4.4 Article

Rhodococcus cerastii sp nov and Rhodococcus trifolii sp nov., two novel species isolated from leaf surfaces

出版社

MICROBIOLOGY SOC
DOI: 10.1099/ijs.0.044958-0

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two Gram-positive, non-endospore-forming rods, strains C5(T) and T8(T), were isolated from the phyllospheres of Cerastium holosteoides and Trifolium repens, respectively, and were studied in detail for their taxonomic position. 16S rRNA gene sequence analysis allocated both isolates clearly to the genus Rhodococcus. Isolate C5(T) was most closely related to Rhodococcus fascians and Rhodococcus yunnanensis, showing 99.2% gene sequence similarity to both species. Strain T8(T) revealed the highest 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity to Rhodococcus corynebacterioides (98.8%) and Rhodococcus kroppenstedtii (98.6%). The quinone system of both strains was composed of dihydrogenated menaquinones with eight (major amount) as well as nine, seven and six isoprenoid units (MK-8H(2), MK-9H(2) MK-7H(2) MK-6H(2)).The polar lipid profiles of strains C5(T) and T8(T) consisted of diphosphatidylglycerol, phosphatidylethanolamine, phosphatidylglycerol, phosphatidylinositol, phosphatidylinositol mannoside and one unknown phospholipid. Additionally, strain C5(T) contained one unknown glycolipid, and strain T8(T) three unknown aminolipids. The fatty acid profiles contained major amounts of C-16:0, C-18:1 omega 9c and 10-methyl C-18:0, which supported the grouping of the two isolates in the genus Rhodococcus. Physiological/biochemical characterization and DNA-DNA hybridizations with the type strains of the most closely related species allowed a clear phenotypic and genotypic differentiation of both strains. For this reason, we propose strain C5(T) (=LMG 26203(T) =CCM 7906(T)) as the type strain of a novel species with the name Rhodococcus cerastii sp. nov., and strain T8(T) (=LMG 26204(T) =CCM 7905(T)) as the type strain of a second novel species with the name Rhodococcus trifolii sp. nov.

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