4.6 Article

Preliminary Insights into the Phylogeography of Six Aquatic Hyphomycete Species

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 7, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0045289

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Regional Development Fund - Operational Competitiveness Programme (FEDER-POFC-COMPETE)
  2. Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology
  3. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  4. [PEst-C/BIA/UI4050/2011]
  5. [PTDC/AAC-AMB/113746/2009]
  6. [SFRH/BPD/47574/2008]
  7. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BPD/47574/2008, PTDC/AAC-AMB/113746/2009] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aquatic hyphomycetes occur worldwide on a wide range of plant substrates decomposing in freshwaters, and are known to play a key role in organic matter turnover. The presumed worldwide distribution of many aquatic hyphomycete species has been based on morphology-based taxonomy and identification, which may overlook cryptic species, and mask global-scale biogeographical patterns. This might be circumvented by using DNA sequence data. The internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region from rDNA was recently designated as the most suitable barcode for fungal identification. In this study, we generated ITS barcodes of 130 isolates belonging to 6 aquatic hyphomycete species (Anguillospora filiformis, Flagellospora penicillioides, Geniculospora grandis, Lunulospora curvula, Tetrachaetum elegans and Tricladium chaetocladium), and collected from streams of Southwest Europe (86 isolates) and East Australia (44 isolates). European and Australian populations of 4 species (A. filiformis, F. penicillioides, G. grandis and T. elegans) grouped into different clades, and molecular diversity indices supported significant differentiation. Continents did not share haplotypes, except for T. chaetocladium. Overall results show substantial population diversity for all tested species and suggests that the biogeography of aquatic hyphomycetes may be species-specific.

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

4.6
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