Abstract
Four bacterial strains – Marseille-Q9181T, Marseille-QA0894T, Marseille-Q9179T and Marseille-Q2328T – were isolated, the first three from vaginal samples and the last from a blood sample. MALDI-TOF MS analysis failed to assign these isolates to any known species within the genus Gardnerella. Consequently, phenotypic and taxonogenomic characterizations were conducted. All four strains were Gram-negative, non-motile and non-spore-forming coccobacilli. Strains Marseille-Q9181T, Marseille-Q2328T and Marseille-Q9179T were facultative anaerobes with microaerophilic capabilities, whereas Marseille-QA0894T was strictly anaerobic and microaerophilic. The dominant fatty acids (>10%) identified in strains Marseille-Q9181T, Marseille-QA0894T and Marseille-Q2328T were C16 : 0, C18 : 1 ω9c and C18 : 0. In strain Marseille-Q9179T, C18 : 0 was also among the most abundant fatty acids, along with the aforementioned three. Digital DNA–DNA hybridization (dDDH) values for strains Marseille-Q9181T, Marseille-QA0894T and Marseille-Q2328T against Gardnerella vaginalis 1400E (genomic species 2), G. vaginalis 6119V5 (genomic species 9) and G. vaginalis NR010 (genomic species 14) were 72.1%, 72.4% and 75.5%, respectively. The corresponding OrthoANI values were 96.99%, 97.16% and 97.66%, all above the species demarcation threshold. In contrast, strain Marseille-Q9179T exhibited both dDDH and OrthoANI values below the accepted thresholds (70% and 95–96%, respectively), suggesting that it represents a novel genomic lineage. Based on comprehensive phenotypic and genomic analyses, we propose that these strains represent four new species within the genus Gardnerella, for which the following names are proposed: Gardnerella lacydonensis sp. nov. (type strain: Marseille-Q9181T=CSUR Q9181T=CECT 31121T), Gardnerella bretellae sp. nov. (type strain: Marseille-QA0894T=CSUR QA0894T=CECT 31122T), Gardnerella massiliensis sp. nov. (type strain: Marseille-Q2328T=CSUR Q2328T=CECT 30239T) and Gardnerella phocaeensis sp. nov. (type strain: Marseille-Q9179T=CSUR Q9179T=CECT 31120T).
Keywords: Gardnerella bretellae sp. nov., Gardnerella lacydonensis sp. nov., Gardnerella massiliensis sp. nov., Gardnerella phocaeensis sp. nov., Gardnerella vaginalis, whole-genome sequencing
Introduction
Gardnerella vaginalis is a facultative anaerobic bacterium associated with bacterial vaginosis [1,2]. Different classification systems for G. vaginalis (biotyping, genotyping and sub-grouping) have been previously proposed [3,6]. However, some Gardnerella isolates have never been identified using clade-specific qPCR assays [4,7,9]. Additionally, analysis of the V4 hypervariable region of the 16S rRNA gene revealed that for over 98.5% of Gardnerella species, the V4 region was identical [10]. In order to resolve their taxonomic position, 81 genomes of G. vaginalis were analysed in 2019. Based on an average nucleotide identity of 96% and DNA–DNA hybridization of 70% or higher, strains of G. vaginalis were classified into several genomic species, with description of six species: G. vaginalis sensu stricto, and five ex-genomic species as Gardnerella leopoldii, Gardnerella piotii, Gardnerella swidsinskii, Gardnerella pickettii and Gardnerella greenwoodii [10,11]. Other genomic studies, using a larger number of genomes, have revealed the presence of additional genotypes [12], including fourteenth genomic species (Gardnerella NR010 genomic species 14), with an average nucleotide identity value lower than or equal to 96% compared to other genomes, that is compatible to a new species [13,14]. Despite the number of molecular and genomic differences [7,15] among genotypes, some have never been officially described as new species, notably genomic species 2, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14. Here, we demonstrate genetic and biological differences and describe four species of the genus Gardnerella: Gardnerella lacydonensis, Gardnerella bretellae and Gardnerella massiliensis, known as genomic species 2, genomic species 9 and genomic species 14, respectively, as well as Gardnerella phocaeensis, a new potential species, not attributed previously to any genomic species. We used phenotypic, taxonomic and genomic approaches to characterize these species.
Methods
Ethical considerations and sampling
The four strains were isolated from four specimens (three vaginal swabs and one blood culture) taken during patient care and sent for diagnostic purposes to the clinical microbiology laboratory at our university hospital (AP-HM, at the Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection, Marseille, France). As permitted by French law (Article L.1211-2 of the Public Health Code), patients have been informed of the possible re-use of their samples and personal data collected during treatment for research purposes. They had the option of objecting by notifying the AP-HM Data Protection Officer, but none of the four patients indicated any objections.
Bacterial colony identification
Bacterial colonies from vaginal swabs and blood samples were isolated on Columbia agar enriched with 5% sheep blood (bioMérieux, Marcy-l'Etoile, France) in an anaerobic atmosphere using a GasPak™ EZ Anaerobe gas generating system (Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA) for 48 h. Prior to this, vaginal samples were incubated at 5% CO2 for 48 h at 37 °C on three culture media: PolyViteX chocolate agar, PolyViteX VCAT3 chocolate agar and Columbia CNA agar, which was enriched with 5% sheep blood (bioMérieux), whereas the blood sample was incubated in an anaerobic blood culture bottle for 28 h. Subsequently, all bacterial colonies were identified by MALDI-TOF MS using the Microflex LT tool instrument (Bruker Daltonics, Bremen, Germany). A score of >2 indicated correct species identification, while a score of ≥1.7 but <2 indicated correct genus identification to identify colonies of the genus Gardnerella [16,17].
Phenotypic characteristics
Growth characteristics
Gram staining of cell was performed using a Color Gram 2 kit (bioMérieux). The staining was evaluated under a Motic Panthera C2 trinocular microscope with a 100X oil immersion lens. The images were produced using Mosaic software version 3.0.7. Cell morphology of the four strains was evaluated by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) using an SU5000 microscope (Hitachi High-Tech Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) [18]. Sporulation and motility were tested as previously described [18]. Moreover, optimal growth conditions were determined on Columbia agar enriched with 5% sheep blood (bioMérieux) for 72 h at different growth temperatures (28, 37, 45 and 56 °C) and different atmospheres: aerobic, anaerobic using the GasPak™ EZ Anaerobe gas generation system (Becton Dickinson) and microaerophilic using the GasPak™ Campy pocket system (Becton Dickinson). Salt tolerance and ability to grow under different pH conditions were assessed after 24, 48 and 72 h of incubation at 37 °C under anaerobic conditions, using 37 g brain heart infusion broth (Becton Dickinson) supplemented with 5 g yeast extract, 1 g starch, 1 g peptone and 21 g Columbia agar (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) for 1 l. NaCl was added to obtain salt concentrations of 5%, 7%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25% and 30%. NaOH or HCl was adjusted to 4.5, 5.5, 6.5, 7.5 and 8.5 to achieve the pH values tested.
Biochemical tests
Catalase and oxidase activity were assayed using a hydrogen peroxide solution (bioMérieux) and oxidase discs (Becton Dickinson), respectively, as previously described [19]. Carbohydrate metabolism and enzymatic activities of all strains were analysed using API® ZYM, API® 50 CH and API® 20 A strips (bioMérieux). Cellular fatty acid methyl esters were analysed by GC/MS as already reported [20].
Antibiotic susceptibility
Amoxicillin, amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, ticarcillin/clavulanic acid, ceftriaxone, imipenem, vancomycin, colistin, tobramycin, azithromycin, ciprofloxacin, clindamycin, doxycycline and metronidazole were tested for antibiotic susceptibility using E-test strips (bioMérieux). Mueller–Hinton agar supplemented with 5% sheep blood (bioMérieux) was used to test antibiotic susceptibility. The manufacturer’s instructions were followed to read the MIC, which was then interpreted in accordance with the guidelines of the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility (https://www.eucast.org/) consulted in January 2025 and the CLSI M100 guidelines. When breakpoint values were available, antibiotic susceptibility was interpreted according to the following specific categories: susceptible (S), susceptible, increased exposure (I) and resistant (R). In the absence of breakpoint values and when MICs were high, as for colistin and tobramycin, strains were considered resistant. In other cases (azithromycin, ciprofloxacin and doxycycline), MICs could not be interpreted due to the absence of breakpoint values.
Whole-genome sequencing and bioinformatics analysis
Genomic DNA from the four strains was extracted with the EZ1 instrument (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) using the EZ1 DNA Tissue kit (Qiagen) and was sequenced on the MiSeq sequencer (Illumina Inc, San Diego, CA, USA) using a Nextera XT Paired End sample preparation kit (Illumina) [21]. Assembled reads were obtained using SPAdes 3.11.1 software [22]. Scaffolds of less than 800 bp and depth values of less than 25% of the median depth were excluded during assembly, and CheckM was used to evaluate the quality of genome assemblies [23]. Genomic sequences for the four strains were annotated using Prokka version 1.14.6 and Rapid Annotation Using Subsystem Technology (RAST) [24,25]. In addition, we performed a BLASTp analysis against the Clusters of Orthologous Genes (COGs) database [26]. Genome maps were constructed using the CGview/Proksee web server [27]. The genomes of the four Gardnerella strains were compared to the closely related Gardnerella genomic species described in previous studies [10,14].
The 16S rRNA sequences of the 4 strains analysed and the genomes of 14 Gardnerella species (Table S1, available in the online Supplementary Material) were aligned using muscle [28]. mega version 11 software was used to construct the phylogenetic tree with 1,000 bootstrap replications using the neighbour-joining method and the Tamura 3-parameter method [29,32]. According to digital DNA–DNA hybridization (dDDH) and the average nucleotide identity (OrthoANI), the degree of pairwise similarity between the genomes was compared with the 14 genomic species of the genus Gardnerella [33,34]. The dDDH was calculated by downloading the genome sequences from the Genome-to-Genome Distance Calculator 2.1 (GGDC) web server (http://ggdc.dsmz.de/) consulted in January 2025 [35]. OrthoANI was analysed using OAT version 0.93.1 software, and a heat map was generated [36].
CRISPR loci and CRISPR-Cas clusters with an evidence level of 3 or 4 were analysed using regularly spaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR). Prophage sequences were identified using the PHASTEST [37]. The insertion sequences and replicon of the plasmids were determined using the ISfinder and PlasmidFinder [38,39]. BAGEL software was used to predict bacteriocins [40], while secondary metabolites were estimated using antiSMASH 5.0 [41]. Genes coding for vaginolysin and sialidase were identified via BLASTp with an identity threshold of 40% and a minimum length of 30% against two databases created with protein sequences of different types of vaginolysin (Type 1A, Type 1B, Type 1C, Type 2 and Type 3) [42] and different sequences of sialidase (nanH1, nanH2 and nanH3) [43]. The vaginolysin protein sequences were aligned using muscle [28]. Structural prediction of the candidate proteins vaginolysin and sialidase was performed using PHYRE 2.2 [44].
Results
Strain identification by MALDI-TOF MS Biotyper
Strains Marseille-Q9181T, Marseille-QA0894T and Marseille-Q9179T were isolated from vaginal samples, while strain Marseille-Q2328T was isolated from a blood sample. MALDI-TOF MS analysis failed to identify the Gardnerella strains to the species level. Strains Marseille-Q9181T and Marseille-Q2328T were identified as G. vaginalis with scores of 2.01–2.1 and 2.29–2.23, respectively. Strains Marseille-QA0894T and Marseille-Q9179T were identified as G. leopoldii_swidsinskii with scores of 2.18–2.33 and 2.18–2.46, respectively.
Phenotypic characterization
The phenotypic characteristics of the four Gardnerella strains were compared with those of other described Gardnerella species with validly published names, namely G. vaginalis, G. leopoldii, G. piotii, G. swidsinskii [10], G. pickettii and G. greenwoodii [11].
Bacterial growth and morphological observations
Growth of the four strains was observed on Columbia agar enriched with 5% sheep blood (bioMérieux), after 48 h of incubation at an optimum temperature of 37 °C in microaerophilic and anaerobic atmospheres. Aerobic growth was only observed for strains Marseille-Q2328T and Marseille-Q9179T. Strains Marseille-Q2328T and Marseille-QA0894T grew at a pH ranging from 6.5 to 8.5 (optimum 7.5), while strains Marseille-Q9181T and Marseille-Q9179T grew at a pH ranging from 7.5 to 8.5 (optimum 7.5). Growth was observed at 0.5% NaCl for all four isolates. Regarding morphological description, strain Marseille-Q9181T exhibited thick, whitish bacterial colonies with regular edges. Strain Marseille-QA0894T featured domed colonies with irregular edges and a whitish colour. Strain Marseille-Q2328T exhibited small, circular, flat and transparent colonies. Strain Marseille-Q9179T showed small, circular, whitish-greyish colonies with regular margins.
Gram staining and SEM
All four strains stained consistently as Gram-negative coccobacilli (Fig. S1), as well as non-spore-forming and non-motile. SEM micrographs revealed that the cells of strain Marseille-Q9181T measured 1.39±0.4 µm in length and 0.86±0.07 µm in width (Fig. 1a); strain Marseille-QA0894T measured 0.73±0.13 µm in length and 0.5±0.06 µm in width (Fig. 1b); strain Marseille-Q2328T measured 3±0.64 µm in length and 1.5±0.09 µm in width (Fig. 1c); and strain Marseille-Q9179T measured 1±0.05 µm in length and 0.54±0.04 µm in width (Fig. 1d). The growth characteristics of strains Marseille-Q9179T, Marseille-Q2328T, Marseille-QA0894T and Marseille-Q9179T, compared with the most closely related species of the genus Gardnerella, are listed in Table 1.
Fig. 1. SEM micrographs of (a) G. lacydonensis Marseille-Q9181T, (b) G. bretellae Marseille-QA0894T, (c) G. massiliensis Marseille-Q2328T and (d) G. phocaeensis Marseille-Q9179T. SEM acquisition settings appear on each micrograph as follows: instrument, accelerating voltage, working distance, magnification, detector and scale.
Table 1. Phenotypic characteristics of strains G. lacydonensis Marseille-Q9181T, G. bretellae Marseille-QA0894T, G. massiliensis Marseille-Q2328T and G. phocaeensis Marseille-Q9179T compared with G. vaginalis ATCC 14018T, G. leopoldii UGent 06.41T, G. swidsinskii GS 9838-1T, G. piotii UGent 18.01T, G. greenwoodii c31Ua_26T and G. pickettii c17Ua_112T.
| Species |
G. lac Marseille-Q9181T |
G. bret Marseille-QA0894T |
G. mas Marseille-Q2328T |
G. pho Marseille-Q9179T |
G. vag ATCC 14018T |
G. leo UGent 06.41T |
G. swid GS 9838–1T |
G. piot UGent 18.01T |
G. green c31Ua_26T | G. pick c17Ua_112T |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample origin | Vagina | Vagina | Blood | Vagina | Vagina | Vagina | Vagina | Vagina | Urine | Urine |
| CO2 requirement | 5% | 5% | 5% | 5% | 5% | 5% | 5% | 5% | 5% | 5% |
| Colony aspect | Thick, whitish with regular edges | Rounded with irregular edges and whitish | Small, circular and flat, very transparent | Small, circular, whitish greyish with regular edges | Smooth surface from white to greyish | Smooth surface from white to greyish | Smooth surface from white to greyish | Smooth surface from white to greyish | Very small, smooth and circular, light grey, almost transparent | Small, circular and opaque white to greyish |
| Cell shape | Coccobacilli | Coccobacilli | Coccobacilli | Coccobacilli | Coccobacilli | Coccobacilli | Coccobacilli | Coccobacilli | Coccobacilli | Coccobacilli |
| Cell size | 1.39×0.86 µm | 0.73×0.5 µm | 3×1.5 µm | 1×0.54 µm | 0.5×1.5 µm | 0.5×1.5 µm | 5×1.5 µm | 0.5×1.5 µm | 0.94 µm | 0.79 µm |
| Gram straining | Negative | Negative | Negative | Negative | Negative to Gram-variable | Negative to Gram-variable | Negative to Gram-variable | Negative to Gram-variable | Positive | Negative |
| References | This study | This study | This study | This study | [10] | [10] | [10] | [10] | [11] | [11] |
G. lacydonensis sp. nov. (G. lac sp. nov.), G. bretellae sp. nov. (G. bret sp. nov.), G. massiliensis sp. nov. (G. mas sp. nov.), G. phocaeensis sp. nov. (G. pho sp. nov.), G. vaginalis (G. vag), G. leopoldii (G. leop), G. swidsinskii (G. swid), G. piotii (G. piot), G. greenwoodii (G. green) and G. pickettii (G. pick).
Biochemical characterization, antibiotic susceptibility and fatty acids
Strains Marseille-Q2328T, Marseille-QA0894T, Marseille-Q9181T and Marseille-Q9179T were negative for catalase and oxidase. Using the API® 20 A strip, positive reactions were observed for d-glucose, d-mannitol, lactose, d-sucrose, d-maltose, salicin, aesculin, iron citrate, glycerol, d-cellobiose, d-mannose, d-melezitose and d-sorbitol for all four strains. l-Rhamnose and d-trehalose were positive only for strain Marseille-Q9179T. Using the API® 50 CH strip, all four strains were positive for starch. Using API® ZYM strips, all four strains were positive for alkaline phosphatase, leucine arylamidase, valine arylamidase, acid phosphatase, naphthol-AS-BI-phosphohydrolase and α-glucosidase. Strain Marseille-Q9179T was positive for esterase (C4), esterase lipase (C8), lipase (C14) and ß-glucuronidase. Strain Marseille-Q9181T was also positive for ß-galactosidase and d-mannosidase. These results are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. Biochemical characteristics of strains G. lacydonensis Marseille-Q9181T, G. bretellae Marseille-QA0894T, G. massiliensis Marseille-Q2328T and G. phocaeensis Marseille-Q9179T.
| Species |
G. lacydonensis Marseille-Q9181T |
G. bretellae Marseille-QA0894T |
G. massiliensis Marseille-Q2328T |
G. phocaeensis Marseille-Q9179T |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Activity of: | ||||
| Oxidase | − | − | − | − |
| Catalase | − | − | − | − |
| Fermentation of: | ||||
| d-Glucose | + | + | + | + |
| Ribose | − | − | − | − |
| d-Mannitol | + | + | + | + |
| Lactose | + | + | + | + |
| d-Sucrose | + | + | + | + |
| d-Maltose | + | + | + | + |
| Salicin | + | + | + | + |
| Aesculin | + | + | + | + |
| Iron citrate | + | + | + | + |
| Glycerol | + | + | + | + |
| d-Cellobiose | + | + | + | + |
| d-Mannose | + | + | + | + |
| d-Melezitose | + | + | + | + |
| d-Sorbitol | + | + | + | + |
| l-Rhamnose | − | − | − | + |
| d-Trehalose | − | − | − | + |
| Starch | + | + | + | + |
| Production of: | ||||
| Acid phosphatase | + | + | + | + |
| Alkaline phosphatase | + | + | + | + |
| Valine arylamidase | + | + | + | + |
| Leucine arylamidase | + | + | + | + |
| Naphthol-AS-BI-phosphohydrolase | + | + | + | + |
| Esterase (C4) | − | − | − | + |
| Esterase lipase (C8) | − | − | − | + |
| Lipase (14) | − | − | − | + |
| ß-Galactosidase | + | − | − | − |
| α-Glucosidase | + | + | + | + |
| ß-Glucosidase | − | − | − | − |
| ß-Glucuronidase | − | − | − | + |
| d-Mannosidase | + | − | − | − |
+: positive reaction; −: negative reaction.
MICs for the four strains are shown in Table 3. Briefly, strains Marseille-Q9181T, Marseille-QA0894T, Marseille-Q2328T and Marseille-Q9179T were susceptible to clindamycin but resistant to metronidazole. The fatty acid composition of the four strains is presented in Table 4 and compared with G. vaginalis strains [45]. The most abundant fatty acids (representing >20% of the total) for strain Marseille-Q2328T were C16 : 0 (43.7%) and C18 : 1 ω9c (28.5%). The most prevalent fatty acid for strain Marseille-Q9181T was C16 : 0 (50.2%). For strain Marseille-QA0894T, the major fatty acids were C16 : 0 (39.2%) and C18 : 1 ω9c (20%). For strain Marseille-Q9179T, the most abundant fatty acid was C16 : 0 (40.3%).
Table 3. Antibiotic susceptibility strains G. lacydonensis Marseille-Q9181T, G. bretellae Marseille-QA0894T, G. massiliensis Marseille-Q2328T and G. phocaeensis Marseille-Q9179T to 13 antibiotics, interpreted in accordance with EUCAST and CLSI M100 guidelines.
| Antibiotics |
G. lacydonensis Marseille-Q9181T |
G. bretellae Marseille-QA0894T |
G. massiliensis Marseille-Q2328T |
G. phocaeensis Marseille-Q9179T |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIC (µg ml−1) | S/R/I | MIC (µg ml−1) | S/R/I | MIC (µg ml−1) | S/R/I | MIC (µg ml−1) | S/R/I | |
| Amoxicillin | 0.047 | S | 0.125 | S | 0.032 | S | <0.064 | S |
| Amoxicillin/clavulanic acid | <0.016 | S | 0.094 | S | <0.016 | S | 0.094 | S |
| Ticarcillin/clavulanic acid | 0.047 | S | 0.25 | S | 0.25 | S | 1 | S |
| Ceftriaxone | 0.25 | S | 0.5 | S | <0.016 | S | 0.25 | S |
| Imipenem | 0.094 | S | 0.5 | S | 0.008 | S | 0.125 | S |
| Vancomycin | 0.25 | S | 0.5 | S | 2 | S | 0.5 | S |
| Clindamycin | <0.016 | S | 0.25 | S | 0.047 | S | <0.016 | S |
| Metronidazole | ≥256 | R | 16 | R | ≥256 | R | ≥256 | R |
| Colistin | ≥256 | R | ≥256 | R | ≥256 | R | ≥256 | R |
| Tobramycin | 16 | R | ≥256 | R | ≥256 | R | ≥256 | R |
| Azithromycin | <0.016 | na | 0.023 | na | 0.064 | na | 0.032 | na |
| Ciprofloxacin | 0.5 | na | 0.75 | na | 1.5 | na | 2 | na |
| Doxycycline | 0.25 | na | 0.5 | na | 32 | na | 32 | na |
I, susceptible increased exposure; MIC, minimal inhibitory concentration; na, not applicable (MIC could not be interpreted due to the lack of breakpoint values); R, resistant; S, susceptible.
Table 4. Fatty acid composition (%) of strains G. lacydonensis Marseille-Q9181T, G. bretellae Marseille-QA0894T, G. massiliensis Marseille-Q2328T and G. phocaeensis Marseille-Q9179T compared to G. vaginalis strains.
| Fatty acids | Names | G. lacydonensis Marseille-Q9181T | G. bretellae Marseille-QA0894T | G. massiliensis Marseille-Q2328T | G. phocaeensis Marseille-Q9179T | G. vaginalis (cluster 1, n=40) | G. vaginalis (cluster 2, n=10) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean relative % (a) | |||||||
| 16 : 0 | Hexadecanoic acid | 50.2±1.4 | 39.2±0.8 | 43.7±1.2 | 40.3±0.1 | 36.6±2.9 | 23.5±2.2 |
| 18 : 1 n9 | 9-Octadecenoic acid | 15.3±1.1 | 20±1.2 | 28.5±0.4 | 18±1 | 35.2±2.2 | 44.3±3.3 |
| 18 : 0 | Octadecanoic acid | 12.2±0.2 | 15.1±0.9 | 12.8±0.4 | 13.9±2 | 9.2±1.4 | 3.8±0.5 |
| 14 : 0 | Tetradecanoic acid | 7.7±0.1 | 7.6±0.9 | 4.7±0.1 | 12.3±2.4 | 6.9±1.5 | 4.6±0.4 |
| 18 : 2 n6 | 9,12-Octadecadienoic acid | 5.4±0.5 | 10.1±0.1 | 5.1±0.6 | 7.7±0.8 | 4.8±1.3 | 8±1.5 |
| 10 : 0 | Decanoic acid | 2.3±0.4 | 1±0.3 |
tr
|
1.2±0.1 | nd | nd |
| 18 : 1 n7 | 11-Octadecenoic acid | 1.5±0.2 | 1.1±0.1 |
tr
|
tr
|
2.5±2 | 4.4±2.3 |
| 17 : 0 | Heptadecanoic acid |
tr
|
1±0.1 |
tr
|
tr
|
nd | nd |
| 12 : 0 | Dodecanoic acid | 1.8±0.6 |
tr
|
tr
|
tr
|
nd | nd |
| 15 : 0 | Pentadecanoic acid | 1±0.2 |
tr
|
1.1±0.1 |
tr
|
nd | nd |
| 16 : 1 n7 | 9-Hexadecenoic acid | nd |
tr
|
tr
|
tr
|
3±0.9 | 6.2±0.5 |
| 19 : 0 | Nonadecanoic acid | nd | nd | nd |
tr
|
tr
|
1.1±0.6 |
| 18 : 1 n5 | 13-Octadecenoic acid | nd |
tr
|
nd |
tr
|
nd | nd |
| 17 : 0 anteiso | 14-Methyl-hexadecanoic acid |
tr
|
tr
|
tr
|
tr
|
nd | nd |
| 20 : 4 n6 | 5,8,11,14-Eicosatetraenoic acid | nd |
tr
|
nd |
tr
|
nd | nd |
| 16 : 1 n9 | 7-Hexadecenoic acid | nd |
tr
|
tr
|
tr
|
nd | nd |
| 17 : 1 n7 | 10-Heptadecenoic acid | nd |
tr
|
tr
|
tr
|
nd | nd |
| 15 : 0 anteiso | 12-Methyl-tetradecanoic acid |
tr
|
tr
|
tr
|
tr
|
nd | nd |
| 17 : 0 iso | 15-Methyl-hexadecanoic acid | nd |
tr
|
tr
|
tr
|
nd | nd |
| 16 : 0 iso | 14-Methyl-pentadecanoic acid | nd |
tr
|
tr
|
tr
|
nd | nd |
| 15 : 0 iso | 13-Methyl-tetradecanoic acid |
tr |
nd |
tr
|
tr
|
nd | nd |
| 19 : 01 | Nonadecenoic acid | nd | nd | nd |
tr
|
nd | nd |
| 08 : 0 | Octanoic acid | nd | nd | nd |
tr
|
nd | nd |
| 14 : 0 iso | 12-Methyl-tridecanoic acid | nd | nd |
tr
|
tr
|
nd | nd |
| References | This study | This study | This study | This study | [45] | [45] | |
tr, trace amount <1%; a, mean peak area percentage; nd, not determined; n, number of samples tested.
Genomic characterization
Genome properties
The genome length of strain Marseille-Q9181T is 1,702,271 bp, assembled into 12 contigs, with a G+C content of 41.4 mol%. The gene prediction analysis of strain Marseille-Q9181T reports 1,374 predicted genes, including 1,323 protein-coding genes, 51 RNA genes (5 rRNA, 45 tRNA and 1 tmRNA) and 7 pseudogenes (Table 5 and Fig. 2a). Strain Marseille-QA0894T has a genome length of 1,505,165 bp, assembled into 12 contigs, with a G+C content of 43.2 mol%. Strain Marseille-QA0894T comprises 1,138 predicted genes, including 1,207 protein-coding genes, 49 RNA genes (3 rRNA, 45 tRNA and 1 tmRNA) and 5 pseudogenes (Table 5 and Fig. 2b). The genome length of strain Marseille-Q2328T is 1,720,610 bp, assembled into 32 contigs, with a G+C content of 45.3 mol%. Strain Marseille-Q2328T has 1,380 predicted genes, with 1,331 protein-coding genes, 49 RNA sequences (3 rRNA, 45 tRNA and 1 tmRNA), 7 pseudogenes and 1 repeat region (Table 5 and Fig. 2c). Strain Marseille-Q9179T has a genome length of 1,565,522 bp, assembled into 12 contigs, with a G+C content of 42.3 mol%. Strain Marseille-Q9179T has 1,227 predicted genes, including 1,178 protein-coding genes, 49 RNA sequences (3 rRNA, 45 tRNA and 1 mRNA), 4 pseudogenes and 1 repeat region (Table 5 and Fig. 2d).
Table 5. Genome properties of strains G. lacydonensis Marseille-Q9181T, G. bretellae Marseille-QA0894T, G. massiliensis Marseille-Q2328T and G. phocaeensis Marseille-Q9179T compared to other Gardnerella species officially described (G. vaginalis ATCC 14018T, G. leopoldii UGent 06.41T, G. swidsinskii GS 9838-1T, G. piotii 18.01T, G. greenwoodii c31Ua_26T and G. pickettii c17Ua_112T).
| Genome features |
G. lac Marseille-Q9181T |
G. bret Marseille-QA0894T |
G. mas Marseille-Q2328T |
G. pho Marseille-Q9179T |
G. vag ATCC 14018T |
G. leo UGent 06.41T |
G. swid GS 9838–1T |
G. piot UGent 18.01T |
G. green c31Ua_26T | G. pick c17Ua_112T |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Genome size (bp) | 1,702,271 | 1,505,165 | 1,720,610 | 1,565,522 | 1,667,406 | 1,563,545 | 1,622,089 | 1,514,270 | 1,511,834 | 1,509,345 |
| Contigs | 12 | 12 | 32 | 12 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 5 | 11 | 3 |
| G+C content (mol%) | 41.4 | 43.2 | 45.3 | 42.3 | 41.4 | 42.1 | 41.9 | 42.5 | 43.3 | 42.5 |
| Genes | 1,374 | 1,186 | 1,380 | 1,227 | 1,320 | 1,239 | 1,327 | 1,210 | 1,176 | 1,204 |
| CDSs | 1,323 | 1,138 | 1,331 | 1,178 | 1,268 | 1,187 | 1,277 | 1,159 | 1,127 | 1,155 |
| RNAs | 51 | 48 | 49 | 49 | 52 | 52 | 50 | 51 | 49 | 49 |
| rRNAs (5S, 16S, 23S) | 5 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 3 |
| tRNAs | 45 | 44 | 45 | 45 | 45 | 45 | 45 | 45 | 45 | 45 |
| tmRNA | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Repeat region | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| N50 length | 439,839 | 304,156 | 166,989 | 425,876 | 1,667,384 | 948,424 | 432,172 | 1,406,824 | 472,464 | 1,398,357 |
| L50 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| Accession number | JBKQXT000000000 | JBKQXU000000000 | CALNWW000000000 | JBKQXS000000000 | QJUZ00000000 | CP029984 | QJVB00000000 | QJUV00000000 | JAKNCL000000000 | JAKNCU000000000 |
N50: sequence length of the shortest contig at 50% of the total length of the assembly. L50: number of the smallest number of contigs whose sum of lengths is half the size of the genome.
Fig. 2. Circular genome map of strains (a) G. lacydonensis Marseille-Q9181T, (b) G. bretellae Marseille-QA0894T, (c) G. massiliensis Marseille-Q2328T and (d) G. phocaeensis Marseille-Q9179T generated by the CGView server.
Phylogenetic tree
The phylogenetic 16S rRNA tree illustrated the relationship between strains Marseille-Q9181T, Marseille-QA0894T, Marseille-Q2328T and Marseille-Q9179T and closely related species within the genus Gardnerella (Fig. 3). Comparative analysis of 16S rRNA sequences using the blast tool revealed that strains Marseille-Q9181T, Marseille-QA0984T, Marseille-Q2328T and Marseille-Q9179T showed sequence homologies of 99.78%, 100%, 100% and 99.80% with strains G. vaginalis ATCC 14018T, G. leopoldii UGent 06.41T, G. vaginalis NR010 and G. vaginalis 1500E, respectively.
Fig. 3. Phylogenetic tree based on 16S rRNA gene sequences showing the evolutionary relationships of G. lacydonensis Marseille-Q9181T, G. bretellae Marseille-QA0894T, G. massiliensis Marseille-Q2328T and G. phocaeensis Marseille-Q9179T with officially described and closely related Gardnerella strains. The tree was deduced using the neighbour-joining method. Evolutionary distances were calculated using the Tamura 3-parameter method. Bootstrap percentages (based on 1,000 replications) are indicated at the nodes.
Functional annotation
The characteristics of the protein-coding gene subsystems detected by RAST in the four species studied were mainly related to subsystems involved in the metabolism of proteins, carbohydrates, amino acids and their derivatives, DNA, nucleosides and nucleotides metabolism, membrane transport, cell wall, capsule, cofactors, vitamins, prosthetic group, pigments and RNA metabolism. However, there were fewer genes encoding cell wall and capsule in strains Marseille-Q2328T and Marseille-Q9179T. Genes encoding membrane transport were less prevalent in strains Marseille-QA0894T and Marseille-Q9179T. In all four strains, genes encoding secondary metabolism, iron acquisition and metabolism, cell division, the cell cycle, photosynthesis, motility and chemotaxis and nitrogen metabolism were absent. The distribution of subsystem categories and the number of subsystem features for each bacterial strain are shown in Fig. 4. The distribution of COGs, shown in Table 6, is similar for all four strains. The number of genes encoding carbohydrate transport and metabolism was more predominant in strain Marseille-Q9181T. The number of genes encoding for mobilome was prevalent to Marseille-QA0894T and Marseille-Q2328T. A high number of COG functional genes involved in replication, recombination and repair were found in Marseille-Q2328T. No genes encoding chromatin structure and dynamics or nuclear structure were found in any of the four strains.
Fig. 4. Genome subsystem coverage, distribution of subsystem categories and number of subsystem features of strains (a) G. lacydonensis Marseille-Q9181T, (b) G. bretellae Marseille-QA0894T, (c) G. massiliensis Marseille-Q2328T and (d) G. phocaeensis Marseille-Q9179T by RAST.
Table 6. Number of genes associated with the 25 general COG functional categories for strains G. lacydonensis Marseille-Q9181T, G. bretellae Marseille-QA0894T, G. massiliensis Marseille-Q2328T and G. phocaeensis Marseille-Q9179T.
| Code | COG function |
G. lacydonensis Marseille-Q9181T |
G. bretellae Marseille-QA0894T |
G. massiliensis Marseille-Q2328T |
G. phocaeensis Marseille-Q9179T |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [A] | RNA processing and modification | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| [B] | Chromatin structure and dynamics | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| [C] | Energy production and conversion | 24 | 23 | 23 | 23 |
| [D] | Cell cycle control, cell division, chromosome partitioning | 15 | 15 | 16 | 14 |
| [E] | Amino acid transport and metabolism | 62 | 65 | 64 | 65 |
| [F] | Nucleotide transport and metabolism | 49 | 50 | 52 | 47 |
| [G] | Carbohydrate transport and metabolism | 124 | 78 | 74 | 77 |
| [H] | Coenzyme transport and metabolism | 40 | 35 | 43 | 42 |
| [I] | Lipid transport and metabolism | 28 | 25 | 25 | 27 |
| [J] | Translation, ribosomal structure and biogenesis | 144 | 144 | 142 | 142 |
| [K] | Transcription | 49 | 39 | 42 | 39 |
| [L] | DNA replication, recombination and repair | 64 | 63 | 80 | 61 |
| [M] | Cell wall/membrane/envelope biogenesis | 76 | 72 | 72 | 69 |
| [N] | Cell motility | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| [O] | Posttranslational modification, protein turnover, chaperones | 51 | 49 | 53 | 46 |
| [P] | Inorganic ion transport and metabolism | 40 | 37 | 37 | 39 |
| [Q] | Secondary metabolite biosynthesis, transport and catabolism | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| [R] | General function prediction only | 43 | 37 | 37 | 39 |
| [S] | Function unknown | 24 | 24 | 24 | 21 |
| [T] | Signal transduction mechanisms | 28 | 27 | 27 | 27 |
| [U] | Intracellular trafficking, secretion and vesicular transport | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 |
| [V] | Defence mechanisms | 47 | 43 | 39 | 44 |
| [X] | Mobilome: prophages, transposons | 9 | 18 | 29 | 7 |
| [Y] | Nuclear structure | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| [Z] | Cytoskeleton | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| – | Not in COGs | 128 | 119 | 126 | 113 |
Genome comparison of the four strains
The genomic characteristics of the 4 strains were compared with the genomes of the 14 Gardnerella genomic species available on NCBI (Table S1). dDDH and OrthoANI values are summarized in Table 7. OrthoANI data are also reported in a heat map (Fig. 5). A dDDH value of 72.1% was observed between strain Marseille-Q9181T and strain G. vaginalis 1400E (genomic species 2). Furthermore, an OrthoANI value (96.99%) was observed for strain Marseille-Q9181T and strain G. vaginalis 1400E (genomic species 2). A dDDH value of 72.4% was observed between strain Marseille-QA0894T and strain G. vaginalis 6119V5 (genomic species 9). Furthermore, the highest OrthoANI value (97.16%) was observed for strain Marseille-QA0894T and strain G. vaginalis 6119V5 (genomic species 9). A dDDH value of 75.5% was observed between strain Marseille-Q2328T and strain G. vaginalis NR010 (genomic species 14). Furthermore, the highest OrthoANI value (97.66%) was observed for strain Marseille-Q2328T and strain G. vaginalis NR010 (genomic species 14). The highest dDDH values for strain Marseille-Q9179T were 57.6% with G. swidsinskii GS 9838-1T and 57.3% with G. leopoldii UGent 06.41T. OrthoANI values below 95% were observed between strain Marseille-Q9179T and G. swidsinskii GS 9838-1T, as well as strain G. leopoldii UGent 06.4T.
Table 7. dDDH values (%) and OrthoANI between the strains studied and 14 Gardnerella genomic species.
| Query strains | Gardnerella subject strains | dDDH (%) | OrthoANI (%) | Difference G+C% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| G. lacydonensis Marseille-Q9181T | G. vaginalis ATCC 14018T | 61.5 | 95.48 | 0.04 |
| G. vaginalis 1400E (genomic species 2) | 72.1 | 96.99 | 0.22 | |
| G. pickettii c17Ua_112T | 32.1 | 87.18 | 1.08 | |
| G. piotii UGent 18.01T | 32.2 | 86.85 | 1.07 | |
| G. leopoldii UGent 06.41T | 23 | 79.79 | 0.7 | |
| G. swidsinskii GS 9838-1T | 26.8 | 79.74 | 0.44 | |
| G. vaginalis PSS_7772B (genomic species 7) | 27.6 | 79.68 | 1.83 | |
| G. greenwoodii c31Ua_26T | 26.3 | 79.79 | 1.9 | |
| G. vaginalis 6119V5 (genomic species 9) | 26 | 79.58 | 1.86 | |
| G. vaginalis 1500E (genomic species 10) | 27 | 79.64 | 1.56 | |
| G. vaginalis GED7760B (genomic species 11) | 30.2 | 85.89 | 1.87 | |
| G. vaginalis CMW7778B (genomic species 12) | 27.3 | 78.15 | 3.39 | |
| G. vaginalis KA00225 (genomic species 13) | 28.7 | 79.73 | 0.59 | |
| G. vaginalis NR010 (genomic species 14) | 26.5 | 79.11 | 4.04 | |
| G. bretellae Marseille-QA0894T | 26.5 | 79.7 | 1.79 | |
| G. massiliensis Marseille-Q2328T | 26.7 | 79.17 | 3.85 | |
| G. phocaeensis Marseille-Q9179T | 27.1 | 79.46 | 0.85 | |
| G. bretellae Marseille-QA0894T | G. vaginalis ATCC 14018T | 27.5 | 80.26 | 1.83 |
| G. vaginalis 1400E (genomic species 2) | 27 | 79.95 | 2.01 | |
| G. pickettii c17Ua_112T | 26.7 | 79.42 | 0.71 | |
| G. piotii UGent 18.01T | 26.7 | 79.62 | 0.75 | |
| G. leopoldii UGent 06.41T | 28.2 | 85.23 | 1.1 | |
| G. swidsinskii GS 9838-1T | 29.5 | 85.46 | 1.35 | |
| G. vaginalis PSS_7772B (genomic species 7) | 30.8 | 85.22 | 0.26 | |
| G. greenwoodii c31Ua_26T | 58.9 | 95.02 | 0.11 | |
| G. vaginalis 6119V5 (genomic species 9) | 72.4 | 97.16 | 0.07 | |
| G. vaginalis 1500E (genomic species 10) | 60.2 | 95.31 | 0.24 | |
| G. vaginalis GED7760B (genomic species 11) | 26.9 | 79.68 | 0.08 | |
| G. vaginalis CMW7778B (genomic species 12) | 26.2 | 78.45 | 5.18 | |
| G. vaginalis KA00225 (genomic species 13) | 28.4 | 81.12 | 2.38 | |
| G. vaginalis NR010 (genomic species 14) | 29 | 83.97 | 2.24 | |
| G. massiliensis Marseille-Q2328T | 29.3 | 83.92 | 2.06 | |
| G. phocaeensis Marseille-Q9179T | 29 | 85.05 | 0.94 | |
| G. massiliensis Marseille-Q2328T | G. vaginalis ATCC 14018T | 26.8 | 79.03 | 0.58 |
| G. vaginalis 1400E (genomic species 2) | 28.1 | 79.53 | 4.07 | |
| G. pickettii c17Ua_112T | 26.5 | 78.79 | 2.77 | |
| G. piotii UGent 18.01T | 26.7 | 78.8 | 2.81 | |
| G. leopoldii UGent 06.41T | 28.1 | 82.94 | 3.16 | |
| G. swidsinskii GS 9838-1T | 27.2 | 82.56 | 3.41 | |
| G. vaginalis PSS_7772B (genomic species 7) | 27.7 | 83.16 | 2.32 | |
| G. greenwoodii c31Ua_26T | 29.1 | 83.65 | 1.95 | |
| G. vaginalis 6119V5 (genomic species 9) | 29.4 | 83.92 | 1.99 | |
| G. vaginalis 1500E (genomic species 10) | 28.4 | 83.37 | 2.3 | |
| G. vaginalis GED7760B (genomic species 11) | 26.5 | 78.91 | 1.98 | |
| G. vaginalis CMW7778B (genomic species 12) | 27.7 | 77.91 | 7.28 | |
| G. vaginalis KA00225 (genomic species 13) | 30.1 | 80.5 | 4.45 | |
| G. vaginalis NR010 (genomic species 14) | 75.5 | 97.66 | 0.18 | |
| G. phocaeensis Marseille-Q9179T | 27.4 | 82.84 | 3 | |
| G. phocaeensis Marseille-Q9179T | G. vaginalis ATCC 14018T | 26.6 | 79.23 | 1.9 |
| G. vaginalis 1400E (genomic species 2) | 26.9 | 79.86 | 1.07 | |
| G. pickettii c17Ua_112T | 26.3 | 79.09 | 0.23 | |
| G. piotii UGent 18.01T | 26.2 | 78.93 | 0.18 | |
| G. leopoldii UGent 06.41T | 57.3 | 94.55 | 0.16 | |
| G. swidsinskii GS 9838-1T | 57.6 | 94.52 | 0.42 | |
| G. vaginalis PSS_7772B (genomic species 7) | 28.5 | 84.01 | 0.68 | |
| G. greenwoodii c31Ua_26T | 28.9 | 85.09 | 1.05 | |
| G. vaginalis 6119V5 (genomic species 9) | 28.6 | 85.05 | 1.01 | |
| G. vaginalis 1500E (genomic species 10) | 28.7 | 84.9 | 0.7 | |
| G. vaginalis GED7760B (genomic species 11) | 26.1 | 78.89 | 1.02 | |
| G. vaginalis CMW7778B (genomic species 12) | 26 | 78.42 | 4.25 | |
| G. vaginalis KA00225 (genomic species 13) | 31.1 | 82.35 | 1.45 | |
| G. vaginalis NR010 (genomic species 14) | 27.2 | 82.86 | 3.18 |
Fig. 5. Heat map showing the average nucleotide identity based on calculated orthology (OrthoANI) of strains G. lacydonensis Marseille-Q9181T, G. bretellae Marseille-QA0894T, G. massiliensis Marseille-Q2328T and G. phocaeensis Marseille-Q9179T relative to the closest Gardnerella species.
Only the strain Marseille QA0894T had one CRISPR sequence and one CRISPR-Cas type IE. The polyketosynthase-related Type III gene cluster was predicted in Marseille-Q9181T. Bacteriocin, plasmid, phage and insert sequence were not identified. The gene coding for nanH1 was present in Marseille-Q9181T, Marseille-QA0894T and Marseille-Q2328T. No gene coding for sialidase was found in Marseille-Q9179T. Vaginolysin type 1B was found in Marseille-Q9181T and Marseille-QA0894T. Vaginolysin type 1A was found in Marseille-Q2328T. Marseille-Q9179T was aligned with vaginolysin type 2 possessing glutamic acid at position −1 and a substitution of valine by alanine at position 6 in the undecapeptide region (Fig. S2). Structural modelling of the candidate proteins vaginolysin and sialidase using PHYRE 2.2 enabled functional confirmation, with a confidence level of 100%.
Discussion
G. vaginalis species is categorized in the phylum Actinomycetota, class Actinomycetes, order Bifidobacteriales, family Bifidobacteriaceae and genus Gardnerella [46]. Until recently, the genus Gardnerella comprised 14 genomic species, 6 of which have got subsequently validly published names [10,11]. Gardner and Dukes were the first to demonstrate the presence of G. vaginalis in women with bacterial vaginosis, formerly known as non-specific bacterial vaginitis [47]. Later, several studies showed a significant association between G. vaginalis and bacterial vaginosis [2,48, 49]. Bacterial vaginosis is a dysbiosis characterized by a decrease in lactobacilli and the proliferation of several anaerobic bacteria, such as G. vaginalis, Fannyhessea vaginae, Prevotella bivia, Mobiluncus curtisii and many others [50,52].
Recent studies revealed that the complex of strains previously attributed to a single species, G. vaginalis, and associated with bacterial vaginosis could represent multiple similar but distinct and sometimes neighbour species [4,7, 10, 53]. Several genetically distinct groups have already been described as new species (G. picketti, formerly genomic species 3, G. piotii, formerly genomic species 4, G. leopoldii, formerly genomic species 5, G. swidsinskii, formerly genomic species 6, and G. greenwoodii, formerly genomic species 8). Other genomic species are not yet officially described. Here, we continue to dissect former genomic species of G. vaginalis that may represent different species according to modern criteria. We analysed four Gardnerella strains isolated from vagina and blood in Marseille, France, and characterized them.
Strains Marseille-Q9181T, Marseille-QA0894T and Marseille-Q9179T have a whitish to greyish morphology almost identical to that of G. vaginalis, G. piotii, G. leopoldii and G. swidsinskii as described by Vaneechoutte et al. [10], which limits the potential for identifying Gardnerella species based solely on the appearance of colonies isolated in culture. Previous studies have used β-galactosidase as a biochemical test to differentiate Gardnerella species [3,10, 11]. Our results showed that strains Marseille-QA0894T, Marseille-Q2328T and Marseille-Q9179T were negative for β-galactosidase, while strain Marseille-Q9181T exhibited positive β-galactosidase activity. These data support the conclusion that the β-galactosidase test is no longer suitable for identifying Gardnerella species. The strains Marseille-Q9181T, Marseille-QA0894T, Marseille-Q2328T and Marseille-Q9179T appear as Gram-negative coccobacilli. They can grow at 5% CO2 and show no activity for catalase, oxidase and β-glucosidase. These phenotypic characteristics are similar to those observed in other species of the genus Gardnerella [10,47, 54].
A recent study updated the MALDI Biotyper database to distinguish between the G. vaginalis/G. piotii and G. leopoldii/G. swidsinskii pairs for routine diagnosis [55]. However, our results showed that even with an improved MALDI Biotyper database, it was not possible to accurately distinguish Gardnerella species.
Phylogenetic analysis based on the comparison of the 16S rRNA gene revealed that strains Marseille-Q9181T, Marseille QA0894T, Marseille-Q2328T and Marseille-Q9179T were more than 98.5% similar to their closest phylogenetic neighbour. However, this criterion is insufficient to establish a new species in Gardnerella as mentioned in previous studies [10,14, 56]. According to the generally accepted criteria for bacterial species delimitation, namely dDDH 70% and ANI 96% [34,57], strains Marseille-Q9181T, Marseille-QA0894T and Marseille-Q2328T belong to Gardnerella genomic species 2, 9 and 14, respectively (dDDH ≥70% and ANI ≥96%). However, the strain Marseille-Q9179T exhibits dDDH and ANI values below the thresholds established for species delimitation, confirming that this strain is a new species of the genus Gardnerella. Based on phenotypic, phylogenetic and genomic analyses, we describe four species of the genus Gardnerella: G. lacydonensis sp. nov., strain Marseille-Q9181T, belongs to the previously reported Gardnerella genomic species 2; G. bretellae sp. nov., strain Marseille-QA0894T, belongs to the previously reported Gardnerella genomic species 9 [10]; G. massiliensis sp. nov., strain Marseille-Q2328T, belongs to the previously reported Gardnerella genomic species 14 [14]; and G. phocaeensis sp. nov., strain Marseille-Q9179T, is a new species of the genus Gardnerella that may also be represented as Gardnerella genomic species 15.
The genome analyses show that the investigated strains have a genome size of 1.491 to 1.716 Mb and a G+C content from 41.1 mol% to 43.4 mol% that is generally comparable to the values described for the genus Gardnerella [58]. However, the strain Marseille-Q2328T is distinguished by a significantly higher G+C content (45.3 mol%) than the officially described strains [10,11]. In the genus Gardnerella, variation in G+C content has already been correlated with isolated genomic clades specifically adapted to different ecological niches, suggesting a role in adaptive divergence [58]. It should be noted that the strain with the highest G+C content (Marseille-Q2328T) was isolated from blood, in contrast to the others, which were isolated from the vagina. Furthermore, evidence of mobile subsystems and a high number of genes associated with DNA replication, recombination and repair in the strains Marseille-QA0894T and Marseille-Q2328T highlights a diverse and highly adaptable pangenome within these strains, characterized by frequent horizontal gene acquisition, genetic mobility and genome expansion [58].
Sialidase has harmful effects on the vaginal mucosa, facilitating the adhesion of bacteria to the vaginal epithelium and the formation of biofilms [59,60]. Previously, three sialidase enzymes (nanH1, nanH2 and nanH3) have been identified in strains of the genus Gardnerella [43]. The nanH1 gene, encoding sialidase A, was detected; however, none of the strains possessed a gene encoding the active enzyme (nanH2 and nanH3) [43]. Thus, these results show that the four strains of Gardnerella do not possess sialidase activity. The four strains also possess the vaginolysin gene, as observed in other Gardnerella species [42]. The species of the genus Gardnerella produces vaginolysin, a toxin that is a cholesterol-dependent cytolysin [61]. According to a recent study, Gardnerella species have five different forms of vaginolysin: type 1A, type 1B, type 1C, type 2 and type 3 [42]. However, the strain Marseille-Q9179T exhibits unique variability in the type 2 undecapeptide region of vaginolysin, which could indicate the existence of a new subclass of vaginolysin.
Description of Gardnerella lacydonensis sp. nov. (formerly known as Gardnerella genomic species 2)
Gardnerella lacydonensis (la.cy.don.en’sis. sis, N.L. fem. adj. lacydonensis, from Lacydon, the name of the ancient port of Marseille, the French city where the strain was first described).
Cells are facultative anaerobic and microaerophilic, non-motile, non-spore-forming and Gram-negative coccobacilli. The cells are 1.39±0.4 µm long and 0.86±0.07 µm wide. Catalase and oxidase activities are negative. Colonies are round, greyish to whitish and opaque on PolyViteX chocolate agar, Columbia CNA agar supplemented with 5% sheep blood and Columbia agar enriched with 5% sheep blood after 48 h of incubation. Growth occurs in a temperature range of 28–37 °C (optimum 37 °C), at a pH of 7.5 to 8.5 (optimum 7.5) and 0.5% NaCl. Using API strips, positive reactions are observed for d-glucose, d-mannitol, lactose, d-sucrose, d-maltose, salicin, aesculin, iron citrate, glycerol, d-cellobiose, d-mannose, d-melezitose, d-sorbitol, starch, alkaline phosphatase, leucine arylamidase, valine arylamidase, acid phosphatase, naphthol-AS-BI-phosphohydrolase, α-glucosidase, ß-galactosidase and d-mannosidase. The predominant fatty acids are C16 : 0, C18 : 1 ω9c and C18 : 0. The genome size is 1.7 Mbp, with a G+C content of 41.4 mol%. The type strain Marseille-Q9181T (=CSUR Q9181T=CECT 31121T) was isolated from a vaginal sample. The 16S rRNA and genome sequences were deposited in GenBank under accession numbers PQ636763 and JBKQXT000000000, respectively.
Description of Gardnerella bretellae sp. nov. (formerly known as Gardnerella genomic species 9)
Gardnerella bretellae (bre.tel’lae, N.L. gen. n. bretellae, honouring Florence Bretelle for her contribution to the description of vaginal flora).
Cells are strictly anaerobic and microaerophilic, non-motile, non-spore-forming and Gram-negative coccobacilli. Cells are 0.73±0.13 µm long and 0.5±0.06 µm wide. Catalase and oxidase activities are negative. Growth is observed at 37–42 °C (optimum 37 °C), pH 6.5–8.5 (optimum 7.5) and 0.5% NaCl. Bacterial colonies are round, greyish to whitish and opaque on PolyViteX chocolate agar, Columbia CNA agar supplemented with 5% sheep blood and Columbia agar enriched with 5% sheep blood after 48 h of incubation at 37 °C. Using API strips, positive reactions are observed for d-glucose, d-mannitol, lactose, d-sucrose, d-maltose, salicin, aesculin, iron citrate, glycerol, d-cellobiose, d-mannose, d-melezitose and d-sorbitol, starch, alkaline phosphatase, leucine arylamidase, valine arylamidase, acid phosphatase, naphthol-AS-BI-phosphohydrolase and α-glucosidase. The predominant fatty acids are C16 : 0, C18 : 1 ω9c and C18 : 0. The genome size is 1.5 Mbp, with a G+C content of 43.2 mol%. The type strain Marseille-QA0894T (=CSUR QA0894T=CECT 31122T) was isolated from a vaginal sample. The 16S rRNA and genome sequences were deposited in GenBank under accession numbers PQ636764 and JBKQXU000000000, respectively.
Description of Gardnerella massiliensis sp. nov. (formerly known as Gardnerella genomic species 14)
Gardnerella massiliensis (mas.si.li.en’sis. N.L. fem. adj. massiliensis, from Massilia, the Latin name of Marseille in France, where the bacterium was first described).
Cells are facultative anaerobic and microaerophilic, non-motile, non-spore-forming and Gram-negative coccobacilli. Cells are 3±0.64 µm long and 1.5±0.09 µm wide. Catalase and oxidase activities are negative. Growth occurs in a temperature range of 28–42 °C (optimum 37 °C) at a pH of 6.5 to 8.5 (optimum 7.5) and 0.5% NaCl. Bacterial colonies are small, translucent, almost transparent and circular on Columbia agar enriched with 5% sheep’s blood and Columbia CNA agar supplemented with 5% sheep’s blood, after 48 h of incubation at 37 °C. Using API strips, positive reactions are observed for d-glucose, d-mannitol, lactose, d-sucrose, d-maltose, salicin, aesculin, iron citrate, glycerol, d-cellobiose, d-mannose, d-melezitose, d-sorbitol, starch, alkaline phosphatase, leucine arylamidase, valine arylamidase, acid phosphatase, naphthol-AS-BI-phosphohydrolase and α-glucosidase. The most abundant fatty acids are C16 : 0, C18 : 1 ω9c and C18 : 0. The genome size is 1.7 Mbp, with a G+C content of 45.3 mol%. The type strain Marseille-Q2328T (=CSUR Q2328T=CECT 30239T) was isolated from blood. The 16S rRNA and genome sequences were deposited in GenBank under accession numbers MT822479 and CALNWW000000000, respectively.
Description of Gardnerella phocaeensis sp. nov.
Gardnerella phocaeensis (pho.cae.en’sis, N.L. fem. adj. phocaeensis, referring to Phocaea, the name of the Ionian Greek city where the founders of Marseille came from. The strain was isolated in Marseille).
Cells are facultative anaerobic and microaerophilic, non-motile, non-spore-forming and Gram-negative coccobacilli. Cells are 1±0.05 µm long and 0.54±0.04 µm wide. Catalase and oxidase activities are negative. Colonies are greyish to whitish in appearance and circular on Columbia agar enriched with 5% sheep’s blood, PolyViteX chocolate agar and Columbia CNA agar enriched with 5% sheep’s blood, after 48 h of incubation at 37 °C.
Growth occurs in a temperature range of 28–42 °C (optimum 37 °C), at a pH of 7.5 to 8.5 (optimum 7.5) and 0.5% NaCl. Using API strips, positive reactions are observed for d-glucose, d-mannitol, lactose, d-sucrose, d-maltose, salicin, aesculin, iron citrate, glycerol, d-cellobiose, d-mannose, d-melezitose, d-sorbitol, starch, l-rhamnose, d-trehalose, alkaline phosphatase, leucine arylamidase, valine arylamidase, acid phosphatase, naphthol-AS-BI-phosphohydrolase, α-glucosidase, esterase (C4), esterase-lipase (C8), lipase (C14) and ß-glucuronidase. The most abundant fatty acids are C16 : 0, C18 : 1 ω9c, C18 : 0 and C14 : 0. The genome size is 1.5 Mbp, with a G+C content of 42.3 mol%. The type strain Marseille-Q9179T (=CSUR Q9179T=CECT 31120T) was isolated from a vaginal sample. The 16S rRNA and genome sequences were deposited in GenBank under accession numbers PQ636765 and JBKQXS000000000, respectively.
Supplementary material
Acknowledgements
We thank the IHU-NGS platform team for sequencing the four Gardnerella genomes mentioned in this study. We also thank Hitachi High-Tech Corporation (Japan) for the installation of an SU5000 microscope at IHU Méditerranée Infection. We thank Lara Rocchetto for her contribution to this work.
Abbreviations
- COGs
Clusters of Orthologous Genes
- dDDH
digital DNA–DNA hybridization
- RAST
Rapid Annotation Using Subsystem Technology
- SEM
scanning electron microscopy
Footnotes
Funding: This research was supported by the Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire (IHU) Méditerranée Infection, the National Research Agency under the programme ‘Investissements d’avenir’, reference ANR-10-IAHU-03.
Author contributions: Conceptualization: G.D., O.M. and F.F. Data curation: P.A.N., M.B., N.O., S.B., S.A., C.A., A.H., G.D., O.M., A.L. and F.F. Formal analysis: P.A.N., M.B., N.O., S.B., S.A., C.A., A.H., O.M., A.L. and F.F. Investigation: P.A.N., G.D., O.M., A.L. and F.F. Methodology: P.A.N., A.H., G.D., O.M. and F.F. Project administration: G.D., O.M. and F.F. Software: P.A.N., M.B., C.A., O.M., A.L. and F.F. Resources: P.A.N., M.B., S.A., C.A., A.H., G.D., O.M., A.L. and F.F. Supervision: A.H., O.M. and F.F. Validation: P.A.N., A.H., O.M., A.L. and F.F. Visualization: P.A.N., A.H., O.M. and F.F. Writing – original draft: P.A.N. and F.F. Writing – review and editing: all authors reviewed and edited the final manuscript.
Ethical statement: Our independent local ethics committee approved the description of new bacterial species not routinely identified by mass spectrometry (agreement number 2022-004) and the clearance of Ethics Review Committee and compliance with data protection legislation. Gardnerella lacydonensis type strain Marseille-Q9181T (=CSUR Q9181T=CECT 31121T) was isolated on 24 April 2023. Gardnerella bretellae type strain Marseille-QA0894T (=CSUR QA0894T=CECT 31122T) was isolated on 25 May 2023. Gardnerella phocaeensis type strain Marseille-Q9179T (=CSUR Q9179T=CECT 31120T) was isolated on 28 May 2023. Gardnerella massiliensis type strain Marseille-Q2328T (=CSUR Q2328T=CECT 30239T) was isolated on 15 September 2021.
Accession No: The sequences of the gene encoding the 16S rRNA for the strains Marseille-Q9181T, Marseille-QA0894T, Marseille-Q2328T and Marseille-Q9179T are available in the GenBank database under the accession numbers PQ636763, PQ636764, MT822479 and PQ636765, respectively. The genome sequences of strains Marseille-Q9181T, Marseille-QA0894T, Marseille-Q2328T and Marseille-Q9179T are available on GenBank, referenced as JBKQXT000000000, JBKQXU000000000, CALNWW000000000 and JBKQXS000000000, respectively.
Contributor Information
Priscille Allini Ntiguemassa, Email: priscillealticia@gmail.com.
Mamadou Beye, Email: bemamadou@gmail.com.
Nicolas Orain, Email: nicolas.orain@mediterranee-infection.com.
Sara Bellali, Email: sarra.bellali@gmail.com.
Stephane Alibar, Email: stephane.alibar@ap-hm.fr.
Claudia Andrieu, Email: claudia.andrieu1@ap-hm.fr.
Alissa Hammoud, Email: alissa.h.hammoud@gmail.com.
Grégory Dubourg, Email: gregory.dubourg@univ-amu.fr.
Oleg Mediannikov, Email: olegusss1@gmail.com.
Anthony Levasseur, Email: anthony.levasseur@univ-amu.fr.
Florence Fenollar, Email: florence.fenollar@univ-amu.fr.
References
- 1.Schwebke JR, Muzny CA, Josey WE. Role of Gardnerella vaginalis in the pathogenesis of bacterial vaginosis: a conceptual model. J Infect Dis. 2014;210:338–343. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiu089. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Morrill S, Gilbert NM, Lewis AL. Gardnerella vaginalis as a cause of bacterial vaginosis: appraisal of the evidence from in vivo models. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2020;10:168. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2020.00168. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Piot P, Van Dyck E, Peeters M, Hale J, Totten PA, et al. Biotypes of Gardnerella vaginalis. J Clin Microbiol. 1984;20:677–679. doi: 10.1128/jcm.20.4.677-679.1984. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Janulaitiene M, Paliulyte V, Grinceviciene S, Zakareviciene J, Vladisauskiene A, et al. Prevalence and distribution of Gardnerella vaginalis subgroups in women with and without bacterial vaginosis. BMC Infect Dis. 2017;17:394. doi: 10.1186/s12879-017-2501-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Ingianni A, Petruzzelli S, Morandotti G, Pompei R. Genotypic differentiation of Gardnerella vaginalis by amplified ribosomal DNA restriction analysis (ARDRA) FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 1997;18:61–66. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-695X.1997.tb01028.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Balashov SV, Mordechai E, Adelson ME, Gygax SE. Identification, quantification and subtyping of Gardnerella vaginalis in noncultured clinical vaginal samples by quantitative PCR. J Med Microbiol. 2014;63:162–175. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.066407-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Munch MM, Strenk SM, Srinivasan S, Fiedler TL, Proll S, et al. Gardnerella species and their association with bacterial vaginosis. J Infect Dis. 2024;230:e171–e181. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiae026. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Schellenberg JJ, Paramel Jayaprakash T, Withana Gamage N, Patterson MH, Vaneechoutte M, et al. Gardnerella vaginalis subgroups defined by cpn60 sequencing and sialidase activity in isolates from Canada, Belgium and Kenya. PLoS One . 2016;11:e0146510. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0146510. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Plummer EL, Vodstrcil LA, Murray GL, Fairley CK, Danielewski JA, et al. Gardnerella vaginalis clade distribution is associated with behavioral practices and Nugent score in women who have sex with women. J Infect Dis. 2020;221:454–463. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiz474. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Vaneechoutte M, Guschin A, Simaey L, Gansemans Y, Nieuwerburgh F, et al. Emended description of Gardnerella vaginalis and description of Gardnerella leopoldii sp. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2019;69:679–687. doi: 10.1099/ijsem.0.003200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Sousa M, Ksiezarek M, Perovic SU, Antunes-Lopes T, Grosso F, et al. Gardnerella pickettii sp. nov. (formerly Gardnerella genomic species 3) and Gardnerella greenwoodii sp. nov. (formerly Gardnerella genomic species 8) isolated from female urinary microbiome. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2023;73:006140. doi: 10.1099/ijsem.0.006140. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Tarracchini C, Lugli GA, Mancabelli L, Milani C, Turroni F, et al. Assessing the genomic variability of Gardnerella vaginalis through comparative genomic analyses: evolutionary and ecological implications. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2020;87:e02188-20. doi: 10.1128/AEM.02188-20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Berman HL, Goltsman DSA, Anderson M, Relman DA, Callahan BJ. Gardnerella diversity and ecology in pregnancy and preterm birth. mSystems. 2024;9:e0133923. doi: 10.1128/msystems.01339-23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Potter RF, Burnham C-A, Dantas G. In silico analysis of Gardnerella genomospecies detected in the setting of bacterial vaginosis. Clin Chem. 2019;65:1375–1387. doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2019.305474. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Turner E, Sobel JD, Akins RA. Prognosis of recurrent bacterial vaginosis based on longitudinal changes in abundance of Lactobacillus and specific species of Gardnerella. PLoS One. 2021;16:e0256445. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256445. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Lo CI, Fall B, Sambe-Ba B, Diawara S, Gueye MW, et al. MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry: a powerful tool for clinical microbiology at Hôpital Principal de Dakar, Senegal (West Africa) PLoS One. 2015;10:e0145889. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0145889. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Seng P, Drancourt M, Gouriet F, La Scola B, Fournier P-E, et al. Ongoing revolution in bacteriology: routine identification of bacteria by matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;49:543–551. doi: 10.1086/600885. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Zgheib R, Ibrahim A, Anani H, Ndongo S, Bilen M, et al. Neglectibacter timonensis gen. nov., sp. nov. and Scatolibacter rhodanostii gen. nov., sp. nov., two anaerobic bacteria isolated from human stool samples. Arch Microbiol. 2022;204:1–9. doi: 10.1007/s00203-021-02712-w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Ly C, Abou Chacra L, Birsal E, Haddad G, Lo CI, et al. Anaerococcus ihuae sp. nov. and Mediannikoviicoccus vaginalis gen. nov., sp. nov., two new bacteria isolated from human vaginal samples. Arch Microbiol. 2022;204:508. doi: 10.1007/s00203-022-03082-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Dione N, Sankar SA, Lagier J-C, Khelaifia S, Michele C, et al. Genome sequence and description of Anaerosalibacter massiliensis sp. nov. New Microbes New Infect. 2016;10:66–76. doi: 10.1016/j.nmni.2016.01.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Anani H, Abou Abdallah R, Chelkha N, Fontanini A, Ricaboni D, et al. Draft genome and description of Merdibacter massiliensis gen.nov., sp. nov., a new bacterium genus isolated from the human ileum. Sci Rep. 2019;9:7931. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-44343-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Prjibelski A, Antipov D, Meleshko D, Lapidus A, Korobeynikov A. Using SPAdes de novo assembler. CP in Bioinform. 2020;70:e102. doi: 10.1002/cpbi.102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Parks DH, Imelfort M, Skennerton CT, Hugenholtz P, Tyson GW. CheckM: assessing the quality of microbial genomes recovered from isolates, single cells, and metagenomes. Genome Res. 2015;25:1043–1055. doi: 10.1101/gr.186072.114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Aziz RK, Bartels D, Best AA, DeJongh M, Disz T, et al. The RAST server: rapid annotations using subsystems technology. BMC Genom. 2008;9:75. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-9-75. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Seemann T. Prokka: rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:2068–2069. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu153. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Galperin MY, Makarova KS, Wolf YI, Koonin EV. Expanded microbial genome coverage and improved protein family annotation in the COG database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43:D261–9. doi: 10.1093/nar/gku1223. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Petkau A, Stuart-Edwards M, Stothard P, Van Domselaar G. Interactive microbial genome visualization with GView. Bioinformatics. 2010;26:3125–3126. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq588. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Edgar RC. MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32:1792–1797. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkh340. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Tamura K, Stecher G, Kumar S. MEGA11: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis Version 11. Mol Biol Evol. 2021;38:3022–3027. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msab120. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Felsenstein J. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution. 1985;39:783–791. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1985.tb00420.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Saitou N, Nei M. The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol Biol Evol. 1987;4:406–425. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040454. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Tamura K. Estimation of the number of nucleotide substitutions when there are strong transition-transversion and G+C-content biases. Mol Biol Evol. 1992;9:678–687. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040752. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Kim M, Oh H-S, Park S-C, Chun J. Towards a taxonomic coherence between average nucleotide identity and 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity for species demarcation of prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2014;64:346–351. doi: 10.1099/ijs.0.059774-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Meier-Kolthoff JP, Auch AF, Klenk H-P, Göker M. Genome sequence-based species delimitation with confidence intervals and improved distance functions. BMC Bioinformatics. 2013;14:1–14. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-14-60. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Auch AF, von Jan M, Klenk H-P, Göker M. Digital DNA-DNA hybridization for microbial species delineation by means of genome-to-genome sequence comparison. Stand Genomic Sci. 2010;2:117–134. doi: 10.4056/sigs.531120. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Lee I, Ouk Kim Y, Park S-C, Chun J. OrthoANI: an improved algorithm and software for calculating average nucleotide identity. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2016;66:1100–1103. doi: 10.1099/ijsem.0.000760. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Arndt D, Marcu A, Liang Y, Wishart DS. Phast, phaster and phastest: tools for finding prophage in bacterial genomes. Brief Bioinform . 2019;20:1560–1567. doi: 10.1093/bib/bbx121. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Siguier P, Perochon J, Lestrade L, Mahillon J, Chandler M. ISfinder: the reference centre for bacterial insertion sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006;34:D32–6. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkj014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Carattoli A, Zankari E, García-Fernández A, Voldby Larsen M, Lund O, et al. In silico detection and typing of plasmids using PlasmidFinder and plasmid multilocus sequence typing. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58:3895–3903. doi: 10.1128/AAC.02412-14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.van Heel AJ, de Jong A, Song C, Viel JH, Kok J, et al. BAGEL4: a user-friendly web server to thoroughly mine RiPPs and bacteriocins. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;46:W278–W281. doi: 10.1093/nar/gky383. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Blin K, Shaw S, Steinke K, Villebro R, Ziemert N, et al. antiSMASH 5.0: updates to the secondary metabolite genome mining pipeline. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47:W81–W87. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkz310. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Garcia EM, Serrano MG, Edupuganti L, Edwards DJ, Buck GA, et al. Sequence comparison of vaginolysin from different Gardnerella species. Pathogens. 2021;10:86. doi: 10.3390/pathogens10020086. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Robinson LS, Schwebke J, Lewis WG, Lewis AL. Identification and characterization of NanH2 and NanH3, enzymes responsible for sialidase activity in the vaginal bacterium Gardnerella vaginalis. J Biol Chem. 2019;294:5230–5245. doi: 10.1074/jbc.RA118.006221. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Kelley LA, Mezulis S, Yates CM, Wass MN, Sternberg MJE. The Phyre2 web portal for protein modeling, prediction and analysis. Nat Protoc. 2015;10:845–858. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2015.053. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Van Esbroeck M, Vandamme P, Falsen E, Vancanneyt M, Moore E, et al. Polyphasic approach to the classification and identification of Gardnerella vaginalis and unidentified Gardnerella vaginalis-like coryneforms present in bacterial vaginosis. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 1996;46:675–682. doi: 10.1099/00207713-46-3-675. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Stackebrandt E, Rainey FA, Ward-rainey NL. Proposal for a new hierarchic classification system, Actinobacteria classis nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 1997;47:479–491. doi: 10.1099/00207713-47-2-479. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 47.GARDNER HL, DUKES CD. Haemophilus vaginalis vaginitis: a newly defined specific infection previously classified non-specific vaginitis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1955;69:962–976. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(55)90095-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Bradshaw CS, Tabrizi SN, Fairley CK, Morton AN, Rudland E, et al. The association of Atopobium vaginae and Gardnerella vaginalis with bacterial vaginosis and recurrence after oral metronidazole therapy. J Infect Dis. 2006;194:828–836. doi: 10.1086/506621. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Gergova RT, Strateva TV, Mitov IG. Gardnerella vaginalis-associated bacterial vaginosis in Bulgarian women. Braz J Infect Dis. 2013;17:313–318. doi: 10.1016/j.bjid.2012.10.026. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Schwebke JR. Asymptomatic bacterial vaginosis: response to therapy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;183:1434–1439. doi: 10.1067/mob.2000.107735. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Muzny CA, Blanchard E, Taylor CM, Aaron KJ, Talluri R, et al. Identification of key bacteria involved in the induction of incident bacterial vaginosis: a prospective study. J Infect Dis. 2018;218:966–978. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiy243. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Abou Chacra L, Fenollar F, Diop K. Bacterial vaginosis: what do we currently know? Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2021;11:672429. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2021.672429. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Shipitsyna E, Krysanova A, Khayrullina G, Shalepo K, Savicheva A. Quantitation of all four Gardnerella vaginalis clades detects abnormal vaginal microbiota characteristic of bacterial vaginosis more accurately than putative G. vaginalis sialidase a gene count. Mol Diagn Ther. 2019;23:139–147. doi: 10.1007/s40291-019-00382-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Castro J, Jefferson KK, Cerca N. Genetic heterogeneity and taxonomic diversity among Gardnerella species. Trends Microbiol. 2020;28:202–211. doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2019.10.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Bulavaitė A, Maier T, Pleckaityte M. Discrimination of Gardnerella species by combining MALDI-TOF protein profile, chaperonin cpn60 sequences, and phenotypic characteristics. Pathogens. 2021;10:277. doi: 10.3390/pathogens10030277. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Hill JE, Albert AYK. Resolution and cooccurrence patterns of Gardnerella leopoldii, G. swidsinskii, G. piotii, and G. vaginalis within the vaginal microbiome. Infect Immun. 2019;87:10. doi: 10.1128/IAI.00532-19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Ciufo S, Kannan S, Sharma S, Badretdin A, Clark K, et al. Using average nucleotide identity to improve taxonomic assignments in prokaryotic genomes at the NCBI. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2018;68:2386–2392. doi: 10.1099/ijsem.0.002809. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Ahmed A, Earl J, Retchless A, Hillier SL, Rabe LK, et al. Comparative genomic analyses of 17 clinical isolates of Gardnerella vaginalis provide evidence of multiple genetically isolated clades consistent with subspeciation into genovars. J Bacteriol. 2012;194:3922–3937. doi: 10.1128/JB.00056-12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Cauci S, Thorsen P, Schendel DE, Bremmelgaard A, Quadrifoglio F, et al. Determination of immunoglobulin A against Gardnerella vaginalis hemolysin, sialidase, and prolidase activities in vaginal fluid: implications for adverse pregnancy outcomes. J Clin Microbiol. 2003;41:435–438. doi: 10.1128/JCM.41.1.435-438.2003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Machado A, Cerca N. Influence of biofilm formation by Gardnerella vaginalis and other anaerobes on bacterial vaginosis. J Infect Dis. 2015;212:1856–1861. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiv338. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Rottini G, Dobrina A, Forgiarini O, Nardon E, Amirante GA, et al. Identification and partial characterization of a cytolytic toxin produced by Gardnerella vaginalis. Infect Immun. 1990;58:3751–3758. doi: 10.1128/iai.58.11.3751-3758.1990. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.





