4.5 Article

Generic hyper-diversity in Stachybotriaceae

期刊

PERSOONIA
卷 36, 期 -, 页码 156-246

出版社

RIJKSHERBARIUM
DOI: 10.3767/003158516X691582

关键词

biodegraders; generic concept; human and plant pathogens; indoor mycobiota; multi-gene phylogeny; species concept; taxonomy

类别

资金

  1. NWO Joint Scientific Thematic Research Programme - Joint Research Projects ALW [833.13.2005]
  2. long-term research development project of the Institute of Botany, Academy of Sciences [RVO 67985939]
  3. Belgian Federal Science Policy (BELSPO)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The family Stachybotriaceae was recently introduced to include the genera Myrothecium, Peethambara and Stachybotrys. Members of this family include important plant and human pathogens, as well as several species used in industrial and commercial applications as biodegraders and biocontrol agents. However, the generic boundaries in Stachybotriaceae are still poorly defined, as type material and sequence data are not readily available for taxonomic studies. To address this issue, we performed multi-locus phylogenetic analyses using partial gene sequences of the 28S large subunit (LSU), the internal transcribed spacer regions and intervening 5.8S nrRNA (ITS), the RNA polymerase II second largest subunit (rpb2), calmodulin (cmdA), translation elongation factor 1-alpha (tef1) and beta-tubulin (tub2) for all available type and authentic strains. Supported by morphological characters these data resolved 33 genera in the Stachybotriaceae. These included the nine already established genera Albosynnema, Alfaria, Didymostilbe, Myrothecium, Parasarcopodium, Peethambara, Septomyrothecium, Stachybotrys and Xepicula. At the same time the generic names Melanopsamma, Memnoniella and Virgatospora were resurrected. Phylogenetic inference further showed that both the genera Myrothecium and Stachybotrys are polyphyletic resulting in the introduction of 13 new genera with myrothecium-like morphology and eight new genera with stachybotrys-like morphology.

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