1887

Abstract

In Japan, during a screening of lactic acid bacteria in spent mushroom substrates, an unknown bacterium was isolated and could not be assigned to any known species. Strain YK48G is Gram-stain-positive, rod-shaped, non-motile, non-spore-forming and catalase-negative. The isolate grew in 0–4 % (w/v) NaCl, at 15–37 °C (optimum, 30 °C) and at pH 4.0–8.0 (optimum, pH 6.0). The genomic DNA G+C content of strain YK48G was 42.5 mol%. Based on its 16S rRNA gene sequence, strain YK48G represented a member of the genus and showed the highest pairwise similarity to DSM 19907 (97.86 %). Phylogenetic analyses based on amino acid sequences of 466 shared protein-encoding genes also revealed that the strain was phylogenetically positioned in the genus but did not suggest an affiliation with previously described species. The average nucleotide identity and digital DNA–DNA hybridization values between strain YK48G and the type strains of phylogenetically related species were 72.2–76.6% and 19.0–21.2 %, respectively, indicating that strain YK48G represents a novel species within the genus . Phenotypic data further confirmed the differentiation of strain YK48G from other members of the genus . According to the results of the polyphasic characterization presented in this study, strain YK48G represents a novel species of the genus , for which the name sp. nov. is proposed. The type strain is YK48G (=JCM 32598=DSM 107968).

Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • Genebank Project (Microorganism Section)
    • Principle Award Recipient: MasanoriTohno
  • NARO Gender Equality Program
    • Principle Award Recipient: HisamiKobayashi
  • NARO Gender Equality Program
    • Principle Award Recipient: MasanoriTohno
  • NARO and NIG JOINT (2016, 2017)
    • Principle Award Recipient: MasanoriTohno
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.005184
2021-12-16
2022-01-17
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] [PubMed]
    [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. Kõll P, Mändar R, Smidt I, Hütt P, Truusalu K et al. Screening and evaluation of human intestinal lactobacilli for the development of novel gastrointestinal probiotics. Curr Microbiol 2010; 61:560–566 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bai L, Paek J, Shin Y, Park HY, Chang YH. Lentilactobacillus kribbianus sp. nov., isolated from the small intestine of a mini pig. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2020; 70:6476–6481 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Du Toit M, Dicks LMT, Holzapfel WH. Identification of heterofermentative lactobacilli isolated from pig faeces by numerical analysis of total soluble cell protein patterns and RAPD-PCR. Lett Appl Microbiol 2003; 37:12–16 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Briggs M. The classification of lactobacilli by means of physiological tests. J Gen Microbiol 1953; 9:234–248 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Edmondson JE, Jensen RG, Merilan CP, Smith KL. The characteristics of some rumen lactobacilli. J Bacteriol 1956; 72:253–258 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Liu SQ, Skinner-Nemec KA, Leathers TD. Lactobacillus buchneri strain NRRL B-30929 converts a concentrated mixture of xylose and glucose into ethanol and other products. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 2007; 35:75–81 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Zeng XQ, Pan DD, Guo YX. The probiotic properties of Lactobacillus buchneri P2. J Appl Microbiol 2010; 108:2059–2066 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Daughtry KV, Johanningsmeier SD, Sanozky-Dawes R, Klaenhammer TR, Barrangou R. Phenotypic and genotypic diversity of Lactobacillus buchneri strains isolated from spoiled, fermented cucumber. Int J Food Microbiol 2018; 280:46–56 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Kandler O, Kunath P. Lactobacillus kefir sp.nov., a component of the microflora of Kefir. Syst Appl Microbiol 1983; 4:286–294 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Yansanjav A, Svec P, Sedlácek I, Hollerová I, Nemec M. Ribotyping of lactobacilli isolated from spoiled beer. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2003; 229:141–144 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Douglas HC, Cruess WV. A lactobaciluus from california wine: Lactobaccillus hilgardii. J Food Science 1936; 1:113–119 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Endo A, Okada S. Lactobacillus farraginis sp. nov. and Lactobacillus parafarraginis sp. nov., heterofermentative lactobacilli isolated from a compost of distilled shochu residue. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2007; 57:708–712 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Lei X, Sun G, Xie J, Wei D. Lactobacillus curieae sp. nov., isolated from stinky tofu brine. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2013; 63:2501–2505 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Krooneman J, Faber F, Alderkamp AC, Elferink SJHWO, Driehuis F et al. Lactobacillus diolivorans sp. nov., a 1,2-propanediol-degrading bacterium isolated from aerobically stable maize silage. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2002; 52:639–646 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Tanizawa Y, Kobayashi H, Nomura M, Sakamoto M, Arita M et al. Lactobacillus buchneri subsp. silagei subsp. nov., isolated from rice grain silage. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2020; 70:3111–3116 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Phan CW, Sabaratnam V. Potential uses of spent mushroom substrate and its associated lignocellulosic enzymes. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2012; 96:863–873 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Ribas LCC, de Mendonça MM, Camelini CM, Soares CHL. Use of spent mushroom substrates from Agaricus subrufescens (syn. A. blazei, A. brasiliensis) and Lentinula edodes productions in the enrichment of a soil-based potting media for lettuce (Lactuca sativa) cultivation: Growth promotion and soil bioremediation. Bioresour Technol 2009; 100:4750–4757 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Yoshida S, Mitani H, Kamata M, Ohtsuka A, Otomaru K et al. Effect of dietary fermented mushroom bed on egg production in laying hens. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem 2017; 81:2204–2208 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Kim YI, Lee YH, Kim KH, Oh YK, Moon YH et al. Effects of supplementing microbially-fermented spent mushroom substrates on growth performance and carcass characteristics of hanwoo steers (a field study). Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2012; 25:1575–1581 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Li T-H, Che P-F, Zhang C-R, Zhang B, Ali A et al. Recycling of spent mushroom substrate: Utilization as feed material for the larvae of the yellow mealworm Tenebrio molitor (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). PLoS One 2020; 15:e0237259 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Tohno M, Tanizawa Y, Kojima Y, Sakamoto M, Nakamura Y et al. Lactobacillus salitolerans sp. nov., a novel lactic acid bacterium isolated from spent mushroom substrates. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2019; 69:964–969 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Tanizawa Y, Tada I, Kobayashi H, Endo A, Maeno S et al. Lactobacillus paragasseri sp. nov., a sister taxon of Lactobacillus gasseri, based on whole-genome sequence analyses. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2018; 68:3512–3517 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Yoon S-H, 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]
  26. 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]
  27. 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] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 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]
  29. 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]
  30. Hurvich CM, Tsai CL. Regression and time series model selection in small samples. Biometrika 1989; 76:297–307 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Sugiura N. Further analysts of the data by akaike’ s information criterion and the finite corrections. Comm Stat - Theor Meth 2007; 7:13–26 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 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; 64:1825 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Kobayashi H, Tanizawa Y, Sakamoto M, Nakamura Y, Ohkuma M et al. Reclassification of Paenibacillus thermophilus Zhou et al. 2013 as a later heterotypic synonym of Paenibacillus macerans (Schardinger 1905) Ash et al. 1994. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2019; 69:417–421 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Kajitani R, Toshimoto K, Noguchi H, Toyoda A, Ogura Y et al. Efficient de novo assembly of highly heterozygous genomes from whole-genome shotgun short reads. Genome Res 2014; 24:1384–1395 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Chen S, Zhou Y, Chen Y, Gu J. fastp: an ultra-fast all-in-one FASTQ preprocessor. Bioinformatics 2018; 34:i884–i890 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 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]
  37. 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] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 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] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Tanizawa Y, Fujisawa T, Nakamura Y. DFAST: a flexible prokaryotic genome annotation pipeline for faster genome publication. Bioinformatics 2018; 34:1037–1039 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Cosentino S, Iwasaki W. SonicParanoid: fast, accurate and easy orthology inference. Bioinformatics 2019; 35:149–151 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Edgar RC. MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res 2004; 32:1792–1797 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Talavera G, Castresana J. Improvement of phylogenies after removing divergent and ambiguously aligned blocks from protein sequence alignments. Syst Biol 2007; 56:564–577 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Kück P, Longo GC. FASconCAT-G: extensive functions for multiple sequence alignment preparations concerning phylogenetic studies. Front Zool 2014; 11:81 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Stamatakis A. RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics 2014; 30:1312–1313 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Galperin MY, Wolf YI, Makarova KS, Vera Alvarez R, Landsman D et al. COG database update: focus on microbial diversity, model organisms, and widespread pathogens. Nucleic Acids Res 2021; 49:D274–D281 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Huerta-Cepas J, Forslund K, Coelho LP, Szklarczyk D, Jensen LJ et al. Fast genome-wide functional annotation through orthology assignment by eggNOG-mapper. Mol Biol Evol 2017; 34:2115–2122 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Cotter PD, Hill C. Surviving the acid test: responses of Gram-positive bacteria to low pH. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 2003; 67:429–453 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Zielińska K, Fabiszewska A, Świątek M, Szymanowska-Powałowska D. Evaluation of the ability to metabolize 1,2-propanediol by heterofermentative bacteria of the genus Lactobacillus. Electr J Biotechnol 2017; 26:60–63 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Komagata K, Suzuki K. Lipid and cell-wall analysis in bacterial systematics. Method Microbiol 1987; 19:161–207
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Minamida K, Ota K, Nishimukai M, Tanaka M, Abe A et al. Asaccharobacter celatus gen. nov., sp. nov., isolated from rat caecum. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2008; 58:1238–1240 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Sakamoto M, Suzuki M, Umeda M, Ishikawa I, Benno Y. Reclassification of Bacteroides forsythus (Tanner et al. 1986) as Tannerella forsythensis corrig., gen. nov., comb. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2002; 52:841–849 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.005184
Loading
/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.005184
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