4.5 Article

Whole Genome Sequencing and Comparative Genomics of Indian Isolates of Wheat Spot Blotch Pathogen Bipolaris sorokiniana Reveals Expansion of Pathogenicity Gene Clusters

期刊

PATHOGENS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pathogens12010001

关键词

Bipolaris sorokiniana; CAZyme; comparative genomics; spot blotch; whole genome sequencing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the genomes of 12 isolates of Bipolaris sorokiniana collected from wheat fields in India and found that the isolate D2 had the highest virulence and a larger genome with an expanded arsenal of pathogenicity genes, which may contribute to its higher virulence among the tested isolates.
Spot blotch is a highly destructive disease in wheat caused by the fungal pathogen Bipolaris sorokiniana (teleomorph, Cochliobolus sativus). It is prevalent in warm and humid areas, including Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the USA. In the present study, twelve isolates of B. sorokiniana were collected from wheat fields in three different geographical locations in India. The pathogenicity of seven sporulating isolates was assessed on 'DDK 1025', a spot blotch-susceptible wheat variety under greenhouse conditions. The isolate 'D2' illustrated the highest virulence, followed by 'SI' and 'BS52'. These three isolates were sequenced using the Illumina HiSeq1000 platform. The estimated genome sizes of the isolates BS52, D2, and SI were 35.19 MB, 39.32 MB, and 32.76 MB, with GC contents of 48.48%, 50.43%, and 49.42%, respectively. The numbers of pathogenicity genes identified in BS52, D2, and SI isolates were 2015, 2476, and 2018, respectively. Notably, the isolate D2 exhibited a relatively larger genome with expanded arsenals of Biosynthetic Gene Clusters (BGCs), CAZymes, secretome, and pathogenicity genes, which could have contributed to its higher virulence among the tested isolates. This study provides the first comparative genome analysis of the Indian isolates of B. sorokiniana using whole genome sequencing.

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