Name: Ochrobactrum Holmes et al. 1988

Category: Genus

Proposed as: gen. nov.

Etymology: Och.ro.bac’trum. Gr. masc. adj. ôchros, pale, colorless; Gr. neut. n. baktron, a staff, stick, rod; N.L. neut. n. Ochrobactrum, a colorless rod

Gender, pronunciation (Latin): neuter (stem: Ochrobactr-), ok^h-ro-BAK-trum

Type species: Ochrobactrum anthropi Holmes et al. 1988

Conduct genome-based taxonomy of genus at TYGS

16S rRNA gene: Analyse FASTA

Valid publication: Holmes B, Popoff M, Kiredjian M, Kersters K. Ochrobactrum anthropi gen. nov., sp. nov. from human clinical specimens and previously known as group Vd. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 1988; 38:406-416. 🇬🇧

Nomenclatural status: validly published under the ICNP

Taxonomic status: synonym

Correct name: Brucella Meyer and Shaw 1920 (Approved Lists 1980)

Risk group: 2

• Synonyms:

  • Name	Kind
    Brucella Meyer and Shaw 1920 (Approved Lists 1980)	heterotypic synonym, validly published under the ICNP

• Notes:
  • 🧕 Teyssier et al. (2007) assigned this genus to the family Brucellaceae Breed et al. 1957 (Approved Lists 1980). Publication: Teyssier C, Marchandin H, Jean-Pierre H, Masnou A, Dusart G, Jumas-Bilak E. Ochrobactrum pseudintermedium sp. nov., a novel member of the family Brucellaceae, isolated from human clinical samples. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2007; 57:1007-1013. 🇫🇷
  • 🚂 For the type species of this genus another name is in use, which is affiliated with the genus Brucella Meyer and Shaw 1920 (Approved Lists 1980). Publication: Hordt A, Lopez MG, Meier-Kolthoff JP, Schleuning M, Weinhold LM, Tindall BJ, Gronow S, Kyrpides NC, Woyke T, Goker M. Analysis of 1,000+ Type-Strain Genomes Substantially Improves Taxonomic Classification of Alphaproteobacteria. Front Microbiol 2020; 11:468. 🇩🇪
  • 🙄 This taxon name is occasionally misprinted (or affected by an OCR error) in some sources as: "Achrobactrum"; "Ochrabactum"; "Ochrobacter"; "Ochrobacterium"; "Ochromobactrum"; "Orchrobactrum".
  • 🧔 This taxon was discussed in a meeting of a Taxonomic Subcommittee of the ICSP. Publication: Lindstrom K, Young JP. International committee on systematics of prokaryotes; subcommittee on the taxonomy of agrobacterium and rhizobium: minutes of the meetings, 31 August 2008, Gent, Belgium. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2009; 59:921-922.
  • 🧔 This taxon was discussed in a meeting of a Taxonomic Subcommittee of the ICSP. Publication: de Lajudie P, Young JPW. International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes Subcommittee on the Taxonomy of Rhizobia and Agrobacteria Minutes of the closed meeting by videoconference, 17 July 2019. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2020; 70:3563-3571. 🇫🇷
  • 🧔 This taxon was discussed in a meeting of a Taxonomic Subcommittee of the ICSP. Publication: de Lajudie P, Martinez-Romero E. International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes Subcommittee on the taxonomy of Agrobacterium and Rhizobium Minutes of the meeting, 7 September 2014, Tenerife, Spain. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2017; 67:516-520. 🇫🇷
  • 🧔 This taxon was discussed in a meeting of a Taxonomic Subcommittee of the ICSP. Publication: Mousavi SA, Young JPW. International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes, Subcommittee on the taxonomy of Rhizobia and Agrobacteria, minutes of the annual meeting by videoconference, 5 July 2021, followed by online discussion until 31 December 2021. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2022; 72:5453. 🇫🇮
  • 🧔 This taxon was discussed in a meeting of a Taxonomic Subcommittee of the ICSP. Publication: Mousavi SA, Young JPW. International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes Subcommittee on the taxonomy of Rhizobia and Agrobacteria: minutes of the 2024 closed annual meeting. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2025; 75:6680. 🇫🇮
  • 💁 Taxonomists who have recently focused on this group are the corresponding authors of Yang et al. (2024), Kaempfer et al. (2011), Zurdo-Pineiro et al. (2007). Editors in search of reviewers are advised to consider additional criteria such as whether a taxon is covered by one of the ICSP subcommittees.
  • ❗ Ochrobactrum is the correct name instead if this genus is regarded as a separate genus (i.e., if its nomenclatural type is not assigned to another genus whose name is validly published, legitimate and not rejected and has priority).
  • 🎰 The BRCs most frequently used for deposits in this group are: DSM: 20; CCUG: 12; LMG: 8; CIP: 6; NBRC: 6; NCTC: 4; KCTC: 3; JCM: 3; CCM: 3; IFO: 2.
  • 😷 The risk group for Canada has been imported on 2024-02-27. The full classification is: risk group = 2, note = "Animal classification RG: 1 - Security sensitive biological agent: No - Terrestrial animal pathogen under Canadian Food Inspection Agency authority: No - Containment level: Containment Level 2". — If in doubt, use the risk group given in the regulations for your country and, if these are not available, use the risk group given in the catalogue of the culture collection from which you have obtained or intend to obtain the strain.
  • 🧍 In an article resembling a petition, Moreno et al. (2023) once again argued against merging the genera Brucella and Ochrobactrum. However, the abstract contains a couple of questionable statements. Firstly, they advise against the use of the new nomenclature because it was presented without in-depth phylogenetic analyses and alternative taxonomic solutions were not considered. Nevertheless, Hördt et al. (2020) analysed all available genome sequences of alphaproteobacteria type strains based on all available genomic information. How in-depth can it get? Furthermore, Hördt et al. (2020) explained why they favoured their solution over others. Secondly, Moreno et al. (2023) claim that the analysis by Hördt et al. (2020) "was launched without the input of experts in brucellosis or Ochrobactrum". This is true, but merely an expression of taxonomic freedom. Taxonomy should not be monopolised by a select few. Thirdly, the authors claim that the analysis by Hördt et al. (2020) "applies a non-consensus genus concept that disregards taxonomically relevant differences in structure, physiology, population structure, core-pangenome assemblies, genome structure, genomic traits, clinical features, treatment, prevention, diagnosis, genus description rules and, above all, pathogenicity". However, it would be interesting to see the "consensus genus concept" to which these features belong. The main criterion of Hördt et al. (2020) was monophyly. If there is any consensus in taxonomy at all, it is that taxa should be monophyletic. Fourthly, Moreno et al. (2023) argue that "placing these two bacterial groups in the same genus creates risks for veterinarians, medical doctors, clinical laboratories, health authorities, and legislators who deal with brucellosis, a disease that is particularly relevant in low- and middle-income countries." However, Hördt et al. (2020) did not propose Ochrobactrum names for Brucella species, but rather the opposite. This retains the name Brucella, indicating greater danger. Publication: Moreno E, Middlebrook EA, Altamirano-Silva P, Al Dahouk S, Araj GF, Arce-Gorvel V, Arenas-Gamboa A, Ariza J, Barquero-Calvo E, Battelli G, et al. If You're Not Confused, You're Not Paying Attention: Ochrobactrum Is Not Brucella. J Clin Microbiol 2023; 61:e0043823. 🇪🇸
  • 🧍 Moreno et al. (2022) oppose the unification of Brucella and Ochrobactrum. However, it is not particularly convincing to prioritise a taxonomic approach that is virtually never used over much more common approaches simply because it is assumed that the former will prevent name changes within a small group of organisms of interest. Publication: Moreno E, Blasco JM, Letesson JJ, Gorvel JP, Moriyon I. Pathogenicity and Its Implications in Taxonomy: The Brucella and Ochrobactrum Case. Pathogens 2022; 11:0. 🇪🇸
  • 🧍 Pittman et al. (1991) suggested the abbreviation "OCBM" for this genus name but this does not appear to be of practical relevance any longer. Publication: Pittman KF, Walczak CA, Lock CM. Codes and abbreviations for approved of effectively published names of genera of bacteria published from January 1980 to December 1990. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1991; 41:571-579.

Subdivision:

Number of child taxa with a validly published and correct name: 0
Number of child taxa with a validly published name, including synonyms: 23
Total number of child taxa: 27

• Child taxa:

  • Name	Nomenclatural status	Taxonomic status
    Ochrobactrum anthropi Holmes et al. 1988	validly published under the ICNP	synonym
    Ochrobactrum chromiisoli Yang et al. 2024	validly published under the ICNP	orphaned species
    Ochrobactrum ciceri Imran et al. 2010	validly published under the ICNP	synonym
    Ochrobactrum cytisi Zurdo-Piñeiro et al. 2007	validly published under the ICNP	synonym
    Ochrobactrum daejeonense Woo et al. 2011	validly published under the ICNP	synonym
    Ochrobactrum endophyticum Li et al. 2016	validly published under the ICNP	synonym
    "Ochrobactrum gallinarum" Gilroy et al. 2021	not validly published	synonym
    Ochrobactrum gallinarum Pallen 2024	validly published under the ICNP	orphaned species
    Ochrobactrum gallinifaecis Kämpfer et al. 2003	validly published under the ICNP	synonym
    "Candidatus Ochrobactrum gambitense" Díaz Rodríguez et al. 2022	not validly published	preferred name
    Ochrobactrum grignonense Lebuhn et al. 2000	validly published under the ICNP	synonym
    Ochrobactrum haematophilum Kämpfer et al. 2007	validly published under the ICNP	synonym
    "Ochrobactrum haywardense" Cho et al. 2022	not validly published	preferred name
    Ochrobactrum intermedium Velasco et al. 1998	validly published under the ICNP	synonym
    Ochrobactrum lupini Trujillo et al. 2006	validly published under the ICNP	synonym
    Ochrobactrum oryzae Tripathi et al. 2006	validly published under the ICNP	synonym
    Ochrobactrum pecoris Kämpfer et al. 2011	validly published under the ICNP	synonym
    Ochrobactrum pituitosum Huber et al. 2010	validly published under the ICNP	synonym
    Ochrobactrum pseudintermedium Teyssier et al. 2007	validly published under the ICNP	synonym
    Ochrobactrum pseudogrignonense Kämpfer et al. 2007	validly published under the ICNP	synonym
    Ochrobactrum quorumnocens Krzyzanowska et al. 2024	validly published under the ICNP	orphaned species
    Ochrobactrum rhizosphaerae Kämpfer et al. 2008	validly published under the ICNP	synonym
    Ochrobactrum soli Choi et al. 2024	validly published under the ICNP	orphaned species
    Ochrobactrum teleogrylli Hu et al. 2020	validly published under the ICNP	orphaned species
    Ochrobactrum thiophenivorans Kämpfer et al. 2008	validly published under the ICNP	synonym
    Ochrobactrum tritici Lebuhn et al. 2000	validly published under the ICNP	synonym
    "Ochrobactrum vermis" Dirksen et al. 2020	not validly published	preferred name

Parent taxon: Bartonellaceae Gieszczykiewicz 1939 (Approved Lists 1980)

Assigned by: diCenzo GC, Yang Y, Young JPW, Kuzmanovic N. Refining the taxonomy of the order Hyphomicrobiales (Rhizobiales) based on whole genome comparisons of over 130 type strains. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2024; 74:6328. 🇨🇦

Linking: To permanently link to this page, use https://doi.org/10.83108/rn.516200Copy to clipboardLink copied to clipboard

Record number: 516200