1887

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMATIC AND EVOLUTIONARY MICROBIOLOGY logo

Volume 72, Issue 10

sp. nov. and sp. nov., isolated from Andong sikhye and pigpen dust, respectively No Access

Abstract

Two Gram-stain-negative, aerobic, mesophilic, rod-shaped bacteria, ADR-1 and SC2-2, were isolated from Andong sikhye and dust in a pigpen, respectively. The phylogenetic tree on the basis of 16S rRNA gene sequences showed that strains ADR-1 and SC2-2 were members of the genus and revealed the highest sequence similarities to LM2 (97.6 %) and Chj707 (94.9 %), respectively. Phylogenomic treeing using 92 core genes clearly indicated that strain ADR-1 clustered with CC-CZW010, LM2 and CGMCC 1.10941, and strain SC2-2 formed a compact cluster with CCUG 49689. The digital DNA–DNA hybridization (dDDH) and orthologous average nucleotide identity (ANI) values of strain ADR-1 with the closely related species of the genus were ≤24.4 % and ≤80.7 %, and those of strain SC2-2 were ≤24.0 % and ≤77.8 %, respectively, which are well below the cut-off values of species discrimination (>70 % dDDH and >95–96 % ANI). The only respiratory quinone in both strains was menaquinone 6. The polar lipid profile of strain ADR-1 comprised phosphatidylethanolamine, four unidentified aminolipids and three unidentified lipids, while strain SC2-2 contained phosphatidylethanolamine, two unidentified aminolipids, one unidentified aminophospholipid and five unidentified polar lipids. The major fatty acids (>10 %) of strain ADR-1 were iso-C, summed feature 9 (iso-C 9c and/or C 10-methyl), iso-C 3-OH and summed feature 3 (C 7 and/or C 6), and those of strain SC2-2 were iso-C and anteiso-C. On the basis of the results of phenotypic and phylogenetic analyses, strains ADR-1 and SC2-2 represent two distinct novel species in the genus , for which the names sp. nov. (type strain ADR-1=KACC 19311=NBRC 113104) and sp. nov. (type strain SC2-2=KACC 19313=NBRC 113106) are proposed.

  • Received:
  • Accepted:
  • Published Online:
Keyword(s): Andong sikhye , Chryseobacterium oryzae sp. nov. , Chryseobacterium suipulveris sp. nov. , menaquinone , pigpen dust and polar lipid
© 2022 The Authors
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.005532
2022-10-06
2024-05-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Vandamme P, Bernardet JF, Segers P, Kersters K, Holmes B. NOTES: new perspectives in the classification of the Flavobacteria: description of Chryseobacterium gen. nov., Bergeyella gen. nov., and Empedobacter nom. rev. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1994; 44:827–831 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  2. García-López M, Meier-Kolthoff JP, Tindall BJ, Gronow S, Woyke T et al. Analysis of 1,000 type-strain genomes improves taxonomic classification of Bacteroidetes. Front Microbiol 2019; 10:2083 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Nicholson AC, Gulvik CA, Whitney AM, Humrighouse BW, Bell ME et al. Division of the genus Chryseobacterium: observation of discontinuities in amino acid identity values, a possible consequence of major extinction events, guides transfer of nine species to the genus Epilithonimonas, eleven species to the genus Kaistella, and three species to the genus Halpernia gen. nov., with description of Kaistella daneshvariae sp. nov. and Epilithonimonas vandammei sp. nov. derived from clinical specimens. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 1994; 70:4432–4450 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Wu Y-F, Wu Q-L, Liu S-J. Chryseobacterium taihuense sp. nov., isolated from a eutrophic lake, and emended descriptions of the genus Chryseobacterium, Chryseobacterium taiwanense, Chryseobacterium jejuense and Chryseobacterium indoltheticum. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2013; 63:913–919 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Chen XY, Zhao R, Chen ZL, Liu L, Li XD et al. Chryseobacterium polytrichastri sp. nov., isolated from a moss (Polytrichastrum formosum), and emended description of the genus Chryseobacterium. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 2015; 107:403–410 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Hugo C, Bernardet JF, Nicholson A, Kämpfer P. Genus Chryseobacterium. In W W, B T. eds Bergey’s Manual of Systematics of Archaea and Bacteria Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2019 pp 1–107
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Arfken AM, Song B, Sung JS. Comparison of airborne bacterial communities from a hog farm and spray field. J Microbiol Biotechnol 2015; 25:709–717 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Loch TP, Faisal M. Emerging flavobacterial infections in fish: a review. J Adv Res 2015; 6:283–300 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Yan Y, Chen H, Sun L, Zhang W, Lu X et al. The changes of microbial diversity and flavor compounds during the fermentation of millet Huangjiu, a traditional Chinese beverage. PLoS One 2022; 17:e0262353 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Lane DJ. 16S/23S rRNA sequencing. In Stackebrandt E, Goodfellow M. eds Nucleic Acid Techniques in Bacterial Systematics New York: Wiley; 1991 pp 115–175
     [Google Scholar]
  11. 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]
  12. 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]
     [Google Scholar]
  13. 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]
  14. Felsenstein J. Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: a maximum likelihood approach. J Mol Evol 1981; 17:368–376 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Fitch WM. Toward defining the course of evolution: minimum change for a specific tree topology. Syst Zool 1971; 20:406 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Felsenstein J. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 1985; 39:783–791 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  17. 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]
  18. Manni M, Berkeley MR, Seppey M, Simão FA, Zdobnov EM. BUSCO Update: novel and streamlined workflows along with broader and deeper phylogenetic coverage for scoring of eukaryotic, prokaryotic, and viral genomes. Mol Biol Evol 2021; 38:4647–4654 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Tatusova T, DiCuccio M, Badretdin A, Chetvernin V, Nawrocki EP et al. NCBI Prokaryotic Genome Annotation Pipeline. Nucleic Acids Res 2016; 44:6614–6624 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  20. 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]
  21. Na S-I, Kim YO, Yoon S-H, 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]
  22. Auch AF, von Jan M, Klenk H-P, Göker M. Digital DNA-DNA hybridization for microbial species delineation by means of genome-to-genome sequence comparison. Stand Genomic Sci 2010; 2:117–134 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  23. 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]
  24. Konstantinidis KT, Tiedje JM. Towards a genome-based taxonomy for prokaryotes. J Bacteriol 2005; 187:6258–6264 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  25. 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]
  26. Smibert R, Krieg NR. Phenotypic characterization. In Gerhardt P, Murray RGE, Wood WA, Krieg NR. eds Methods for General and Molecular Bacteriology Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology; 1994 pp 607–654
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Sasser M. Technical Note 101: Identification of bacteria by gas chromatography of cellular fatty acids MIDI; 1990
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Minnikin DE, O’Donnell AG, Goodfellow M, Alderson G, Athalye M et al. An integrated procedure for the extraction of bacterial isoprenoid quinones and polar lipids. J Microbiol Methods 1984; 2:233–241 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Meng D, Liu Y-L, Li R-R, Gu P-F, Fan X-Y et al. Chryseobacterium binzhouense sp. nov., isolated from activated sludge. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 1984; 70:618–623 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Kämpfer P, Vaneechoutte M, Lodders N, De Baere T, Avesani V et al. Description of Chryseobacterium anthropi sp. nov. to accommodate clinical isolates biochemically similar to Kaistella koreensis and Chryseobacterium haifense, proposal to reclassify Kaistella koreensis as Chryseobacterium koreense comb. nov. and emended description of the genus Chryseobacterium. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2009; 59:2421–2428 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Lin S-Y, Hameed A, Wen C-Z, Liu Y-C, Shen F-T et al. Chryseobacterium echinoideorum sp. nov., isolated from sea urchins (Tripneustes gratilla). Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2015; 65:3985–3990 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Guo W, Li J, Shi M, Yuan K, Li N et al. Chryseobacterium montanum sp. nov. isolated from mountain soil. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2016; 66:4051–4056 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Pires C, Carvalho MF, De Marco P, Magan N, Castro PML. Chryseobacterium palustre sp. nov. and Chryseobacterium humi sp. nov., isolated from industrially contaminated sediments. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2010; 60:402–407 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.005532
Loading
Chryseobacterium oryzae sp. nov. and Chryseobacterium suipulveris sp. nov., isolated from Andong sikhye and pigpen dust, respectively
Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 72, 005532 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1099/ijsem.0.005532
/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.005532
/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.005532
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