Bacteriologic characterization of 36 strains of Roseomonas species and proposal of Roseomonas mucosa sp nov and Roseomonas gilardii subsp rosea subsp nov

100Citations
Citations of this article
47Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

We used a polyphasic approach (sequencing analysis of the 16S ribosomal RNA gene and phenotypic analyses) to characterize 36 strains of Roseomonas species isolated from blood. Five strains, represented by strain MDA5176 (M.D. Anderson Cancer Center), were identified as Roseomonas gilardii. One strain belonged to Roseomonas genomospecies 4. The 22 strains represented by strain MDA5527 showed significant differences genotypically and phenotypically with R gilardii and other Roseomonas species and represented a new Roseomonas species; Roseomonas mucosa sp nov was proposed to denote its prominent mucoid, almost runny colonies. Eight strains, represented by strain MDA5605, had minor differences with R gilardii and displayed obvious pink to red colonies; Roseomonas gilardii subsp rosea subsp nov was proposed. For subspecies differentiation, R gilardii was proposed to be R gilardii subsp gilardii subsp nov. Unique patterns of biochemical reactions were established for these Roseomorras species, which may assist routine identification of these organisms. All 36 strains and 2 American Type Culture. Collection strains were susceptible to amikacin and ciprolioxacin but resistant to cefepime and ceftazidime. They also were frequently susceptible to imipenem and ticarcillin-clavulanate but far less susceptible to ceftriaxone, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, and ampicillin. R mucosa strains were most resistant, whereas R gilardii subsp gilardii strains were most susceptible.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Han, X. Y., Pham, A. S., Tarrand, J. J., Rolston, K. V., Helsel, L. O., & Levett, P. N. (2003). Bacteriologic characterization of 36 strains of Roseomonas species and proposal of Roseomonas mucosa sp nov and Roseomonas gilardii subsp rosea subsp nov. American Journal of Clinical Pathology, 120(2), 256–264. https://doi.org/10.1309/731VVGVCKK351Y4J

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free