4.1 Review

Pneumocystis and Trypanosoma cruzi: Nomenclature and typifications

期刊

JOURNAL OF EUKARYOTIC MICROBIOLOGY
卷 53, 期 1, 页码 2-11

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1550-7408.2005.00072.x

关键词

Chagas' disease; CL brener; neo- and lectotypes; P. jirovecii; PCP; phylogeny; Pneumocystis carinii; Schizotrypanum; Trypanosoma cruzi; validation; Vienna Code

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Published phylogenetic reclassifications of Pneumocystisas a fungus resulted in a nomenclatural shift from the Zoological Code to the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. The same may be true for all microsporidians and Sundry other organisms. This resulted in the invalidation of names and subsequently precipitated changes to the botanical code to accommodate Pneumocystis and microsporidian names. The repercussions following application of the 2005 Vienna Code to Pneumocystis nomenclature are detailed. Validity of the name for the human pathogen, Pneumocystis jirovecii, is re-established front its 1976 publication under the Zoological Code, contrary to interpretation of validity under earlier botanical codes. Pneuniocystisis jirovecii is lectotypified and epitypified. The rat parasite. Pneumocystis carinii. is neotypified, separating it front Pneumocystis wakefieldiae. The original 1909 description of Trypanosoma cruzi, type species for Schizotrypanum and causal agent of Chagas' disease, included parts of the life cycle of Pneumocystis. Trypanosoma cruzi is neotypified by the true Trypanosoma elements, thereby completing the nomenclatural separation from Pneumocystisis and ensuring that Schizotrypanum is not applicable to Pneumocystis as an earlier name. The neotypes for P. carinii and T. cruzi represent the strains currently being investigated by their two respective genome projects. They were selected in light of their medical importance, physiological characterizations, and absence of lectotypifiable materials. The classification and nomenclature of Pneumocystis is reviewed and guidelines given for the publication of new species.

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

4.1
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