4.3 Article

Spathaspora brasiliensis sp. nov., Spathaspora suhii sp. nov., Spathaspora roraimanensis sp. nov. and Spathaspora xylofermentans sp. nov., four novel D- xylose-fermenting yeast species from Brazilian Amazonian forest

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10482-012-9822-z

关键词

New yeast species; Spathaspora; D-xylose-fermenting yeast; Rotting wood; Amazonian forest

资金

  1. Brazilian agencies Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq) [552877/2007-7, 551392/2010-0, 551245/2010-7, 560715/2010-2, 490029/2009-4]
  2. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES, Procad-NF) [2280/2008]
  3. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG)
  4. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP/BIOEN/FAPEMIG) [2008/57926-4]
  5. Fundacao de Apoio a Pesquisa Cientifica e Tecnologica do Estado de Santa Catarina (FAPESC) [17293/2009-6]
  6. Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Four new d-xylose fermenting yeast species of the clade Spathaspora were recovered from rotting-wood samples in a region of Amazonian forest, Northern Brazil. Three species produced unconjugated asci with a single elongated ascospore with curved ends. These species are described as Spathaspora brasiliensis, Spathaspora suhii and Spathaspora roraimanensis. Two isolates of an asexually reproducing species belonging to the Spathaspora clade were also obtained and they are described as Spathaspora xylofermentans. All these species are able to ferment d-xylose during aerobic batch growth in rich YP (1 % yeast extract, 2 % peptone and 2 % D-xylose) medium, albeit with differing efficiencies. The type strains are Spathaspora brasiliensis sp. nov UFMG-HMD19.3 (=CBMAI 1425=CBS 12679), Spathaspora suhii sp. nov. UFMG-XMD16.2 (=CBMAI 1426=CBS 12680), Spathaspora roraimanensis sp. nov. UFMG-XMD23.2 (CBMAI 1427=CBS 12681) and Spathaspora xylofermentans sp. nov. UFMG-HMD23.3 (=CBMAI 1428=CBS 12682).

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

4.3
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