| Title |
Promotion of Bacillus subtilis subsp. inaquosorum, Bacillus subtilis subsp. spizizenii and Bacillus subtilis subsp. stercoris to species status
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, November 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10482-019-01354-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christopher A. Dunlap, Michael J. Bowman, Daniel R. Zeigler |
| Abstract |
Bacillus subtilis currently encompasses four subspecies, Bacillus subtilis subsp. subtilis, Bacillus subtilis subsp. inaquosorum, Bacillus subtilis subsp. spizizenii and Bacillus subtilis subsp. stercoris. Several studies based on genomic comparisons have suggested these subspecies should be promoted to species status. Previously, one of the main reasons for leaving them as subspecies was the lack of distinguishing phenotypes. In this study, we used comparative genomics to determine the genes unique to each subspecies and used these to lead us to the unique phenotypes. The results show that one difference among the subspecies is they produce different bioactive secondary metabolites. B. subtilis subsp. spizizenii is shown conserve the genes to produce mycosubtilin, bacillaene and 3,3'-neotrehalosadiamine. B. subtilis subsp. inaquosorum is shown conserve the genes to produce bacillomycin F, fengycin and an unknown PKS/NRPS cluster. B. subtilis subsp. stercoris is shown conserve the genes to produce fengycin and an unknown PKS/NRPS cluster. While B. subtilis subsp. subtilis is shown to conserve the genes to produce 3,3'-neotrehalosadiamine. In addition, we update the chemotaxonomy and phenotyping to support their promotion to species status. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 50% |
| Australia | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 52 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 21% |
| Researcher | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 4% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Unknown | 21 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 11 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 8% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 2 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Unknown | 22 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 November 2019.
All research outputs
#18,036,345
of 23,173,635 outputs
Outputs from Antonie van Leeuwenhoek
#1,524
of 2,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,416
of 359,983 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Antonie van Leeuwenhoek
#28
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,173,635 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,043 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 359,983 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.