4.4 Article

Campylobacter canadensis sp nov., from captive whooping cranes in Canada

出版社

MICROBIOLOGY SOC
DOI: 10.1099/ijs.0.65061-0

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ten isolates of an unknown Campylobacter species were isolated from cloacal swabs obtained from captive adult whooping cranes (Grus americana). All isolates were identified as Campylobacter based on generic PCR and grouped with other Campylobacter species based on 23S rRNA gene sequence. None of the isolates could be identified by species-specific PCR for known taxa, and all ten isolates formed a robust clade that was very distinct from known Campylobacter species based on 16S rRNA, rpoB and cpn60 gene sequences. The results of 16S rRNA gene nucleoticle sequence (<= 92 % sequence similarity to recognized Campylobacter species) and genomic DNA (no detectable relatedness) analyses were consistent with novel species status. Cells of the Campylobacter from whooping cranes were uniflagellar and typically sigmoid to allantoid in shape (0.48 mu m wide and 2.61 mu m long), but also spheroid to coccoid (0.59 mu m wide and 0.73 pm long). The bacterium was oxidase-positive, able to reduce nitrite, able to grow at 37 degrees and 42 degrees C, and grew anaerobically, as well as in an atmosphere devoid of H-2, and on MacConkey agar. It was not alpha-haemolytic and was negative for hippurate and indoxyl acetate hydrolysis and alkaline phosphatase. It also was susceptible to cephalotin and was unable to grow on nutrient agar, on a medium containing 3.5% NaCl or in ambient O-2. The bacterium was unable to grow at 25 degrees C and growth was negative or very restricted at 30 degrees C. Fluorescent amplified fragment length polymorphism analysis indicated that nine of the recovered isolates were genetically distinct. A species-specific primer set targeting the cpn60 gene was developed. The name Campylobacter canadensis sp. nov. is proposed for the novel species, with the type strain L266(T) (=CCUG 54429(T) =LMG 24001(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