4.6 Article

Mediterraneibacter catenae SW178 sp. nov., an intestinal bacterium of feral chicken

期刊

PEERJ
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PEERJ INC
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.11050

关键词

Mediterraneibacter catenae; Gut microbiome; Culturomics; Feral chicken; Taxonogenomic; Novel species

资金

  1. USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture [SD00H532-14, SD00R540-15]
  2. South Dakota Governor's Office of Economic Development
  3. Mahidol University
  4. Science Achievement Scholarship of Thailand

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Strain SW178, a novel species belonging to the genus Mediterraneibacter, was isolated from the cecum content of feral chickens in Brookings, South Dakota, USA. The genome size of strain SW178 is 3.18 Mbp with a G+C content of 46.9 mol%, and it grows optimally at 45 degrees Celsius. The strain utilizes various carbon sources for growth and has unique fatty acid composition.
A Gram-positive, coccobacillus, white raised and circular with an entire edge colony, and obligately anaerobic bacterium, strain SW178 was isolated from the cecum content of feral chickens in Brookings, South Dakota, USA. The most closely related strain based on 16S rRNA gene sequence analysis of strain SW178 was Mediterraneibacter torques ATCC 27756(T) (Ruminococcus torques ATCC 27756(T)) with 96.94% similarity. The genome of strain SW178 is 3.18 Mbp with G+C content of 46.9 mol%. The optimal temperature and pH for growth in modified brain heart infusion (BHI-M) medium were 45 degrees C and pH 7.5, respectively. The sole carbon sources of the strain were dextrin, L-fucose, D-galacturonic, alpha-D-glucose, L-rhamnose and D-sorbitol. The primary cellular fatty acids were C-14 : 0, C-16 : 0 and C-16 : 0 dimethyl acetal (DMA). Based on the genotypic and phenotypic comparison, we proposed that strain SW178 belong to the genus Mediterraneibacter in the family Lachnospiraceae as a novel species, in which the name Mediterraneibacter catenae is proposed. The type strain is SW178 (= DSM 109242(T) = CCOS 1886(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

4.6
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