Skip to content
1887

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMATIC AND EVOLUTIONARY MICROBIOLOGY logo International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology

Volume 74, Issue 11

subsp. subsp. nov., isolated from cattle, and an emended description of Open Access

Abstract

Six urease-negative strains were isolated from cattle faeces over a 19-month period from 2009 to 2010. These strains were initially identified as by 16S rRNA gene and typing. Initial studies characterizing these strains by multilocus sequence typing and genome sequencing further supported their classification as but indicated that these strains form a divergent clade within the species. A polyphasic study was undertaken here to clarify their taxonomic position. Phylogenetic analyses were performed based on 16S rRNA gene sequences and the concatenated sequences of 330 core genes, with the latter analysis also placing the six strains into a clade distinct from the three biovars. Pairwise digital DNA–DNA hybridization values identified these strains as , and the pairwise average nucleotide identity values were consistent with those observed between current subspecies pairs. Standard phenotypic testing was also performed. All strains are microaerobic, anaerobic, motile, Gram-negative and oxidase- and catalase-positive; cells are curved rods or spirals. Strains can be distinguished from the biovars by the presence of alkaline phosphatase activity and triphenyltetrazolium chloride reduction and absence of nitrate reduction. The data presented here show that these strains represent a novel subspecies within , for which the name subsp. subsp. nov. (type strain RM8705=LMG 32300=CCUG 75470) is proposed.

  • Received:
  • Accepted:
  • Published Online:
Keyword(s): California , Campylobacter sputorum , cattle and novel subspecies
© Microbiology Society
  • This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.006571
2024-11-13
2025-11-18

Metrics

Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/ijsem/74/11/ijsem006571.html?itemId=/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.006571&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Atabay HI, Corry JE. The isolation and prevalence of campylobacters from dairy cattle using a variety of methods. J Appl Microbiol 1998; 84:733–740 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  2. On SL, Atabay HI, Corry JE, Harrington CS, Vandamme P. Emended description of Campylobacter sputorum and revision of its infrasubspecific (biovar) divisions, including C. sputorum biovar paraureolyticus, a urease-producing variant from cattle and humans. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1998; 48 Pt 1:195–206 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Firehammer BD. The isolation of vibrios from ovine feces. Cornell Vet 1965; 55:482–494 [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Terzolo HR. Identification of campylobacters from bovine and ovine faeces. Rev Argent Microbiol 1988; 20:53–68 [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Jay-Russell MT, Bates A, Harden L, Miller WG, Mandrell RE. Isolation of Campylobacter from feral swine (Sus scrofa) on the ranch associated with the 2006 Escherichia coli O157:H7 spinach outbreak investigation in California. Zoonoses Public Health 2012; 59:314–319 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Chaban B, Ngeleka M, Hill JE. Detection and quantification of 14 Campylobacter species in pet dogs reveals an increase in species richness in feces of diarrheic animals. BMC Microbiol 2010; 10:73 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Inglis GD, Boras VF, Houde A. Enteric campylobacteria and RNA viruses associated with healthy and diarrheic humans in the Chinook health region of southwestern Alberta, Canada. J Clin Microbiol 2011; 49:209–219 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  8. On SL, Ridgwell F, Cryan B, Azadian BS. Isolation of Campylobacter sputorum biovar sputorum from an axillary abscess. J Infect 1992; 24:175–179 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Tunnicliff R. An anaerobic vibrio isolated from a case of acute bronchitis. J Infect Dis 1914; 15:350–351 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Prévot AR. Études de systématique bactérienne. V. essai de classification des vibrions anaérobies. Ann Inst Pasteur 1940; 61:117–125
     [Google Scholar]
  11. MacDonald JB. The Motile Non-Sporulating Anaerobic Rods of the Oral Cavity University of Toronto; 1953
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Florent A. Isolement d’un vibrion saprophyte du sperme du taureau et du vagin de la vache (Vibrio bubulus). Compt Rend Soc Biol 1953; 147:2066
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Loesche WJ, Gibbons RJ, Socransky SS. Biochemical characteristics of Vibrio sputorum and relationship to Vibrio bubulus and Vibrio fetus. J Bacteriol 1965; 89:1109–1116 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Veron M, Chatelain R. Taxonomic study of the genus Campylobacter Sebald and Veron and designation of the neotype strain for the type species, Campylobacter fetus (Smith and Taylor) Sebald and Veron. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1973; 23:122–134 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Lawson GH, Rowland AC, Wooding P. The characterisation of Campylobacter sputorum subspecies mucosalis isolated from pigs. Res Vet Sci 1975; 18:121–126 [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Lawson GHK, Leaver JL, Pettigrew GW, Rowland AC. Some features of Campylobacter sputorum subsp. mucosalis subsp. nov., nom. rev. and their taxonomic significance. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 1981; 31:385–391 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Roop II RM, Smibert RM, Johnson JL, Krieg NR. DNA homology studies of the catalase-negative campylobacters and “Campylobacter fecalis,” an emended description of Campylobacter sputorum, and proposal of the neotype strain of Campylobacter sputorum. Can J Microbiol 1985; 31:823–831 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Roop RM, Smibert RM, Johnson JL, Krieg NR. Campylobacter mucosalis (Lawson, Leaver, Pettigrew, and Rowland 1981) comb. nov.: emended description. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 1985; 35:189–192 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Miller WG, Chapman MH, Yee E, On SLW, McNulty DK et al. Multilocus sequence typing methods for the emerging Campylobacter species C. hyointestinalis, C. lanienae, C. sputorum, C. concisus, and C. curvus. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 2012; 2:45 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Miller WG, Yee E, Jolley KA, Chapman MH. Use of an improved atpA amplification and sequencing method to identify members of the Campylobacteraceae and Helicobacteraceae. Lett Appl Microbiol 2014; 58:582–590 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Miller WG, Yee E, Chapman MH, Bono JL. Comparative genomics of all three Campylobacter sputorum biovars and a novel cattle-associated C. sputorum clade. Genome Biol Evol 2017; 9:1513–1518 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Moore WEC, Stackebrandt E, Kandler O, Colwell RR, Krichevsky MI et al. Report of the ad hoc committee on reconciliation of approaches to bacterial systematics. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1987; 37:463–464 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Goris J, Konstantinidis KT, Klappenbach JA, Coenye T, Vandamme P et al. DNA-DNA hybridization values and their relationship to whole-genome sequence similarities. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2007; 57:81–91 [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 U S A 2009; 106:19126–19131 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Miller WG, Yee E, Lopes BS, Chapman MH, Huynh S et al. Comparative genomic analysis identifies a Campylobacter clade deficient in selenium metabolism. Genome Biol Evol 2017; 9:1843–1858 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Besemer J, Borodovsky M. GeneMark: web software for gene finding in prokaryotes, eukaryotes and viruses. Nucleic Acids Res 2005; 33:W451–4 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Gorkiewicz G, Feierl G, Schober C, Dieber F, Köfer J et al. Species-specific identification of campylobacters by partial 16S rRNA gene sequencing. J Clin Microbiol 2003; 41:2537–2546 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Van Camp G, Van De Peer Y, Nicolai S, Neefs J-M, Vandamme P et al. Structure of 16S and 23S ribosomal RNA genes in Campylobacter species: phylogenetic analysis of the genus Campylobacter and presence of internal transcribed spacers. Syst Appl Microbiol 1993; 16:361–368 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Etoh Y, Yamamoto A, Goto N. Intervening sequences in 16S rRNA genes of Campylobacter sp.: diversity of nucleotide sequences and uniformity of location. Microbiol Immunol 1998; 42:241–243 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Linton D, Dewhirst FE, Clewley JP, Owen RJ, Burnens AP et al. Two types of 16S rRNA gene are found in Campylobacter helveticus: analysis, applications and characterization of the intervening sequence found in some strains. Microbiology 1994; 140 (Pt 4):847–855 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Edgar RC. MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res 2004; 32:1792–1797 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Tamura K, Stecher G, Peterson D, Filipski A, Kumar S. MEGA6: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 6.0. Mol Biol Evol 2013; 30:2725–2729 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  33. 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]
  34. 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]
  35. 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]
  36. Meier-Kolthoff JP, Auch AF, Klenk H-P, Göker M. Genome sequence-based species delimitation with confidence intervals and improved distance functions. BMC Bioinformatics 2013; 14:60 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  37. 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]
  38. On SLW, Miller WG, Houf K, Fox JG, Vandamme P. Minimal standards for describing new species belonging to the families Campylobacteraceae and Helicobacteraceae: Campylobacter, Arcobacter, Helicobacter and Wolinella spp. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2017; 67:5296–5311 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Miller WG, Lopes BS, Ramjee M, Jay-Russell MT, Chapman MH et al. Campylobacter devanensis sp. nov., Campylobacter porcelli sp. nov., and Campylobacter vicugnae sp. nov., three novel Campylobacter lanienae-like species recovered from swine, small ruminants, and camelids. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2024; 74:006405 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.006571
Loading
Campylobacter sputorum subsp. bovis subsp. nov., isolated from cattle, and an emended description of Campylobacter sputorum
Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 74, 006571 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1099/ijsem.0.006571
/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.006571
/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.006571
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary material 1

PDF

Supplementary material 2

EXCEL

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