4.5 Article

Multilocus phylogenetic analysis of the genus Aeromonas

Journal

SYSTEMATIC AND APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 34, Issue 3, Pages 189-199

Publisher

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.syapm.2010.11.014

Keywords

Multilocus; Phylogeny; MLPA; gyrB; rpoD; recA; dnaJ; gyrA; dnaX; atpD; Aeromonas

Funding

  1. IMPIVA, Generalitat Valenciana, Spain [IMIDTA/2003/3, IMIDTA/2007/68, IMIDTA/2008/104, IMIDTP/2009/64]
  2. European Commission [FOOD-CT-2006-036306]
  3. Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia [SFRH/BSAB/774/2008]
  4. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BSAB/774/2008] Funding Source: FCT

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A broad multilocus phylogenetic analysis (MLPA) of the representative diversity of a genus offers the opportunity to incorporate concatenated inter-species phylogenies into bacterial systematics. Recent analyses based on single housekeeping genes have provided coherent phylogenies of Aeromonas. However, to date, a multi-gene phylogenetic analysis has never been tackled. In the present study, the intra- and inter-species phylogenetic relationships of 115 strains representing all Aeromonas species described to date were investigated by MLPA. The study included the independent analysis of seven single gene fragments (gyrB, rpoD, recA, dnaJ, gyrA, dnaX, and atpD), and the tree resulting from the concatenated 4705 bp sequence. The phylogenies obtained were consistent with each other, and clustering agreed with the Aeromonas taxonomy recognized to date. The highest clustering robustness was found for the concatenated tree (i.e. all Aeromonas species split into 100% bootstrap clusters). Both possible chronometric distortions and poor resolution encountered when using single-gene analysis were buffered in the concatenated MLPA tree. However, reliable phylogenetic species delineation required an MLPA including several bona fide strains representing all described species. (C) 2011 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available