4.5 Article

Micromonospora musae sp. nov., an endophytic actinomycete isolated from roots of Musa species

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.syapm.2019.126020

关键词

Micromonospora; Endophytic actinomycetes; Musa sp.; Average nucleotide identity

资金

  1. Thailand Research Fund
  2. Grant for International Research Integration: Research Pyramid, Ratchadaphiseksomphot Endowment Fund, Chulalongkorn University [GCURP_58_01_33_01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two novel actinobacterial strains, MS1-9(T) and NGC1-4, were isolated from roots of Musa (ABB) cv. 'Kluai Namwa', collected from Chachoengsao province, and Musa (ABB) cv. 'Kluai Chang', from Suphan Buri province, Thailand, respectively. Comparative analysis of 16S rRNA gene (98.0 to 98.9% similarity), gyrase subunit B (gyrB) gene and whole-genome sequences emphasised that the strains MS1-9(T) and NGC1-4 showed closely related with Micromonospora peucetia DSM 43363(T), M. krabiensis JCM 12869(T) and M. avicenniae DSM 45758(T), respectively. Strains MS1-9(T) and NGC1-4 contained meso-diaminopimelic acid in cell-wall peptidoglycan. Whole-cell sugars were glucose, xylose, mannose, and ribose. The acyl type of peptidoglycan was glycolyl. MK-10(H-6), MK-9(H-6), and MK-10(H-8) were presented as the major menaquinones. Diphosphatidylglycerol, phosphatidylethanolamine, phosphatidylglycerol, and phos-phatidylinositol were detected as predominant phospholipid profiles. The major cellular fatty acids consisted of iso-C-15:0, anteiso-C-1(5:0), anteiso-C-17:0, iso-C-17:0 and C-17:0. The DNA G + C content of strains MS1-9T and NGC1-4 were 72.2 and 72.3 mol%, respectively. Draft genome sequences indicated by ANI values and digital DNA-DNA hybridisation analysis asserted that the strains MS1-9(T) and NGC1-4 should be represented as a novel species within the genus Micromonospora for which the name Micromonospora musae sp. nov. is proposed. The type strain is MS1-9(T) (=JCM 32149(T) =TISTR 2659(T)). (C) 2019 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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