- Volume 53, Issue 4, 2003
Volume 53, Issue 4, 2003
- Evolution, Phylogeny And Biodiversity
-
-
-
Reclassification of ATCC 9341 from Micrococcus luteus to Kocuria rhizophila
More LessStrain ATCC 9341, currently known as Micrococcus luteus, has been designated as a quality-control strain in a number of applications. It is also cited as the standard culture in several official methods and manuals, as well as the Code of Federal Regulations. Over the years, it has become apparent that ATCC 9341 does not resemble other M. luteus strains; however, its phenotypic characteristics alone were ambiguous. Recently, a polyphasic study was performed in which molecular data were combined with cytochemical properties and physiological characteristics. The results clearly indicate that ATCC 9341 is a member of the genus Kocuria. Thus, it is proposed to reclassify ATCC 9341 as Kocuria rhizophila and to alert users worldwide of this name change.
-
-
-
-
Phylogeny of the photosynthetic euglenophytes inferred from the nuclear SSU and partial LSU rDNA
More LessPrevious studies using the nuclear SSU rDNA have indicated that the photosynthetic euglenoids are a monophyletic group; however, some of the genera within the photosynthetic lineage are not monophyletic. To test these results further, evolutionary relationships among the photosynthetic genera were investigated by obtaining partial LSU nuclear rDNA sequences. Taxa from each of the external clades of the SSU rDNA-based phylogeny were chosen to create a combined dataset and to compare the individual LSU and SSU rDNA datasets. Conserved areas of the aligned sequences for both the LSU and SSU rDNA were used to generate parsimony, log-det, maximum-likelihood and Bayesian trees. The SSU and LSU rDNA consistently generated the same seven terminal clades; however, the relationship among those clades varied depending on the type of analysis and the dataset used. The combined dataset generated a more robust phylogeny, but the relationships among clades still varied. The addition of the LSU rDNA dataset to the euglenophyte phylogeny supports the view that the genera Euglena, Lepocinclis and Phacus are not monophyletic and substantiates the existence of several well-supported clades. A secondary structural model for the D2 region of the LSU rDNA was proposed on the basis of compensatory base changes found in the alignment.
-
-
-
Emended phenotypic characterization of Prototheca zopfii: a proposal for three biotypes and standards for their identification
More LessA representative selection of Prototheca zopfii strains isolated from different environmental habitats or clinical cases was characterized in a polyphasic approach in order to assess their intraspecies taxonomic position. Recently, the recognition of distinct phenotypic clusters has been reported as the assignment of ‘variants’. In the present study, 11 strains were compared by a number of phenotypic and genetic criteria, including growth characteristics, biochemical reactions and serotyping results. Based on emended standards for biotype identification, P. zopfii strains showed auxanographic differences and distinct assimilation patterns with respect to utilization of amino acids and glycerol. Serotyping by means of immunoblotting revealed that all isolates of variant II obtained from clinical cases, i.e. isolates from bovine mastitis or from human enteropathia, showed specific antigen patterns. They were found to be different from strains assigned to the other two variants with respect to their immunogenic antigens. Furthermore, comparison of partial 18S rDNA sequences confirmed distinct differences between the former variants. Based on these results, it is proposed that P. zopfii merits classification as a species comprising three biotypes.
-
- International Committee On Systematics Of Prokaryotes
-
- Request For An Opinion
-
-
Description of new Ensifer strains from nodules and proposal to transfer Ensifer adhaerens Casida 1982 to Sinorhizobium as Sinorhizobium adhaerens comb. nov. Request for an Opinion
A group of four diverse rhizobial isolates and two soil isolates that are highly related to Ensifer adhaerens were characterized by a polyphasic approach. On the basis of DNA–DNA hybridizations and phenotypic features, these strains cannot be distinguished clearly form Ensifer adhaerens, a soil bacterium that was described in 1982, mainly on the basis of phenotypic characteristics. Phylogenetically, Ensifer and Sinorhizobium form a single group in the 16S rDNA dendrogram of the α-Proteobacteria, as well as in an analysis of partial recA gene sequences. They may therefore be regarded as a single genus. Because Sinorhizobium was proposed in 1988, according to the Bacteriological Code (1990 Revision) the older name, Ensifer, has priority. However, there are several reasons why a change from Sinorhizobium to Ensifer may not be the best solution and making an exception to Rule 38 may be more appropriate. We therefore propose the species Sinorhizobium adhaerens comb. nov. and put forward a Request for an Opinion to the Judicial Commission regarding the conservation of Sinorhizobium adhaerens over Ensifer adhaerens.
-
Volumes and issues
-
Volume 74 (2024)
-
Volume 73 (2023)
-
Volume 72 (2022 - 2023)
-
Volume 71 (2020 - 2021)
-
Volume 70 (2020)
-
Volume 69 (2019)
-
Volume 68 (2018)
-
Volume 67 (2017)
-
Volume 66 (2016)
-
Volume 65 (2015)
-
Volume 64 (2014)
-
Volume 63 (2013)
-
Volume 62 (2012)
-
Volume 61 (2011)
-
Volume 60 (2010)
-
Volume 59 (2009)
-
Volume 58 (2008)
-
Volume 57 (2007)
-
Volume 56 (2006)
-
Volume 55 (2005)
-
Volume 54 (2004)
-
Volume 53 (2003)
-
Volume 52 (2002)
-
Volume 51 (2001)
-
Volume 50 (2000)
-
Volume 49 (1999)
-
Volume 48 (1998)
-
Volume 47 (1997)
-
Volume 46 (1996)
-
Volume 45 (1995)
-
Volume 44 (1994)
-
Volume 43 (1993)
-
Volume 42 (1992)
-
Volume 41 (1991)
-
Volume 40 (1990)
-
Volume 39 (1989)
-
Volume 38 (1988)
-
Volume 37 (1987)
-
Volume 36 (1986)
-
Volume 35 (1985)
-
Volume 34 (1984)
-
Volume 33 (1983)
-
Volume 32 (1982)
-
Volume 31 (1981)
-
Volume 30 (1980)
-
Volume 29 (1979)
-
Volume 28 (1978)
-
Volume 27 (1977)
-
Volume 26 (1976)
-
Volume 25 (1975)
-
Volume 24 (1974)
-
Volume 23 (1973)
-
Volume 22 (1972)
-
Volume 21 (1971)
-
Volume 20 (1970)
-
Volume 19 (1969)
-
Volume 18 (1968)
-
Volume 17 (1967)
-
Volume 16 (1966)
-
Volume 15 (1965)
-
Volume 14 (1964)
-
Volume 13 (1963)
-
Volume 12 (1962)
-
Volume 11 (1961)
-
Volume 10 (1960)
-
Volume 9 (1959)
-
Volume 8 (1958)
-
Volume 7 (1957)
-
Volume 6 (1956)
-
Volume 5 (1955)
-
Volume 4 (1954)
-
Volume 3 (1953)
-
Volume 2 (1952)
-
Volume 1 (1951)