4.5 Article

Molecular and morphological characterization of ten polar and near-polar strains within the Oscillatoriales (Cyanobacteria)

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYCOLOGY
卷 41, 期 2, 页码 421-438

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1529-8817.2005.04062.x

关键词

16S rRNA sequence; Arctic; Antarctic; cyanobacteria; Oscillatoriales; phylogeny; systematics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An approximately 1400-bp region of the 16S rRNA gene was sequenced for 10 polar or near-polar strains putatively placed in the Oscillatorialean genera Oscillatoria, Phormidium, and Lyngbya obtained from the University of Toronto Culture Collection to assess phylogenetic relationships. The strains were also examined for thylakoid structure and cell division type with TEM as well as traditional morphology with LM. Phylogenetic trees constructed using parsimony, distance, and maximum likelihood methods were similar in topology. If the original epithets applied to the sequenced strains (both polar and those from GenBank) were used, it was clear that taxa were not monophyletic. However, using the revised taxonomic system of Anagnostidis and Komarek, we were able to reassign these strains to their current correct taxa (species, genus, and family). When these assignments were made, it was determined that the molecular sequence data analyses were congruent with morphology and ultrastructure. Nine of the polar strains were found to be new species, and eight were described as such: Arthronema gygaxiana Casamatta et Johansen sp. nov., Pseudanabaena tremula Johansen et Casamatta sp. nov., Leptolyngbya angustata Casamatta et Johansen sp. nov., Phormidium lumbricale Johansen et Casamatta sp. nov., Microcoleus glaciei Johansen et Casamatta sp. nov., Microcoleus rushforthii Johansen et Casamatta sp. nov., Microcoleus antarcticus Casamatta et Johansen sp. nov., Microcoleus acremannii Casamatta et Johansen sp. nov. Some genera (Leptolyngbya and Microcoleus) were clearly not monophyletic and require future revision.

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

4.5
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