4.2 Article

Sporothrix brunneoviolacea and Sporothrix dimorphospora, two new members of the Ophiostoma stenoceras-Sporothrix scherwkii complex

期刊

MYCOLOGIA
卷 102, 期 5, 页码 1193-1203

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.3852/09-320

关键词

Ascomycetes; Ophiostomatales; phylogeny; taxonomy

类别

资金

  1. Spanish Ministerio de Educacion y Ciencia [CGL-200765669, CGL 2008-04226, CGL 2009-08698/BOS]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sporothrix inflata is a saprobic member of the Ophiostoma stenoceras-Sporothrix schenckii species complex, reported mainly from soil. Ophiostoma bragantinum, an ascomycete described from Brazil, has been proposed as its possible teleomorph. Previous studies revealed that Sporothrix inflata is phenotypically and genetically variable, suggesting the existence of cryptic species. During a continued survey on the biodiversity of microfungi from different countries, seven isolates morphologically similar to S. inflata were obtained from soil samples collected in Spain and USA. In this study their phenotypic features and phylogenetic relationships were assessed. DNA sequence data of two nuclear loci revealed that these isolates correspond to two unnamed clades in S. inflata s.l., one of which also included the type strain of Humicola dimmphospora, a species that traditionally has been considered a synonym of S. inflata. These two groups are proposed herein as Sporothrix brunneoviolacea sp. nov. and Sporothrix dimmphospora comb. nov. S. brunneoviolacea is characterized phenotypically by the production of a diffusible violet-brown pigment in culture and mostly globose, pigmented, lateral blastoconidia. On the other hand S. dimorphospora lacks diffusible pigments and shows mostly subglobose to obovoid pigmented lateral blastoconidia. In contrast to the type strain of S. inflata S. brunneoviolacea and S. dimorphospora assimilate raffinose. The phylogenetic analysis suggested that the proposed anamorph-teleomorph connection between S. inflata and O. bragantinum might not be correct.

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

4.2
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