4.4 Article

Bacteroides paurosaccharolyticus sp. nov., isolated from a methanogenic reactor treating waste from cattle farms

出版社

SOC GENERAL MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1099/ijs.0.022566-0

关键词

-

资金

  1. Institute for Fermentation, Osaka
  2. New Energy and Industrial Technology Development of Organization (NEDO)
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23370008] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A strictly anaerobic bacterial strain (WK042(T)) was isolated from rice-straw residue in a methanogenic reactor treating waste from cattle farms in Japan. Cells were Gram-staining-negative, non-motile, non-spore-forming rods. Growth was stimulated well by haemin, and was enhanced by cobalamin (vitamin B(12)). Strain WK042(T) utilized arabinose, xylose, glucose, mannose and aesculin as preferred substrates. Maltose, dextrin, glycogen, starch and pectin were also utilized, although growth on these substrates was much slower. The strain produced acetate, propionate and succinate from these saccharides. The strain was slightly alkaliphilic, with optimum growth at pH 7.7. The temperature range for growth was 10-40 degrees C, the optimum being 35 degrees C. The strain was sensitive to bile. The major cellular fatty acids were anteiso-C(15:0), iso-C(17: 0) 3-OH and C(15:0). Menaquinone 11 (MK-11) was the major respiratory quinone and the genomic DNA G+C content was 41.0 mol%. Phylogenetic analysis based on 16S rRNA gene sequences placed the strain in the phylum Bacteroidetes. Strain WK042(T) was related distantly to the type strains of species in the cluster including Bacteroides massiliensis, Bacteroides vulgatus and Bacteroides dorei (91-92% 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity). Based on data from the present phylogenetic, physiological and chemotaxonomic analyses, strain WK042(T) is considered to represent a novel species of the genus Bacteroides, for which the name Bacteroides paurosaccharolyticus sp. nov. is proposed. The type strain is WK042(T) (=JCM 15092(T) =DSM 21004(T)).

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