4.3 Article

Classification of thermophilic actinobacteria isolated from arid desert soils, including the description of Amycolatopsis deserti sp nov.

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10482-015-0635-8

关键词

Amycolatopsis; Polyphasic taxonomy; Desert soils

资金

  1. Royal Government
  2. Leverhulme Trust
  3. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo [2011/14333-6, 2011/50243-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The taxonomic position of 26 filamentous actinobacteria isolated from a hyper-arid Atacama Desert soil and 2 from an arid Australian composite soil was established using a polyphasic approach. All of the isolates gave the diagnostic amplification product using 16S rRNA oligonucleotide primers specific for the genus Amycolatopsis. Representative isolates had chemotaxonomic and morphological properties typical of members of the genus Amycolatopsis. 16S rRNA gene analyses showed that all of the isolates belong to the Amycolatopsis methanolica 16S rRNA gene clade. The Atacama Desert isolates were assigned to one or other of two recognised species, namely Amycolatopsis ruanii and Amycolatopsis thermalba, based on 16S rRNA gene sequence, DNA:DNA relatedness and phenotypic data; emended descriptions are given for these species. In contrast, the two strains from the arid Australian composite soil, isolates GY024(T) and GY142, formed a distinct branch at the periphery of the A. methanolica 16S rRNA phyletic line, a taxon that was supported by all of the tree-making algorithms and by a 100 % bootstrap value. These strains shared a high degree of DNA:DNA relatedness and have many phenotypic properties in common, some of which distinguished them from all of the constituent species classified in the A. methanolica 16S rRNA clade. Isolates GY024(T) and GY142 merit recognition as a new species within the A. methanolica group of thermophilic strains. The name proposed for the new species is Amycolatopsis deserti sp. nov.; the type strain is GY024(T) (=NCIMB 14972(T) = NRRL B-65266(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

4.3
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