4.7 Article

Validation of 16S rRNA and Complete rpoB Gene Sequence Analysis for the Identification of Elizabethkingia Species

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms241613007

关键词

species identification; phylogenetic analysis; Elizabethkingia miricola cluster

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bacteria in the genus Elizabethkingia have been identified as a cause of life-threatening infections in humans. In this study, the accuracy of 16S rRNA and rpoB gene sequences in identifying Elizabethkingia species was evaluated. The analysis showed that the complete rpoB gene sequencing is a useful marker for accurate identification of Elizabethkingia species.
Bacteria in the genus Elizabethkingia have emerged as a cause of life-threatening infections in humans. However, accurate species identification of these pathogens relies on molecular techniques. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy of 16S rRNA and complete RNA polymerase beta-subunit (rpoB) gene sequences in identifying Elizabethkingia species. A total of 173 Elizabethkingia strains with whole-genome sequences in GenBank were included. The 16S rRNA gene and rpoB gene sequences from the same Elizabethkingia strains were examined. Of the 41 E. meningoseptica strains, all exhibited >99.5% 16S rRNA similarity to its type strain. Only 83% of the 99 E. anophelis strains shared >99.5% 16S rRNA gene similarity with its type strain. All strains of E. meningoseptica and E. anophelis formed a cluster distinct from the other Elizabethkingia species in the 16S rRNA and rpoB gene phylogenetic trees. The polymorphisms of 16S rRNA gene sequences are not sufficient for constructing a phylogenetic tree to discriminate species in the E. miricola cluster (E. miricola, E. bruuniana, E. occulta, and E. ursingii). The complete rpoB gene phylogenetic tree clearly delineates all strains of Elizabethkingia species. The complete rpoB gene sequencing could be a useful complementary phylogenetic marker for the accurate identification of Elizabethkingia species.

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

4.7
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