The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Staphylococcus lugdunensis sp. nov. and Staphylococcus schleiferi sp. nov., Two Species from Human Clinical Specimens
Abstract
Deoxyribonucleic acid relatedness studies (S1 nuclease method) showed that 23 unidentified Staphylococcus strains form two homogeneous genomic species related 1 to 9% to 24 type strains representing known Staphylococcus species. These new species were named Staphylococcus lugdunensis and Staphylococcus schleiferi. Strains of S. lugdunensis were susceptible to novobiocin, produced a fibrinogen affinity factor, and failed to produce coagulase, heat-stable nuclease, and staphylokinase. S. lugdunensis strains differed from S. hominis (the phenotypically closest species) by production of ornithine decarboxylase and the fibrinogen affinity factor. The guanine-plus-cytosine content of the deoxyribonucleic acid was 32 mol%. The type strain is N860297 (= ATCC 43809). Strains of S. schleiferi were susceptible to novobiocin, produced a heat-stable nuclease and a fibrinogen affinity factor, and failed to produce coagulase and staphylokinase. S. schleiferi strains differed from S. aureus by production of an antigenically different heat-stable nuclease and the lack of pigmentation, free coagulase, protein A, and β-ribitol teichoic acid. The guanine-plus-cytosine content of the deoxyribonucleic acid was 37 mol%. The type strain is N850274 (= ATCC 43808).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Update on clinical significance of coagulase-negative staphylococci
Kloos, W. E., & Bannerman, T. L. (1994) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.7.1.117 · Cited by 835
Kateete, D. P., Kimani, C. N., Katabazi, F. A., Okeng, A., Okee, M. S., Nanteza, A., Joloba, M. L., & Najjuka, F. C. (2010) · Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials · doi:10.1186/1476-0711-9-23 · Cited by 359
Anguera, I., Del Río, A., Miró, J. M., Matínez-Lacasa, X., Marco, F., Gumá, J. R., Quaglio, G., Claramonte, X., Moreno, A., Mestres, C. A., et al. (2005) · Heart · doi:10.1136/hrt.2004.040659 · Cited by 202
Seenivasan, M. H., & Yu, V. L. (2003) · European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1007/s10096-003-0953-z · Cited by 48
Metadata
- Authors
- Freney, J., Brun, Y., Bes, M., Meugnier, H., Grimont, F., Grimont, P. A. D., Nervi, C., & Fleurette, J.
- Venue
- International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology
- Publisher
- Microbiology Society
- Published
- 1988-04-01
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 168-172
- ISSN
- 0020-7713 (ISSN-L)
- 1465-2102
- OpenAlex
- W2066903864
- Cited by
- 393
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 13.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Staphylococcus lugdunensis sp. nov. and Staphylococcus schleiferi sp. nov., Two Species from Human Clinical Specimens. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1099/00207713-38-2-168
- The paper
- Freney, J., Brun, Y., Bes, M., Meugnier, H., Grimont, F., Grimont, P. A. D., Nervi, C., & Fleurette, J. (1988). Staphylococcus lugdunensis sp. nov. and Staphylococcus schleiferi sp. nov., Two Species from Human Clinical Specimens. International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology. https://doi.org/10.1099/00207713-38-2-168
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
