4.2 Article

Multilocus molecular phylogenetic-led discovery and formal recognition of four novel root-colonizing Fusarium species from northern Kazakhstan and the phylogenetically divergent Fusarium steppicola lineage

Journal

MYCOLOGIA
Volume 115, Issue 1, Pages 16-31

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/00275514.2022.2119761

Keywords

CaM; genealogical concordance phylogenetic species recognition (GCPSR); morphology; RPB1; RPB2; sporodochial conidia; TEF1; 4 new taxa

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, DNA sequencing was used to identify and characterize 290 Fusarium strains isolated from root-colonizing endophytic fungi in northern Kazakhstan. A total of 16 different Fusarium species were identified, including eight known species, four novel species, and a phylogenetically divergent lineage F. steppicola. New species were described based on molecular phylogenetic and morphological analyses.
In this study, DNA sequence data were used to characterize 290 Fusarium strains isolated during a survey of root-colonizing endophytic fungi of agricultural and nonagricultural plants in northern Kazakhstan. The Fusarium collection was screened for species identity using partial translation elongation factor 1-alpha (TEF1) gene sequences. Altogether, 16 different Fusarium species were identified, including eight known and four novel species, as well as the discovery of the phylogenetically divergent F. steppicola lineage. Isolates of the four putatively novel fusaria were further analyzed phylogenetically with a multilocus data set comprising partial sequences of TEF1, RNA polymerase II largest (RPB1) and second-largest (RPB2) subunits, and calmodulin (CaM) to assess their genealogical exclusivity. Based on the molecular phylogenetic and comprehensive morphological analyses, four new species are formally described herein: F. campestre, F. kazakhstanicum, F. rhizicola, and F. steppicola.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available