Skip to content
naulon
Get started

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 19, 2026.

Members of the genus Burkholderia: good and bad guys

Leo Eberl, Peter Vandamme

F1000Research · 2016 · Review

doi:10.12688/f1000research.8221.1

Abstract

In the 1990s several biocontrol agents on that contained Burkholderia strains were registered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). After risk assessment these products were withdrawn from the market and a moratorium was placed on the registration of Burkholderia -containing products, as these strains may pose a risk to human health. However, over the past few years the number of novel Burkholderia species that exhibit plant-beneficial properties and are normally not isolated from infected patients has increased tremendously. In this commentary we wish to summarize recent efforts that aim at discerning pathogenic from beneficial Burkholderia strains.

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 19, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

The genus Burkholderia: past and present

When the genus Burkholderia was defined in 1992 by Yabuuchi et al. to accommodate most of the former rRNA group II pseudomonads, it consisted of only seven species. Two of these species ( Burkholderia pseudomallei and Burkholderia mallei) are primary pathogens of animals and humans, two species ( Burkholderia caryophylli and Burkholderia gladioli) are known as plant pathogens, two species ( Burkholderia solanacearum [a plant pathogen] and Burkholderia pickettii [an opportunistic human pathogen]) were later transferred to the genus Ralstonia, and the remaining species, Burkholderia cepacia, was originally described as the causative agent of bacterial rot of onion bulbs. Since the first description of the genus, the number of validly named species has increased to almost one hundred ( http://www.bacterio.net/burkholderia.html). During this time, it has become apparent that this genus has tremendous biotechnological potential, with species that produce a large variety of commercially important hydrolytic enzymes and bioactive substances, that promote plant growth and health, and that can degrade various recalcitrant pollutants. Yet their agricultural and industrial use is severely limited due to the potential threat that some strains pose to human health. In addition to B. pseudomallei and B. mallei, it is a group of currently 20 closely related bacterial species in particular, referred to as the Burkholderia cepacia complex (Bcc), which have emerged as opportunistic pathogens that can cause severe infections in cystic fibrosis (CF) and immunocompromised patients –. However, virtually all Bcc species have also been isolated from the natural environment, often from soil samples or from the rhizosphere of various plants. The use of Burkholderia in agricultural applications is therefore considered a double-edged sword, and a lot of effort has been invested into discriminating between the beneficial environmental (the good) and the clinical (the bad) Burkholderia strains,. Recently, these efforts have gained momentum, as many new Burkholderia species have been identified in environmental samples that exhibit potentially valuable beneficial traits. These species are believed to be safe for applications, as there are very rarely clinical reports that they would pose a risk to human health.

Burkholderia species in the environment

Recent work has shown that members of the genus Burkholderia are common soil inhabitants and that their biogeographic distribution is strongly affected by soil pH –. Due to their intrinsic acid tolerance, Burkholderia strains have a competitive advantage in acidic soils but are outcompeted in alkaline soils. Moreover, it has been reported that Burkholderia significantly co-occurs with a wide range of fungi, which normally also prefer acidic environments. This finding is in line with reports demonstrating that many Burkholderia species can form either antagonistic or mutualistic interactions with fungi. While antagonistic behavior of Burkholderia species is well described and is dependent on the production of a large variety of antifungal compounds (for a review, see ), other species have been demonstrated to live in mutualistic associations with fungi. A well-investigated example is represented by the association of Burkholderia terrae and Lyophyllum species, for which it was shown that the bacteria can not only use the hyphae of the fungus for transportation and dispersal but also use fungal exudates as nutrients –. This is in full agreement with the finding that Burkholderia strains are among the main consumers of carbon released from arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Another intriguing example is Burkholderia rhizoxinica, which invades hyphae of the fungus Rhizopus microsporus,, the causative agent of rice seedling blight. The symbiont is involved in the biosynthesis of the antimitotic toxin rhizoxin, which efficiently stalls plant cell division. In the absence of the endosymbiont, the fungus was found to be unable to reproduce vegetatively.

Another emerging theme is the tight association of some Burkholderia species with plants. Over the past few years, the number of novel plant-associated Burkholderia species has increased tremendously. These new species show various degrees of plant dependence, with some strains living freely in the rhizosphere, exhibiting an endophytic lifestyle, nodulating legumes, or, most intriguingly, forming an obligate leaf symbiosis with their host plants. Burkholderia species have been frequently isolated from diverse surface-sterilized plants (e.g. – ). Probably the best studied endophytic Burkholderia strain is Burkholderia phytofirmans PsJN, which was originally isolated from onion roots and was subsequently demonstrated to establish endophytic populations in various plants,. Interestingly, B. phytofirmans is not only capable of protecting plants from pathogens (through an unknown mechanism) but was also shown to increase the plants’ stress resistance, particularly against low temperatures, high salt, and drought –. Some Burkholderia species have been shown to be specifically associated with Sphagnum mosses,. Since Moulin et al. demonstrated that two Burkholderia species, which were isolated from root nodules of a legume, possessed nodulation genes, many more nodulating Burkholderia species have been described (for recent studies, see – ). Although these strains have mainly been isolated from Mimosa species, recent work showed that some Burkholderia strains can also nodulate fynbos legumes in South Africa –. Some plant genera of the Rubiaceae and Primulaceae families carry members of the genus Burkholderia within leaf nodules –. This unique association is the only known example of an obligate plant-bacterium symbiosis with both partners being unable to exist outside the symbiotic association. The bacterial symbiont is thought to be hereditarily transmitted to the progeny via colonization of the developing seeds. Although the molecular nature of the leaf nodule symbiosis is still unknown, it was recently shown that the bacterial symbiont produces large amounts of secondary metabolites, which appear to protect the plants from herbivores,.

Finally, a large body of evidence demonstrates that many insect species harbor symbiotic bacteria of the genus Burkholderia –. The association of Burkholderia species with the bean bug Riptortus pedestris has emerged as a promising experimental model to study the molecular mechanisms involved in insect-bacterium symbiosis,. This symbiosis appears to be particularly tight, as it was recently reported that the insect has a previously unrecognized animal organ used to specifically sort the symbiont into the posterior gut region, which is devoid of food flow and is transformed into an isolated organ for symbiosis.

We are convinced that these examples represent just the tip of the iceberg and that many more Burkholderia fungus/plant/insect associations will be discovered in the future.

Can we tell the good from the bad by taxonomy?

Phylogenetic investigations have provided evidence that members of the genus Burkholderia can be divided into two main lineages ( Figure 1) and several species that represent unique lines of descent. One clade comprises pathogens of humans, animals, and plants, including B. pseudomallei, B. mallei, and Burkholderia glumae, as well as the Bcc species. However, this clade also contains many strains that can be used for plant growth promotion and biocontrol of plant pests, including Burkholderia vietnamiensis TVV74 and Burkholderia ambifaria AMMD, respectively. Ironically, although Burkholderia cenocepacia is generally considered the most problematic Bcc species in patients with CF, recently a genome sequence of a plant-beneficial endophytic B. cenocepacia strain with both biocontrol and plant-growth-promoting characteristics was reported. Also, non-Bcc Burkholderia species within this clade can have both beneficial and harmful properties. One intriguing case with great potential for agricultural applications is represented by Burkholderia gladioli, which is a well-known pathogen of plants (e.g. causing rice panicle blight) as well as humans –. However, recent work has demonstrated that some B. gladioli strains live endophytically within various wild and ancient Zea plants without causing any disease symptoms,. In contrast, this endophyte was shown to produce an unidentified antifungal compound in planta and was able to suppress the fungal pathogen Sclerotinia homoeocarpa.

The second main phylogenetic Burkholderia cluster contains many plant-beneficial environmental Burkholderia species, as mentioned above. Several of these species have been reported to fix nitrogen, to be capable of nodulating legumes, to promote plant growth, and to degrade recalcitrant compounds. Given that species of this cluster are only rarely isolated from infected patients –, they are often considered to pose no risk to human health and have therefore been suggested to be promising candidates for applications in biocontrol, biofertilization, and bioremediation –. In our opinion, this is a wishful, potentially dangerous, and certainly oversimplified view.

Dividing the genus Burkholderia into two genera was recently proposed, with the novel genus Paraburkholderia containing the primarily environmental species (the alleged good ones) to demarcate them from Burkholderia sensu stricto, which comprises environmental, human clinical, and phytopathogenic species (the alleged bad ones). In this study, the percentage guanine plus cytosine content and conserved indels in whole genome sequences of some 25 formally named Burkholderia species and several unclassified strains were studied. Species belonging to the Burkholderia sensu stricto clade were characterized by a percentage guanine plus cytosine content of 65 to 69% and shared six conserved sequence indels, while all other Burkholderia strains examined had a percentage guanine plus cytosine content of 61 to 65% and shared two conserved sequence indels. The phylogenetic heterogeneity among the remaining Burkholderia species as revealed by 16S rRNA-based divergence and by differences in the distribution of 22 additional conserved sequence indels was ignored, as the authors proposed reclassifying all remaining Burkholderia species into a single novel genus, Paraburkholderia. These novel names were subsequently validated and now have formal standing in bacterial nomenclature. The scientific community may adopt these novel names or not. Authors who are convinced that these name changes are ill founded can continue to work with the original species names, as all these were validly published.

A recent study employed comparative genomics to assess the pathogenic potential of environmental strains on the basis of the presence or absence of known virulence factors. This bioinformatic study clearly showed that many virulence factors, including the type III, IV, and VI secretion systems, are mostly found in representatives of the Burkholderia sensu stricto clade while they are often absent in strains of the Paraburkholderia clade. The authors also show that Paraburkholderia strains exhibit no virulence in a Caenorhabditis elegans infection model. While these are valuable approaches, they also have their caveats. Many virulence factors of Burkholderia species have been shown to be host specific, and there is little correlation between the different infection models commonly used, e.g. C. elegans, Galleria mellonella, and Drosophila melanogaster. This probably reflects the need for Burkholderia strains to compete for survival in diverse habitats such as soil, plants, insects, and mammalian hosts. Only very few universal virulence factors could be identified in B. cenocepacia (namely quorum sensing, siderophore production, and lipopolysaccharide biosynthesis) and therefore extrapolations from non-mammalian infection models to mammalian infections, particularly to chronic CF lung infections, must be made with caution,. For example, most Burkholderia multivorans strains show no virulence in a C. elegans or G. mellonella infection model,, although most virulence factors that were suggested to be indicative for pathogenic Burkholderia species could be identified in this Bcc species. Yet B. multivorans (along with B. cenocepacia) is one of the predominant Burkholderia species infecting people with CF,. On the other hand, B. cenocepacia strain H111, which is closely related to strains of the epidemic ET12 lineage (e.g. J2315 and K56-2), did not cause acute symptoms in the infected CF patient from whom it was isolated and was cleared after a 6-month co-infection period with Pseudomonas aeruginosa, while infections with strains of the ET12 lineage have resulted in high mortality among patients,. In contrast to its clinical impact, strain H111 shows a similar level of pathogenicity in the G. mellonella and C. elegans infection models to K56-2 (an ET12 lineage strain) and both strains are much more virulent in these models than J2315 (another ET12 lineage strain).

These examples strongly suggest that neither the presence of virulence genes in a strain nor acute virulence as assessed in routinely used non-mammalian infection models is an absolutely reliable predictor of clinical prevalence or outcome in CF patients. The taxonomic position of a strain is also not an unambiguous indicator for its pathogenic potential and thus decisions on the industrial or biotechnological use of a Burkholderia strain can be made only on a case-by-case basis after careful molecular and phenotypic characterization of the strain. On the comparative genomics side, it will be interesting to see whether the co-occurrence of certain genes may be a suitable indicator of the phenotypic potential of a strain, as has recently been proposed in the case of plant-growth-promoting bacteria.

The use of Burkholderia as biocontrol agents

Although endophytic or nitrogen-fixing Burkholderia strains show great promise as agents for plant growth promotion and bioremediation, it should be kept in mind that in terms of biocontrol applications the most outstanding property of Burkholderia strains is the production of various compounds with potent antifungal activity,. In fact, several Bcc strains have been registered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for use as biocontrol agents against phytopathogenic fungi, including Deny®, Blue Circle®, and Intercept®, in the 1990s. However, after risk assessment, these products were withdrawn from the market and the EPA placed a moratorium on the registration of products containing Bcc species ( https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2004-09-29/pdf/04-21695.pdf). Would it be possible to replace these Bcc-based biocontrol agents with strains of the Paraburkholderia lineage? Literature research, genome mining, and experimental evidence ( Figure 1) have revealed that only three species of the Paraburkholderia cluster, namely Burkholderia phenazinium, Burkholderia megapolitana, and Burkholderia bryophila, all of which have been isolated from mosses, show antifungal activity. In contrast, most strains of the Bcc and many of the human and plant pathogenic species produce antifungal compounds. Given that most antifungal agents exhibit more general toxic effects in eukaryotic organisms, these compounds may contribute to the virulence of a strain. B. phenazinium was reported to produce the phenazine iodinin, which exhibits not only high anti-microbial but also cytotoxic activity. While iodinin may be valuable for clinical purposes, as it is potent against leukemia cell lines, it may not be useful for biocontrol applications. To our knowledge, the antifungal compounds produced by B. megapolitana and B. bryophila have not been identified nor has their pathogenic potential been evaluated in an infection model. In conclusion, while many Bcc strains have been demonstrated to exhibit excellent biocontrol activities, there are only very few Paraburkholderia strains that are potentially useful for biocontrol purposes.

Is there a safe Burkholderia strain?

Given the lack of reported cases in the literature, many strains of the Paraburkholderia lineage seem unlikely to cause infections in humans and therefore could be considered for agricultural applications. The same may also apply to some strains of the Burkholderia lineage, as has recently been suggested for the Bcc strain Burkholderia contaminans MS14, which was found to possess multiple antimicrobial biosynthesis genes but not major genetic loci required for pathogenesis. While the phylogenetic status of a strain may be helpful as a first approximation of the pathogenic potential of a strain, it is clear that the Paraburkholderia lineage contains some pathogenic strains and that several Bcc strains exhibit good biocontrol properties and attenuated virulence. Hence, independent of a strain’s phylogenetic status, a thorough characterization of a strain will be required before it can be considered safe. It will be important to use well-established infection models such as the mouse model for the assessment of the potential pathogenicity of a strain and to carefully examine whether related strains have been isolated from infected humans. Likewise, the biocontrol activity of the strain has to be tested in field trials. It is also worth noting that several species of the Paraburkholderia clade, including the well-investigated endophyte B. phytofirmans, are unable to grow at 37°C (in contrast to Burkholderia sensu stricto species), a property that is considered to be essential to infect and colonize humans. The capability to grow at 37°C has recently been proposed as a simple means to differentiate between pathogenic and non-pathogenic Stenotrophomonas maltophilia and Stenotrophomonas rhizophila isolates. Representatives of the latter species have therefore been suggested to provide an alternative to biotechnological applications without posing any risk to human health. An important line of future research will therefore be to assess the pathogenicity of environmental strains in suitable infection models, particularly using a mammalian host at 37°C, and ideally in multispecies infection scenarios, which may more accurately reflect the genuine clinical situation.

References 96

  1. 1.

    Yabuuchi E Kosako Y Oyaizu H: Proposal of Burkholderia gen. nov. and transfer of seven species of the genus Pseudomonas homology group II to the new genus, with the type species Burkholderia cepacia (Palleroni and Holmes 1981) comb. nov. Microbiol Immunol. 1992;36(12):1251–75.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1348-0421.1992.tb02129.x

  2. 2.

    Burkholder WH: Sour skin, a bacterial rot of Onion bulbs. Phytopathology. 1950;40(1):115–117. Reference Source

    Not in our library

  3. 3.

    Mahenthiralingam E Urban TA Goldberg JB: The multifarious, multireplicon Burkholderia cepacia complex. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2005;3(2):144–56.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrmicro1085

  4. 4.

    Vandamme P Peeters C: Time to revisit polyphasic taxonomy. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 2014;106(1):57–65.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10482-014-0148-x

  5. 5.

    Peeters C Zlosnik JE Spilker T: Burkholderia pseudomultivorans sp. nov., a novel Burkholderia cepacia complex species from human respiratory samples and the rhizosphere. Syst Appl Microbiol. 2013;36(7):483–9.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.syapm.2013.06.003

  6. 6.

    De Smet B Mayo M Peeters C: Burkholderia stagnalis sp. nov. and Burkholderia territorii sp. nov., two novel Burkholderia cepacia complex species from environmental and human sources. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2015;65(7):2265–71.

    Not in our library10.1099/ijs.0.000251

  7. 7.

    Baldwin A Mahenthiralingam E Drevinek P: Environmental Burkholderia cepacia complex isolates in human infections. Emerg Infect Dis. 2007;13(3):458–61.

    Not in our library10.3201/eid1303.060403

  8. 8.

    Mahenthiralingam E Baldwin A Dowson CG: Burkholderia cepacia complex bacteria: opportunistic pathogens with important natural biology. J Appl Microbiol. 2008;104(6):1539–51.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-2672.2007.03706.x

  9. 9.

    Stopnisek N Bodenhausen N Frey B: Genus-wide acid tolerance accounts for the biogeographical distribution of soil Burkholderia populations. Environ Microbiol. 2014;16(6):1503–12.

    Not in our library10.1111/1462-2920.12211

  10. 10.

    Hall CM Busch JD Shippy K: Diverse Burkholderia Species Isolated from Soils in the Southern United States with No Evidence of B. pseudomallei. PLoS One. 2015;10(11):e0143254.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0143254

  11. 11.

    Sermswan RW Royros P Khakhum N: Direct detection of Burkholderia pseudomallei and biological factors in soil. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2015;109(7):462–8.

    Not in our library10.1093/trstmh/trv040

  12. 12.

    Tago K Itoh H Kikuchi Y: A fine-scale phylogenetic analysis of free-living Burkholderia species in sugarcane field soil. Microbes Environ. 2014;29(4):434–7.

    Not in our library10.1264/jsme2.me14122

  13. 13.

    Stopnisek N Zühlke D Carlier A: Molecular mechanisms underlying the close association between soil Burkholderia and fungi. ISME J. 2016;10(1):253–64.

    Not in our library10.1038/ismej.2015.73

  14. 14.

    Vial L Groleau MC Dekimpe V: Burkholderia diversity and versatility: an inventory of the extracellular products. J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2007;17(9):1407–29.

    Not in our library

  15. 15.

    Warmink JA van Elsas JD: Migratory response of soil bacteria to Lyophyllum sp. strain Karsten in soil microcosms. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2009;75(9):2820–30.

    Not in our library10.1128/aem.02110-08

  16. 16.

    Nazir R Warmink JA Voordes DC: Inhibition of mushroom formation and induction of glycerol release-ecological strategies of Burkholderia terrae BS001 to create a hospitable niche at the fungus Lyophyllum sp. strain Karsten. Microb Ecol. 2013;65(1):245–54.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00248-012-0100-4

  17. 17.

    Nazir R Tazetdinova DI van Elsas JD: Burkholderia terrae BS001 migrates proficiently with diverse fungal hosts through soil and provides protection from antifungal agents. Front Microbiol. 2014;5:598.

    Not in our library10.3389/fmicb.2014.00598

  18. 18.

    Drigo B Kowalchuk GA Knapp BA: Impacts of 3 years of elevated atmospheric CO 2 on rhizosphere carbon flow and microbial community dynamics. Glob Chang Biol. 2013;19(2):621–36.

    Not in our library10.1111/gcb.12045

  19. 19.

    Partida-Martinez LP Hertweck C: Pathogenic fungus harbours endosymbiotic bacteria for toxin production. Nature. 2005;437(7060):884–8.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature03997

  20. 20.

    Moebius N Üzüm Z Dijksterhuis J: Active invasion of bacteria into living fungal cells. eLife. 2014;3:e03007.

    Not in our library10.7554/elife.03007

  21. 21.

    Scherlach K Partida-Martinez LP Dahse HM: Antimitotic rhizoxin derivatives from a cultured bacterial endosymbiont of the rice pathogenic fungus Rhizopus microsporus. J Am Chem Soc. 2006;128(35):11529–36.

    Not in our library10.1021/ja062953o

  22. 22.

    Partida-Martinez LP Monajembashi S Greulich KO: Endosymbiont-dependent host reproduction maintains bacterial-fungal mutualism. Curr Biol. 2007;17(9):773–7.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cub.2007.03.039

  23. 23.

    Banik A Mukhopadhaya SK Dangar TK: Characterization of N 2-fixing plant growth promoting endophytic and epiphytic bacterial community of Indian cultivated and wild rice ( Oryza spp.) genotypes. Planta. 2016;243(3):799–812.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00425-015-2444-8

  24. 24.

    Carrell AA Frank AC: Bacterial endophyte communities in the foliage of coast redwood and giant sequoia. Front Microbiol. 2015;6:1008.

    Not in our library10.3389/fmicb.2015.01008

  25. 25.

    da Silva DA Cotta SR Vollú RE: Endophytic microbial community in two transgenic maize genotypes and in their near-isogenic non-transgenic maize genotype. BMC Microbiol. 2014;14:332.

    Not in our library10.1186/s12866-014-0332-1

  26. 26.

    Bulgari D Casati P Quaglino F: Endophytic bacterial community of grapevine leaves influenced by sampling date and phytoplasma infection process. BMC Microbiol. 2014;14:198.

    Not in our library10.1186/1471-2180-14-198

  27. 27.

    Weisskopf L Heller S Eberl L: Burkholderia species are major inhabitants of white lupin cluster roots. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2011;77(21):7715–20.

    Not in our library10.1128/aem.05845-11

  28. 28.

    Sessitsch A Coenye T Sturz AV: Burkholderia phytofirmans sp. nov., a novel plant-associated bacterium with plant-beneficial properties. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2005;55(Pt 3):1187–92.

    Not in our library10.1099/ijs.0.63149-0

  29. 29.

    Compant S Reiter B Sessitsch A: Endophytic colonization of Vitis vinifera L. by plant growth-promoting bacterium Burkholderia sp. strain PsJN. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005;71(4):1685–93.

    Not in our library10.1128/aem.71.4.1685-1693.2005

  30. 30.

    Sheibani-Tezerji R Rattei T Sessitsch A: Transcriptome Profiling of the Endophyte Burkholderia phytofirmans PsJN Indicates Sensing of the Plant Environment and Drought Stress. MBio. 2015;6(5):e00621–15.

    Not in our library10.1128/mbio.00621-15

  31. 31.

    Pinedo I Ledger T Greve M: Burkholderia phytofirmans PsJN induces long-term metabolic and transcriptional changes involved in Arabidopsis thaliana salt tolerance. Front Plant Sci. 2015;6:466.

    Not in our library10.3389/fpls.2015.00466

  32. 32.

    Su F Jacquard C Villaume S: Burkholderia phytofirmans PsJN reduces impact of freezing temperatures on photosynthesis in Arabidopsis thaliana. Front Plant Sci. 2015;6:810.

    Not in our library10.3389/fpls.2015.00810

  33. 33.

    Bragina A Cardinale M Berg C: Vertical transmission explains the specific Burkholderia pattern in Sphagnum mosses at multi-geographic scale. Front Microbiol. 2013;4:394.

    Not in our library10.3389/fmicb.2013.00394

  34. 34.

    Bragina A Berg C Berg G: The core microbiome bonds the Alpine bog vegetation to a transkingdom metacommunity. Mol Ecol. 2015;24(18):4795–807.

    Not in our library10.1111/mec.13342

  35. 35.

    Moulin L Munive A Dreyfus B: Nodulation of legumes by members of the beta-subclass of Proteobacteria. Nature. 2001;411(6840):948–50.

    Not in our library10.1038/35082070

  36. 36.

    Sheu SY Chou JH Bontemps C: Burkholderia diazotrophica sp. nov., isolated from root nodules of Mimosa spp. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2013;63(Pt 2):435–41.

    Not in our library10.1099/ijs.0.039859-0

  37. 37.

    Sheu SY Chen MH Liu WY: Burkholderia dipogonis sp. nov., isolated from root nodules of Dipogon lignosus in New Zealand and Western Australia. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2015;65(12):4716–23.

    Not in our library10.1099/ijsem.0.000639

  38. 38.

    Bournaud C de Faria SM dos Santos JM: Burkholderia species are the most common and preferred nodulating symbionts of the Piptadenia group (tribe Mimoseae). PLoS One. 2013;8(5):e63478.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0063478

  39. 39.

    Elliott GN Chen WM Bontemps C: Nodulation of Cyclopia spp. (Leguminosae, Papilionoideae) by Burkholderia tuberum. Ann Bot. 2007;100(7):1403–11.

    Not in our library10.1093/aob/mcm227

  40. 40.

    De Meyer SE Cnockaert M Ardley JK: Burkholderia rhynchosiae sp. nov., isolated from Rhynchosia ferulifolia root nodules. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2013;63(Pt 11):3944–9.

    Not in our library10.1099/ijs.0.048751-0

  41. 41.

    De Meyer SE Tian R Seshadri R: High-quality permanent draft genome sequence of the Lebeckia ambigua-nodulating Burkholderia sp. strain WSM4176. Stand Genomic Sci. 2015;10:79.

    Not in our library10.1186/s40793-015-0072-3

  42. 42.

    Lemaire B Van Cauwenberghe J Verstraete B: Characterization of the papilionoid- Burkholderia interaction in the Fynbos biome: The diversity and distribution of beta-rhizobia nodulating Podalyria calyptrata (Fabaceae, Podalyrieae). Syst Appl Microbiol. 2016;39(1):41–8.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.syapm.2015.09.006

  43. 43.

    Lemaire B Dlodlo O Chimphango S: Symbiotic diversity, specificity and distribution of rhizobia in native legumes of the Core Cape Subregion (South Africa). FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2015;91(2):1–17.

    Not in our library10.1093/femsec/fiu024

  44. 44.

    Van Oevelen S De Wachter R Vandamme P: Identification of the bacterial endosymbionts in leaf galls of Psychotria (Rubiaceae, angiosperms) and proposal of ' Candidatus Burkholderia kirkii' sp. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2002;52(Pt 6):2023–7.

    Not in our library10.1099/00207713-52-6-2023

  45. 45.
    Bacterial leaf symbiosis in angiosperms: host specificity without co-speciation. · 2011
    Not checked
  46. 46.

    Lemaire B Van Oevelen S De Block P: Identification of the bacterial endosymbionts in leaf nodules of Pavetta (Rubiaceae). Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2012;62(Pt 1):202–9.

    Not in our library10.1099/ijs.0.028019-0

  47. 47.

    Verstraete B Janssens S Lemaire B: Phylogenetic lineages in Vanguerieae (Rubiaceae) associated with Burkholderia bacteria in sub-Saharan Africa. Am J Bot. 2013;100(12):2380–7.

    Not in our library10.3732/ajb.1300303

  48. 48.

    Carlier A Fehr L Pinto M: The genome analysis of Candidatus Burkholderia crenata reveals that secondary metabolism may be a key function of the Ardisia crenata leaf nodule symbiosis. Environ Microbiol. 2015.

    Not in our library10.1111/1462-2920.13184

  49. 49.

    Sieber S Carlier A Neuburger M: Isolation and Total Synthesis of Kirkamide, an Aminocyclitol from an Obligate Leaf Nodule Symbiont. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 2015;54(27):7968–70.

    Not in our library10.1002/anie.201502696

  50. 50.

    Santos AV Dillon RJ Dillon VM: Ocurrence of the antibiotic producing bacterium Burkholderia sp. in colonies of the leaf-cutting ant Atta sexdens rubropilosa. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2004;239(2):319–23.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.femsle.2004.09.005

  51. 51.

    Kikuchi Y Meng XY Fukatsu T: Gut symbiotic bacteria of the genus Burkholderia in the broad-headed bugs Riptortus clavatus and Leptocorisa chinensis (Heteroptera: Alydidae). Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005;71(7):4035–43.

    Not in our library10.1128/aem.71.7.4035-4043.2005

  52. 52.

    Kikuchi Y Hosokawa T Fukatsu T: An ancient but promiscuous host-symbiont association between Burkholderia gut symbionts and their heteropteran hosts. ISME J. 2011;5(3):446–60.

    Not in our library10.1038/ismej.2010.150

  53. 53.

    Takeshita K Matsuura Y Itoh H: Burkholderia of Plant-Beneficial Group are Symbiotically Associated with Bordered Plant Bugs (Heteroptera: Pyrrhocoroidea: Largidae). Microbes Environ. 2015;30(4):321–9.

    Not in our library10.1264/jsme2.me15153

  54. 54.

    Kim JK Jang HA Won YJ: Purine biosynthesis-deficient Burkholderia mutants are incapable of symbiotic accommodation in the stinkbug. ISME J. 2014;8(3):552–63.

    Not in our library10.1038/ismej.2013.168

  55. 55.

    Lee JB Byeon JH Jang HA: Bacterial cell motility of Burkholderia gut symbiont is required to colonize the insect gut. FEBS Lett. 2015;589(19 Pt B):2784–90.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.febslet.2015.08.022

  56. 56.

    Ohbayashi T Takeshita K Kitagawa W: Insect's intestinal organ for symbiont sorting. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(37):E5179–88.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1511454112

  57. 57.

    Parke JL Gurian-Sherman D: Diversity of the Burkholderia cepacia complex and implications for risk assessment of biological control strains. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2001;39:225–58.

    Not in our library10.1146/annurev.phyto.39.1.225

  58. 58.

    LiPuma JJ: The changing microbial epidemiology in cystic fibrosis. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2010;23(2):299–323.

    Not in our library10.1128/cmr.00068-09

  59. 59.

    Ho YN Huang CC: Draft Genome Sequence of Burkholderia cenocepacia Strain 869T2, a Plant-Beneficial Endophytic Bacterium. Genome Announc. 2015;3(6): pii: e01327-15.

    Not in our library10.1128/genomea.01327-15

  60. 60.

    Naughton LM An SQ Hwang I: Functional and genomic insights into the pathogenesis of Burkholderia species to rice. Environ Microbiol. 2016;18(3):780–90.

    Not in our library10.1111/1462-2920.13189

  61. 61.

    Zhou F Ning H Chen F: Burkholderia gladioli infection isolated from the blood cultures of newborns in the neonatal intensive care unit. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2015;34(8):1533–7.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10096-015-2382-1

  62. 62.

    Imataki O Kita N Nakayama-Imaohji H: Bronchiolitis and bacteraemia caused by Burkholderia gladioli in a non-lung transplantation patient. New Microbes New Infect. 2014;2(6):175–6.

    Not in our library10.1002/nmi2.64

  63. 63.

    Segonds C Clavel-Batut P Thouverez M: Microbiological and epidemiological features of clinical respiratory isolates of Burkholderia gladioli. J Clin Microbiol. 2009;47(5):1510–6.

    Not in our library10.1128/jcm.02489-08

  64. 64.
    Conservation and Diversity of Seed Associated Endophytes in Zea across Boundaries of Evolution, Ethnography and Ecology · 2011
    No notice
  65. 65.

    Ettinger CL Shehata HR Johnston-Monje D: Draft Genome Sequence of Burkholderia gladioli Strain UCD-UG_CHAPALOTE (Phylum Proteobacteria). Genome Announc. 2015;3(1): pii: e01462-14.

    Not in our library10.1128/genomea.01462-14

  66. 66.

    Shehata HR Lyons EM Jordan KS: Bacterial endophytes from wild and ancient maize are able to suppress the fungal pathogen Sclerotinia homoeocarpa. J Appl Microbiol. 2016;120(3):756–69.

    Not in our library10.1111/jam.13050

  67. 67.

    Suárez-Moreno ZR Caballero-Mellado J Coutinho BG: Common features of environmental and potentially beneficial plant-associated Burkholderia. Microb Ecol. 2012;63(2):249–66.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00248-011-9929-1

  68. 68.

    Pérez-Pantoja D Nikel PI Chavarría M: Endogenous stress caused by faulty oxidation reactions fosters evolution of 2,4-dinitrotoluene-degrading bacteria. PLoS Genet. 2013;9(8):e1003764.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pgen.1003764

  69. 69.

    Coenye T Goris J Spilker T: Characterization of unusual bacteria isolated from respiratory secretions of cystic fibrosis patients and description of Inquilinus limosus gen. nov., sp. nov. J Clin Microbiol. 2002;40(6):2062–9.

    Not in our library10.1128/jcm.40.6.2062-2069.2002

  70. 70.

    Gerrits GP Klaassen C Coenye T: Burkholderia fungorum septicemia. Emerg Infect Dis. 2005;11(7):1115–7.

    Not in our library10.3201/eid1107.041290

  71. 71.

    Deris ZZ Van Rostenberghe H Habsah H: First isolation of Burkholderia tropica from a neonatal patient successfully treated with imipenem. Int J Infect Dis. 2010;14(1):e73–4.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ijid.2009.03.005

  72. 72.
    Molecular signatures and phylogenomic analysis of the genus Burkholderia: proposal for division of this genus into the emended genus Burkholderia containing pathogenic organisms and a new genus Paraburkholderia gen. nov. harboring environmental species · 2014
    No notice
  73. 73.
    Plant-associated symbiotic Burkholderia species lack hallmark strategies required in mammalian pathogenesis. · 2014
    Not checked
  74. 74.

    Estrada-de los Santos P Vinuesa P Martínez-Aguilar L: Phylogenetic analysis of burkholderia species by multilocus sequence analysis. Curr Microbiol. 2013;67(1):51–60.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00284-013-0330-9

  75. 75.

    Oren A Garrity GM: List of new names and new combinations previously effectively, but not validly, published. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2015;65(11):3763–7.

    Not in our library10.1099/ijsem.0.000632

  76. 76.

    Schwager S Agnoli K Köthe M: Identification of Burkholderia cenocepacia strain H111 virulence factors using nonmammalian infection hosts. Infect Immun. 2013;81(1):143–53.

    Not in our library10.1128/iai.00768-12

  77. 77.

    Uehlinger S Schwager S Bernier SP: Identification of specific and universal virulence factors in Burkholderia cenocepacia strains by using multiple infection hosts. Infect Immun. 2009;77(9):4102–10.

    Not in our library10.1128/iai.00398-09

  78. 78.

    Cardona ST Wopperer J Eberl L: Diverse pathogenicity of Burkholderia cepacia complex strains in the Caenorhabditis elegans host model. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2005;250(1):97–104.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.femsle.2005.06.050

  79. 79.

    Seed KD Dennis JJ: Development of Galleria mellonella as an alternative infection model for the Burkholderia cepacia complex. Infect Immun. 2008;76(3):1267–75.

    Not in our library10.1128/iai.01249-07

  80. 80.

    Zlosnik JE Zhou G Brant R: Burkholderia species infections in patients with cystic fibrosis in British Columbia, Canada. 30 years' experience. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2015;12(1):70–8.

    Not in our library10.1513/annalsats.201408-395oc

  81. 81.

    Carlier A Agnoli K Pessi G: Genome Sequence of Burkholderia cenocepacia H111, a Cystic Fibrosis Airway Isolate. Genome Announc. 2014;2(2): pii: e00298-14.

    Not in our library10.1128/genomea.00298-14

  82. 82.

    Geisenberger O Givskov M Riedel K: Production of N-acyl-L-homoserine lactones by P. aeruginosa isolates from chronic lung infections associated with cystic fibrosis. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2000;184(2):273–8.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1574-6968.2000.tb09026.x

  83. 83.

    Drevinek P Mahenthiralingam E: Burkholderia cenocepacia in cystic fibrosis: epidemiology and molecular mechanisms of virulence. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2010;16(7):821–30.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1469-0691.2010.03237.x

  84. 84.

    Bruto M Prigent-Combaret C Muller D: Analysis of genes contributing to plant-beneficial functions in Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria and related Proteobacteria. Sci Rep. 2014;4: 6261.

    Not in our library10.1038/srep06261

  85. 85.

    Schmidt S Blom JF Pernthaler J: Production of the antifungal compound pyrrolnitrin is quorum sensing-regulated in members of the Burkholderia cepacia complex. Environ Microbiol. 2009;11(6):1422–37.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1462-2920.2009.01870.x

  86. 86.

    Vandamme P Opelt K Knöchel N: Burkholderia bryophila sp. nov. and Burkholderia megapolitana sp. nov., moss-associated species with antifungal and plant-growth-promoting properties. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2007;57(Pt 10):2228–35.

    Not in our library10.1099/ijs.0.65142-0

  87. 87.

    Turner JM Messenger AJ: Occurrence, biochemistry and physiology of phenazine pigment production. Adv Microb Physiol. 1986;27:211–75.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0065-2911(08)60306-9

  88. 88.

    Sletta H Degnes KF Herfindal L: Anti-microbial and cytotoxic 1,6-dihydroxyphenazine-5,10-dioxide (iodinin) produced by Streptosporangium sp. DSM 45942 isolated from the fjord sediment. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2014;98(2):603–10.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00253-013-5320-0

  89. 89.

    Deng P Wang X Baird SM: Comparative genome-wide analysis reveals that Burkholderia contaminans MS14 possesses multiple antimicrobial biosynthesis genes but not major genetic loci required for pathogenesis. Microbiologyopen. 2016.

    Not in our library10.1002/mbo3.333

  90. 90.

    Sokol PA Darling P Woods DE: Role of ornibactin biosynthesis in the virulence of Burkholderia cepacia: characterization of pvdA, the gene encoding L-ornithine N 5-oxygenase. Infect Immun. 1999;67(9):4443–55.

    Not in our library10.1128/iai.67.9.4443-4455.1999

  91. 91.

    Alavi P Starcher MR Thallinger GG: Stenotrophomonas comparative genomics reveals genes and functions that differentiate beneficial and pathogenic bacteria. BMC Genomics. 2014;15(1):482.

    Not in our library10.1186/1471-2164-15-482

  92. 92.

    Berg G Martinez JL: Friends or foes: can we make a distinction between beneficial and harmful strains of the Stenotrophomonas maltophilia complex? Front Microbiol. 2015;6:241.

    Not in our library10.3389/fmicb.2015.00241

  93. 93.

    Pruesse E Peplies J Glöckner FO: SINA: accurate high-throughput multiple sequence alignment of ribosomal RNA genes. Bioinformatics. 2012;28(14):1823–9.

    Not in our library10.1093/bioinformatics/bts252

  94. 94.

    Capella-Gutiérrez S Silla-Martínez JM Gabaldón T: trimAl: a tool for automated alignment trimming in large-scale phylogenetic analyses. Bioinformatics. 2009;25(15):1972–3.

    Not in our library10.1093/bioinformatics/btp348

  95. 95.

    Tamura K Stecher G Peterson D: MEGA6: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis version 6.0. Mol Biol Evol. 2013;30(12):2725–9.

    Not in our library10.1093/molbev/mst197

  96. 96.

    Tamura K Nei M: Estimation of the number of nucleotide substitutions in the control region of mitochondrial DNA in humans and chimpanzees. Mol Biol Evol. 1993;10(3):512–26.

    Not in our library10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040023

Cited by papers we hold 2

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.