4.1 Article

Diversity and Hidden Host Specificity of Chytrids Infecting Colonial Volvocacean Algae

期刊

JOURNAL OF EUKARYOTIC MICROBIOLOGY
卷 65, 期 6, 页码 870-881

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jeu.12632

关键词

Chytridiomycota; Dangeardia mamillata; Endocoenobium eudorinae; fungal parasites; life cycle; phytoplankton

资金

  1. IGB Postdoc Fellowship
  2. German Research Foundation (DFG) [347469280]
  3. Leibniz SAW project Mycolink
  4. JSPS KAKENHI [JP15KK0026, JP16H02943]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chytrids are zoosporic fungi that play an important, but yet understudied, ecological role in aquatic ecosystems. Many chytrid species have been morphologically described as parasites on phytoplankton. However, the majority of them have rarely been isolated and lack DNA sequence data. In this study we isolated and cultivated three parasitic chytrids, infecting a common volvocacean host species, Yamagishiella unicocca. To identify the chytrids, we characterized morphology and life cycle, and analyzed phylogenetic relationships based on 18S and 28S rDNA genes. Host range and specificity of the chytrids was determined by cross-infection assays with host strains, characterized by rbcL and ITS markers. We were able to confirm the identity of two chytrid strains as Endocoenobium eudorinae Ingold and Dangeardia mamillata Schroder and described the third chytrid strain as Algomyces stechlinensis gen. et sp. nov. The three chytrids were assigned to novel and phylogenetically distant clades within the phylum Chytridiomycota, each exhibiting different host specificities. By integrating morphological and molecular data of both the parasitic chytrids and their respective host species, we unveiled cryptic host-parasite associations. This study highlights that a high prevalence of (pseudo)cryptic diversity requires molecular characterization of both phytoplankton host and parasitic chytrid to accurately identify and compare host range and specificity, and to study phytoplankton-chytrid interactions in general.

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

4.1
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