
==== Front
ISME J
ISME J
ismej
The ISME Journal
1751-7362
1751-7370
Oxford University Press

38896025
10.1093/ismejo/wrae109
wrae109
Perspective
AcademicSubjects/SCI00010
AcademicSubjects/SCI00960
AcademicSubjects/SCI01150
AcademicSubjects/SCI02281
SeqCode in the golden age of prokaryotic systematics
Jiménez Diego Javier Biological and Environmental Sciences and Engineering Division (BESE), King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), Thuwal 23955-6900, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Rosado Alexandre Soares Biological and Environmental Sciences and Engineering Division (BESE), King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), Thuwal 23955-6900, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Corresponding authors: Diego Javier Jiménez. Email: diego.jimenezavella@kaust.edu.sa, djimenez1909@gmail.com; Alexandre Soares Rosado. Email: alexandre.rosado@kaust.edu.sa
1 2024
19 6 2024
19 6 2024
18 1 wrae10903 3 2024
08 5 2024
18 6 2024
15 7 2024
© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Society for Microbial Ecology.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

The SeqCode is a new code of prokaryotic nomenclature that was developed to validate taxon names using genome sequences as the type material. The present article provides an independent view about the SeqCode, highlighting its history, current status, basic features, pros and cons, and use to date. We also discuss important topics to consider for validation of novel prokaryotic taxon names using genomes as the type material. Owing to significant advances in metagenomics and cultivation methods, hundreds of novel prokaryotic species are expected to be discovered in the coming years. This manuscript aims to stimulate and enrich the debate around the use of the SeqCode in the upcoming golden age of prokaryotic taxon discovery and systematics.

Candidatus names
metagenomics
not-yet-cultivated prokaryotes
prokaryotic nomenclature
prokaryotic taxonomy
King Abdullah University of Science and Technology 10.13039/501100004052 BAS/1/1096-01-01
==== Body
pmcBrief history of the SeqCode

Prokaryotic systematics is considered an important and challenging field in microbiology. For decades, bottlenecks in isolating, cultivating, and analyzing the vast microbial diversity have slowed progress in this field [1]. However, thousands of prokaryotic species have been isolated, named, and maintained in culture collections (e.g. DSMZ-German Collection of Microorganisms and Cell Cultures). A considerable fraction of prokaryotic diversity remains uncultivated, and, probably, many species will be impossible to isolate and/or cultivate in laboratory settings [2, 3]. In 2020, a roadmap for the nomenclature of not-yet-cultivated prokaryotes using DNA sequences as nomenclatural types was proposed [4]. However, the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes (ICSP), which oversees the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (ICNP), rejected the original proposal to use DNA sequences as types [5, 6]. At present, only axenic and viable strains deposited in two international culture collections are recognized as nomenclatural type or type material in the ICNP (Rule 30) [7]. In response to the ICSP decision, and after two well-attended online workshops (https://www.isme-microbes.org/seqcode-workshops), the SeqCode was developed in 2022 as a new system for prokaryotic nomenclature that uses genomes (e.g. metagenome-assembled genomes—MAGs) as nomenclatural types [8, 9] (Fig. 1).

Figure 1 Timeline of the SeqCode. Illustrating the key events and scientific publications surrounding the development of the SeqCode and its use up to march–April 2024. The SeqCode is governed by the SeqCode committee that also oversee the operation of the SeqCode registry. In the SeqCode registry, several general requirements must be followed to create and validate novel taxon names under the SeqCode, such as the use of high-quality genomes, proper formed name and etymology, accession numbers of the assemblies, and effective publication. We predict that the SeqCode will support the next golden age of prokaryotic taxon discovery. In this new era, advances in isolation techniques, top-down enrichment approaches, in situ explorations, cell-sorting methods, long-read DNA sequencing technologies, and new bioinformatic tools will boost the discovery of novel taxa. Abbreviations in the figure: Systematic and Applied Microbiology (SAM); International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology (IJSEM); International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (ICNP); Genome Taxonomy Database (GTDB); metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs). BioRender.com was used to create the figure.

Current state of the SeqCode

The SeqCode enables the creation and validation of permanent names for pure cultures and/or not-yet-cultivated prokaryotes, including taxa denoted as Candidatus (a status under ICNP for putative novel taxa) [9]. In addition, the SeqCode also protects the legacy of Candidatus names when validated under the SeqCode (i.e. Candidatus names are not valid and do not have priority in ICNP and therefore can effectively be overwritten by valid names) [10]. A key feature of the SeqCode is that it recognizes names validly published under the ICNP, and names that are validly published under the SeqCode compete for priority with names validly published under the ICNP after January 2022 [9, 11]. The SeqCode operates via the SeqCode Registry (https://seqco.de/), an online platform to centralize, validate, and compile information about taxon names, etymology, sequences, and publications (Fig. 1).

Although the SeqCode is not recognized by the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology (IJSEM) [12] and some concerns have been raised since its creation (e.g. lessening the importance of isolating pure cultures, thereby indirectly restricting the bioresource use of prokaryotes) [13], the SeqCode has started to be widely embraced by microbial ecologists, taxonomists, journals, and established resources. For example, the International Society for Microbial Ecology (ISME) supports and hosts the SeqCode initiative (https://www.isme-microbes.org/seqcode-initiative), and the Genomes Online Database (GOLD) has stated its plans to incorporate the nomenclature regulated by the SeqCode [14]. In addition, some subgroups of the ICSP have recognized and supported the use of the SeqCode; for instance, the Subcommittees of Chlamydiae, Rhizobia, and Agrobacteria [15, 16]. However, these subcommittees are not independent of the ICSP and can only consider taxon names as valid if they have been validly published under ICNP.

At present, the SeqCode is governed by a committee (https://seqco.de/committee) composed of different commissions, working groups, and an Executive Board that ensure the suitable use of this nomenclature system. In addition, these bodies promote the adoption and community engagement of the SeqCode via online sign-up forms (https://seqco.de/join), social media (e.g. Twitter/X; @seq_code), Slack, scientific publications, meetings, and outreach activities [17]. Recently, a SeqCode prize (https://seqco.de/prize) was created to recognize significant advances in prokaryotic systematics using the SeqCode. Social media promotion (e.g. Twitter/X) is an effective way to engage the community. This can be utilized more by the committee to increase the adoption of the SeqCode. Up to April 2024, ~100 articles (in Google Scholar) had cited the SeqCode paper [9], reflecting the impact and relevance of this alternative code of prokaryotic nomenclature.

Pro et contra of the SeqCode

Several arguments have been depicted against the use of genomes as nomenclatural types, for instance, genomes are not error free, they can evolve, and they do not contain all the information about the physiology, morphology, and ecology of the entire prokaryotic organism [18, 19]. This is supported by the fact that many prokaryotic genes are uncharacterized and do not have a functional annotation. However, an in-depth and accurate analysis of genomes can potentially inform some functional traits and phenotypic signatures of prokaryotic taxa. Currently, specific bioinformatic tools can provide information about functional traits based on genome sequences and (meta)transcriptomics data (e.g. microTrait and TbasCO) [20, 21]. These approaches can deepen our understanding of the ecological roles, metabolic processes, and adaptive strategies of prokaryotes in diverse ecosystems, generating valuable information for targeted cultivation. Here, the question becomes: to what extent is a comprehensive functional description needed to validate prokaryotic taxon names using genomes? In accordance with other scientists [11, 22], we concur that prokaryotic genomes are extremely useful for species circumscriptions, for unambiguously identifying a taxon, and for suitable nomenclatural types in systematics.

The discussions about unifying (or not) the ICNP and the SeqCode are in progress. However, these two nomenclature codes are still incompatible. Recently, a new proposal to integrate Candidatus names in the ICNP was published, which included a very critical point of view about the implementation and use of the SeqCode [19]. In this proposal, the authors state that the SeqCode will generate instability, ambiguity, and confusion in prokaryotic systematics. In addition, they questioned the SeqCode’s representativeness [19]. In contrast, supporters of the SeqCode have criticized Rule 30 in the ICNP [7]. Most of them are brought about due to the known issues in the isolation and cultivation of many prokaryotic taxa, the high financial cost associated with deposition and maintenance of pure cultures, and the barriers to fulfill this rule in countries where legislation does not support the exportation of biological material [8, 9, 11, 22]. In this regard, we predict that many researchers who have trouble exporting axenic cultures will decide to use the SeqCode for the validation of taxon names. As an example, a novel species of the genus Fictibacillus isolated from Brazilian Amazon dark soils [23] was validated using the SeqCode instead of ICNP (https://seqco.de/r:yknhgrq2). In the same way, seven names of novel Mesorhizobium species, isolated from root nodules of Vachellia karroo in South Africa, were validated via the SeqCode Registry [24]. Overall, these different points of view—pros and cons—reflect the ongoing discussion among microbiologists concerning this topic.

Use of the SeqCode to date

Currently, two paths can be followed to validate novel taxon names via the SeqCode Registry: (i) registration of unpublished taxon names and independent peer review and (ii) registration of existing taxon names (e.g. Candidatus) from published studies. A third path will be implemented with partner journals, including integration of the SeqCode registration and peer review process [9, 11]. These three paths are only methodological and all valid names via SeqCode will have the same significance.

The earliest adopters of the SeqCode (via path 1) reported two novel bacterial taxa (Pristimantibacillus lignocellulolyticus gen. nov., sp. nov., and Ochrobactrum gambitense sp. nov.) using single-contig MAGs obtained from the metagenome of a minimal lignocellulolytic microbial consortium [25] (Fig. 1). This reduced community was derived from a complex bacterial consortium (named T6) via the dilution-to-stimulation/extinction method. The Andean soil-derived T6 consortium was also subjected to further studies leading to the descriptions of other novel bacterial taxa, including Andeanibacterium colombiense gen. nov., sp. nov., and 14 novel species, which were validated using the SeqCode Registry [26] (Fig. 1; Table 1). These two studies [25, 26] coincided with the startup of the SeqCode and exemplify the SeqCode Registry’s ability to validate the names of prokaryotic taxa in an easy, efficient, and timely way.

Table 1 List of example studies that have proposed and validly published novel taxon names under the SeqCode-after its publication in 2022 [9], including isolation sources, journals, number of taxon names, and registry accession links.

Year	Month	Isolation sources	Number of novel taxon names	SeqCode registry accession	Journal	Reference	
2022	September	Forest soil	3 new names including Pristimantibacillus gen. nov	seqco.de/r:xwx6hrsf	ISME Communications	[25]	
2023	March	Hot springs	4 new names including Panguiarchaeales ord. nov.	seqco.de/r:d51mzlo9	Cell Reports	[27]	
		Marine sediments and water	Blastopirellula sediminis sp. nov. *	seqco.de/r:du78m-se	Antonie van Leeuwenhoek	[28]	
		Various sources	Omnitrophus fodinae sp. nov. and Omnitrophus gen. nov.	seqco.de/r:d841ck02	Nature Microbiology	[29]	
	May	Saline Brines	3 names including Salinibacter pepae sp. nov.	seqco.de/r:b5vsvzg3	SAM Journal	[30]	
	June	Marine sediments, sponges, and saline soils	25 new names including Palauibacterales ord. nov.	seqco.de/r:0hkazsoc	mSystems	[31]	
	July	Various sources	42 new names including Binataceae fam. nov.	seqco.de/r:3yxqlvua	FEMS Microbiology Letters	[32]	
		Various sources	6 new names including Hadarchaeaceae fam. nov.	seqco.de/r:7ewkque5			
		Beetles gut	3 new names including Bostrichicola gen. nov.	seqco.de/r:vppriic7	The ISME Journal	[33]	
		Sponges	16 new names including Spongiisociales ord. nov.	seqco.de/r:v1sky3wb	SAM Journal	[34]	
	August	Human feces	Intestinicoccus colisanans gen. nov. sp. nov. *	seqco.de/r:tpd6ryk0	BMC Research Notes	[35]	
		Sediments	Bathyarchaeum tardum gen. nov., sp. nov. *	seqco.de/r:0qcnd580	Frontiers in Microbiology	[36]	
	September	Hot springs	4 new names including Pelearchaeum gen. nov.	seqco.de/r:-286wyu6	Frontiers in Microbiology	[37]	
		Mouse gut	Taurinivorans muris gen. nov. sp. nov. *	seqco.de/r:pzblpla3	Nature Communications	[38]	
	October	Soda lake and a terrestrial mud volcano	3 names including Methanocrinis harundinaceus gen. nov. sp. nov.	seqco.de/r:gyelqp06	Frontiers in Microbiology	[39]	
	November	Various sources	16 new names including Pantoea alvi sp. nov.	seqco.de/r:xfaladud	Frontiers in Microbiology	[40]	
		Various sources	6 new names including Sacchlamyda saccharinae sp. nov.	seqco.de/r:bsk8pkm4	SAM Journal	[41]	
	December	Rhizosphere	Nocardia canadensis sp. nov. *	seqco.de/r:4msicqid	Microorganisms	[42]	
	January	Sediments	3 new names including Electrothrix gen. nov.	seqcode.r:lmyvwfoa	SAM Journal	[43]	
2024		Forest soil	16 names including Andeanibacterium gen. nov	seqco.de/r:-kiq_w89	SAM Journal	[26]	
		Corals	Sororendozoicomonas aggregata sp. nov. *	seqco.de/r:oe5jqwk0	The ISME Journal	[44]	
	February	Human gut	18 new names including Enterococcus mansoni sp. nov.	seqco.de.r:csh66vwa	PNAS	[45]	
	March	Human gut	3 new names including Ruminococcus primaciens sp. nov.	seqco.de.r:636yhucc	Science	[46]	
	April	Groundwater	8 new names including Costitxia debesea sp. nov.	seqco.de.r:4u3eoyk5	SAM Journal	[47]	
*Cultivable microbial species; SAM, Systematic and Applied Microbiology; ISME, International Society for Microbial Ecology Journal.

In March 2023, the ubiquitous phylum Omnitrophota (one of the oldest and smallest types of bacteria) was highlighted in the first large-scale genomic analysis to utilize the SeqCode [29] (Fig. 1). In this study, 36 novel species and 4 classes (“Velamenicoccia,” “Omnitrophia,” “Gorgyraia,” and “Aquiviventia”) were reported and named [29]. All these novel taxonomic names will be validated once the Omnitrophus genus name is granted an exception (see below) for validation by the Executive Board of the SeqCode (https://seqco.de/r:d841ck02). The SeqCode has also been used to validate the names of archaeal taxa. For example, a novel order (Panguiarchaeales) was proposed based on MAGs derived from hot springs [27]. In addition, the names of several novel archaeal genera (e.g. Wolframiiraptor, Pelearchaeum, Methanocrinis, Calditenuis, and Bathyarchaeum) have been validated using the SeqCode Registry [36, 37, 39, 48] (Table 1). In July 2023, 49 names for GTDB-defined higher prokaryotic taxa (based on 23 genomes designated as types) were proposed and validated through the SeqCode Registry [32] (Table 1). In addition, a comprehensive analysis of Pantoea genomes [40] allowed the identification of novel species whose names were validated under the SeqCode (Fig. 1; Table 1). Up to March 2024 (when this perspective was developed), 221 prokaryotic taxon names have been validated via the SeqCode Registry, including nine new orders (e.g. Palauibacterales from marine sediments) [31], 16 families (e.g. Spongiisociaceae from sponges) [34], 60 genera (e.g. Sororendozoicomonas from corals) [44], and 122 species (e.g. Salinibacter pampae from saline brines) [30] (Table 1). Most of these names were validated through path 1, and others were previously designated as Candidatus (e.g. Macondimonas from oil-contaminated sediments and Elulimicrobium from freshwater) [49, 50]. Because the SeqCode allows validation of the names of cultivated and/or not-yet-cultivated taxa, we predict that these numbers will increase exponentially in the coming years. To exemplify this, from March 2024 to April 2024, around 123 prokaryotic taxa names were validated via SeqCode Registry. A complete list of validly published names can be found on the SeqCode Registry platform.

In 2023, studies validating novel taxon names using the SeqCode were published mostly in journals, such as Systematic and Applied Microbiology (SAM), ISMEJ, and Frontiers in Microbiology (Table 1). Some studies have mentioned the use of the SeqCode (e.g. [51–54]), but registry links were not found, and their reported taxon names are probably under validation process. From our point of view, the inclusion of these links must be required in the manuscripts that use the SeqCode. Accordingly, journals that choose to adopt or incorporate the SeqCode can append this requirement in the author guidelines. The National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) is now providing links to the available SeqCode Registry lists on its taxonomy pages (e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?id=3056650&mode=info). Moreover, the online platform of the SeqCode Registry is easy to navigate and user-friendly. However, it would be very helpful if the name list and/or register list included (as an additional field) the path number used for taxon names validation and source of those species (e.g. axenic cultures, MAGs, or both). Although the path number does not affect the status of the names, this would facilitate upcoming metadata analyses and enable efficient searching of taxon names by linking them to paths, sources, and studies.

Genomes features

In brief, to validate species names via the SeqCode Registry, several requirements must be followed, e.g. use of high-quality genomes (i.e. >90% complete and <5% contamination), genome read coverage ≥10X for isolates, availability of the assemblies in INSDC (The International Nucleotide Sequence Database Collaboration) databases, evidence of species uniqueness, and correctly formed name and etymology [9, 11] (Fig. 1). Although lower-quality genomes (e.g. higher-contaminated) could be useful as nomenclatural types [55], keep these high standards ensuring unambiguous taxa identification, a proper functional annotation of the nomenclatural genomes, and makes the SeqCode a more robust system.

The completeness of a genome is commonly determined by detecting the presence and copy number of universal or taxon-specific sets of marker genes, e.g. as implemented in the ubiquitously used CheckM software [56] or MiGA [57]. However, novel prokaryotic taxa with reduced genomes could lack some of these marker genes, affecting their completeness percentages. Fortunately, some recent machine learning methods (i.e. CheckM2) could overcome this limitation [58]. In this regard, SeqCode curators would consider low genome completeness values in particular cases. In June 2023, a public discussion (https://github.com/seq-code/seqcode/discussions/2) was conducted on the use of an incomplete genome (~70% complete) to validate the name Omnitrophus fodinae under the SeqCode. After several months of discussion between the reconciliation commission, the executive board, and the scientific community, this exception was granted to retain the nomenclature of the entire phylum and the name Omnitrophota (https://seqco.de/r:6keafw8d). These types of cases must be treated with caution, and proper public discussions are advocated to generate useful arguments for the final decision by the reconciliation commission. Moreover, the SeqCode developers recommend high genome integrity (i.e. contig no. < 100; N50 > 25 kilobases (kb); largest contig > 100 kb) for nomenclatural types. With recent advances in long-read DNA sequencing technologies (e.g. PacBio and Oxford Nanopore), many single-contig MAGs will be used for new taxon descriptions, as exemplified by a recent study [26]. The SeqCode developers also recommend avoiding descriptions of novel taxa based on single high-quality MAGs derived from a single sample [9]. This may ensure the nonchimeric origin of the genomes. However, in some cases, obtaining more than one biological replicate poses a challenge, for instance when acquiring fecal samples from an individual or a particular specimen.

In January 2023, the editors of the journal SAM described the minimum requirements for new taxon descriptions under the SeqCode and ICNP [59]. The SeqCode recommends an agreement between the genome and 16S rRNA gene taxonomic assignments [9]. This recommendation is a mandatory rule in the journal SAM. However, 16S rRNA gene sequences are often missing from fragmented MAGs because of their conserved nucleotide composition and multiple copies [60]. This issue must be considered by the SeqCode committee and other prospective partner journals that will incorporate the SeqCode (i.e. via path 3). Additionally, we noticed some mismatches between the quality criteria suggested by the SeqCode developers and the SAM journal. For instance, MAGs read coverage ≥10X and the presence of the 16S rRNA gene (at least 75%) are required in the SAM journal to publish novel taxon names under the SeqCode [59]. These features are suggested by the SeqCode developers, but they are not mandatory [9]. At this point, some questions remain unanswered. For example: (i) Which additional journals will adopt the SeqCode? (ii) Will the requirements suggested by the SeqCode developers be the same as those adopted for partner journals? (iii) Will it be necessary to create a specialized journal for this purpose?

Species circumscription

To validate the name of novel prokaryotic taxa under the SeqCode, it is essential to provide clear evidence of the species’ uniqueness, including its taxonomic rank and position [9]. There still is no clear prokaryotic species concept that is agreed upon, yet major progress has been made through systematics and genome analyses [61]. In this regard, it is widely accepted that genomes sharing average nucleotide identity (ANI) values >95% belong to the same species, and those with average amino acid identity (AAI) values <65% can be assigned to novel genera or even higher taxonomic ranks [62]. Furthermore, digital DNA–DNA hybridization (dDDH) values <70% can support these thresholds [60, 63]. From our experience, MiGA [57] and TYGS [64] are user-friendly online platforms that can provide genomic relatedness indexes (e.g. ANI, AAI, and dDDH) useful for species circumscription. Additionally, to confirm the uniqueness of prokaryotic species (as well as for higher taxa), a monophyletic origin is required. In this scenario, to accurately determine the taxonomic placement of putative novel MAGs, the use of phylogenetic reconstructions based on concatenated single-copy marker genes or core proteins (e.g. those generated using GTDB-Tk v2 [65] or PhyloPhlAn 3.0 [66]), is commonly performed. Recently, Riesco and Trujillo [63], have discussed thresholds to delimitate new species and genera based on genomic relatedness indexes and phylogenomic trees, updating minimal standards for the use of genomes in the taxonomy of prokaryotes.

Name formation

As mentioned above, a name must be formed according to the rules with an appropriate etymology to be considered for validation. In the SeqCode, the use of Latin is mandatory and can facilitate its compatibility with ICNP [9, 11]. This requirement can be a drawback for many microbiologists lacking proper Latin skills. Fortunately, a function of the SeqCode Registry and nomenclature group is to provide advice to those needing assistance in forming Latin names for novel taxa. The SeqCode curators are also authorized to correct any typographical or orthographical errors during validation, similar to the IJSEM practice [10]. This procedure can ensure an accurate name and etymology, thereby avoiding mistakes and retractions in taxon names. Recently, the SeqCode developers have listed simple rules for creating Latin prokaryotic taxon names [11]. However, if hundreds or thousands of new prokaryotic names are validated under the SeqCode, it is unclear how curators will keep pace. Automation inside the SeqCode Registry will be very useful to tackle this issue. In this regard, the use of an automatic generator of taxon names (called GAN) [67] and other tools (e.g. protologger) [68] could facilitate the description of novel taxa, providing helpful information (e.g. names, etymology, and ecological features) to write taxon protologues [11, 69]. Moreover, a crucial consideration is that if a Candidatus name for the taxon already exists, an attempt should be made to keep the name as much as possible, even if it is not required under the rules of the SeqCode. This will improve communication, leading to a more stable nomenclature.

New era for prokaryotic taxon discovery

A comprehensive catalog of MAGs from different microbiomes revealed that thousands of microbial species are waiting to be discovered [70]. In this context, we predict that recent advances in long-read DNA sequencing technologies, cultivation methods, computational tools, and the SeqCode initiative will kick-start the upcoming golden era of microbial taxon discovery and prokaryotic systematics. This will open new possibilities for understanding microbial dark matter, expanding our knowledge of prokaryotic diversity and function (Fig. 1). In this regard, some approaches will boost the discovery of novel prokaryotic taxa from environmental microbiomes. For example: (i) in situ explorations (using deployable DNA extraction and sequencing technologies) can provide a real-time overview of microbial communities, avoiding biases associated with sample storage and transportation [71]; (ii) ex situ perturbation experiments (e.g. microcosms) can reshape the original microbial communities, increasing the chance to detect novel species; (iii) the design of top-down selective approaches (e.g. enrichment cultures) can generate microbial systems with specific types of prokaryotes that would be difficult to detect directly in nature [26, 72]; (iv) the use of single-cell sequencing and mini/midi metagenomics can enable the recovery of unseen microbial populations [73, 74]; (v) the use of innovative cultivation techniques (e.g. in situ devices) [75], genome-scale metabolic models and culturomics [76] can improve the isolation of yet-uncultivated species; and (vi) hybrid assemblies between long-read and short-read DNA sequencing data can improve the recovery of high-quality MAGs, allowing analysis at the intraspecific or strain level [77, 78]. In this new era, innovative bioinformatics tools will facilitate the analysis of large-scale genomic datasets, allowing microbiologists to infer phylogenetic relationships and taxonomic placements with unprecedented accuracy. Overall, the use of genome sequences as type material to create and validate taxon names will shape and revolutionize future research in prokaryotic systematics. In this sense, the SeqCode will be essential in upcoming microbiome studies, and its broad acceptance can improve the communication between microbiologists.

Future of the SeqCode in prokaryotic systematics

For the benefit of the scientific community, we hope that the SeqCode and ICNP can be merged to avoid confusion in nomenclature and instability. In this regard, the recent proposal to integrate Candidatus names into the ICNP [19] can be a starting point. In fact, this proposal is similar to what the steering committee of the SeqCode wanted to achieve initially. The SeqCode is partially compatible with the ICNP in many aspects [11]. This compatibility can be very helpful for creating unified taxonomies of cultivated and not-yet-cultivated prokaryotes. Given that genome sequences are available for most type strains, the merging of SeqCode and INCP could be effortless. From our opinion, the proposal to include Candidatus names in the INCP is still confusing and does not address the central issue of providing an equal nomenclatural standing for cultivated and not-yet-cultivated prokaryotic taxa. All the significant aims of this proposal [19] can be achieved by recognizing the SeqCode in the ICNP. In the case that both codes cannot merge, effective communication is necessary to ensure non-ambiguity in taxon names validated by genomes and those validated by pure cultures. The simplest way to ensure harmony between the codes is for ICNP to recognize validly published SeqCode names, as SeqCode already does for ICNP names. In this regard, it is demonstrated that both codes can work in parallel [30]. Finally, it remains unclear how the SeqCode will be funded, self-sustained or self-supported in the coming years, and if the users or institutions will need to pay fees to use it. In any case, only time will tell what will be the future of the prokaryotic systematics and the SeqCode in this predicted golden age of taxa discovery.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dr. Maria Chuvochina for her relevant comments and feedback about the original version of this manuscript. In addition, we thank Adam Barno for his comments, checking grammar and syntax.

Author contributions

Diego Javier Jiménez conceived the idea, wrote the original draft, and the final version of the manuscript. Alexandre Soares Rosado contributed to text editing, providing his opinion about the entire idea and the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final version of the article.

Conflicts of interest

None declared.

Funding

We also thank King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) for the financial support under baseline BAS/1/1096-01-01 linked to Professor Alexandre S. Rosado.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.
==== Refs
References

1. Nouioui  I, Sangal  V. Advanced prokaryotic systematics: the modern face of an ancient science. New Microbes New Infect  2022;49-50 :101036. 10.1016/j.nmni.2022.101036 36425013
2. Lloyd  KG, Steen  AD, Ladau  J  et al.  Phylogenetically novel uncultured microbial cells dominate earth microbiomes. mSystems  2018;3 :e00055–18. 10.1128/mSystems.00055-18 30273414
3. Steen  AD, Crits-Christoph  A, Carini  P  et al.  High proportions of bacteria and archaea across most biomes remain uncultured. ISME J  2019;13 :3126–30. 10.1038/s41396-019-0484-y 31388130
4. Murray  AE, Freudenstein  J, Gribaldo  S  et al.  Roadmap for naming uncultivated archaea and bacteria. Nat Microbiol  2020;5 :987–94. 10.1038/s41564-020-0733-x 32514073
5. Whitman  WB . Modest proposals to expand the type material for naming of prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol  2016;66 :2108–12. 10.1099/ijsem.0.000980 26902077
6. Sutcliffe  IC, Dijkshoorn  L, Whitman  WB  et al.  Minutes of the international committee on systematics of prokaryotes online discussion on the proposed use of gene sequences as type for naming of prokaryotes, and outcome of vote. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol  2020;70 :4416–7. 10.1099/ijsem.0.004303 32628106
7. Oren  A, Arahal  DR, Göker  M  et al.  International code of nomenclature of prokaryotes. Prokaryotic code (2022 revision). Int J Syst Evol Microbiol  2023;73 . 10.1099/ijsem.0.005585
8. Whitman  WB, Chuvochina  M, Hedlund  BP  et al.  Development of the SeqCode: a proposed nomenclatural code for uncultivated prokaryotes with DNA sequences as type. Syst Appl Microbiol  2022;45 :126305. 10.1016/j.syapm.2022.126305 36049255
9. Hedlund  BP, Chuvochina  M, Hugenholtz  P  et al.  SeqCode: a nomenclatural code for prokaryotes described from sequence data. Nat Microbiol  2022;7 :1702–8. 10.1038/s41564-022-01214-9 36123442
10. Whitman  WB, Hedlund  BP, Palmer  M  et al.  Request for public discussion and ballot to amend SeqCode rules on priority of Candidatus names and correction of typographic and orthographic errors. ISME Commun  2023;3 :96. 10.1038/s43705-023-00303-y 37709936
11. Whitman  WB, Chuvochina  M, Hedlund  BP  et al.  Why and how to use the SeqCode. mLife  2024;3 :1–13. 10.1002/mlf2.12092 38827511
12. Göker  M, Moore  ERB, Oren  A  et al.  Status of the SeqCode in the international journal of systematic and evolutionary microbiology. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol  2022;72 . 10.1099/ijsem.0.005754
13. Zhou  LW . Microbial taxonomy with DNA sequence data as nomenclatural type: how far should we go?  The Innovation Life  2023;1 :100017. 10.59717/j.xinn-life.2023.100017
14. Mukherjee  S, Stamatis  D, Li  CT  et al.  Twenty-five years of Genomes OnLine Database (GOLD): data updates and new features in v.9. Nucleic Acids Res  2023;51 :D957–63. 10.1093/nar/gkac974 36318257
15. Greub  G, Pillonel  T, Bavoil  PM  et al.  Use of gene sequences as type for naming prokaryotes: recommendations of the international committee on the taxonomy of chlamydiae. New Microbes New Infect  2023;54 :101158. 10.1016/j.nmni.2023.101158 37416863
16. Mousavi  SA, Young  JPW. International committee on systematics of prokaryotes subcommittee on the taxonomy of rhizobia and agrobacteria. Minutes of the closed annual meeting: videoconference on 11 October 2022 followed by online discussion until 31 December 2022. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol  2023;73 . 10.1099/ijsem.0.005856
17. Sutcliffe  IC, Rodriguez-R  LM, Venter  SN  et al.  Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? A call for community participation in the governance of the SeqCode. Syst Appl Microbiol  2024;47 :126498. 10.1016/j.syapm.2024.126498 38442686
18. Overmann  J, Huang  S, Nübel  U  et al.  Relevance of phenotypic information for the taxonomy of not-yet-cultured microorganisms. Syst Appl Microbiol  2019;42 :22–9. 10.1016/j.syapm.2018.08.009 30197212
19. Arahal  D, Bisgaard  M, Christensen  H  et al.  The best of both worlds: a proposal for further integration of Candidatus names into the international code of nomenclature of prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol  2024;74 . 10.1099/ijsem.0.006188
20. Karaoz  U, Brodie  EL. microTrait: a toolset for a trait-based representation of microbial genomes. Front Bioinform  2022;2 :918853. 10.3389/fbinf.2022.918853 36304272
21. McDaniel  EA, van Steenbrugge  JJM, Noguera  DR  et al.  TbasCO: trait-based comparative 'omics identifies ecosystem-level and niche-differentiating adaptations of an engineered microbiome. ISME Commun  2022;2 :111. 10.1038/s43705-022-00189-2 37938301
22. Palmer  M, Sutcliffe  I, Venter  SN  et al.  It is time for a new type of type to facilitate naming the microbial world. New Microbes New Infect  2022;47 :100991. 10.1016/j.nmni.2022.100991 35800027
23. Pellegrinetti  TA, de Cássia Mesquita da Cunha  I, Chaves  MG  et al.  Genomic insights of Fictibacillus terranigra sp. nov., a versatile metabolic bacterium from Amazonian dark earths. Braz J Microbiol  2024;55 :1817–28. 10.1007/s42770-024-01268-3 38358421
24. van Lill  M, Venter  SN, Muema  EK  et al.  SeqCode facilitates naming of South African rhizobia left in limbo. Syst Appl Microbiol  2024;47 :126504. 10.1016/j.syapm.2024.126504 38593622
25. Díaz Rodríguez  CA, Díaz-García  L, Bunk  B  et al.  Novel bacterial taxa in a minimal lignocellulolytic consortium and their potential for lignin and plastics transformation. ISME Commun  2022;2 :89. 10.1038/s43705-022-00176-7 37938754
26. Díaz-García  L, Chuvochina  M, Feuerriegel  G  et al.  Andean soil-derived lignocellulolytic bacterial consortium as a source of novel taxa and putative plastic-active enzymes. Syst Appl Microbiol  2023;47 :126485. 10.1016/j.syapm.2023.126485 38211536
27. Qu  YN, Rao  YZ, Qi  YL  et al.  Panguiarchaeum symbiosum, a potential hyperthermophilic symbiont in the TACK superphylum. Cell Rep  2023;42 :112158. 10.1016/j.celrep.2023.112158 36827180
28. Sreya  PK, Gaurav  K, Ahmed  S  et al.  Blastopirellula sediminis sp. nov. a new member of Pirellulaceae isolated from the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek  2023;116 :463–75. 10.1007/s10482-023-01818-z 36867270
29. Seymour  CO, Palmer  M, Becraft  ED  et al.  Hyperactive nanobacteria with host-dependent traits pervade Omnitrophota. Nat Microbiol  2023;8 :727–44. 10.1038/s41564-022-01319-1 36928026
30. Viver  T, Conrad  RE, Lucio  M  et al.  Description of two cultivated and two uncultivated new Salinibacter species, one named following the rules of the bacteriological code: Salinibacter grassmerensis sp. nov.; and three named following the rules of the SeqCode: Salinibacter pepae sp. nov., Salinibacter abyssi sp. nov., and Salinibacter pampae sp. nov. Syst Appl Microbiol  2023;46 :126416. 10.1016/j.syapm.2023.126416 36965279
31. Aldeguer-Riquelme  B, Antón  J, Santos  F. Distribution, abundance, and ecogenomics of the Palauibacterales, a new cosmopolitan thiamine-producing order within the Gemmatimonadota phylum. mSystems  2023;8 :e0021523. 10.1128/msystems.00215-23 37345931
32. Chuvochina  M, Mussig  AJ, Chaumeil  PA  et al.  Proposal of names for 329 higher rank taxa defined in the genome taxonomy database under two prokaryotic codes. FEMS Microbiol Lett  2023;370 :fnad071. 10.1093/femsle/fnad071 37480240
33. Kiefer  JST, Bauer  E, Okude  G  et al.  Cuticle supplementation and nitrogen recycling by a dual bacterial symbiosis in a family of xylophagous beetles. ISME J  2023;17 :1029–39. 10.1038/s41396-023-01415-y 37085551
34. Nguyen  VH, Wemheuer  B, Song  W  et al.  Identification, classification, and functional characterization of novel sponge-associated acidimicrobiial species. Syst Appl Microbiol  2023;46 :126426. 10.1016/j.syapm.2023.126426 37141831
35. Zhou  J, Boyd  JA, Nyeverecz  B  et al.  Draft genome sequence of two "Candidatus Intestinicoccus colisanans" strains isolated from faeces of healthy humans. BMC Res Notes  2023;16 :174. 10.1186/s13104-023-06447-3 37592350
36. Khomyakova  MA, Merkel  AY, Mamiy  DD  et al.  Phenotypic and genomic characterization of Bathyarchaeum tardum gen. nov., sp. nov., a cultivated representative of the archaeal class Bathyarchaeia. Front Microbiol  2023;14 :1214631. 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1214631 37675420
37. Balbay  MG, Shlafstein  MD, Cockell  C  et al.  Metabolic versatility of Caldarchaeales from geothermal features of Hawai'i and Chile as revealed by five metagenome-assembled genomes. Front Microbiol  2023;14 :1216591. 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1216591 37799600
38. Ye  H, Borusak  S, Eberl  C  et al.  Ecophysiology and interactions of a taurine-respiring bacterium in the mouse gut. Nat Commun  2023;14 :5533. 10.1038/s41467-023-41008-z 37723166
39. Khomyakova  MA, Merkel  AY, Slobodkin  AI  et al.  Phenotypic and genomic characterization of the first alkaliphilic aceticlastic methanogens and proposal of a novel genus Methanocrinis gen. nov. within the family Methanotrichaceae. Front Microbiol  2023;14 :1233691. 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1233691 37886072
40. Crosby  KC, Rojas  M, Sharma  P  et al.  Genomic delineation and description of species and within-species lineages in the genus Pantoea. Front Microbiol  2023;14 :1254999. 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1254999 38029109
41. Davison  HR, Hurst  GDD. Hidden from plain sight: novel Simkaniaceae and Rhabdochlamydiaceae diversity emerging from screening genomic and metagenomic data. Syst Appl Microbiol  2023;46 :126468. 10.1016/j.syapm.2023.126468 37847957
42. Alotaibi  F, Lee  SJ, Lahrach  Z  et al.  Draft genome of Nocardia canadensis sp. nov. isolated from petroleum-hydrocarbon-contaminated soil. Microorganisms  2023;11 :2972. 10.3390/microorganisms11122972
43. Plum-Jensen  LE, Schramm  A, IPG  M. First single-strain enrichments of Electrothrix cable bacteria, description of E. aestuarii sp. nov. and E. rattekaaiensis sp. nov., and proposal of a cable bacteria taxonomy following the rules of the SeqCode. Syst Appl Microbiol  2024;47 :126487. 10.1016/j.syapm.2024.126487 38295603
44. Maire  J, Tsang Min Ching  SJ, Damjanovic  K  et al.  Tissue-associated and vertically transmitted bacterial symbiont in the coral Pocillopora acuta. ISME J  2024;18 :wrad027. 10.1093/ismejo/wrad027
45. Schwartzman  JA, Lebreton  F, Salamzade  R  et al.  Global diversity of enterococci and description of 18 previously unknown species. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A  2024;121 :e2310852121. 10.1073/pnas.2310852121 38416678
46. Moraïs  S, Winkler  S, Zorea  A  et al.  Cryptic diversity of cellulose-degrading gut bacteria in industrialized humans. Science  2024;383 :eadj9223. 10.1126/science.adj9223 38484069
47. Gago  JF, Viver  T, Urdiain  M  et al.  Metagenomics of two aquifers with thermal anomalies in Mallorca Island, and proposal of new uncultivated taxa named following the rules of SeqCode. Syst Appl Microbiol  2024;47 :126506. 10.1016/j.syapm.2024.126506 38640749
48. Buessecker  S, Palmer  M, Lai  D  et al.  An essential role for tungsten in the ecology and evolution of a previously uncultivated lineage of anaerobic, thermophilic archaea. Nat Commun  2022;13 :3773. 10.1038/s41467-022-31452-8 35773279
49. Karthikeyan  S, Rodriguez-R  LM, Heritier-Robbins  P  et al.  "Candidatus Macondimonas diazotrophica", a novel gammaproteobacterial genus dominating crude-oil-contaminated coastal sediments. ISME J  2019;13 :2129–34. 10.1038/s41396-019-0400-5 30952995
50. Rodriguez-R  LM, Tsementzi  D, Luo  C  et al.  Iterative subtractive binning of freshwater chronoseries metagenomes identifies over 400 novel species and their ecologic preferences. Environ Microbiol  2020;22 :3394–412. 10.1111/1462-2920.15112 32495495
51. Rao  YZ, Li  YX, Li  ZW  et al.  Metagenomic discovery of "Candidatus Parvarchaeales"-related lineages sheds light on adaptation and diversification from neutral-thermal to acidic-mesothermal environments. mSystems  2023;8 :e0125222. 10.1128/msystems.01252-22 36943058
52. Hochart  C, Paoli  L, Ruscheweyh  HJ  et al.  Ecology of Endozoicomonadaceae in three coral genera across the Pacific Ocean. Nat Commun  2023;14 :3037. 10.1038/s41467-023-38502-9 37264015
53. Liu  Y, Brinkhoff  T, Berger  M  et al.  Metagenome-assembled genomes reveal greatly expanded taxonomic and functional diversification of the abundant marine Roseobacter RCA cluster. Microbiome  2023;11 :265. 10.1186/s40168-023-01644-5 38007474
54. Buessecker  S, Chadwick  GL, Quan  ME  et al.  Mcr-dependent methanogenesis in Archaeoglobaceae enriched from a terrestrial hot spring. ISME J  2023;17 :1649–59. 10.1038/s41396-023-01472-3 37452096
55. Mussig  AJ, Chaumeil  PA, Chuvochina  M  et al.  Putative genome contamination has minimal impact on the GTDB taxonomy. Microb Genom  2024;10 . 10.1099/mgen.0.001256
56. Parks  DH, Imelfort  M, Skennerton  CT  et al.  CheckM: assessing the quality of microbial genomes recovered from isolates, single cells, and metagenomes. Genome Res  2015;25 :1043–55. 10.1101/gr.186072.114 25977477
57. Rodriguez-R  LM, Gunturu  S, Harvey  WT  et al.  The microbial genomes atlas (MiGA) webserver: taxonomic and gene diversity analysis of archaea and bacteria at the whole genome level. Nucleic Acids Res  2018;46 :W282–8. 10.1093/nar/gky467 29905870
58. Chklovski  A, Parks  DH, Woodcroft  BJ  et al.  CheckM2: a rapid, scalable and accurate tool for assessing microbial genome quality using machine learning. Nat Methods  2023;20 :1203–12. 10.1038/s41592-023-01940-w 37500759
59. Rosselló-Móra  R, Konstantinidis  KT, Amann  R. How systematic and applied microbiology will deal with two nomenclature codes (ICNP and SeqCode) for prokaryotes, and which classification standards are recommended for new taxa descriptions. Syst Appl Microbiol  2023;46 :126371. 10.1016/j.syapm.2022.126371 36428164
60. Song  W, Zhang  S, Thomas  T. MarkerMAG: linking metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) with 16S rRNA marker genes using paired-end short reads. Bioinformatics  2022;38 :3684–8. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btac398 35713513
61. Jain  C, Rodriguez-R  LM, Phillippy  AM  et al.  High throughput ANI analysis of 90K prokaryotic genomes reveals clear species boundaries. Nat Commun  9 :5114. 10.1038/s41467-018-07641-9
62. Konstantinidis  KT, Rosselló-Móra  R, Amann  R. Uncultivated microbes in need of their own taxonomy. ISME J  2017;11 :2399–406. 10.1038/ismej.2017.113 28731467
63. Riesco  R, Trujillo  ME. Update on the proposed minimal standards for the use of genome data for the taxonomy of prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol  2024;74 :006300. 10.1099/ijsem.0.006300 38512750
64. Meier-Kolthoff  JP, Göker  M. TYGS is an automated high-throughput platform for state-of-the-art genome-based taxonomy. Nat Commun  2019;10 :2182. 10.1038/s41467-019-10210-3 31097708
65. Chaumeil  PA, Mussig  AJ, Hugenholtz  P  et al.  GTDB-Tk v2: memory friendly classification with the genome taxonomy database. Bioinformatics  2022;38 :5315–6. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btac672 36218463
66. Asnicar  F, Thomas  AM, Beghini  F  et al.  Precise phylogenetic analysis of microbial isolates and genomes from metagenomes using PhyloPhlAn 3.0. Nat Commun  2020;11 :2500. 10.1038/s41467-020-16366-7 32427907
67. Pallen  MJ, Telatin  A, Oren  A. The next million names for archaea and bacteria. Trends Microbiol  2021;29 :289–98. 10.1016/j.tim.2020.10.009 33288384
68. Hitch  TCA, Riedel  T, Oren  A  et al.  Automated analysis of genomic sequences facilitates high-throughput and comprehensive description of bacteria. ISME Commun  2021;1 :16. 10.1038/s43705-021-00017-z 36732617
69. Oren  A . Naming new taxa of prokaryotes in the 21st century. Can J Microbiol  2023;69 :151–7. 10.1139/cjm-2022-0266 36852830
70. Nayfach  S, Roux  S, Seshadri  R  et al.  A genomic catalog of Earth's microbiomes. Nat Biotechnol  2021;39 :499–509. 10.1038/s41587-020-0718-6 33169036
71. Wood  JM, Urbaniak  C, Parker  C  et al.  Assessing microbial diversity in Yellowstone National Park hot springs using a field deployable automated nucleic acid extraction system. Front Ecol Evol  2024;12 :12. 10.3389/fevo.2024.1306008
72. Pinheiro  Y, Faria da Mota  F, Peixoto  RS  et al.  A thermophilic chemolithoautotrophic bacterial consortium suggests a mutual relationship between bacteria in extreme oligotrophic environments. Commun Biol  2023;6 :230. 10.1038/s42003-023-04617-4 36859706
73. Yu  FB, Blainey  PC, Schulz  F  et al.  Microfluidic-based mini-metagenomics enables discovery of novel microbial lineages from complex environmental samples. elife  2017;6 :e26580. 10.7554/eLife.26580 28678007
74. Vollmers  J, Correa Cassal  M, Kaster  AK. “Midi-metagenomics”: a novel approach for cultivation independent microbial genome reconstruction from environmental samples  bioRxiv. 2023.01.26.525644. 10.1101/2023.01.26.525644
75. Modolon  F, Schultz  J, Duarte  G  et al.  In situ devices can culture the microbial dark matter of corals. iScience  2023;26 :108374. 10.1016/j.isci.2023.108374 38162026
76. Huang  Y, Sheth  RU, Zhao  S  et al.  High-throughput microbial culturomics using automation and machine learning. Nat Biotechnol  2023;41 :1424–33. 10.1038/s41587-023-01674-2 36805559
77. Bertrand  D, Shaw  J, Kalathiyappan  M  et al.  Hybrid metagenomic assembly enables high-resolution analysis of resistance determinants and mobile elements in human microbiomes. Nat Biotechnol  2019;37 :937–44. 10.1038/s41587-019-0191-2 31359005
78. Gounot  JS, Chia  M, Bertrand  D  et al.  Genome-centric analysis of short and long read metagenomes reveals uncharacterized microbiome diversity in southeast Asians. Nat Commun  2022;13 :6044. 10.1038/s41467-022-33782-z 36229545
