Bacillus species present in the wastewater so that you can obtain the
Bacillus species present within the wastewater in an effort to acquire PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9212813 the potential to kind endospores (two). If gene transfer can take place involving S. marcescens and Bacillus species in nature, then possibly S. marcescens could also readily shed the acquired genes. At any rate, the isolate is viewed as to belong to a subspecies of S. marcescens, and at this 
point it really is officially called S. marcescens subsp. sakuensis, when the form strain of S. marcescens is known as S. marcescens subsp. marcescens (2; http:www .bacterio.cict.frsserratia.html).Taxonomy of Other Serratia Species Confusion exists regarding the nomenclature of other Serratia species also; see Table for dates that Serratia species were described. S. liquefaciens, S. proteamaculans, S. quinivorans, and S. grimesii belong for the S. liquefaciens complicated (59). S. liquefaciens was first described in 93 by Grimes and Hennerty, as Aerobacter liquefaciens (58). In 963, this organism was placed inside the genus Enterobacter (25). Due to the fact thisorganism was phenotypically similar to S. marcescens, E. liquefaciens was reassigned as S. liquefaciens in 973 (26). S. proteamaculans was initial identified in 99, when Paine and Stansfield recovered it from situations of leafspot illness around the tropical flowering plant Protea cynaroides (29). At the time, they named it Pseudomonas proteamaculans, plus the organism has given that been renamed many instances, such as each Bacterium proteamaculans and Phytomonas proteamaculans in 930 (66). By 948, Burkholder had renamed the organism Xanthomonas proteamaculans (57), after which Dye classified it as Erwinia proteamaculans in 966 (eight). This name held until 974, when Lelliott wrote that the organism was possibly an Enterobacter species but need to be excluded in the genus Erwinia as a result of some of its biochemical characteristics (236). Then, in 978, Grimont and other people GSK0660 site studied Erwinia proteamaculans and concluded that it was synonymous using a strain of Serratia liquefaciens (66). The “Approved Lists of Bacterial Names” in 980 listed both Serratia proteamaculans and S. liquefaciens as separate species (358), and in 98 Grimont and other people supplied proof that each have been indeed distinct (68). In 982, Grimont and other people determined that a biogroup of S. proteamaculans must be designated a subspecies, S. proteamaculans subsp. quinovora (63). Most not too long ago, Ashelford and other individuals proposed in 2002 that this subspecies be elevated to a distinct species, Serratia quinivorans (20). In 983, Grimont and other people described S. grimesii soon after they studied Serratia strains that have been isolated from water, soil, and human samples; they named the organism following the Irish bacteriologist Michael Grimes, who 1st described this group (58, 63). S. rubidaea was initially described by Stapp in 940 as Bacterium rubidaeum and reassigned as a Serratia species in 973 (26, 363). It really is a redpigmented organism, plus the species epithet is a contraction of the scientific name for the raspberry plant, Rubus idaeus. In 944, Zobell and Upham described S. marinorubra, a redpigmented organism they isolated from marine water (427). In 980, the “Approved Lists of Bacterial Names” determined that both species had exactly the same form strain and as a result have been homotypic synonyms (358). Considering that they may be homotypic synonyms, the name S. rubidaea has priority (60). Aside from S. marcescens, the oldest member of the genus Serratia is S. plymuthica. It was first identified by Fischer in 887 as a redpigmented organism isolated from the wate.
