4.4 Article

Bacillus acidiceler sp nov., isolated from a forensic specimen, containing Bacillus anthracis pX02 genes

出版社

SOC GENERAL MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1099/ijs.0.64993-0

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research at the Center for Biological Defense identified plasmid-borne forms of Bacillus anthracis pXO2 genes in a Gram-positive, endospore-forming rod, isolated from a forensic specimen considered a credible threat of harbouring anthrax. Conventional, commercial and molecular-based methods indicated that the isolate (CBD 119(T)) was not B. anthracis and considered not to be a member of the Bacillus cereus group. Based on the 16S rRNA gene sequence similarities, strain CBD 119(T) was most closely related to Bacillus fuciferensis LMG 18422(T) (99.3%). Phenotyping and fatty acid methyl ester analysis of the isolate were conducted alongside B. luciferensis JCM 12212(T). The major cellular fatty acids (anteiso-C-15:0, iso-C-15:0, and >7 iso or anteiso forms) supported inclusion of the isolate in the genus Bacillus. Strain CBD 119(T) was inconsistent with B. luciferensis JCM 12212(T) for 18 of 96 traits evaluated including motility, degree of enclospore-driven swelling and pH optimum; the two were linked by fatty acid methyl ester analysis as separate but closely related species. DNA-DNA relatedness between strain CBD 119(T) and B. fuciferensis JCM 12212(T) resulted in less than 20% hybridization. The results of biochemical and physiological characterization, chemotaxonomic analysis and DNA-DNA hybridization differentiated strain CBD 119(T) both phenotypically and genotypically from the only species with validly published name with greater than 97 % 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity. The isolate has an accelerated doubling time when grown in aerated broth at pH 5.9 relative to that at pH 7.1. Therefore, it is proposed that strain CBD 119(T) represents a novel species, Bacillus acidiceler sp. nov. The type strain is strain CBID 119(T) (=NRRL B-41736(T) =DSM 18954(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