Literature DB >> 29556405

Careful use of 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity values for the identification of Mycobacterium species.

M Beye1, N Fahsi1, D Raoult1,2, P-E Fournier1.   

Abstract

In order to evaluate the suitability of 16S rRNA nucleotide sequence similarity for the classification of new Mycobacterium isolates at the species level, we systematically studied the pairwise identity values of this gene for 131 Mycobacterium species with standing in nomenclature. Only one of the studied species, M. poriferae (0.76%), strictly respected the 95% and 98.65% threshold values currently recommended to determine the affiliation of bacterial isolates to an existing or new genus or species, respectively. All other species exhibited at least an identity value >98.65% and/or <95% with another Mycobacterium species. Therefore, we suggest that interpretation of interspecies 16S rRNA identity values should be made cautiously when classifying a new mycobacterial isolate at the species level.

Entities:  

Keywords:  16S rRNA; Mycobacterium; sequence similarity; taxonomy; threshold value

Year:  2017        PMID: 29556405      PMCID: PMC5857167          DOI: 10.1016/j.nmni.2017.12.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  New Microbes New Infect        ISSN: 2052-2975


Introduction

Taxonomy provides scientists with essential information, enabling them to understand the relationships between living organisms and their different ecosystems [1]. For prokaryotes, taxonomy allows the reliable identification of microbial strains from clinical or environmental samples [2]. Bacterial taxonomy was initiated in the late 19th century, when phenotypic characteristics were incorporated into bacterial description, including motility, growth requirements, morphology, staining properties, colony size and colour, and chemical reactions [3]. Between the mid-1950s and the 1980s, new parameters were progressively added, notably chemotaxonomy [4], numerical taxonomy, genomic DNA-DNA hybridization and G+C content [5]. In the 1980s, the advent of DNA amplification and sequencing techniques, in particular of the 16S rRNA gene, constituted a major step forwards by facilitating bacterial classification [6], [7]. The 16S rRNA gene is a highly conserved gene that is made of nine hypervariable domains separated by more preserved fragments in which universal primers can be designed. More than three million 16S rRNA gene sequences are currently available in public databases [8]. In 1996, Vandamme et al. [9] suggested that polyphasic taxonomy, which takes into account all available phenotypic and genotypic data and integrates them into a consensus classification, should include 16S rRNA gene sequence identity. In 2010, Tindall et al. [10], in a reevaluation of the various available methods, proposed a combination of phenotypic and genotypic criteria within which 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity, and phylogeny was included as a first-line tool. In 1994, scientists considered two strains as belonging to different species if they shared 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity values <97% and to a distinct genus if this value was <95% [11]. The cutoff value at the species level was later reevaluated at 98.7% [12] and then 98.65% [13]. However, several authors have shown that these thresholds, originally designed to standardize the use of sequences of 16S rRNA genes in taxonomy, are not applicable to multiple genera. In 2015, we demonstrated that many of the current bacterial species with validly published names do not respect the 95% and 98.7% thresholds [14]. In 2000, Woo et al. [15] proposed that 16S rRNA gene sequencing was the reference standard for the identification of Mycobacterium species. Genotypic investigations based on the sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene have played a significant role in the taxonomic classification of members of the genus Mycobacterium [16]. However, to date, no systematic study of the degree of 16S rRNA divergence among Mycobacterium species has been conducted. Here we evaluate the value of current 16S rRNA cutoff values at the species and genus levels by systematically calculating the pairwise degree of 16S rRNA similarity between all Mycobacterium species with standing in nomenclature.

Methods

Collection of 16S rRNA gene sequences from members of the genus Mycobacterium

Within the List of Prokaryotic Names with Standing in Nomenclature website (http://www.bacterio.net/mycobacterium.html), we selected all Mycobacterium species with a validly published name as of 25 March 2016, and we collected the 16S rRNA gene accession numbers from type strains. As a result of the wide heterogeneity in length and quality of the 16S rRNA gene sequences of type strains, we did not use sequences shorter than 1320 nt. We created a FASTA format file containing all selected sequences.

16S rRNA gene sequence analysis: calculation of pairwise 16S rRNA gene sequence similarities

Sequences were aligned using Muscle software with default settings [17]. In this study, pairwise 16S rRNA gene sequence similarities between all species of the genus Mycobacterium were first estimated by MEGA 5 phylogeny software [18]. Then the highest and lowest values computed by this software were more accurately determined by pairwise BLASTN. We defined as expected values of interspecies 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity percentages that were between 95% and 98.65% or intraspecies percentages that were greater than 98.65% [13], and as abnormal values interspecies percentages that were >98.65% or <95% [14] or intraspecies percentages of <98.65%.

Results

Of the 182 Mycobacterium species and subspecies with a validly published name at the time of our study and for which a 16S rRNA sequence was available, we included 131 species with 16S rRNA sequences longer than 1320 nt (Table 1). For two of those species, M. avium and M. fortuitum, we included two subspecies (Table 1). The phylogenetic distribution of the studied Mycobacterium species is presented in Fig. 1. Among the 131 studied species, the pairwise 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity values ranged from 93.00% between M. chelonae and M. kyorinense to 100% between M. fortuitum subsp. acetamidolyticum and M. fortuitum subsp. fortuitum, M. africanum and M. caprae, M. farcinogenes, M. houstonense and M. senegalense, M. gastri and M. kansasii, M. mucogenicum and M. phocaicum, M. murale and M. tokaiense, and M. paraseoulense and M. seoulense, respectively (Supplementary Table S1).
Table 1

List of species with standing in nomenclature used in our study

SpeciesAccession no.Size (bp)
Mycobacterium abscessus subsp. bolletiiAY8596811481
Mycobacterium africanumAF4806051433
Mycobacterium agriAJ4290451456
Mycobacterium aichienseX555981456
Mycobacterium alveiAF0236641465
Mycobacterium anyangenseKJ8550631420
Mycobacterium arosienseEF0548811493
Mycobacterium arupenseDQ1577601487
Mycobacterium asiaticumAF4805951466
Mycobacterium aubagnenseAY8596831482
Mycobacterium aurumX555951458
Mycobacterium austroafricanumX931821462
Mycobacterium avium subsp. aviumAJ5360371472
Mycobacterium avium subsp. silvaticumEF5218911442
Mycobacterium bouchedurhonenseEF5910531498
Mycobacterium branderiAF4805741469
Mycobacterium brisbanenseAY0125771499
Mycobacterium brumaeAF4805761449
Mycobacterium canariasenseAY2554781433
Mycobacterium capraeAJ1311201524
Mycobacterium celatumL081691460
Mycobacterium celeriflavumKJ6071361442
Mycobacterium chelonaeAY4570721481
Mycobacterium chitaeX556031457
Mycobacterium chlorophenolicumX792921466
Mycobacterium chubuenseAF4805971472
Mycobacterium conceptionenseAY8596841483
Mycobacterium confluentisAJ6343791504
Mycobacterium conspicuumX889221433
Mycobacterium cosmeticumAY4497281507
Mycobacterium crocinumDQ5340081398
Mycobacterium diernhoferiAF4805991458
Mycobacterium doricumAF2647001450
Mycobacterium duvaliiU947451502
Mycobacterium elephantisAJ0107471517
Mycobacterium fallaxAF4806001470
Mycobacterium farcinogenesAY4570841483
Mycobacterium flavescensX529321454
Mycobacterium fluoranthenivoransAJ6177411494
Mycobacterium fortuitum subsp. acetamidolyticumFR7337201505
Mycobacterium fortuitum subsp. fortuitumAY4570661483
Mycobacterium fragaeJQ8984511452
Mycobacterium frederiksbergenseAJ2762741474
Mycobacterium gadiumX555941456
Mycobacterium gastriAF4806021469
Mycobacterium genavenseX600701449
Mycobacterium goodiiY128721417
Mycobacterium gordonaeX529231461
Mycobacterium hassiacumU494011491
Mycobacterium heidelbergenseAJ0006841445
Mycobacterium hodleriX931841459
Mycobacterium holsaticumAJ3104671526
Mycobacterium houstonenseAY4570671483
Mycobacterium interjectumHM0379981431
Mycobacterium intermediumX678471441
Mycobacterium intracellulareAJ5360361440
Mycobacterium iranicumHQ0094821450
Mycobacterium kansasiiAJ5360351470
Mycobacterium komossenseX555911462
Mycobacterium koreenseJF2718261474
Mycobacterium kubicaeAF1339021321
Mycobacterium kyorinenseAB3701111470
Mycobacterium lacusAF4067831470
Mycobacterium lentiflavumAF4805831452
Mycobacterium litoraleGU9976401380
Mycobacterium llatzerenseAJ7460701397
Mycobacterium madagascarienseAB5371701470
Mycobacterium mageritenseAJ6993991497
Mycobacterium malmoenseX529301457
Mycobacterium manteniiFJ0428971471
Mycobacterium marinumAF4562401522
Mycobacterium marseillenseEU2666321440
Mycobacterium microtiAF4805841484
Mycobacterium monacenseAF1070391473
Mycobacterium moriokaenseAJ4290441493
Mycobacterium mucogenicumAY4570741482
Mycobacterium muraleAB5371711459
Mycobacterium nebraskenseAY3684561506
Mycobacterium neoaurumAF4805931470
Mycobacterium neworleansenseAY4570681483
Mycobacterium noviomagenseEU2399551478
Mycobacterium novocastrenseU967471513
Mycobacterium obuenseX555971458
Mycobacterium pallensDQ3700081435
Mycobacterium paraenseKJ9489961480
Mycobacterium paraffinicumGQ1532701492
Mycobacterium parafortuitumX931831460
Mycobacterium paragordonaeKC5252041393
Mycobacterium parakoreenseJF2718231465
Mycobacterium parascrofulaceumAY3372731468
Mycobacterium paraseoulenseDQ5364041522
Mycobacterium paratuberculosisX529341458
Mycobacterium parmenseAF4668211529
Mycobacterium peregrinumAY4570691483
Mycobacterium phleiAF4806031461
Mycobactérie phocaicumAY8596821482
Mycobacterium porcinumAY4570771483
Mycobacterium poriferaeAF4805891449
Mycobacterium pseudoshottsiiAY5709881453
Mycobacterium psychrotoleransAJ5348861516
Mycobacterium pulverisAJ4290461492
Mycobacterium pyrenivoransAJ4313711481
Mycobacterium rhodesiaeAJ4290471485
Mycobacterium riyadhenseEU2746421475
Mycobacterium rufumAY9433851322
Mycobacterium rutilumDQ3700111417
Mycobacterium scrofulaceumAF4806041466
Mycobacterium sediminisKC0104901515
Mycobacterium senegalenseAY4570811483
Mycobacterium senuenseDQ5364081526
Mycobacterium seoulenseDQ5364031522
Mycobacterium septicumAY4570701483
Mycobacterium setenseEF1388181336
Mycobacterium sherrisiiAY3536991510
Mycobacterium shinjukuenseAB2685031505
Mycobacterium shottsiiAY0051471491
Mycobacterium simiaeX529311479
Mycobacterium smegmatisAJ1317611482
Mycobacterium sphagniFR7337191505
Mycobacterium stomatepiaeAM8843311471
Mycobacterium szulgaiX529261454
Mycobacterium thermoresistibileX556021464
Mycobacterium tokaienseAF4805901451
Mycobacterium triplexU576321474
Mycobacterium trivialeDQ0584051362
Mycobacterium tusciaeAF0582991409
Mycobacterium ulceransAB5487251475
Mycobacterium vaccaeAF4805911439
Mycobacterium vulnerisEU8340551471
Mycobacterium wolinskyiAY4570831485
Mycobacterium yongonenseJF7380561395
Fig. 1

Phylogenetic distribution of Mycobacterium species used in present study based on comparison of 16S rRNA sequences. Sequences were aligned by MUSCLE [14], and phylogenetic inferences were obtained by maximum likelihood method and Kimura two-parameter model in MEGA software. Numbers at nodes are percentages of bootstrap values obtained by repeating analysis 1000 times to generate majority consensus tree. Pseudonocardia acaciae (EU921261) was used as outgroup.

Phylogenetic distribution of Mycobacterium species used in present study based on comparison of 16S rRNA sequences. Sequences were aligned by MUSCLE [14], and phylogenetic inferences were obtained by maximum likelihood method and Kimura two-parameter model in MEGA software. Numbers at nodes are percentages of bootstrap values obtained by repeating analysis 1000 times to generate majority consensus tree. Pseudonocardia acaciae (EU921261) was used as outgroup. List of species with standing in nomenclature used in our study Of the 131 studied Mycobacterium species, 90 (68.7%) exhibited at least one 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity value greater than 98.65% with another species in this genus (Table 2, Supplementary Table S1). Among 131 studied species, 123 (93.9%) exhibited at least one 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity value lower than 95% with another species in the genus (Table 2, Supplementary Table S1). Only one (0.76%) of the 131 studied species, i.e. M. poriferae, exhibited only expected values (Table 2, Supplementary Table S1). At the intraspecies level, only expected values were observed.
Table 2

Species that do not respect pairwise similarity thresholds of <95% and >98.65%

Species (accession no.)No. for <95% thresholdNo. for >98.65% threshold
Mycobacterium abscessus subsp. bolletii (AY859681)412
Mycobacterium africanum (AF480605)237
Mycobacterium agri (AJ429045)320
Mycbacterium aichiense (X55598)181
Mycobacterium alvei (AF023664)1713
Mycobacterium anyangense (KJ855063)35
Mycobacterium arosiense (EF054881)1611
Mycobacterium arupense (DQ157760)120
Mycobacterium asiaticum (AF480595)64
Mycobacterium aubagnense (AY859683)63
Mycobacterium aurum (X55595)230
Mycobacterium austroafricanum (X93182)171
Mycobacterium avium subsp. avium (AJ536037)309
Mycobacterium avium subsp. silvaticum (EF521891)2313
Mycobacterium bouchedurhonense (EF591053)2011
Mycobacterium branderi (AF480574)660
Mycobacterium brisbanense (AY012577)11
Mycobacterium brumae (AF480576)320
Mycobacterium canariasense (AY255478)204
Mycobacterium caprae (AJ131120)177
Mycobacterium celatum (L08169)230
Mycobacterium celeriflavum (KJ607136)01
Mycobacterium chelonae (AY457072)472
Mycobacterium chitae (X55603)170
Mycobacterium chlorophenolicum (X79292)03
Mycobacterium chubuense (AF480597)01
Mycobacterium conceptionense (AY859684)217
Mycobacterium confluentis (AJ634379)10
Mycobacterium conspicuum (X88922)83
Mycobacterium cosmeticum (AY449728)66
Mycobacterium crocinum (DQ534008)56
Mycobacterium diernhoferi (AF480599)235
Mycobacterium doricum (AF264700)421
Mycobacterium duvalii (U94745)32
Mycobacterium elephantis (AJ010747)60
Mycobacterium fallax (AF480600)20
Mycobacterium farcinogenes (AY457084)221
Mycobacterium flavescens (X52932)360
Mycobacterium fluoranthenivorans (AJ617741)105
Mycobacterium fortuitum subsp. fortuitum (AY457066)616
Mycobacterium fortuitum subsp. acetamidolyticum (FR733720)616
Mycobacterium fragae (JQ898451)170
Mycobacterium frederiksbergense (AJ276274)113
Mycobacterium gadium (X55594)60
Mycobacterium gastri (AF480602)267
Mycobacterium genavense (X60070)114
Mycobacterium goodii (Y12872)113
Mycobacterium gordonae (X52923)271
Mycobacterium hassiacum (U49401)520
Mycobacterium heidelbergense (AJ000684)55
Mycobacterium hodleri (X93184)50
Mycobacterium holsaticum (AJ310467)10
Mycobacterium houstonense (AY457067)221
Mycobacterium interjectum (HM037998)11
Mycobacterium intermedium (X67847)20
Mycobacterium intracellulare (AJ536036)2912
Mycobacterium iranicum (HQ009482)130
Mycobacterium kansasii (AJ536035)267
Mycobacterium komossense (X55591)100
Mycobacterium koreense (JF271826)61
Mycobacterium kubicae (AF133902)11
Mycobacterium kyorinense (AB370111)700
Mycobacterium lacus (AF406783)1714
Mycobacterium lentiflavum (AF480583)46
Mycobacterium litorale (GU997640)200
Mycobacterium llatzerense (AJ746070)141
Mycobacterium madagascariense (AB537170)31
Mycobacterium mageritense (AJ699399)01
Mycobacterium malmoense (X52930)575
Mycobacterium mantenii (FJ042897)57
Mycobacterium marinum (AF456240)127
Mycobacterium marseillense (EU266632)2214
Mycobacterium microti (AF480584)236
Mycobacterium monacense (AF107039)351
Mycobacterium moriokaense (AJ429044)03
Mycobacterium mucogenicum (AY457074)411
Mycobacterium murale (AB537171)10
Mycobacterium nebraskense (AY368456)2012
Mycobacterium neoaurum (AF480593)54
Mycobacterium neworleansense (AY457068)217
Mycobacterium noviomagense (EU239955)480
Mycobacterium novocastrense (U96747)440
Mycobacterium obuense (X55597)210
Mycobacterium pallens (DQ370008)56
Mycobacterium paraense (KJ948996)01
Mycobacterium paraffinicum (GQ153270)36
Mycobacterium parafortuitum (X93183)36
Mycobacterium paragordonae (KC525204)172
Mycobacterium parakoreense (JF271823)20
Mycobacterium parascrofulaceum (AY337273)61
Mycobacterium paraseoulense (DQ536404)1016
Mycobacterium paratuberculosis (X52934)458
Mycobacterium parmense (AF466821)460
Mycobacterium peregrinum (AY457069)915
Mycobacterium phlei (AF480603)40
Mycobacterium phocaicum (AY859682)410
Mycobacterium porcinum (AY457077)416
Mycobacterium poriferae (AF480589)00
Mycobacterium pseudoshottsii (AY570988)226
Mycobacterium psychrotolerans (AJ534886)61
Mycobacterium pulveris (AJ429046)21
Mycobacterium pyrenivorans (AJ431371)40
Mycobacterium rhodesiae (AJ429047)612
Mycobacterium riyadhense (EU274642)1018
Mycobacterium rufum (AY943385)370
Mycobacterium rutilum (DQ370011)176
Mycobacterium scrofulaceum (AF480604)78
Mycobacterium sediminis (KC010490)370
Mycobacterium senegalense (AY457081)221
Mycobacterium senuense (DQ536408)300
Mycobacterium seoulense (DQ536403)1016
Mycobacterium septicum (AY457070)813
Mycobacterium setense (EF138818)1416
Mycobacterium sherrisii (AY353699)37
Mycobacterium shinjukuense (AB268503)420
Mycobacterium shottsii (AY005147)167
Mycobacterium simiae (X52931)66
Mycobacterium smegmatis (AJ131761)157
Mycobacterium sphagni (FR733719)310
Mycobacterium stomatepiae (AM884331)24
Mycobacterium szulgai (X52926)332
Mycobacterium thermoresistible (X55602)481
Mycobacterium tokaiense (AF480590)01
Mycobacterium triplex (U57632)36
Mycobacterium triviale (DQ058405)20
Mycobacterium tusciae (AF058299)250
Mycobacterium ulcerans (AB548725)167
Mycobacterium vaccae (AF480591)311
Mycobacterium vulneris (EU834055)2612
Mycobacterium wolinskyi (AY457083)20
Mycobacterium yongonense (JF738056)1514

For each studied species, we indicate for each threshold numbers of pairwise comparisons for which abnormal values were observed.

Species that do not respect pairwise similarity thresholds of <95% and >98.65% For each studied species, we indicate for each threshold numbers of pairwise comparisons for which abnormal values were observed.

Discussion

Over the past decade, several authors suggested that the inter- and intraspecies discriminatory power of 16S rRNA gene sequences was insufficient for some bacterial genera [19], [20]. As examples, Streptococcus pneumoniae and S. mitis exhibit only a 3 nt difference (99.7% identity), which would classify them in the same species. In contrast, major interspecies differences may be observed, as is the case in the genus Clostridium, with C. tetani and C. innocuum exhibiting a 104 nt divergence (93.7% identity). The strict application of the 95% threshold would justify their classification in distinct genera [19]. In addition, in 2010, Pei et al. [21] identified an intragenomic sequence divergence greater than 1.3% among 16S rRNA genes copies in 11 bacterial species. Among these, Borrelia afzelii, an agent of Lyme disease in humans, exhibits a similarity of only 79.62% between its two 16S rRNA gene copies [21]. Thus, a strict application of the 98.65% threshold would classify these bacteria in different species depending on the 16S rRNA gene copy analysed [21], [22]. According to Rossi-Tamisier et al. [14], among 158 studied bacterial genera, only members of 17 genera strictly respected the 95% and 98.65% thresholds. Among other studied genera, the percentage of species that respected strictly both thresholds varied from 0 (Brucella) to 93.9% (Nocardia) [14]. In the present report, we observed that the currently used 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity thresholds for delineating bacterial species are valid for only 0.76% of 131 studied Mycobacterium species with standing in nomenclature. Because our study covers 71.97% of the currently validly published Mycobacterium species names, we believe that the 95% and 98.65% thresholds are not suitable for this genus and should at the maximum be used as indicators, not as a reference standard, for classifying new Mycobacterium species.
  19 in total

1.  Divergence and redundancy of 16S rRNA sequences in genomes with multiple rrn operons.

Authors:  Silvia G Acinas; Luisa A Marcelino; Vanja Klepac-Ceraj; Martin F Polz
Journal:  J Bacteriol       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 3.490

2.  16S rRNA gene sequencing versus the API 20 NE system and the VITEK 2 ID-GNB card for identification of nonfermenting Gram-negative bacteria in the clinical laboratory.

Authors:  P P Bosshard; R Zbinden; S Abels; B Böddinghaus; M Altwegg; E C Böttger
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 5.948

3.  Notes on the characterization of prokaryote strains for taxonomic purposes.

Authors:  B J Tindall; R Rosselló-Móra; H-J Busse; W Ludwig; P Kämpfer
Journal:  Int J Syst Evol Microbiol       Date:  2009-08-21       Impact factor: 2.747

Review 4.  Prokaryotic taxonomy and phylogeny in the genomic era: advancements and challenges ahead.

Authors:  Konstantinos T Konstantinidis; James M Tiedje
Journal:  Curr Opin Microbiol       Date:  2007-10-17       Impact factor: 7.934

5.  MEGA5: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis using maximum likelihood, evolutionary distance, and maximum parsimony methods.

Authors:  Koichiro Tamura; Daniel Peterson; Nicholas Peterson; Glen Stecher; Masatoshi Nei; Sudhir Kumar
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  2011-05-04       Impact factor: 16.240

6.  Towards a taxonomic coherence between average nucleotide identity and 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity for species demarcation of prokaryotes.

Authors:  Mincheol Kim; Hyun-Seok Oh; Sang-Cheol Park; Jongsik Chun
Journal:  Int J Syst Evol Microbiol       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 2.747

7.  Diversity of 16S rRNA genes within individual prokaryotic genomes.

Authors:  Anna Y Pei; William E Oberdorf; Carlos W Nossa; Ankush Agarwal; Pooja Chokshi; Erika A Gerz; Zhida Jin; Peng Lee; Liying Yang; Michael Poles; Stuart M Brown; Steven Sotero; Todd Desantis; Eoin Brodie; Karen Nelson; Zhiheng Pei
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2010-04-23       Impact factor: 4.792

8.  Polynucleotide sequence relationships among members of Enterobacteriaceae.

Authors:  D J Brenner; G R Fanning; K E Johnson; R V Citarella; S Falkow
Journal:  J Bacteriol       Date:  1969-05       Impact factor: 3.490

9.  The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools.

Authors:  Christian Quast; Elmar Pruesse; Pelin Yilmaz; Jan Gerken; Timmy Schweer; Pablo Yarza; Jörg Peplies; Frank Oliver Glöckner
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2012-11-28       Impact factor: 16.971

10.  MUSCLE: a multiple sequence alignment method with reduced time and space complexity.

Authors:  Robert C Edgar
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2004-08-19       Impact factor: 3.169

View more
  9 in total

1.  Mycobacterium pseudoshottsii in Mediterranean Fish Farms: New Trouble for European Aquaculture?

Authors:  Davide Mugetti; Katia Varello; Andrea Gustinelli; Paolo Pastorino; Vasco Menconi; Daniela Florio; Maria Letizia Fioravanti; Elena Bozzetta; Simona Zoppi; Alessandro Dondo; Marino Prearo
Journal:  Pathogens       Date:  2020-07-27

2.  Comparison of the microbiomes of two drinking water distribution systems-with and without residual chloramine disinfection.

Authors:  Michael B Waak; Raymond M Hozalski; Cynthia Hallé; Timothy M LaPara
Journal:  Microbiome       Date:  2019-06-07       Impact factor: 14.650

3.  Genome-guided analysis allows the identification of novel physiological traits in Trichococcus species.

Authors:  Nikolaos Strepis; Henry D Naranjo; Jan Meier-Kolthoff; Markus Göker; Nicole Shapiro; Nikos Kyrpides; Hans-Peter Klenk; Peter J Schaap; Alfons J M Stams; Diana Z Sousa
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2020-01-08       Impact factor: 3.969

4.  Biodiversity of Aflatoxigenic Aspergillus Species in Dairy Feeds in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe.

Authors:  Nancy Nleya; Lubanza Ngoma; Modupeade C Adetunji; Mulunda Mwanza
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2021-01-21       Impact factor: 5.640

5.  Rare actinobacteria isolated from the hypersaline Ojo de Liebre Lagoon as a source of novel bioactive compounds with biotechnological potential.

Authors:  Andrea Y Zamora-Quintero; Mónica Torres-Beltrán; Dulce G Guillén Matus; Irasema Oroz-Parra; Natalie Millán-Aguiñaga
Journal:  Microbiology (Reading)       Date:  2022-02       Impact factor: 2.777

6.  Within-community variation of interspecific divergence patterns in passerine gut microbiota.

Authors:  Jan Kubovčiak; Lucie Schmiedová; Tomáš Albrecht; Martin Těšický; Oldřich Tomášek; Tereza Kauzálová; Jakub Kreisinger
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2022-07-04       Impact factor: 3.167

7.  Genomics in Bacterial Taxonomy: Impact on the Genus Pseudomonas.

Authors:  Jorge Lalucat; Magdalena Mulet; Margarita Gomila; Elena García-Valdés
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2020-01-29       Impact factor: 4.096

8.  Expression of DnaK and HtrA genes under high temperatures and their impact on thermotolerance of a Salmonella serotype isolated from tahini product.

Authors:  Reda M Gaafar; Marwa M Hamouda; Khalid A El-Dougdoug; Sameh Fayez Fouad
Journal:  J Genet Eng Biotechnol       Date:  2019-10-07

9.  Partial rpoB Gene Sequencing Identification and Probiotic Potential of Floricoccus penangensis ML061-4 Isolated from Assam Tea (Camellia sinensis var. assamica).

Authors:  Patthanasak Rungsirivanich; Angkhana Inta; Yingmanee Tragoolpua; Narumol Thongwai
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-11-12       Impact factor: 4.379

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.