1887

Abstract

A Gram-stain-negative, aerobic, non-motile, rod-shaped bacterial strain (CAU 1508) was isolated from marine sediment collected in the Republic of Korea. Growth was observed at 10–45 °C (optimum, 30 °C), pH 4.0–11.0 (optimum, pH 6.0–8.0) and with 0–8.0 % (w/v) NaCl (optimum, 2–4 %). The isolate formed a monophyletic clade in the phylogenetic analyses using 16S rRNA gene and whole-genome sequences, exhibiting the highest similarity to SM1703 (96.5 %), and representing a distinct branch within the genus (family ). Its whole genome sequence was 5.59 Mb long, with a G+C content of 65.7 mol% and 2183 predicted genes belonging to six functional categories. The average nucleotide identity and digital DNA–DNA hybridization values between CAU 1508 and SM1703 were 79.1 and 22.2 %, respectively. The predominant cellular fatty acids were C cyclo 8 and summed feature 8 (C 7/C 6). The major polar lipids were diphosphatidylglycerol, phosphatidylglycerol, phosphatidylcholine, phosphatidylethanolamine, two unidentified phospholipids and one unidentified aminophospholipid. The sole isoprenoid quinone was ubiquinone 10. Phenotypic phylogenetic properties supported the classification of CAU 1508 as representing a novel species of the genus , with the proposed name sp. nov. The type strain is CAU 1508 (=KCTC 62999=NBRC 113697).

Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • Chung-Ang University (Award 2019)
    • Principle Award Recipient: WonyongKim
  • National Institute of Biological Resources (Award NIBR201902203)
    • Principle Award Recipient: WonyongKim
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.004904
2021-07-22
2021-07-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Yuan X-X, Wang N, Zhang M-Y, Chen X-L, Li C-Y et al. Chachezhania antarctica gen. nov., sp. nov., a novel member of the family ‘Rhodobacteraceae’ isolated from Antarctic seawater. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 2019; 112:1841–1848
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Garrity GM, Bell JA, Lilburn T. Family I. Rhodobacteraceae fam. nov. In Bergey’s Manual of systematic Bacteriology, 2 (Part C) Vol 161 2005
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Pujalte MJ, Lucena T, Ruvira MA, Arahal DR, Macián MC. The family Rhodobacteraceae. Rosenberg E, DeLong E, Lory S, Stackebrandt E, Thompson F. eds In The Prokaryotes-Alphaproteobacteria and Betaproteobacteria, 4th. edn Vol 8 Berlin: Springer; 2014 pp 439–512
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Nam SW, Kim W, Chun J, Goodfellow M. Tsukamurella pseudospumae sp. nov., a novel actinomycete isolated from activated sludge foam. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2004; 54:1209–1212 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Larkin MA, Blackshields G, Brown NP, Chenna R, McGettigan PA et al. Clustal W and Clustal X version 2.0. Bioinformatics 2007; 23:2947–2948 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Yoon S-H, Ha S-M, Kwon S, Lim J, Kim Y et al. Introducing EzBioCloud: a taxonomically united database of 16S rRNA and whole genome assemblies. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2017; 67:1613–1617
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 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]
  8. Felsenstein J. Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: A maximum likelihood approach. J Mol Evol 1981; 17:368–376 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 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]
  10. 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]
  11. Jukes TH, Cantor CR. Evolution of protein molecules. Mammalian Protein Metabolism 1969; 3:21–132
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Felsenstein J. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 1985; 39:783–791 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Meier-Kolthof JP, Göker M. TYGS is an automated high-throughput platform for state-of-the-art genome-based taxonomy. Nat Commun 2019; 10:1–10
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Lee I, Kim YO, Park SC, Chun J. OrthoANI: an improved algorithm and software for calculating average nucleotide identity. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2016; 66:1100–1103
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Aziz RK, Bartels D, Best AA, DeJongh M, Disz T et al. The RAST Server: rapid annotations using subsystems technology. BMC genomics 2008; 9:1–15
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Blin K, Shaw S, Steinke K, Villebro R, Ziemert N et al. Antismash 5.0: updates to the secondary metabolite genome mining pipeline. Nucleic Acids Res 2019; 47:W81–W87 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 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]
  20. Bowman JP. Description of Cellulophaga algicola sp. nov., isolated from the surfaces of Antarctic algae, and reclassifcation of Cytophaga uliginosa (ZoBell and Upham 1944) Reichenbach 1989 as Cellulophaga uliginosa comb. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2000; 50:1861–1868 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Rodríguez-Valera F, Ruiz-Berraquero F, Ramos-Cormenzana A. Characteristics of the heterotrophic bacterial populations in hypersaline environments of different salt concentrations. Microb Ecol 1981; 7:235–243 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Smibert RM, Krieg NR. Phenotypic characterization. Gerhardt P, Murray R, Wood W, Krieg N. eds In Methods for General and Molecular Bacteriology Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology; 1994 pp 607–654
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Lanyi B. 1 Classical and rapid identification methods for medically important bacteria. Methods Microbiol 1988; 19:1–67
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Sasser M. MIDI technical note 101. Identification of Bacteria by Gas Chromatography of Cellular Fatty Acids Newark: MIDI; 1990 pp 1–7
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Minnikin DE, Hutchinson IG, Caldicott AB, Goodfellow M. Thin-layer chromatography of methanolysates of mycolic acid-containing bacteria. J Chromatogr A 1980; 188:221–233 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Collins MD, Jones D. A note on the separation of natural mixtures of bacterial ubiquinones using reverse-phase partition thin layer chromatography and high performance liquid chromatography. J Appl Bacteriol 1981; 51:129–134 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Lefort V, Desper R, Gascuel O. FastME 2.0: a comprehensive, accurate, and fast distance-based phylogeny inference program. Mol Biol Evol 2015; 32:2798–2800 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.004904
Loading
/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.004904
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