Genome-based reclassification of Kineococcus aureolus Xu et al. 2017 as a later heterotypic synonym of Kineococcus terrestris Xu et al. 2017

References

1. Yokota A, Tamura T, Nishii T, Hasegawa T. Kineococcus aurantiacus gen. nov., sp. nov., a new aerobic, gram-positive, motile coccus with meso-diaminopimelic acid and arabinogalactan in the cell wall. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 1993; 43:52–57 [View Article]
   [Google Scholar]
2. 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]
3. Molina-Menor E, Gimeno-Valero H, Pascual J, Peretó J, Porcar M. Kineococcus vitellinus sp. nov., Kineococcus indalonis sp. nov. and Kineococcus siccus sp. nov., isolated nearby the Tabernas Desert (Almería, Spain). Microorganisms 2020; 8:1547 [View Article]
   [Google Scholar]
4. Xu FJ, Li QY, Li GD, Chen X, Jiang Y et al. Kineococcus terrestris sp. nov. and Kineococcus aureolus sp. nov., isolated from saline sediment. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2017; 67:4801–4807 [View Article] [PubMed]
   [Google Scholar]
5. 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 [View Article] [PubMed]
   [Google Scholar]
6. Chen S, Zhou Y, Chen Y, Gu J. fastp: an ultra-fast all-in-one FASTQ preprocessor. Bioinformatics 2018; 34:i884–i890 [View Article] [PubMed]
   [Google Scholar]
7. Harrison PG, Strulo B. SPADES - a process algebra for discrete event simulation. J Logic Comput 2000; 10:3–42 [View Article]
   [Google Scholar]
8. Seemann T. Prokka: rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics 2014; 30:2068–2069 [View Article] [PubMed]
   [Google Scholar]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Felsenstein J. Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: a maximum likelihood approach. J Mol Evol 1981; 17:368–376 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
12. Fitch WM. Toward defining the course of evolution: minimum change for a specific tree topology. Syst Biol 1971; 20:406–416 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
13. Felsenstein J. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 1985; 39:783–791 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Parks DH, Chuvochina M, Rinke C, Mussig AJ, Chaumeil P-A et al. GTDB: an ongoing census of bacterial and archaeal diversity through a phylogenetically consistent, rank normalizedand complete genome-based taxonomy. Nucleic Acids Res 2022; 50:D785–D794 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
17. Minh BQ, Schmidt HA, Chernomor O, Schrempf D, Woodhams MD et al. IQ-TREE 2: new models and efficient methods for phylogenetic inference in the genomic era. Mol Biol Evol 2020; 37:1530–1534 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
18. Letunic I, Bork P. Interactive Tree of Life (iTOL) v6: recent updates to the phylogenetic tree display and annotation tool. Nucleic Acids Res 2024; 52:W78–W82 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
19. 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]
20. Yoon SH, Ha SM, Lim J, Kwon S, Chun J. A large-scale evaluation of algorithms to calculate average nucleotide identity. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 2017; 110:1281–1286 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
21. Meier-Kolthoff JP, Auch AF, Klenk H-P, Göker M. Genome sequence-based species delimitation with confidence intervals and improved distance functions. BMC Bioinform 2013; 14:60 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
22. Aziz RK, Bartels D, Best AA, DeJongh M, Disz T et al. The RAST server: rapid annotations using subsystems technology. BMC Genom 2008; 9:75 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
23. Blin K, Shaw S, Augustijn HE, Reitz ZL, Biermann F et al. antiSMASH 7.0: new and improved predictions for detection, regulation, chemical structures and visualisation. Nucleic Acids Res 2023; 51:W46–W50 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
24. 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]
25. 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]
26. Konstantinidis KT, Rosselló-Móra R, Amann R. Uncultivated microbes in need of their own taxonomy. ISME J 2017; 11:2399–2406 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]