1887

Abstract

The family , which contains 15 genera including , presently lacks proper circumscription. Using 52 available genomes for species, we report comprehensive phylogenomic and comparative analyses to reliably discern their evolutionary relationships. In phylogenetic trees based on core genome proteins and 16S rRNA gene sequences, the examined species formed a strongly supported clade designated as . This clade encompassed the genera (type genus), , , , , , , and , and two misclassified species (. and ‘’). The distinctness of this clade is strongly supported by eight identified conserved signature indels (CSIs), which are specific for the species from this clade. Based on the robust evidence provided by presented studies, we are proposing the emendment of family to only the genera within the clade. We also report 67 other novel CSIs, which reliably demarcate different species clades and clarify the classification of some misclassified species. Based on the consistent evidence obtained from different presented studies, we are making the following proposals to clarify the classification of species: (i) transfer of , and as comb. nov. into the genus ; (ii) transfer of as a comb. nov. into gen. nov.; (iii) classification of ‘ as a novel species gen. nov., sp. nov. (type strain FF1; genome and 16S rRNA accession numbers GCA_000499525.1 and KC517358, respectively); (iv) transfer of two misclassified species, and , into gen. nov.; and (v) proposals for two novel families, fam. nov. and fam. nov., to accommodate remaining unclassified genera. The described CSIs specific for different families and genera provide novel and reliable means for the identification, diagnostics and biochemical studies on these bacteria.

Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (Award RGPIN-2019-06397)
    • Principle Award Recipient: RadheyS. Gupta
  • This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial License. This article was made open access via a Publish and Read agreement between the Microbiology Society and the corresponding author’s institution.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.006247
2024-02-06
2024-02-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/ijsem/74/2/ijsem006247.html?itemId=/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.006247&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Ezaki T. Family VII. Peptostreptococcaceae fam. nov. In De Vos P, Ludwig W, Schleifer K, Whitman W. eds Bergey’s Manual of Systematic BacteriologyThe Firmicutes, 2nd. edn vol 3 Springer; 2009 pp 1008–1013
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Euzeby J. List of new names and new combinations previously effectively, but not validly, published. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2010; 60:469–472 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Rosenberg E, DeLong EF, Lory S, Stackebrandt E, Thompson F. The Prokaryotes. In Rosenberg E, DeLong E, Lory S, Stackebrandt E, Thompson F. eds The Family Peptostreptococcaceae Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2014 pp 291–302 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Gerritsen J, Fuentes S, Grievink W, van Niftrik L, Tindall BJ et al. Characterization of Romboutsia ilealis gen. nov., sp. nov., isolated from the gastro-intestinal tract of a rat, and proposal for the reclassification of five closely related members of the genus Clostridium into the genera Romboutsia gen. nov., Intestinibacter gen. nov., Terrisporobacter gen. nov. and Asaccharospora gen. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2014; 64:1600–1616 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Galperin MY, Brover V, Tolstoy I, Yutin N. Phylogenomic analysis of the family Peptostreptococcaceae (Clostridium cluster XI) and proposal for reclassification of Clostridium litorale (Fendrich et al. 1991) and Eubacterium acidaminophilum (Zindel et al. 1989) as Peptoclostridium litorale gen. nov. comb. nov. and Peptoclostridium acidaminophilum comb. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2016; 66:5506–5513 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Lawson PA, Citron DM, Tyrrell KL, Finegold SM. Reclassification of Clostridium difficile as Clostridioides difficile (Hall and O’Toole 1935) Prévot 1938. Anaerobe 2016; 40:95–99 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Sasi Jyothsna TS, Tushar L, Sasikala C, Ramana CV. Erratum to Paraclostridium benzoelyticum gen. nov. sp. nov., isolated from marine sediment and reclassification of Clostridium bifermentans as Paraclostridium bifermentans comb. nov. Proposal of a new genus Paeniclostridium gen. nov. to accommodate Clostridium sordellii and Clostridium ghonii. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2016; 66:1268–1274 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Chen X-J, Wang Z-Q, Zhou Z-Y, Zeng N-Y, Huang Q-F et al. Characterization of Peptacetobacter hominis gen. nov., sp. nov., isolated from human faeces, and proposal for the reclassification of Clostridium hiranonis within the genus Peptacetobacter. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2020; 70:2988–2997 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Ludwig W, Schleifer K-H, Whitman WB. Revised road map to the phylum Firmicutes. In De Vos P, Garrity GM, Jones D, Krieg NR, Ludwig W. eds Bergey’s Manual of Systematic BacteriologyThe Firmicutes, 2nd. edn vol 3 New York: Springer; 2009 pp 1–13 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Boeriu A, Roman A, Fofiu C, Dobru D. The current knowledge on Clostridioides difficile infection in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases. Pathogens 2022; 11:819 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Mullish BH, Williams HR. Clostridium difficile infection and antibiotic-associated diarrhoea. Clin Med 2018; 18:237–241 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Zhang S, Palazuelos-Munoz S, Balsells EM, Nair H, Chit A et al. Cost of hospital management of Clostridium difficile infection in United States-a meta-analysis and modelling study. BMC Infect Dis 2016; 16:447 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Collins MD, Lawson PA, Willems A, Cordoba JJ, Fernandez-Garayzabal J et al. The phylogeny of the genus Clostridium: proposal of five new genera and eleven new species combinations. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1994; 44:812–826 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Yutin N, Galperin MY. A genomic update on clostridial phylogeny: Gram-negative spore formers and other misplaced clostridia. Environ Microbiol 2013; 15:2631–2641 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Verma M, Lal D, Kaur J, Saxena A, Kaur J et al. Phylogenetic analyses of phylum Actinobacteria based on whole genome sequences. Res Microbiol 2013; 164:718–728 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hassler HB, Probert B, Moore C, Lawson E, Jackson RW et al. Phylogenies of the 16S rRNA gene and its hypervariable regions lack concordance with core genome phylogenies. Microbiome 2022; 10:104 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Parks DH, Chuvochina M, Waite DW, Rinke C, Skarshewski A et al. A standardized bacterial taxonomy based on genome phylogeny substantially revises the tree of life. Nat Biotechnol 2018; 36:996–1004 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Zavarzina DG, Zhilina TN, Kostrikina NA, Toshchakov SV, Kublanov IV. Isachenkonia alkalipeptolytica gen. nov. sp. nov., a new anaerobic, alkaliphilic proteolytic bacterium capable of reducing Fe(III) and sulfur. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2020; 70:4730–4738 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 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] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hugenholtz P, Chuvochina M, Oren A, Parks DH, Soo RM. Prokaryotic taxonomy and nomenclature in the age of big sequence data. ISME J 2021; 15:1879–1892 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Konstantinidis KT, Tiedje JM. Prokaryotic taxonomy and phylogeny in the genomic era: advancements and challenges ahead. Curr Opin Microbiol 2007; 10:504–509 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Gupta RS. Identification of conserved indels that are useful for classification and evolutionary studies. In Goodfellow M IC, Chun J. eds Bacterial Taxonomy, Methods in Microbiology Elsevier; 2014 pp 153–182 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Gupta RS. Protein signatures (molecular synapomorphies) that are distinctive characteristics of the major cyanobacterial clades. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2009; 59:2510–2526 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Naushad HS, Lee B, Gupta RS. Conserved signature indels and signature proteins as novel tools for understanding microbial phylogeny and systematics: identification of molecular signatures that are specific for the phytopathogenic genera Dickeya, Pectobacterium and Brenneria. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2014; 64:366–383 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Bello S, Rudra B, Gupta RS. Phylogenomic and comparative genomic analyses of Leuconostocaceae species: identification of molecular signatures specific for the genera Leuconostoc, Fructobacillus and Oenococcus and proposal for a novel genus Periweissella gen. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2022; 72: [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Gupta RS, Patel S, Saini N, Chen S. Robust demarcation of 17 distinct Bacillus species clades, proposed as novel Bacillaceae genera, by phylogenomics and comparative genomic analyses: description of Robertmurraya kyonggiensis sp. nov. and proposal for an emended genus Bacillus limiting it only to the members of the Subtilis and Cereus clades of species. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2020; 70:5753–5798 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Patel S, Gupta RS. A phylogenomic and comparative genomic framework for resolving the polyphyly of the genus Bacillus: proposal for six new genera of Bacillus species, Peribacillus gen. nov., Cytobacillus gen. nov., Mesobacillus gen. nov., Neobacillus gen. nov., Metabacillus gen. nov. and Alkalihalobacillus gen. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2020; 70:406–438 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Sayers EW, Agarwala R, Bolton EE, Brister JR, Canese K et al. Database resources of the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Nucleic Acids Res 2019; 47:D23–D28 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Adeolu M, Alnajar S, Naushad S, SG R. Genome-based phylogeny and taxonomy of the 'Enterobacteriales': proposal for Enterobacterales ord. nov. divided into the families Enterobacteriaceae, Erwiniaceae fam. nov., Pectobacteriaceae fam. nov., Yersiniaceae fam. nov., Hafniaceae fam. nov., Morganellaceae fam. nov., and Budviciaceae fam. nov.. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2016; 66:5575–5599 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Gupta RS, Patel S. Robust demarcation of the family Caryophanaceae (Planococcaceae) and its different genera including three novel genera based on phylogenomics and highly specific molecular signatures. Front Microbiol 2019; 10:2821 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Fu L, Niu B, Zhu Z, Wu S, Li W. CD-HIT: accelerated for clustering the next-generation sequencing data. Bioinformatics 2012; 28:3150–3152 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Sievers F, Wilm A, Dineen D, Gibson TJ, Karplus K et al. Fast, scalable generation of high-quality protein multiple sequence alignments using Clustal Omega. Mol Syst Biol 2011; 7:539 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Sonnhammer E. Pfam: multiple sequence alignments and HMM-profiles of protein domains. Nucleic Acids Res 1998; 26:320–322 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Capella-Gutiérrez S, Silla-Martínez JM, Gabaldón T. trimAl: a tool for automated alignment trimming in large-scale phylogenetic analyses. Bioinformatics 2009; 25:1972–1973 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Price MN, Dehal PS, Arkin AP. FastTree 2--approximately maximum-likelihood trees for large alignments. PLoS One 2010; 5:e9490 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Whelan S, Goldman N. A general empirical model of protein evolution derived from multiple protein families using a maximum-likelihood approach. Mol Biol Evol 2001; 18:691–699 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Le SQ, Gascuel O. An improved general amino acid replacement matrix. Mol Biol Evol 2008; 25:1307–1320 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 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]
  39. Thompson CC, Chimetto L, Edwards RA, Swings J, Stackebrandt E et al. Microbial genomic taxonomy. BMC Genomics 2013; 14:913 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Wang Z, Wu M. A phylum-level bacterial phylogenetic marker database. Mol Biol Evol 2013; 30:1258–1262 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Quast C, Pruesse E, Yilmaz P, Gerken J, Schweer T et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res 2013; 41:D590–6 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 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]
  43. Tamura K, Nei M. Estimation of the number of nucleotide substitutions in the control region of mitochondrial DNA in humans and chimpanzees. Mol Biol Evol 1993; 10:512–526 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 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]
  45. Chuvochina M, Mussig AJ, Chaumeil P-A, Skarshewski A, Rinke C et al. Proposal of names for 329 higher rank taxa defined in the Genome Taxonomy Database under two prokaryotic codes. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2023; 370:fnad071 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 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]
  47. Gupta RS, Kanter-Eivin DA. AppIndels.com server: a web-based tool for the identification of known taxon-specific conserved signature indels in genome sequences. Validation of its usefulness by predicting the taxonomic affiliation of >700 unclassified strains of Bacillus species. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2023; 73: [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Barbour AG, Adeolu M, Gupta RS. Division of the genus Borrelia into two genera (corresponding to Lyme disease and relapsing fever groups) reflects their genetic and phenotypic distinctiveness and will lead to a better understanding of these two groups of microbes (Margos et al. (2016) There is inadequate evidence to support the division of the genus Borrelia. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. doi: 10.1099/ijsem.0.001717). Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2017; 67:2058–2067 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Gupta RS. Impact of genomics on the understanding of microbial evolution and classification: the importance of Darwin’s views on classification. FEMS Microbiol Rev 2016; 40:520–553 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Lessa FC, Mu Y, Bamberg WM, Beldavs ZG, Dumyati GK et al. Burden of Clostridium difficile infection in the United States. N Engl J Med 2015; 372:825–834 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Urvashi, Choksket S, Jain A, Sharma D, Grover V et al. Paraclostridium dentum, a novel species with pathogenic features isolated from human dental plaque sample. Anaerobe 2020; 65:102239 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Chaumeil P-A, Mussig AJ, Hugenholtz P, Parks DH, Hancock J. GTDB-Tk: a toolkit to classify genomes with the Genome Taxonomy Database. Bioinformatics 2020; 36:1925–1927 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Rudra B, Gupta RS. Phylogenomic and comparative genomic analyses of species of the family Pseudomonadaceae: proposals for the genera Halopseudomonas gen. nov. and Atopomonas gen. nov., merger of the genus Oblitimonas with the genus Thiopseudomonas, and transfer of some misclassified species of the genus Pseudomonas into other genera. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2021; 71: [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Oren A, Arahal DR, Göker M, Moore ERB, Rossello-Mora R et al. International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes. Prokaryotic Code (2022 Revision). Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2023; 73:1–88 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Yarza P, Yilmaz P, Pruesse E, Glöckner FO, Ludwig W et al. Uniting the classification of cultured and uncultured bacteria and archaea using 16S rRNA gene sequences. Nat Rev Microbiol 2014; 12:635–645 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Gupta RS. Microbial taxonomy: how and why name changes occur and their significance for (clinical) microbiology. Clin Chem 2021; 68:134–137 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Lo CI, Mishra AK, Padhmanabhan R, Samb B, Sow AG et al. Non-contiguous finished genome sequence and description of Clostridium dakarense sp. nov. Stand Genomic Sci 2013; 9:14–27 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Maheux AF, Boudreau DK, Bérubé È, Boissinot M, Cantin P et al. Draft genome sequence of Romboutsia weinsteinii sp. nov. strain CCRI-19649(T) isolated from surface water. Genome Announc 2017; 5:40 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Maheux AF, Boudreau DK, Bérubé È, Boissinot M, Raymond F et al. Draft genome sequence of Romboutsia maritimum sp. nov. strain CCRI-22766(T), isolated from coastal estuarine mud. Genome Announc 2017; 5:41 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Gao B, Gupta RS. Phylogenetic framework and molecular signatures for the main clades of the phylum Actinobacteria. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 2012; 76:66–112 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Gupta RS. Protein phylogenies and signature sequences: a reappraisal of evolutionary relationships among archaebacteria, eubacteria, and eukaryotes. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 1998; 62:1435–1491 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Khadka B, Persaud D, Gupta RS. Novel sequence feature of SecA translocase protein unique to the thermophilic bacteria: bioinformatics analyses to investigate their potential roles. Microorganisms 2020; 8:59 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Khadka B, Gupta RS. Identification of a conserved 8 aa insert in the PIP5K protein in the Saccharomycetaceae family of fungi and the molecular dynamics simulations and structural analysis to investigate its potential functional role. Proteins 2017; 85:1454–1467 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Singh B, Gupta RS. Conserved inserts in the Hsp60 (GroEL) and Hsp70 (DnaK) proteins are essential for cellular growth. Mol Genet Genomics 2009; 281:361–373 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Wong SY, Paschos A, Gupta RS, Schellhorn HE. Insertion/deletion-based approach for the detection of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in freshwater environments. Environ Sci Technol 2014; 48:11462–11470 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Ahmod NZ, Gupta RS, Shah HN. Identification of a Bacillus anthracis specific indel in the yeaC gene and development of a rapid pyrosequencing assay for distinguishing B. anthracis from the B. cereus group. J Microbiol Methods 2011; 87:278–285 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Gao B, Gupta RS. Conserved indels in protein sequences that are characteristic of the phylum Actinobacteria. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2005; 55:2401–2412 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Griffiths E, Gupta RS. Protein signatures distinctive of chlamydial species: horizontal transfers of cell wall biosynthesis genes glmU from Archaebacteria to Chlamydiae and murA between Chlamydiae and Streptomyces. Microbiology 2002; 148:2541–2549 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Li Y, Mandelco L, Wiegel J. Isolation and characterization of a moderately thermophilic anaerobic alkaliphile, Clostridium paradoxum sp. nov. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1993; 43:450–460 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Li Y, Engle M, Weiss N, Mandelco L, Wiegel J. Clostridium thermoalcaliphilum sp. nov., an anaerobic and thermotolerant facultative alkaliphile. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1994; 44:111–118 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Sneath PHA, McGOWAN V, Skerman VBD. Approved lists of bacterial names. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1980; 30:225–420 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Holdeman LV, Moore WEC. Eubacterium. In Cato EP, Cummins CS, Holdeman LV, Johnson JL, Moore WEC et al. eds Outline of Clinical Methods in Anaerobici Bacteriology Blacksburg, Virginia: Virginia Polytechnic Institute-Anaerobe Laboratoty; 1970 pp 23–30
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.006247
Loading
/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.006247
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