| Literature DB >> 22085768 |
Satoshi Sekimoto1, D'Ann Rochon, Jennifer E Long, Jaclyn M Dee, Mary L Berbee.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: From a common ancestor with animals, the earliest fungi inherited flagellated zoospores for dispersal in water. Terrestrial fungi lost all flagellated stages and reproduce instead with nonmotile spores. Olpidium virulentus (= Olpidium brassicae), a unicellular fungus parasitizing vascular plant root cells, seemed anomalous. Although Olpidium produces zoospores, in previous phylogenetic studies it appeared nested among the terrestrial fungi. Its position was based mainly on ribosomal gene sequences and was not strongly supported. Our goal in this study was to use amino acid sequences from four genes to reconstruct the branching order of the early-diverging fungi with particular emphasis on the position of Olpidium.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 22085768 PMCID: PMC3247622 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2148-11-331
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Evol Biol ISSN: 1471-2148 Impact factor: 3.260
Figure 1. A-B. Vegetative unicellular thalli in cucumber root cells. Thalli differentiate into sporangia with zoospores, or into resting spores. C. An empty sporangium, after zoospore release. D. A thick-walled resting spore. E. Zoospores being released from a sporangium, showing the sporangium exit tube (arrowheads). F. A swimming zoospore with a single posterior flagellum. G. An encysted zoospore. Bars: A-E = 10 μm; F,G = 5 μm.
Figure 2A phylogeny from four protein-coding genes shows that . This maximum likelihood tree from RAxML is based on concatenated amino acid sequences of genes for the elongation factor 2, the RNA polymerase II largest and second largest subunits, and actin. Numbers on the internal nodes represent posterior probabilities and bootstrap percentages calculated by MrBayes and RAxML, respectively.
The only phylogenetic positions of Olpidium that could not be rejected by either the weighted Shimodaira-Hasegawa (wSH) or the Approximately Unbiased (AU) tests were within the Zygomycota.
| Tree | Constraint | ΔlnL | AU1 | wSH1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.0 | 0.896 | 0.995 | |
| 2 | 19.8 | 0.208 | 0.619 | |
| 3 | 42.3 | 0.013* | 0.087 | |
| 4 | 65.7 | 0.011* | 0.058 | |
| 5 | 80.8 | 0.000** | 0.010* | |
| 6 | 148.4 | 0.002** | 0.004** | |
| 7 | 148.7 | 0.005** | 0.008** | |
| 8 | 154.6 | 0.000** | 0.000** | |
| 9 | 174.1 | 0.004** | 0.013* | |
| 10 | 203.6 | 0.000** | 0.000** | |
| 11 | 233.6 | 0.000** | 0.000** |
1AU, Approximately Unbiased; wSH, weighted Shimodaira-Hasegawa test. The constrained tree was significantly worse than the best tree (Figure 2) at P < 0.05* or P < 0.01**.