4.7 Article

Multigene analysis suggests ecological speciation in the fungal pathogen Claviceps purpurea

期刊

MOLECULAR ECOLOGY
卷 17, 期 9, 页码 2276-2286

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2008.03753.x

关键词

Claviceps; fungi; genealogy; genetic structure; speciation

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [R01 GM078985-02, R01 GM078985, R01 GM078985-01] Funding Source: Medline
  2. PHS HHS [R01 G 078985] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Claviceps purpurea is an important pathogen of grasses and source of novel chemical compounds. Three groups within this species (G1, G2 and G3) have been recognized based on habitat association, sclerotia and conidia morphology, as well as alkaloid production. These groups have further been supported by Random Amplification of Polymorphic DNA (RAPD) and amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) markers, suggesting this species may be more accurately described as a species complex. However, all divergent ecotypes can coexist in sympatric populations with no obvious physical barriers to prevent gene flow. In this study, we used both phylogenetic and population genetic analyses to test for speciation within C. purpurea using DNA sequences from ITS, a RAS-like locus, and a portion of beta-tubulin. The G1 types are significantly divergent from the G2/G3 types based on each of the three loci and the combined dataset, whereas the G2/G3 types are more integrated with one another. Although the G2 and G3 lineages have not diverged as much as the G1 lineage based on DNA sequence data, the use of three DNA loci does reliably separate the G2 and G3 lineages. However, the population genetic analyses strongly suggest little to no gene flow occurring between the different ecotypes, and we argue that this process is driven by adaptations to ecological habitats; G1 isolates are associated with terrestrial grasses, G2 isolates are found in wet and shady environments, and G3 isolates are found in salt marsh habitats.

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