Literature DB >> 22679601

The inclusion of downy mildews in a multi-locus-dataset and its reanalysis reveals a high degree of paraphyly in Phytophthora.

Fabian Runge1, Sabine Telle, Sebastian Ploch, Elizabeth Savory, Brad Day, Rahul Sharma, Marco Thines.   

Abstract

Pathogens belonging to the Oomycota, a group of heterokont, fungal-like organisms, are amongst the most notorious pathogens in agriculture. In particular, the obligate biotrophic downy mildews and the hemibiotrophic members of the genus Phytophthora are responsible for a huge variety of destructive diseases, including sudden oak death caused by P. ramorum, potato late blight caused by P. infestans, cucurbit downy mildew caused by Pseudoperonospora cubensis, and grape downy mildew caused by Plasmopara viticola. About 800 species of downy mildews and roughly 100 species of Phytophthora are currently accepted, and recent studies have revealed that these groups are closely related. However, the degree to which Phytophthora is paraphyletic and where exactly the downy mildews insert into this genus in relation to other clades could not be inferred with certainty to date. Here we present a molecular phylogeny encompassing all clades of Phytophthora as represented in a multi-locus dataset and two representatives of the monophyletic downy mildews from divergent genera. Our results demonstrate that Phytophthora is at least six times paraphyletic with respect to the downy mildews. The downy mildew representatives are consistently nested within clade 4 (contains Phytophthora palmivora), which is placed sister to clade 1 (contains Phytophthora infestans). This finding would either necessitate placing all downy mildews and Phytopthora species in a single genus, either under the oldest generic name Peronospora or by conservation the later name Phytophthora, or the description of at least six new genera within Phytophthora. The complications of both options are discussed, and it is concluded that the latter is preferable, as it warrants fewer name changes and is more practical.

Entities:  

Keywords:  AU test; Peronosporaceae; Phytophthora; downy mildews; multigene phylogeny; taxonomy

Year:  2011        PMID: 22679601      PMCID: PMC3359814          DOI: 10.5598/imafungus.2011.02.02.07

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  IMA Fungus        ISSN: 2210-6340            Impact factor:   3.515


INTRODUCTION

Oomycetes are a group of organisms that superficially resemble fungi in their hyphal growth and absorptive way of nutrition. However, they are not closely related to Mycota, but belong to a group of heterokont organisms, Straminipila (Dick 2001), which also includes diatoms and sea-weeds. Oomycetes have adapted to parasitism of plants at least three times, once in the Saprolegniales in the genera Aphanomyces and Pachymetra (Riethmüller , Diéguez-Uribeondo ), and separately in Albuginales and Peronosporales (Riethmüller , Hudspeth , Thines ). While the evolution of obligate biotrophy seems to be an ancient occurrence for the white blister rusts (Thines & Kamoun 2010), the downy mildews have more recently arisen from Phytophthora-like ancestors (Riethmüller , Göker , 2007, Thines , 2009, Thines 2009). The close relationship of the downy mildews and Phytophthora revealed by these studies is in contrast to the widely used taxonomic classifications of Waterhouse (1973) and Dick (1984, 2001), in which Phytophthora and Pythium were grouped together in the family Pythiaceae. Although Cooke inferred a position of Peronospora sparsa as a sister group of clade 4 (as defined in that study) based on ITS sequences alone, no substantial phylogenetic resolution was present on the phylogenetic backbone, thus failing to position this group within the genus Phytophthora. Other studies (including multi-locus studies) that included both downy mildew and Phytophthora species have so far not resolved the placement of downy mildews in relation to the different clades of Phytophthora (Riethmüller , Göker , Thines , Giresse ). Additionally, Thines demonstrated that the support for the sister-group relationship of Peronospora and clade 4 inferred by Cooke could have been the result of an alignment artefact. Conversely, a recent study by Blair addressed the phylogenetic relationships of Phytophthora species with good resolution, but no downy mildew was included in that study, leaving their placement to speculation. Downy mildews have been shown to be a monophyletic assemblage by Göker . However, Göker & Stamatakis (2006) later (in spite of being published earlier than Göker ) came to the conclusion that a placement of Phytophthora clade 1 within the downy mildews would also be possible, although no support could be obtained for this scenario. The question of which is the sister clade of the downy mildews, and how this clade is embedded among the different lineages of Phytophthora therefore continues to be controversial, but is fundamental for understanding the evolution of this group of important plant pathogens, especially with respect to the evolution of biotrophy. In addition, the taxonomic status of many Phytophthora species depends on the degree of paraphyly of the genus. At least with two clades, 9 and 10, Phytophthora is paraphyletic with respect to downy mildews (Cooke , Göker , Thines ), but so far, the degree of paraphyly of Phytophthora could not be resolved. Therefore, it was the aim of this study to resolve the phylogenetic placement of the monophyletic downy mildews (represented by the two divergent downy mildew genera for which genome data are currently available) among Phytophthora and to test this placement statistically, to further clarify the relationships within this group of important plant pathogens.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All sequences of Phytophthora and Pythium were obtained from the study of Blair available in the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) nucleotide database, GenBank. The dataset includes sequences of seven different loci, and all species for which all seven loci were not available were discarded, except for two Pythium species for which only six of the seven loci could be obtained. This resulted in an overall dataset of 121 species sampled. The sequences of Phytophthora infestans were used to obtain homologous sequences from the genome of Hyaloperonspora arabidopsidis from the NCBI database using BLAST (Altschul ) and from the genome of Pseudoperonospora cubensis (Tian ) using the annotated EST sequence information. Because no sequence information for the 28S nuclear ribosomal DNA locus of Pseudoperonospora cubensis could be obtained from the EST library, which was enriched for protein-coding genes, sequence information was obtained from the NCBI database, using a sequence from the study of Riethmüller . GenBank accession numbers for all sequences included in the analyses are given in Table S1 (Supplementary Information, online only).

Table S1. GenBank accession numbers for the sequences used in the present study.

SpeciesIsolatea60S ribosomal protein L10 genebeta-tubulin geneelongation factor 1 alpha geneenolase geneheat shock protein 90 gene28S ribosomal DNA geneglyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase gene
Phytophthora alniP10568EU080605.1EU080606.1EU080607.1EU080608.1EU080609.1EU080610.1EU080611.1
Phytophthora andinaP13365EU080182.1EU080183.1EU080184.1EU080185.1EU080186.1EU080187.1EU080188.1
Phytophthora arecaeP10213EU080809.1EU080810.1EU080811.1EU080812.1EU080813.1EU080814.1EU080815.1
Phytophthora asparagiP10690EU080564.1EU080565.1EU080566.1EU080567.1EU080568.1EU080569.1EU080570.1
Phytophthora asparagiP10705EU080644.1EU080645.1EU080646.1EU080647.1EU080648.1EU080649.1EU080650.1
Phytophthora bisheriaP1620EU080612.1EU080613.1EU080614.1EU080615.1EU080616.1EU080617.1EU080618.1
Phytophthora bisheriaP10117EU080741.1EU080742.1EU080743.1EU080744.1EU080745.1EU080746.1EU080747.1
Phytophthora boehmeriaeP6950EU080161.1EU080162.1EU080163.1EU080164.1EU080165.1EU080166.1EU080167.1
Phytophthora botryosaP6945EU079934.1EU079935.1EU079936.1EU079937.1EU079938.1EU079939.1EU079940.1
Phytophthora brassicaeP10414EU080523.1EU080524.1EU080525.1EU080526.1EU080527.1EU080528.1EU080529.1
Phytophthora brassicaeP10153EU080768.1EU080769.1EU080770.1EU080771.1EU080772.1EU080773.1EU080774.1
Phytophthora brassicaeP10154EU080782.1EU080783.1EU080784.1EU080785.1EU080786.1EU080787.1EU080788.1
Phytophthora cactorumP0714EU080277.1EU080278.1EU080279.1EU080280.1EU080281.1EU080282.1EU080283.1
Phytophthora cactorumP0715EU080284.1EU080285.1EU080286.1EU080287.1EU080288.1EU080289.1EU080290.1
Phytophthora cajaniP3105EU080100.1EU080101.1EU080102.1EU080103.1EU080104.1EU080105.1EU080106.1
Phytophthora cambivoraP0592EU080550.1EU080551.1EU080552.1EU080553.1EU080554.1EU080555.1EU080556.1
Phytophthora capsiciP0253EU080851.1EU080852.1EU080853.1EU080854.1EU080855.1EU080856.1EU080857.1
Phytophthora capsiciP10735EU079618.1EU079619.1EU079620.1EU079621.1EU079622.1EU079623.1EU079624.1
Phytophthora capsiciP1314EU080405.1EU080406.1EU080407.1EU080408.1EU080409.1EU080410.1EU080411.1
Phytophthora capsiciP0630EU080419.1EU080420.1EU080421.1EU080422.1EU080423.1EU080424.1EU080425.1
Phytophthora capsiciP10452EU080619.1EU080620.1EU080621.1EU080622.1EU080623.1EU080624.1EU080625.1
Phytophthora capsiciP10386EU079543.1EU079544.1EU079545.1EU079546.1EU079547.1EU079548.1EU079549.1
Phytophthora capsiciP1319EU079736.1EU079737.1EU079738.1EU079739.1EU079740.1EU079741.1EU079742.1
Phytophthora captiosaP10719EU079658.1EU079659.1EU079660.1EU079661.1EU079662.1EU079663.1EU079664.1
Phytophthora cinnamomiP2159EU079756.1EU079757.1EU079758.1EU079759.1EU079760.1EU079761.1EU079762.1
Phytophthora cinnamomiP8495EU079948.1EU079949.1EU079950.1EU079951.1EU079952.1EU079953.1EU079954.1
Phytophthora citricolaP7902EU080235.1EU080236.1EU080237.1EU080238.1EU080239.1EU080240.1EU080241.1
Phytophthora citrophthoraP6310EU080537.1EU080538.1EU080539.1EU080540.1EU080541.1EU080542.1EU080543.1
Phytophthora clandestinaP3942EU079866.1EU079867.1EU079868.1EU079869.1EU079870.1EU079871.1EU079872.1
Phytophthora colocasiaeP6317EU079906.1EU079907.1EU079908.1EU079909.1EU079910.1EU079911.1EU079912.1
Phytophthora cryptogeaP1088EU080446.1EU080447.1EU080448.1EU080449.1EU080450.1EU080451.1EU080452.1
Phytophthora cuyabensisP8218EU080351.1EU080352.1EU080353.1EU080354.1EU080355.1EU080356.1EU080357.1
PhytophthoracuyabensisP8224EU080371.1EU080372.1EU080373.1EU080374.1EU080375.1EU080376.1EU080377.1
Phytophthora drechsleriP10331EU079506.1EU079507.1EU079508.1EU079509.1EU079510.1EU079511.1EU079512.1
Phytophthora erythrosepticaP10382EU080775.1EU080776.1EU080777.1EU080778.1EU080779.1EU080780.1EU080781.1
Phytophthora erythrosepticaP1699EU079827.1EU079828.1EU079829.1EU079830.1EU079831.1EU079832.1EU079833.1
Phytophthora erythrosepticaP10385EU080433.1EU080434.1EU080435.1EU080436.1EU080437.1EU080438.1EU080439.1
Phytophthora europaeaP10324EU079481.1EU079482.1EU079483.1EU079484.1EU079485.1EU079486.1EU079487.1
Phytophthora fallaxP10725EU080034.1EU080035.1EU080036.1EU080037.1EU080038.1EU080039.1EU080040.1
Phytophthora foliorumP10969EU079679.1EU079680.1EU079681.1EU079682.1EU079683.1EU079684.1EU079685.1
Phytophthora fragariaeP3821EU080651.1EU080652.1EU080653.1EU080654.1EU080655.1EU080656.1EU080657.1
Phytophthora gloveraP10619EU080222.1EU080223.1EU080224.1EU080225.1EU080226.1EU080227.1EU080228.1
Phytophthora gonapodyidesP10337EU080530.1EU080531.1EU080532.1EU080533.1EU080534.1EU080535.1EU080536.1
Phytophthora hedraiandraP11056EU080072.1EU080073.1EU080074.1EU080075.1EU080076.1EU080077.1EU080078.1
Phytophthora heveaeP10167EU080795.1EU080796.1EU080797.1EU080798.1EU080799.1EU080800.1EU080801.1
Phytophthora hibernalisP3822EU079513.1EU079514.1EU079515.1EU079516.1EU079517.1EU079518.1EU079519.1
Phytophthora humicolaP3826EU080168.1EU080169.1EU080170.1EU080171.1EU080172.1EU080173.1EU080174.1
Phytophthora idaeiP6767EU080129.1EU080130.1EU080131.1EU080132.1EU080133.1EU080134.1EU080135.1
Phytophthora ilicisP3939EU079859.1EU079860.1EU079861.1EU079862.1EU079863.1EU079864.1EU079865.1
Phytophthora infestansP10650EU079625.1EU079626.1EU079627.1EU079628.1EU079629.1EU079630.1EU079631.1
Phytophthora infestansP10651EU079632.1EU079633.1EU079634.1EU079635.1EU079636.1EU079637.1EU079638.1
Phytophthora inflataP10341EU080384.1EU080385.1EU080386.1EU080387.1EU080388.1EU080389.1EU080390.1
Phytophthora insolitaP6195EU080175.1EU080176.1EU080177.1EU080178.1EU080179.1EU080180.1EU080181.1
Phytophthora insolitaP6703EU080209.1EU080210.1EU080211.1EU080212.1EU080213.1EU080214.1EU080215.1
Phytophthora inundataP8478EU079941.1EU079942.1EU079943.1EU079944.1EU079945.1EU079946.1EU079947.1
Phytophthora ipomoeaeP10225EU080830.1EU080831.1EU080832.1EU080833.1EU080834.1EU080835.1EU080836.1
Phytophthora ipomoeaeP10226EU080837.1EU080838.1EU080839.1EU080840.1EU080841.1EU080842.1EU080843.1
Phytophthora ipomoeaeP10227EU080844.1EU080845.1EU080846.1EU080847.1EU080848.1EU080849.1EU080850.1
Phytophthora iranicaP3882EU080111.1EU080112.1EU080113.1EU080114.1EU080115.1EU080116.1EU080117.1
Phytophthora katsuraeP10187EU080802.1EU080803.1EU080804.1EU080805.1EU080806.1EU080807.1EU080808.1
Phytophthora katsuraeP3389EU079814.1EU079815.1EU079816.1EU079817.1EU079818.1EU079819.1EU079820.1
Phytophthora kelmaniaP10613EU079605.1EU079606.1EU079607.1EU079608.1EU079609.1EU079610.1EU079611.1
Phytophthora kernoviaeP10681EU079645.1EU079646.1EU079647.1EU079648.1EU079649.1EU079650.1EU079651.1
Phytophthora lagoarianaP8223EU080364.1EU080365.1EU080366.1EU080367.1EU080368.1EU080369.1EU080370.1
Phytophthora lagoarianaP8618EU080195.1EU080196.1EU080197.1EU080198.1EU080199.1EU080200.1EU080201.1
Phytophthora lateralisP3888EU079852.1EU079853.1EU079854.1EU079855.1EU079856.1EU079857.1EU079858.1
Phytophthora macrochlamydosporaP10267EU080004.1EU080005.1EU080006.1EU080007.1EU080008.1EU080009.1EU080010.1
Phytophthora meadiiP6128EU079873.1EU079874.1EU079875.1EU079876.1EU079877.1EU079878.1EU079879.1
Phytophthora medicaginisP10683EU079899.1EU079900.1EU079901.1EU079902.1EU079903.1EU079904.1EU079905.1
Phytophthora megakaryaP8516EU079969.1EU079970.1EU079971.1EU079972.1EU079973.1EU079974.1EU079975.1
Phytophthora megaspermaP3136EU080058.1EU080059.1EU080060.1EU080061.1EU080062.1EU080063.1EU080064.1
Phytophthora melonisP10994EU079711.1EU079712.1EU079713.1EU079714.1EU079715.1EU079716.1EU079717.1
Phytophthora mexicanaP0646EU080702.1EU080703.1EU080704.1EU080705.1EU080706.1EU080707.1EU080708.1
Phytophthora mirabilisP3005EU079775.1EU079776.1EU079777.1EU079778.1EU079779.1EU079780.1EU079781.1
Phytophthora multivesiculataP10410EU080065.1EU080066.1EU080067.1EU080068.1EU080069.1EU080070.1EU080071.1
Phytophthora multivesiculataP10327EU079499.1EU079500.1EU079501.1EU079502.1EU079503.1EU079504.1EU079505.1
Phytophthora nemorosaP10288EU079474.1EU079475.1EU079476.1EU079477.1EU079478.1EU079479.1EU079480.1
Phytophthora nicotianaeP6303EU080598.1EU080599.1EU080600.1EU080601.1EU080602.1EU080603.1EU080604.1
Phytophthora nicotianaeP10802EU080715.1EU080716.1EU080717.1EU080718.1EU080719.1EU080720.1EU080721.1
Phytophthora nicotianaeP10116EU079962.1EU079963.1EU079964.1EU079965.1EU079966.1EU079967.1EU079968.1
Phytophthora nicotianaeP1452EU080503.1EU080504.1EU080505.1EU080506.1EU080507.1EU080508.1EU080509.1
Phytophthora nicotianaeP7146EU079555.1EU079556.1EU079557.1EU079558.1EU079559.1EU079560.1EU079561.1
Phytophthora nicotianaeP10318EU080676.1EU080677.1EU080678.1EU080679.1EU080680.1EU080681.1EU080682.1
Phytophthora niederhauseriiP10617EU080242.1EU080243.1EU080244.1EU080245.1EU080246.1EU080247.1EU080248.1
Phytophthora palmivoraP0255EU080338.1EU080339.1EU080340.1EU080341.1EU080342.1EU080343.1EU080344.1
Phytophthora palmivoraP0113EU080464.1EU080465.1EU080466.1EU080467.1EU080468.1EU080469.1EU080470.1
Phytophthora phaseoliP10145EU080748.1EU080749.1EU080750.1EU080751.1EU080752.1EU080753.1EU080754.1
Phytophthora phaseoliP10150EU080761.1EU080762.1EU080763.1EU080764.1EU080765.1EU080766.1EU080767.1
Phytophthora polonicaP15001EU080249.1EU080250.1EU080251.1EU080252.1EU080253.1EU080254.1EU080255.1
Phytophthora polonicaP15005EU080256.1EU080257.1EU080258.1EU080259.1EU080260.1EU080261.1EU080262.1
Phytophthora polonicaP15004EU080263.1EU080264.1EU080265.1EU080266.1EU080267.1EU080268.1EU080269.1
Phytophthora porriP10728EU079672.1EU079673.1EU079674.1EU079675.1EU079676.1EU079677.1EU079678.1
Phytophthora porriP6207EU079880.1EU079881.1EU079882.1EU079883.1EU079884.1EU079885.1EU079886.1
Phytophthora primulaeP10333EU080398.1EU080399.1EU080400.1EU080401.1EU080402.1EU080403.1EU080404.1
Phytophthora primulaeP10220EU080816.1EU080817.1EU080818.1EU080819.1EU080820.1EU080821.1EU080822.1
Phytophthora primulaeP10224EU080823.1EU080824.1EU080825.1EU080826.1EU080827.1EU080828.1EU080829.1
Phytophthora pseudosyringaeP10437EU079562.1EU079563.1EU079564.1EU079565.1EU079566.1EU079567.1EU079568.1
Phytophthora pseudotsugaeP10339EU080426.1EU080427.1EU080428.1EU080429.1EU080430.1EU080431.1EU080432.1
Phytophthora psychrophilaP10433EU080516.1EU080517.1EU080518.1EU080519.1EU080520.1EU080521.1EU080522.1
Phytophthora quercetorumMD9-2EU080900.1EU080901.1EU080902.1EU080903.1EU080904.1EU080905.1EU080906.1
Phytophthora quercinaP10334EU080489.1EU080490.1EU080491.1EU080492.1EU080493.1EU080494.1EU080495.1
Phytophthora quercinaP10441EU080591.1EU080592.1EU080593.1EU080594.1EU080595.1EU080596.1EU080597.1
Phytophthora ramorumP10301EU080683.1EU080684.1EU080685.1EU080686.1EU080687.1EU080688.1EU080689.1
Phytophthora richardiaeP10811EU080496.1EU080497.1EU080498.1EU080499.1EU080500.1EU080501.1EU080502.1
Phytophthora richardiaeP10359EU080571.1EU080572.1EU080573.1EU080574.1EU080575.1EU080576.1EU080577.1
Phytophthora richardiaeP10355EU080578.1EU080579.1EU080580.1EU080581.1EU080582.1EU080583.1EU080584.1
Phytophthora richardiaeP7788EU080637.1EU080638.1EU080639.1EU080640.1EU080641.1EU080642.1EU080643.1
Phytophthora sansomeaP3163EU080270.1EU080271.1EU080272.1EU080273.1EU080274.1EU080275.1EU080276.1
Phytophthora sinensisP1475EU079749.1EU079750.1EU079751.1EU079752.1EU079753.1EU079754.1EU079755.1
Phytophthora sojaeP3114EU079789.1EU079790.1EU079791.1EU079792.1EU079793.1EU079794.1EU079795.1
Phytophthora sp.P10417EU080391.1EU080392.1EU080393.1EU080394.1EU080395.1EU080396.1EU080397.1
Phytophthora sp.P10672EU080412.1EU080413.1EU080414.1EU080415.1EU080416.1EU080417.1EU080418.1
Phytophthora sp.P8619EU080202.1EU080203.1EU080204.1EU080205.1EU080206.1EU080207.1EU080208.1
Phytophthora syringaeP10330EU080557.1EU080558.1EU080559.1EU080560.1EU080561.1EU080562.1EU080563.1
Phytophthora tentaculataP8497EU079955.1EU079956.1EU079957.1EU079958.1EU079959.1EU079960.1EU079961.1
Phytophthora trifoliiP7010EU080141.1EU080142.1EU080143.1EU080144.1EU080145.1EU080146.1EU080147.1
Phytophthora tropicalisP10329EU080305.1EU080306.1EU080307.1EU080308.1EU080309.1EU080310.1EU080311.1
Phytophthora uliginosaP10328EU079692.1EU079693.1EU079694.1EU079695.1EU079696.1EU079697.1EU079698.1
Phytophthora vignaeP3019EU079782.1EU079783.1EU079784.1EU079785.1EU079786.1EU079787.1EU079788.1
Pythium undulatumP10342EU080440.1EU080441.1EU080442.1-EU080443.1EU080444.1EU080445.1
Pythium vexansP3980EU080483.1EU080484.1EU080485.1-EU080486.1EU080487.1EU080488.1
Hyaloperonospora arabidopsidisGenome
Pseudoperonospora cubensisGenomeAY035496.1

a Local identification numbers from the World Phytophthora Genetic Resource Collection (P) and West Virginia University (MD).

Each of the seven sets of sequences was edited (i.e. leading and trailing gaps were removed) using the DNASTAR computer package v. 8 (Lasergene, Madison, WI), and were aligned separately using MAFFT v. 6.240 (Katoh ) using a webserver interface (http://www.genome.jp/tools/mafft/). The G-INS-i algorithm was chosen for all alignments. Subsequently, the aligned sequences were concatenated for phylogenetic analyses and no further editing was done on the alignment to ensure reproducibility and to prevent introduction of bias. After the removal of leading and trailing gaps 6282 nucleotide sites were included in the phylogenetic analyses. These comprised seven loci: 1119 bp of the beta-tubulin gene, 493 bp of the 60S ribosomal protein L10 gene, 873 bp of the translation elongation factor 1-alpha gene, 720 bp of the 28S nuclear ribosomal DNA gene, 646 bp of the glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase gene, 1438 bp of the heat shock protein 90 gene, and 993 bp of the enolase gene. The alignment, together with the tree from the Bayesian Analysis shown in Fig. 1, has been deposited in TreeBASE (www.treebase.org) under the accession number S11829.
Fig. 1.

Phylogenetic reconstruction for Phytophthora and the downy mildews (Bayesian Analysis), with support values in Minimum Evolution, Maximum Likelihood, and Bayesian Analysis, in the respective order, on the branches, and Bremer support below the branches. Small Asterisks denote maximum support in a single analysis, big asterisks denote maximum support in all three phylogenetic analyses. Clade designations are those of Blair , with some additional differentiation corresponding to the statistical testing of the tree topology as given in Table 1. Predominantly caducous and papillate clades are highlighted in blue, the clade containing downy mildews is highlighted in green and the clades with predominantly non-caducous, non-papillate or semi-papillate members are highlighted in brown. For Phytophthora, the highlighted areas are divided into blocks representing groups that lead to paraphyly of Phytophthora and could potentially serve as a basis for the description of new genera.

The general time reversible (GTR) model was selected for the concatenated alignment using Modeltest v. 3.7 (Posada & Crandall 1998) and PAUP v. 4.0b10 (Swofford 2002), with gamma-distributed substitution rates (shape parameter = 0.69) and proportion of invariable sites (pinv = 0.54). The values of these parameters were included in the Bayesian and Minimum Evolution analyses. Minimum Evolution (ME) analysis was done using MEGA v. 4.0 (Tamura ), with the gamma-distributed substitution rates as inferred by Modeltest and using the Maximum-Composite-Likelihood substitution model. For inferring tree robustness, 1000 bootstrap replicates (Felsenstein 1985) were computed. For Maximum Likelihood (ML) inference, the RAxML webserver at http://phylobench.vital-it.ch/raxml-bb/ (Stamatakis ) was used with standard settings and maximum likelihood search, including an estimation of invariable sites. The analysis was repeated five times with 100 bootstrap replicates each. The bootstrap support values obtained were averaged, because the rapid bootstrapping algorithm can lead to some deviation. For Bayesian analysis, MrBayes (Huelsenbeck & Ronquist 2001) at the Phylemon2 webserver (http://phylemon.bioinfo.cipf.es/) and at a local server, for parallel runs, was used. Four incrementally heated simultaneous Markov Chain Monte Carlo chains were run for two million generations with every 1000th tree sampled, under the general time reversible (GTR) model with the gamma-distributed substitution rates and proportion of invariable sites as inferred by Modeltest. Maintaining that the standard deviation of split frequencies was constantly below 0.01 and the stationary phase of the likelihood values was reached after 10 % of sampled trees when quitting the analysis. The first 1000 trees sampled this way were discarded, and the remaining 1000 trees were used to compute a 50 % majority rule consensus tree and to estimate the posterior probabilities. To ensure general reproducibility, the analysis was repeated twice using the webserver, and twice on a local server using MrBayes v. 3.1.2. Inference of Bremer support was done using Maximum Parsimony with the Parsimony Ratchet implemented in PRAP2 (Müller 2003), using PAUP v. 4.0b10. The starting tree was obtained by stepwise addition and subsequently the tree-bisection-and-reconnection (TBR) algorithm was used. Two hundred replicates were run with 25 % randomly chosen characters weighted double and the shortest tree of each run was saved. Afterwards the decay index of each of the bisections was obtained in PRAP2. The Approximately Unbiased (AU) test (Shimodaira 2002) was applied to the 100 bootstrap replicate trees of the first Maximum Likelihood analysis and to the last 100 sampled trees of the first Bayesian Analysis using the CONSEL computer package (Shimodaira & Hasegawa 2001). The respectively most probable trees were compared to the topologies of the resulting trees of the ML, ME and Bayesian analyses and no conflicting support was found to be present. For conducting the AU testing of the position of the downy mildews within Phytophthora and additional statistical tests, representatives of each of the clades at a node important to infer the position of the downy mildews or the major monophyletic clades were chosen. For these 18 accessions, a Bayesian analysis was conducted as described above, but with estimation of the gamma-distribution and the proportion of invariable sites by MrBayes, for enabling the AU testing with CONSEL. The sampled accessions are given in Table 1. The resulting tree was compared to the original tree and no conflicting support was present, and only minor changes in topology (placement of clade 5) were observed, ensuring the validity of the results. One hundred trees (i.e. every 20 000th generation) of the Bayesian analysis were used to create a site-wise log-likelihood output in PAUP for bootstrap analysis and statistical testing in CONSEL. The TREEASS program of the CONSEL computer package assesses support for each possible association of species in base edges in the underlying trees and outputs p-values for the AU test, Bootstrap probability tests (NP, BP; and PP), Kishino-Hasegawa (KH) test, Shimodaira-Hasegawa (SH) test, weighted Kishino-Hasegawa (WKH) test, and weighted Shimodaira-Hasegawa (WSH) test. Default settings of 10 scaling factors of 0.5–1.4, with 10 000 pseudoreplicates for each, were used. Phytophthora boehmeria, of the most basal clade of Phytophthora, was used as an outgroup for the analyses.

Table 1. Results of the site-wise log-likelihoods generated under possible associations of species in base edges. The first column gives the possible associations for which the site-wise log-likelihoods were produced. Columns show the support values for the approximately unbiased (AU) test, the observed log-likelihood differences of the edges (OBS), Bootstrap probability tests (NP, BP; and PP), Kishino-Hasegawa (KH) test, Shimodaira-Hasegawa (SH) test, weighted Kishino-Hasegawa (WKH) test, and the weighted Shimodaira-Hasegawa (WSH) test.

Possible associationsAUOBSNPBPPPKHSHWKHWSH
(4.2, DM)0,983−106,90,9920,9931,0000,9660,9920,9740,989
(1, 4, DM)0,983−106,90,9920,9931,0000,9660,9920,9740,989
(1, 2, 4, DM)0,983−106,90,9920,9931,0000,9660,9920,9740,989
(4, DM)0,979−39,40,9850,9851,0000,9010,9880,940,996
(1c,1b)0,882−32,70,9810,9811,0000,8600,9250,9250,925
(3, 6)0,713−28,20,9180,9191,0000,7530,7530,7530,753
(1–8, 9.1, DM)0,679−14,10,6480,6461,0000,7210,9090,6660,916
(1–4, 6, DM)0,670−5,60,470,4670,9970,5920,9670,5920,967
(2b, 2.2)0,644−5,10,4070,3990,9730,5930,9110,5930,927
(5, 7)0,617−14,70,7410,7421,0000,6530,8070,6530,831
(1, 2, 4, 5, 7, DM)0,5555,60,1040,1030,0020,4080,9490,4080,951
(1, 2, 4, 5, DM)0,44014,70,2510,2520,0000,3470,8150,3470,806
(1–6, DM)0,38314,70,2590,2580,0000,3470,6780,3470,676
(2.1, 2b)0,3565,10,5930,6010,0270,4070,5850,4070,569
(9.1,9.2)0,32114,10,3520,3540,0000,2790,6780,3340,668
(3,5–7)0,3025,80,0930,0910,0000,2320,9110,2320,821
(1–5, 7, DM)0,28728,20,0820,0810,0000,2470,6360,2470,645
(1–4, DM)0,28728,20,0820,0810,0000,2470,6360,2470,645
(1b,1.1)0,11832,70,0190,0190,0000,1400,5960,0750,330
(3, 6, DM)0,022106,90,0070,0060,0000,0340,0930,0150,065
(1, 4.1)0,02139,40,0150,0150,0000,0990,4060,0310,156
(1, 4)0,017106,90,0080,0070,0000,0340,0930,0150,051
(1, 2, 4, 5)0,017106,90,0080,0070,0000,0340,0930,0150,051
(1, 2, 4)0,017106,90,0080,0070,0000,0340,0930,0150,051

The following species were randomly chosen as representatives for the corresponding clades and subclades in the statistical analysis – 1c, Phytophthora cactorum ; 1b, P. nicotianae; 1c, P. iranica; 1.1, P. infestans; 2ab, P. capsici; 2.1, P. bisheria; 2.2, P. multivesiculata; 3, P. nemorosa; 4.1, P. quercina; 4.2, P. palmivora; 5, P. katsurae; 6, P. humicola; 7, P. europaea; 8, P. ramorum; 9.1, P. polonica; 9.2, P. captiosa; 10, P. boehmeriae; DM, Pseudoperonospora cubensis.

RESULTS

When used independently, the loci of the concatenated alignment always yielded topologies with no significantly supported inconsistencies (data not shown). The Maximum Likelihood (ML) analysis of the concatenated alignment resulted in a best tree with a log-likelihood of -62481.32, a Minimum Evolution (ME) tree with a sum of branch lengths of 1.04068070, and the best tree from Bayesian Analysis (BA) had a log-likelihood score of -62678.74. The best tree from the BA, with posterior probabilities and bootstrap support values from the other analyses, is given in Fig. 1. In addition, Bremer support values are given for all clades and subclades. Under the given tree, Bremer decay indices > 5 can be considered as significant support and values of 10 or higher as strong support. It should be noted that the Bremer support is not linearly correlated with bootstrap support. Species of Phytophthora were grouped into nine highly supported clades, with clade 9 also including clade 10 of Blair . Tree topology was similar to the one found in Blair and no supported conflicts were observed, with the exception of the before-mentioned inclusion of clade 10 into clade 9. Downy mildews, represented by the two divergent genera, Hyaloperonospora and Pseudoperonospora, were grouped together with maximum support in ML and BA and strong support in ME inference, and were consistently found among the members of clade 4 of Blair with varying support in the full dataset (Fig. 1). The sister-group relationship of downy mildews with a part of clade 4, comprised of Phytophthora megakarya, P. quercetorum, P. palmivora, and P. areceae received 70 % bootstrap support in ME, 59 % in ML and a posterior probability of 0.91, at a confidence interval at 95 % for the trees sampled. This group was found sister to P. quercina, although this grouping received significant support only in the BA. Clade 1 and the monophyletic group containing the downy mildews and the clade 4 species of Phytophthora were consistently grouped together in all analyses, with varying support of 57 % bootstrap support in ME, 73 % in ML, and a posterior probability of 0.99. The Bremer decay index was 7 for the grouping of DM with P. megakarya, P. quercetorum, P. palmivora, and P. areceae and also 7 for the sister-group placement of the above assemblage with P. quercina. The sister-group relationship of clade 1 with clade 4 (including downy mildews) was supported by a Bremer decay index of 10, thus providing an independent support for the monophyly of this grouping. The monophyly of clade 1 was well supported with moderate to maximum support in the phylogenetic analyses and a Bremer decay index of 24. The monophyly of clades 2 and 5 was also strongly supported; however, their sister-group relationship did not receive significant support in any of the analyses. Clades 1, 4 (plus downy mildews), 2, and 5 were grouped together with weak support in ME and ML analyses, but maximum support in the BA. This group was grouped together with clades 3, 6, and 7 with weak support in ME (67 %), moderate support in ML (78 %) and maximum support in the BA. Clades 3, 6, and 7 were all found to be monophyletic with strong to maximum support in all analyses. However, their grouping as a monophyletic assemblage received only weak support in ME and BA. Clade 8 was placed basal to the before-mentioned clades 1–7 and its monophyly received strong to maximum support in all analyses. A deep divergence was found between clades 1–8 on the one side and clades 9 and 10 on the other side, resulting in a strong to maximum support for the monophyly of the assemblage comprised of clades 1–8 in all phylogenetic analyses, and a Bremer decay index of 10. Clade 10 was found to be nested within clade 9 in ML and BA, and the monophyly of the group containing these clades was weakly supported in ME, but strongly supported in ML and BA, and also received a Bremer decay index of 9. In the reduced dataset (Fig. S1, Supplementary Information, online only) the downy mildews, represented by Pseudoperonospora cubensis, grouped together with Phytophthora palmivora of clade 4 with maximum support, and P. quercina was found to be the sister taxon of this group with strong statistical support. The group comprising the downy mildew and clade 4 representatives was found to be sister to clade 1 with maximum support. An alternative topology was observed for some weakly supported nodes, as the grouping of clades 3 and 6 as well as the grouping of clades 5 and 7 received significant support.
Fig. S1.

Bayesian analysis of the clade representatives used for the statistical tests for the topology of the grouping of the individual clades with posterior probability values.

To test the robustness of the observed grouping of the clades, especially with respect to the placement of the downy mildews within Phytophthora, and to infer the probability of alternative groupings, several tests were performed, which are summarised in Table 1. The analyses were carried out without constraints, seeking for all possible groupings of the clades and subclades of Phytophthora and the downy mildews. The clustering of downy mildews with clade 4.2 had the highest AU values and also received the highest scores in all other analyses, and also the larger clusters of clades 1, 4, and DM, and 1, 2, 4, and DM scored equally high. The latter of these groupings is, in contrast to the tree presented in Fig. 1, as it excludes clade 5, which was grouped together in the full phylogenetic analysis with clade 2 without significant support. But in the phylogeny of the clade representatives, the grouping that scored high in the AU analysis could also be observed (Fig. S1). The nesting of the downy mildews within clade 4 received almost equally high support, with 0.979 in the AU analysis. Thus the topology of the tree presented in Fig. 1 with respect to the immediate relationships of the downy mildews received the highest support in the AU analysis and all other tests employed. Only four contradicting clusters were found to be possible. These include an alternative placement of the downy mildews with clades 3 and 6; the clustering of clades 1 and 4 with the exclusion of downy mildews; the clustering of clades 1, 2, 4 and 5 with the exclusion of downy mildews; and the clustering of clades 1, 2, and 4 with the exclusion of downy mildews. But the high improbability of these groupings is reflected by very low AU scores, which were 0.022 for the first and 0.017 for the other groupings. Groupings of Phytophthora which received significant support are the clustering of clades 1b and 1c (AU 0.882); although these scored less than for the position of downy mildews as a sister group of clade 4.2 and their nested placement in clade 4. The grouping of clades 3 and 6, which were affiliated to other clades without significant support in the phylogenetic analyses, received moderate support (AU 0.713). Another grouping which was not observed in the phylogenetic analysis is the clustering of clades 5 and 7, which was also moderately supported (AU 0.617). Moderate support was also obtained for the grouping of clades 1–8, including downy mildews, together with 9.1 (AU 0.679), and clades 1–4, including downy mildews, together with clade 6 (AU 0.670).

DISCUSSION

The genus Phytophthora is one of the largest genera of the oomycetes and contains about 100 currently accepted species, of which about 60 species were included in the monograph of Erwin & Ribeiro (1996), and to which about 40 species have been added subsequently (Érsek & Ribeiro 2010). As many of the species are of ecological and economic interest, Phytophthora has received much attention in the past decades, and as a consequence, the genome sequencing of several of its members has been undertaken (Tyler , Haas ). New species are being discovered in the previously species-poor basal clades (Brasier , Belbahri , Dick ), and it seems likely that only a small fraction of the evolutionary diversity of this genus has been discovered. The genus Phytophthora has often been considered a member of Pythiaceae (Waterhouse 1973, Dick , Dick 2001), while the obligate biotrophic downy mildews were viewed as constituting the family Peronosporaceae. Dick even placed the Peronosporaceae together with the Albuginaceae into the order Peronosporales and opposed this to the cultivable Pythiales, which also included Phytophthora. However, Gäumann (1952) already realised that Phytophthora and the downy mildews were likely to be closely related, and this hypothesis was later corroborated with the first molecular phylogenies including members of both Phytophthora and the downy mildews (Cooke , Riethmüller ). The strict split between downy mildews and Phytophthora is rather synthetic, as there are species with intermediate character states that bridge the apparent gulf between the necrotrophic and hemibiotrophic members of Phytophthora and the obligate biotrophic downy mildews (Thines 2009). For example, the downy mildew genus Viennotia (Göker ) possesses sporangiophores capable of additional growth after sporulation, Poakatesthia (Thines ) forms intracellular mycelium apart from haustoria, and Sclerophthora has hyphal sporangiophores which do not form sporangia simultaneously (Payak & Renfro 1967). All of these features are usually attributed to Phytophthora species, although other characteristics place these genera among the downy mildews (Thines 2009). The chimeric appearance of Sclerophthora is so pronounced that it was even included in the monograph of Phytophthora by Erwin & Ribeiro (1996). It is also noteworthy that evolution of the downy mildews may have been initiated as parasites of grass relatives (Thines , Thines 2009). Support for this hypothesis is provided by Phytophthora species from Cyperaceae which have also been considered members of an independent genus, Kawakamia, and are not readily cultivable (Erwin & Ribeiro 1996). On the other hand, there are reports of axenic cultivation for Sclerospora graminicola (Tiwari & Arya 1969) and Sclerophthora macrospora (Tokura 1975), although these results have not been confirmed by independent experiments of other groups. Unfortunately, none of the above-mentioned parasites of grasses could be included in the present study because of difficulties of amplification using the primers available. Also, for downy mildews in general, the primers used by Blair do not readily amplify the targeted genes, therefore we obtained these sequences directly from the genomes of Hyaloperonospora arabidopsidis (Baxter ) and Pseudoperonospora cubensis (Tian ). However, as the downy mildews most likely represent a monophyletic group (Göker ), the inclusion of only these two exemplars from largely divergent downy mildew genera can be considered valid for inferring the placement of this group amongst the phylogenetic lineages currently placed in Phytophthora. The topology of the tree shown here is mostly congruent with the topology presented by Blair . However, the inclusion of the downy mildews has in some cases resulted in lower support values, especially on the backbone and to a grouping of clades 2 and 5 without significant support. In Blair , clade 5 was inferred as being basal to clade 2 with weak to moderate support. In our investigations, however, the downy mildews were consistently grouped together with some members of clade 4, which is in line with the sister-group relationship for Peronospora sparsa with a group made up of Phytophthora arecae, P. palmivora, and P. megakarya as observed by Cooke on the basis of ITS sequence data, although it cannot be ruled out that the finding in that study was influenced by alignment artefacts (Thines ) and a bias of the Neighbour-joining analysis. In our study, which is based on the multi-locus dataset of Blair to which sequences from downy mildew representatives have been added, the close relationship of the downy mildews with members of clade 4 is also supported by several phylogenetic methods and statistical tests, in which the sister-group relationship of clade 4.2 with the downy mildews and the grouping of downy mildews within clade 4 as a whole received strong support. As discussed in previous publications on the global phylogeny of Phytophthora (e.g. Blair , Cooke , Kroon et al. 2004), there are no clear-cut synapomorphies identified for the different clades so far. However, four of the five groups with predominantly papillate or caducous sporangia (1, 2, 4, and 5), together with the downy mildews, form the crown group of Phytophthora, and it is thus likely that caducous and papillate sporangia represent a derived character state. This is in contrast to the conclusion of Kroon et al. (2004), who, based on a smaller set of loci, deduced that papillate sporangia could also be a plesiomorphic trait. Clade 3, which was considered papillate by Kroon et al. (2003), was found to sister to clade 6 in this study, although the support for this grouping, and also the further clustering of clades 3 and 6 with clade 7, was low. An alternative placement closer to the other predominantly papillate clades can therefore not be ruled out at present, although moderate support for a sister-group relationship of clades 3 and 6 was also observed in the AU analysis. In line with Blair , P. quercina, which was considered a member of clade 3 in Cooke , was placed in clade 4, and is referred to as clade 4.1 in this study, as this species was found to be basal to the group of the other members of clade 4 and the downy mildews. This placement received varying support in analysis of the full dataset and strong support in the reduced dataset. The predominantly non-papillate clades 6–10 were found predominantly in a basal position with respect to the crown group, providing evidence that the non-papillate stage might be ancestral, and the development of semi-papillate sporangia in clade 8b and clade 9 (sensu Blair ) represents a homoplasy. Clade 9 (including clade 10) was found to be separated from the other Phytophthora clades with strong support and represented the most basal clade of Phytophthora. As was previously attested by Cooke , no obvious phylogenetic pattern with respect to temperature or climate adaptation can be observed from the phylogenetic analyses. Cooke doubted if the species in these clades could be retained in Phytophthora and stated that it is likely that further investigation would lead to their exclusion from Phytophthora. As revealed in this study, paraphyly of Phytophthora is pronounced, rendering Phytophthora a typical example of a paraphyletic genus, with the most derived linages sharing some synapomorphies with downy mildews, while the more basal clades are more similar to Halophytophthora, Phytopythium and Pythium. This is similar to the situation in Peronosporales as a whole, for which Hulvey recently proposed a broad circumscription of Peronosporaceae, encompassing all downy mildew genera, Halophytophthora, and Phytopythium, to avoid the description of several new, poorly differentiated families. If a similar option were chosen for the genus Phytophthora, this would mean an inclusion of all downy mildew genera and Phytophthora into a single genus. The oldest available name for this assemblage on genus level would be Peronospora (Corda 1837), which was described much earlier than Phytophthora (de Bary 1876), thus, if Phytophthora were not conserved that would necessitate the inclusion of about 300 species of downy mildews, currently placed in other well-defined and widely accepted genera, e.g. Basidiophora, Bremia, Plasmopara, Peronosclerospora, Pseudoperonospora, and Scleropsora (Thines 2006, Voglmayr 2008), and about 100 species of Phytophthora (Waterhouse 1963, Erwin & Ribeiro 1996, Érsek & Ribeiro 2010) into this genus. This would not only be a nomenclatural nightmare but would also result in a highly heterogeneous group, encompassing species with divergent physiological, ecological, and morphological properties. For these reasons, but also because even more name-changes would be necessary, conservation of Phytophthora and an inclusion of all downy mildew genera (necessitating about 400–500 name changes for Peronospora alone), is not preferable. If this option were chosen, 700–800 names would have to be changed, including many well-known pathogens in the genera Bremia (e.g. Bremia lactucae), Plasmopara (e.g. Plasmopara viticola and Pl. halstedii), Hyaloperonospora (Hyaloperonospora brassicae, H. arabidopsidis, H. parasitica), and Peronospora (e.g. Pe. tabacina, Pe. destructor, Pe. effusa, Pe. farinosa, Pe. lamii). An alternative solution would be to resolve the paraphyly of this group by introducing new generic names where none existed for the lineages not belonging to the monophyletic subtree that includes Phytophthora infestans (the type species of Phytophthora). Judging from the results of this study, Phytophthora is at least six times paraphyletic as revealed by the phylogenetic investigations, but possibly seven times paraphyletic with respect to the downy mildews judging from the results obtained from the statistical tests. This would necessitate the introduction of new generic names (or the adoption of currently unused generic names) for clades 4.1, 4.2, 8, and the group (9, 10). In addition to these clusters, additional generic names would have to be introduced for groups formed by members of clades 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7. In the phylogenetic analysis, while the groups (2, 5) and (3, 6, 7) were observed, their monophyly could not be ascertained; indeed, some support for alternative clusters (3, 6) and (5, 7), with clade 2 as an independent linage, was received in statistical tests. Several loci will need to be added in future phylogenetic studies to clarify the evolutionary relationships of these groups. Based on the current data, it can be assumed that Phytophthora is at least six, but possibly seven times paraphyletic with respect to downy mildews. Species of clade 1, which include the economically most important pathogen of the genus, Phytophthora infestans, as well as the well-known pathogens, P. nicotianae and P. cactorum, would retain their original names. This solution would need only a quarter of the name changes (less than 100) needed for the first option (inclusion of all downy mildew and Phytophthora species into Peronospora), and only about 15 % of the name changes that would be needed if Phytophthora were conserved and all downy mildews were transferred into this genus. In addition, it would leave the names of most of the most important pathogens of the Peronosporaceae unchanged, like Bremia lactucae, Hyaloperonospora brassicae, Phytophthora infestans, Plasmopara halstedii, Plasmopara viticola, Pseudoperonospora cubensis and Pseudoperonospora humuli. Therefore, we feel that this solution is to be preferred. But to introduce the new names for the clades outlined above will necessitate a search for characters defining synapomorphies for these groups, which might not be easy, judging from the apparent discrepancies between the morphological classification of Waterhouse (1963), and recent phylogenetic studies (Cooke , Kroon et al. 2004, Blair ). Probably, these genera might have to be defined with the aid on DNA sequence synapomorphies, rather than only morphology. But retaining the usage of the generic name Phytophthora for all the at least six monophyletic groups between Halophytophthora and at the same time retaining the 19 downy mildew genera, would not only be contrary to the widely accepted idea of ideally having monophyletic taxa only, but also hamper the awareness of the unique evolution of these organisms, stepwise towards obligate biotrophy (Thines & Kamoun 2010). For example, in terms of evolution, Phytophthora infestans is much closer to downy mildews than to P. sojae or even P. ramorum. But for the understanding of the evolution of obligate biotrophy, which is one of the most fascinating and fundamental evolutionary tipping points for any group of pathogens, it will be even more important to obtain genome sequences for members of the clades 4.1 and 4.2, which are apparently the closest relatives of the downy mildews, and of the neglected species of Phytophthora affecting Cyperaceae.
  28 in total

1.  MRBAYES: Bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees.

Authors:  J P Huelsenbeck; F Ronquist
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 6.937

2.  CONSEL: for assessing the confidence of phylogenetic tree selection.

Authors:  H Shimodaira; M Hasegawa
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 6.937

3.  A molecular phylogeny of Phytophthora and related oomycetes.

Authors:  D E Cooke; A Drenth; J M Duncan; G Wagels; C M Brasier
Journal:  Fungal Genet Biol       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 3.495

4.  An approximately unbiased test of phylogenetic tree selection.

Authors:  Hidetoshi Shimodaira
Journal:  Syst Biol       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 15.683

5.  PRAP-computation of Bremer support for large data sets.

Authors:  Kai Müller
Journal:  Mol Phylogenet Evol       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 4.286

6.  Phytophthora kernoviae sp. nov., an invasive pathogen causing bleeding stem lesions on forest trees and foliar necrosis of ornamentals in the UK.

Authors:  Clive M Brasier; Paul A Beales; Susan A Kirk; Sandra Denman; Joan Rose
Journal:  Mycol Res       Date:  2005-08

7.  Phytophthora polonica, a new species isolated from declining Alnus glutinosa stands in Poland.

Authors:  Lassaad Belbahri; Eduardo Moralejo; Gautier Calmin; Tomasz Oszako; Jose A García; Enrique Descals; Francois Lefort
Journal:  FEMS Microbiol Lett       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 2.742

8.  Phytophthora captiosa sp. nov. and P. fallax sp. nov. causing crown dieback of Eucalyptus in New Zealand.

Authors:  Margaret A Dick; Kiryn Dobbie; David E L Cooke; Clive M Brasier
Journal:  Mycol Res       Date:  2006-04

9.  Phytophthora genome sequences uncover evolutionary origins and mechanisms of pathogenesis.

Authors:  Brett M Tyler; Sucheta Tripathy; Xuemin Zhang; Paramvir Dehal; Rays H Y Jiang; Andrea Aerts; Felipe D Arredondo; Laura Baxter; Douda Bensasson; Jim L Beynon; Jarrod Chapman; Cynthia M B Damasceno; Anne E Dorrance; Daolong Dou; Allan W Dickerman; Inna L Dubchak; Matteo Garbelotto; Mark Gijzen; Stuart G Gordon; Francine Govers; Niklaus J Grunwald; Wayne Huang; Kelly L Ivors; Richard W Jones; Sophien Kamoun; Konstantinos Krampis; Kurt H Lamour; Mi-Kyung Lee; W Hayes McDonald; Mónica Medina; Harold J G Meijer; Eric K Nordberg; Donald J Maclean; Manuel D Ospina-Giraldo; Paul F Morris; Vipaporn Phuntumart; Nicholas H Putnam; Sam Rash; Jocelyn K C Rose; Yasuko Sakihama; Asaf A Salamov; Alon Savidor; Chantel F Scheuring; Brian M Smith; Bruno W S Sobral; Astrid Terry; Trudy A Torto-Alalibo; Joe Win; Zhanyou Xu; Hongbin Zhang; Igor V Grigoriev; Daniel S Rokhsar; Jeffrey L Boore
Journal:  Science       Date:  2006-09-01       Impact factor: 47.728

10.  MAFFT version 5: improvement in accuracy of multiple sequence alignment.

Authors:  Kazutaka Katoh; Kei-ichi Kuma; Hiroyuki Toh; Takashi Miyata
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2005-01-20       Impact factor: 16.971

View more
  15 in total

Review 1.  Canker and decline diseases caused by soil- and airborne Phytophthora species in forests and woodlands.

Authors:  T Jung; A Pérez-Sierra; A Durán; M Horta Jung; Y Balci; B Scanu
Journal:  Persoonia       Date:  2018-04-30       Impact factor: 11.051

Review 2.  Dynamics and innovations within oomycete genomes: insights into biology, pathology, and evolution.

Authors:  Howard S Judelson
Journal:  Eukaryot Cell       Date:  2012-08-24

3.  Phytophthora: an ancient, historic, biologically and structurally cohesive and evolutionarily successful generic concept in need of preservation.

Authors:  Clive Brasier; Bruno Scanu; David Cooke; Thomas Jung
Journal:  IMA Fungus       Date:  2022-06-27       Impact factor: 8.044

4.  Dinoflagellate phylogeny revisited: using ribosomal proteins to resolve deep branching dinoflagellate clades.

Authors:  Tsvetan R Bachvaroff; Sebastian G Gornik; Gregory T Concepcion; Ross F Waller; Gregory S Mendez; J Casey Lippmeier; Charles F Delwiche
Journal:  Mol Phylogenet Evol       Date:  2013-10-14       Impact factor: 4.286

5.  Which morphological characteristics are most influenced by the host matrix in downy mildews? A case study in Pseudoperonospora cubensis.

Authors:  Fabian Runge; Beninweck Ndambi; Marco Thines
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-11-15       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Reconstruction of oomycete genome evolution identifies differences in evolutionary trajectories leading to present-day large gene families.

Authors:  Michael F Seidl; Guido Van den Ackerveken; Francine Govers; Berend Snel
Journal:  Genome Biol Evol       Date:  2012-01-09       Impact factor: 3.416

7.  Genome analyses of the sunflower pathogen Plasmopara halstedii provide insights into effector evolution in downy mildews and Phytophthora.

Authors:  Rahul Sharma; Xiaojuan Xia; Liliana M Cano; Edouard Evangelisti; Eric Kemen; Howard Judelson; Stan Oome; Christine Sambles; D Johan van den Hoogen; Miloslav Kitner; Joël Klein; Harold J G Meijer; Otmar Spring; Joe Win; Reinhard Zipper; Helge B Bode; Francine Govers; Sophien Kamoun; Sebastian Schornack; David J Studholme; Guido Van den Ackerveken; Marco Thines
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2015-10-05       Impact factor: 3.969

8.  Decay of genes encoding the oomycete flagellar proteome in the downy mildew Hyaloperonospora arabidopsidis.

Authors:  Howard S Judelson; Jolly Shrivastava; Joseph Manson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-10-15       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Baobabopsis, a new genus of graminicolous downy mildews from tropical Australia, with an updated key to the genera of downy mildews.

Authors:  Marco Thines; Sabine Telle; Young-Joon Choi; Yu Pei Tan; Roger G Shivas
Journal:  IMA Fungus       Date:  2015-11-25       Impact factor: 3.515

10.  Phylogenomic Reconstruction of the Oomycete Phylogeny Derived from 37 Genomes.

Authors:  Charley G P McCarthy; David A Fitzpatrick
Journal:  mSphere       Date:  2017-04-12       Impact factor: 4.389

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.