4.5 Article

Phylogenetic relationships and virulence assays of Fusarium secorum from sugar beet suggest a new look at species designations

Journal

PLANT PATHOLOGY
Volume 68, Issue 9, Pages 1654-1662

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ppa.13082

Keywords

Fusarium commune; Fusarium oxysporum f; sp; betae; Fusarium secorum; fusarium yellowing decline; fusarium yellows

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Fusarium spp. are responsible for significant yield losses in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) with Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. betae most often reported as the primary causal agent. Recently, a new species, F. secorum, was reported to cause disease in sugar beet but little is known on the range of virulence within F. secorum or how this compares to the virulence and phylogenetic relationships previously reported for Fusarium pathogens of sugar beet. To initiate this study, partial translation elongation factor 1-alpha (TEF1) sequences from seven isolates of F. secorum were obtained and the data were added to a previously published phylogenetic tree that includes F. oxysporum f. sp. betae. Unexpectedly, the F. secorum strains nested into a distinct group that included isolates previously reported as F. oxysporum f. sp. betae. These results prompted an expanded phylogenetic analysis of TEF1 sequences from genomes of publicly available Fusarium spp., resulting in the additional discovery that some isolates previously reported as F. oxysporum f. sp. betae are F. commune, a species that is not known to be a sugar beet pathogen. Inoculation of sugar beet with differing genetic backgrounds demonstrated that all Fusarium strains have a significant range in virulence depending on cultivar. Taken together, the data suggest that F. secorum is more widespread than previously thought. Consequently, future screening for disease resistance should rely on isolates representing the full diversity of the Fusarium population that impacts sugar beet.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available