4.4 Article

Treponema peruense sp. nov., a commensal spirochaete isolated from human faeces

出版社

MICROBIOLOGY SOC
DOI: 10.1099/ijsem.0.005050

关键词

faeces; gut; human; microbiome; spirochaete; Treponema

资金

  1. Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek -Vlaanderen [FWO G0B7320N]
  2. FWO [11ZF416N, 1234321, 1221620 N]
  3. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
  4. Rega Institute for Medical Research
  5. Vlaams Instituut voor Biotechnologie

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A novel Treponema species, named Treponema peruense, was isolated from the fecal sample of an individual residing in a remote Amazonian community in Peru. This bacterium represents the first commensal Treponema isolated from human fecal microbiota of remote populations.
A Gram-stain-negative, obligatory anaerobic spirochaete (RCC2812(T)) was isolated from a faecal sample obtained from an individual residing in a remote Amazonian community in Peru. The bacterium showed highest 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity to the pig intestinal spirochete Treponema succinifaciens (89.48 %). Average nucleotide identity values between strain RCC2812(T) and all available Treponema genomes from validated type strains were all <73 %, thus clearly lower than the species delineation threshold. The DNA G+C content of RCC2812(T) was 41.24 mol%. Phenotypic characterization using the API-ZYM and API 20A systems confirmed the divergent position of this bacterium within the genus Treponema. Strain RCC2812(T) could be differentiated from the phylogenetically most closely related T. succinifaciens by the presence of alkaline phosphatase and alpha-glucosidase activities. Unlike T. succinifaciens, strain RCC2812(T) grew equally well with or without serum. Strain RCC2812(T) is the first commensal Treponema isolated from the human faecal microbiota of remote populations, and based on the collected data represents a novel Treponema species for which the name Treponema peruense sp. nov. is proposed. The type strain is RCC2812(T) (=LMG 31794(T)=CIP 111910(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