1887

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMATIC AND EVOLUTIONARY MICROBIOLOGY logo

Volume 74, Issue 5

sp. nov. and sp. nov., isolated from the Mekong River in Thailand No Access

Abstract

Four newly discovered Gram-stain-negative bacteria, designated as BL00010, BL00058, D8-11 and BL00200, were isolated from water samples collected at three hydrological monitoring stations (namely Chiang Saen, Chiang Khan and Nong Khai) located along the Mekong River in Thailand. An investigation encompassing phenotypic, chemotaxonomic and genomic traits was conducted. The results of phylogenetic analysis based on 16S rRNA gene sequences indicated that all four isolates represented members of the genus . These isolates were closely related to KCTC 62564 with a similarity of 99.59%. The major fatty acids of the four novel isolates included C and Cω7 and/or Cω6, whereas the major respiratory quinone was identified as ubiquinone Q-8. In addition, phosphatidylethanolamine was identified as a major polar lipid in these bacteria. The genomes of BL00010, BL00058, D8-11 and BL00200 were similar in size (3.88–4.01 Mbp) and DNA G+C contents (59.5, 59.3, 59.5 and 59.3 mol%, respectively). In contrast to KCTC 62564 and KCTC 32394, the newly discovered species possessed several genes involved in nitrite and nitrile metabolism, which may be related to their unique adaptation to nitrile-rich environments. From the results of the pairwise analysis of average nucleotide identity of the whole genome and digital DNA–DNA hybridisation, it was evident that BL00010 and D8-11 represented two novel species, for which we propose the nomenclature sp. nov., with the type strain BL00010 (TBRC 17198 = NBRC 116413), and sp. nov., with the type strain D8-11 (TBRC 17307 = NBRC 116415).

  • Received:
  • Accepted:
  • Published Online:
Keyword(s): Rhodoferax mekongensis sp. nov. , Rhodoferax potami sp. nov. and Thailand
Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • CAS-NSTDA Joint Research Program (Award P2051809)
    • Principle Award Recipient: SupawadeeIngsriswang
  • Lancang-Mekong Cooperation Special Fund (Award P2052658)
    • Principle Award Recipient: SupawadeeIngsriswang
© 2024 The Authors
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.006351
2024-05-03
2024-05-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Singh BK, Campbell CD, Sorenson SJ, Zhou J. Soil genomics. Nat Rev Microbiol 2009; 7:756 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Jousset A, Bienhold C, Chatzinotas A, Gallien L, Gobet A et al. Where less may be more: how the rare biosphere pulls ecosystems strings. ISME J 2017; 11:853–862 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Martínez-Santos M, Lanzén A, Unda-Calvo J, Martín I, Garbisu C et al. Treated and untreated wastewater effluents alter river sediment bacterial communities involved in nitrogen and sulphur cycling. Sci Total Environ 2018; 633:1051–1061 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Carpenter SR, Stanley EH, Vander Zanden MJ. State of the world’s freshwater ecosystems: physical, chemical, and biological changes. Annu Rev Environ Resour 2011; 36:75–99 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Coates DPO, Suntornratana U, Tung NT, Viravong S. Biodiversity and Fisheries in the Lower Mekong Basin; Phnom Penh: Mekong Development Series Phnom Penh, Cambodia: Mekong River Commission; 2003 p 30 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Hiraishi A. Phylogenetic affiliations of Rhodoferax fermentans and related species of phototrophic bacteria as determined by automated 16S rDNA sequencing. Curr Microbiol 1994; 28:25–29 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Zhou D, Tan X, Zhang W, Chen H-Y, Fan Q-M et al. Rhodoferax bucti sp. nov., isolated from fresh water. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2019; 69:3903–3909 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Parte AC. LPSN - List of Prokaryotic names with Standing in Nomenclature (bacterio.net), 20 years on. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2018; 68:1825–1829 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Jin C-Z, Zhuo Y, Wu X, Ko S-R, Li T et al. Genomic and metabolic insights into denitrification, sulfur oxidation, and multidrug efflux pump mechanisms in the bacterium Rhodoferax sediminis sp. nov. Microorganisms 2020; 8:262 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Kaden R, Spröer C, Beyer D, Krolla-Sidenstein P. Rhodoferax saidenbachensis sp. nov., a psychrotolerant, very slowly growing bacterium within the family Comamonadaceae, proposal of appropriate taxonomic position of Albidiferax ferrireducens strain T118T in the genus Rhodoferax and emended description of the genus Rhodoferax. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2014; 64:1186–1193 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Li T, Zhuo Y, Jin C-Z, Wu X, Ko S-R et al. Genomic insights into a novel species Rhodoferax aquaticus sp. nov., isolated from freshwater. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2020; 70:4653–4660 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Madigan MT, Jung DO, Woese CR, Achenbach LA. Rhodoferax antarcticus sp. nov., a moderately psychrophilic purple nonsulfur bacterium isolated from an Antarctic microbial mat. Arch Microbiol 2000; 173:269–277 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Park M, Song J, Nam GG, Cho J-C. Rhodoferax lacus sp. nov., isolated from a large freshwater lake. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2019; 69:3135–3140 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Ramana CV, Sasikala C. Albidoferax, a new genus of Comamonadaceae and reclassification of Rhodoferax ferrireducens (Finneran et al., 2003) as Albidoferax ferrireducens comb. nov. J Gen Appl Microbiol 2009; 55:301–304 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Risso C, Sun J, Zhuang K, Mahadevan R, DeBoy R et al. Genome-scale comparison and constraint-based metabolic reconstruction of the facultative anaerobic Fe(III)-reducer Rhodoferax ferrireducens. BMC Genom 2009; 10:447 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Finneran KT, Johnsen CV, Lovley DR. Rhodoferax ferrireducens sp. nov., a psychrotolerant, facultatively anaerobic bacterium that oxidizes acetate with the reduction of Fe(III). Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2003; 53:669–673 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Suriyachadkun C, Chunhametha S, Thawai C, Tamura T, Potacharoen W et al. Planotetraspora thailandica sp. nov., isolated from soil in Thailand. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2009; 59:992–997 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Kitikhun S, Siriarchawattana P, Chunhametha S, Suriyachadkun C, Rattanawaree P et al. Expanding actinomycetota diversity in the TBRC culture collection through metabarcoding and simulated in situ cultivation of Thailand’s Mekong river microbiota. Diversity 2023; 15:663 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Yukphan P, Potacharoen W, Tanasupawat S, Tanticharoen M, Yamada Y. Asaia krungthepensis sp. nov., an acetic acid bacterium in the α-Proteobacteria. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2004; 54:313–316 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Chun J, Oren A, Ventosa A, Christensen H, Arahal DR et al. Proposed minimal standards for the use of genome data for the taxonomy of prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2018; 68:461–466 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Katoh K, Standley DM. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usability. Mol Biol Evol 2013; 30:772–780 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Gascuel O. BIONJ: an improved version of the NJ algorithm based on a simple model of sequence data. Mol Biol Evol 1997; 14:685–695 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Felsenstein J. PHYLIP (phylogeny inference package), version 3.5 c. University of Washington; 1993
  24. Price MN, Dehal PS, Arkin AP. FastTree 2 – approximately maximum-likelihood trees for large alignments. PLoS One 2010; 5:e9490 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Stöver BC, Müller KF. TreeGraph 2: combining and visualizing evidence from different phylogenetic analyses. BMC Bioinform 2010; 11:7 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Lu H, Giordano F, Ning Z. Oxford nanopore MinION sequencing and genome assembly. Genom Proteom Bioinform 2016; 14:265–279 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Wingett SW, Andrews S. FastQ screen: a tool for multi-genome mapping and quality control. F1000Res 2018; 7:1338 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Li H. Seqtk: a fast and lightweight tool for processing FASTA or FASTQ sequences; 2012
  29. Kolmogorov M, Yuan J, Lin Y, Pevzner PA. Assembly of long, error-prone reads using repeat graphs. Nat Biotechnol 2019; 37:540–546 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Parks DH, Imelfort M, Skennerton CT, Hugenholtz P, Tyson GW. CheckM: assessing the quality of microbial genomes recovered from isolates, single cells, and metagenomes. Genome Res 2015; 25:1043–1055 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Lee I, Chalita M, Ha SM, Na SI, Yoon SH et al. ContEst16S: an algorithm that identifies contaminated prokaryotic genomes using 16S RNA gene sequences. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2017; 67:2053–2057 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Antipov D, Raiko M, Lapidus A, Pevzner PA. Plasmid detection and assembly in genomic and metagenomic data sets. Genome Res 2019; 29:961–968 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Richter M, Rosselló-Móra R, Oliver Glöckner F, Peplies J. JSpeciesWS: a web server for prokaryotic species circumscription based on pairwise genome comparison. Bioinformatics 2016; 32:929–931 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Meier-Kolthoff JP, Auch AF, Klenk H-P, Göker M. Genome sequence-based species delimitation with confidence intervals and improved distance functions. BMC Bioinform 2013; 14:60 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Kim J, Na S-I, Kim D, Chun J. UBCG2: up-to-date bacterial core genes and pipeline for phylogenomic analysis. J Microbiol 2021; 59:609–615 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Stamatakis A. RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics 2014; 30:1312–1313 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Seemann T. Prokka: rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics 2014; 30:2068–2069 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Seemann T, Booth T. Barrnap: basic rapid ribosomal RNA predictor; 2018
  39. Cantalapiedra CP, Hernández-Plaza A, Letunic I, Bork P, Huerta-Cepas J. eggNOG-mapper V2: functional annotation, orthology assignments, and domain prediction at the metagenomic scale. Mol Biol Evol 2021; 38:5825–5829 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Kanehisa M, Furumichi M, Tanabe M, Sato Y, Morishima K. KEGG: new perspectives on genomes, pathways, diseases and drugs. Nucleic Acids Res 2017; 45:D353–D361 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Barrow GI. Cowan and Steel’s Manual for the Identification of Medical Bacteria, 3rd edn Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1993 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Komagata K, Suzuki K-I. 4 Lipid and cell-wall analysis in bacterial systematics. In Colwell RR, Grigorova R. eds Methods in Microbiology vol 19 Academic Press; 1988 pp 161–207 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Sasser M. Identification of bacteria by gas chromatography of cellular fatty acids. In MIDI Technical Note vol 101 Newark, DE: MIDI inc; 1990
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Folch J, Lees M, Sloane Stanley GH. A simple method for the isolation and purification of total lipides from animal tissues. J Biol Chem 1957; 226:497–509 [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Khoomrung S, Chumnanpuen P, Jansa-Ard S, Ståhlman M, Nookaew I et al. Rapid quantification of yeast lipid using microwave-assisted total lipid extraction and HPLC-CAD. Anal Chem 2013; 85:4912–4919 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Větrovský T, Baldrian P. The variability of the 16S rRNA gene in bacterial genomes and its consequences for bacterial community analyses. PLoS One 2013; 8:e57923 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Richter M, Rosselló-Móra R. Shifting the genomic gold standard for the prokaryotic species definition. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2009; 106:19126–19131 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Rosselló-Móra R, Amann R. Past and future species definitions for Bacteria and Archaea. Syst Appl Microbiol 2015; 38:209–216 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Kim S, Kang I, Seo JH, Cho JC. Culturing the ubiquitous freshwater actinobacterial acI lineage by supplying a biochemical “helper” catalase. ISME J 2019; 13:2252–2263 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Chang JD, Vaughan EE, Liu CG, Jelinski JW, Terwilliger AL et al. Metabolic profiling reveals nutrient preferences during carbon utilization in Bacillus species. Sci Rep 2021; 11:23917 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.006351
Loading
Rhodoferax potami sp. nov. and Rhodoferax mekongensis sp. nov., isolated from the Mekong River in Thailand
Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 74, 006351 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1099/ijsem.0.006351
/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.006351
/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.006351
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary material 1

PDF

Most cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error