4.4 Article

Nocardioides deserti sp nov., an actinobacterium isolated from desert soil

出版社

MICROBIOLOGY SOC
DOI: 10.1099/ijs.0.000147

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Sciences Foundation of China (NSFC) [81172963, 81373308]
  2. Ministry of Science and Technology of China [2012ZX09301-002-001-018]
  3. Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Programme of Higher Education from the Ministry of Education of China (SRFDP) [20111106110032]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A rod- or coccus-shaped, non-spore-forming actinobacterium, designated strain SC8A-24(T), was isolated from a soil sample collected from the rhizosphere of Alhagi sparsifolia on the southern edge of the Taklimakan desert, Xinjiang, China, and examined by a polyphasic approach to clarify its taxonomic position. This actinobacterium was Gram-staining-positive and aerobic. Substrate and aerial mycelia were not observed, and no diffusible pigments were observed on the media tested. Strain SC8A-24(T) grew optimally without NaCl at 28-30 degrees C and pH 7.0-8.0. Phylogenetic analysis based on the 16S rRNA gene sequence indicated that strain SC8A-24(T) belonged to the genus Nocardioides and shared the highest 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity with Nocardioides salarius CL-Z59(T) (96.51 %), N. pyridinolyticus OS4(T) (96.43%) and N. ginsengagri BX5-10(T) (96.37%). The DNA G+C content of strain SC8A-24(T) was 71 mol%. The cell-wall peptidoglycan contained LL-2,6-diaminopimelic acid, and MK-8(H-4) was the predominant menaquinone. The major polar lipids were phosphatidylglycerol, diphosphatidylglycerol, an unidentified glycolipid and an unidentified phospholipid. The major fatty acids were C-17:1 omega 8c, 10-methyl C-17:0 and C-18:1 omega 9c. On the basis of phylogenetic analysis and phenotypic and chemotaxonomic characteristics, strain SC8A-24(T) represents a novel species of the genus Nocardioides, for which the name Nocardioides deserti sp. nov. is proposed. The type strain is SC8A-24(T) (=DSM 26045(T)=CGMCC 4.7183(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