2015
DOI: 10.5507/fot.2015.010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A new tropical cyanobacterium Pinocchia polymorpha gen. et sp. nov. derived from the genus Pseudanabaena

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

1
12
1
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
1
12
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The phylogram generated in this study suggests the existence of two more genera in this family. The genus Pinocchia ( Dvorak et al, 2015 ) is still classified within the family Leptolyngbyaceae , which contradicts the 16S-based phylogeny obtained in this study. Therefore, we propose that the genus Pinocchia should be reclassified into the family Trichocoleusaceae .…”
Section: Resultscontrasting
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The phylogram generated in this study suggests the existence of two more genera in this family. The genus Pinocchia ( Dvorak et al, 2015 ) is still classified within the family Leptolyngbyaceae , which contradicts the 16S-based phylogeny obtained in this study. Therefore, we propose that the genus Pinocchia should be reclassified into the family Trichocoleusaceae .…”
Section: Resultscontrasting
confidence: 99%
“…The relevant biosynthetic genes encoding cyanophycin synthase ( cphA ) and cyanophycinase ( cphB ) were identified in the genome. The carboxysomes were observed in the cytoplasm in small numbers, similar to related Pinocchia strains ( Dvorak et al, 2015 ; Kim et al, 2021 ). Gas vesicles and polyphosphate granules were also observed in the cytoplasm ( Figure 7D ).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 64%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Species concepts within the cyanobacteria are subject to much debate (Dvo r ak et al 2015b). Given the dearth of morphological features from which to choose, coupled with issues related to both phenotypic plasticity and cryptic diversity, describing and elucidating cyanobacterial species may be problematic (Dvo r ak et al 2015a,b, Dvo r ak et al 2017, Struneck y et al 2017. The monophyletic species concept sensu Johansen and has been proposed as the standard for cyanobacterial systematics (e.g., Kom arek 2013), which requires the description of an autapomorphy to test phylogenetic hypotheses.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In most instances, when new genera have been described, they contain only a single new species (Casamatta et al 2006, Joosten 2006, Fiore et al 2007, Reh akov a et al 2007, Lamprinou et al 2011, 2012, Novis and Visnovsky 2011, Dadheech et al 2012, Thu et al 2012, Zammit et al 2012, Nguyen et al 2013, Ha sler et al 2014, Wilde et al 2014, Dvo rak et al 2015, Song et al 2015, Vaz et al 2015, Alvarenga et al 2016, Jahod arov a et al 2017, Sciuto et al 2017, Cai et al 2018a,b, 2019, 2020a,b,c, Zhou et al 2018, and many more). Multiple species have sometimes been described with the description of a new genus (Engene et al 2012, Gonz alez-Resendiz et al 2018a, Kabirnataj et al 2018, Mai et al 2018, Saraf et al 2018a, 2019a, Pietrasiak et al 2019, 2021, but it has been more common to have multiple species in a new genus consisting of multiple new combinations as a result of revision of polyphyletic genera (e.g., Wacklin et al 2009, Zapom elov a et al 2010, Zapom elov a et al 2012, Struneck y et al 2017.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%