1887

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMATIC AND EVOLUTIONARY MICROBIOLOGY logo

Volume 72, Issue 7

sp. nov., sp. nov. and sp. nov., three novel species of the genus, and emended description of No Access

Abstract

Seven genotypically distinct strains assigned to the genus were isolated in different laboratories from several animal sources. Strain D17_0559-3-2-1 and three further strains were isolated from samples of duck, pig and goose. The strains had >99 % 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity to each other and to strain VA92-K48 and two further strains isolated from samples of medical leech and a turtle. The closest related type strains to the seven strains were those of (96.74 %) and (95.93 %). Average nucleotide identity, amino acid identity and DNA–DNA hybridization results showed that the strains represented two separate novel species. One further phylogenetically distinct strain (165301687) was isolated from fox urine. The strain had highest 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity to the type strains of (95.67 %), followed by (95.58 %) and (94.22 %) and represented a further novel species. Chemotaxonomic and physiological data of the novel strains were assessed, but failed to unequivocally differentiate the novel species from existing members of the genus. MALDI-TOF MS data proved the discrimination of at least strain 165301687 from all currently described species. Based on the presented phylogenomic and physiological data, we propose three novel species, sp. nov. with strain D17_0559-3-2-1 (=DSM 111258= CIP 111884=CCM 9044) as type strain, sp. nov. with strain VA92-K48 (=DSM 106012=LMG 30351=CIP 111492) as type strain and sp. nov. with strain 165301687 (=DSM 106013= LMG 30352= CIP 111494) as type strain.

  • Received:
  • Accepted:
  • Published Online:
Keyword(s): duck , Erysipelothrix , Erysipelotrichales , fish , goose , leech , livestock , novel , pig and reptile
© 2022 The Authors
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.005454
2022-07-01
2024-04-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Opriessnig T, Forde T, Shimoji Y. Erysipelothrix spp.: past, present, and future directions in vaccine research. Front Vet Sci 2020; 7:174 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Takahashi T, Fujisawa T, Tamura Y, Suzuki S, Muramatsu M et al. DNA relatedness among Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae strains representing all twenty-three serovars and Erysipelothrix tonsillarum. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1992; 42:469–473 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Takahashi T, Fujisawa T, Benno Y, Tamura Y, Sawada T et al. Erysipelothrix tonsillarum sp. nov. isolated from tonsils of apparently healthy pigs. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1987; 37:166–168 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Verbarg S, Rheims H, Emus S, Frühling A, Kroppenstedt RM et al. Erysipelothrix inopinata sp. nov., isolated in the course of sterile filtration of vegetable peptone broth, and description of Erysipelotrichaceae fam. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2004; 54:221–225 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bang BH, Rhee MS, Chang DH, Park DS, Kim BC. Erysipelothrix larvae sp. nov., isolated from the larval gut of the rhinoceros beetle, Trypoxylus dichotomus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 2015; 107:443–451 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bender JS, Shen HG, Irwin CK, Schwartz KJ, Opriessnig T. Characterization of Erysipelothrix species isolates from clinically affected pigs, environmental samples, and vaccine strains from six recent swine erysipelas outbreaks in the United States. Clin Vaccine Immunol 2010; 17:1605–1611 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Grazziotin AL, Vidal NM, Hoepers PG, Reis TFM, Mesa D et al. Comparative genomics of a novel clade shed light on the evolution of the genus Erysipelothrix and characterise an emerging species. Sci Rep 2021; 11:3383 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Grazziotin AL, Vidal NM, Hoepers PG, Reis TFM, Mesa D et al. Author correction: comparative genomics of a novel clade shed light on the evolution of the genus Erysipelothrix and characterise an emerging species. Sci Rep 2021; 11:9861 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Takahashi T, Fujisawa T, Umeno A, Kozasa T, Yamamoto K et al. A taxonomic study on Erysipelothrix by DNA-DNA hybridization experiments with numerous strains isolated from extensive origins. Microbiol Immunol 2008; 52:469–478 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Pomaranski EK, Griffin MJ, Camus AC, Armwood AR, Shelley J et al. Description of Erysipelothrix piscisicarius sp. nov., an emergent fish pathogen, and assessment of virulence using a tiger barb (Puntigrus tetrazona) infection model. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2020; 70:857–867 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Pomaranski EK, Soto E. The formation, persistence, and resistance to disinfectant of the Erysipelothrix piscisicarius biofilm. J Aquat Anim Health 2020; 32:44–49 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Chang EK, Camus AC, Pomaranski E, Yazdi Z, Soto E. Pathogenesis of Erysipelothrix piscisicarius infection in tiger barbs (Puntigrus tetrazona). J Fish Dis 2021; 44:1681–1688 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Hoepers PG, dos Reis TFM, Mendonça EP, Rossi DA, Koerich PK et al. First outbreak reported caused by Erysipelothrix species strain 2 in turkeys from poultry-producing farms in Brazil. Ann Microbiol 2019; 69:1211–1215 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Pomaranski EK, Reichley SR, Yanong R, Shelley J, Pouder DB et al. Characterization of spaC-type Erysipelothrix sp. isolates causing systemic disease in ornamental fish. J Fish Dis 2018; 41:49–60 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Stackebrandt E. Genus Erysipelothrix. In Bergey’s Manual of Systematics of Archaea and Bacteria John Wiley & Sons, Inc., in association with Bergey’s Manual Trust; 2015 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Franco A, Rückert C, Blom J, Busche T, Reichert J et al. High diversity of Vibrio spp. associated with different ecological niches in a marine aquaria system and description of Vibrio aquimaris sp. nov. Syst Appl Microbiol 2020; 43:126123 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  17. 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]
  18. Yilmaz P, Parfrey LW, Yarza P, Gerken J, Pruesse E et al. The SILVA and “All-species Living Tree Project (LTP)” taxonomic frameworks. Nucleic Acids Res 2014; 42:D643–8 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Ludwig W, Viver T, Westram R, Francisco Gago J, Bustos-Caparros E et al. Release LTP_12_2020, featuring a new ARB alignment and improved 16S rRNA tree for prokaryotic type strains. Syst Appl Microbiol 2021; 44:126218 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Ludwig W, Strunk O, Westram R, Richter L, Meier H et al. ARB: a software environment for sequence data. Nucleic Acids Res 2004; 32:1363–1371 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Stamatakis A. RAxML-VI-HPC: maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic analyses with thousands of taxa and mixed models. Bioinformatics 2006; 22:2688–2690 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Felsenstein J. Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: a maximum likelihood approach. J Mol Evol 1981; 17:368–376 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Brosius J, Palmer ML, Kennedy PJ, Noller HF. Complete nucleotide sequence of a 16S ribosomal RNA gene from Escherichia coli. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1978; 75:4801–4805 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Felsenstein J. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 1985; 39:783–791 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  25. 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]
  26. Glaeser SP, Kämpfer P. Multilocus sequence analysis (MLSA) in prokaryotic taxonomy. Syst Appl Microbiol 2015; 38:237–245 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Thompson JD, Higgins DG, Gibson TJ. CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Res 1994; 22:4673–4680 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  28. 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]
  29. Jones DT, Taylor WR, Thornton JM. The rapid generation of mutation data matrices from protein sequences. Comput Appl Biosci 1992; 8:275–282 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Bartz J-O, Blom J, Busse H-J, Mvie JB, Hardt M et al. Parendozoicomonas haliclonae gen. nov. sp. nov. isolated from a marine sponge of the genus Haliclona and description of the family Endozoicomonadaceae fam. nov. comprising the genera Endozoicomonas, Parendozoicomonas, and Kistimonas. Syst Appl Microbiol 2018; 41:73–84 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Galatis H, Martin K, Kämpfer P, Glaeser SP. Devosia epidermidihirudinis sp. nov. isolated from the surface of a medical leech. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 2013; 103:1165–1171 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  32. 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]
  33. Seemann T. Prokka: rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics 2014; 30:2068–2069 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Blom J, Kreis J, Spänig S, Juhre T, Bertelli C et al. EDGAR 2.0: an enhanced software platform for comparative gene content analyses. Nucleic Acids Res 2016; 44:W22–8 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Palmer M, Venter SN, McTaggart AR, Coetzee MPA, Van Wyk S et al. The synergistic effect of concatenation in phylogenomics: the case in Pantoea. PeerJ 2019; 7:e6698 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Edgar RC. MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res 2004; 32:1792–1797 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Felsenstein J. PHYLIP (Phylogeny Inference Package), version 3.6. Distributed by the author Department of Genome Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle; 2005
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Goris J, Konstantinidis KT, Klappenbach JA, Coenye T, Vandamme P et al. DNA-DNA hybridization values and their relationship to whole-genome sequence similarities. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2007; 57:81–91 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Richter M, Rosselló-Móra R. Shifting the genomic gold standard for the prokaryotic species definition. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2009; 106:19126–19131 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Meier-Kolthoff JP, Carbasse JS, Peinado-Olarte RL, Göker M. TYGS and LPSN: a database tandem for fast and reliable genome-based classification and nomenclature of prokaryotes. Nucleic Acids Res 2022; 50:D801–D807 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  41. 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]
  42. Meier-Kolthoff JP, Göker M. TYGS is an automated high-throughput platform for state-of-the-art genome-based taxonomy. Nat Commun 2019; 10:2182 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Russel J, Pinilla-Redondo R, Mayo-Muñoz D, Shah SA, Sørensen SJ. CRISPRCastyper: automated identification, annotation, and classification of CRISPR-Cas loci. CRISPR J 2020; 3:462–469 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Arndt D, Marcu A, Liang Y, Wishart DS. PHAST, PHASTER and PHASTEST: tools for finding prophage in bacterial genomes. Brief Bioinform 2019; 20:1560–1567 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Benson G. Tandem repeats finder: a program to analyze DNA sequences. Nucleic Acids Res 1999; 27:573–580 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Bertelli C, Laird MR, Williams KP. Simon Fraser University Research Computing Group Lau BY et al. IslandViewer 4: expanded prediction of genomic islands for larger-scale datasets. Nucleic Acids Res 2017; 45:W30–W35 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Rau J, Eisenberg T, Peters M, Berger A, Kutzer P et al. Reliable differentiation of a non-toxigenic tox gene-bearing Corynebacterium ulcerans variant frequently isolated from game animals using MALDI-TOF MS. Vet Microbiol 2019; 237:108399 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Rau J, Eisenberg T, Männig A, Wind C, Lasch P et al. MALDI-UP – an internet platform for the exchange of MALDI-TOF mass spectra. user guide for http://MALDI-UP.ua-bw.de. Aspects Food Contr Anim Health 20161–17
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Kämpfer P, Kroppenstedt RM. Numerical analysis of fatty acid patterns of coryneform bacteria and related taxa. Can J Microbiol 1996; 42:989–1005 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Sasser M. Technical note. 101: Identification of bacteria by gas chromatography of cellular fatty acids. MIDI; 1990
  51. Derichs J, Kämpfer P, Lipski A. Pedobacter nutrimenti sp. nov., isolated from chilled food. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2014; 64:1310–1316 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Rosenbach FJ. Experimentelle, morphologische und klinische Studie über die krankheitserregenden Mikroorganismen des Schweinerotlaufs, des Erysipeloids und der Mäusesepsis. Zeitschr f Hygiene 1909; 63:343–371 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Jones D. Genus Erysipelothrix Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1986 pp 1245–1249
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.005454
Loading
Erysipelothrix anatis sp. nov., Erysipelothrix aquatica sp. nov. and Erysipelothrix urinaevulpis sp. nov., three novel species of the genus, and emended description of Erysipelothrix
Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 72, 005454 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1099/ijsem.0.005454
/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.005454
/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.005454
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