4.4 Article

Muricauda flavescens sp nov and Muricauda aquimarina sp nov., isolated from a salt lake near Hwajinpo Beach of the East Sea in Korea, and emended description of the genus Muricauda

Publisher

SOC GENERAL MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1099/ijs.0.03051-0

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Four Gram-negative, non-spore-forming, slightly halophilic rods (strains SW-62(T), SW-74, SW-63(T) and SW-72) with appendages were isolated from a salt lake near Hwajinpo Beach on the East Sea in Korea, and subjected to a polyphasic taxonomic analysis. Phylogenetic analyses based on 16S rRNA gene sequences showed that strains SW-62(T), SW-74, SW-63(T) and SW-72 formed a coherent cluster with Muricauda ruestringensis. Strains SW-62(T) and SW-74 had the same 16S rRNA gene sequence, as did strains SW-63T and SW-72. The level of 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity between strains SW-62(T) and SW-63(T) was 97.0%. Strains SW-62(T) and SW-63(T) exhibited 16S rRNA gene similarity levels of 96(.)5 and 98(.)3 %, respectively, with respect to M. ruestringensis DSM 1325 8(T). The predominant isoprenoid quinone found in the four isolates and M. ruestringensis DSM 13258 T was MK-6. The four strains contained iSO-C-17:0 3-OH, iSO-C-15:1 and iSO-C-15: 0 as the major fatty acids. Their DNA G + C contents were 44(.)1-45(.)4 mol%. The levels of DNA-DNA relatedness indicated that strains SW-62(T) and SW-74 and strains SW-63(T) and SW-72 were members of two species that were different from M. ruestringensis. On the basis of phenotypic and phylogenetic data and genomic distinctiveness, strains SW-62(T) and SW-74 and strains SW-63(T) and SW-72 were placed in the genus Muricauda as two distinct novel species, for which the names Muricauda flavescens sp. nov. (type strain, SW-62(T) =KCCM 41645(T)=JCM 11812(T)) and Muricauda aquimarina sp. nov. (type strain, SW-63(T) = KCCM 41646(T)=jCM 1181(T)), respectively, are proposed.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available