1887

Abstract

Strains RB4R14 and RT5R15, two Gram-stain-negative, aerobic, rod-shaped, non-motile bacteria, were isolated from ice and cryoconite of Renlongba glacier, respectively, on the Tibetan Plateau, PR China. The results of phylogenetic analysis based on 16S rRNA genes indicated that strains RB4R14 and RT5R15 belonged to the genus with the highest similarities to WPCB133 (98.78 %) and BJC16-A31 (97.64 %), respectively. The genomic DNA G+C contents of strains RB4R14 and RT5R15 were 42.8 and 43.1 mol%, respectively. The digital DNA–DNA hybridization values between strains RB4R14, RT5R15 and their close relatives were below 31.9 and 17.4 %, respectively. The average nucleotide identity values between the two novel strains and their close relatives were 79.5–82.0 and 77.9–79.3 % respectively, indicating the novelty of the two isolates at a species level. The two novel strains contained MK-7 as the major menaquinone, and summed feature 3 (comprising C 7 and/or C 6), iso-C and iso-C-3OH as the major fatty acids. The major polar lipid of the two novel strains were phosphatidylethanolamine. Based on phenotypic, chemotaxonomic and phylogenetic results, we propose two novel species, sp. nov. (RB4R14=CGMCC 1.11911=NBRC 114020) and sp. nov. (RT5R15=CGMCC 1.23117=NBRC 113930).

Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (Award 32170007)
    • Principle Award Recipient: QingLiu
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.005669
2022-12-20
2024-05-09
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Pankratov TA, Tindall BJ, Liesack W, Dedysh SN. Mucilaginibacter paludis gen. nov., sp. nov. and Mucilaginibacter gracilis sp. nov., pectin-, xylan- and laminarin-degrading members of the family Sphingobacteriaceae from acidic Sphagnum peat bog. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2007; 57:2349–2354 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Urai M, Aizawa T, Nakagawa Y, Nakajima M, Sunairi M. Mucilaginibacter kameinonensis sp. nov. isolated from garden soil. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2008; 58:2046–2050 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Baik KS, Park SC, Kim EM, Lim CH, Seong CN. Mucilaginibacter rigui sp. nov., isolated from wetland freshwater, and emended description of the genus Mucilaginibacter. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2010; 60:134–139 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Parte AC, Sardà Carbasse J, Meier-Kolthoff JP, Reimer LC, Göker M. List of prokaryotic names with standing in nomenclature (LPSN) moves to the DSMZ. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2020; 70:5607–5612 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Kim M, Shin SK, Yi H. Mucilaginibacter celer sp. nov. and Aquirhabdus parva gen. nov., sp. nov., isolated from freshwater. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2020; 70:5479–5487 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Kim HS, Lee KC, Suh MK, Kim J-S, Han K-I et al. Mucilaginibacter mali sp. nov., isolated from rhizosphere soil of apple orchard. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2021; 71: [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Kämpfer P, Busse HJ, McInroy JA, Glaeser SP. Mucilaginibacter auburnensis sp. nov., isolated from a plant stem. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2014; 64:1736–1742 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Yoon JH, Kang SJ, Park S, Oh TK. Mucilaginibacter litoreus sp. nov., isolated from marine sand. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2012; 62:2822–2827 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Yan YQ, Hao YX, He RH, Du ZJ. Mucilaginibacter gilvus sp. nov., isolated from Antarctic soil. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2019; 69:3885–3890 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Jiang F, Dai J, Wang Y, Xue X, Xu M et al. Mucilaginibacter soli sp. nov., isolated from Arctic tundra soil. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2012; 62:1630–1635 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Yang L-L, Pang Y, Liu H-C, Xin Y-H, Liu Q. Mucilaginibacter glaciei sp. nov. and Mucilaginibacter pankratovii sp. nov., isolated from a glacier on the Tibetan Plateau. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2021; 71: [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Fan X, Tang J, Nie L, Huang J, Wang G. High-quality-draft genome sequence of the heavy metal resistant and exopolysaccharides producing bacterium Mucilaginibacter pedocola TBZ30T. Stand Genomic Sci 2018; 13:34 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Zhou Z, Dong Y, Xia X, Wu S, Huang Y et al. Mucilaginibacter terrenus sp. nov., isolated from manganese mine soil. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2019; 69:3074–3079 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Chen L, Hao Z, Li K, Sha Y, Wang E et al. Effectsof growth-promoting rhizobacteria on maize growth and rhizosphere microbial community under conservation tillage in Northeast China. Microb Biotechnol 2021; 14:535–550 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Li YP, You LX, Yang XJ, Yu YS, Zhang HT et al. Extrapolymeric substances (EPS) in Mucilaginibacter rubeus P2 displayed efficient metal(loid) bio-adsorption and production was induced by copper and zinc. Chemosphere 2022; 291:132712 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Lane DJ. 16S/23S rRNA sequencing. In Stackebrandt E, Goodfellow M. eds Nucleic Acid Techniques in Bacterial Systematics New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1991 pp 115–175
    [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. Seemann T. Prokka: rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics 2014; 30:2068–2069 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Tamura K, Peterson D, Peterson N, Stecher G, Nei M et al. MEGA5: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis using maximum likelihood, evolutionary distance, and maximum parsimony methods. Mol Biol Evol 2011; 28:2731–2739 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 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]
  21. 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]
  22. 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]
  23. Katoh K, Standley DM. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usability. Mol Biol Evol 2013; 30:772–780 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Nguyen L-T, Schmidt HA, von Haeseler A, Minh BQ. IQ-TREE: a fast and effective stochastic algorithm for estimating maximum-likelihood phylogenies. Mol Biol Evol 2015; 32:268–274 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 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]
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 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]
  27. Camacho C, Coulouris G, Avagyan V, Ma N, Papadopoulos J et al. BLAST+: architecture and applications. BMC Bioinformatics 2009; 10:421 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 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]
  29. Richter M, Rosselló-Móra R. Shifting the genomic gold standard for the prokaryotic species definition. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2009; 106:19126–19131 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Wayne LG, Brenner DJ, Colwell RR, Grimont PAD, Kandler O et al. International committee on systematic bacteriology. report of the ad hoc committee on reconciliation of approaches to bacterial systematics. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1987; 37:463–464
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Gerhardt P, Murray RGE, Wood WA, Krieg NR. Methods for General and Molecular Bacteriology Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology; 1994
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Smibert RM, 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]
  33. Collins MD. Isoprenoidquinone analysis in classification and identification. In M G, DE M. eds Chemical Methods in Bacterial Systematics London: Academic Press; 1985 pp 267–287
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Komagata K, Suzuki K. 4 lipid and cell-wall analysis in bacterial systematics. Methods Microbiol 1988161–207
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Sasser M. Technical Note 101: Identification of bacteria by gas chromatography of cellular fatty acids Newark, DE: MIDI; 1990
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.005669
Loading
/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.005669
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