- Volume 70, Issue 9, 2020
Volume 70, Issue 9, 2020
- Taxonomic Note
-
-
-
Reclassification of Streptomyces fulvissimus as a later heterotypic synonym of Streptomyces microflavus
More LessWe investigated the taxonomic relationships among Streptomyces fulvissimus , Streptomyces fulvorobeus and Streptomyces microflavus . These type strains shared the same 16S rRNA gene sequence. Digital DNA–DNA relatedness and average nucleotide identity analyses using whole genome sequences suggested that S. fulvissimus and S. microflavus belong to the same genomospecies, whereas S. fulvorobeus does not. In addition to previously reported phenotypic data, the presence of almost the same set of secondary metabolite-biosynthetic gene clusters for polyketides and nonribosomal peptides also supported the synonymy between S. fulvissimus and S. microflavus . Therefore, S. fulvissimus should be reclassified as a later heterotypic synonym of S. microflavus .
-
-
- Letters
-
-
-
Objections to the proposition of the new genera Protaetiibacter and Pseudolysinimonas
More LessOur principal conclusions state that Lysinimonas kribbensis and Lysinimonas soli strains, actually constitute a single coherent group at 16S rRNA gene level, and Protaetiibacter intestinalis is phylogenetically and genomically consistent with the genus Leifsonia and its nomenclature must be amended.
-
-
- ICSP Matters
-
-
-
The status of the genus Prolinoborus (Pot et al. 1992) and the species Prolinoborus fasciculus (Pot et al. 1992)
On the basis of two other publications (Yarza et al. 2013; Nemec et al. 2019) and on the basis of resequencing of the 16S rRNA gene of Prolinoborus fasciculus CIP 103579T it is concluded that Prolinoborus fasciculus CIP 103579T, which is the only available strain of the species from culture collections, does not conform to the original description given by Pot et al. (1992). The strain investigated is a member of the genus Acinetobacter within the Moraxellaceae , a family of the Gammaproteobacteria and not a member of the Betaproteobacteria as originally proposed. Prolinoborus fasciculus CIP 103579T shared 99.8 % 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity with Acinetobacter lwoffii DSM 2403T. The two strains clustered together by rpoB- and core genome-based phylogenetic analyses and shared an average nucleotide identity of 96.47% (reciprocal, 96.56 %) and a digital genome distance calculation (GGDC) value of 66.9 %. Furthermore, the two strains shared matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time of flight MS profiles to a high extent and showed highly similar cellular fatty acid profiles and physiological substrate utilization patterns. It is proposed that the Judicial commission consider (1) that the strain currently deposited as CIP 103579 be recognized as a member of Acinetobacter lwoffii ; (2) placing Prolinoborus fasciculus (Pot et al. 1992) on the list of rejected names if a suitable replacement strain, or a neotype strain cannot be found within 2 years of publication of this request; and (3) place the genus name Prolinoborus (Pot et al. 1992) on the list of rejected names [Recommendation 20D (3) of the Code].
-
-
-
-
Strain ATCC 4720T is the authentic type strain of Agrobacterium tumefaciens, which is not a later heterotypic synonym of Agrobacterium radiobacter
More LessThe original type strains of Agrobacterium radiobacter and Agrobacterium tumefaciens recorded in the eighth edition of Bergey’s Manual of Determinative Bacteriology published in 1974 were NCIB 9042T and ATCC 4720T, respectively. However, in the list of the valid names of bacteria compiled in 1980, both strains were changed, A. radiobacter NCIB 9042T to ATCC 19358T and A. tumefaciens ATCC 4720T to ATCC 23308T. These changes were unjustified, particularly in the case of A. tumefaciens whose type strain was replaced by another strain from the same collection, although the original type strain ATCC 4720T was never lost and it is currently available in several culture collections. Therefore, we request that the type strain of A. tumefaciens be corrected from ATCC 23308T to ATCC 4720T.
-
-
-
Opinions 100, 101 and 102
More LessThe International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes has formally made final decisions, taking into account the conclusions of the Judicial Commission, on three pending Requests for an Opinion, thereby allowing the corresponding Opinions to be issued. According to Opinion 100, the request for the recognition of strain A1-86 (=DSM 17629=NCIMB 14373) as the neotype strain of Eubacterium rectale (Hauduroy et al. 1937) Prévot 1938 (Approved Lists 1980) is denied, ruling that a neotype does not need to be designated for E. rectale because strain VPI 0990 (=ATCC 33656=CIP 105953) is considered to be a duplicate isolate of the same strain as VPI 0989 (=ATCC 25578) and may serve as its nomenclatural type. Opinion 101 approves the request that strain ATCC 25946 (=DSM 14877) serves as the type strain of Melittangium lichenicola instead of strain ATCC 25944, formally correcting the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names. Opinion 102 concludes that strain Cc m8 (=DSM 14697=CIP 109128=JCM 12621) is an established neotype strain for the species Myxococcus macrosporus , replacing the designated type strain Windsor M271, and that strain Mx s8 (=DSM 14675=JCM 12634) is an established neotype strain for the species Myxococcus stipitatus , replacing the designated type strain Windsor M78, with some additional considerations about the nature of the type material replaced and about the name Corallococcus ( Myxococcus ) macrosporus.
-
- Corrigendum
Volumes and issues
-
Volume 74 (2024)
-
Volume 73 (2023)
-
Volume 72 (2022 - 2023)
-
Volume 71 (2020 - 2021)
-
Volume 70 (2020)
-
Volume 69 (2019)
-
Volume 68 (2018)
-
Volume 67 (2017)
-
Volume 66 (2016)
-
Volume 65 (2015)
-
Volume 64 (2014)
-
Volume 63 (2013)
-
Volume 62 (2012)
-
Volume 61 (2011)
-
Volume 60 (2010)
-
Volume 59 (2009)
-
Volume 58 (2008)
-
Volume 57 (2007)
-
Volume 56 (2006)
-
Volume 55 (2005)
-
Volume 54 (2004)
-
Volume 53 (2003)
-
Volume 52 (2002)
-
Volume 51 (2001)
-
Volume 50 (2000)
-
Volume 49 (1999)
-
Volume 48 (1998)
-
Volume 47 (1997)
-
Volume 46 (1996)
-
Volume 45 (1995)
-
Volume 44 (1994)
-
Volume 43 (1993)
-
Volume 42 (1992)
-
Volume 41 (1991)
-
Volume 40 (1990)
-
Volume 39 (1989)
-
Volume 38 (1988)
-
Volume 37 (1987)
-
Volume 36 (1986)
-
Volume 35 (1985)
-
Volume 34 (1984)
-
Volume 33 (1983)
-
Volume 32 (1982)
-
Volume 31 (1981)
-
Volume 30 (1980)
-
Volume 29 (1979)
-
Volume 28 (1978)
-
Volume 27 (1977)
-
Volume 26 (1976)
-
Volume 25 (1975)
-
Volume 24 (1974)
-
Volume 23 (1973)
-
Volume 22 (1972)
-
Volume 21 (1971)
-
Volume 20 (1970)
-
Volume 19 (1969)
-
Volume 18 (1968)
-
Volume 17 (1967)
-
Volume 16 (1966)
-
Volume 15 (1965)
-
Volume 14 (1964)
-
Volume 13 (1963)
-
Volume 12 (1962)
-
Volume 11 (1961)
-
Volume 10 (1960)
-
Volume 9 (1959)
-
Volume 8 (1958)
-
Volume 7 (1957)
-
Volume 6 (1956)
-
Volume 5 (1955)
-
Volume 4 (1954)
-
Volume 3 (1953)
-
Volume 2 (1952)
-
Volume 1 (1951)