1887

Abstract

Two Gram-stain-positive strains, c9Ua_26_M and c11Ua_112_M, were isolated from voided urine samples from two healthy women. Comparative 16S rRNA gene sequences demonstrated that these novel strains were members of the genus . Phylogenetic analysis based on gene sequences and core genomes showed that each strain formed a separated branch and are closest to DSM 5837. The average nucleotide identity (ANI) and Genome-to-Genome Distance Calculator (GGDC) values between c9Ua_26_M and the closest relative DSM 5837 were 90.7 and 42.9 %, respectively. The ANI and GGDC values between c11Ua_112_M and the closest relative DSM 5837 were 91.2 and 45.0 %, and those among the strains were 92.9% and 51,0 %, respectively. The major fatty acids were C (40.2 %), C (26.7 %) and C 9 (17.7 %) for strain c9Ua_26_M, and C 9 (38.0 %), C (33.3 %) and C (17.6 %) for strain c11Ua_112_M. The genomic DNA G+C content of strains c9Ua_26_M and c11Ua_112_M was 39.9 and 39.7 mol%, respectively. On the basis of the data presented here, strains c9Ua_26_M and c11Ua_112_M represent two novel species of the genus , for which the names sp. nov. (c9Ua_26_M=CECT 30144=LMG 31899) and sp. nov. (c11Ua_112_M=CECT 30145=LMG 31898) are proposed.

Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • Comissão de Coordenação da Região Norte (PT) (Award NORTH-01–0145-FEDER-000024)
    • Principle Award Recipient: SvetlanaUgarcina Perovic
  • Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (Award DL57/2016/CP1346/CT0034)
    • Principle Award Recipient: FilipaGrosso
  • Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (Award SFRH/BD/132497/2017)
    • Principle Award Recipient: MagdalenaKsiezarek
  • Applied Molecular Biosciences Unit (Award UIDB/Multi/04378/2020)
    • Principle Award Recipient: ApplicableNot
  • Applied Molecular Biosciences Unit - UCIBIO (Award UIDP/04378/2020)
    • Principle Award Recipient: ApplicableNot
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.004726
2021-03-01
2021-10-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. 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 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Koutsoumanis K, Allende A, Alvarez-Ordóñez A, Bolton D et al. EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ) Update of the list of QPS-recommended biological agents intentionally added to food or feed as notified to EFSA 10: suitability of taxonomic units notified to EFSA until March 2019. EFSA J 2019; 17:e05753
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Salvetti E, O'Toole PW. The genomic basis of lactobacilli as health-promoting organisms. Microbiol Spectr 2017; 5:
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Dubourg G, Morand A, Mekhalif F, Godefroy R, Corthier A et al. Deciphering the urinary microbiota repertoire by Culturomics reveals mostly anaerobic bacteria from the gut. Front Microbiol 2020; 11:513305 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Héritier C, Poirel L, Nordmann P. Genetic and biochemical characterization of a chromosome-encoded carbapenem-hydrolyzing ambler class D β-lactamase from Shewanella algae . Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2004; 48:1670–1675 [View Article]
    [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 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 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]
    [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. 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 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Felsenstein J. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 1985; 39:783–791 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 2014; 30:2114–2120 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 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]
  13. Gurevich A, Saveliev V, Vyahhi N, Tesler G. QUAST: quality assessment tool for genome assemblies. Bioinformatics 2013; 29:1072–1075 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Haft DH, DiCuccio M, Badretdin A, Brover V, Chetvernin V et al. Refseq: an update on prokaryotic genome annotation and curation. Nucleic Acids Res 2018; 46:D851–D860 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Richter M, Rosselló-Móra R, Oliver Glöckner F, Peplies J. JSpeciesWS: a web server for prokaryotic species circumscription based on pairwise genome comparison. Bioinformatics 2016; 32:929–931 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 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]
  17. Meier-Kolthoff JP, Hahnke RL, Petersen J, Scheuner C, Michael V et al. Complete genome sequence of DSM 30083T, the type strain (U5/41T) of Escherichia coli, and a proposal for delineating subspecies in microbial taxonomy. Stand Genomic Sci 2014; 9:2 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Seemann T. Prokka: rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics 2014; 30:2068–2069 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Page AJ, Cummins CA, Hunt M, Wong VK, Reuter S et al. Roary: rapid large-scale prokaryote pan genome analysis. Bioinformatics 2015; 31:3691–3693 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Price MN, Dehal PS, Arkin AP. FastTree 2 – approximately maximum-likelihood trees for large alignments. PLoS One 2010; 5:e9490 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Tohno M, Kitahara M, Uegaki R, Irisawa T, Ohkuma M et al. Lactobacillus hokkaidonensis sp. nov., isolated from subarctic timothy grass (Phleum pratense L.) silage. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2013; 63:2526–2531 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Boyd MA, Antonio MAD, Hillier SL. Comparison of API 50 CH strips to whole-chromosomal DNA probes for identification of Lactobacillus species. J Clin Microbiol 2005; 43:5309–5311 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Embley TM, Faquir N, Bossart W, Collins MD. Lactobacillus vaginalis sp. nov. from the human vagina. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1989; 39:368–370 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.004726
Loading
/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.004726
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