4.4 Article

Proposal to reclassify the three biotypes of Bifidobacterium longum as three subspecies:: Bifidobacterium longum subsp longum subsp nov., Bifidobacterium longum subsp infantis comb. nov and Bifidobacterium longum subsp suis comb. nov.

出版社

SOC GENERAL MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1099/ijs.0.65319-0

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the year 2002, Bifidobacterium longum, Bifidobacterium infantis and Bifidobacterium suis were unified into a single species, Bifidobacterium longum, preserving the former species names through the creation of the three biotypes 'longum', 'infantis' and 'suis'. Consequently, the use of the species names B. infantis and B. suis was to be discontinued. The above taxonomic rearrangement of B. longum was based on DNA-DNA hybridizations and 16S rRNA and HSP60 gene sequence analysis. However, a variety of other genotypic techniques including ribotyping, amplified rDNA restriction analysis (ARDRA), randomly amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD)-PCR, BOX-PCR, PCR-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE), comparison of the recA, tuf and ldh gene sequences, plasmid profiling and considerable variation in carbohydrate fermentation patterns as well as results of starch and PAGE electrophoresis experiments clearly discriminate former B. longum, B. infantis and B. suis strains. In the present paper we compile this published information and propose the description of Bifidobacterium longum subsp. longum subsp. nov., Bifidobacterium longum subsp. infantis comb. nov. and Bifidobacterium longum subsp. suis comb. nov. The International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes Subcommittee on the taxonomy of Bifidobacterium, Lactobacillus and related organisms is in favour of this proposal. The type strains of Bifidobacterium, longum subsp. longum subsp. nov., subsp. infantis comb. nov. and subsp. suis comb. nov. are E194b (variant a)(T) (ATCC 15707(T) =DSM 20219(T)), S12(T) (=ATCC 15697(T) =DSM 20088(T)) and Su859(T) (ATCC 27533(T) =DSM 20211(T)), respectively.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据