1887

Abstract

Three Gram-stain-negative, aerobic, motile and rod-shaped bacterial strains, 7Q-K02, DHF22 and DHOM02, were isolated from forest soil sampled at Dinghushan Biosphere Reserve, Guangdong Province, China. Strains 7Q-K02, DHF22 and DHOM02 grew at 4–37, 4–42 and 12–37 °C, pH 3.0–8.5, 3.5–8.5 and 5.0–8.0, and in the presence of 0–3.0, 0–3.5 and 0–2.5 % (w/v) NaCl; with optima at 28–33, 28 and 28–33 °C, pH 3.5–6.5, 4.0–5.5 and 6.5–7.0, and 0–1.5, 0–1.5 and 0.5–1.5 % (w/v) NaCl, respectively. Strains 7Q-K02 and DHF22 have the highest 16S rRNA gene sequence similarities of 99.0 and 98.0 % to LMG 19450 and 97.7 % between themselves, while strain DHOM02 shares the highest similarity of 98.4 % to ‘ A396 followed by 98.3 % to ATCC 43733. In the 16S rRNA gene sequence phylogram, strain 7Q-K02 formed a sister branch with , and , and strain DHF22 was separated from all other species within the genus , while strain DHOM02 formed a separated clade with members of the genus . The DNA G+C contents of strains 7Q-K02, DHF22 and DHOM02 wwe 64.3, 65.4 and 66.6 %, respectively. Digital DNA–DNA hybridization (dDDH) and average nucleotide identity (ANI) values of strains 7Q-K02, DHF22 and closely related strains were in the ranges of 25.5–43.7 % and 81.5–91.3 %, respectively. While dDDH and ANI values between strain DHOM02 and strains with genome sequence data were in the ranges of 22.4–31.0 % and 78.2–86.1 %, respectively. These three strains have the same major respiratory quinone: ubiquinone-8. Strains 7Q-K02, DHF22 and DHOM02 have C, C cyclo, C cyclo 8 and summed feature 8 (C 7/C 6) as their major fatty acid compositions. The major polar lipids were phosphatidylethanolamine, phosphatidylglycerol and diphosphatidylglycerol. On the basis of phenotypic, phylogenetic, genomic analyses and chemotaxonomic data, strains 7Q-K02 and DHF22 represent two novel species of the genus , for which the names sp. nov. (type strain 7Q-K02=CGMCC 1.15433=KCTC 62472=LMG 29209) and sp. nov. (type strain DHF22=GDMCC 1.1448=LMG 30262) are proposed, while strain DHOM02 represents a novel species in the genus , for which the name sp. nov. (type strain DHOM02=KCTC 42625=LMG 28843) is proposed. We also propose to transfer to the genus as comb. nov. based mainly on the results of phylogenomic analysis.

Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • Li-hongQiu , Guangdong Province Science and Technology Innovation Strategy Special Fund , (Award 2018B020205003)
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.004690
2021-02-08
2021-02-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Sawana A, Adeolu M, Gupta RS. Molecular signatures and phylogenomic analysis of the genus Burkholderia: proposal for division of this genus into the emended genus Burkholderia containing pathogenic organisms and a new genus Paraburkholderia gen. nov. harboring environmental species. Front Genet 2014; 5: 429 [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Yabuuchi E, Kosako Y, Oyaizu H, Yano I, Hotta H et al. Proposal of Burkholderia gen. nov. and transfer of seven species of the genus Pseudomonas homology group II to the new genus, with the type species Burkholderia cepacia (Palleroni and Holmes 1981) comb. nov. Microbiol Immunol 1992; 36: 1251 1275 [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Dobritsa AP, Samadpour M. Transfer of eleven species of the genus Burkholderia to the genus Paraburkholderia and proposal of Caballeronia gen. nov. to accommodate twelve species of the genera Burkholderia and Paraburkholderia . Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2016; 66: 2836 2846 [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Estrada-de Los Santos P, Palmer M, Chávez-Ramírez B, Beukes C, Steenkamp ET et al. Whole genome analyses suggests that Burkholderia sensu lato contains two additional novel genera (Mycetohabitans gen. nov., and Trinickia gen. nov.): Implications for the evolution of diazotrophy and nodulation in the Burkholderiaceae . Genes 2018; 9: 389 [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Lopes-Santos L, Castro DBA, Ferreira-Tonin M, Corrêa DBA, Weir BS et al. Reassessment of the taxonomic position of Burkholderia andropogonis and description of Robbsia andropogonis gen. nov., comb. nov. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 2017; 110: 727 736 [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Lin QH, Lv Y-Y, Gao Z-H, Qiu L-H. Pararobbsia silviterrae gen. nov., sp. nov., isolated from forest soil and reclassification of Burkholderia alpina as Pararobbsia alpina comb. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2020; 70: 1412 1420 [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Wilhelm RC, Murphy SJL, Feriancek NM, Karasz DC, DeRito CM et al. Paraburkholderia madseniana sp. nov., a phenolic acid-degrading bacterium isolated from acidic forest soil. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2020; 70: 2137 2146 [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Trinh NH, Kim J. Paraburkholderia flava sp. nov., isolated from cool temperate forest soil. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2020; 70: 2509 2514 [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Xiao SY, Gao ZH, Lin QH, Qiu LH. Paraburkholderia pallida sp. nov. and Paraburkholderia silviterrae sp. nov., isolated from forest soil. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2019; 69: 3777 3785 [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Fu J-C, Lv Y-Y, You J, Gao Z-H, Wang B-F et al. Paraburkholderia dinghuensis sp. nov., isolated from soil. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2019; 69: 1613 1620 [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Xiao SY, Gao ZH, Yang Z, JY B, Qiu LH et al. Paraburkholderia telluris sp. nov., isolated from subtropical forest soil. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2019; 69: 1274 1280
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Gao ZH, Ruan SL, Huang YX, Lv Y-Y, Qiu L-H. Paraburkholderia phosphatilytica sp. nov., a phosphate-solubilizing bacterium isolated from forest soil. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2019; 69: 196 202 [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Paulitsch F, Dall'Agnol RF, Delamuta JRM, Ribeiro RA, da Silva Batista JS et al. Paraburkholderia guartelaensis sp. nov., a nitrogen-fixing species isolated from nodules of Mimosa gymnas in an ecotone considered as a hotspot of biodiversity in Brazil. Arch Microbiol 2019; 201: 1435 1446 [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bach E, Sant'Anna FH, Magrich dos Passos JF, Balsanelli E, de Baura VA et al. Detection of misidentifications of species from the Burkholderia cepacia complex and description of a new member, the soil bacterium Burkholderia catarinensis sp. nov. Pathog Dis 2017; 75: [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Oren A, Garrity G. List of new names and new combinations previously effectively, but not validly, published. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2019; 69: 3313 3314 [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Guentas L, Gensous S, Cavaloc Y, Ducousso M, Amir H. Corrigendum to "Burkholderia novacaledonica sp. nov. and B. ultramafica sp. nov. isolated from roots of Costularia spp. pioneer plants of ultramafic soils in New Caledonia". Syst Appl Microbiol 2019; 42: 422
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Mahenthiralingam E, Baldwin A, Dowson CG. Burkholderia cepacia complex bacteria: opportunistic pathogens with important natural biology. J Appl Microbiol 2008; 104: 1539 1551 [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Vanlaere E, Lipuma JJ, Baldwin A, Henry D, De Brandt E. Burkholderia latens sp. nov., Burkholderia diffusa sp. nov., Burkholderia arboris sp. nov., Burkholderia seminalis sp. nov. and Burkholderia metallica sp. nov., novel species within the Burkholderia cepacia complex. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2008; 58: 1580 1590
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Vanlaere E, Baldwin A, Gevers D, Henry D, De Brandt E et al. Taxon K, a complex within the Burkholderia cepacia complex, comprises at least two novel species, Burkholderia contaminans sp. nov. and Burkholderia lata sp. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2009; 59: 102 111 [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Peeters C, Zlosnik JEA, Spilker T, Hird TJ, LiPuma JJ et al. Burkholderia pseudomultivorans sp. nov., a novel Burkholderia cepacia complex species from human respiratory samples and the rhizosphere. Syst Appl Microbiol 2013; 36: 483 489 [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  21. De Smet B, Mayo M, Peeters C, Zlosnik JEA, Spilker T et al. Burkholderia stagnalis sp. nov. and Burkholderia territorii sp. nov., two novel Burkholderia cepacia complex species from environmental and human sources. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2015; 65: 2265 2271 [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Martina P, Leguizamon M, Prieto CI, Sousa SA, Montanaro P et al. Burkholderia puraquae sp. nov., a novel species of the Burkholderia cepacia complex isolated from hospital settings and agricultural soils. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2018; 68: 14 20 [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Price EP, MacHunter B, Spratt BG, Wagner DM, Currie BJ et al. Improved multilocus sequence typing of Burkholderia pseudomallei and closely related species. J Med Microbiol 2016; 65: 992 997 [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Vandamme P, Peeters C, De Smet B, Price EP, Sarovich DS et al. Comparative genomics of Burkholderia singularis sp. nov., a Low G+C content, free-living bacterium that defies taxonomic dissection of the genus Burkholderia . Front Microbiol 2017; 8: 1679 [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Maeda Y, Shinohara H, Kiba A, Ohnishi K, Furuya N et al. Phylogenetic study and multiplex PCR-based detection of Burkholderia plantarii, Burkholderia glumae and Burkholderia gladioli using gyrB and rpoD sequences. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2006; 56: 1031 1038 [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Bach E, Sant'Anna FH, Magrich Dos Passos JF, Balsanelli E, de Baura VA et al. Detection of misidentifications of species from the Burkholderia cepacia complex and description of a new member, the soil bacterium Burkholderia catarinensis sp. nov. Pathog Dis 2017; 75: [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Cordova-Kreylos AL, Fernandez LE, Koivunen M, Yang A, Flor-Weiler L et al. Isolation and characterization of Burkholderia rinojensis sp. nov., a non-Burkholderia cepacia complex soil bacterium with insecticidal and miticidal activities. Appl Environ Microbiol 2013; 79: 7669 7678 [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Gerhardt P, Murray RGE, Wood WA, Krieg NR. Methods for General and Molecular Bacteriology Washington, DC.: American Society for Microbiology; 1994
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Harley JP, Prescott LM. Laboratory Exercises in Microbiology , 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2002
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Brown AE. Benson’s Microbiological Applications: Laboratory Manual in General Microbiology , 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1985
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Atlas RM. Composition of media. In Parks LC, Raton Boca. (editors) Handbook of Microbiology Media , 2nd ed. FL: CRC Press; 1993
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Kim SJ, Ahn JH, Weon HY, Hong SB, Seok SJ et al. Parasegetibacter terrae sp. nov., isolated from paddy soil and emended description of the genus Parasegetibacter . Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2015; 65: 113 116 [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  33. DeLong EF. Archaea in coastal marine environments. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1992; 89: 5685 5689 [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Yoon SH, 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 [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 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] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Saitou N, Nei M. The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol Biol Evol 1987; 4: 406 425 [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Felsenstein J. Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: a maximum likelihood approach. J Mol Evol 1981; 17: 368 376 [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Kumar S, Stecher G, Tamura K. mega7: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 7.0 for bigger datasets. Mol Biol Evol 2016; 33: 1870 1874 [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 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 [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Felsenstein J. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 1985; 39: 783 791 [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 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 [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Hyatt D, Chen GL, Locascio PF, Land ML, Larimer FW et al. Prodigal: prokaryotic gene recognition and translation initiation site identification. BMC Bioinformatics 2010; 11: 119 [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Eddy SR. A new generation of homology search tools based on probabilistic inference. Genome Inform 2009; 23: 211 215 [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Eddy SR. Accelerated profile HMM searches. PLoS Comput Biol 2011; 7: e1002195 [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Price MN, Dehal PS, Arkin AP. FastTree 2--approximately maximum-likelihood trees for large alignments. PLoS One 2010; 5: e9490 [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 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 [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 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 [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Yoon SH, 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] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 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] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Wayne LG, Moore WEC, Stackebrandt E, Kandler O, Colwell RR et al. Report of the AD hoc committee on reconciliation of approaches to bacterial systematics. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 1987; 37: 463 464 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Coenye T, Vandamme P, Govan JR, LiPuma JJ. Taxonomy and identification of the Burkholderia cepacia complex. J Clin Microbiol 2001; 39: 3427 3436 [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Miller LT. Single derivatization method for routine analysis of bacterial whole-cell fatty acid methyl esters, including hydroxy acids. J Clin Microbiol 1982; 16: 584 586 [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Kuykendall LD, Roy MA, O’Neill JJ, Devine TE. Fatty acids, antibiotic resistance, and deoxyribonucleic acid homology groups of Bradyrhizobium japonicum . Int J Syst Bacteriol 1988; 38: 358 361 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 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 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Kroppenstedt RM. Separation of bacterial menaquinones by HPLC using reverse phase (RP18) and a silver loaded ion exchanger as stationary phases. J Liq Chromatogr 1982; 5: 2359 2367 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.004690
Loading
/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.004690
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary material 1

PDF
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