4.4 Article

The diversity of the pathogenic Oomycete (Aphanomyces astaci) chitinase genes within the genotypes indicate adaptation to its hosts

Journal

FUNGAL GENETICS AND BIOLOGY
Volume 49, Issue 8, Pages 635-642

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.fgb.2012.05.014

Keywords

Chitinase; Aphanomyces astaci; Genotype; Genetic diversity

Funding

  1. Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
  2. Finnish Cultural Foundation North Savo Regional Fund
  3. Innovative Research Initiatives
  4. University of Eastern Finland

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this work was to evaluate the genetic diversity of the crayfish plague pathogen Aphanomyces astaci (Oomycete) among different isolates and genotypes. Partial chitinase genes were cloned and sequenced from 28 A. astaci isolates including four of the five previously identified RAPD (random amplification of polymorphic DNA)-genotypes. The cloned chitinase sequences (n = 176) formed three main groups, CHI1. CHI2 and CHI3, with the CHI2 group then further divided into three subgroups, CHI2A, CHI2B and CHI2C. Some of these chitinases were specific for certain genotypes of A. astaci, as CHI2B and CHI2C were only found from the As-genotype and CHI3 from the Ps-genotypes of A. astaci. Highest diversity rate was observed in the CHI2 group, while the CHI3 group specific for Ps-genotypes was highly homologous. Based on our chitinase data, As- and Pc-genotypes seem to be related, while the two Ps-genotypes were identical to each other, but considerably different from the genotypes As and Pc. These are the first genotype specific differences that are located in the coding region of the chitinase gene of A. astaci and the differences observed here also enable the genotyping of A. astaci. The diversity observed here can also reflect differences in the epidemiological properties of the different genotypes. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available