4.4 Article

Liebetanzomyces polymorphus gen. et sp nov., a new anaerobic fungus (Neocallimastigomycota) isolated from the rumen of a goat

期刊

MYCOKEYS
卷 -, 期 40, 页码 89-110

出版社

PENSOFT PUBL
DOI: 10.3897/mycokeys.40.28337

关键词

Anaerobe; fungal diversity; novel genus; phylogeny; rumen fungi; taxonomy

类别

资金

  1. Department of Biotechnology (DBT) [BT/PR15694/PBD/26/506/2015]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An extended incubation strategy to culture slow growing members of anaerobic fungi resulted in the isolation of a novel anaerobic fungus from the rumen of a goat after 15 days. The novel genus, represented by type strain G1SC, showed filamentous monocentric thallus development and produced uniflagellate zoospores, hence, showing morphological similarity to the genera Piromyces, Buwchfawromyces, Oontomyces and Pecoramyces. However, strain G1SC showed genetic similarity to the genus Anaeromyces, which, though produces uniflagellate zoospore, also exhibits polycentric thallus development. Moreover, unlike Anaeromyces, strain G1SC did not show hyphal constrictions, instead produced a branched, determinate and anucleate rhizoidal system. This fungus also displayed extensive sporangial variations, both exogenous and endogenous type of development, short and long sporangiophores and produced septate sporangia. G1SC utilised various complex and simple substrates, including rice straw and wheat straw and produced H-2, CO2, formate, acetate, lactate, succinate and ethanol. Phylogenetic analysis, using internal transcribed spacer 1 (ITS1) and D1/D2 domain of large-subunit (LSU) rRNA locus, clearly showed a separate lineage for this strain, near Anaeromyces. The ITS1 based geographical distribution studies indicated detection of environmental sequences similar (93-96%) to this strain from cattle faeces. Based on morphological and molecular characterisation results of strain G1SC, we propose a novel anaerobic fungus Liebetanzomyces polymorphus gen. et sp. nov., in the phylum Neocallimastigomycota.

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

4.4
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