+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Taxogenomics Resolves Conflict in the Genus Rhodobacter: A Two and Half Decades Pending Thought to Reclassify the Genus Rhodobacter

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          The genus Rhodobacter is taxonomically well studied, and some members are model organisms. However, this genus is comprised of a heterogeneous group of members. 16S rRNA gene-based phylogeny of the genus Rhodobacter indicates a motley assemblage of anoxygenic phototrophic bacteria (genus Rhodobacter) with interspersing members of other genera (chemotrophs) making the genus polyphyletic. Taxogenomics was performed to resolve the taxonomic conflicts of the genus Rhodobacter using twelve type strains. The phylogenomic analysis showed that Rhodobacter spp. can be grouped into four monophyletic clusters with interspersing chemotrophs. Genomic indices (ANI and dDDH) confirmed that all the current species are well defined, except Rhodobacter megalophilus. The average amino acid identity values between the monophyletic clusters of Rhodobacter members, as well as with the chemotrophic genera, are less than 80% whereas the percentage of conserved proteins values were below 70%, which has been observed among several genera related to Rhodobacter. The pan-genome analysis has shown that there are only 1239 core genes shared between the 12 species of the genus Rhodobacter. The polyphasic taxonomic analysis supports the phylogenomic and genomic studies in distinguishing the four Rhodobacter clusters. Each cluster is comprised of one to seven species according to the current Rhodobacter taxonomy. Therefore, to address this taxonomic discrepancy we propose to reclassify the members of the genus Rhodobacter into three new genera, Luteovulum gen. nov., Phaeovulum gen. nov. and Fuscovulum gen. nov., and provide an emended description of the genus Rhodobacter sensu stricto. Also, we propose reclassification of Rhodobacter megalophilus as a sub-species of Rhodobacter sphaeroides.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 70

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Standard operating procedure for calculating genome-to-genome distances based on high-scoring segment pairs

          DNA-DNA hybridization (DDH) is a widely applied wet-lab technique to obtain an estimate of the overall similarity between the genomes of two organisms. To base the species concept for prokaryotes ultimately on DDH was chosen by microbiologists as a pragmatic approach for deciding about the recognition of novel species, but also allowed a relatively high degree of standardization compared to other areas of taxonomy. However, DDH is tedious and error-prone and first and foremost cannot be used to incrementally establish a comparative database. Recent studies have shown that in-silico methods for the comparison of genome sequences can be used to replace DDH. Considering the ongoing rapid technological progress of sequencing methods, genome-based prokaryote taxonomy is coming into reach. However, calculating distances between genomes is dependent on multiple choices for software and program settings. We here provide an overview over the modifications that can be applied to distance methods based in high-scoring segment pairs (HSPs) or maximally unique matches (MUMs) and that need to be documented. General recommendations on determining HSPs using BLAST or other algorithms are also provided. As a reference implementation, we introduce the GGDC web server (http://ggdc.gbdp.org).
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            A Comparative Study of the Lipid Composition of Halobacterium saccharovorum from Various Sources

             B.J. Tindall (1990)
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Book Chapter: not found

              Evolutionary Divergence and Convergence in Proteins


                Author and article information

                Front Microbiol
                Front Microbiol
                Front. Microbiol.
                Frontiers in Microbiology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                31 October 2019
                : 10
                1Department of Plant Sciences, School of Life Sciences, University of Hyderabad , Hyderabad, India
                2Bacterial Discovery Laboratory, Centre for Environment, Institute of Science and Technology, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Hyderabad , Hyderabad, India
                Author notes

                Edited by: Iain Sutcliffe, Northumbria University, United Kingdom

                Reviewed by: Barny Whitman, University of Georgia, United States; John Vollmers, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Germany

                *Correspondence: Ch. Sasikala, sasi449@ 123456yahoo.ie

                These authors have contributed equally to this work

                Present address: Tushar D. Lodha, National Centre for Microbial Resource, National Centre for Cell Science, Pune, India

                This article was submitted to Evolutionary and Genomic Microbiology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Microbiology

                Copyright © 2019 Suresh, Lodha, Indu, Sasikala and Ramana.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                Page count
                Figures: 6, Tables: 1, Equations: 0, References: 86, Pages: 16, Words: 0
                Original Research


                Comment on this article