Antonie van Leeuwenhoek

, Volume 112, Issue 4, pp 491–500 | Cite as

Characterization of a strain representing a new Enterobacter species, Enterobacter chengduensis sp. nov.

  • Wenjing Wu
  • Yu Feng
  • Zhiyong ZongEmail author
Original Paper


An Enterobacter strain, WCHECl-C4, was recovered from a human blood sample in China in 2015. Phylogenetic analysis based on multi-locus sequence analysis of the rpoB, gyrB, infB and atpD housekeeping genes revealed that the strain is distinct from any previously described species of the genus Enterobacter. The whole genome sequence of strain WCHECl-C4 has an 80.48–93.34% average nucleotide identity with those of type strains of all known Enterobacter species. In silico DNA–DNA hybridization (isDDH) values between strain WCHECl-C4 and type strains of all known Enterobacter species range from 23.2 to 52.4%. The major cellular fatty acids of strain WCHECl-C4 are C16:0, C17:0 cyclo and C18:1ω7c, which are in the range of Enterobacter species. The genomic DNA G + C content was 55.7 mol%. Strain WCHECl-C4 can be distinguished from all known Enterobacter species by its ability to ferment d-sorbitol, l-rhamnose and melibiose but with a negative Voges–Proskauer reaction. Genotypic and phenotypic characteristics from this study indicate that strain WCHECl-C4 represents a novel species of the genus Enterobacter, for which the name Enterobacter chengduensis sp. nov. is proposed. The type strain is WCHECl-C4T (= GDMCC1.1216T = CCTCC AB 2017105T = KCTC 52993T).


Blood Enterobacter Enterobacter chengduensis Genome 



We are grateful to Feifei Zhao and Li Wei at West China Hospital for collecting the isolate. The work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Project Nos. 81772233 and 81572030) and a joint grant from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Project No. 81661130159) and the Newton Advanced Fellowship, Royal Society, UK (NA150363).

Authors’ contribution

WW performed the phenotype experiments; YF performed genome and phylogenetic analysis; ZZ designed the study, analyzed the data and draft the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10482_2018_1180_MOESM1_ESM.docx (4 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 4105 kb)


  1. Alnajar S, Gupta RS (2017) Phylogenomics and comparative genomic studies delineate six main clades within the family Enterobacteriaceae and support the reclassification of several polyphyletic members of the family. Infect Genet Evol 54:108–127CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bankevich A et al (2012) SPAdes: a new genome assembly algorithm and its applications to single-cell sequencing. J Comput Biol 19:455–477CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B (2014) Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 30:2114–2120CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Brady C, Cleenwerck I, Venter S, Coutinho T, De Vos P (2013) Taxonomic evaluation of the genus Enterobacter based on multilocus sequence analysis (MLSA): proposal to reclassify E. nimipressuralis and E. amnigenus into Lelliottia gen. nov. as Lelliottia nimipressuralis comb. nov. and Lelliottia amnigena comb. nov., respectively, E. gergoviae and E. pyrinus into Pluralibacter gen. nov. as Pluralibacter gergoviae comb. nov. and Pluralibacter pyrinus comb. nov., respectively, E. cowanii, E. radicincitans, E. oryzae and E. arachidis into Kosakonia gen. nov. as Kosakonia cowanii comb. nov., Kosakonia radicincitans comb. nov., Kosakonia oryzae comb. nov. and Kosakonia arachidis comb. nov., respectively, and E. turicensis, E. helveticus and E. pulveris into Cronobacter as Cronobacter zurichensis nom. nov., Cronobacter helveticus comb. nov. and Cronobacter pulveris comb. nov., respectively, and emended description of the genera Enterobacter and Cronobacter. Syst Appl Microbiol 36:309–319CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. CLSI (2017) Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing; twenty-seventh informational supplement. M100-S27. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, WayneGoogle Scholar
  6. Doijad S et al (2016) Enterobacter bugandensis sp. nov., from neonatal blood. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 66:968–974CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Duan YQ et al (2015) Enterobacter tabaci sp. nov., a novel member of the genus Enterobacter isolated from a tobacco stem. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 108:1161–1169CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Emms DM, Kelly S (2015) OrthoFinder: solving fundamental biases in whole genome comparisons dramatically improves orthogroup inference accuracy. Genome Biol 16:157CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Goris J, Konstantinidis KT, Klappenbach JA, Coenye T, Vandamme P, Tiedje JM (2007) DNA–DNA hybridization values and their relationship to whole-genome sequence similarities. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 57:81–91CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Hu Y, Feng Y, Zhang X, Zong Z (2017) Acinetobacter defluvii sp. nov., recovered from hospital sewage. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 67:1709–1713CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Kämpfer P, Doijad S, Chakraborty T, Glaeser SP et al (2016) The status of the species Enterobacter siamensis Khunthongpan 2014. Request for an Opinion. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 66:524–525CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Katoh K, Standley DM (2013) MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usability. Mol Biol Evol 30:772–780CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Khunthongpan S, Bourneow C, H-Kittikun A, Tanasupawat S, Benjakul S, Sumpavapo P (2013) Enterobacter siamensis sp. nov., a transglutaminase-producing bacterium isolated from seafood processing wastewater in Thailand. J Gen Appl Microbiol 59:135–140CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Lane D (1991) 16S/23S rRNA sequencing. In: Stackebrandt E, Goodfellow M (eds) Nucleic acid techniques in bacterial systematics. Wiley, Chichester, pp 115–175Google Scholar
  15. Li CY, Zhou YL, Ji J, Gu CT (2016) Reclassification of Enterobacter oryziphilus and Enterobacter oryzendophyticus as Kosakonia oryziphila comb. nov. and Kosakonia oryzendophytica comb. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 66:2780–2783CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Lin J, Zhao F, Feng Y, Zong Z (2017) Draft genome sequence of a high-level colistin-resistant clinical strain of the Enterobacter cloacae Complex. Genome Announc 5:00131Google Scholar
  17. Manter DK, Hunter WJ, Vivanco JM (2011) Enterobacter soli sp. nov.: a lignin-degrading gamma-proteobacteria isolated from soil. Curr Microbiol 62:1044–1049CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Meier-Kolthoff JP, Auch AF, Klenk HP, Goker M (2013) Genome sequence-based species delimitation with confidence intervals and improved distance functions. BMC Bioinform 14:60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mezzatesta ML, Gona F, Stefani S (2012) Enterobacter cloacae complex: clinical impact and emerging antibiotic resistance. Future Microbiol 7:887–902CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Naum M, Brown EW, Mason-Gamer RJ (2008) Is 16S rDNA a reliable phylogenetic marker to characterize relationships below the family level in the enterobacteriaceae? J Mol Evol 66:630–642CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Qin QL et al (2014) A proposed genus boundary for the prokaryotes based on genomic insights. J Bacteriol 196:2210–2215CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Richter M, Rossello-Mora R (2009) Shifting the genomic gold standard for the prokaryotic species definition. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:19126–19131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Richter M, Rossello-Mora R, Oliver Glockner F, Peplies J (2016) JSpeciesWS: a web server for prokaryotic species circumscription based on pairwise genome comparison. Bioinformatics 32:929–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Seemann T (2014) Prokka: rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics 30:2068–2069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stamatakis A (2014) RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics 30:1312–1313CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Tidjani Alou M et al (2017) ‘Khelaifiella massiliensis’, ‘Niameybacter massiliensis’, ‘Brachybacterium massiliense’, ‘Enterobacter timonensis’, ‘Massilibacillus massiliensis’, new bacterial species and genera isolated from the gut microbiota of healthy infants. New Microbes New Infect 19:1–7CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center of Infectious DiseasesWest China Hospital (Huaxi)ChengduChina
  2. 2.Division of Infectious DiseasesState Key Laboratory of BiotherapyChengduChina
  3. 3.Center for Pathogen Research, West China HospitalSichuan UniversityChengduChina

Personalised recommendations