A taxonomic study of plant pathogenicCorynebacteriumspecies

Abstract

Methods that have been developed and standardised in our laboratory for the determination of cultural and biochemical characters of plant pathogenic bacteria have been used to provide data for numerical analyses of 121 strains of 13 phytopathogenic species of Corynebacterium Lehmann & Neumann 1896. Our results show them to be a relatively homogeneous group of organisms which should be classified within a single genus. Other workers have made proposals to exclude plant pathogenic coryneform species from Corynebacterium, but we consider that detailed comparative evidence is insufficient to justify their transfer to any other genus. However, we cannot support the present division of coryneform plant pathogens into 13 species, and propose the following classification.

Corynebacterium ilicis is typified by ICMP 2608 =ICPB CI144, Arthrobacter ilicis is typified by DSM 20138 =ATCC 14264 =NCPPB 1228 and the two are not homotypic synonyms, and clarification of the authorship of these two species. Opinion 87

“…In dealing with typification of Arthrobacter ilicis Collins et al 1982 It is evident from a number of publications that the organisms represented by the strains ICMP 2608 5ICPB CI144 and DSM 20138 5ATCC 14264 (cited on the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names; Skerman et al, 1980) 5NCPPB 1228 are members of different taxa; although it was initially thought that DSM 20138 5ATCC 14264 5NCPPB 1228 were derived from a strain (CR2) that Mandel et al (1961) considered to be pathogenic on American holly (Ilex opaca), this has proven not to be the case. Strains CR2 and Y-1 of Mandel studied by Dye & Kemp (1977) under the numbers CJ2 and CJ3 are clearly not members of the same taxon as CJ1 5NCPPB 1228 (5CR2). It is clear that DSM 20138 5ATCC 14264 5NCPPB 1228 does not exhibit one of the original diagnostic features of Corynebacterium ilicis, namely pathogenesis on American holly, and cannot represent this species.…”

“…However, Dye & Kemp (1977) suggest that the description of strain CJ2 (5ICMP 2608), an authentic strain of Corynebacterium ilicis 5Curtobacterium flaccumfaciens pv. ilicis (and CJ3 5ICMP 2609), is atypical when compared with the description of Mandel et al (1961).…”

“…Based on the cited description (Dye & Kemp, 1977) in the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names (Skerman et al, 1980(Skerman et al, , 1989, only the data collected on strain CJ2 (ICMP 2608 5ICPB CI144) should be considered as contributing to the description of Corynebacterium ilicis Mandel et al 1961. Strain ICPB CI145 (CJ3 5ICMP 2609) does not appear to be pathogenic, although in the study of Dye & Kemp (1977) it appears to be indistinguishable from CJ2 (ICMP 2608 5ICPB 2608). Reference to the description in Mandel et al (1961) is probably best avoided, although this work is to be cited as the source of the name Corynebacterium ilicis.…”

“…Reference to Mandel et al 1961 in the author citation Arthrobacter ilicis (Mandel et al 1961) Collins et al 1982 is to be removed and any reference to Mandel et al (1961) is not to be included in any future descriptions. The Approved Lists of Bacterial Names (Skerman et al, 1980(Skerman et al, , 1989 make reference to the publication of Dye & Kemp (1977) as the source of the description of Corynebacterium ilicis Mandel et al 1961, and care must be taken in interpretation. Clearly, the strain listed as CJ1 (derived from NCPPB 1228) is not a member of the same taxon as CJ2 (5ICMP 2608) and CJ3 (5ICMP 2609).…”

“…The work of Dye & Kemp (1977) includes work on both Arthrobacter ilicis (strain CJ1 5ICMP 2607) and Corynebacterium ilicis 5Curtobacterium flaccumfaciens pv. ilicis (strains CJ2 and CJ3).…”