediococcus argentinicus sp. nov. from Argentinean fermented wheat flour and identification of Pediococcus species by pheS, rpoA and atpA sequence analysis. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2008; 58:2909–2916 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Akopyanz N, Bukanov NO, Westblom TU, Kresovich S, Berg DE. DNA diversity among clinical isolates of Helicobacter pylori detected by PCR-based RAPD fingerprinting. Nucleic Acids Res 1992; 20:5137–5142 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Coil D, Jospin G, Darling AE. A5-miseq: an updated pipeline to assemble microbial genomes from illumina MiSeq data. Bioinformatics 2015; 31:587–589 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 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 [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]
  18. Stamatakis A. RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics 2014; 30:1312–1313 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Davis JJ, Wattam AR, Aziz RK, Brettin T, Butler R et al. The PATRIC bioinformatics resource center: expanding data and analysis capabilities. Nucleic Acids Res 2020; 48:D606–D612
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Lee I, Ouk Kim Y, Park S-C, Chun J. OrthoANI: an improved algorithm and software for calculating average nucleotide identity. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2016; 66:1100–1103 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Yoon S-H, Ha S-min, 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]
  22. 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]
  23. 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 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 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]
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Auch AF, von Jan M, Klenk H-P, Göker M. Digital DNA-DNA hybridization for microbial species delineation by means of genome-to-genome sequence comparison. Stand Genomic Sci 2010; 2:117–134 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Stackebrandt E, Goebel BM. Taxonomic note: a place for DNA-DNA reassociation and 16S rRNA sequence analysis in the present species definition in bacteriology. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 1994; 44:846–849 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Besemer J, Lomsadze A, Borodovsky M. GeneMarkS: a self-training method for prediction of gene starts in microbial genomes. Implications for finding sequence motifs in regulatory regions. Nucleic Acids Res 2001; 29:2607–2618 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Konstantinidis KT, Tiedje JM. Towards a genome-based taxonomy for prokaryotes. J Bacteriol 2005; 187:6258–6264 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 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 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Mattarelli P, Holzapfel W, Franz CMAP, Endo A, Felis GE et al. Recommended minimal standards for description of new taxa of the genera Bifidobacterium, Lactobacillus and related genera. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2014; 64:1434–1451 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Krieg NR, Padgett PJ. Phenotypic and physiological characterization methods. Methods Microbiol 2011; 38:15–60
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Miyashita M, Yukphan P, Chaipitakchonlatarn W, Malimas T, Sugimoto M et al. Lactobacillus plajomi sp. nov. and Lactobacillus modestisalitolerans sp. nov., isolated from traditional fermented foods. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2015; 65:2485–2490 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Hasegawa T, Takizawa M, Tanida S. A rapid analysis for chemical grouping of aerobic actinomycetes. J Gen Appl Microbiol 1983; 29:319–322 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Tak EJ, Kim HS, Lee J-Y, Kang W, Hyun D-W et al. Vagococcus martis sp. nov., isolated from the small intestine of a marten, Martes flavigula . Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2017; 67:3398–3402 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Sasser M. Identification of Bacteria by Gas Chromatography of Cellular Fatty Acids, MIDI Technical Note 101. Newark, DE, USA: Microbial ID Inc; 1990
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.004602
Loading
/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.004602
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