4.3 Article

The use of flow cytometry for fungal nuclear DNA quantification

期刊

CYTOMETRY PART A
卷 99, 期 4, 页码 343-347

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cyto.a.24335

关键词

DNA standards; flow cytometry; genome size; mycology; nuclear extraction

资金

  1. Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia [FCT/UID/AGR/04129/2020, FCT/UIDB/04004/2020, PTDC/BIAMIC/1716/2014]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Information on fungal genome sizes is limited, but flow cytometry is now seen as the best method for measuring genome sizes rapidly and affordably. Fungal genome sizes vary across phylogeny and may be influenced by evolution towards plant mutualism or parasitism. The use of flow cytometry in fungal biology is still not widespread, but this article aims to promote its more generalized use.
Genome size information is sparse across fungi, with information being available for less than 2000 species. So far, most records have been obtained using static, microscope-based cytometry methods or derived from genome sequencing projects. Flow cytometry is now considered the state-of-the-art method for obtaining genome size measurements, and appropriate methods and DNA standards are available, enabling the analysis of most genome size ranges in a rapid, robust and inexpensive way. The average fungal genome size is 60 Mbp, but sizes vary across phylogeny, ranging from 2.2 (Encephalitozoon romaleae) to 3706 Mbp (Jafnea semitosta). In several fungal clades, genome size expansion seems to accompany evolution either to plant mutualism or to plant parasitism (particularly biotrophy), and fungi that interact with plants seem to have larger genomes than saprobes and those that interact with animals. Whereas flow cytometry for nuclear DNA quantification is routinely employed in plant sciences for genome size and ploidy studies, its use in fungal biology is still infrequent. Appropriate standards, methods and best practices are described here, with the aim of stimulating a more generalized and widespread use of flow cytometry for fungal genome size measurement.

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

4.3
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