4.5 Article

Black fungi and ants: a genomic comparison of species inhabiting carton nests versus domatia

Journal

IMA FUNGUS
Volume 13, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s43008-022-00091-5

Keywords

Black fungi; Carton fungi; Chaetothyriales; Comparative genomics

Categories

Funding

  1. 111 Project [D20009]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [81720108026, 32060034]
  3. International Science and Technology Cooperation Base of Guizhou Province [[2020]4101]
  4. Guizhou Scientific Plan Project [(2019) 2873]
  5. Talent Base Project of Guizhou Province, China [FCJD2018-22]
  6. Guizhou Provincial Academician Workstation of Microbiology and Health [[2020]4004]
  7. FWF [P 31990-B]
  8. CNPq, Brasilia, Brazil [312811/2018-7]
  9. Brazilian Federal Agency for Support and Evaluation of Graduate: Education Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel-CAPES/PRINT project

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, the genomes of two newly described carton species in Chaetothyriales were sequenced and compared with the genomes of related domatia species, aiming to explore the differences between these strains.
Some members of Chaetothyriales, an order containing potential agents of opportunistic infections in humans, have a natural habitat in nests of tropical arboreal ants. In these black fungi, two types of ant symbiosis are known, i.e. occurrence in domatia inside living plants, or as components of carton constructions made of ant-chewed plant tissue. In order to explain differences between strains from these types of association, we sequenced and annotated genomes of two newly described carton species, Incumbomyces lentus and Incumbomyces delicatus, and compared these with genomes of four domatia species and related Chaetothyriales. General genomic characteristics, CYP genes, carbohydrate-active enzymes (CAZymes), secondary metabolism, and sex-related genes were included in the study.

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