4.4 Article

Bifidobacterium kashiwanohense sp nov., isolated from healthy infant faeces

出版社

SOC GENERAL MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1099/ijs.0.024521-0

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Strains HM2-1 and HM2-2(T) were isolated from the faeces of a healthy infant and were characterized by determining their phenotypic and biochemical features and phylogenetic positions based on partial 16S rRNA gene sequence analysis. They were Gram-positive, obligately anaerobic, non-spore-forming, non-gas-producing, and catalase-negative non-motile rods. They did not grow at 15 or 45 degrees C in anaerobic bacterial culture medium, and their DNA G+C content was in the range 56-59 molok. In enzyme activity tests, strains HM2-1 and HM2-2(T) were positive for alpha/beta-galactosidases and alpha/beta-glucosidases but negative for beta-glucuronidase and cystine arylamidase. An analysis of the cell-wall composition of strains HM2-1 and HM2-2T revealed the presence of glutamic acid, alanine and lysine. The presence of fructose-6-phosphate phosphoketolase shows that isolates HM2-1 and HM2-2(T) are members of the genus Bifidobacterium. These two isolates belong to the same species of the genus Bifidobacterium. Strain HM2-2(T) was found to be related to Bifidobacterium catenulatum JCM 1194(T) (97.4% 16S rRNA gene sequence identity: 1480/1520 bp), Bifidobacterium pseudocatenulatum JCM 1200(T) (97.2%: 1472/1514 bp), Bifidobacterium dentium ATCC 27534(T) (96.7 %: 1459/1509 bp) and Bifidobacterium angulatum ATCC 27535(T) (965%: 1462/1515 bp). The predominant cellular fatty acids of strains HM2-1 and HM2-2(T) were 16:0 and 18:1 omega 9c, with proportions greater than 18% of the total. Phylogenetic analyses involving phenotypic characterization, DNA-DNA hybridization and partial 16S rRNA gene sequencing proves that the strains represent a novel species of the genus Bifidobacterium, for which the name Bifidobacterium kashiwanohense sp. nov. is proposed. The type strain is HM2-2(T) (=JCM 15439(T) =DSM 21854(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