1887

Abstract

Two Gram-staining-negative, aerobic, rod-shaped bacteria designated strains SR9 and UL070, were isolated from soil and subjected to taxonomic characterization. Strain SR9 grew at 10–37 °C (optimum 30 °C), at pH 4.0–10.0 (optimum pH 8.0) and in the presence of 0–1 % NaCl (optimum 0 %), and UL070 at 4–33 °C (optimum 30 °C), at pH 4.0–10.0 (optimum pH 7.0) and in the presence of 0–2 % NaCl (optimum 0 %), respectively. Strain UL070 was motile with flagella. Analysis of 16S rRNA gene sequences indicated that the two strains fell into phylogenetic clusters belonging to the genus . Both strains SR9 and UL070 were mostly related to S1-A32-2 with 99.70 and 99.01% sequence similarities, and the similarity between the two isolates was 98.90 %. The genome-based analyses indicated that each of the strains SR9 and UL070 was clearly separated from other species of , as the orthologous average nucleotide identity (OrthoANI) and the digital DNA–DNA hybridization (dDDH) values were no higher than 93.09 and 50.03% respectively with any related species, which were clearly below the cutoff for species distinction. The fatty acid profiles of the two strains mainly consisting of unsaturated components, the presence of ubiquinone 9 (Q-9) as the major respiratory quinone, and phosphatidylethanolamine (PE) and diphosphatidylglycerol (DPG) as the diagnostic polar lipids were consistent with their classification into . The DNA G+C contents of strains SR9 and UL070 were 63.2 mol% and 63.6 mol% respectively. On the basis of both phenotypic and phylogenetic evidences, each of the isolated strains should be classified as a novel species, for which the names sp. nov. (type strain=SR9=KCTC 82228=JCM 34509) and sp. nov. (type strain=UL070=KCTC 82229=JCM 34510) are proposed.

Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • National Institute of Biological Resources
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.005082
2021-11-12
2024-05-02
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Migula W. Über ein neues System der Bakterien. Arb Bakteriol Inst Karlsruhe 1894; 1:235–328
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Palleroni NJ. Genus I. Pseudomonas Migula 1894, 237AL. Brenner DJ, Krieg NR, Staley JT, Garrity GM. eds In Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, 2nd. edn Vol 2 New York: Springer; 2005 pp 323–379
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Palleroni NJ. Pseudomonas classification. A new case history in the taxonomy of gram-negative bacteria. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 1993; 64:231–251 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Vancanneyt M, Witt S, Abraham WR, Kersters K, Fredrickson HL. Fatty acid content in whole-cell hydrolysates and phospholipid fractions of Pseudomonads: a taxonomic evaluation. Syst Appl Microbiol 1996; 19:528–540 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Anzai Y, Kim H, Park JY, Wakabayashi H, Oyaizu H. Phylogenetic affiliation of the pseudomonads based on 16S rRNA sequence. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2000; 50:1563–1589 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Mulet M, Lalucat J, García-Valdés E. DNA sequencebased analysis of the Pseudomonas species. Environ Microbiol 2010; 12:1513–1530 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 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]
  8. Spiers AJ, Buckling A, Rainey PB. The causes of Pseudomonas diversity. Microbiology (Reading) 2000; 146:2345–2350 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Gross H, Loper JE. Genomics of secondary metabolite production by Pseudomonas spp. Nat Prod Rep 2009; 26:1408–1446 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Silby MW, Winstanley C, Godfrey SAC, Levy SB, Jackson RW. Pseudomonas genomes: Diverse and adaptable. FEMS Microbiol Rev 2011; 35:652–680 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Kim MJ, Roh SG, Kim MK, Park C, Kim S. Kitasatospora acidiphila sp. nov., isolated from pine grove soil, exhibiting antimicrobial potential. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2020; 70:5567–5575 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Jeon YS, Lee K, Park SC, Kim BS, Cho YJ. EzEditor: a versatile sequence alignment editor for both rRNAand protein-coding genes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2014; 64:689–691 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Kim OS, Cho YJ, Lee K, Yoon SH, Kim M. Introducing EzTaxon-e: a prokaryotic 16S rRNA gene sequence database with phylotypes that represent uncultured species. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2012; 62:716–721 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 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]
  15. Lee I, Ouk Kim Y, Park SC, Chun J. OrthoANI: An improved algorithm and software for calculating average nucleotide identity. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2016; 66:1100–1103 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 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; 47:81–87
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Kim M, Oh HS, Park SC, 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 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Chun J, Oren A, Ventosa A, Christensen H, Arahal DR. 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]
  19. 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;60:1471–2105
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Cowan ST, Steel KJ. eds Manual for the Identification of Medical Bacteria, 3rd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1993;
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Sasser M. Identification of Bacteria by Gas Chromatography of Cellular Fatty Acids, MIDI Technical Note 101. Newark, DE: MIDI Inc; 1990 p 12
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Timsy ST, Ulrich A, Kublik S, Foesel BU. Pseudomonas campi sp. nov., a nitrate-reducing bacterium isolated from grassland soil. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2021; 71:4799 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Vanparys B, Heylen K, Lebbe L, De Vos P. Pseudomonas peli sp. nov. and Pseudomonas borbori sp. nov., isolated from a nitrifying inoculum. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2006; 56:1875–1881 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Bozal N, Montes MJ, Mercadé E. Pseudomonas guineae sp. nov., a novel psychrotolerant bacterium from an Antarctic environment. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2007; 57:2609–2612 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Nováková D, Švec P, Zeman M, Busse H-J, Mašlaňová I et al. Pseudomonas leptonychotis sp. nov., isolated from Weddell seals in Antarctica. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2020; 70:302–308 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Sudan SK, Pal D, Bisht B, Kumar N, Chaudhry V. Pseudomonas fluvialis sp. nov., a novel member of the genus Pseudomonas isolated from the river Ganges, India. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2018; 68:402–408 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.005082
Loading
/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.005082
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