4.5 Article

Species or Genotypes? Reassessment of Four Recently Described Species of the Ceratocystis Wilt Pathogen, Ceratocystis fimbriata, on Mangifera indica

期刊

PHYTOPATHOLOGY
卷 105, 期 9, 页码 1229-1244

出版社

AMER PHYTOPATHOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1094/PHYTO-03-15-0065-R

关键词

pathogen diversity; population biology; species concepts

资金

  1. Vale
  2. CNPq
  3. FAPEMIG
  4. CAPES

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ceratocystis wilt is among the most important diseases on mango (Mangifera indica) in Brazil, Oman, and Pakistan. The causal agent was originally identified in Brazil as Ceratocystis fimbriata, which is considered by some as a complex of many cryptic species, and four new species on mango trees were distinguished from C. fimbriata based on variation in internal transcribed spacer sequences. In the present study, phylogenetic analyses using DNA sequences of mating type genes, TEF-1 alpha, and beta-tubulin failed to identify lineages corresponding to the four new species names. Further, mating experiments found that the mango isolates representing the new species were interfertile with each other and a tester strain from sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas), on which the name C. fimbriata is based, and there was little morphological variation among the mango isolates. Microsatellite markers found substantial differentiation among mango isolates at the regional and population levels, but certain microsatellite genotypes were commonly found in multiple populations, suggesting that these genotypes had been disseminated in infected nursery stock. The most common microsatellite genotypes corresponded to the four recently named species (C. manginecans, C. acaciivora, C. mangicola, and C. mangivora), which are considered synonyms of C. fimbriata. This study points to the potential problems of naming new species based on introduced genotypes of a pathogen, the value of an understanding of natural variation within and among populations, and the importance of phenotype in delimiting species.

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

4.5
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