4.4 Article

Rhodococcus enclensis sp nov., a novel member of the genus Rhodococcus

出版社

MICROBIOLOGY SOC
DOI: 10.1099/ijs.0.061390-0

关键词

-

资金

  1. Council for Scientific and Industrial Research -National Chemical Laboratory, Pune
  2. Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), New Delhi

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A novel actinobacterial strain, designated, NIO-1009(T), was isolated from a marine sediment sample collected from Chorao Island, Goa, India. Phylogenetic analysis comparisons based on 16S rRNA gene sequences between strain MO-1009(T) and other members of the genus Rhodococcus revealed that strain NI0-1009(T) had the closest sequence similarity to Rhodococcus kroppenstedtii DSM 44908(T) and Rhodococcus corynebacterioides DSM 20151(T) with 99.2 and 99.1%, respectively. Furthermore, DNA-DNA hybridization results showed that R. kroppenstedtii DSM 44908(T) and R. corynebacterioides DSM 20151(T) were 39.5 (3.0%) and 41.7 (2.0%) with strain NIO-1009(T), respectively, which were well below the 70% limit for any novel species proposal. Phylogenetically strain NIO-1009(T) forms a stable clade with and R. kroppenstedtii DSM 44908(T) and R. corynebacterioides DSM 201511 with 100% bootstrap values. Strain NI-1009(T) contained meso-diaminopimelic acid as the diagnostic diamino acid and galactose and arabinose as the cell wall sugars. The major fatty acids were C-16:0, C-18:1 omega 9c, C-16:1(omega 6C and/or omega 7c) and 10-methyl C-18:0. The only menaquinone detected was MK-8(H-2), while the major polar lipids were diphosphatidylglycerol, phosphatidylethanolamine, phosphatidylglycerol, phosphatidylinositol, phosphatidylinositol mannoside and one unknown phospholipid. The G + C content of the genomic DNA was 66.9 molok. The phenotypic and genotypic data showed that strain NIO-1009(T) warrants recognition as a novel species of the genus Rhodococcus for which the name Rhodococcus enclensis sp. nov., is proposed; the type strain is NIO-1009(T) (=NCIM 5452(T)=DSM 45688(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