1887

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMATIC AND EVOLUTIONARY MICROBIOLOGY logo

Volume 71, Issue 11

sp. nov. and sp. nov., isolated from aquaculture water No Access

Abstract

Two novel bacterial strains, designated as DN00404 and DN04309, were isolated from aquaculture water and characterized by using a polyphasic taxonomic approach. Cells of strains DN00404 and DN04309 were Gram-stain-negative, aerobic, non-motile, oxidase-positive and catalase-positive. Cells of DN00404 were short rod-shaped and those of DN04309 were long rod-shaped. Strain DN00404 was found to grow at 15–37 °C (optimum, 25–30 °C), at pH 6.0–11.0 (optimum, pH 7.5) and in 0–2.0 % (w/v) NaCl (optimum, 1.0 %). Strain DN04309 was found to grow at 15–45 °C (optimum, 20–37 °C), at pH 5.5–11.0 (optimum, 7.5) and in 0–4.0 % (w/v) NaCl (optimum, 0.5 %). Phylogenetic analyses based on 16S rRNA gene and genome sequences revealed that the two strains belonged to the genus and were distinct from all known species of this genus. The average nucleotide identity (ANI) and digital DNA–DNA hybridization (dDDH) values between the two strains and between each of the two strains and related type strains of this genus were well below the recognized thresholds of 95.0–96.0 % ANI and 70.0 % dDDH for species delineation. The genomic DNA G+C contents of strains DN00404 and DN04309 were 41.6 and 36.0 mol%, respectively. The respiratory quinone in both strains was identified as MK-7, and their major fatty acids were iso-C and summed feature 3 (C 6 and/or C 7), which were similar to those of other species of this genus. The two major fatty acids C and iso-C 3-OH were also found in strain DN00404. Based on genotypic and phenotypic characteristics, two novel species of the genus are proposed: sp. nov. with DN00404 (=GDMCC 1.1865=KACC 21924) as the type strain and sp. nov. with DN04309 (=GDMCC 1.1984=KCTC 82348) as the type strain.

  • Received:
  • Accepted:
  • Published Online:
Keyword(s): aquaculture water , novel species , phylogenetic analysis , polyphasic taxonomy , Sphingobacterium litopenaei and Sphingobacterium micropteri
Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • The Science and Technology Plan Project of Zhaoqing City (Award 2019G010)
    • Principle Award Recipient: MengChen
  • Science and Technology Plan Project of Guangdong (Award 2019B030316009)
    • Principle Award Recipient: AnzhangLi
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (Award 32070115)
    • Principle Award Recipient: AnzhangLi
  • Key-Area Research and Development Program of Guangdong Province (Award 2018B020205002)
    • Principle Award Recipient: HonghuiZhu
© 2021 The Authors
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.005091
2021-11-15
2024-04-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Yabuuchi E, Kaneko T, Yano I, Moss CW, Miyoshi N. Sphingobacterium gen. nov., Sphingobacterium spiritivorum comb. nov., Sphingobacterium multivorum comb. nov., Sphingobacterium mizutae sp. nov., and Flavobacterium indologenes sp. nov.: glucose-nonfermenting Gram-negative rods in CDC groups IIK-2 and IIb. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1983; 33:580–598 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Parte AC. LPSN - List of Prokaryotic Names with Standing in Nomenclature (bacterio.net), 20 years on. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2018; 68:1825–1829 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Takeuchi M, Yokota A. Proposals of Sphingobacterium faecium sp. nov., Sphingobacterium piscium sp. nov., Sphingobacterium heparinum comb. nov., Sphingobacterium thalpophilum comb. nov. and two genospecies of the genus Sphingobacterium, and synonymy of Flavobacterium Yabuuchiae and Sphingobacterium spiritivorum. J Gen Appl Microbiol 1992; 38:465–482 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Chaudhary DK, Kim J. Sphingobacterium terrae sp. nov., isolated from oil-contaminated soil. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2018; 68:609–615 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Teng C, Zhou Z, Molnár I, Li X, Tang R et al. Whole-genome optical mapping and finished genome sequence of Sphingobacterium deserti sp. nov., a new species isolated from the Western Desert of China. Plos One 2015; 10:e0122254 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Kim K-H, Ten LN, Liu Q-M, Im W-T, Lee S-T. Sphingobacterium daejeonense sp. nov., isolated from a compost sample. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2006; 56:2031–2036 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Zhang J, Zheng J-W, Cho BC, Hwang CY, Fang C et al. Sphingobacterium wenxiniae sp. nov., a cypermethrin-degrading species from activated sludge. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2012; 62:683–687 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Niu X, Cui W, Cui M, Zhang X, Zhang S et al. Sphingobacterium solani sp. nov., isolated from potato stems. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2018; 68:1012–1017 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Smith SA, Krasucki SP, McDowell JV, Balke VL. Complete genome sequence of Sphingobacterium sp. strain ML3W, isolated from wings of Myotis lucifugus infected with white nose syndrome. Genome Announc 2015; 3:e01477-14 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Nam I-H, Kim Y, Cho D, Kim J-G, Song H et al. Effects of heavy metals on biodegradation of fluorene by a Sphingobacterium sp. strain (KM-02) isolated from polycyclic aromatic hydrocarboncontaminated mine soil. Environ Eng Sci 2015; 32:891–898 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Ye YF, Min H, Du YF. Characterization of a strain of Sphingobacterium sp. and its degradation to herbicide mefenacet. J Environ Sci 2004; 16:343–347
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Ghosh S, Sadowsky MJ, Roberts MC, Gralnick JA, LaPara TM. Sphingobacterium sp. strain PM2-P1-29 harbours a functional tet(X) gene encoding for the degradation of tetracycline. J Appl Microbiol 2009; 106:1336–1342 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Zhang MX, Li AZ, Qing Y, Wu QP, Zhu HH. Nitrogen removal characteristics of a versatile heterotrophic nitrifying-aerobic denitrifying bacterium, Pseudomonas bauzanensis DN13-1, isolated from deep-sea sediment. Bioresour Technol 2020305
     [Google Scholar]
  14. 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 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Katoh K, Standley DM. MAFFT: Iterative refinement and additional methods. Methods Mol Biol 2014; 1079:131–146 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Minh BQ, Schmidt HA, Chernomor O, Schrempf D, Woodhams MD et al. IQ-TREE 2: New models and efficient methods for phylogenetic inference in the genomic era. Mol Biol Evol 2020; 37:2461 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Felsenstein J. Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: A maximum likelihood approach. J Mol Evol 1981; 17:368–376 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Kalyaanamoorthy S, Minh BQ, Wong TKF, von Haeseler A, Jermiin LS. ModelFinder: fast model selection for accurate phylogenetic estimates. Nat Methods 2017; 14:587–589 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Hoang DT, Chernomor O, von Haeseler A, Minh BQ, Vinh LS. UFBoot2: improving the ultrafast bootstrap approximation. Mol Biol Evol 2018; 35:518–522 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Kumar S, Stecher G, Li M, Knyaz C, Tamura K. MEGA X: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis across computing platforms. Mol Biol Evol 2018; 35:1547–1549 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Jiang S, Chen M, Su S, Yang M, Li A et al. Sphingobacterium arenae sp. nov., isolated from sandy soil. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2014; 64:248–253 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Zhao P, Zhou Z, Chen M, Lin W, Zhang W et al. Sphingobacterium gobiense sp. nov., isolated from soil of the Gobi Desert. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2014; 64:3931–3935 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Wang X, Zhang CF, Yu X, Hu G, Yang HX et al. Sphingobacterium chuzhouense sp. nov., isolated from farmland soil. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2016; 66:4968–4974 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Li Y, Wang S, Chang JP, Bian DR, Guo LM et al. Sphingomonas corticis sp. nov., and Sphingobacterium corticibacterium sp. nov., from bark canker. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2020; 70:5627–5633 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Schmidt VSJ, Wenning M, Scherer S. Sphingobacterium lactis sp nov., and Sphingobacterium alimentarium sp nov., isolated from raw milk and a dairy environment. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2012; 62:1506–1511 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Kaur M, Singh H, Sharma S, Mishra S, Tanuku NRS et al. Sphingobacterium bovisgrunnientis sp nov., isolated from yak milk. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2018; 68:636–642 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  27. 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] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Parks DH, Imelfort M, Skennerton CT, Hugenholtz P, Tyson GW. CheckM: assessing the quality of microbial genomes recovered from isolates, single cells, and metagenomes. Genome Res 2015; 25:1043–1055 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Overbeek R, Olson R, Pusch GD, Olsen GJ, Davis JJ et al. The SEED and the Rapid Annotation of microbial genomes using Subsystems Technology (RAST. Nucleic Acids Res 2014; 42:D206–14 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Seemann T. Prokka: rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics 2014; 30:2068–2069 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  31. 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 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Jain C, Rodriguez-R LM, Phillippy AM, Konstantinidis KT, Aluru S. High throughput ANI analysis of 90K prokaryotic genomes reveals clear species boundaries. Nat Commun 2018; 9:5114 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Na S-I, Kim YO, Yoon SH, 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 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  34. 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 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Steyn PL, Segers P, Vancanneyt M, Sandra P, Kersters K et al. Classification of heparinolytic bacteria into a new genus, Pedobacter, comprising four species: Pedobacter heparinus comb. nov., Pedobacter piscium comb. nov., Pedobacter africanus sp. nov. and Pedobacter saltans sp. nov. Proposal of the family Sphingobacteriaceae fam. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 1998; 48:165–177
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Richter M, Rosselló-Móra R. Shifting the genomic gold standard for the prokaryotic species definition. PNAS 2009; 106:19126–19131 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Stackebrandt E, Goebel BM. Taxonomic Note: a place for DNA-DNA reassociation and 16s rRNA sequence analysis in the present species definition in bacteriology. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 1994; 44:846–849 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Tindall BJ, Sikorski J, Smibert RA, Krieg NR et al. Phenotypic characterization and the principles of comparative systematics. Reddy CA, Beveridge TJ, Breznak JA, Marzluf G, Schmidt TM. eds In Methods for General and Molecular Microbiology, 3rd. edn Washington, DC: American Society of Microbiology; 2007 pp 330–393
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Lányi B. Classical and rapid identification methods for medically important bacteria. Methods Microbiol 1988; 19:1–67
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Bernardet JF, Nakagawa Y, Holmes B. Proposed minimal standards for describing new taxa of the family Flavobacteriaceae and emended description of the family. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2002; 52:1049–1070 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  41. 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]
  42. Li A-Z, Lin LZ, Zhang MX, Zhu HH. Antarcticibacterium flavum gen. nov., sp. nov., isolated from marine sediment. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2018; 68:254–259 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Sasser M. Identification of bacteria by gas chromatography of cellular fatty acids. MIDI Technical Note 1990; 101:1–7
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Yoo SH, Weon HY, Jang HB, Kim BY, Kwon S-W et al. Sphingobacterium composti sp. nov., isolated from cotton-waste composts. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2007; 57:1590–1593 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Ten LN, Liu QM, Im WT, Aslam Z, Lee ST. Sphingobacterium composti sp. nov., a novel DNase-producing bacterium isolated from compost. J Microbiol Biotechnol 2006; 16:1728–1733
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.005091
Loading
Sphingobacterium micropteri sp. nov. and Sphingobacterium litopenaei sp. nov., isolated from aquaculture water
Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 71, 005091 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1099/ijsem.0.005091
/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.005091
/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.005091
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary material 1

PDF

Most cited 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