↓ Skip to main content

A Polyphasic and Taxogenomic Evaluation Uncovers Arcobacter cryaerophilus as a Species Complex That Embraces Four Genomovars

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A Polyphasic and Taxogenomic Evaluation Uncovers Arcobacter cryaerophilus as a Species Complex That Embraces Four Genomovars
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, April 2018
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2018.00805
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alba Pérez-Cataluña, Luis Collado, Oscar Salgado, Violeta Lefiñanco, María J. Figueras

Abstract

The species Arcobacter cryaerophilus is found in many food products of animal origin and is the dominating species in wastewater. In addition, it is associated with cases of farm animal and human infectious diseases,. The species embraces two subgroups i.e., 1A (LMG 24291T = LMG 9904T) and 1B (LMG 10829) that can be differentiated by their 16S rRNA-RFLP pattern. However, some authors, on the basis of the shared intermediate levels of DNA-DNA hybridization, have suggested abandoning the subgroup classification. This contradiction indicates that the taxonomy of this species is not yet resolved. The objective of the present study was to perform a taxonomic evaluation of the diversity of A. cryaerophilus. Genomic information was used along with a Multilocus Phylogenetic Analysis (MLPA) and phenotypic characterization on a group of 52 temporally and geographically dispersed strains, coming from different types of samples and hosts from nine countries. The MLPA analysis showed that those strains formed four clusters (I-IV). Values of Average Nucleotide Identity (ANI) and in silico DNA-DNA Hybridization (isDDH) obtained between 13 genomes representing strains of the four clusters were below the proposed cut-offs of 96 and 70%, respectively, confirming that each of the clusters represented a different genomic species. However, none of the evaluated phenotypic tests enabled their unequivocal differentiation into species. Therefore, the genomic delimited clusters should be considered genomovars of the species A. cryaerophilus. These genomovars could have different clinical importance, since only the cluster I included strains isolated from human specimens. The discovery of at least one stable distinctive phenotypic character would be needed to define each cluster or genomovar as a different species. Until then, we propose naming them "A. cryaerophilus gv. pseudocryaerophilus" (Cluster I = LMG 10229T), "A. cryaerophilus gv. crypticus" (Cluster II = LMG 9065T), "A. cryaerophilus gv. cryaerophilus" (Cluster III = LMG 24291T) and "A. cryaerophilus gv. occultus" (Cluster IV = LMG 29976T).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 19%
Researcher 5 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 7%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 4 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 26%
Environmental Science 3 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 11%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 7%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 8 30%
Attention Score in Context

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 01 July 2018.
All research outputs
#18,640,437
of 23,092,602 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#19,659
of 25,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,338
of 326,549 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#473
of 612 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,092,602 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,263 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 326,549 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 612 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.