Suggestions for avoiding on-going confusion from the Bacteriological Code

Evolutionary relationships among Chlamydophila abortus variant strains inferred by rRNA secondary structure-based phylogeny

The evolutionary relationships among known Chlamydophila abortus variant strains including the LLG and POS, previously identified as being highly distinct, were investigated based on rRNA secondary structure information. PCR-amplified overlapping fragments of the 16S, 16S-23S intergenic spacer (IS), and 23S domain I rRNAs were subjected to cloning and sequencing. Secondary structure analysis revealed the presence of transitional single nucleotide variations (SNVs), two of which occurred in loops, while seven in stem regions that did not result in compensatory substitutions. Notably, only two SNVs, in 16S and 23S, occurred within evolutionary variable regions. Maximum likelihood and Bayesian phylogeny reconstructions revealed that C. abortus strains could be regarded as representing two distinct lineages, one including the “classical” C. abortus strains and the other the “LLG/POS variant”, with the type strain B577^T possibly representing an intermediate of the two lineages. The two C. abortus lineages shared three unique (apomorphic) characters in the 23S domain I and 16S-23S IS, but interestingly lacked synapomorphies in the 16S rRNA. The two lineages could be distinguished on the basis of eight positions; four of these comprised residues that appeared to be signature or unique for the “classical” lineage, while three were unique for the “LLG/POS variant”. The U277 (E. coli numbering) signature character, corresponding to a highly conserved residue of the 16S molecule, and the unique G681 residue, conserved in a functionally strategic region also of 16S, are the most pronounced attributes (autapomorphies) of the “classical” and the “LLG/POS variant” lineages, respectively. Both lineages were found to be descendants of a common ancestor with the Prk/Daruma C. psittaci variant. Compared with the “classical”, the “LLG/POS variant” lineage has retained more ancestral features. The current rRNA secondary structure-based analysis and phylogenetic inference reveal new insights into how these two C. abortus lineages have differentiated during their evolution.

Plant-pathogenic bacteria as biological weapons - real threats?

At present, much attention is being given to the potential of plant pathogens, including plant-pathogenic bacteria, as biological weapons/bioterror weapons. These two terms are sometimes used interchangeably and there is need for care in their application. It has been claimed that clandestine introduction of certain plant-pathogenic bacteria could cause such crop losses as to impact so significantly on a national economy and thus constitute a threat to national security. As a separate outcome, it is suggested that they could cause serious public alarm, perhaps constituting a source of terror. Legislation is now in place to regulate selected plant-pathogenic bacteria as potential weapons. However, we consider it highly doubtful that any plant-pathogenic bacterium has the requisite capabilities to justify such a classification. Even if they were so capable, the differentiation of pathogens into a special category with regulations that are even more restrictive than those currently applied in quarantine legislation of most jurisdictions offers no obvious benefit. Moreover, we believe that such regulations are disadvantageous insofar as they limit research on precisely those pathogens most in need of study. Whereas some human and animal pathogens may have potential as biological or bioterror weapons, we conclude that it is unlikely that any plant-pathogenic bacterium realistically falls into this category.

Classification and nomenclature of Agrobacterium and Rhizobium

Farrand et al. [Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 53 (2003), 1681-1687] have presented a critique of the proposal of Young et al. [Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 51 (2001), 89-103] to revise the nomenclature and classification of RHIZOBIUM: They argued that Young et al. (2001) are mistaken in their reclassification of all Agrobacterium species within Rhizobium, and that the resulting nomenclatural revision is 'unnecessary and unwarranted'. These objections arise because the authors appear not to understand the role of formal nomenclature, and fail to distinguish between formal and special-purpose nomenclatures (Bacteriological Code, 1990 Revision). The arguments set out by Farrand et al. (2003) can be addressed in terms of (1) the taxonomic status of the genera Agrobacterium and Rhizobium; (2) the status of species and biovars and their nomenclature; and (3) the role of transmissible genomic elements in classification and nomenclature. Finally, an attempt is made to unravel the confusion underpinning their discussion with a consideration of the relationship between formal and special-purpose nomenclatures.

Classification, nomenclature, and plant pathogenic bacteria - a clarification

ABSTRACT In a recent Letter to the Editor of Phytopathology, proposals were made for endorsement and for rejection of selected names of plant pathogenic Pseudomonas spp. and Xanthomonas spp. We believe that support for, and rejection of, several names was based on misconceptions concerning the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names and entails misinterpretations of several Rules of the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria. This letter aims to clarify those misconceptions and misinterpretations.