The true identity of Fleming’s famous fungus
The nomen conservandum was placed upon the name P. chrysogenum
(neotype strain, CBS-306.48 ¼ NRRL-807) to maintain
the widely used epithet in numerous applications, including
the patents for the $8 billion industry (Hoff et al. 2008) of
penicillin production (Frisvad et al. 1990; Kozakiewicz et al.
1992). However, by including the isolate NRRL-792 in phylogenetic
analysis, we and others (Houbraken et al. 2011) have
shown that the species containing Fleming’s original isolate
(NRRL-824) and the isolate from which all industrial strains
are derived (NRRL-1951) is in fact P. rubens. The implication of
this is that it may seemingly invalidate some existing patents
referring to P. chrysogenum, and thus, should these patents be
amended accordingly? Another option available could be to
designate a neotype for P. chrysogenum using one of the
‘Fleming species’ isolates. This would in effect rename P.
rubens to P. chrysogenum in order to carry out the original
objective of the nomen conservandum. It seems that this
approach would be most convenient for industrial matters but
rather confusing and backward with respect to taxonomic
science. Additionally, and as previously stated by Henk et al.
(2011), “designation of a neotype when a clear, intact and
visible between 100 and 200 base pairs (bp) depending on
the primer set (Table 1). Amplicons from PCR direct from
conidia were detected and show additional specificity
when tested against other common airborne conidia of the
species P. commune and P. brevicompactum.
The true identity of Fleming’s famous fungusThe nomen conservandum was placed upon the name P. chrysogenum(neotype strain, CBS-306.48 ¼ NRRL-807) to maintainthe widely used epithet in numerous applications, includingthe patents for the $8 billion industry (Hoff et al. 2008) ofpenicillin production (Frisvad et al. 1990; Kozakiewicz et al.1992). However, by including the isolate NRRL-792 in phylogeneticanalysis, we and others (Houbraken et al. 2011) haveshown that the species containing Fleming’s original isolate(NRRL-824) and the isolate from which all industrial strainsare derived (NRRL-1951) is in fact P. rubens. The implication ofthis is that it may seemingly invalidate some existing patentsreferring to P. chrysogenum, and thus, should these patents beamended accordingly? Another option available could be todesignate a neotype for P. chrysogenum using one of the‘Fleming species’ isolates. This would in effect rename P.rubens to P. chrysogenum in order to carry out the originalobjective of the nomen conservandum. It seems that thisapproach would be most convenient for industrial matters butrather confusing and backward with respect to taxonomicscience. Additionally, and as previously stated by Henk et al.(2011), “designation of a neotype when a clear, intact andvisible between 100 and 200 base pairs (bp) depending onthe primer set (Table 1). Amplicons from PCR direct fromconidia were detected and show additional specificity
when tested against other common airborne conidia of the
species P. commune and P. brevicompactum.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
