4.3 Article

The phylogenetic analysis of fungi associated with lichenized ascomycete genus Bryoria reveals new lineages in the Tremellales including a new species Tremella huuskonenii hyperparasitic on Phacopsis huuskonenii

期刊

FUNGAL BIOLOGY
卷 119, 期 9, 页码 844-856

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.funbio.2015.06.005

关键词

Endolichenic fungi; Host-specificity; Lichenicolous fungi; Secondary chemistry

类别

资金

  1. Academy of Finland [1133858]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The basidiomycete order Tremellales includes many species parasitic on or cohabiting with lichen-forming fungi. In this study, we examined the phylogenetic position of Tremellales obtained from Bryoria thalli using nSSU, 5.8S, and partial nLSU sequence data. Both Bayesian and maximum likelihood analyses revealed the presence of basidiomycetous fungi in three separate clades within Tremellales. Tremellales sp. A and Tremella sp. B exist asymptomatically in Bryoria thalli and should thus be regarded as endolichenic rather than lichenicolous fungi. The third lineage represents a new species and is described here as Tremella huuskonenii. It is hyperparasitic over galls induced by Phacopsis huuskonenii, a lichenicolous fungus growing in Bryoria thalli. We also examined the genetic diversity of Tremella sp. B and Tremella huuskonenii with an extended taxon sampling using ITS and partial nLSU sequence data. For comparison, ITS, GAPDH, and Mcm7 regions were used for phylogenetic analyses of the host lichen specimens. According to our results, phylogenetic structure within the two Tremella species does not appear to correlate with the geographic distribution nor with the phylogeny or the secondary chemistry of the host lichen. However, ITS haplotype analysis of T. huuskonenii revealed some genetic differences between European and North American populations as some haplotypes were more common in Europe than in North America and vice versa. (C) 2015 The British Mycological Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.3
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