4.5 Article

Asexual and sexual morphs of Moesziomyces revisited

期刊

IMA FUNGUS
卷 8, 期 1, 页码 117-129

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.5598/imafungus.2017.08.01.09

关键词

ecology; evolution; phylogeny; plant pathogens; pleomorphic fungi; Ustilaginomycotina; yeast

类别

资金

  1. LOEWE of the excellence cluster for Integrative Fungal Research (IPF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Yeasts of the now unused asexually typified genus Pseudozyma belong to the smut fungi (Ustilaginales) and are mostly believed to be apathogenic asexual yeasts derived from smut fungi that have lost pathogenicity on plants. However, phylogenetic studies have shown that most Pseudozyma species are phylogenetically close to smut fungi parasitic to plants, suggesting that some of the species might represent adventitious isolations of the yeast morph of otherwise plant pathogenic smut fungi. However, there are some species, such as Moesziomyces aphidis (syn. Pseudozyma aphidis) that are isolated throughout the world and sometimes are also found in clinical samples and do not have a known plant pathogenic sexual morph. In this study, it is revealed by phylogenetic investigations that isolates of the biocontrol agent Moesziomyces aphidis are interspersed with M. bullatus sexual lineages, suggesting conspecificity. This raises doubts regarding the apathogenic nature of asexual morphs previously placed in Pseudozyma, but suggests that there might also be pathogenic sexual morph counterparts for those species known only from asexual morphs. The finding that several additional species currently only known from their yeast morphs are embedded within the genus Moesziomyces, suggests that the yeast morph might play a more dominant role in this genus as compared to other genera of Ustilaginaceae. In addition, phylogenetic reconstructions demonstrated that Moesziomyces bullatus has a narrow host range and that some previously described but not widely used species names should be applied for Moesziomyces on other host genera than Echinochloa.

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