The phylogenetic position of Serratia, Buttiauxella and some other genera of the family Enterobacteriaceae

Abstract

The phylogenetic relationships of the type strains of 38 species from 15 genera of the family Enterobacteriaceae were investigated by comparative 16s rDNA analysis. Several sequences of strains f rom the genera Citrobacter, Erwinia, Pantoea, Proteus, Rahnella and Serratia, analysed in this study, have been analysed previously. However, as the sequences of this study differ slightly from the published ones, they were included in the analysis. Of the 23 enterobacterial genera included in an overview dendrogram of relatedness, members of the genera Xenorhabdus, Photorhabdus, Proteus and Plesiomonas were used as a root. The other genera formed two groups which could be separated, although not exclusively, by signature nucleotides at positions 590-649 and 600-638. Group A contains species of Brenneria, Buttiauxella, Citrobacter, Escherichia, Erwinia, Klebsiella, Pantoea, Pectobacterium and Salmonella. All seven type strains of Buttiauxella share 16s rDNA similarities greater than 99 O/ O. Group B embraces two phylogenetically separate Serratia clusters, a lineage containing Yersinia species, Rahnella aquatica, Ewingella americana, and also the highly related pair Hafnia alvei and Obesumbacterium pro teus.

Phylogenetic analyses of Klebsiella species delineate Klebsiella and Raoultella gen. nov., with description of Raoultella ornithinolytica comb. nov., Raoultella terrigena comb. nov. and Raoultella planticola comb. nov.

“…Although moderate, these bootstrap values are in the range of those previously reported by 16S rDNA analysis of Enterobacteriaceae (Spro$ er et al, 1999 ;Kwon et al, 1997). Bootstrap values as low as 40 % (Kwon et al, 1997) and 60 % (Spro$ er et al, 1999) have been cited in previous 16S rDNA phylogenetic analyses of Enterobacteriaceae genera.…”

“…This analysis led us to further study the taxonomic relationships among members of Klebsiella. 16S rDNA sequence comparison has emerged as one of the most powerful tools for investigating bacterial phylogeny (Woese, 1987 ;Weisburg et al, 1991) and its use has resulted in reclassification of bacterial species and genera (Brenner et al, 1993a ;Tamura et al, 1995 ;Rikihisa et al, 1997), including enteric bacteria (Kwon et al, 1997 ;Spro$ er et al, 1999). The level of 16S rDNA sequence similarity has been proposed as a basis for bacterial species definition (Stackebrandt & Goebel, 1994) and the use of polyphasic taxonomy has been advocated to ensure well-balanced determinations of taxonomic relationships (Vandamme et al, 1996).…”

“…Until recently, members of the Enterobacteriaceae have not been subjected to extensive 16S rDNA analysis (Spro$ er et al, 1999). While some genera have been investigated in detail, e.g.…”

Fluorescent in situ hybridization and flow cytometry as tools to evaluate the treatments for the control of slime-forming enterobacteria in paper mills

“…As 14 well as other taxon-rich families, members of the Enterobacteriaceae have been subject of extensive analysis of 16S rDNA and taxonomic changes (Spröer et al, 1999;Drancourt et al, 2001). Based on comparative 16S rDNA sequence analysis, it is clear that there is a high degree of relatedness (98% of sequence similarity) between different genera of enterobacteria (Dauga, 2002), and the design of specific probes is very difficult.…”

Isolation of Buttiauxella gaviniae from a Spinal Cord Patient with Urinary Bladder Pathology

“…revealed similarities of between 99.2 and 99.8% with the different species of the Buttiauxella genus. However, alignment of the sequence obtained in this study for the clinical isolate and the GenBank sequences of B. agrestis, B. gaviniae, and B. noackiae (AJ233400, AJ233403, and AJ233405, respectively [9]) showed that there was sequence polymorphism in our strain in the only region (Escherichia coli position 980 to 1020) where these three species differ according to the GenBank entries. The ambiguities observed contained the bases that, according to published GenBank sequences, differentiate between the three species (Fig.…”