4.2 Article

Characterization of the ascomycetes Therrya fuckelii and T. pini fruiting on Scots pine branches in Nordic countries

Journal

MYCOLOGICAL PROGRESS
Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages 37-44

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11557-012-0813-2

Keywords

Rhytismatales; Endophytes; Therrya; Pinus sylvestris; Ribosomal DNA; Tryblidiopsis

Categories

Funding

  1. Norwegian forest and landscape institute

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The relative frequency of Therrya fuckelii and T. pini fruiting on dead branches of Scots pine was investigated in southern Norway by examining lightning-damaged and wind-fallen trees, randomly collected branches and Nordic herbarium collections of these ascomycetes representing the order Rhytismatales. Ascus, ascospore, and subhymenium characteristics were used as criteria for species identification, while a sequence analysis of ITS rDNA gene cluster was performed to compare the relatedness of the species to each other and to corresponding fungal sequences available at the NCBI GenBank Sequence Database. In a few cases, the two Therrya species co-occurred on the same branch, but in general, whether field or herbarium material, T. fuckelii was clearly more common than T. pini. Within the Nordic countries, both species occurred throughout the natural distribution area of Scots pine. The ITS rDNA sequence of T. pini strains was 91% similar to T. fuckelii strains, the differences locating both within the internal transcribed spacers ITS1 and ITS2 and the 5.8 S rDNA gene. More variation in the ITS1-5.8S-ITS2 sequence was observed among T. pini than T. fuckelii samples; genetic implications of this finding are discussed. Upon sequence analysis, we discovered that a T. pini sequence has been deposited in the NCBI GenBank under a false identity. We emphasize the importance of co-examining strains that originate from mature fruit bodies with fully developed morphologic features as reference samples.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available