4.6 Article

Deep Genotypic Species Delimitation of Aspergillus Section Flavi Isolated from Brazilian Foodstuffs and the Description of Aspergillus annui sp. nov. and Aspergillus saccharicola sp. nov.

期刊

JOURNAL OF FUNGI
卷 8, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jof8121279

关键词

coalescence-based; genealogical concordance; phylogenetic; genetic diversity; aflatoxin; taxonomy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to investigate the diversity of Aspergillus section Flavi in Brazilian foodstuffs and identified two new species, Aspergillus saccharicola sp. nov. and Aspergillus annui sp. nov. The findings highlight the importance of recognizing the biodiversity of this group in food for reducing health risks.
Aspergillus section Flavi is a fungal group that is important in food because it contains spoilage and potentially aflatoxigenic species. Aflatoxins are metabolites that are harmful to human and animal health and have been recognized as the primary natural contaminant in food. Therefore, recognizing the biodiversity of this group in food is necessary to reduce risks to public health. Our study aimed to investigate the diversity of Aspergillus section Flavi isolated from Brazilian foodstuffs such as cassava, sugarcane, black pepper, paprika, Brazil nuts, yerba-mate, peanuts, rice, and corn. A polyphasic approach integrating phenotypic data and multilocus genotypic analyses (CaM, BenA, and RPB2) was performed for 396 strains. Two new species in the Aspergillus subgenus Circumdati section Flavi are proposed using maximum-likelihood analysis, Bayesian inference, and coalescence-based methods: Aspergillus saccharicola sp. nov. and Aspergillus annui sp. nov. A. saccharicola sp. nov. belongs to the series Flavi, is a potentially aflatoxigenic species (B1, B2, G1, and G2), closely related to Aspergillus arachidicola, and was found mostly in sugarcane. A. annui sp. nov. was isolated from samples of sweet paprika. To accommodate A. annui sp. nov., a new series Annuorum was proposed.

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