4.7 Article

Glomus, the largest genus of the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (Glomales), is nonmonophyletic

期刊

MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETICS AND EVOLUTION
卷 21, 期 2, 页码 190-197

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1006/mpev.2001.1007

关键词

arbuscular mycorrhiza; Glomales; Glozims; phylogeny; SSU rRNA; taxonomy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi form a widespread and ecologically important symbiosis with plants in the land ecosystem. The phylogeny of the largest presently accepted genus, Glomus, of the monogeneric family Glomaceae (Glomales; AM fungi) was analyzed. Phylogenetic trees were computed from nearly full-length SSU rRNA gene sequences of 30 isolates, and show that Glomus is not monophyletic. Even after the very recent separation of Archaeospora and Paraglomus from Glomus, the genus further separates into two suprageneric clades. One of them diverges further into two subclades, differing by phylogenetic distances equivalent to family level. The other, comprising Glomus versiforme, G. spurcum and a species morphologically similar to G. etunicatum, is not closely related to the Glomaceae, but clusters together with the Acaulosporaceae and Gigasporaceae in a monophyletic clade. Based on the molecular evidence, a new family, separate from the Glomaceae, is required to accommodate this group of organisms, initially named Diversisporaceae fam. ined. The current taxonomic concept of the recently erected family Archaeosporaceae also requires future emendation, because Geosiphon pyriformis (Geosiphonaceae) renders Archaeospora, the sole genus formally included in this family, paraphyletic. The suborders Gigasporineae and Glominaeae are not congruent with the natural phylogeny of the AM fungi. Our data necessitate a general reexamination of the generic concepts within the Glomales. In addition to the new family structure hypothesized herein, establishment of at least three new genera will be necessary in the future. (C) 2001 Academic Press.

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

4.7
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