4.4 Article

Bacillus swezeyi sp nov and Bacillus haynesii sp nov., isolated from desert soil

出版社

MICROBIOLOGY SOC
DOI: 10.1099/ijsem.0.002007

关键词

desert; soil

资金

  1. USDA [5010-22410-015-00-D]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two isolates of Gram-reaction-positive, facultatively anaerobic, motile, rod-shaped, endospore-forming bacteria were identified during a survey of the diversity of strains belonging to the genus Bacillus deposited in the Agriculture Research Service Culture Collection. These strains were originally isolated from soil in Evolution Canyon III (Israel) in a survey of ecological diversification. Phylogenetic analysis of the 16S rRNA gene of strains NRRL B-41294(T) and NRRL B-41327(T) determined they were closely related to members of the Bacillus licheniformis clade. The genome of each strain was sequenced, and further analysis indicated that the strains represented unique species based on in silico DNA-DNA hybridization analyses. A phylogenomic analysis revealed that NRRL B-41294(T) and NRRL B-41327(T) were closely related to the group that includes B. licheniformis. In phenotypic characterization, both NRRL B-41294(T) and NRRL B-41327(T) were found to grow at temperatures of between 15 and 60 degrees C and tolerated up to 12% NaCl (w/v). The predominant cellular fatty acids were anteiso-C-15:0 and iso-C-15:0, and peptidoglycan from cell walls contained meso-diaminopimelic acid. The DNA G+C content was 45.7 and 44.3 mol% for NRRL B-41327(T) and NRRL B-41294(T), respectively. Furthermore, each strain had a unique carbon utilization pattern that distinguished it from its nearest phylogenetic neighbours. Based upon the consensus of phylogenetic and phenotypic analyses, we conclude that these strains represent two novel species within the genus Bacillus, for which the name Bacillus swezeyi sp. nov. is proposed, with type strain NRRL B-41294(T) (=CCUG 70177(T)), and the name Bacillus haynesii sp. nov. is proposed, with type strain NRRL B-41327(T) (=CCUG 70178(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