Apiospora oenotherae
Notice: | This page is derived from the original publication listed below, whose author(s) should always be credited. Further contributors may edit and improve the content of this page and, consequently, need to be credited as well (see page history). Any assessment of factual correctness requires a careful review of the original article as well as of subsequent contributions.
If you are uncertain whether your planned contribution is correct or not, we suggest that you use the associated discussion page instead of editing the page directly. This page should be cited as follows (rationale):
Citation formats to copy and paste
BibTeX: @article{Li2023MycoKeys99, RIS/ Endnote: TY - JOUR Wikipedia/ Citizendium: <ref name="Li2023MycoKeys99">{{Citation See also the citation download page at the journal. |
Ordo: Xylariales
Familia: Apiosporaceae
Genus: Apiospora
Name
Apiospora oenotherae S.J. Li & C.M. Tian sp. nov. – Wikispecies link – Pensoft Profile
Type
China, Yunnan Province, Lincang City Triangle Plum Garden, on diseased leaves of Oenothera biennis, 26 April 2022, S.J. Li, holotype BJFC-S1919, ex-type living cultures CFCC 58972, LS 395.
Etymology
Named after the host from which it was isolated.
Description
Asexual morph: Hyphae hyaline, branched, septate, 1.2–4.8 µm in diam. (n = 20). Conidiophores reduced to conidiogenous cells. Conidiogenous cells smooth, ampulliform to doliiform, 2.0–14.2 × 1.1–4.9 µm, mean (± SD): 5.4 (± 2.9) × 3.1 (± 1.1) µm (n = 50). Conidia globose, subglobose to lenticular, with a longitudinal germ slit, occasionally elongated to ellipsoidal, colourless to dark brown, smooth to finely roughened, 6.6–13.9 × 5.5–10.1 µm, mean (± SD): 8.9 (± 1.2) × 7.8 (± 1.1) µm, L/W = 1.0–1.5 (n = 50). Sexual morph: Undetermined.
Culture characteristics
On PDA, colonies thick, concentrically spreading with aerial mycelium, circular, margin irregular, yellow to pale green pigment diffused into medium, surface with aerial mycelia, the reverse lightly pigmented with a few dark yellow patches, mycelia white to grey, sporulation occurs after 10 days, reaching 9 cm in 7 days at 25 °C.
Notes
Apiospora oenotherae belongs to the large clade, where it shows a relationship with A. gaoyouense, A. hispanicum, A. locuta-pollinis, A. longistroma, A. marii, A. mediterranei, A. piptatheri and A. pseudomarii (Fig. 1), but differs in distinct morphological characters (Table 3) and nucleotide differences (Table 5). A. oenotherae differs from A. gaoyouense by its production of significantly conidiogenous cells (2.0–14.2 × 1.1–4.9 µm vs. 1–2 × 2–3 μm) (from Phragmites australis; collected in China; Jiang et al. (2018)[1]) and the presence of 30 distinct nucleotide positions (9/583 in ITS, 12/413 in tef1, 9/784 in tub2). A. oenotherae is distinct from A. hispanicum in producing larger conidial cells (6.6–13.9 × 5.5–10.1 µm vs. 7.5–8.5 × 6.2–7.6 µm) (from maritime sand; collected in Spain; Larrondo and Calvo (1992)[2]) and in 30 nucleotides differences (1/539 in ITS, 1/320 in LSU, 28/796 in tub2). A. oenotherae differs from A. locuta-pollinis by its production of significantly conidiogenous cells (2.0–14.2 × 1.1–4.9 µm vs. 3–7.5 × 3–6 μm) (from hive-stored pollen; collected in China; Zhao et al. (2018)[3]) and by the presence of 19 distinct nucleotide positions (1/539 in ITS, 7/416 in tef1, 11/485 in tub2). A. longistroma can be distinguished by growth rate, growing slowly on PDA, reaching 60 mm in 4 weeks (from bamboo; collected in Thailand; Dai et al. (2017)[4]) and by the presence of 8 distinct nucleotide positions (6/572 in ITS, 2/840 in LSU). Moreover, A. mari produces elongated cells intermingled amongst conidia (from beach sand; collected in Spain; Crous and Groenewald (2013)[5]), but A. oenotherae does not and can be distinguished by the presence of 23 distinct nucleotide positions (1/539 in ITS, 10/414 in tef1, 12/787 in tub2). Strains of A. mediterranei were isolated from pharmaceutical excipient, air-borne and on grass in Spain, while those of A. oenotherae collected from Oenothera biennis in China. There are no discernible morphological characters distinguishing these species, but the elongated stem branches and the presence of 30 distinct nucleotide positions (1/539 in ITS, 1/320 in LSU, 28/796 in tub2) serve as clear indicators of their distinct and phylogenetically well-separated taxa. A. oenotherae differs from A. piptatheri because of its wider conidial cells (6.6–13.9 × 5.5–10.1 µm vs. 6–8 × 3–5 μm) (from Piptatherum miliaceum; collected in Spain; Pintos et al. (2019)[6]) and the presence of 14 distinct nucleotide positions (10/528 in ITS, 4/827 in LSU). It also differentiates from A. pseudomarii through the production of notably wider conidial cells (6.6–13.9 × 5.5–10.1 µm vs. 6–9 × 4.5–6 µm) and through 12 unique nucleotide positions (5/556 in tef1, 7/416 in tub2) (from Aristolochia debilis; collected in China; Chen et al. (2021)[7]).
Taxa | Loci | Nucleotides difference without gaps | Rates of base pair differences |
---|---|---|---|
A. gaoyouense | ITS | 9/583 (9, 10, 22, 36, 533, 535, 544, 555, 557) | 1.54% |
tef1 | 12/413 (34, 48, 56, 57, 69, 90, 122, 129, 134, 170, 226, 228) | 2.91% | |
tub2 | 9/784 (538, 760, 766, 767, 768, 771, 775, 781, 782) | 1.15% | |
A. hispanicum | ITS | 1/539 (528) | 0.19% |
LSU | 1/320 (13) | 0.31% | |
tub2 | 28/796 (30, 186, 539, 761, 766, 767, 768, 769, 770, 771, 772, 773, 774, 775, 776, 777, 778, 779, 780, 781, 782, 783, 784, 785, 786, 787, 792, 794) | 3.52% | |
A. locuta-pollinis | ITS | 1/539 (528) | 0.19% |
tef1 | 7/416 (33, 38, 94, 173, 177, 212, 258) | 1.68% | |
tub2 | 11/485 (237, 459, 465, 466, 467, 470, 474, 480, 481, 483, 485) | 2.27% | |
A. longistroma | ITS | 6/572 (20, 30, 38, 177, 213, 530) | 1.05% |
LSU | 2/840 (655, 825) | 0.24% | |
A. marii | ITS | 1/539 (528) | 0.19% |
tef1 | 10/414 (35, 49, 57, 58, 91, 123, 135, 171, 227, 229) | 2.42% | |
tub2 | 12/787 (30, 186, 539, 761, 767, 768, 769, 772, 776, 782, 783, 785, 787) | 1.52% | |
A. mediterranei | ITS | 1/539 (528) | 0.19% |
LSU | 1/320 (13) | 0.31% | |
tub2 | 28/796 (30, 186, 539, 761, 766, 767, 768, 769, 770, 771, 772, 773, 774, 775, 776, 777, 778, 779, 780, 781, 782, 783, 784, 785, 786, 787, 792, 794) | 3.52% | |
A. piptatheri | ITS | 10/528 (30, 38, 142, 177, 182, 213, 420, 421, 430, 431) | 1.89% |
LSU | 4/827 (417, 431, 480, 632) | 0.48% | |
A. pseudomarii | ITS | 5/556 (425, 528, 541, 560, 561) | 0.90% |
tef1 | 7/416 (33, 38, 94, 173, 177, 212, 258) | 1.68% | |
tub2 | 1/718 (520) | 0.14% |
Original Description
- Li, S; Peng, C; Yuan, R; Tian, C; 2023: Morphological and phylogenetic analyses reveal three new species of Apiospora in China MycoKeys, 99: 297-317. doi
Images
|
Other References
- ↑ Jiang N, Li J, Tian C (2018) Arthrinium species associated with bamboo and reed plants in China.Fungal Systematics and Evolution13: 217–229. https://doi.org/10.3114/fuse.2018.02.01
- ↑ Larrondo J, Calvo M (1992) New contributions to the study of the genus Arthrinium.Mycologia84(3): 475–478. https://doi.org/10.1080/00275514.1992.12026164
- ↑ Zhao Y, Zhang Z, Cai L, Peng W, Liu F (2018) Four new filamentous fungal species from newly-collected and hive-stored bee pollen.Mycosphere: Journal of Fungal Biology9(6): 1089–1116. https://doi.org/10.5943/mycosphere/9/6/3
- ↑ Dai D, Phookamsak R, Wijayawardene N, Li W, Bhat D, Xu J, Taylor J, Hyde K, Chukeatirote E (2017) Bambusicolous fungi.Fungal Diversity82(1): 1–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-016-0367-8
- ↑ Crous P, Groenewald J (2013) A phylogenetic re-evaluation of Arthrinium.IMA Fungus4(1): 133–154. https://doi.org/10.5598/imafungus.2013.04.01.13
- ↑ Pintos Á, Alvarado P, Planas J, Jarling R (2019) Six new species of Arthrinium from Europe and notes about A. caricicola and other species found in Carex spp. hosts.MycoKeys49: 15–48. https://doi.org/10.3897/mycokeys.49.32115
- ↑ Chen T, Zhang Y, Ming X, Zhang Q, Long H, Hyde K, Li Y, Wang Y (2021) Morphological and phylogenetic resolution of Arthrinium from medicinal plants in Yunnan, including A. cordylines and A. pseudomarii spp. nov.Mycotaxon136(1): 183–199. https://doi.org/10.5248/136.183