4.1 Review

Molecular markers for genotyping anastomosis groups and understanding the population biology of Rhizoctonia species

期刊

JOURNAL OF GENERAL PLANT PATHOLOGY
卷 80, 期 5, 页码 401-407

出版社

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s10327-014-0536-0

关键词

Anastomosis groups; Microsatellite; Phylogeography; Rhizoctonia

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [16780032]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [16780032] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Soil-borne Rhizoctonia fungi cause serious diseases in several plant species. For the classification of these fungi, the number of nuclei in a hyphal cell and the anastomosis reaction are important criteria. Although Rhizoctonia spp. has a wide host range, the causal agents have been reported to be selective for host plant families or species and lead to severe disease. Reports of new diseases, particularly in new host plants, and severe damage in agricultural fields incurred by subdivided or newly found groups of Ceratobasidium and Waitea circinata (a varied teleomorph of Rhizoctonia) have been increasing in recent years. The food production environment is altering because of climate change, introduction of potential new host plants, and heavy use of chemicals that reduce microbial diversity. These changes favor the occurrence of new diseases incurred by undefined anastomosis groups (AGs) or subgroups of Rhizoctonia spp. On the basis of the phylogenetic relationships of AGs and subgroups in Rhizoctonia spp., molecular markers for discriminating the groups of the Rhizoctonia species complex have been developed. The application of genetic markers, in the form of microsatellites or simple sequence repeats (SSR), has become increasingly important in fungal genetics. The analyses of population genetics for Rhizoctonia spp. using SSR markers elucidated the modes of sexual and asexual reproduction, phylogeographical distributions, and global migrations associated with adaptation to agroecosystems.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据