4.4 Article

Microbacterium lemovicicum sp nov., a bacterium isolated from a natural uranium-rich soil

出版社

MICROBIOLOGY SOC
DOI: 10.1099/ijs.0.048454-0

关键词

-

资金

  1. CEA through Toxicologie Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An actinobacterial strain, designated ViU22(T), was isolated from a natural uranium-rich soil and was studied using a polyphasic approach. Cells formed orange-pigmented colonies, were rod-shaped, Gram-positive (non-staining method), non-motile and non-spore-forming. This organism grew in 0-4.5 % (w/v) NaCl and at 15-37 degrees C, with optimal growth occurring in 0.5% (w/v) NaCI and at 30 degrees C. Comparative 16S rRNA gene sequence analysis revealed that the strain ViU22(T) belonged to the genus Microbacterium. It exhibited highest 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity with the type strains of Microbacterium testaceum (98.14 %) and Microbacterium binotil (98.02 %). The DNA-DNA relatedness of strains ViU22(T) with the most closely related type strains Microbacterium testaceum and Microbacterium binotii DSM 19164(T) was 20.10% (+/- 0.70) and 28.05% (+/-0.35), respectively. Strain ViU22(T) possessed a type 82 beta peptidoglycan with partial substitution of glutamic acid by 3-hydroxy glutamic acid. The major menaquinones were MK-11 and MK-12. Major polar lipids detected in the strain ViU22(T) were diphosphatidylglycerol, phosphatidylglycerol, an unknown phospholipid and unknown glycolipids. The predominant fatty acids were anteiso-C-16:0, anteiso-C-17:0 and iso-C-16:0, a pattern reported for other Microbacterium species. The major cell-wall sugars were galactose, xylose and mannose and the DNA G+C content was 71 molok. Together, the DNA DNA hybridization results and the differentiating phenotypic characteristics, showed that strain ViU22(T) should be classified as the type strain of a novel species within the genus Microbacterium, for which the name Microbacterium lemovicicum sp. nov. is proposed. The type strain is ViU22T (=ATCC BAA-2396T=CCUG 62198T=DSM 25044T).

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