4.5 Article

Tapping Culture Collections for Fungal Endophytes: First Genome Assemblies for Three Genera and Five Species in the Ascomycota

期刊

GENOME BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
卷 15, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/gbe/evad038

关键词

Ascomycota; culture collections; cytometric completeness; fungal endophytes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Ascomycota, the largest phylum in the fungal kingdom, exhibit diverse lifestyles, including associations with plants. This study focuses on the relatively understudied endophytic ascomycetes, which are asymptomatic inhabitants of plants. By sequencing and assembling genomes for 15 endophytic ascomycete strains and using phylogenetic analysis, the researchers refined the classification of taxa and provided valuable insights into plant-fungal interactions. They also demonstrated the importance of cytometric genome size estimates in assessing assembly completeness.
The Ascomycota form the largest phylum in the fungal kingdom and show a wide diversity of lifestyles, some involving associations with plants. Genomic data are available for many ascomycetes that are pathogenic to plants, but endophytes, which are asymptomatic inhabitants of plants, are relatively understudied. Here, using short- and long-read technologies, we have sequenced and assembled genomes for 15 endophytic ascomycete strains from CABI's culture collections. We used phylogenetic analysis to refine the classification of taxa, which revealed that 7 of our 15 genome assemblies are the first for the genus and/or species. We also demonstrated that cytometric genome size estimates can act as a valuable metric for assessing assembly completeness, which can easily be overestimated when using BUSCOs alone and has broader implications for genome assembly initiatives. In producing these new genome resources, we emphasise the value of mining existing culture collections to produce data that can help to address major research questions relating to plant-fungal interactions.

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