Skip to content
1887

Abstract

Both the genera and are members of the family . Their type species, both Sanger_33 and ASD5720, were isolated from human faeces. A comparison of their 16S rRNA gene sequences revealed 100% similarity, suggesting their close relatedness and the possibility of belonging to the same species. To clarify their taxonomic relationship, genome-based analyses were carried out. Overall genomic relatedness indices analyses indicated that Sanger_33 shared average amino acid identity and percentage of conserved proteins prediction values higher than the -specific genus-level thresholds with ASD5720, as well as the other two existing species of the genus . Additionally, Sanger_33 formed a distinct branch with ASD5720, clustering with the other two species of the genus into the same clade in both the 16S rRNA gene phylogenetic tree and the core-genome phylogenomic tree. Essentially, both the average nucleotide identity and digital DNA–DNA hybridization prediction values between Sanger_33 and ASD5720 were above the recommended species boundaries. It is thus clear that Sanger_33 and ASD5720 constitute the same species. On the basis of the earliest valid publication, priority is given to Chaplin . 2022. Based on this, the orphan species Hitch . 2022 is reclassified as a later heterotypic synonym of Chaplin . 2022, along with the reclassification of the genus Hitch . 2022 as a later synonym of Chaplin . 2022.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.006616
2025-01-02
2025-11-12

Metrics

Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Hitch TCA, Riedel T, Oren A, Overmann J, Lawley TD et al. Automated analysis of genomic sequences facilitates high-throughput and comprehensive description of bacteria. ISME Commun 2021; 1:16 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [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. Oren A, Garrity G. Valid publication of new names and new combinations effectively published outside the IJSEM. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2022; 72:005331 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Chaplin AV, Shcherbakova VA, Pikina AP, Sokolova SR, Korzhanova M et al. Diplocloster agilis gen. nov., sp. nov. and Diplocloster modestus sp. nov., two novel anaerobic fermentative members of Lachnospiraceae isolated from human faeces. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2022; 72:005222 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Yan Y, Zhao Q, Xu C, Wei R, Jiang H et al. Anaerolentibacter hominis gen. nov. sp. nov., Diplocloster hominis sp. nov. and Pilosibacter fragilis gen. nov. sp. nov., isolated from human faeces. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2024; 74:006359 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 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]
  7. Pritchard L, Glover RH, Humphris S, Elphinstone JG, Toth IK. Genomics and taxonomy in diagnostics for food security: soft-rotting enterobacterial plant pathogens. Anal Methods 2016; 8:12–24 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Meier-Kolthoff JP, Auch AF, Klenk HP, Göker M. Genome sequence-based species delimitation with confidence intervals and improved distance functions. BMC Bioinformatics 2013; 14:60 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Qin QL, Xie BB, Zhang XY, Chen XL, Zhou BC et al. A proposed genus boundary for the prokaryotes based on genomic insights. J Bacteriol 2014; 196:2210–2215 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Heng YC, Menon N, Chen B, Loo BZL, Wong GWJ et al. Ligilactobacillus ubinensis sp. nov., a novel species isolated from the wild ferment of a durian fruit (Durio zibethinus). Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2023; 73:005733 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Heng YC, Silvaraju S, Lee JKY, Kittelmann S. Lactiplantibacillus brownii sp. nov., a novel psychrotolerant species isolated from sauerkraut. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2023; 73: [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Heng YC, Silvaraju S, Kittelmann S. Whole-genome sequence of Ligilactobacillus faecis WILCCON 0062, isolated from feces of a wild boar (Sus scrofa). Microbiol Resour Announc 2023; 12:e0037623 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 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]
  14. 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]
  15. Heng YC, Kittelmann S. Proposal for reclassification of the species Hungatella xylanolytica as Lacrimispora xylanisolvens nom. nov. and transfer of the genus Hungatella to the family Lachnospiraceae. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2024; 74:006417 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Meier-Kolthoff JP, Klenk HP, Göker M. Taxonomic use of DNA G+C content and DNA-DNA hybridization in the genomic age. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2014; 64:352–356 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Beskrovnaya P, Sexton DL, Golmohammadzadeh M, Hashimi A, Tocheva EI. Structural, metabolic and evolutionary comparison of bacterial endospore and exospore formation. Front Microbiol 2021; 12:630573 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Oren A, Arahal DR, Göker M, Moore ERB, Rossello-Mora R et al. International code of nomenclature of prokaryotes. Prokaryotic Code (2022 revision). Inte J Syst Evol Microb 2023; 73:005585 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Gurevich A, Saveliev V, Vyahhi N, Tesler G. QUAST: quality assessment tool for genome assemblies. Bioinformatics 2013; 29:1072–1075 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Parks DH, Imelfort M, Skennerton CT, Hugenholtz P, Tyson GW. CheckM: assessing the quality of microbial genomes recovered from isolates, single cells, and metagenomes. Genome Res 2015; 25:1043–1055 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Seemann T. Prokka: rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics 2014; 30:2068–2069 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Kanehisa M, Sato Y, Morishima K. BlastKOALA and GhostKOALA: KEGG tools for functional characterization of genome and metagenome sequences. J Mol Biol 2016; 428:726–731 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Kanehisa M, Goto S. KEGG: kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes. Nucleic Acids Res 2000; 28:27–30 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Zheng J, Ge Q, Yan Y, Zhang X, Huang L et al. dbCAN3: automated carbohydrate-active enzyme and substrate annotation. Nucleic Acids Res 2013; 1:13–14 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.006616
Loading
/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.006616
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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