Alexander B Alleman,Sergey Stolyar,Christopher J Marx,Jean-Baptiste Leducq
{"title":"Led astray by 16S rRNA: phylogenomics reaffirms the monophyly of Methylobacterium and lack of support for Methylorubrum as a genus.","authors":"Alexander B Alleman,Sergey Stolyar,Christopher J Marx,Jean-Baptiste Leducq","doi":"10.1093/ismejo/wraf011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although the 16S (and 18S) rRNA gene has been an essential tool in classifying prokaryotes, using a single locus to revise bacteria taxonomy can introduce unwanted artifacts. There was a recent proposition to split the Methylobacterium genus, which contains diverse plant-associated strains and is important for agriculture and biotechnology, into two genera. Resting strongly on the phylogeny of 16S rRNA, 11 species of Methylobacterium were transferred to a newly proposed genus Methylorubrum. Numerous recent studies have independently questioned Methylorubrum as a valid genus, but the prior revision has left discrepancies amongst taxonomic databases. Here, we review phylogenomic and phenotypic evidence against Methylorubrum as a genus and call for its abandonment. Because Methylobacterium sensu lato forms a consistent and monophyletic genus, we argue for the restoration of the former and consensual Methylobacterium taxonomy. The large genomic, phenotypic, and ecological diversity within Methylobacterium however suggests complex evolutionary and adaptive processes and support the description of the most basal clade of Methylobacterium (group C) as a distinct genus in future work. Overall, this perspective demonstrates the danger of solely relying upon the 16S rRNA gene as a delimiter of genus level taxonomy and that further attempts must include more robust phenotypic and phylogenomic criteria.","PeriodicalId":516554,"journal":{"name":"The ISME Journal","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The ISME Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ismejo/wraf011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Although the 16S (and 18S) rRNA gene has been an essential tool in classifying prokaryotes, using a single locus to revise bacteria taxonomy can introduce unwanted artifacts. There was a recent proposition to split the Methylobacterium genus, which contains diverse plant-associated strains and is important for agriculture and biotechnology, into two genera. Resting strongly on the phylogeny of 16S rRNA, 11 species of Methylobacterium were transferred to a newly proposed genus Methylorubrum. Numerous recent studies have independently questioned Methylorubrum as a valid genus, but the prior revision has left discrepancies amongst taxonomic databases. Here, we review phylogenomic and phenotypic evidence against Methylorubrum as a genus and call for its abandonment. Because Methylobacterium sensu lato forms a consistent and monophyletic genus, we argue for the restoration of the former and consensual Methylobacterium taxonomy. The large genomic, phenotypic, and ecological diversity within Methylobacterium however suggests complex evolutionary and adaptive processes and support the description of the most basal clade of Methylobacterium (group C) as a distinct genus in future work. Overall, this perspective demonstrates the danger of solely relying upon the 16S rRNA gene as a delimiter of genus level taxonomy and that further attempts must include more robust phenotypic and phylogenomic criteria.