1887

Abstract

Gram-negative, aerobic, rod-shaped, non-spore-forming, motile bacteria, designated strains F2 and PGU16, were isolated from the midgut crypts of the bordered plant bug , collected in Okinawa prefecture, Japan. Although these strains were derived from different host individuals collected at different times, their 16S rRNA gene sequences were identical and showed the highest similarity to MWAP64 (99.3 %). The genome of strain F2 consisted of two chromosomes and two plasmids, and its size and G+C content were 9.28 Mb and 62.4 mol% respectively; on the other hand, that of strain PGU16 consisted of two chromosomes and three plasmids, and its size and G+C content were 9.47 Mb and 62.4 mol%, respectively. Phylogenetic analyses revealed that these two strains are members of the genus . The digital DNA–DNA hybridization value between these two strains was 92.4 %; on the other hand, the values between strain F2 and MWAP64 or phylogenetically closely related species were 44.3 % or below 49.1 %. The predominant fatty acids of both strains were C, C cyclo, summed feature 8 (C 7/C 6), and C cyclo 8, and their respiratory quinone was ubiquinone 8. Based on the above genotypic and phenotypic characteristics, strains F2 and PGU16 represent a novel species of the genus for which the name sp. nov. is proposed. The type strain is F2 (=NBRC 115765=LMG 32765).

Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • ACT-X (Award JPMJAX21BF)
    • Principle Award Recipient: KazutakaTakeshita
  • Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (Award 21K14865)
    • Principle Award Recipient: KazutakaTakeshita
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.006411
2024-06-04
2024-06-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Suárez-Moreno ZR, Caballero-Mellado J, Coutinho BG, Mendonça-Previato L, James EK et al. Common features of environmental and potentially beneficial plant-associated Burkholderia. Microb Ecol 2012; 63:249–266 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Peeters C, Meier-Kolthoff JP, Verheyde B, De Brandt E, Cooper VS et al. Phylogenomic study of Burkholderia glathei-like organisms, proposal of 13 novel Burkholderia species and emended descriptions of Burkholderia sordidicola, Burkholderia zhejiangensis, and Burkholderia grimmiae. Front Microbiol 2016; 7:877 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Takeshita K, Kikuchi Y. Riptortus pedestris and Burkholderia symbiont: an ideal model system for insect-microbe symbiotic associations. Res Microbiol 2017; 168:175–187 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Sawana A, Adeolu M, Gupta RS. Molecular signatures and phylogenomic analysis of the genus Burkholderia: proposal for division of this genus into the emended genus Burkholderia containing pathogenic organisms and a new genus Paraburkholderia gen. nov. harboring environmental species. Front Genet 2014; 5:429 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Dobritsa AP, Samadpour M. Transfer of eleven species of the genus Burkholderia to the genus Paraburkholderia and proposal of Caballeronia gen. nov. to accommodate twelve species of the genera Burkholderia and Paraburkholderia. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2016; 66:2836–2846 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 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]
  7. Takeshita K, Matsuura Y, Itoh H, Navarro R, Hori T et al. Burkholderia of plant-beneficial group are symbiotically associated with bordered plant bugs (Heteroptera: Pyrrhocoroidea: Largidae). Microbes Environ 2015; 30:321–329 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Gordon ERL, McFrederick Q, Weirauch C. Phylogenetic evidence for ancient and persistent environmental symbiont reacquisition in Largidae (Hemiptera: Heteroptera). Appl Environ Microbiol 2016; 82:7123–7133 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Xu Y, Buss EA, Boucias DG. Culturing and characterization of gut symbiont Burkholderia spp. from the southern chinch bug, Blissus insularis (Hemiptera: Blissidae). Appl Environ Microbiol 2016; 82:3319–3330 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Kikuchi Y, Hosokawa T, Fukatsu T. An ancient but promiscuous host-symbiont association between Burkholderia gut symbionts and their heteropteran hosts. ISME J 2011; 5:446–460 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Acevedo TS, Fricker GP, Garcia JR, Alcaide T, Berasategui A et al. The importance of environmentally acquired bacterial symbionts for the squash bug (Anasa tristis), a significant agricultural pest. Front Microbiol 2021; 12:719112 2021 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Hunter MS, Umanzor EF, Kelly SE, Whitaker SM, Ravenscraft A. Development of common leaf-footed bug pests depends on the presence and identity of their environmentally acquired symbionts. Appl Environ Microbiol 2022; 88:e0177821 2022 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Ohbayashi T, Cossard R, Lextrait G, Hosokawa T, Lesieur V et al. Intercontinental diversity of Caballeronia gut symbionts in the conifer pest bug Leptoglossus occidentalis. Microbes Environ 2022; 37:ME22042 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Ishigami K, Jang S, Itoh H, Kikuchi Y. Obligate gut symbiotic association with Caballeronia in the mulberry seed bug Paradieuches dissimilis (Lygaeoidea: Rhyparochromidae). Microb Ecol 2023; 86:1307–1318 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Takeshita K, Kikuchi Y. Genomic comparison of insect gut symbionts from divergent Burkholderia subclades. Genes 2020; 11:744 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Achouak W, Christen R, Barakat M, Martel M-H, Heulin T. Burkholderia caribensis sp. nov., an exopolysaccharide-producing bacterium isolated from vertisol microaggregates in Martinique. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 1999; 49:787–794 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Chen WM, Moulin L, Bontemps C, Vandamme P, Béna G et al. Legume symbiotic nitrogen fixation by β-proteobacteria is widespread in nature. J Bacteriol 2003; 185:7266–7272 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Pruesse E, Peplies J, Glöckner FO. SINA: accurate high-throughput multiple sequence alignment of ribosomal RNA genes. Bioinformatics 2012; 28:1823–1829 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 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]
  20. Stamatakis A, Hoover P, Rougemont J. A rapid bootstrap algorithm for the RAxML Web servers. Syst Biol 2008; 57:758–771 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Chin CS, Alexander DH, Marks P, Klammer AA, Drake J et al. Nonhybrid, finished microbial genome assemblies from long-read SMRT sequencing data. Nat Methods 2013; 10:563–569 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Tanizawa Y, Fujisawa T, Nakamura Y. DFAST: a flexible prokaryotic genome annotation pipeline for faster genome publication. Bioinformatics 2018; 34:1037–1039 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Chklovski A, Parks DH, Woodcroft BJ, Tyson GW. CheckM2: a rapid, scalable and accurate tool for assessing microbial genome quality using machine learning. Nat Methods 2023; 20:1203–1212 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 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]
  25. 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]
  26. Krzywinski M, Schein J, Birol I, Connors J, Gascoyne R et al. Circos: an information aesthetic for comparative genomics. Genome Res 2009; 19:1639–1645 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Stillson PT, Baltrus DA, Ravenscraft A. Prevalence of an insect-associated genomic region in environmentally acquired Burkholderiaceae symbionts. Appl Environ Microbiol 2022; 88:e0250221 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Chaumeil P-A, Mussig AJ, Hugenholtz P, Parks DH. GTDB-Tk v2: memory friendly classification with the genome taxonomy database. Bioinformatics 2022; 38:5315–5316 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Parks DH, Chuvochina M, Chaumeil P-A, Rinke C, Mussig AJ et al. A complete domain-to-species taxonomy for bacteria and archaea. Nat Biotechnol 2020; 38:1079–1086 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Ara I, Moriuchi R, Dohra H, Kimbara K, Ogawa N et al. Isolation and genomic analysis of 3-chlorobenzoate-degrading bacteria from soil. Microorganisms 2023; 11:1684 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Na SI, Kim YO, Yoon SH, Ha S-M, Baek I et al. UBCG: Up-to-date bacterial core gene set and pipeline for phylogenomic tree reconstruction. J Microbiol 2018; 56:281–285 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Stamatakis A, Hoover P, Rougemont J. A rapid bootstrap algorithm for the RAxML web servers. Syst Biol 2008; 57:758–771 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 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]
  34. 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]
  35. Riesco R, Trujillo ME. Update on the proposed minimal standards for the use of genome data for the taxonomy of prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2024; 74:006300 1 March 2024 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Tanaka N, Nagata N, Ooshige T, Takasaki M. The usability of a simple gram stain procedure (Nishioka’s method). Jpn Soc Intensive Care Med 1997; 4:383 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Gao Z, Zhang Q, Lv Y, Wang Y, Zhao B et al. Paraburkholderia acidiphila sp. nov., Paraburkholderia acidisoli sp. nov. and Burkholderia guangdongensis sp. nov., isolated from forest soil, and reclassification of Burkholderia ultramafica as Paraburkholderia ultramafica comb. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2019; 71: 6 June 2019 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Choi GM, Im WT. Paraburkholderia azotifigens sp. nov., a nitrogen-fixing bacterium isolated from paddy soil. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2018; 68:310–316 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Pratama AA, Jiménez DJ, Chen Q, Bunk B, Spröer C et al. Delineation of a subgroup of the genus Paraburkholderia, Including P. terrae DSM 17804T, P. hospita DSM 17164T, and four soil-isolated fungiphiles, reveals remarkable genomic and ecological features-proposal for the definition of a P. hospita species cluster. Genome Biol Evol 2020; 12:325–344 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.006411
Loading
/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.006411
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