4.4 Article

Methanocalculus chunghsingensis sp nov., isolated from an estuary and a marine fishpond in Taiwan

出版社

SOC GENERAL MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1099/ijs.0.02761-0

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Three novel halotolerant, hydrogenotrophic methanogens, designated strains K1F9705b(T) K1F9705c and O1F9704a, were isolated from an estuary in Eriln Shi, Taiwan, and from a nearby marine water aquaculture fishpond. These isolates were irregular cocci that stained Gram-negative. Strains K1F9705b(T) and K1F9705c were non-motile, but strain O1F9704a was weakly motile with flagella. They were able to use formate and H-2/CO2 to form methane, but they could not catabolize acetate, methanol, trimethylamine or secondary alcohols. Acetate was required for cell growth. Tungsten greatly stimulated the growth of strains K1F9705b(T) and K1F9705c, but did not affect the growth of strain O1F9704a. Optimal pH and temperature for growth of these three isolates were respectively 7(.)2 and 37 degreesC. Optimal NaCl concentration for growth was 0(.)5% for strain O1F9704a and 1(.)0% for strains K1F9705c and K1F9705b Moreover, all strains grew well at up to 8-12% NaCl. Analysis of the 16S rRNA gene revealed that these isolates are members of the genus Methanocalculus, but are distinct from Methanocalculus taiwanensis, Methanocalculus pumilus and Methanocalculus halotolerans, with sequence similarities of 98(.)4, 98(.)3 and 98(.)2%, respectively. In addition, strain K1F9705b(T) possessed 85, 80,37, 29 and 10% DNA-DNA relatedness to strain K1F9705c, strain O1F9704a, M. pumilus, M. halotolerans and M. taiwanensis, respectively. Analysis of protein profiles and the M-r of surface (S)-layer glycoprotein subunits showed that these three new isolates are closely related to, but distinct from, known Methanocalculus species. A novel species, Methanocalculus chunghsingensis sp. nov., is proposed for strains K1F9705b(T), K1F9705c and O1 F9704a. The type strain is K1F9705b(T) (= OCM 772(T) = DSM 14646(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