ArticlePloS one2024
Whole genome-based reclassification of several species of the genus Microbispora.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validation List no. 221: valid publication of new names and new combinations effectively published outside theInternational journal of systematic and evolutionary microbiology · 2025Article
- Notification of changes in taxonomic opinion previously published outside theInternational journal of systematic and evolutionary microbiology · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The classification of Microbispora, a bacterial genus of significant ecological, agricultural, biotechnological, and clinical importance, has traditionally been carried out based on 16S rRNA gene sequences or phenotypic characteristics, which may lead to equivocal conclusions and it is not in line with the current standards. Moreover, some of the recent species descriptions have not been made using whole genome sequences (WGS), or when used, not all the species were included in the analyses. Consequently, some of the taxonomic conclusions drawn are equivocal, and therefore some currently accepted species should be synonymized. In this study, we revised the taxonomy of the genus Microbispora using digital DNA-DNA hybridization (dDDH) and average nucleotide identity (ANI) values, and by reconstructing phylogenetic relationships using whole genome sequences. Based on the clear phylogenomic separations and on the sequence divergence values, we propose to elevate Microbispora rosea subsp. rosea and Microbispora rosea subsp. aerata to the species level, and therefore to create Microbispora aerata sp. nov. with JCM 3076T (= DSM 43176T = ATCC 15448T = IFO 14624T = NBRC 14624T = VKM Ac-1507T) as the type strain. Hence, with this proposition, the correct name for Microbispora rosea subsp. rosea is M. rosea. Furthermore, we propose to reclassify M. camponoti as a subspecies within M. bryophytorum. Consequently, we propose the creation of the following two subspecies: Microbispora bryophytorum subsp. bryophytorum subsp. nov. with DSM 46710T (= CGMCC 4.7138T = NEAU TX2-2T) as the type strain, and Microbispora bryophytorum subsp. camponoti subsp. nov., comb. nov. with DSM 2C-HV3T (= DSM 100527T = CGMCC 4.7281T) as the type strain. In addition, we propose to reinstate M. amethystogenes as an independent species and not as a M. rosea synonym, and reclassify "M. cellulosiformans" as a subspecies within M. amethystogenes. Hence, we propose the creation of the following two subspecies: Microbispora amethystogenes subsp. amethystogenes subsp. nov. with NBRC 101907T (= DSM 43164T = JCM 3021T = NRRL B-2637T) as the type strain, and Microbispora amethystogenes subsp. cellulosiformans subsp. nov., comb. nov. with Gxj-6T (= DSM 109712T = CGMCC 4.7605T) as the type strain. Lastly, we propose M. fusca NEAU-HEGS1-5T and "M. tritici" MT50T as later homotypic synonyms of M. triticiradicis NEAU-HRDPA2-9T.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.