4.5 Article

Generic boundaries in the Ophiostomatales reconsidered and revised

期刊

STUDIES IN MYCOLOGY
卷 -, 期 101, 页码 57-+

出版社

CENTRAALBUREAU SCHIMMELCULTURE
DOI: 10.3114/sim.2022.101.02

关键词

Generic boundaries; new taxa; nomenclature; Ophiostomataceae; Ophiostomatales; Sordariomycetidae; taxonomy

类别

资金

  1. Tree Protection Cooperative Programme (TPCP)
  2. DST/NRF Centre of Excellence in Plant Health Biotechnology (CPHB), South Africa
  3. Fibre Processing & Manufacturing Sector Education and Training Authority (FP&M SETA) bursary programme
  4. South African Research Chairs Initiative (SARChI)
  5. Brenda Wingfield's SARChI Chair in Fugal Genetics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Ophiostomatales is a group of fungi that cause plant and human diseases and have associations with insects. This study used DNA-based methods to redefine the genera within the Order and discovered new genera. The findings contribute to the classification knowledge of Ophiostomatales and resolve some nomenclatural issues.
The Ophiostomatales was erected in 1980. Since that time, several of the genera have been redefined and others have been described. There are currently 14 accepted genera in the Order. They include species that are the causal agents of plant and human diseases and common associates of insects such as bark beetles. Well known examples include the Dutch elm disease fungi and the causal agents of sporotrichosis in humans and animals. The taxonomy of the Ophiostomatales was confused for many years, mainly due to the convergent evolution of morphological characters used to delimit unrelated fungal taxa. The emergence of DNA-based methods has resolved much of this confusion. However, the delineation of some genera and the placement of various species and smaller lineages remains inconclusive. In this study we reconsidered the generic boundaries within the Ophiostomatales. Aphylogenomic framework constructed from genome-wide sequence data for 31 species representing the major genera in the Order was used as a guide to delineate genera. This framework also informed our choice of the best markers from the currently most commonly used gene regions for taxonomic studies of these fungi. DNA was amplified and sequenced for more than 200 species, representing all lineages in the Order. We constructed phylogenetic trees based on the different gene regions and assembled a concatenated data set utilising a suite of phylogenetic analyses. The results supported and confirmed the delineation of nine of the 14 currently accepted genera, i.e. Aureovirgo, Ceratocystiopsis, Esteya, Fragosphaeria, Graphilbum, Hawksworthiomyces, Ophiostoma, Raffaelea and Sporothrix. The two most recently described genera, Chsysosphaeria and Intubia, were not included in the multi-locus analyses. This was due to their high sequence divergence, which was shown to result in ambiguous taxonomic placement, even though the results of phylogenomic analysis supported their inclusion in the Ophiostomatales. In addition to the currently accepted genera in the Ophiostomatales, well-supported lineages emerged that were distinct from those genera. These are described as novel genera. Two lineages included the type species of Grosmannia and Dryadomyces and these genera are thus reinstated and their circumscriptions redefined. The descriptions of all genera in the Ophiostomatales were standardised and refined where this was required and 39 new combinations have been provided for species in the newly emerging genera and one new combination has been provided for Sporothrix. The placement of Afroraffaelea could not be confirmed using the available data and the genus has been treated as incertae sedis in the Ophiostomatales. Paleoambrosia was not included in this study, due to the absence of living material available for this monotypic fossil genus. Overall, this study has provided the most comprehensive and robust phylogenies currently possible for the Ophiostomatales. It has also clarified several unresolved One Fungus-One Name nomenclatural issues relevant to the Order.

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