A stable home for an equine pathogen: valid publication of the binomial Prescottella equi gen. nov., comb. nov., and reclassification of four rhodococcal species into the genus Prescottella

Opinion 106 of the Judicial Commission has clarified the nomenclature of the taxon variously named Rhodococcus equi , ‘Prescottella equi’ and Rhodococcus hoagii . As a consequence, we present here the genus name Prescottella and that of its nomenclatural type species, Prescottella equi comb. nov., for valid publication and propose the reclassification of four rhodococcal species as novel combinations in the genus, namely Prescottella agglutinans Guo et al. 2015 comb. nov., Prescottella defluvii Kämpfer et al. 2014 comb. nov., Prescottella soli Li et al. 2015 comb. nov. and Prescottella subtropica Lee et al. 2019 comb. nov. In addition, we note that a clinical isolate, strain 86–07 (=W8901), likely represents an additional species within the genus Prescottella . Nearly a century after the original description of the type strain of the type species as Corynebacterium equi , we provide a stable home for Prescottella equi and its relatives.

Taxonomy of Rhizobiaceae revisited: proposal of a new framework for genus delimitation

The alphaproteobacterial family Rhizobiaceae is highly diverse, with 168 species with validly published names classified into 17 genera with validly published names. Most named genera in this family are delineated based on genomic relatedness and phylogenetic relationships, but some historically named genera show inconsistent distribution and phylogenetic breadth. The most problematic is Rhizobium , which is notorious for being highly paraphyletic, as most newly described species in the family are assigned to this genus without consideration of their proximity to existing genera, or the need to create novel genera. Moreover, many Rhizobiaceae genera lack synapomorphic traits that would give them biological and ecological significance. We propose a common framework for genus delimitation within the family Rhizobiaceae , wherein genera are defined as monophyletic groups in a core-genome gene phylogeny, that are separated from related species using a pairwise core-proteome average amino acid identity (cpAAI) threshold of approximately 86 %. We further propose that additional genomic or phenotypic evidence can justify division of species into separate genera even if they share greater than 86 % cpAAI. Applying this framework, we propose to reclassify Rhizobium rhizosphaerae and Rhizobium oryzae into Xaviernesmea gen. nov. Data is also provided to support the formation of Peteryoungia aggregata comb. nov., Endobacterium yantingense comb. nov., Neorhizobium petrolearium comb. nov., Pararhizobium arenae comb. nov., Pseudorhizobium tarimense comb. nov. and Mycoplana azooxidifex comb. nov. Lastly, we present arguments that the unification of the genera Ensifer and Sinorhizobium in Opinion 84 of the Judicial Commission is no longer justified by current genomic and phenotypic data. Despite pairwise cpAAI values for all Ensifer species and all Sinorhizobium species being >86 %, additional genomic and phenotypic data suggest that they significantly differ in their biology and ecology. We therefore propose emended descriptions of Ensifer and Sinorhizobium , which we argue should be considered as separate genera.

Judicial Opinions 103–111

In Opinion 103, the request to place the name Spirillum volutans Ehrenberg 1832 (Approved Lists 1980) on the list of rejected names is denied because a neotype may be designated. Similarly, because a neotype may be designated, in Opinion 104 the request to place the name Beijerinckia fluminensis Döbereiner and Ruschel 1958 (Approved Lists 1980) on the list of rejected names is denied. In Opinion 105, it is emphasized that the name Rhodoligotrophos Fukuda et al. 2012 does not contravene the Code. The request to orthographically correct Rhodoligotrophos Fukuda et al. 2012 to Rhodoligotrophus corrig. Fukuda et al. 2012 is denied. Opinion 106 addresses two Requests for an Opinion and results in the placement of the epithet hoagii in Corynebacterium hoagii (Morse 1912) Eberson 1918 (Approved Lists 1980) and Rhodococcus hoagii (Morse 1912) Kämpfer et al. 2014 on the list of rejected specific and subspecific epithets. Since this removes all known available earlier synonyms of Rhodococcus equi (Magnusson 1923) Goodfellow and Alderson 1977 (Approved Lists 1980), the request to conserve the epithet equi in this name is denied. In Opinion 107, Thermomicrobium fosteri Phillips and Perry 1976 (Approved Lists 1980) is placed on the list of rejected names as a nomen dubium et confusum. Opinion 108 denies the request to place Hyphomonas rosenbergii Weiner et al. 2000 on the list of rejected names because the information provided to the Judicial Commission is not sufficient to draw a conclusion on this matter. In Opinion 109, which addresses three Requests for an Opinion, the Judicial Commission denies the requests to place the names Bacillus aerius Shivaji et al. 2006, Bacillus aerophilus Shivaji et al. 2006 and Bacillus stratosphericus Shivaji et al. 2006 on the list of rejected names. Instead, it is concluded that these three names had not met the requirements for valid publication. Likewise, the Judicial Commission concludes in Opinion 110 that the name Actinobaculum massiliense corrig. Greub and Raoult 2006 had not met the requirements for valid publication. The Judicial Commission reaffirms in Opinion 111 that Methanocorpusculum parvum Zellner et al. 1988 is the nomenclatural type of Methanocorpusculum Zellner et al. 1988 and further emphasizes that the species was not in danger of losing this status. These Opinions were ratified by the voting members of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes.

Conservation of Rhodococcus equi (Magnusson 1923) Goodfellow and Alderson 1977 and rejection of Rhodococcus hoagii (Morse 1912) Kämpfer et al. 2014

A recent taxonomic study confirmed the synonymy of Rhodococcus equi (Magnusson 1923) Goodfellow and Alderson 1977 and Corynebacterium hoagii (Morse 1912) Eberson 1918. As a result, both R. equi and C. hoagii were reclassified as Rhodococcus hoagii comb. nov. in application of the principle of priority of the Prokaryotic Code. Because R. equi is a well-known animal and zoonotic human pathogen, and a bacterial name solidly established in the veterinary and medical literature, we and others argued that the nomenclatural change may cause error and confusion and be potentially perilous. We have now additionally found that the nomenclatural type of the basonym C. hoagii, ATCC 7005^T, does not correspond with the original description of the species C. hoagii in the early literature. Its inclusion as the C. hoagii type on the Approved Lists 1980 results in a change in the characters of the taxon and in C. hoagii designating two different bacteria. Moreover, ATCC 7005, the only strain in circulation under the name C. hoagii, does not have a well documented history; it is unclear why it was deposited as C. hoagii and a possible mix-up with a Corynebacterium (Rhodococcus) equi isolate is a reasonable assumption. We therefore request the rejection of Rhodococcus hoagii as a nomen ambiguum, nomen dubium and nomen perplexum in addition to nomen periculosum, and conservation of the name Rhodococcus equi, according to Rules 56ab of the Code.

Comparative Genomics of the Rhodococcus Genus Shows Wide Distribution of Biodegradation Traits

The genus Rhodococcus exhibits great potential for bioremediation applications due to its huge metabolic diversity, including biotransformation of aromatic and aliphatic compounds. Comparative genomic studies of this genus are limited to a small number of genomes, while the high number of sequenced strains to date could provide more information about the Rhodococcus diversity. Phylogenomic analysis of 327 Rhodococcus genomes and clustering of intergenomic distances identified 42 phylogenomic groups and 83 species-level clusters. Rarefaction models show that these numbers are likely to increase as new Rhodococcus strains are sequenced. The Rhodococcus genus possesses a small “hard” core genome consisting of 381 orthologous groups (OGs), while a “soft” core genome of 1253 OGs is reached with 99.16% of the genomes. Models of sequentially randomly added genomes show that a small number of genomes are enough to explain most of the shared diversity of the Rhodococcus strains, while the “open” pangenome and strain-specific genome evidence that the diversity of the genus will increase, as new genomes still add more OGs to the whole genomic set. Most rhodococci possess genes involved in the degradation of aliphatic and aromatic compounds, while short-chain alkane degradation is restricted to a certain number of groups, among which a specific particulate methane monooxygenase (pMMO) is only found in Rhodococcus sp. WAY2. The analysis of Rieske 2Fe-2S dioxygenases among rhodococci genomes revealed that most of these enzymes remain uncharacterized.

The pathogenic actinobacterium Rhodococcus equi: what's in a name?

Rhodococcus equi is the only recognized animal pathogenic species within an extended genus of metabolically versatile Actinobacteria of considerable biotechnological interest. Best known as a horse pathogen, R. equi is commonly isolated from other animal species, particularly pigs and ruminants, and causes severe opportunistic infections in people. As typical in the rhodococci, R. equi niche specialization is extrachromosomally determined, via a conjugative virulence plasmid that promotes intramacrophage survival. Progress in the molecular understanding of R. equi and its recent rise as a novel paradigm of multihost adaptation has been accompanied by an unusual nomenclatural instability, with a confusing succession of names: "Prescottia equi", "Prescotella equi", Corynebacterium hoagii and Rhodococcus hoagii. This article reviews current advances in the genomics, biology and virulence of this pathogenic actinobacterium with a unique mechanism of plasmid‐transferable animal host tropism. It also discusses the taxonomic and nomenclatural issues around R. equi in the light of recent phylogenomic evidence that confirms its membership as a bona fide Rhodococcus.

Current taxonomy of Rhodococcus species and their role in infections

Rhodococcus is a genus of obligate aerobic, Gram-positive, partially acid-fast, catalase-positive, non-motile, and none-endospore bacteria. The genus Rhodococcus was first introduced by Zopf. This bacterium can be isolated from various sources of the environment and can grow well in non-selective medium. A large number of phenotypic characterizations are used to compare different species of the genus Rhodococcus, and these tests are not suitable for accurate identification at the genus and species level. Among nucleic acid-based methods, the most powerful target gene for revealing reliable phylogenetic relationships is 16S ribosomal RNA gene (16S rRNA gene) sequence analysis, but this gene is unable to differentiation some of Rhodococcus species. To date, whole genome sequencing analysis has solved taxonomic complexities in this genus. Rhodococcus equi is the major cause of foal pneumonia, and its implication in human health is related to cases in immunocompromised patients. Macrolide family together with rifampicin is one of the most effective antibiotic agents for treatment rhodococcal infections.

Rhodococcus soli sp. nov., an actinobacterium isolated from soil using a resuscitative technique

A Gram-positive, aerobic, non-motile, non-spore forming strain, designated DSD51W(T), was isolated using a resuscitative technique from a soil sample collected from Kyoto park, Japan, and characterized by using a polyphasic approach. The morphological and chemotaxonomic properties of the isolate were typical of those of members of the genus Rhodococcus. Strain DSD51W(T) was found to form a coherent cluster with Rhodococcus hoagii ATCC 7005(T), Rhodococcus equi NBRC 101255(T), Rhodococcus defluvii Call(T) and Rhodococcus kunmingensis YIM 45607(T) as its closest phylogenetic neighbours in 16S rRNA gene sequence analysis. However, the DNA-DNA hybridization values with the above strains were 58.2 ± 2.2, 58.4 ± 1.9, 45.1 ± 1.4 and 40.3 ± 4.7 %, respectively. In combination with differences in physiological and biochemical properties, strain DSD51W(T) can be concluded to represent a novel species of the genus Rhodococcus, for which the name Rhodococcus soli sp. nov. is proposed, with the type strain DSD51W(T) (=KCTC 29259(T) = JCM 19627(T) = DSM 46662(T) = KACC 17838(T)).

Conservation of Rhodococcus equi (Magnusson 1923) Goodfellow and Alderson 1977 and rejection of Corynebacterium hoagii (Morse 1912) Eberson 1918

A recent review of the nomenclatural history of Rhodococcus equi and its heterotypic synonyms reveals a situation in which the strict application of the Rules of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes have resulted in the renaming of this known zoonotic pathogen, which may be reasonably viewed as a perilous name. This situation can be remedied only by the Judicial Commission rendering an opinion to conserve the name Rhodococcus equi and to reject its earlier heterotypic synonym, Corynebacterium hoagii .