Skip to main content
International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology logoLink to International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology
. 2021 Dec 17;71(12):005168. doi: 10.1099/ijsem.0.005168

Enterococcus innesii sp. nov., isolated from the wax moth Galleria mellonella

Harriet C C Gooch 1,, Raymond Kiu 2,, Steven Rudder 2, David J Baker 2, Lindsay J Hall 2,3,4,*, Anthony Maxwell 1,*
PMCID: PMC8744253  PMID: 34919037

Abstract

Four bacterial strains were isolated from two different colony sources of the wax moth Galleria mellonella. They were characterized by a polyphasic approach including 16S rRNA gene sequence analysis, core-genome analysis, average nucleotide identity (ANI) analysis, digital DNA–DNA hybridization (dDDH), determination of G+C content, screening of antibiotic resistance genes, and various phenotypic analyses. Initial analysis of 16S rRNA gene sequence identities indicated that strain GAL7T was potentially very closely related to Enterococcus casseliflavus and Enterococcus gallinarum , having 99.5–99.9 % sequence similarity. However, further analysis of whole genome sequences revealed a genome size of 3.69 Mb, DNA G+C content of 42.35 mol%, and low dDDH and ANI values between the genomes of strain GAL7T and closest phylogenetic relative E. casseliflavus NBRC 100478T of 59.0 and 94.5 %, respectively, indicating identification of a putative new Enterococcus species. In addition, all novel strains encoded the atypical vancomycin-resistance gene vanC-4. Results of phylogenomic, physiological and phenotypic characterization confirmed that strain GAL7T represented a novel species within the genus Enterococcus , for which the name Enterococcus innesii sp. nov. is proposed. The type strain is GAL7T (=DSM 112306T=NCTC 14608T).

Keywords: Enterococcus, novel species, Galleria mellonella, wax moth, antibiotic resistance, vancomycin resistant

Introduction

Enterococci are Gram-positive facultative anaerobes that are often diplococci, and which belong to the phylum Firmicutes , class Bacilli , order Lactobacillales and family Enterococcaceae [1, 2]. They comprise a large genus of lactic acid bacteria that are tolerant to many stress conditions and can be found in a wide range of habitats including water (fresh and marine), soils, and as members of animal, human and plant microbial communities (i.e. microbiomes) [3]. From a clinical perspective, some species, such as Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium , are associated with opportunistic infections, including bacteraemia, endocarditis and urinary tract and catheter infections [4–6]. Crucially, Enterococcus species have inherent resistance to many antimicrobial agents including cephaloporins and β-lactams [7, 8]. They are also of further concern due to acquisition of multi-drug resistance traits, particularly rising rates of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus strains [9], which are an increasingly common cause of infection in hospitals [10].

As highlighted above, Enterococcus species are also common animal microbiota members, and previous work has indicated that the greater wax moth, Galleria mellonella, is dominated by Enterococci [11, 12], like many other species of Lepidoptera [13]. Although Galleria is a pest of honeybee (Apis mellifera) hives worldwide [14], in recent years it has gained popularity as a model host for a range of human pathogens. It has the advantages of being inexpensive, easy to use, and able to grow at 37 °C, while not being subject to the same regulations and ethical concerns as mammalian models such as mice [15–17]. It has also been of interest due to the ability of the larvae to metabolize polyethylene [18]. Previous research on endogenous Galleria and Enterococcus species indicates these bacteria may have a colonization-resistance function, either passively or actively, through the production of antimicrobial bacteriocins [11, 19].

In this study, we isolated four bacterial strains initially identified as Enterococcus casseliflavus based on 16S rRNA gene alignments. However, on further inspection and characterization (genomic and phenotypic) we propose a novel and putative Enterococcus species: herein named Enterococcus innesii sp. nov. These data expand our knowledge of an important model organism-associated Enterococcus species, which encodes atypical vancomycin resistance genes and is therefore also of clinical importance.

Isolation and ecology

Galleria mellonella larvae were obtained from a colony grown from larvae originally sourced from Livefood UK Ltd and maintained at the John Innes Centre Entomology Facility (Norwich, UK). Galleria larvae (TruLarv) were also purchased from BioSystems Technology. Larvae were flash-frozen in liquid nitrogen, and whole guts dissected under sterile conditions (three guts were pooled into each single sample). Each sample was then homogenized in 200 µl PBS, diluted 100-fold in PBS and 50 µl spread-plated on brain heart infusion (BHI) agar plates and incubated at 37 °C for 48 h. Individual bacterial colonies were selected and grown in BHI media. Three pure isolates from distinct single colonies were taken from Galleria mellonella larvae from the John Innes Centre Entomology Facility, and one was isolated from TruLarv larvae.

Genomic characterization

The genomes of E. innesii GAL7T, E. innesii GAL9, E. innesii GAL10 and E. innesii TL2 were sequenced using the Nanopore MinION sequencing platform. Prior to this, FastDNA Spin Kit for Soil (MP Biomedicals) was used to extract genomic DNA from each isolate (grown up in BHI media for 48 h) following manufacturer’s instructions, with an extended 3 min bead-beating procedure as described previously [20]. The sequencing library was prepared via a modified Illumina Nextera Flex low input tagmentation approach using symmetrical 24 base barcoded primers [21]. Libraries were pooled and stringently size selected on a sageELF 0.75 % cassette and fractions from 4 kb and above were pooled and put into a standard Nanopore Ligation reaction using the SQK-LSK109 kit and protocol and loaded onto a MinION following the recommended loading guidelines and run for 48 h. Basecalling was performed using Guppy version 3.6.0 (Oxford Nanopore Technologies) in high accuracy mode (model dna_r9.4.1_450bps_hac). Subsequently, high-quality pure culture genomes (genome size range: 3.6–3.8 Mb) were assembled via Unicycler version 0.4.9 [22] and further polished using Racon version 1.3.1 in the Unicycler pipeline, with a range of 13–18 in contigs and G+C content of ~42 mol% (Table 1). Genomes were further annotated using Prokka version 1.13, with ~3800–4100 CDS predicted for these for E. innesii strains.

Table 1.

Genome statistics comparison between closely related Enterococcus species (n=10) to E. innesii strains identified by TYGS, including type strain GAL7T [45]

Previously published type strain genomes were retrieved from GenBank for analysis in this study [46]. Genome assembly statistics were extracted using sequence-stats version 0.1 [47] while genome annotation was performed using Prokka version 1.13 [48].

Strains

Genome size

(bp)

Contigs

G+C

(mol%)

rRNA

tRNA

CDS

GenBank accessions

Enterococcus alcedinis CCM8433T

2 686 367

29

37.59

2

50

2472

GCA_014635985

Enterococcus casseliflavus NBRC100478T

3 498 264

54

42.35

3

50

3339

GCA_001544095

Enterococcus devriesei DSM22802T

3 320 653

65

40.22

1

29

3119

GCA_001885905

Enterococcus gallinarum NBRC100675T

3 774 884

87

39.75

3

49

3600

GCA_001544275

Enterococcus gilvus BAA350T

4 179 913

5

41.41

21

70

4111

GCA_000407545

Enterococcus innesii GAL10

3 678 879

18

42.32

15

69

3868

GCA_018982735

Enterococcus innesii GAL7 T

3 692 254

14

42.35

22

67

3866

GCA_018982785

Enterococcus innesii GAL9

3 793 471

13

42.22

18

64

4070

GCA_018982775

Enterococcus innesii TL2

3 806 372

17

42.25

20

63

4075

GCA_018982725

Enterococcus malodoratus ATCC43197T

4 654 237

10

39.56

16

54

4480

GCA_000407185

Enterococcus massiliensis AM1T

2 712 841

7

39.64

9

61

2612

GCA_001050095

Enterococcus pseudoavium NBRC100491T

2 731 874

59

40.06

3

48

2587

GCA_001544295

Enterococcus saccharolyticus ATCC13076T

2 604 038

2

36.70

6

38

2586

GCA_000407285

Enterococcus viikkiensis LMG26075T

2 545 311

45

40.26

4

40

2416

GCA_005405345

Initially, the 16S rRNA sequences of 61 validated Enterococcus species (60 were Enterococcus type strains) were obtained from the web server of List of Prokaryotic names with Standing in Nomenclature (LPSN; May 2021) [23, 24]. Using in silico approaches, near-full-length 16S rRNA sequences (~1.5 kb) of E. innesii were extracted via bactspeciesID version 1.2 [25], aligned with 16S rRNA sequences of other 61 public genomes using muscle version 3.8.31 [26], and a 16S rRNA-based maximum-likelihood phylogenetic tree was reconstructed via iq-tree version 2.0.5 with the GTR model at 1000 bootstrap replications while visualized with iTOL version 6 (Fig. 1) [27, 28]. E. innesii GAL7T was phylogenetically positioned among E. casseliflavus , E. flavescens (re-classified as E. casseliflavus ) and E. gallinarum cluster due to its 16S rRNA sequence similarity (99.53–99.93 %) [29]. However, when we compared the digital DNA–DNA hybridization (dDDH; via the Type Strain Genome Server, TYGS) and average nucleotide identity (ANI) for genome-based species delineation purposes (via fastANI v1.3), the proposed E. innesii sp. nov GAL7T represented a separate species from E. casseliflavus and E. gallinarum type strains. The dDDH was 59.0 % (using TYGS formula d4) and ANI 94.5 %, when compared to its closest neighbour E. casseliflavus NBRC100478T, despite the high similarity of 16S rRNA sequences between the two species, both fell below the intra-species thresholds of 70 % dDDH and 95 % ANI (Fig. 2). In contrast, the ANI values among E. innesii strains (n=4) were 99.92–99.96 %.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

A mid-point rooted maximum-likelihood phylogenetic tree showing the phylogenetic position of Enterococcus innesii sp. nov. strain GAL7T based on 16S rRNA gene sequences of 61 Enterococcus type strains. Bootstrap values (>70 %) based on 1000 replications are listed as percentages at the branches. Bar, 0.01 substitutions per nucleotide base.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.

A mid-point rooted maximum-likelihood phylogenetic tree based on 154 826 single nucleotide polymorphisms from 564 core genes, aligned with dDDH (%), ANI (%) and antibiotic resistance gene profiles.

Next, 10 closest-related Enterococcus strains (vs E. innesii) identified by TYGS were further examined phylogenetically at a genomic level, with antibiotic resistance genes also screened (using the resfinder database), for the four novel E. innesii strains (Fig. 2) [30]. The pangenome of these 14 strains were investigated using Roary version 3.12.0 [31] at blastp threshold at 70 % identity for inference of core genes. A total of 15 629 genes were present in this pangenome with 564 core genes and 15 065 accessory genes. Next, a core-gene alignment was generated and used to build a core-genome maximum-likelihood phylogenetic tree where it showed that E. casseliflavus NBRC100478T was genomically distinct from E. innesii, further supported by single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) analysis (using snp-dists version 0.7.0) that confirmed the SNP range (8–32 SNPs) among E. innesii strains (n=4) indicating strain distinction yet close genetic relatedness, while 11538–11540 SNPs were found when comparing E. innesii strains (n=4) and E. casseliflavus NBRC100478T (Fig. 2) [32].

The vancomycin-resistance gene vanC-4 (NCBI accession: EU151752) was uniquely detected (nucleotide sequence identity: 98.52–98.58 % at near 100 % coverage) in all E. innesii strains using ABRicate version 1.0.1 with the resfinder database, which was not found in any other closely related Enterococcus type strains (Fig. 2) [30, 33]. Notably, we did not detect any other virulence or antibiotic resistance genes in any of the four E. innesii strains. Vancomycin resistant determinant vanC subtypes had been reported in E. gallinarum , (vanC-1), E. casseliflavus (vanC-2), and E. flavescens (vanC-3; E. flavescens has now been re-classified as E. casseliflavus ), while vanC-4 has only been reported once previously in E. casseliflavus . In this study, the authors described the vanC-4 encoding clinically associated E. casseliflavus isolates as having ‘at least two genetic lineages with the distinct vanC genes, that is, a single subtype including previously known vanC-2/C-3, and a novel subtype vanC-4′. We therefore propose that this distinct ‘genetic lineage’ of E. casseliflavus may hypothetically be E. innesii, a novel species that uniquely encode vanC-4 gene [34, 35]. However, as these isolates described in this previous clinical study were not whole genome sequenced, we are unable to determine this conclusively. Furthermore, the vanC resistance gene was phenotypically demonstrated in E. casseliflavus and E. gallinarum as having intrinsic but low-level resistance to vancomycin at a minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of 4–32 µg ml−1 [36].

Subsequently, we screened through a larger public dataset of Enterococcus species via a targeted approach and found that three isolates previously designated as E. casseliflavus and E. gallinarum appeared to be E. innesii based on ANI (however, taxonomy check on NCBI were inconclusive for these isolates). These include E. casseliflavus NCTC4725 (ANI vs E. casseliflavus NBRC100478T: 94.88 %; ANI vs E. innesii GAL7T: 97.02 %), E. gallinarum FDAARGOS163 (ANI vs E. gallinarum NBRC100675T: 77.99 %; ANI vs E. casseliflavus NBRC100478T: 94.79 %; ANI vs E. innesii GAL7T: 95.40 %) and E. gallinaru m 4928STDY7071463 (ANI vs E. gallinarum NBRC100675T: 78.08 %; ANI vs E. casseliflavus NBRC100478T: 94.96 %; ANI vs E. innesii GAL7T: 95.43%). Importantly, these three isolates NCTC4725 (ATCC27284; GCA_901542395.1), FDAARGOS163 (GCA_001558875.2) and 4928STDY7071463 (GCA_902159265.1) are derived from human sources [37–39]. These isolates also demonstrated similar genome features as E. innesii sp. nov., with genome size range ~3.6–3.7 Mb and G+C ~42 mol%. These data suggest E. innesii sp. nov., may also be a clinically important species associated with novel antimicrobial resistance determinants, as vanC-4 is encoded in all these genomes, and is reported to cause opportunistic human infection.

Phenotypic characterization

Phenotypic characteristics were also investigated and included cell and colony morphology, motility, Gram-staining reaction, formation of endospores, oxygen relationship, growth at different temperatures, fermentation profiles of carbohydrates, catalase activity, oxidase activity, tolerance to NaCl, Voges–Proskauer reaction, urease production, pyrrolidonyl arylamidase production, hydrolysis of hippurate, deamination of arginine, pyruvate utilization, bile-aesculin tolerance test, haemolysis test, fatty acid analysis and vancomycin susceptibility testing [40]. Motility tests were carried out on E. innesii GAL7T using motility test medium (Merck). Media were prepared according to manufacturer’s instructions and outcomes were recorded after culturing for 48 h at 37 °C. The susceptibility of E. innesii GAL7T to antibiotic vancomycin was evaluated using MIC assays on BHI agar plates (carried out in three biological replicates) as described previously [41]. Aside from motility and vancomycin susceptibility tests, all phenotypic analyses were carried out by the Identification Service, Leibniz Institute DSMZ (Germany).

E. innesii cells were coccoid-shaped, 1.0–1.5 µm long, motile and occurred in pairs or in chains under phase-contrast microscopy (Fig. 3). All E. innesii strains were Gram-positive, asporogenous, and facultatively anaerobic. Biochemical characteristics were determined using API 50CHE strips for carbohydrate utilization profiles, after incubation for up to 48 h at 37 °C (Table 2). They were capable of growth at 10–45 °C with optimum at 30–37 °C in BHI broth, with only weak growth at 45 °C, and no growth at 5 °C for up to 13 days. Growth was observed at NaCl concentrations from 0 to 8 % (w/v), with optimum growth <6.5 %. All strains were catalase- and oxidase-negative and showed no haemolytic activity. When compared to the closest related species E. casseliflavus (based on 16S rRNA analysis), E. innesii strains exhibited a distinctive metabolism in producing acid from glycerol, sorbitol, raffinose and 2-ketoglyconate, while not producing acid from turanose (Table 2). Further phenotypic features were determined using the API rapidID32 STREP system on single strain E. innesii GAL7T where cells were negative for urease production, hydrolysis of hippurate and pyruvate utilization (no detectable growth using sodium pyruvate as sole carbon source in mineral salt medium for 6 days at 37 °C), while positive for Voges–Proskauer reaction, pyrrolidonyl arylamidase production and arginine dihydrolase. GAL7T cells tested positive for aesculin hydrolysis in complex medium (Bacto-Peptone, 1 g l−1 aesculin). Moreover, similar to E. gallinarum , GAL7T cells were positive for β-glucuronidase while closest relative E. casseliflavus , and related species E. faecalis and E. faecium were all negative for this enzyme (Table 2).

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3.

Phase-contrast microscopy showing E. innesii GAL7T occurring in pairs and in chains.

Table 2.

Distinctive phenotypic features between E. innesii strains (data from this study) and phylogenetically closely related E. casseliflavus [49] and E. gallinarum strains [49], also distantly related E. faecalis [49] and E. faecium strains [49]

+, All strains positive; −, all strains negative; +(−), most strains positive; −(+), most strains negative; v, variable; +w, most strains weakly positive, none negative. All strains were positive for ribose, galactose, glucose, fructose, mannose, N-acetylglucosamine, amygdalin, arbutin, salicin, cellobiose, maltose, lactose, trehalose and gentibiose. All strains were negative for erythritol, d-arabinose, l-xylose, adonitol, methyl β-xyloside, sorbose, dulcitol, inositol, xylitol, lyxose, d-fucose, l-fucose, d-arabitol, l-arabitol and 5-keto-gluconate.

Characteristics

E. innesii* (n=4)

E. casseliflavus

(n=6)

E. gallinarum

(n=4)

E. faecalis

(n=6)

E. faecium

(n=5)

Acid production from:

d-Xylose

+

+

+

Sucrose

+

+

+

+

v

Melibiose

+

+

+

v

Methyl α-glucoside

+

+

+

Melizitose

+(−)

Mannitol

+

+

+

+

+(−)

Inulin

+

+

+

Gluconate

+

+

+

+(−)

v

l-Arabinose

+

+

+

+

Glycerol

+w‡

+

+

+

Rhamnose

+

+(−)

v

Sorbitol

v

+

+(−)

Methyl α-d-mannoside

+

+(−)

−(+)

Raffinose

+

+

Glycogen

−(+)

Turanose

v

+

d-Tagatose

+

+

2-Keto-gluconate

+

v

Hydrolysis of:

Aesculin

+

+

+(−)

+

Hippurate

−§

+

+(−)

+

Presence of enzymes:

Arginine dihydrolase

+(−)

+

+

+

α-Galactosidase

+

+

β-Galactosidase

+

+

+

β-Glucuronidase

+

*Determined with the API 50CH system.

†Determined with the API 50CHE system.

‡Shaded area represents distinctive phenotypic features between E. innesii strain(s) and closely related E. casseliflavus and E. gallinarum strains as determined by API systems.

§Determined with API rapid ID32 STREP system on a single strain GAL7T.

Cellular fatty acids were analysed after conversion into fatty acid methyl esters (FAMEs) using a modified protocol by Miller [42]. Mixtures of the FAMEs were then separated by gas chromatography and detected by a flame ionization detector using the Sherlock Microbial Identification System (midi) based on TSBA6 database. C14 : 0, C16 : 0 and C18 : 1  ω7c were the major fatty acids in E. innesii GAL7T. Compared to the closest phylogenetic neighbours E. casseliflavus and E. gallinarum type strains (JCM8723T and JCM8728T, respectively), E. innesii GAL7T cells have a significantly higher C14 : 0 fatty acid content at 26.12%, apparently distinctive from E. casseliflavus (7.5 %) and E. gallinarum (0.2 %) as described previously [43].

Importantly, we determined that E. innesii GAL7T, which harboured putative atypical vancomycin resistance gene vanC-4, reduced susceptibility to vancomycin at MIC 4 µg ml−1 (vancomycin clinical breakpoint for Enterococci is >4 µg ml−1). This is similar to the low-level vancomycin resistance reported previously in E. casseliflavus and E. gallinarum , strains that encode the vanC resistance gene [36, 44].

Based on the results of phylogenomic, physiological and biochemical studies presented above, strain GAL7T is considered to represent a novel species of the genus Enterococcus , for which the name Enterococcus innesii sp. nov. is proposed.

Description of Enterococcus innesii sp. nov.

Enterococcus innesii (in.ne´si.i. N.L. gen. n. innesii, pertaining to British philanthropist John Innes JP and the John Innes Centre, Norwich, UK, where this bacterium was isolated).

Description is based on a single strain. Cells are Gram-positive, facultatively anaerobic, motile, non-haemolytic, asporogenous, coccoid-shaped, 1.0–1.5 µm long and usually occur in pairs or in chains. It grows at temperatures between 10–45 °C (optimum, 30–37 °C), at NaCl concentrations from 0 to 8.0 % (optimum, 0–6.5 %, at 37 °C) in BHI medium. Colonies formed on BHI after incubation for 48 h at 37 °C are non-pigmented, circular, smooth, shiny, diameter 1–2 mm, with entire margins. Negative for urease production, hydrolysis of hippurate, pyruvate utilization and catalase and oxidase production. Positive for Voges–Proskauer reaction, pyrrolidonyl arylamidase production, hydrolysis of aesculin and arginine dihydrolase. Acid is produced from l-arabinose, ribose, d-xylose, galactose, glucose, fructose, mannose, rhamnose, methyl α-d-mannoside, methyl α-glucoside, N-acetylglucosamine, amygdalin, arbutin, aesculin, salicin, cellobiose, maltose, lactose, melibiose, sucrose, trehalose, inulin, raffinose, gentibiose, gluconate, 2-ketogluconate, starch and glycerol. Acid is not produced from erythritol, d-arabinose, l-xylose, adonitol, methyl β-d-xyloside, sorbose, dulcitol, inositol, melizitose, glycogen, xylitol, turanose, d-tagatose, d-fucose, l-fucose, d-arabitol, l-arabitol and 5-ketogluconate. Resistant to 4 µg ml−1 vancomycin. The major fatty acids are C14 : 0, C16 : 0 and C18 : 1  ω7c.

The type strain, GAL7T (=DSM 112306T=NCTC 14608T), was isolated from the gut of a wax moth Galleria mellonella at John Innes Centre (Norwich, UK). The genome of the type strain is characterized by a size of 3.79 Mb and a G+C content of 42.22 mol%.

Funding information

H.C.C.G. is funded by the NC3Rs Postgraduate Studentship Scheme (NC/R001782/1). A.M. is supported by Biotechnology and Biosciences Research Council (UK) Institute Strategic Programme Grant BB/P012523/1, and a Wellcome Trust Investigator Award (110072/Z/15/Z). L.J.H. is supported by Wellcome Trust Investigator Awards 100974 /C/13/Z and 220876/Z/20/Z; the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), Institute Strategic Programme Gut Microbes and Health BB/R012490/1, and its constituent projects BBS/E/F/000PR10353 and BBS/E/F/000PR10356.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported in part by the Norwich Bioscience Institutes (NBI) Computing infrastructure for Science (CiS) group through the provision of a High-Performance Computing (HPC) Cluster.

Author contributions

Conceptualization, H.C.C.G., R.K., L.J.H and A.M; methodology, H.C.C.G., S.R. and D.J.B.; software, R.K.; validation, R.K., H.C.C.G. and L.J.H.; formal analysis, R.K. and H.C.C.G.; investigation, R.K. and H.C.C.G.; resources, H.C.C.G., S.R. and D.J.B; data curation, R.K.; writing – original draft preparation, R.K., H.C.C.G., D.J.B., A.M. and L.J.H.; writing – review and editing, R.K., H.C.C.G. and L.J.H.; visualization, R.K.; supervision, L.J.H. and A.M.; project administration, H.C.C.G. and R.K.; funding acquisition, L.J.H. and A.M.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Footnotes

Abbreviations: ANI, average nucleotide identity; BHI, brain heart infusion; dDDH, digital DNA–DNA hybridization; FAME, fatty acid methyl ester; SNP, single nucleotide polymorphism; TYGS, Type Strain Genome Server.

References

  • 1.Teixeira LM, Merquior VLC. In: Molecular Typing in Bacterial Infections (Infectious Disease) Filippis de, McKee M., editors. Totawa, NJ: Humana Press; 2013. Enterococcus. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Jett BD, Huycke MM, Gilmore MS. Virulence of enterococci. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1994;7:462–478. doi: 10.1128/CMR.7.4.462. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Gilmore MS, Clewell DB, Courvalin P, Dunny GM, Murray BE, et al. The Enterococci: Pathogenesis, Molecular Biology, and Antibiotic Resistance. Washington: ASM Press; 2002. The Enterococci. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Ceci M, Delpech G, Sparo M, Mezzina V, Sánchez Bruni S, et al. Clinical and microbiological features of bacteremia caused by Enterococcus faecalis . J Infect Dev Ctries. 2015;9:1195–1203. doi: 10.3855/jidc.6587. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Nigo M, Munita JM, Arias CA, Murray BE. What’s new in the treatment of enterococcal endocarditis? Curr Infect Dis Rep. 2014;16:431. doi: 10.1007/s11908-014-0431-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Flores-Mireles AL, Walker JN, Caparon M, Hultgren SJ. Urinary tract infections: epidemiology, mechanisms of infection and treatment options. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2015;13:269–284. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro3432. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Miller WR, Munita JM, Arias CA. Mechanisms of antibiotic resistance in enterococci. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2014;12:1221–1236. doi: 10.1586/14787210.2014.956092. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Sifaoui F, Arthur M, Rice L, Gutmann L. Role of penicillin-binding protein 5 in expression of ampicillin resistance and peptidoglycan structure in Enterococcus faecium . Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2001;45:2594–2597. doi: 10.1128/AAC.45.9.2594-2597.2001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Fisher K, Phillips C. The ecology, epidemiology and virulence of Enterococcus . Microbiology. 2009;155:1749–1757. doi: 10.1099/mic.0.026385-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Arias CA, Murray BE. The rise of the Enterococcus: beyond vancomycin resistance. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2012;10:266–278. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2761. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Jarosz J. Gut flora of Galleria mellonella suppressing ingested bacteria. J Invertebr Pathol. 1979;34:192–198. doi: 10.1016/0022-2011(79)90101-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Allonsius CN, Van Beeck W, De Boeck I, Wittouck S, Lebeer S. The microbiome of the invertebrate model host Galleria mellonella is dominated by Enterococcus . Anim Microbiome. 2019;1:7. doi: 10.1186/s42523-019-0010-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Duplouy A, Hornett EA. Uncovering the hidden players in Lepidoptera biology: the heritable microbial endosymbionts. PeerJ. 2018;6:e4629. doi: 10.7717/peerj.4629. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kwadha CA, Ong’amo GO, Ndegwa PN, Raina SK, Fombong AT. The biology and control of the greater wax moth, Galleria mellonella . Insects. 2017;8:E61. doi: 10.3390/insects8020061. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Tsai CJ-Y, Loh JMS, Proft T. Galleria mellonella infection models for the study of bacterial diseases and for antimicrobial drug testing. Virulence. 2016;7:214–229. doi: 10.1080/21505594.2015.1135289. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Lange A, Schäfer A, Bender A, Steimle A, Beier S, et al. Galleria mellonella: a novel invertebrate model to distinguish intestinal symbionts from pathobionts. Front Immunol. 2018;9:2114. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.02114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Pereira MF, Rossi CC, da Silva GC, Rosa JN, Bazzolli DMS. Galleria mellonella as an infection model: an in-depth look at why it works and practical considerations for successful application. Pathog Dis. 2020;78:ftaa056. doi: 10.1093/femspd/ftaa056. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.LeMoine CM, Grove HC, Smith CM, Cassone BJ. A very hungry caterpillar: polyethylene metabolism and lipid homeostasis in larvae of the greater wax moth (Galleria mellonella) Environ Sci Technol. 2020;54:14706–14715. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c04386. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Johnston PR, Rolff J. Host and symbiont jointly control gut microbiota during complete metamorphosisSymbiont Jointly Control Gut Microbiota during Complete Metamorphosis. PLoS Pathog. 2015;11:e1005246. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1005246. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Alcon-Giner C, Dalby MJ, Caim S, Ketskemety J, Shaw A, et al. Microbiota supplementation with bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus modifies the preterm infant gut microbiota and metabolome: an observational study. Cell Rep Med. 2020;1:100077. doi: 10.1016/j.xcrm.2020.100077. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Baker DJ, Aydin A, Le-Viet T, Kay GL, Rudder S, et al. CoronaHiT: high-throughput sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 genomes. Genome Med. 2021;13:21. doi: 10.1186/s13073-021-00839-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Wick RR, Judd LM, Gorrie CL, Holt KE. Unicycler: Resolving bacterial genome assemblies from short and long sequencing reads. PLoS Comput Biol. 2017;13:e1005595. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005595. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Parte AC. LPSN--list of prokaryotic names with standing in nomenclature. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42:D613–6. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkt1111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Parte AC, Sardà Carbasse J, Meier-Kolthoff JP, Reimer LC, Göker M. List of Prokaryotic names with Standing in Nomenclature (LPSN) moves to the DSMZ. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2020;70:5607–5612. doi: 10.1099/ijsem.0.004332. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kiu R. BACTspeciesID: identify microbial species and genome contamination using 16S rRNA gene approach. 2020. https://github.com/raymondkiu/bactspeciesID
  • 26.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]
  • 27.Letunic I, Bork P. Interactive Tree Of Life (iTOL) v4: recent updates and new developments. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47:W256–W259. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkz239. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Minh BQ, Schmidt HA, Chernomor O, Schrempf D, Woodhams MD, et al. IQ-TREE 2: new models and efficient methods for phylogenetic inference in the genomic era. Mol Biol Evol. 2020;37:1530–1534. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msaa015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Naser SM, Vancanneyt M, Hoste B, Snauwaert C, Vandemeulebroecke K, et al. Reclassification of Enterococcus flavescens Pompei et al. 1992 as a later synonym of Enterococcus casseliflavus (ex Vaughan et al. 1979) Collins et al. 1984 and Enterococcus saccharominimus Vancanneyt et al. 2004 as a later synonym of Enterococcus italicus Fortina et al. 2004. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2006;56:413–416. doi: 10.1099/ijs.0.63891-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Bortolaia V, Kaas RS, Ruppe E, Roberts MC, Schwarz S, et al. ResFinder 4.0 for predictions of phenotypes from genotypes. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2020;75:3491–3500. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkaa345. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Page AJ, Cummins CA, Hunt M, Wong VK, Reuter S, et al. Roary: rapid large-scale prokaryote pan genome analysis. Bioinformatics. 2015;31:3691–3693. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv421. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Seemann T, Klotzl F, Page AJ. snp-dists: Pairwise SNP distance matrix from a FASTA sequence alignment. 2018. https://github.com/tseemann/snp-dists
  • 33.Seemann T. ABRicate: Mass screening of contigs for antimicrobial and virulence genes. 2018. https://github.com/tseemann/abricate
  • 34.Clark NC, Teixeira LM, Facklam RR, Tenover FC. Detection and differentiation of vanC-1, vanC-2, and vanC-3 glycopeptide resistance genes in enterococci. J Clin Microbiol. 1998;36:2294–2297. doi: 10.1128/JCM.36.8.2294-2297.1998. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Watanabe S, Kobayashi N, Quiñones D, Hayakawa S, Nagashima S, et al. Genetic diversity of the low-level vancomycin resistance gene vanC-2/vanC-3 and identification of a novel vanC subtype (vanC-4) in Enterococcus casseliflavus . Microb Drug Resist. 2009;15:1–9. doi: 10.1089/mdr.2009.0856. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Cetinkaya Y, Falk P, Mayhall CG. Vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2000;13:686–707. doi: 10.1128/CMR.13.4.686. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Collins MD, Farrow JAE, Jones D. Enterococcus mundtii sp. nov. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1986;36:8–12. doi: 10.1099/00207713-36-1-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Sichtig H, Minogue T, Yan Y, Stefan C, Hall A, et al. FDA-ARGOS is a database with public quality-controlled reference genomes for diagnostic use and regulatory science. Nat Commun. 2019;10:3313. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-11306-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Shao Y, Forster SC, Tsaliki E, Vervier K, Strang A, et al. Stunted microbiota and opportunistic pathogen colonization in caesarean-section birth. Nature. 2019;574:117–121. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1560-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Mattarelli P, Holzapfel W, Franz CMAP, Endo A, Felis GE, et al. Recommended minimal standards for description of new taxa of the genera Bifidobacterium, Lactobacillus and related genera. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2014;64:1434–1451. doi: 10.1099/ijs.0.060046-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Andrews JM. Determination of minimum inhibitory concentrations. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2001;48 Suppl 1:5–16. doi: 10.1093/jac/48.suppl_1.5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Miller LT. Single derivatization method for routine analysis of bacterial whole-cell fatty acid methyl esters, including hydroxy acids. J Clin Microbiol. 1982;16:584–586. doi: 10.1128/jcm.16.3.584-586.1982. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Li YQ, Gu CT. Enterococcus pingfangensis sp. nov., Enterococcus dongliensis sp. nov., Enterococcus hulanensis sp. nov., Enterococcus nangangensis sp. nov. and Enterococcus songbeiensis sp. nov., isolated from Chinese traditional pickle juice. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2019;69:3191–3201. doi: 10.1099/ijsem.0.003608. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Brown DFJ, Wootton M, Howe RA. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing breakpoints and methods from BSAC to EUCAST. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016;71:3–5. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkv287. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Meier-Kolthoff JP, Göker M. TYGS is an automated high-throughput platform for state-of-the-art genome-based taxonomy. Nat Commun. 2019;10:2182. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-10210-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Benson DA, Karsch-Mizrachi I, Lipman DJ, Ostell J, Sayers EW. GenBank. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009;37:D26–31. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkn723. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Kiu R. Sequence-stats: generate sequence statistics from FASTA and FASTQ files. 2020. https://github.com/raymondkiu/sequence-stats
  • 48.Seemann T. Prokka: rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:2068–2069. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu153. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Collins MD, Jones D, Farrow JAE, Kilpperbalz R, Schleifer KH. Enterococcus avium nom. rev., comb. nov.; E. casseliflavus nom. rev., comb. nov.; E. durans nom. rev., comb. nov.; E. gallinarum comb. nov.; and E. malodoratus sp. nov. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1984;34:220–223. [Google Scholar]

Articles from International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology are provided here courtesy of Society for General Microbiology and the International Union of Microbiological Societies

RESOURCES