Skip to main content
Frontiers in Microbiology logoLink to Frontiers in Microbiology
. 2017 Jan 20;8:22. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.00022

Bacillus amyloliquefaciens, Bacillus velezensis, and Bacillus siamensis Form an “Operational Group B. amyloliquefaciens” within the B. subtilis Species Complex

Ben Fan 1, Jochen Blom 2, Hans-Peter Klenk 3, Rainer Borriss 4,5,*
PMCID: PMC5247444  PMID: 28163698

Abstract

The plant growth promoting model bacterium FZB42T was proposed as the type strain of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum (Borriss et al., 2011), but has been recently recognized as being synonymous to Bacillus velezensis due to phylogenomic analysis (Dunlap C. et al., 2016). However, until now, majority of publications consider plant-associated close relatives of FZB42 still as “B. amyloliquefaciens.” Here, we reinvestigated the taxonomic status of FZB42 and related strains in its context to the free-living soil bacterium DSM7T, the type strain of B. amyloliquefaciens. We identified 66 bacterial genomes from the NCBI data bank with high similarity to DSM7T. Dendrograms based on complete rpoB nucleotide sequences and on core genome sequences, respectively, clustered into a clade consisting of three tightly linked branches: (1) B. amyloliquefaciens, (2) Bacillus siamensis, and (3) a conspecific group containing the type strains of B. velezensis, Bacillus methylotrophicus, and B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum. The three monophyletic clades shared a common mutation rate of 0.01 substitutions per nucleotide position, but were distantly related to Bacillus subtilis (0.1 substitutions per nucleotide position). The tight relatedness of the three clusters was corroborated by TETRA, dDDH, ANI, and AAI analysis of the core genomes, but dDDH and ANI values were found slightly below species level thresholds when B. amyloliquefaciens DSM7T genome sequence was used as query sequence. Due to these results, we propose that the B. amyloliquefaciens clade should be considered as a taxonomic unit above of species level, designated here as “operational group B. amyloliquefaciens” consisting of the soil borne B. amyloliquefaciens, and plant associated B. siamensis and B. velezensis, whose members are closely related and allow identifying changes on the genomic level due to developing the plant-associated life-style.

Keywords: phylogenomics, Bacillus subtilis group, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens, Bacillus taxonomy, digital DNA–DNA hybridization, average nucleotide identity (ANI), average amino acid identity (AAI)

Introduction

At the time of writing, the genus Bacillus (Gordon et al., 1973), consisted of 318 species with validly published names (http://www.bacterio.net/bacillus.html) with Bacillus subtilis as the type species (Cohn, 1872; Skerman et al., 1980). The industrial important species B. subtilis, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens, Bacillus licheniformis, and Bacillus pumilus are representing a group of phylogenetically and phenetically homogeneous species called, in the vernacular, the B. subtilis species complex (Fritze, 2004). For many years, it has been recognized that these species are hardly to distinguish on the basis of traditional phenotypic methods. Moreover, phylogenetic analysis of the 16S rRNA gene also fails to differentiate species within the complex due to the highly conserved nature of the gene (Rooney et al., 2009).

All members of this species complex are placed in 16S rRNA/DNA group 1. Its separation was based mainly on the significantly low DNA relatedness values experimentally determined by DDH, and their different fatty acid profiles (Priest et al., 1987). Besides the “original members” B. subtilis, B. licheniformis, and B. pumilus, early described by Gordon et al. (1973), many novel species belonging to the B. subtilis species complex have been described in last decades: B amyloliquefaciens (Priest et al., 1987), Bacillus atrophaeus (Nakamura, 1989), Bacillus mojavensis (Roberts et al., 1994), Bacillus vallismortis (Roberts et al., 1996), Bacillus sonorensis (Palmisano et al., 2001), Bacillus velezensis (Ruiz-García et al., 2005a), Bacillus axarquiensis (Ruiz-García et al., 2005b), Bacillus tequilensis (Gatson et al., 2006), Bacillus aerius, Bacillus aerophilus, Bacillus stratosphericus, Bacillus altitudinis (Shivaji et al., 2006), Bacillus safensis (Satomi et al., 2006), Bacillus methylotrophicus (Madhaiyan et al., 2010), Bacillus siamensis (Sumpavapol et al., 2010), Bacillus xiamenensis (Lai et al., 2014), Bacillus vanillea (Chen et al., 2014), Bacillus paralicheniformis (Dunlap C. et al., 2015), Bacillus glycinifermentas (Kim et al., 2015), Bacillus oryzicola (Chung et al., 2015), Bacillus gobiensis (Liu et al., 2016), and Bacillus nakamurai (Dunlap C. A. et al., 2016). B. vanillea, B. oryzicola, and B. methylotrophicus could not be corroborated as valid species and were identified as later heterotypic synonyms of either B. siamensis (Dunlap, 2015), or B. velezensis (Dunlap C. et al., 2016). B. subtilis has been subdivided into the three subspecies: B. subtilis subsp. subtilis, B. subtilis subsp. spizizenii (Nakamura et al., 1999), and B. subtilis subsp. inaquosorum (Rooney et al., 2009). In recent time, methods based on genome sequences (complete and WGS), such as ANI (Richter and Rosselló-Móra, 2009), AAI (Konstantinidis and Tiedje, 2005), dDDH (Meier-Kolthoff et al., 2013), and TETRA (Teeling et al., 2004), were used to finally discriminate a wide spectrum of bacterial taxons including the B. subtilis species complex (Federhen, 2015).

Some representatives of B. amyloliquefaciens were found plant-root-associated and to act beneficial on plant growth (Idriss et al., 2002). Reva et al. (2004) reported that seven Bacillus isolates from plants or soil are closely related to but distinct from B. amyloliquefaciens type strain DSM7T. These strains are more proficient for rhizosphere colonization than other members of the B. subtilis group (Hossain et al., 2015). B. amyloliquefaciens strains GB03 (Choi et al., 2014), and FZB42 (Chen et al., 2007) are widely used in different commercial formulations to promote plant growth.

With the advent of comparative genomics and the availability of an increasing number of whole genome sequences, it became possible to distinguish two subspecies within B. amyloliquefaciens: B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. amyloliquefaciens (type strain DSM7T), and B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum (type strain: FZB42T). Spectroscopic DDH performed with hydroxylapatite-purified chromosomal DNA from DSM7T and FZB42T yielded DNA-DNA relatedness values ranging between 63.7 and 71.2% which apparently did not sufficiently support discrimination of both taxons on the species level (Borriss et al., 2011). According to this view the subspecies “plantarum” represented a distinct ecotype of plant-associated B. amyloliquefaciens strains (Reva et al., 2004), which is increasingly used as biofertilizer and biocontrol agents in agriculture (Borriss, 2011).

Whilst many researchers are still using this classification (e.g., Hossain et al., 2015), recent phylogenomic studies showed a high degree of similarity between the genomes of the B. methylotrophicus, B. velezensis, B. oryzicola, and B. vanillea type strains, and the genome of the B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum type strain FZB42T (= DSM 23117T = BGSC 10A6T). Due to this finding it was proposed that the taxon B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum should be considered as a later heterotypic synonym of either B. methylotrophicus (Dunlap C. A. et al., 2015) or, more correctly due to priority rule, of B. velezensis (Dunlap C. et al., 2016). In spite of this increasingly complex taxonomic situation, we conducted here an extended phylogenomic analysis based on 66 core genomes displaying a high degree of similarity with the type strain of B. amyloliquefaciens DSM7T. It ruled out that three tightly linked clades including a conspecific group consisting of FZB42T, B. methylotrophicus KACC 13103T, and B. velezensis KCTC13012T, could be distinguished. The tight relatedness of the three clades consisting of representatives of B. amyloliquefaciens, B. velezensis, and B. siamensis was validated by rpoB gene sequence homology, and, ANI, AAI, dDDH, and TETRA analysis of the core genomes. We propose to introduce the term “operational group B. amyloliquefaciens” to underline their close phylogenomic relationship.

Materials and methods

Retrieval of rpoB sequences

Complete rpoB gene sequences with homology to B. amyloliquefaciens DSM7T were retrieved from the respective genomes of Bacillus strains available at NCBI (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sutils/genom_table.cgi?organism$=$microb). Sequence comparisons were obtained by NCBI BlastN (http://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi?CMD$=$Web&PAGE_TYPE$=$BlastHome).

Alignment of DNA rpoB sequences

Alignment of DNA rpoB sequences was performed by the Clustal Omega program accessible at http://www.ebi.ac.uk/Tools/msa/clustalo/. A distance matrix was calculated from this alignment by DNA distance matrix calcuation (DNADIST program), and the matrix was then transformed into a tree by the NEIGHBOR program. In order to verify the accuracy of the tree multiple data sets were generated with the SEQBOOT program using 200 bootstrap replicates. A tree was built from each replicate with the DNADIST program, and then bootstrap values were computed with the CONSENSE program. The phylogenetic tree was visualized with TreeViewX (http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/treeview.html). The programs used to construct the phylogenetic tree were obtained from the PHYLIP package, v.3.65 (Felsenstein, 1989), which is accessible at http://evolution.genetics.washington.edu/phylip.html.

Comparative genome analysis

Comparative genome analysis was performed using the EDGAR 1.3 software framework. For orthology estimation EDGAR uses a generic orthology threshold calculated from the similarity statistics of the compared genomes (Blom et al., 2016; http://edgar.computational.bio.uni-giessen.de). A private project was constructed comprising 66 genomes closely related to B. amyloliquefaciens DSM7T and selected other representatives of the B. subtilis species complex. To construct a phylogenetic tree for this project, around 2000 core genes were computed by pairwise iterative comparison of a set of genomes (Blom et al., 2016). In a following step multiple alignments of the core genes were generated using MUSCLE, non-matching parts of the alignment were masked by GBLOCKS and subsequently removed. The remaining parts of all alignments were concatenated to one large alignment. The PHYLIP package was used to generate a phylogenetic tree of this alignment, represented in newick format.

The EDGAR software framework was also used to calculate average nucleotide identity (ANI) and average amino acid identity (AAI), matrices for a selected set of genomes. The blast hits between the orthologous genes of the core of the selected genome were analyzed for their mean/median percent identity values. The recommended species cut-off was 95% for the ANI and AAI indices (Richter and Rosselló-Móra, 2009). In addition, JSpeciesWS (http://jspecies.ribohost.com/jspeciesws/) was used to determine ANIb (average nucleotide identity based on BLAST+) and ANIm (average nucleotide identity based on MUMmer) values by pairwise genome comparisons. Correlation indexes of their Tetra-nucleotide signatures (TETRA) were determined by using the JSpeciesWS software (Richter et al., 2016).

Digital DNA–DNA hybridization (dDDH)

The genome-to-genome-distance calculator (GGDC) version 2.1 provided by DSMZ (http://ggdc.dsmz.de/) was used for genome-based species delineation (Meier-Kolthoff et al., 2013) and genome-based subspecies delineation (Meier-Kolthoff et al., 2014). Distances were calculated by (i) comparing two genomes using the chosen program to obtain HSPs/MUMs and (ii) inferring distances from the set of HSPs/MUMs using three distinct formulas. Next, the distances were transformed to values analogous to DDH. The DDH estimates were based on an empirical reference dataset comprising real DDH values and genome sequences. The DDH estimate resulted from a generalized linear model (GLM) which also provided the estimate's confidence interval (after the ± sign). Three formulas are available for the calculation: Formula: 1 (HSP length/total length), formula: 2 (identities/HSP length) and formula 3 (identities/total length). Formula 2, which is especially appropriate to analyze draft genomes, was used.

Results

Phylogenomics of the B. subtilis species complex

The core genomes of 20 type strains of the B. subtilis species complex were used for phylogenomic analysis applying the EDGAR software package (Figure 1). Four main monophyletic groups were corroborated by 100% bootstrap values. Clade I (“subtilis”) is early diverged into two branches comprising B. atrophaeus, and B. subtilis and its close relatives; clade II (“amyloliquefaciens”) comprises B. amyloliquefaciens, B. siamensis, and a conspecific group containing the type strains of B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum, B. velezensis, and B. methylotrophicus; clade III (“licheniformis”) consists of B. licheniformis and B. sonorensis; and clade IV (“pumilus”) comprises B. pumilus, B. safensis, B. xiamenensis, and a conspecific group involving the type strains of B. altitudinis, B. stratosphericus, and B. aerophilus. The members of clade II appeared closely related. This is indicated by the high number of orthologous CDSs (2794) shared by the five type strains of clade II. A similar cladogram has been published recently (Dunlap C. et al., 2016) suggesting that the B. subtilis species complex can be divided into four groups above species level, which need further characterization. We have directed our further analysis to clade II (named from now on “operational group B. amyloliquefaciens”), which clearly shows the highest degree of compactness.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Phylogeny of the Bacillus subtilis species complex based on the core genomes of representative type strains. The core genome of Bacillus cereus ATCC14579 was used as outgroup. The roman letters at the branching points designate the four clades identified in this analysis. The numbers at the branching points designate the number of CDS calculated for the core genome of a given subset of genomes. Bootstrap values of 200 (100%) are indicated below the CDS numbers (see Materials and Methods). Percentage of identity according to type strains B. subtilis subsp. subtilis 168T, B. amyloliquefaciens DSM7T, B. licheniformis DSM13T, and B. pumilus SAFR032, respectively. Note that within clade II (“amyloliquefaciens”) the group with B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum FZB42T, B. velezensis KCTC 13012T, and B. methylotrophicus KACC 13105T is conspecific. The same is true for the group within clade IV (“pumilus”) consisting of B. altitudinis 41KF2bT, B. stratosphericus LAMA 585T, and B. aerophilus C772T. The scale bar corresponds to 0.1 substitutions per site.

Phylogenetic analysis of clade II based on complete rpoB nucleotide sequence

It is obvious, that 16S rRNA sequences are not sufficient to discriminate representatives of the B. subtilis species complex. For example, comparison of the complete 16S rRNA sequences of B. amyloliquefaciens DSM7T and B. subtilis 168T revealed 99.48% identity (Table 1), which is well above of the recommended threshold of >98.65% for species delineation (Kim et al., 2014). In order to elucidate more precisely the phylogenetic and taxonomic relationship of the members of the B. subtilis species complex belonging to the “operational group B. amyloliquefaciens,” we used two methods. (i) Tetra correlation search (TCS, Richter et al., 2016) was performed with the complete genome of DSM7T and (ii) the complete RNA polymerase beta-subunit (rpoB) gene of DSM7T was used for BLASTN comparison with the corresponding sequences extracted from complete genomes or genome assemblies. Fifty-Two genomes, which were in range with the intraspecific Tetra-nucleotide signature correlation index (>0.99) were detected in the JSpecies data bank. The TCS value determined for B. subtilis was only 0.954, suggesting that using this alignment-free parameter allows discriminating of B. subtilis and B. amyloliquefaciens (Table 1). Complete rpoB gene sequencing has been proposed as phylogenetic marker (Klenk et al., 1994) and as a supplement to DDH (Adékambi et al., 2008). The power and potential of complete rpoB gene sequence in taxonomic, phylogenetic and evolutionary studies has been previously reported (Sharma and Patil, 2011). Our BLASTN search revealed that at least 66 genomes present in the NCBI data bank contain rpoB gene sequences with more than 98% identity to the rpoB gene from DSM7T, the type strain of B. amyloliquefaciens (Priest et al., 1987). For comparison, the rpoB gene from B. subtilis subsp. subtilis 168T displayed only 90.3% identity to B. amyloliquefaciens. The rpoB gene identities among strains assigned as being B. amyloliquefaciens, B. siamensis, B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum, B. methylotrophicus, B. velezensis, and B. vanillea are listed in Table 1. The list of strains containing rpoB genes with high similarity to B. amyloliquefaciens DSM7T includes also strains obviously not correctly assigned, such as B. subtilis, Bacillus sp., or Paenibacillus polymyxa. It is interesting to note that majority of the strains representing the conspecific B. velezensis/B.methylotrophicus/B.amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum group were isolated from plant sources, whilst B. amyloliquefaciens sensu stricto seems to be soil-borne. The main source of the salt tolerant B. siamensis/B.vanillea group was fermented plant food (Table 1).

Table 1.

Genomes containing rpoB sequences displaying ≥98% similarity to B. amyloliquefaciens DSM7T.

Strain Accession rpoB (%) TETRA ANIb AAI dDDH % G+C 16S rRNA Source
B. amyloliquefaciens
DSM7T FN597644.1 100 1.000 100 100 100 ± 0.0 46.1 100 Soil, fermentation plant
LL3 CP002634.1 100 0.99929 99.47 99.75 96.4 ± 1.12 45.7 99.87 Fermented food (Korean bibimbap)
TA208 CP002627.1 100 0.99945 99.28 99.65 95.2 ± 1.36 45.8 99.87 Lab stock, overproducing guanosine
ATCC 13952 CP009748.1 100 0.9995 99.26 99.64 95.4 ± 1.32 45.8 99.87 Unknown
XH7 NC_017191.1 100 0.9942 99.31 99.66 95.4 ± 1.33 45.8 99.87 Unknown
CMW1 BBLH01000000 99.50 0.99884 97.79 99.04 84.7 ± 2.56 46.0 n.d Japanese fermented soybean paste
B. siamensis/B. vanillea
XY18T gb|LAGT01000040.1| 98.44 0.99702 93.36 97.82 55.0 ± 2.72 46.3 99.78 Cured vanilla beans
JJC33M JTJG01000000 98.49 0.99678 93.19 97.78 54.3 ± 2.71 45.7 n.d Salted Thai crab product
KCTC 13613T GCA_000262045.1 98.30 0.99765 93.27 97.83 54.7 ± 2.71 46.3 99.69 Sugar cane, Papaloapan, Mexico
B. velezensis/B.methylotrophicus/B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum
W2 JOKF01000000 98.50 0.99766 93.45 97.83 55.8 ± 2.73 46.5 99.61 Saffron (Crocus sativus)
GR4-5 JYGH01000000 98.49 0.99754 93.14 97.78 55.0 ± 2.72 46.2 99.48 Korean ginseng rhizosphere
UCMB5033 emb|HG328253.1| 98.49 0.99774 93.41 97.78 56.3 ± 2.74 46.2 99.68 Cotton rhizosphere
Bs-916 gb|CP009611.1| 98.49 0.9975 93.38 97.84 56.2 ± 2.74 46.4 99.67 Paddy soil (rice)
JS25R gb|CP009679.1| 98.49 0.99782 93.39 97.78 56.1 ± 2.74 46.4 99.74 Spikelets of wheat heads
SPZ1 AQGM00000000 98.49 0.9976 93.24 97.77 55.6 ± 2.73 46.2 99.69 Tributyrin enriched medium
ATCC12321 ARYD01000000 98.49 0.99758 93.22 97.19 55.6 ± 2.73 46.0 99.69 Spoiled starch
Bs006 LJAU01000000 98.49 0.99698 93.20 97.81 55.6 ± 2.73 45.8 n.d. Banana roots, magdalena, colombia
916 AFSU00000000 98.49 0.99697 93.28 97.81 55.7 ± 2.73 46.4 n.d Soil antagonist of rhizoctonia
B26 NZ_LGAT00000000 98.49 0.99678 93.47 97.79 55.9 ± 2.74 46.6 n.d Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum l.)
OB9 LGAU00000000 98.49 0.99628 93.38 97.79 55.6 ± 2.73 46.7 n.d Crude oil
NAU-B3 emb|HG514499.1| 98.46 0.99744 93.40 97.21 56.1 ± 2.74 45.9 99.81 Wheat rhizosphere
TrigoCor1448 gb|CP007244.1| 98.46 0.9976 93.48 97.84 55.7 ± 2.73 46.5 99.67 Wheat rhizosphere
EGD-AQ14 AVQH01000000 98.46 0.99688 93.19 97.84 55.7 ± 2.73 45.7 99.67 Saline desert plant rhizosphere
XK-4-1 LJDI00000000 98.46 0.99754 93.38 97.84 55.4 ± 2.73 46.0 n.d Epiphyte cotton (Gossypium spp.)
629 NZ_LGYP00000000.1 98.46 0.99754 93.33 97.79 55.7 ± 2.73 46.5 n.d Endophyte theobroma cacao
UNC69MF JQKM01000000 98.46 0.9966 93.44 97.80 55.8 ± 2.73 46.5 n.d Not reported
FZB42T gb|CP000560.1| 98.44 0.99765 93.36 97.84 56.2 ± 2.74 46.5 99.61 Infected sugar beet
CC178 gb|CP006845.1| 98.44 0.99764 93.41 97.84 56.1 ± 2.74 46.5 99.61 Cucumber phyllosphere
AP183 JXAM01000000 98.44 0.99725 93.02 n.d. 55.3 ± 2.72 46.4 99.67 Cotton rhizosphere
KHG19 gb|CP007242.1| 98.44 0.99757 93.44 97.82 56.1 ± 2.74 46.6 99.41 Fermented soybean paste
UCMB5036 emb|HF563562.1| 98.44 0.99727 93.42 97.83 56.1 ± 2.74 46.6 99.67 Inner tissues of the cotton plant
HB-26 AUWK01000000 98.44 0.99771 93.28 97.80 55.5 ± 2.73 46.4 99.61 Soil from china
AH159-1 JFBZ01000000 98.44 0.99815 93.14 96.68 54.9 ± 2.72 46.4 99.61 Mushroom korea
AS43.3 gb|CP003838.1| 98.41 0.99777 93.51 97.78 55.9 ± 2.74 46.6 99.67 Surface of a wheat spike
UCMB5113 emb|HG328254.1| 98.41 0.99732 93.50 97.80 56.4 ± 2.75 46.7 99.61 Soil from karpaty mountains
IT-45 gb|CP004065.1| 98.41 0.99755 93.42 97.18 55.5 ± 2.73 46.6 99.67 Unknown
UASWS BA1 AWQY01000000 98.41 0.99742 93.49 97.83 55.4 ± 2.73 46.6 99.61 Inner wood tissues of platanus tree
GB03* AYTJ00000000.1 98.38 0.99715 93.29 97.78 55.0 ± 2.72 46.6 n.d Phyllosphere,douglas fir, australia
Pc3 gb|CP010406.1| 98.38 0.99745 93.38 97.79 56.0 ± 2.74 46.5 99.67 Antarctic seawater
TF28 ref|NZ_KN723307.1| 98.38 0.99692 93.26 97.79 55.5 ± 2.73 46.4 99.76 Soybean roots
G341 gb|CP011686.1| 98.38 0.99793 93.34 97.78 56.0 ± 2.74 46.5 99.61 Korean ginseng rhizosphere
EBL11 JCOC01000000 98.38 0.99746 93.44 97.84 55.9 ± 2.74 46.4 99.61 Rice rhizosphere
LPL-K103 JXAT01000000 98.38 0.99713 93.37 97.80 55.7 ± 2.73 46.6 99.54 Lemon slices
YJ11-1-4 gb|CP011347.1| 98.38 0.99766 93.07 97.81 55.5 ± 2.73 46.4 99.67 Korean doenjang soybean paste
ATCC 19217 gb|CP009749.1| 98.38 0.99737 93.08 97.84 55.6 ± 2.73 46.4 99.67 Industry (producer guanylic acid)
5B6 gb|AJST01000001.1| 98.38 0.99774 93.34 97.79 55.4 ± 2.73 46.6 99.67 Cherry tree phyllosphere
SQR9 gb|CP006890.1| 98.35 0.99753 93.08 97.78 55.6 ± 2.73 46.1 99.67 Cucumber rhizosphere
NJN-6 gb|CP007165.1| 98.35 0.99823 93.11 97.84 55.3 ± 2.72 46.6 99.61 Banana rhizosphere
LFB112 gb|CP006952.1| 98.35 0.99772 93.25 97.84 55.6 ± 2.73 46.7 99.61 Chinese herbs
JJ-D34 gb|CP011346.1| 98.35 0.99779 93.27 97.79 55.3 ± 2.73 46.2 99.61 Deonjang, fermented soybean paste
L-S60 gb|CP011278.1| 98.32 0.99752 93.44 97.84 55.3 ± 2.73 46.7 99.61 Turfy soil in beijing, china
L-H15 gb|CP010556.1| 98.32 0.99753 93.41 97.84 55.4 ± 2.73 46.7 99.61 Cucumber seedlings
M27 AMPK01000000 98.32 0.99816 93.32 97.79 55.5 ± 2.73 46.6 99.61 Cotton waste compost
B-1 gb|CP009684.1| 98.30 0.99749 93.37 97.84 55.2 ± 2.72 46.2 99.48 Oil field
Co1-6 emb|CVPA01000001 98.30 0.99781 93.34 97.77 55.4 ± 2.73 46.4 99.67 Calendula officinalis rhizosphere
KCTC13012T LHCC00000000 98.27 0.99752 93.13 97.78 55.5 ± 2.73 46.4 n.d. Mouth at the river velez, spain
B9601-Y2 emb|HE774679.1| 98.27 0.99731 93.16 97.79 55.9 ± 2.74 45.9 99.81 Wheat rhizosphere
BH072 gb|CP009938.1| 98.27 0.99794 93.32 97.78 56.0 ± 2.74 46.4 99.81 Honey sample
CAU B946 emb|HE617159.1| 98.27 0.99796 93.39 97.80 55.3 ± 2.73 46.5 99.61 Rice rhizosphere
NKYL29 JPYY01000000 98.24 0.99719 93.27 97.79 55.6 ± 2.73 46.3 n.d. Ranzhuang tunnel, hebei, china
Lx-11 AUNG00000000.1 98.21 0.99691 93.28 97.21 55.0 ± 2.72 46.4 n.d. Soil jiangsu province, china
KACC 13105T AQGM00000000.1 98.21 0.99685 93.29 97.75 55.2 ± 2.72 46.4 99.67 Rice rhizosphere
X1 JQNZ01000000 98.21 0.99741 93.27 97.75 55.3 ± 2.73 46.5 99.78 Soil wuhan province, china
B-1895 JMEG01000000 98.21 0.99816 93.33 97.82 55.8 ± 2.73 46.2 99.67 Unknown
DC-12 AMQI01000000 98.16 0.99785 93.60 97.84 56.2 ± 2.74 46.1 99.67 Fermented soya beans
SK19.001 AOFO01000000 98.13 0.99753 93.55 97.85 56.5 ± 2.75 46.2 99.77 Unknown
B. subtilis subsp. subtilis
168 emb|AL009126.3| 90.26 0.95411 76.32 85.43 20.9 ± 2.33 43.5 99.48 Soil:several rounds of mutagenesis

Similarity (% identity) of the rpoB gene nucleotide sequence and of the 16S rRNA to DSM7T is shown. AAI matrix median values against. DSM7T and the G+C % content of the genomes are also presented. The Tetra correlation search (TCS) was performed with DSM7T yielding 66 strains with ≥0.989 Z-score (boundary for species delineation). Formula 2 was used to estimate genome-to-genome distance comparisons (GGDC2.1) with the DSM7T genome. Values exceeding species threshold are presented in bold letters. The type strains B. amyloliquefaciens DSM7T, B. siamensis KTCC 13613T, B. vanillea XY18T, B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum FZB42T, B. methylotrophicus KACC 13105T, and B. velezensis KCTC 13012T are underlined. GB03* and FZB42* are strains used for commercial production of biofertilizers and biocontrol agents.

The phylogenetic tree based on complete rpoB gene sequence suggests existence of three tightly connected monophyletic groups: (i) B. amyloliquefaciens containing six strains including type strain DSM7T; (ii) B. siamensis cluster consists of three strains: the type strain KCTC 13613T, strain XY18, originally assigned as type strain for B. vanillea (Chen et al., 2014) but recently reclassified as being B. siamensis (Dunlap, 2015), and a strain assigned as being B. amyloliquefaciens JJC33M; (3) the conspecific complex comprising B. velezensis, B. methylotrophicus, and B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. Plantarum contained 57 strains. The tree is robust displaying high bootstrap values for all three groupings, although the three clusters are closely related and separated by only 0.01–0.02 substitutions per nucleotide position. By contrast, taxonomic distance to B. subtilis is around tenfold larger (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

NJ phylogenetic tree, extracted from 66 complete rpoB nucleotide sequences with high similarity to B. amyloliquefaciens DSM7T (>98% identity). B. subtilis subsp. Subtilis 168T was used as outgroup. The consensus tree was reconstructed from 1000 trees according to the extended majority rule (SEQBOOT program). Bootstrap values >90%, based on 1000 repetitions, are indicated at branch points. Strain and accession numbers are indicated. Type strains for B. amyloliquefaciens (DSM7T), B. siamensis (KCTC13613T) and B. vanillea (XY18T), and the conspecific group containing FZB42T as the type strain for B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. Plantarum, B. velezensis KCTC13012T, and B. methylotrophicus KACC13105T are in bold. Bar, 0.01 substitutions per nucleotide position. For further characterization of strains and genomes see Table 1.

Phylogenomic analysis of clade II (operational group B. amyloliquefaciens)

In order to confirm the phylogenetic analysis based on rpoB sequences we calculated the core genomes using the EDGAR 1.3 program package. A total of 1998 CDSs were shared by the 66 core genome sequences extracted in that analysis. It ruled out that the phylogenomic tree based on complete core genome sequences (Figure 3) did reflect the phylogenomic distances similar as the phylogenetic tree based on rpoB nucleotide sequences (Figure 2). The same robust monophyletic groups as in Figure 2 were obtained. The B. siamensis cluster consisting of three representatives shared a core genome of 3097 CDSs; the B. amyloliquefaciens cluster consisting of six representatives shared a core genome of 3139 CDSs; and the conspecific group containing 57 plant-growth promoting Bacilli including FZB42T shared a relatively small core genome consisting of only 2295 CDSs, which is mainly due to the high number of genomes included in this analysis. Subgroups of this cluster shared core genomes ranging from 2659 to 3137 CDSs (Figure 3). Again, the NJ tree suggested that B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. Plantarum, B. methylotrophicus, and B. velezensis formed a monophyletic group corroborating recent findings (Dunlap C. A. et al., 2015; Wu et al., 2015; Dunlap C. et al., 2016).

Figure 3.

Figure 3

NJ phylogenomic tree, constructed from the 66 core genomes with the highest similarity to DSM7T (Table 1). The B. subtilis genome was used as outgroup. The number of core genome CDSs is indicated at the nodes. They were calculated for the respective subsets of genomes. Bootstrap values obtained from 200 repetitions are also indicated at the nodes. Type strains (T) are indicated by bold letters. Bar, 0.02 substitutions per nucleotide position.

At next we tried to elucidate the taxonomic status of these closely related genomes. Different phylogenetic and phylogenomic methods were used to analyze relationship of all 65 genomes with that of B. amyloliquefaciens DSM7T. As shown above, rpoB sequence similarity, exceeding threshold of species delineation, and the intraspecific Tetra-nucleotide signature correlation index (>0.99) suggested that all strains analyzed belong to the species B. amyloliquefaciens. TETRA analysis (Jspecies) demonstrated that the six type strains of clade II were closely related and yielded pairwise Tetra results (tetranucleotide signature correlation index) in species range (≥0.989, Figure 4 lower part). Deviations of the mean G+C content calculated for the whole genomes were less than one percent which does not contradict species definition (Table 2). Grouping of all strains into a single species, B. amyloliquefaciens, was further supported by the AAI values (Table 1). The mean AAI values of the 66 core genomes selected by their rpoB similarity to DSM7T were ≥96.5%, exceeding the proposed cut-off of 96% for species delineation. However, parameters, considered recently as being most important for genome-based species delineation, such as ANI and dDDH (Federhen et al., 2016), did not support this conclusion (Table 1).

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Dendrogram of the type strains of clade I (operational group “B.subtilis”) and II (operational group “B. amyloliquefaciens”) based on their median ANIb values (upper part of the Table) and Tetra-nucleotide correlation signatures (lower part of the Table). The median nucleotide percent identity values between the orthologous genes of the core of the selected genomes after pairwise BLASTN comparison are indicated. Standard deviation values are given in parentheses.

Table 2.

Summary of phylogenetic (rpoB) and phylogenomic parameters calculated for B. amyloliquefaciens, B. siamensis and conspecific group consisting of B. amyloliquefaciens plantarum, B. methylotrophicus and B. velezensis against corresponding type strains.

  Reference/Query G+C rpoB TETRA ANIb AAI dDDH
% (≥97%) (≥0.989) (≥96%) (≥96%) (≥70%; ≥79%)
B. amyloliquefaciens/DSM7T
  Mean 45.88 99.92 0.9994 99.19 99.63 94.52
  Median 45.83 100 0.9994 99.30 99.91 95.40
  SD 0.14 0.20 0.0004 0.74 0.22 5.14
  n 6 6 6 6 6 6
B. amyloliquefaciens/FZB42T
  Mean 45.88 98.39 0.9980 93.79 96.63 55.90
  Median 45.83 98.44 0.9979 93.75 97.43 55.70
  SD 0.14 0.11 0.0003 0.11 0.12 0.13
  n 6 6 6 6 6 6
B. amyloliquefaciens/KCTC13613
  Mean 45.88 98.27 0.9981 93.57 96.54 54.60
  Median 45.83 98.27 0.9989 93.57 97.44 54.60
  SD 0.14 0.01 0.0013 0.04 0.18 0.16
  n 6 6 6 6 6 6
B. siamensis/DSM7T
  Mean 46.1 98.41 0.9970 93.27 96.48 54.67
  Median 46.3 98.44 0.9950 93.27 97.41 54.70
  SD 0.341 0.99 0.0013 0.009 0.08 0.35
  n 3 3 3 3 3 3
B. siamensis/FZB42T
  Mean 46.1 98.67 0.9981 93.87 96.79 56.5
  Median 46.3 98.65 0.9989 94.01 97.69 56.8
  SD 0.341 0.10 0.0013 0.33 0.92 0.58
  n 3 3 3 3 3 3
B. siamensis/KCTC13613
  Mean 46.1 99.70 0.9991 99.01 99.56 93.40
  Median 46.3 99.64 0.9998 98.84 99.89 94.45
  SD 0.341 0.27 0.001 0.92 0.39 5,86
  n 3 3 3 3 3 3
CONSPECIFIC GROUP B. amyloliquefaciens plantarum, B. methylotrophicus, B. velezensis/DSM7T
  Mean 46.39 98.39 0.9975 93.32 96.57 55.70
  Median 46.45 98.40 0.9975 93.34 97.41 55.60
  SD 0.245 0.09 0.0004 0.13 0.24 0.38
  n 55 56 57 56 55 39
CONSPECIFIC GROUP B. amyloliquefaciens plantarum, B. methylotrophicus, B. velezensis/FZB42T
  Mean 46.39 99.46 0.9991 98.30 99.11 87.10
  Median 46.45 99.52 0.9994 98.28 99.49 86.50
  SD 0.245 0.24 0.0004 0.575 0.39 4.89
  n 55 56 57 56 55 31
CONSPECIFIC GROUP B. amyloliquefaciens plantarum, B. methylotrophicus, B. velezensis/ KCTC13613
  Mean 46.39 98.46 0.9987 94.11 96.97 56.90
  Median 46.45 98.50 0.9989 94.12 97.80 56.85
  SD 0.245 0.109 0.0013 0.079 0.23 0.15
  n 55 57 57 56 55 33

Threshold values for species and, in case of dDDH, subspecies delineation are given in parentheses. SD, standard deviation; n, number of samples. Values indicating one species are presented in green fields.

ANI analysis performed with the EDGAR program package discriminated clearly two clusters corresponding to clades I and II of the B. subtilis species complex (Figure 4). Clade II representing the B. amyloliquefaciens group was divided into three groups consisting of B. amyloliquefaciens DSM7T (i), B. siamensis and B. vanillea (ii), and the conspecific complex formed by the type strains B. methylotrophicus KACC13105T, B. velezensis KCTC 13102T and B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum FZB42T (iii). The latter group displayed ANI values of >98% exceeding the cut-off for species delineation when compared with each other suggesting that the members of the conspecific complex belong to a single species. B. methylotrophicus KACC 13105T, B. velezensis KCTC 13102T, and B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum FZB42T displayed similar median ANI values ranging between 94.3 and 94.8% when compared with B. amyloliquefaciens DSM7T (1) and B. siamensis KCTC-13613T (2), respectively. Given a calculated deviation of ±2.2–2.3% the ANI matrix values suggests a high degree of relatedness to B. amyloliquefaciens, B. siamensis and the conspecific group formed by B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum, B. methylotrophicus, and B. velezensis, but did not sufficiently support species delineation (Figure 4, upper part). According to more recent findings the recommended cut-off point for species delineation corresponds to ~96% ANI (Colston et al., 2014). Similar results were obtained when ANIb and ANIm values were determined by using the JSpecies program package for all the 66 genomes included in this analysis. Threshold values sufficient for species delineation were only obtained, when representatives of B. amyloliquefaciens (6 genomes), B. siamensis (3 genomes), and of the conspecific group (57 genomes) were compared with their respective type strains. However, comparison of the 57 strains of the conspecific group (e.g., FZB42, B. velezensis) with either B. amyloliquefaciens DSM7T or B. siamensis KCTC 13613T yielded ANI values slightly below the cut-off for species delineation. The same was true when the three members of the B. siamensis group were compared with either FZB42T or DSM7T (Table 2) suggesting that according to ANI analysis the members of clade II represent three discrete, although closely related, species.

In order to finally decide, whether all strains of clade II belong to one species or not, electronic DNA-DNA hybridization (dDDH) was applied in a quantitative analysis involving all 66 genomes. As shown previously, dDDH is useful to mimic the wet-lab DDH and can be used for genome-based species delineation and genome-based subspecies delineation (Meier-Kolthoff et al., 2013, 2014). For calculating dDDH three different formulas can be applied (see Materials and Methods), but only results obtained with the recommended formula 2 were used in our analysis (Table 2). When comparing members of the “siamensis group 2” and the “conspecific B. velezensis group” with B. amyloliquefaciens DSM7T, dDDH values of <70%, the defined threshold for species delineation, were obtained. All in all, dDDH supports our previous finding about a close relationship within clade II, but did not support their classification into one single species. The results are summarized in Table 2 and Supplementary Table 1.

Gene clusters involved in nonribosomal synthesis of secondary metabolites

Compared to other members of the B. subtilis species complex, the plant-associated B. amyloliquefaciens possess an enormous potential to synthesize bioactive secondary metabolites. Besides five gene clusters, known from B. subtilis to mediate nonribosomal synthesis of secondary metabolites, four giant gene clusters absent in B. subtilis 168 were identified in FZB42 (Chen et al., 2007). The nine gene clusters that direct the synthesis of bioactive peptides and polyketides by modularly organized mega-enzymes define both nonribosomal peptide synthetases (NRPSs) and polyketide synthases (PKS). Three (bmyD, dfn, and mln) are not present in B. subtilis 168, but occur in all members of the “operational group B. amyloliquefaciens.” Except for the gene cluster encoding bacilysin synthesis, the functional activities of the remaining gene clusters depend on Sfp, an enzyme that transfers 4′-phosphopantetheine from coenzyme A to the carrier proteins of nascent peptide or polyketide chains. A direct comparison revealed that the nine gene cluster responsible for nonribosomal synthesis of bioactive secondary metabolites including macrolactin are only present in FZB42 and in the other members of the conspecific B. velezensis group, whilst the gene cluster involved in macrolactin synthesis was not detected in B. siamensis and B. amyloliquefaciens (Table 3). Noteworthy, the gene cluster responsible for synthesis of the polyketide difficidin was present in B. siamensis, but not in any other member of the B. subtilis species complex suggesting a stepwise loss of the ability to synthesize secondary metabolites in the order B. velezensis (including FZB42) Inline graphic B. siamensis Inline graphic B. amyloliquefaciens.

Table 3.

Gene clusters encoding nonribosomal synthesis of lipopeptides and polyketides in type strains of B. subtilis, B. amyloliquefaciens, B. siamensis, and B. velezensis.

Lipopeptides FZB42 B. subtilis B. amyloliquefaciens B. siamensis B. velezensis
Surfactin BGC0000433
Genes Accession bp Accession bp Accession bp Accession bp Accession bp
srfAA RBAM_003650 10755 ssp168_402 10764 bAMF_0312 10755 RS09245 10755
srfAB RBAM_003660 10761 ssp168_403 10752 bAMF_0313 10761 RS09240 10761
srfAC RBAM_003680 3837 ssp168_405 3828 bAMF 0314 3814 RS09235 3837 AKJ10_17500 3837
srfAD RBAM_003690 732 ssp168_406 729 bAMF 0315 732 RS09230 732 AKJ10_17505 732
tpaat RBAM_003700 1311 ssp168_407 bAMF_0316 1311 RS09225 1311 AKJ10_17510 1311
BacillomycinD BGC0001090
xynD RBAM_018150 1539 ssp168_1991 1539 bAMF_1910 1536 RS05225 1539 AKJ10_09355 1539
bmyC RBAM_018160 7860 bAMF_1911 7851 RS05230 7857 AKJ10_09360 7860
bmyB RBAM_018170 16092 bAMF_1912 16086 RS05235 16083 AKJ10_09365 16092
bmyA RBAM_018180 11949 bAMF_1913 11949 RS05240 10137 AKJ10_09370 11949
bmyD RBAM_018190 1203 bAMF_1914 1242 RS16690 1203 AKJ10_09375 1203
yxjF RBAM_018200 786 ssp168_4194 786 bAMF_1916 786 RS16685 786 AKJ10_09380
Fengycin BGC0001095
yngL RBAM_018410 432 ssp168_2005 393 bAMF_1937 381 RS16575 381 AKJ10_09485 381
fenE RBAM_018420 3804 ssp168_2006 3840 bAMF_1938 3807 RS16570 3804 AKJ10_09490 3804
fenD RBAM_018430 10776 ssp168_2007 10812 bAMF_1939 7677 RS16565 10776 AKJ10_09495 4431
fenC RBAM_018440 7650 ssp168_2008 7668 RS16560 4584 AKJ10_19615 4395
fenB RBAM_018450 7698 ssp168_2009 7683 RS15850 7704 AKJ10_19590 7698
fenA RBAM_018460 7659 ssp168_2010 7686 RS15845 4605
dacC RBAM_018470 1476 ssp168_2011 1476 bAMF_1940 1476 RS08800 1476 AKJ10_19155 1476
POLYKETIDES
Macrolactin BGC0000181_c1
ykyA RBAM_014310 639 ssp168_1616 672 bAMF_1532 663 RS0102445 663 AKJ10_06145 639
RBAM_014320 168 AKJ10_06140 210
mlnA RBAM_014330 2307 AKJ10_06135 2307
mlnB RBAM_014340 12261 AKJ10_06130 12258
mlnC RBAM_014350 4773 AKJ10_06125 4773
mlnD RBAM_014360 8709 AKJ10_06120 8712
mlnE RBAM_014370 7005 AKJ10_06115 7005
mlnF RBAM_014380 5712 AKJ10_06110 5712
mlnG RBAM_014390 7383 AKJ10_06105 7383
mlnH RBAM_014400 3852 AKJ10_06100 3849
mlnI RBAM_014410 1092 AKJ10_06095 1092
pdhA RBAM_014420 ssp168_1617 1116 bAMF_1533 1116 RS15370 1116 AKJ10_06090 1116
Bacillaene BGC0001089_c
mutL RBAM_016890 1875 ssp168_1874 1884 bAMF_1777 1884 RS0101170 1878 AKJ10_04875 1875
baeB RBAM_016900 678 ssp168_1878 678 bAMF_1778 678 RS0101150 678 AKJ10_04835 678
baeC RBAM_016910 870 ssp168_1879 867 bAMF_1779 870 RS0101145 870 AKJ10_04830 870
baeD RBAM_016920 975 ssp168_1880 975 bAMF_1780 975 RS0101140 975 AKJ10_04825 975
baeE RBAM_016930 2241 ssp168_1881 2304 bAMF_1781 2241 RS0101135 2241 AKJ10_04820 2241
acpK RBAM_016940 249 ssp168_1882 249 bAMF_1782 249 RS0101130 249 AKJ10_04815 249
baeG RBAM_016950 1263 ssp168_1884 1263 bAMF_1783 1263 RS0101125 1263 AKJ10_04810 1263
baeH RBAM_016960 774 ssp168_1885 780 bAMF_1784 774 RS0101120 774 AKJ10_04805 774
baeI RBAM_016970 750 ssp168_1886 750 bAMF_1785 750 RS0101115 750 AKJ10_04800 750
baeR RBAM_017020 7449 ssp168_1891 7632 bAMF_1790 7446 RS0101090 7455 AKJ10_04775 7458
baeS RBAM_017030 1212 ssp168_1892 1218 bAMF_1791 1212 RS0101085 1212 AKJ10_04770 1212
baeJ RBAM_016980 14949 ssp168_1887 15132 bAMF_1786 14952 RS0101110 14931 AKJ10_04795 14946
baeL RBAM_016990 13428 ssp168_1888 13617 bAMF_1787 13431 RS0101105 13392 AKJ10_04790 13413
baeM RBAM_017000 10536 ssp168_1889 12789 bAMF_1788 10542 RS0101100 10506 AKJ10_04785 10536
baeN RBAM_017010 16302 ssp168_1890 16467 bAMF_1789 16314 RS0101095 16293 AKJ10_04780 16305
Difficidin BGC0000176_c1
proI RBAM_021930 840 ssp168_2591 837 bAMF_2277 843 RS0119580 843 AKJ10_01435 840
dfnM RBAM_021940 747 RS0119585 747 AKJ10_01440 747
dfnL RBAM_021950 1248 RS0119590 1248 AKJ10_01445 1248
dfnK RBAM_021960 1155 RS0119595 1155 AKJ10_01450 1155
dfnJ RBAM_021970 6216 RS0119600 6216 AKJ10_01455 6216
dfnI RBAM_021980 6153 RS0119605 6156 AKJ10_01460 6156
dfnH RBAM_021990 7719 RS0119610 7719 AKJ10_01465 7719
dfnG RBAM_022000 15615 RS0119725 8904 AKJ10_01470 15615
dfnF RBAM_022010 5727 RS0119720 5727 AKJ10_01475 5727
dfnE RBAM_022020 6297 RS0119715 6285 AKJ10_01480 6297
dfnD RBAM_022030 12591 RS0119615 15654 AKJ10_01485 9252
dfnC RBAM_022040 738 RS0119620 738 AKJ10_01490 738
dfnB RBAM_022050 1332 RS0119625 1371 AKJ10_01495 1365
dfnX RBAM_022060 273 RS0119630 273 AKJ10_01500 273
dfnY RBAM_022070 981 RS0119635 981 AKJ10_01505 981
dfnA RBAM_022080 2259 RS0119640 2259 AKJ10_01510 2259

The genes occurring in plant-growth-promoting FZB42 were used for reference. The MIBiG specifications (Medema et al., 2015) of the FZB42 gene clusters involved in synthesis of secondary metabolites are indicated.

Discussion

The B. subtilis species complex consists of a steadily increasing number of validly described species (see Introduction), which display an extremely high degree of similarity. They are very difficult to distinguish by using classical taxonomy parameters: morphological and physiological characteristics, cell wall compositions, 16S rRNA sequence, G+C content, and FAME. Also, experimental determination of DNA-DNA relatedness (DDH), gold-standard of bacterial taxonomy for 50 years, yields often erroneous and variable results (Auch et al., 2010). Therefore, the taxonomic status of these species constantly brings confusion to researchers, especially for non-professional taxonomy researchers. Our analysis using the available core genomes of 23 type strains suggests that within the B. subtilis species complex four clades can be distinguished: clade I consisting of B. subtilis including its three subspecies subtilis, spizenii, and inaquosorum, B. tequilensis, B. vallismortis, B. mojavensis, and B. atrophaeus, clade II consisting of B. siamensis, B. amyloliquefaciens, and a conspecific complex consisting of B. methylotrophicus, B. velezensis, and B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum, clade III consisting of B. licheniformis and related species, and clade IV consisting of B. pumilus and related species (Figure 1).

We have chosen here clade II comprising B. amyloliquefaciens and related species for a deeper analysis. Due to the high number of available genomic sequences, we applied a quantitative phylogenomic approach including 66 genomes with a high degree of similarity to DSM7T, the type strain of B. amyloliquefaciens. In accordance to Dunlap C. A. et al. (2015) we could demonstrate existence of three distinct monophyletic groups within this clade. Six core genomes represented the species B. amyloliquefaciens and three strains were assigned as being B. siamensis. The results of our extensive phylogenomic analysis (Table 2) corroborates the monophyletic nature of the conspecific group consisting of B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum, B. methylotrophicus, and B. velezensis, suggesting that this unique taxon is closely related to B. amyloliquefaciens (Borriss et al., 2011). B. velezensis is a heterotypic synonym of B. methylotrophicus, B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum, and Bacillus oryzicola, and is used to control plant fungal diseases. This idea is further supported by a recent phylogenetic and phylogenomic analysis in which B. amyloliquefaciens, B. siamensis, and B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum were established as closely related monophyletic groups harboring a common ancestor based on their gyrB and core genome (729,383 bp) sequences (Hossain et al., 2015). The conspecific group consisting of B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum, B. methylotrophicus, and B. velezensis was recently classified as being B. velezensis (Dunlap C. et al., 2016), because the valid publication of B. velezensis (Ruiz-García et al., 2005a) predates the publication of B. methylotrophicus (Madhaiyan et al., 2010) and B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum (Borriss et al., 2011). The tight relatedness of B. siamensis and B. velezensis with B. amyloliquefaciens is indicated by:

  1. highly conserved rpoB nucleotide sequence with more than 98% identity to DSM7T;

  2. Mean G+C % content is only 0.5% different ranging between 45.9% (subsp. amyloliquefaciens), 46.1% (subsp. siamensis), and 46.4% (subsp. plantarum);

  3. Tetranucleotide signatures, TETRA, were determined as above the cut-off for species delineation (>0.989);

  4. AAI values are well above 96%, representing the intraspecific threshold.

On the other hand, ANIb and ANIm were calculated as around 93 to 94% identity to B. amyloliquefaciens on the nucleotide level, which is slightly lower than the threshold proposed for species delineation (95–96% ANI, Kim et al., 2014). Moreover, electronic DDH calculation using formula 2 yielded only 56% identity, which is clearly below the cut-off for species delineation. In spite of these contradictory results, we have to conclude that three discrete species exist within clade II, given that results obtained by ANI and dDDH are more important in modern taxonomy (Auch et al., 2010; Meier-Kolthoff et al., 2013) and outcompete the other results favoring a B. amyloliquefaciens subspecies concept. However, due to the close relationship of all three species comprised in clade II we propose an “operational group B. amyloliquefaciens” comprising B. amyloliquefaciens, B. siamensis, and B. velezensis. The introduction of this “operational group” above species level should improve hierarchical classification within the B. subtilis species complex. The members of the “operational group B. amyloliquefaciens are distinguished from B. subtilis and its closest relatives by their ability to synthesize nonribosomally antifungal acting lipopopeptides of the iturin group, mostly bacillomycin D or iturin A. The ecotype of plant-associated B. amyloliquefaciens is well introduced since many years (Reva et al., 2004) and includes the most important biocontrol- and plant-growth-promoting Bacilli, which are successfully used as environmental-friendly means in agriculture (Borriss, 2011). In addition, numerous studies have been published in recent years in order to identify and to understand the specific features of the group of B. amyloliquefaciens strains able to colonize plant organs and to withstand strong plant response reactions. As in B. subtilis it is now widely recognized that a relevant part of metabolism of plant-associated B. amyloliquefaciens is devoted to metabolic interactions with plants (Belda et al., 2013). Metabolites produced by the plant-associated B. amyloliquefaciens FZB42 and other members of the conspecific B. velezensis group represent a substantial part of the diversity of nonribosomal secondary metabolites from the genus Bacillus. For example, they produce three types of polyene polyketides (difficidin, macrolactin, and bacillaene) with strong antibiotic action (Chen et al., 2007). By contrast, B. siamensis does only produce two (difficidin and bacillaene) and soil-borne B. amyloliquefaciens does only produce one polyketide (bacillaene). It is highly desirable to apply a correct taxonomic designation to distinguish the plant-associated (= B. velezensis) and the soil-borne B. amyloliquefaciens” (= B. amyloliquefaciens) strains, but also to take into consideration their high degree of relatedness. This should be reflected by their grouping into the “operational B. amyloliquefaciens group,” as a novel taxonomic unit above species level but below the “B. subtilis species complex.” Introduction of the novel taxonomic unit seems also be recommended in spite of a permanent misuse in describing taxonomy important Bacillus biocontrol strains such as GB03 (Choi et al., 2014) and QST713 (Kinsella et al., 2009), which are often designated as B. subtilis although they are true representatives of B. velezensis and simultaneously members of the “operational group B. amyloliquefaciens.”

In summary, due to their differences in ANI and dDDH values, which are slightly below species level thresholds, we propose that B. amyloliquefaciens, B. velezensis, and B. siamensis should keep their status as species of its own, as proposed by Dunlap (Dunlap C. et al., 2016). The close relatedness of the three species is well reflected by the novel taxonomic unit “operational group B. amyloliquefaciens.” Introducing of this novel taxonomic unit should improve also understanding of previous and recent scientific investigations performed with “plant-associated B. amyloliquefaciens” strains which often have not been designated correctly.

Another less surprising finding from our analysis was that many of the publically available Bacillus genomes that we analyzed are inconsistently assigned. Fortunately, a recent initiative has been started to correct such mistakes in Genbank entries (Federhen et al., 2016).

Author contributions

BF, JB, HK, and RB performed phylogenomic analyses. All authors were involved in preparing the manuscript. The final version of the manuscript was prepared by RB.

Funding

The financial support for BF by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 31100081), the Priority Academic Program Development (PAPD) of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions, and Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (No. BK20151514) is gratefully acknowledged.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Glossary

Abbreviations

AAI

average amino acid identity

ANI

average nucleotide identity

CDS

coding sequence

DDH

DNA–DNA hybridization

dDDH

digital DNA–DNA hybridization

GGDC

Genome-to-Genome Distance Calculator

TETRA

tetranucleotide frequency distribution.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fmicb.2017.00022/full#supplementary-material

References

  1. Adékambi T., Shinnick T. M., Raoult D., Drancourt M. (2008). Complete rpoB gene sequencing as a suitable supplement to DNA-DNA hybridization for bacterial species and genus delineation. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 58, 1807–1814. 10.1099/ijs.0.65440-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Auch A. F., Jan M., von Klenk H. P., Göker M. (2010). Digital DNA-DNA hybridization for microbial species delineation by means of genome-to-genome sequence comparison. Stand. Genomic Sci. 2, 117–134. 10.4056/sigs.531120 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Belda E., Sekowska A., Le Fevre F., Morgat A., Mornico D., Ouzunis C., et al. (2013). An updated metabolic view of the Bacillus subtilis 168 genome. Microbiology 159, 757–770. 10.1099/mic.0.064691-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Blom J., Kreis J., Spänig S., Juhre T., Bertelli C., Ernst C., et al. (2016). EDGAR 2.0: an enhanced software platform for comparative gene content analyses. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, W22–W28. 10.1093/nar/gkw255 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Borriss R. (2011). Use of plant-associated Bacillus strains as biofertilizers and biocontrol agents, in Bacteria in Agrobiology: Plant Growth Response, ed Maheshwari D. K.(Heidelberg: Springer; ), 41–76. [Google Scholar]
  6. Borriss R., Chen X. H., Rueckert C., Blom J., Becker A., Baumgarth B., et al. (2011). Relationship of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens clades associated with strains DSM 7T and FZB42T: a proposal for Bacillus amyloliquefaciens subsp. amyloliquefaciens subsp. nov. and Bacillus amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum subsp. nov. based on complete genome sequence comparisons. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 61, 1786–1801. 10.1099/ijs.0.023267-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Chen X. H., Koumoutsi A., Scholz R., Eisenreich A., Schneider K., Heinemeyer I., et al. (2007). Comparative analysis of the complete genome sequence of the plant growth promoting bacterium Bacillus amyloliquefaciens FZB42. Nat. Biotechnol. 25, 1007–1014. 10.1038/nbt1325 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Chen Y., Gu F., Li J., Xu F., He S., Fang Y. (2014). Bacillus vanillea sp. nov., isolated from the cured vanilla bean. Curr. Microbiol. 70, 235–239. 10.1007/s00284-014-0707-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Choi S. K., Jeong H., Kloepper J. W., Ryu C. M. (2014). Genome Sequence of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens GB03, an active ingredient of the first commercial biological control product. Genome Announc. 2:e01092-14. 10.1128/genomeA.01092-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Chung E. J., Hossain M. T., Khan A., Kim K. H., Jeon C. O., Chung Y. R. (2015). Bacillus oryzicola sp. nov., an endophytic bacterium isolated from the roots of rice with antimicrobial, plant growth promoting, and systemic resistance inducing activities in rice. Plant Pathol. J. 31, 152–164. 10.5423/PPJ.OA.12.2014.0136 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Cohn F. (1872). Untersuchungen über Bakterien. Beitr. Biol. Pflanz. 1, 127–224 (in German). [Google Scholar]
  12. Colston S. M., Fullmer M., Beka L., Lamy B., Gogarten J. P., Graf J. (2014). Bioinformatic genome comparisons for taxonomic and phylogenetic assignments using Aeromonas as a test case. mBio 5, e02136–e02114. 10.1128/mBio.02136-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Dunlap C. A. (2015). Phylogenomic analysis shows that ‘Bacillus vanillea’ is a later heterotypic synonym of Bacillus siamensis. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 65, 3507–3510. 10.1099/ijsem.0.000444 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Dunlap C. A., Kim S. J., Kwon S. W., Rooney A. P. (2015). Phylogenomic analysis shows that Bacillus amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum is a later heterotypic synonym of Bacillus methylotrophicus. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 65, 2104–2109. 10.1099/ijs.0.000226 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Dunlap C. A., Saunders L. P., Schisler D. A., Leathers T. D., Naeem N., Cohan F. M., et al. (2016). Bacillus nakamurai sp. nov., a black pigment producing strain. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 66, 2987–2991. 10.1099/ijsem.0.001135 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Dunlap C., Kim S. J., Kwon S. W., Rooney A. (2016). Bacillus velezensis is not a later heterotypic synonym of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens, Bacillus methylotrophicus, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum and ‘Bacillus oryzicola’ are later heterotypic synonyms of of Bacillus velezensis based on phylogenomics. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 66, 1212–1217. 10.1099/ijsem.0.000858 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Dunlap C., Kwon S. W., Rooney A., Kim S. J. (2015). Bacillus paralicheniformis sp. nov., isolated from fermented soybean paste. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 65, 3487–3492. 10.1099/ijsem.0.000441 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Federhen S. (2015). Type material in the NCBI taxonomy database. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, D1086–D1098. 10.1093/nar/gku1127 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Federhen S., Rossello-Mora R., Klenk H. P., et al. (2016). Meeting report: Genbank microbial genomic taxonomy workshop (12–13 May, 2015). Stand. Genomic Sci. 11:15 10.1186/s40793-016-0134-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Felsenstein J. (1989). PHYLIP: phylogeny interference package. Cladistics 5, 154–166. [Google Scholar]
  21. Fritze D. (2004). Taxonomy of the genus Bacillus and related genera: the aerobic endospore-forming bacteria. Phytopathology 94, 1245–1248. 10.1094/PHYTO.2004.94.11.1245 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Gatson J. W., Benz B. F., Chandrasekaran C., Satomi M., Venkateswaran K., Hart M. E. (2006). Bacillus tequilensis sp. nov., isolated from 2000-year-old Mexican shaft-tomb, is closely related to Bacillus subtilis. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 56, 1475–1484. 10.1099/ijs.0.63946-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Gordon R. E., Haynes W. C., Pang C. H.-N. (1973). The Genus Bacillus. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture. [Google Scholar]
  24. Hossain M. J., Ran C., Liu K., Ryu C. M., Rasmussen-Ivey C. R., Williams M. A., et al. (2015). Deciphering the conserved genetic loci implicated in plant disease control through comparative genomics of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum strains. Front. Plant Sci. 6:631. 10.3389/fpls.2015.00631 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Idriss E. E., Makarewicz O., Farouk A., Rosner K., Greiner R., Bochow H., et al. (2002). Extracellular phytase activity of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens FZB45 contributes to its plant-growth-promoting effect. Microbiology 148, 2097–2109. 10.1099/00221287-148-7-2097 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Kim M., Oh H. S., Park S. C., Chun J. (2014). Towards a taxonomic coherence between average nucleotide identity and 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity for species demarcation of prokaryotes. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 64, 346–351. 10.1099/ijs.0.059774-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Kim S. J., Dunlap C. A., Kwon S. W., Rooney A. P. (2015). Bacillus glycinifermentans sp. nov., isolated from fermented soybean paste. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 65, 3586–9350. 10.1099/ijsem.0.000462 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Kinsella K., Schulthess C. P., Morris T. F., Stuart J. D. (2009). Rapid quantification of Bacillus subtilis antibiotics in the rhizosphere. Soil Biol. Biochem. 41, 374–379. 10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.11.019 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Klenk H. P., Palm P., Zillig W. (1994). DNA dependent RNA polymerases as phylogenetic marker molecules. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 16, 638–647. 10.1016/S0723-2020(11)80335-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Konstantinidis K. T., Tiedje J. M. (2005). Towards a genome-based taxonomy for prokaryotes. J. Bacteriol. 2005, 6258–6264. 10.1128/JB.187.18.6258-6264.2005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Lai Q., Liu Y., Shao Z. (2014). Bacillus xiamenensis sp. nov., isolated from intestinal tract contents of a flathead mullet (Mugil cephalus). Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 105, 99–107. 10.1007/s10482-013-0057-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Liu B., Liu G. H., Cetin S., Schumann P., Pan Z. Z., Chen Q. Q. (2016). Bacillus gobiensis sp. nov., isolated from a soil sample collected from Xinjiang of China. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 66, 379–384. 10.1099/ijsem.0.000729 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Madhaiyan M., Poonguzhali S., Kwon S.-W., Sa T.-M. (2010). Bacillus methylotrophicus sp. nov., a methanol utilizing, plant-growth-promoting bacterium isolated from rice rhizosphere soil. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 60, 2490–2495. 10.1099/ijs.0.015487-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Medema M. H., Kottmann R., Yilmaz P., Cummings M., Biggins J. B., Blin K., et al. (2015). The minimum information about a biosynthetic gene cluster (MIBiG) specification. Nat. Chem. Biol. 11, 625–631. 10.1038/nchembio.1890 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Meier-Kolthoff J. P., Auch A. F., Klenk H.-P., Göker M. (2013). Genome sequence-based species delimitation with confidence intervals and improved distance functions. BMC Bioinformatics 14:60. 10.1186/1471-2105-14-60 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Meier-Kolthoff J. P., Hahnke R. L., Petersen J., Scheuner C., Michael V., Fiebig A., et al. (2014). Complete genome sequence of DSM 30083T, the type strain (U5/41T) of Escherichia coli, and a proposal for delineating subspecies in microbial taxonomy. Stand. Genomic Sci. 10:2 10.1186/1944-3277-9-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Nakamura L. K. (1989). Taxonomic relationship of black-pigmented Bacillus subtilis strains and a proposal for Bacillus atrophaeus sp. nov. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 39, 295–300. 10.1099/00207713-39-3-295 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Nakamura L. K., Roberts M. S., Cohan F. M. (1999).Relationship of Bacillus subtilis clades associated with strains 168 and W23: a proposal for Bacillus subtilis subsp. subtilis subsp. nov. and Bacillus subtilis subsp. spizizenii subsp nov. Int. J. Syst. Bact. 49, 1211–1215. 10.1099/00207713-49-3-1211 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Palmisano M. M., Nakamura L. K., Duncan K. E., Istock C. A., Cohan F. M. (2001). Bacillus sonorensis sp. nov., a close relative of B. licheniformis, isolated from soil in the Sonoran Desert, Arizona. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 51, 1671–1679. 10.1099/00207713-51-5-1671 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Priest F. G., Goodfellow M., Shute L. A., Berkeley W. (1987). Bacillus amyloliquefaciens sp. nov., nom. rev. Int. J. Syst. Bact. 37, 69–71. 10.1099/00207713-37-1-69 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Reva O. N., Dixelius C., Meijer J., Priest F. G. (2004). Taxonomic characterization and plant colonizing abilities of some bacteria related to Bacillus amyloliquefaciens and Bacillus subtilis. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 48, 249–259. 10.1016/j.femsec.2004.02.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Richter M., Rosselló-Móra R. (2009). Shifting the genomic gold standard for the prokaryotic species definition. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106, 19126–19131. 10.1073/pnas.0906412106 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Richter M., Rosselló-Móra R., Glöckner F. O., Peplies J. (2016). JSpeciesWS: a web server for prokaryotic species circumscription based on pairwise genome comparison. Bioinformatics 32, 929–931. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv681 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Roberts M. S., Nakamura L. K., Cohan F. M. (1994). Bacillus mojavensis sp. nov., distinguishable from Bacillus subtilis by sexual isolation, divergence in DNA sequence, and differences in fatty acid composition. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 44, 256–264. 10.1099/00207713-44-2-256 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Roberts M. S., Nakamura L. K., Cohan F. M. (1996). Bacillus vallismortis sp. nov., a close relative of Bacillus subtilis, isolated from soil in death valley, California. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 46, 470–475. 10.1099/00207713-46-2-470 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Rooney A. P., Price N. P., Ehrhardt C., Swezey J. L., Bannan J. D. (2009). Phylogeny and molecular taxonomy of the Bacillus subtilis species complex and description of Bacillus subtilis subsp. inaquosorum subsp. nov. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 59, 2420–2436. 10.1099/ijs.0.009126-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Ruiz-García C., Béjar V., Martinez-Checa F., Llamas I., Quesada E. (2005a). Bacillus velezensis sp. nov., a surfactant-producing bacterium isolated from the river Velez in Malaga, southern Spain. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 55, 191–195. 10.1099/ijs.0.63310-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Ruiz-García C., Quesada E., Martínez-Checa F., Llamas I., Urdaci M. C., Béjar V. (2005b). Bacillus axarquiensis sp. nov. and Bacillus malacitensis sp. nov., isolated from river-mouth sediments in southern Spain. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 55, 1279–1285. 10.1099/ijs.0.63567-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Satomi M., La Duc M. T., Venkateswaran K. (2006). Bacillus safensis sp. nov., isolated from spacecraft and assembly-facility surfaces. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 56, 1735–1740. 10.1099/ijs.0.64189-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Sharma V., Patil P. B. (2011). Resolving the phylogenetic and taxonomic relationship of Xanthomonas and Stenotrophomonas strains using complete rpoB gene sequence. PLoS Curr. 3:RRN1239. 10.1371/currents.RRN1239 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Shivaji S., Chaturvedi P., Suresh K., Reddy G. S., Dutt C. B., Wainwright M., et al. (2006). Bacillus aerius sp. nov., Bacillus aerophilus sp. nov., Bacillus stratosphericus sp. nov. and Bacillus altitudinis sp. nov., isolated from cryogenic tubes used for collecting air samples from high altitudes. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 56, 1465–1473. 10.1099/ijs.0.64029-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Skerman V. B. D., McGowan V., Sneath P. H. A. (eds.). (1980). Approved lists of bacterial names. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 30, 225–420. 10.1099/00207713-30-1-225 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Sumpavapol P., Tongyonk L., Tanasupawat S., Chokesajjawatee N., Luxananil P., Visessanguan W. (2010). Bacillus siamensis sp. nov., isolated from salted crab (poo-khem) in Thailand. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 60, 2364–2370. 10.1099/ijs.0.018879-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Teeling H., Meyerdierks A., Baurer M., Amman R., Glockner F. O. (2004). Application of tetranucleotide frequencies for the assignment of genomic fragments. Environ. Microbiol. 2004, 938–947. 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2004.00624.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Wu L., Wu H. J., Qiao J., Gao X., Borriss R. (2015). Novel routes for improving biocontrol activity of Bacillus based bioinoculants. Front. Microbiol. 6:1395. 10.3389/fmicb.2015.01395 [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.

Supplementary Materials


Articles from Frontiers in Microbiology are provided here courtesy of Frontiers Media SA

RESOURCES