1887

Abstract

Strain 49125 was isolated from an infant with pneumonia and septicaemia at the Leipzig University Hospital. Phenotypic and genomic traits were investigated. The strain's biochemical profile and its MALDI-TOF spectrogram did not differ from comparative samples of , thus far the sole member of the species. A circular genome with a size of 4.4 Mbp and a G+C content of 55.0 mol% was reconstructed using hybrid Illumina and Nanopore sequencing. Phylogenetic analysis was based on 172 marker genes and validated using a k-mer-based search against a large genome collection including subsequent DNA–DNA hybridization. Whole genome average nucleotide identity to any described species was below 95%, suggesting that strain 49125 represents a new species, for which we propose the name sp. nov. with the type strain 49125 (=LMG 32245=DSM 112336).

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.005293
2022-03-30
2024-02-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Leclerc H. Biochemical study of pigmented Enterobacteriaceae. Ann Inst Pasteur (Paris) 1962; 102:726–741
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Tamura K, Sakazaki R, Kosako Y, Yoshizaki E et al. Leclercia adecarboxylata gen. nov., comb. nov., formerly known as Escherichia adecarboxylata . Curr Microbiol 1986; 13:179–184 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Spiegelhauer MR, Andersen PF, Frandsen TH, Nordestgaard RLM, Andersen LP et al. Leclercia adecarboxylata: a case report and literature review of 74 cases demonstrating its pathogenicity in immunocompromised patients. Infect Dis (Lond) 2019; 51:179–188 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Anuradha M. Leclercia adecarboxylata isolation: case reports and review. J Clin Diagn Res 2014; 8:DD03–4 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Hess B, Burchett A, Huntington MK. Leclercia adecarboxylata in an immunocompetent patient. J Med Microbiol 2008; 57:896–898 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Sontakke S, Cadenas MB, Maggi RG, Diniz PPVP, Breitschwerdt EB et al. Use of broad range16S rDNA PCR in clinical microbiology. J Microbiol Methods 2009; 76:217–225 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Woo PCY, Lau SKP, Teng JLL, Tse H, Yuen K-Y et al. Then and now: use of 16S rDNA gene sequencing for bacterial identification and discovery of novel bacteria in clinical microbiology laboratories. Clin Microbiol Infect 2008; 14:908–934 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Parks DH, Rinke C, Chuvochina M, Chaumeil P-A, Woodcroft BJ et al. Recovery of nearly 8,000 metagenome-assembled genomes substantially expands the tree of life. Nat Microbiol 2017; 2:1533–1542 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Maiden MCJ, Jansen van Rensburg MJ, Bray JE, Earle SG, Ford SA et al. MLST revisited: the gene-by-gene approach to bacterial genomics. Nat Rev Microbiol 2013; 11:728–736 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Johnke J, Dirksen P, Schulenburg H. Community assembly of the native C. elegans microbiome is influenced by time, substrate and individual bacterial taxa. Environ Microbiol 2020; 22:1265–1279 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Yang B, Wang Y, Qian P-Y. Sensitivity and correlation of hypervariable regions in 16S rRNA genes in phylogenetic analysis. BMC Bioinformatics 2016; 17:135 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Ueda K, Seki T, Kudo T, Yoshida T, Kataoka M et al. Two distinct mechanisms cause heterogeneity of 16S rRNA. J Bacteriol 1999; 181:78–82 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Kurylo CM, Parks MM, Juette MF, Zinshteyn B, Altman RB et al. Endogenous rRNA sequence variation can regulate stress response gene expression and phenotype. Cell Rep 2018; 25:236–248 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Kim H-L, Shin E-K, Kim H-M, Ryou S-M, Kim S et al. Heterogeneous rRNAs are differentially expressed during the morphological development of Streptomyces coelicolor . FEMS Microbiol Lett 2007; 275:146–152 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Moreno C, Romero J, Espejo RT. Polymorphism in repeated 16S rRNA genes is a common property of type strains and environmental isolates of the genus Vibrio . Microbiology 2002; 148:1233–1239 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Marchandin H, Teyssier C, Siméon de Buochberg M, Jean-Pierre H, Carriere C et al. Intra-chromosomal heterogeneity between the four 16S rRNA gene copies in the genus Veillonella: implications for phylogeny and taxonomy. Microbiology 2003; 149:1493–1501 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Morandi A, Zhaxybayeva O, Gogarten JP, Graf J et al. Evolutionary and diagnostic implications of intragenomic heterogeneity in the 16S rRNA gene in Aeromonas strains. J Bacteriol 2005; 187:6561–6564 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Sun D-L, Jiang X, Wu QL, Zhou N-Y et al. Intragenomic heterogeneity of 16S rRNA genes causes overestimation of prokaryotic diversity. Appl Environ Microbiol 2013; 79:5962–5969 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Wick RR, Judd LM, Gorrie CL, Holt KE et al. Completing bacterial genome assemblies with multiplex MinION sequencing. Microb Genom 2017; 3:e000132 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Meyer M, Kircher M. Illumina sequencing library preparation for highly multiplexed target capture and sequencing. Cold Spring Harb Protoc 2010; 2010:pdb.prot5448 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Chen S, Zhou Y, Chen Y, Gu J et al. fastp: an ultra-fast all-in-one FASTQ preprocessor. Bioinformatics 2018; 34:i884–i890 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Wick RR, Judd LM, Gorrie CL, Holt KE et al. Unicycler: Resolving bacterial genome assemblies from short and long sequencing reads. PLoS Comput Biol 2017; 13:e1005595 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 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]
  24. Hyatt D, Chen G-L, Locascio PF, Land ML, Larimer FW et al. Prodigal: prokaryotic gene recognition and translation initiation site identification. BMC Bioinformatics 2010; 11:119 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Parks DH, Imelfort M, Skennerton CT, Hugenholtz P, Tyson GW et al. 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]
  26. Watson M, Warr A. Errors in long-read assemblies can critically affect protein prediction. Nat Biotechnol 2019; 37:124–126 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Thomson NR, Clayton DJ, Windhorst D, Vernikos G, Davidson S et al. Comparative genome analysis of Salmonella enteritidis PT4 and Salmonella gallinarum 287/91 provides insights into evolutionary and host adaptation pathways. Genome Res 2008; 18:1624–1637 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Ondov BD, Treangen TJ, Melsted P, Mallonee AB, Bergman NH et al. Mash: fast genome and metagenome distance estimation using MinHash. Genome Biol 2016; 17:132 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Solomon B, Kingsford C. Fast search of thousands of short-read sequencing experiments. Nat Biotechnol 2016; 34:300–302 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Pierce NT, Irber L, Reiter T, Brooks P, Brown CT et al. Large-scale sequence comparisons with sourmash. F1000Res 2019; 8:1006 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Meier-Kolthoff JP, Auch AF, Klenk H-P, Göker M et al. Genome sequence-based species delimitation with confidence intervals and improved distance functions. BMC Bioinformatics 2013; 14:60 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Meier-Kolthoff JP, Klenk H-P, Göker M. Taxonomic use of DNA G+C content and DNA-DNA hybridization in the genomic age. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2014; 64:352–356 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Jain C, Rodriguez-R LM, Phillippy AM, Konstantinidis KT, Aluru S et al. High throughput ANI analysis of 90K prokaryotic genomes reveals clear species boundaries. Nat Commun 2018; 9:5114 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Lee MD. GToTree: a user-friendly workflow for phylogenomics. Bioinformatics 2019; 35:4162–4164 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Kozlov AM, Darriba D, Flouri T, Morel B, Stamatakis A et al. RAxML-NG: a fast, scalable and user-friendly tool for maximum likelihood phylogenetic inference. Bioinformatics 2019; 35:4453–4455 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Qin Q-L, Xie B-B, Zhang X-Y, Chen X-L, Zhou B-C et al. A proposed genus boundary for the prokaryotes based on genomic insights. J Bacteriol 2014; 196:2210–2215 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Steinegger M, Söding J. MMseqs2 enables sensitive protein sequence searching for the analysis of massive data sets. Nat Biotechnol 2017; 35:1026–1028 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.005293
Loading
/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.005293
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