| Literature DB >> 28853681 |
Anja Poehlein1, Natalya Yutin2, Rolf Daniel1, Michael Y Galperin2.
Abstract
Several strictly anaerobic bacteria that are Gram-stain-positive have the ability to use uric acid as the sole source of carbon and energy. The phylogeny of three such species, Clostridium acidurici, Clostridium purinilyticum, and Eubacterium angustum, members of the Clostridium cluster XII that ferment purines, but not most amino acids or carbohydrates, has been re-examined, taking advantage of their recently sequenced genomes. Phylogenetic analyses, based on 16S rRNA gene sequences, protein sequences of RpoB and GyrB, and on a concatenated alignment of 50 ribosomal proteins, revealed tight clustering of C. acidurici and C. purinilyticum. Eubacterium angustum showed consistent association with C. acidurici and C. purinilyticum , but differed from these two in terms of the genome size, G+C content of its chromosomal DNA and its inability to form spores. We propose reassigning C. acidurici and C. purinilyticum to the novel genus Gottschalkia as Gottschalkia acidurici gen. nov. comb. nov. (the type species of the genus) and Gottschalkia purinilytica comb. nov., respectively. Eubacterium angustum is proposed to be reclassified as Andreesenia angusta gen. nov. comb. nov. Furthermore, based on the phylogenetic data and similar metabolic properties, we propose assigning genera Gottschalkia and Andreesenia to the novel family Gottschalkiaceae. Metagenomic sequencing data indicate the widespread distibution of organisms falling within the radiation of the proposed family Gottschalkiaceae in terrestrial and aquatic habitats from upstate New York to Antarctica, most likely due to their ability to metabolize avian-produced uric acid.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28853681 PMCID: PMC5737214 DOI: 10.1099/ijsem.0.002008
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Syst Evol Microbiol ISSN: 1466-5026 Impact factor: 2.747
Fig. 1.16S rRNA gene-based phylogenetic tree of and related organisms and metagenomic samples. The names of the characterized members of the proposed genera Gottschalkia and Andreesenia are shown in bold in square brackets. The sequences from type strains (indicated with T) were used and listed under their DSM accession numbers; where available. GenBank accession numbers are listed in parentheses. Roman numerals on the right indicate the clostridial cluster assignments of Collins et al. [4]. , and are the recently assigned names of formerly misclassified spp. [45, 46]. The tree was inferred using the neighborhood-joining method, based on the Tamura-Nei model [47] as implemented in mega7 [15]. The evolutionary distances were computed using the Jukes-Cantor method and are in the units of the number of base substitutions per site. The tree was rooted using sequences from and , which are members of (cluster I).
Fig. 2.Ribosomal protein-based phylogenetic tree of and related species. Members of the proposed genera Gottschalkia and Andreesenia are shown in bold. Roman numerals on the right indicate the clostridial cluster assignments of Collins et al. [4]. The tree was reconstructed essentially as described previously [9, 22]. Fifty sets of ribosomal proteins (L1–L7, L9–L11, L13–L24, L27–L29, L31–L36 and S2–S20) were extracted from the respective genomic entries (listed in Table S1) and aligned using muscle [48]; gapped columns (with more than 30 % of gaps) and columns with low information content were removed from the alignments. Individual ribosomal protein alignments were concatenated, giving a total of 6238 positions, and a maximum-likelihood tree was reconstructed using the PhyML program [49], the latest version of which (http://www.atgc-montpellier.fr/phyml-sms/) includes automatic selection of the best-fit substitution model for a given alignment and calculation of branch support values using aBayes algorithm [50]. The tree was rooted using the sequences from and .
Characteristics of , and , members of the proposed novel genera Gottschalkia and Andreesenia
1, 9aT=DSM 604T [16, 29]; 2, WA-1T=DSM 1384T [16, 43]; 3, MK-1T=DSM 1989T [27, 28]; 4, ATCC 25539T or KRE 4T=DSM 69113T [8, 12, 19, 51]; 5, BOR-YT=DSM 12858T=ATCC BAA-502T [20]; 6, C5BELT=DSM 23801T or sp. ND1=DSM 27308 [21, 52]; 7, DSM 10521T [53, 54]; 8, HC1T=DSM 605T [16, 29, 55–57]. ± , weak or variable reaction; nd, no available data.
| Genome size (kb) | 3108 | 3397 | 2405 | 3116 | 3198 | 3217 | 2720 | ||
| Proteins encoded | 2774 | 3135 | 2397 | 2957 | 3054 | 2863 | 1879 | ||
| DNA G+C (mol%) | 29.9 | 28.8 | 43.7 | 30.1 | 43 | 29.7 | 32.8 | 27.9 | |
| Cell width (µm) | 0.5–0.7 | 1.1–1.6 | 1.0–1.5 | 0.6–0.9 | 0.5–0.7 | 0.5–1.0 | 0.5–0.7 | 0.8 | |
| Cell length (µm) | 2.5–4.0 | 2.7–9.6 | 3.0–6.5 | 2–8 | 2–11 | 3–20 | 0.5–7.0 | 3.3 | |
| Gram staining | + | + | + | ± | + | + | – | ± | |
| Flagella | + | + | + | ± | + | + | + | + | |
| Spore formation | + | + | – | ± | + | + | + | + | |
| Optimal temperature for growth ( | 31–37 | 36 | 37 | 37 | 30–37 | 40 | 37 | 40–45 | |
| Optimal pH for growth | 7.6–8.1 | 7.3–7.8 | 8.0–8.2 | 7.5 | 7.0 | 7.5 | 7.0 | 7.0–8.0 | |
| Hydrolysis of | |||||||||
| Gelatin | – | – | – | ± | – | + | – | – | |
| Starch | – | – | – | – | + | – | – | ||
| Utilization of purines | |||||||||
| Adenine | – | + | – | – | – | ||||
| Adenosine | – | + | –* | – | |||||
| Guanine | + | + | + | + | |||||
| 2-Hydroxypurine | + | + | –* | – | |||||
| Hypoxanthine | + | + | –† | + | |||||
| Purine | + | + | –* | – | |||||
| Uric acid | + | + | + | – | + | ||||
| Xanthine | + | + | + | – | + | ||||
| Xanthosine | – | + | –* | – | |||||
| Utilization of sugars | |||||||||
| | – | – | –* | – | + | – | – | – | |
| Cellobiose | – | – | –* | – | + | – | – | – | |
| | – | – | –* | – | + | – | – | – | |
| | – | – | –* | – | + | – | – | – | |
| | – | – | –* | – | + | + | + | – | |
| Lactose | – | – | –* | – | + | + | – | – | |
| Maltose | – | – | –* | – | + | – | – | – | |
| | – | – | –* | – | + | + | – | – | |
| | – | – | –* | – | + | – | – | – | |
| | – | – | –* | – | + | – | – | – | |
| | – | – | –* | – | + | – | – | ||
| Sucrose | – | – | –* | – | + | – | – | – | |
| | – | – | –* | – | + | – | – | ||
| Enzymes | |||||||||
| Catalase | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| Lecithinase | – | – | – | – | – | ||||
| Lipase | – | – | – | – | – | ||||
| Urease | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | ||
| Production of | |||||||||
| Acetate | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |
| Butyrate | – | – | – | + | + | – | – | ||
| Formate | + | + | + | – | + | – | + | + | |
| CO2 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||
| NH3 | + | + | + | + | ± | + | |||
| H2 | – | – | – | + | – | + | – | ||
| H2S | – | – | + | + | – | – | |||
| Reduction of | |||||||||
| Nitrate | – | – | – | ± | – | ± | – | – | |
| Sulfate | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| Sulfite | – | – | ± | – | – | – | |||
| Thiosulfate | – | – | – | ± | – | – | – | ||
| Major fatty acids‡ | C14 : 0, C16 : 0, C16:1ω7 | C14 : 0, C16 : 0, C16:1ω7 | C14 : 0, C16:1ω7 | iso-C15 : 0, C16 : 0 | iso-C15 : 0, C16 : 0 | ||||
*Beuscher and Andreesen [27] mention the inability of to utilize any carbohydrates or purines from the list of compounds tested by Dürre et al. [16] but do not list their names.
†Hypoxanthine was utilized by only in the presence of uric acid [27].
‡Fatty acid analyses of , , and were carried out by the Identification Service of the DSMZ, Braunschweig, Germany, using Sherlock Microbial Identification System [58] of MIDI Inc. (Newark, DE, USA). Myristic acid C14 : 0 clearly predominated, making up at least 32 %, 25 %, and 36 %, respectively, of the total fatty acid content in these organisms.