4.5 Article

Metschnikowia cf. typographi and other pathogens from the bark beetle Ips sexdentatus - Prevalence, histological and ultrastructural evidence, and molecular characterization

Journal

JOURNAL OF INVERTEBRATE PATHOLOGY
Volume 143, Issue -, Pages 69-78

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jip.2016.11.015

Keywords

Six-spined engraver beetle; Yeast; Entomopathogenic fungus; Transmission electron microscopy; Ultrastructure; Molecular characters

Categories

Funding

  1. Scientific and Technological Cooperation programme Austria-Poland by Universitat fur Bodenkultur Wien (Austria) [PL 09/2009]
  2. Siedlce University of Natural Sciences and Humanities (Poland)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ips sexdentatus (six-spined engraver beetle) from Austria and Poland were dissected and examined for the presence of pathogens. Specimens collected in Austria were found to contain the ascomycetous fungus Metschnikowia cf. typographi. Infection rates ranged from 3.6% to 26.8% at different collection sites. M. cf. typographi infected midguts were investigated by histological, ultrastructural and molecular techniques. Extraordinary ultrastructural details are shown, such as ascospores with bilateral flattened flanks resembling alar rims at both sides of their attenuating tube-like ends. These have not yet been described in other yeast species. Molecular investigations showed a close phylogenetic relationship to the fungi Metschnikowia agaves and Candida wanchemiae. Presence of the entomopathogenic fungus Beauveria bassiana found in Austria was confirmed both morphologically and molecularly. The eugregarine Gregarina typographi was diagnosed most frequently. Infection rates of all I. sexdentatus specimens ranged from 21.4% to 71.9% in Austria and 54.1% to 68.8% in Poland. Other entomopathogenic protists, bacteria, or viruses were not detected. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available