Deep phylotaxonogenomic revision of the genus Xanthomonas within family Xanthomonadaceae and proposal of novel family Frateuriaceae within order Xanthomonadales
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Genus Xanthomonas is primarily comprise phytopathogenic species. In a recent study by carrying out deep phyto-taxonogenomics, we reported that even the genera Xylella, Stenotrophomonas and Pseudoxanthomonas are miss-classified and belong to genus Xanthomonas. Hence to understand the breadth of the genus, we carried out deep phylo-taxonogenomics of the order Xanthomonadales. Such investigation revealed that at least four more genera belong to genus Xanthomonas with prominent being Lysobacter. Further order level deep phylo-taxonogenomics revealed two major families. One being the original family Xanthomonadaceae and other is proposed as Frateuriaceae fam. nov. as synonym of family Rhodanobacteraceae with novel genus Frateuria gen. nov.
Article activity feed
-
The reviewers have highlighted major concerns with the work presented. Please ensure that you address their comments. Dear Dr Prabu Patil, Following consultation with an expert reviewers (and taxonomic expert) with 1 formal and a corroborating informal review, there are significant concerns especially in the nomenclature used in the manuscript. Additionally I have been informed that as a journal, Access Microbiology is not the most suitable home for this type of publication, in favour of IJSEM, another society journal, with more suitable and specific expertise on the subject field. Apologies for my ignorance on this matter. Please consider the review comments below. Best wishes, John.
-
Comments to Author
Unfortunately, there are very significant problems with this manuscript starting from the title onwards, in that the authors have used a nomenclatural approach favouring the use Xanthomonadales, Xanthomonadaceae etc when these are illegitimate names under the rules of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (ICNP; for the reasons see: https://lpsn.dsmz.de/order/xanthomonadales and https://lpsn.dsmz.de/family/xanthomonadaceae). The ICNP states that illegitimate names must not be used. It is also baffling as to why the authors think that they can propose the new name Frateuriaceae for the family which - as they note in the text - corresponds to the already named Rhodanobacteraceae. Rule 21a of the ICNP applies here - the type of a genus specified when the family is defined, which doesn't …
Comments to Author
Unfortunately, there are very significant problems with this manuscript starting from the title onwards, in that the authors have used a nomenclatural approach favouring the use Xanthomonadales, Xanthomonadaceae etc when these are illegitimate names under the rules of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (ICNP; for the reasons see: https://lpsn.dsmz.de/order/xanthomonadales and https://lpsn.dsmz.de/family/xanthomonadaceae). The ICNP states that illegitimate names must not be used. It is also baffling as to why the authors think that they can propose the new name Frateuriaceae for the family which - as they note in the text - corresponds to the already named Rhodanobacteraceae. Rule 21a of the ICNP applies here - the type of a genus specified when the family is defined, which doesn't have to be the earliest named genus. Hence the authors are mistaken in thinking that because Frateuria Swings et al. 1980 predates Rhodanobacter Nalin et al. 1999, the family that contains Frateuria must be named after it. Frateuriaceae would be an illegitimate name under the ICNP. For these two reasons alone the manuscript should be rejected without further review so that it can completely rethought - in the light of the above comments, I suspect that all of the taxonomic proposals in the manuscript are untenable. It is also unclear why the authors have submitted this work to Access Microbiology, rather than IJSEM, which would be the appropriate specialist MS journal for work of this type. My strong recommendation is that authors withdraw their work, consider the relevant parts of the ICNP and then reconsider whether their study still has any validity. If so, then it should be resubmitted to IJSEM.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Very poor
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Very poor
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Partially support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes
-
