1887

Abstract

The status was introduced to bacterial taxonomy in the 1990s to accommodate uncultured taxa defined by analyses of DNA sequences. Here I review the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) associated with the status in the light of a quarter century of use, twinned with recent developments in bacterial taxonomy and sequence-based taxonomic discovery. Despite ambiguities as to its scope, philosophical objections to its use and practical problems in implementation, the status has now been applied to over 1000 taxa and has been widely adopted by journals and databases. Although lacking priority under the International Code for Nomenclature of Prokaryotes, many names have already achieved standing in the academic literature and in databases via description of a taxon in a peer-reviewed publication, alongside deposition of a genome sequence and there is a clear path to valid publication of such names on culture. Continued and increased use of names provides an alternative to the potential upheaval that might accompany creation of a new additional code of nomenclature and provides a ready solution to the urgent challenge of naming many thousands of newly discovered but uncultured species.

Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • medical research council (Award MR/T030062/1)
    • Principle Award Recipient: MarkJ. Pallen
  • biotechnology and biological sciences research council (Award BB/R012504/1)
    • Principle Award Recipient: MarkJ. Pallen
  • This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. This article was made open access via a Publish and Read agreement between the Microbiology Society and the corresponding author’s institution.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.005000
2021-09-13
2021-09-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/ijsem/71/9/ijsem005000.html?itemId=/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.005000&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Parker CT, Tindall BJ, Garrity GM. International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2019; 69:S1–S111 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  2. de Candolle A. Lois de la nomenclature botanique Masson: 1867 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Buchanan RE, St John-Brooks R, Breed RS. International Bacteriological Code of Nomenclature. J Bacteriol 1948; 55:287–306 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Skerman VBD, McGowan V, Sneath PHA. Approved lists of bacterial names. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 1980; 30:225–420 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Sneath PHA. The preparation of the approved lists of bacterial names. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2005; 55:2247–2249 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Olsen GJ, Lane DJ, Giovannoni SJ, Pace NR, Stahl DA. Microbial ecology and evolution: a ribosomal RNA approach. Annu Rev Microbiol 1986; 40:337–365 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Woese CR. Bacterial evolution. Microbiol Rev 1987; 51:221–271 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Relman DA. The identification of uncultured microbial pathogens. J Infect Dis 1993; 168:1–8 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Murray RG, Schleifer KH. Taxonomic notes: a proposal for recording the properties of putative taxa of procaryotes. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1994; 44:174–176 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Murray RG, Stackebrandt E. Taxonomic note: implementation of the provisional status Candidatus for incompletely described procaryotes. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1995; 45:186–187 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Labeda DP. Judicial Commission of the International Committee on Systematic Bacteriology VIIIth international Congress of microbiology and applied bacteriology: minutes of the meetings, 17 and 22 August 1996, Jerusalem, Israel. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1997; 47:240–241 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Labeda DP. Judicial Commission of the International Committee on Systematic Bacteriology IXth International (IUMS) Congress of Bacteriology and Applied Microbiology Minutes of the meetings, 14, 15 and 18 August 1999, Sydney, Australia. Int J Syst Bacteriol 2000; 50:2239–2244
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Nayfach S, Roux S, Seshadri R. A genomic catalog of Earth’s microbiomes. Nat Biotechnol 2020; 39:499–509 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Parks DH, Rinke C, Chuvochina M. Recovery of nearly 8000 metagenome-assembled genomes substantially expands the tree of life. Nat Microbiol 2017; 2:1533–1542 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Pasolli E, Asnicar F, Manara S. Extensive unexplored human microbiome diversity revealed by over 150000 genomes from metagenomes spanning age, geography, and lifestyle. Cell 2019; 176:649–662 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Konstantinidis KT, Rosselló-Móra R, Amann R. Uncultivated microbes in need of their own taxonomy. ISME J 2017; 11:2399–2406 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Murray AE, Freudenstein J, Gribaldo S. Roadmap for naming uncultivated Archaea and Bacteria. Nat Microbiol 2020; 5:987–994 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Sutcliffe IC, Dijkshoorn L, Whitman WB. Minutes of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes online discussion on the proposed use of gene sequences as type for naming of prokaryotes, and outcome of vote. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2020; 70:4416–4417 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  19. ISME SeqCode initiative: Path Forward for Naming the Uncultivated; 2021 https://www.isme-microbes.org/seqcode-initiative
  20. Oren A, Garrity GM, Parker CT, Chuvochina M, Trujillo ME. Lists of names of prokaryotic Candidatus taxa. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2020; 70:3956–4042 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Jacobi CA, Reichenbach H, Tindall BJ, Stackebrandt E. “Candidatus comitans,” a bacterium living in coculture with Chondromyces crocatus (myxobacteria. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1996; 46:119–122 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Oren A, Garrity GM. Candidatus List No. 2. Lists of names of prokaryotic Candidatus taxa. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2021; 71: [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Zhang S, Song W, Wemheuer B, Reveillaud J, Webster N et al. Comparative genomics reveals ecological and evolutionary insights into sponge-associated Thaumarchaeota. mSystems 2019; 4:e00288-19 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Hildebrand F, Moitinho-Silva L, Blasche S. Antibiotics-induced monodominance of a novel gut bacterial order. Gut 2019; 68:1781–1790 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Schoch CL, Ciufo S, Domrachev M. NCBI Taxonomy: a comprehensive update on curation, resources and tools. Database 2020; 2020: [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Parte AC, Sardà Carbasse J, Meier-Kolthoff JP, Reimer LC, Göker M. List of prokaryotic names with standing in nomenclature (LPSN) moves to the DSMZ. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2020; 70:5607–5612 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Parker C, Taylor D, Mannor K, Wigley S, Osier N et al. NamesforLife semantic resolution services for the life sciences. Nature Precedings 2010 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Parks DH, Chuvochina M, Chaumeil PA, Rinke C, Mussig AJ et al. A complete domain-to-species taxonomy for Bacteria and Archaea. Nat Biotechnol 2020; 38:1079–1086 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Portier P, Pédron J, Taghouti G. Elevation of Pectobacterium carotovorum subsp. odoriferum to species level as Pectobacterium odoriferum sp. nov., proposal of Pectobacterium brasiliense sp. nov. and Pectobacterium actinidiae sp. nov., emended description of Pectobacterium carotovorum and description of Pectobacterium versatile sp. nov., isolated from streams and symptoms on diverse plants. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2019; 69:3207–3216 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  30. He X, McLean JS, Edlund A. Cultivation of a human-associated TM7 phylotype reveals a reduced genome and epibiotic parasitic lifestyle. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2015; 112:244–249 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Bedree JK, Bor B, Cen L. Quorum sensing modulates the epibiotic-parasitic relationship between Actinomyces odontolyticus and its Saccharibacteria epibiont, a Nanosynbacter lyticus strain, TM7x. Front Microbiol 2018; 9:2049 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Huber H, Hohn MJ, Rachel R, Fuchs T, Wimmer VC et al. A new phylum of Archaea represented by a nanosized hyperthermophilic symbiont. Nature 2002; 417:63–67 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Han XY, Seo YH, Sizer KC. A new Mycobacterium species causing diffuse lepromatous leprosy. Am J Clin Pathol 2008; 130:856–864 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Sharma R, Singh P, McCoy RC. Isolation of Mycobacterium lepromatosis and development of molecular diagnostic assays to distinguish Mycobacterium leprae and M. lepromatosis. Clin Infect Dis 2020; 71:e262–e269 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Glendinning L, Stewart RD, Pallen MJ, Watson KA, Watson M. Assembly of hundreds of novel bacterial genomes from the chicken caecum. Genome Biol 2020; 21:34 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Hildebrand F, Pallen MJ, Bork P. Towards standardisation of naming novel prokaryotic taxa in the age of high-throughput microbiology. Gut 2020; 69:1358–1359 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Gilroy R, Ravi A, Getino M. Extensive microbial diversity within the chicken gut microbiome revealed by metagenomics and culture. PeerJ 2021; 9:e10941 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Pallen MJ, Telatin A, Oren A. The next million names for Archaea and Bacteria. Trends Microbiol 2021; 29:289–298 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Oren A. A plea for linguistic accuracy - also for Candidatus taxa. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2017; 67:1085–1094 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Martinson VG, Gawryluk RMR, Gowen BE, Curtis CI, Jaenike J et al. Multiple origins of obligate nematode and insect symbionts by a clade of bacteria closely related to plant pathogens. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2020; 117:31979–31986 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Oren A. Naming novel prokaryotic taxa discovered in the human gut. Gut 2020; 69:969–970 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Chambers J, Sparks N, Sydney N, Livingstone PG, Cookson AR et al. Comparative genomics and pan-genomics of the Myxococcaceae, including a description of five novel species: Myxococcus eversor sp. nov., Myxococcus llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogochensis sp. nov., Myxococcus vastator sp. nov., Pyxidicoccus caerfyrddinensis sp. nov., and Pyxidicoccus trucidator sp. nov. Genome Biol Evol 2020; 12:2289–2302 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Montano HG, Dally EL, Davis RE, Pimentel JP, Brioso PST. First report of natural infection by “Candidatus Phytoplasma brasiliense” in Catharanthus roseus. Plant Dis 2001; 85:1209 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Tindall BJ, Grimont PAD, Garrity GM, Euzéby JP. Nomenclature and taxonomy of the genus Salmonella. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2005; 55:521–524 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Henkel JV, Vogts A, Werner J. Candidatus Sulfurimonas marisnigri sp. nov. and Candidatus Sulfurimonas baltica sp. nov., thiotrophic manganese oxide reducing chemolithoautotrophs of the class Campylobacteria isolated from the pelagic redoxclines of the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea. Syst Appl Microbiol 2021; 44:126155 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Silva PA, Huang J, Wulff NA, Zheng Z, Krugner R et al. Genome sequence resource of ‘Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus’ strain 9PA from Brazil. Plant Dis 2021; 105:199–201 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Kumar D, Kumar G, Jagadeeshwari U, Sasikala C, Ramana CV. Candidatus Laterigemmans baculatus” gen. nov. sp. nov., the first representative of rod shaped planctomycetes with lateral budding in the family Pirellulaceae. Syst Appl Microbiol 2021; 44:126188 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Eisenberg T, Gronow S, Falgenhauer J. Sneathia vaginalis sp. nov. (Fusobacteriales, Leptotrichiaceae) as a replacement of the species ‘Sneathia amnii’ Harwich et al. 2012 and Leptotrichia amnionii Shukla et al. 2002, and emended description of Sneathia Collins et al. 2001. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2019; 71:ijsem.0.004663 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Aksoy S. Wigglesworthia gen. nov. and Wigglesworthia glossinidia sp. nov., taxa consisting of the mycetocyte-associated, primary endosymbionts of tsetse flies. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 1995; 45:848–851
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Maier S. Description of Thioploca ingrica sp. nov., nom. rev. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 1984; 34:344–345
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Maier S, Gallardo VA. Thioploca araucae sp. nov. and Thioploca chileae sp. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 1984; 34:414–418
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Schulz HN, Brinkhoff T, Ferdelman TG, Mariné MH, Teske A et al. Dense populations of a giant sulfur bacterium in Namibian shelf sediments. Science 1999; 284:493–495 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Drozanski WJ. Sarcobium lyticum gen. nov., sp. nov., an obligate intracellular bacterial parasite of small free-living amoebae. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 1991; 41:82–87
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Krumholz LR, Bryant MP, Brulla WJ, Vicini JL, Clark JH et al. Proposal of Quinella ovalis gen. nov., sp. nov., based on phylogenetic analysis. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 1993; 43:293–296
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Heckmann K, Schmidt HJ. Polynucleobacter necessarius gen. nov., sp. nov., an obligately endosymbiotic bacterium living in the cytoplasm of Euplotes aediculatus. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 1987; 37:456–457
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Brockman ER. Genus I. Polyangium link 1809, 42AL. Staley J, Bryant M, Pfennig N, Holt J. eds In Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology Vol 3 Baltimore: The Williams & Wilkins Co; 1989 pp 2159–2162
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Starr MP, Schmidt JM. Planctomyces stranskae (ex Wawrik 1952) sp. nov., nom. rev. and Planctomyces guttaeformis (ex Hortobágyi 1965) sp. nov., nom. rev. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 1984; 34:470–477
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Hookey JV, Saunders NA, Fry NK, Birtles RJ, Harrison TG. Phylogeny of legionellaceae based on small-subunit ribosomal DNA sequences and proposal of Legionella lytica comb. nov. for legionella-like amoebal pathogens. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 1996; 46:526–531
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Gromov BV, Ossipov DV. Holospora (ex Hafkine 1890) nom. rev., a genus of bacteria inhabiting the nuclei of Paramecia. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 1981; 31:348–352
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Lewis GE, Huxsoll DL, Ristic M, Johnson AJ. Experimentally induced infection of dogs, cats, and nonhuman primates with Ehrlichia equi, etiologic agent of equine ehrlichiosis. Am J Vet Res 1975; 36:85–88 [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Bermudes D, Chase D, Margulis L. Morphology as a basis for taxonomy of large spirochetes symbiotic in wood-eating cockroaches and termites: Pillotina gen. nov., nom. rev.; Pillotina calotermitidis sp. nov., nom. rev.; Diplocalyx gen. nov., nom. rev.; Diplocalyx calotermitidis sp. nov., nom. rev.; Hollandina gen. nov., nom. rev.; Hollandina pterotermitidis sp. nov., nom. rev.; and Clevelandina reticulitermitidis gen. nov., sp. nov. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1988; 38:291 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Starr MP, Sayre RM. Pasteuria thornei sp. nov. and Pasteuria penetrans sensu stricto emend., mycelial and endospore-forming bacteria parasitic, respectively, on plant-parasitic nematodes of the genera Pratylenchus and Meloidogyne. Ann Inst Pasteur Microbiol 1988; 139:11–31 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Sayre RM, Starr MP. Pasteuria penetrans (ex Thorne, 1940) nom. rev., comb. n., sp. n., a mycelial and endospore-forming bacterium parasitic in plant-parasitic nematodes. Proc Helminthol Soc Wash 1985; 52:149–165
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Sayre RM, Wergin WP, Schmidt JM, Starr MP. Pasteuria nishizawae sp. nov., a mycelial and endospore-forming bacterium parasitic on cyst nematodes of genera Heterodera and Globodera. Res Microbiol 1991; 142:551–564 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Gorlenko VM, Pivovarova TA. On the assignment of the blue-green alga Oscillatoria coerulescens Gicklhorn, 1921, to the new genus of Chlorobacteria oscillochloris nov. gen. Izv Akad Nauk SSSR Ser Biol 1977; 3:396–409
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Keppen OI, Tourova TP, Kuznetsov BB, Ivanovsky RN, Gorlenko VM. Proposal of Oscillochloridaceae fam. nov. on the basis of a phylogenetic analysis of the filamentous anoxygenic phototrophic bacteria, and emended description of Oscillochloris and Oscillochloris trichoides in comparison with further new isolates. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2000; 50:1529–1537 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Duncan AJ, Carman RJ, Olsen GJ, Wilson KH. Assignment of the agent of Tyzzer’s disease to Clostridium piliforme comb. nov. on the basis of 16S rRNA sequence analysis. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1993; 43:314–318 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Lagkouvardos I, Lesker TR, Hitch TCA. Sequence and cultivation study of Muribaculaceae reveals novel species, host preference, and functional potential of this yet undescribed family. Microbiome 2019; 7:28 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Darwin C. On the Origin of Species, 1st edn. London: John Murray; 1859
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Hennig W. Grundzüge einer Theorie der phylogenetischen Systematik Berlin: Deutscher Zentralverlag; 1950
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Loman NJ, Pallen MJ. Twenty years of bacterial genome sequencing. Nat Rev Microbiol 2015; 13:787–794 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Ho C-C, Lau SKP, Woo PCY. Romance of the three domains: How cladistics transformed the classification of cellular organisms. Protein Cell 2013; 4:664–676 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Pace NR. Time for a change. Nature 2006; 441:289 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Pace NR. Problems with “procaryote.”. J Bacteriol 2009; 191:2008–2010 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Pace NR. It’s time to retire the prokaryote. Microbiology Today 2009; 36:84
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Pallen MJ. Time to recognise that mitochondria are bacteria. Trends Microbiol 2011; 19:58–64 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Castelle CJ, Banfield JF. Major new microbial groups expand diversity and alter our understanding of the tree of life. Cell 2018; 172:1181–1197 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Sutcliffe IC. Challenging the anthropocentric emphasis on phenotypic testing in prokaryotic species descriptions: rip it up and start again. Front Genet 2015; 6:218 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Chun J, Oren A, Ventosa A. Proposed minimal standards for the use of genome data for the taxonomy of prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2018; 68:461–466 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Oren A, Garrity GM, Parte AC. Why are so many effectively published names of prokaryotic taxa never validated. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2018; 68:2125 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  81. La Scola B, Fenollar F, Fournier PE, Altwegg M, Mallet MN et al. Description of Tropheryma whipplei gen. nov., sp. nov., the Whipple’s disease bacillus. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2001; 51:1471–1479 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Gawande A. The Checklist Manifesto: How To Get Things Right New York: Metropolitan Books; 2010
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Glendinning L, Stewart RD, Pallen MJ, Watson KA, Watson M. Author Correction: Assembly of hundreds of novel bacterial genomes from the chicken caecum. Genome Biol 2021; 22:60 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Oren A, Arahal DR, Rosselló-Móra R, Sutcliffe IC, Moore ERB. Preparing a revision of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2021; 71:ijsem.0.004598
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Sanford RA, Lloyd KG, Konstantinidis KT, Löffler FE. Microbial Taxonomy Run Amok. Trends Microbiol 2021; 29:394–404 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Brower AVZ. Dead on arrival: a postmortem assessment of ”phylogenetic nomenclature”, 20+ years on. Cladistics 2020; 36:627–637 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Greuter W, Garrity G, Hawksworth DL. Draft BioCode (2011): principles and rules regulating the naming of organisms. Taxon 2011; 60:201–212 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Smith D, da Silva M, Jackson J, Lyal C. Explanation of the Nagoya protocol on access and benefit sharing and its implication for microbiology. Microbiology 2017; 163:289–296 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Wylensek D, Hitch TCA, Riedel T. A collection of bacterial isolates from the pig intestine reveals functional and taxonomic diversity. Nat Commun 2020; 11:6389 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Lewis WH, Tahon G, Geesink P, Sousa DZ, Ettema TJG. Innovations to culturing the uncultured microbial majority. Nat Rev Microbiol 2021; 19:225–240 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.005000
Loading
/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.005000
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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