Literature DB >> 29242780

An expanded phylogeny for the genus Phytophthora.

Xiao Yang1, Brett M Tyler2, Chuanxue Hong1.   

Abstract

A comprehensive phylogeny representing 142 described and 43 provisionally named Phytophthora species is reported here for this rapidly expanding genus. This phylogeny features signature sequences of 114 ex-types and numerous authentic isolates that were designated as representative isolates by the originators of the respective species. Multiple new subclades were assigned in clades 2, 6, 7, and 9. A single species P. lilii was placed basal to clades 1 to 5, and 7. Phytophthora stricta was placed basal to other clade 8 species, P. asparagi to clade 6 and P. intercalaris to clade 10. On the basis of this phylogeny and ancestral state reconstructions, new hypotheses were proposed for the evolutionary history of sporangial papillation of Phytophthora species. Non-papillate ancestral Phytophthora species were inferred to evolve through separate evolutionary paths to either papillate or semi-papillate species.

Entities:  

Keywords:  evolution; oomycetes; plant pathology; systematics; taxonomy

Year:  2017        PMID: 29242780      PMCID: PMC5729717          DOI: 10.5598/imafungus.2017.08.02.09

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


INTRODUCTION

The genus Phytophthora has had profound impacts on human history by causing agriculturally and ecologically important plant diseases (Erwin & Ribeiro 1996). Among the most notorious Phytophthora species is P. infestans, cause of the late blight disease, which was the primary cause of the Irish potato famine from 1845 to 1852 in which approximately one million people died and 1.5 million emigrated from Ireland (Turner 2005). Another example is the sudden oak death pathogen, P. ramorum, that has killed millions of coast live oak, tanoak and Japanese larch trees, and has permanently altered the forest ecosystems in California and Oregon, USA (Goheen , Rizzo , Rizzo ). Other species, such as P. cinnamomi, P. nicotianae, and P. sojae, can also cause highly destructive plant diseases (Erwin & Ribeiro 1996). The impact caused by Phytophthora species has continued to increase with the emergence of new pathogens and diseases. The number of species known in the genus has doubled during the past decade due to extensive surveys in previously unexplored ecosystems such as natural forests (Jung , 2017, Rea , Reeser , Vettraino ), streams (Bezuidenhout , Brazee , Reeser , Yang ), riparian ecosystems (Brasier , 2004, Hansen ), and irrigation systems (Hong , 2012, Yang , b). The total number of formally named species in the genus was about 58 in 1996 (Erwin & Ribeiro 1996), but now is more than 150. In addition, some provisionally or informally named species are also expected to be formally described in the near future. A sound taxonomic system is foundational for correctly identifying Phytophthora species and safeguarding agriculture, forestry, and natural ecosystems. Traditionally, taxonomy of the genus was based on morphological characters. A fundamental morphology-based classification of Phytophthora species was established by Waterhouse (1963) who classified the species into six groups based on the morphology of sporangia, homothallism, and configuration of antheridia. However, plasticity in morphological characters amongst isolates of individual species is significant, so is homology or homoplasy among different species. For example, isolates of P. constricta (Rea ), P. gibbosa (Jung ), P. lateralis (Kroon ), P. mississippiae (Yang ), and P. multivesiculata (Ilieva ) all produce a mixture of semi-papillate and non-papillate sporangia. Many non-papillate species recovered from irrigation water such as Phytophthora hydropathica (Hong ) and P. irrigata (Hong ) were morphologically inseparable from P. drechsleri, while sequence analyses demonstrated that they are distinct species. Also, production of many morphological structures and physiological features needs specific environmental conditions, while observation of these features requires substantial training and expertise. Difficulty in obtaining important morphological data can impair accurate species identification. With the advent of DNA sequencing, the taxonomic concept for the genus has evolved from morphology to molecular phylogeny-based (Blair , Cooke , Kroon , Lara & Belbahri 2011, Martin , Martin & Tooley 2003, Robideau , Villa ). In particular, the availability of whole genome sequences from P. sojae, P. ramorum (Tyler ) and P. infestans (Haas ) enabled the identification of genetic markers useful for multi-locus phylogenies (Blair ). Cooke developed the first molecular phylogeny for the genus by analyzing sequences of the internal transcribed spacer region (ITS) of 51 species. Kroon constructed a phylogeny based on sequences of four nuclear and mitochondrial genes of 48 species, and Blair produced a sophisticated phylogeny based on sequences of seven nuclear genetic markers. That multi-locus phylogeny divided 82 Phytophthora species into 10 phylogenetically well-supported clades. Martin analyzed sequences of seven nuclear and four mitochondrial genes of 90 formally named and 17 provisional species and provided phylogenies including 10 clades, almost identical to that of Blair , except that P. quercina and P. sp. ohioensis were excluded from clade 4 and grouped into a potentially new clade. A comprehensive molecular phylogeny is required to understanding the evolution of Phytophthora species. Although discordance has been found between the molecular phylogeny and the morphology-based taxonomy (Cooke , Ersek & Ribeiro 2010), correlations have been observed between molecular phylogenies and individual morphological and physiological traits. Recent studies indicated that species in individual clades or subclades are mostly identical in sporangial papillation, and optimum and maximum growth temperatures (Cooke , Kroon , Martin , Yang 2014). However, there was limited to no correlation between phylogeny and the morphology of sexual organs, such as antheridial configuration (Cooke , Kroon , Martin , Yang 2014). These studies have implied that divergence in sporangial morphology and variation in environmental specialization may be the keys in the evolutionary history of Phytophthora species. Nevertheless, these hypotheses need to be further tested and the exact evolutionary history of the genus Phytophthora warranted more investigation. In this study, an expanded phylogeny, including more than 180 Phytophthora taxa, many not included in any previous phylogeny, was constructed. Sequences of seven nuclear genetic markers were used for construction of the phylogeny. In light of this phylogeny, ancestral state reconstructions were conducted on the sporangial papillation of Phytophthora species. Important evolutionary divergence events and associated changes in the sporangial morphology of Phytophthora species are discussed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Isolate selection

A total of 376 Phytophthora isolates representing 142 described and 43 provisionally named species, plus one isolate of each Elongisporangium undulatum (basionym: Pythium undulatum), Halophytophthora fluviatilis, and Phytopythium vexans (basionym: Pythium vexans) as outgroup taxa were included (Table 1). These included 114 ex-types (Table 2). Also included were 164 authentic isolates that were designated as representative isolates by the originators of the respective species names (Table 1). The majority of these isolates were provided by the originators of the respective species, while the rest were purchased from the Westerdijk Fungal Biodiversity Institute (CBS), Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Table 1.

Information regarding isolates used in this study. GenBank accession numbers are listed in Table S1.

Isolate identificationd
Isolate origins
(Sub)cladeaSpeciesbPapillacCHCBSATCCIMIWPCMGTypeeHost or SubstrateLocationYearReference
1aP. cactorumP22E6P10194p25Rhododendron sp.Ohio, USAn.a.f(Schröter 1886)
22E71669321168P0715p6n.a.UKn.a.
22E816694, MYA-365350470P10193p7Malus sp.Zimbabwen.a.
P. hedraiandraP33F3MYA-4165p225Rhododendron sp.Minnesota, USA2002(de Cock & Lévesque 2004)
38C2Irrigation waterVirginia, USA2006
62A5111725P19523TViburnum sp.The Netherlands2001
P. idaeiP34D4971.95MYA-4065313728P6767p220TRubus idaeusScotland, UK1987(Kennedy & Duncan 1995)
62A1968.95ARubus idaeusScotland, UK1985
P. pseudotsugaeP52938331662P10339TPsendotsuga menziesiiOregon, USAn.a.(Hamm & Hansen 1983)
P. aff. hedraiandraP33F4p226Rhododendron sp.Minnesota, USA2003n.a.
P. aff. pseudotsugaeP29B3p185APsendotsuga menziesiiOregon, USA1975n.a.
1bP. clandestinaP32G1347.8658713, 60438278933P3943p200TTrifolium subterraneumAustralia1985(Taylor et al. 1985)
33D8MYA-4064287317p215ATrifolium subterraneaAustralia1985
38D4p304n.a.Australian.a.
P. iranicaP61J4374.7260237158964P3882p218TSolanum melongenaIran1969(Ershad 1971)
P. tentaculataP29F2552.96P8497AChrysanthemum leucanthemumGermanyn.a.(Kröber & Marwitz 1993)
30D5Bacopa sp.The Netherlands2004
30G8MYA-3655Argyranthemum frutescensGermany2004
1cP. andinaSP60A2p460ASolanum betaceumEcuadorn.a.(Oliva et al. 2010)
60A3p461ASolanum betaceumEcuadorn.a.
P13365TSolanum brevifoliumEcuador2001
P. infestansSP27A8Solanum tuberosumMexico1992(De Bary 1876)
P10650Solanum tuberosumMexicon.a.
P. ipomoeaeSP31B4P10226AIpomoea longipedunculataMexicon.a.(Flier et al. 2002)
31B5109229P10225TIpomoea longipedunculataMexico1999
31B6P10227AIpomoea longipedunculataMexicon.a.
P. mirabilisSP30C164069, MYA-4062P3006p145AMirabilis jalapaMexicon.a.(Galindo-A & Hohl 1985)
30C264070, MYA-4063P3007p153AMirabilis jalapaMexicon.a.
P. phaseoliSP23B4p106Phaseolus lunatusDelaware, USA2000(Thaxter 1889)
35B6Phaseolus sp.Delaware, USA2000
P10145Phaseolus lunatusDelaware, USAn.a.
P10150Phaseolus lunatusDelaware, USAn.a.
1P. nicotianaeP22F915410, MYA-4037p23Nicotiana tabacumNorth Carolina, USAn.a.(Breda de Haan 1896)
22G115409, MYA-4036p22Nicotiana tabacumNorth Carolina, USAn.a.
P10116Metrosideros excelsaCalifornia, USA2002
P1452Citrus sp.California, USAn.a.
2aP. botryosaP22H8MYA-4059p44Heavae sp.Thailandn.a.(Chee 1969)
46C226481p384AHevea brasiliensisThailandn.a.
62C6581.69136915P3425THevea brasiliensisMalaysia1966
130422P6945Hevea brasiliensisMalaysia1986
P. citrophthoraP03E5p132Irrigation waterVirginia, USA2000(Smith & Smith 1906)
26H3p31n.a.n.a.n.a.
P. colocasiaeSP22F8MYA-4159p47Colocasia esculentan.a.1992(Raciborski 1900)
35D3p276Colocasia esculentaHawaii, USA2005
P. himalsilvaP61G2128767TQuercus leucotricophoraNepal2005(Vettraino et al. 2011)
61G3128753AQuercus leucotricophoraNepal2005
P. meadiiP22G5MYA-4043p75Citrus sp.India1992(McRae 1918)
61J9219.88129185Hevea brasiliensisIndia1987
P. occultansSP65B9101557TBuxus sempervirensThe Netherlands1998(Man In’t Veld et al. 2015)
P. terminalisSP65B8133865TPachysandra terminalisThe Netherlands2010(Man In’t Veld et al. 2015)
P. aff. citrophthoraP26H4p32An.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.
342898P10341ASyringa sp.England, UK1990
P. aff. himalsilvaP61G4128754ACastanopsis sp.Nepal2005n.a.
P. sp. 46C3n.a.46C366767P6713p385AHevea brasiliensisMalaysian.a.n.a.
P. sp. P6262n.a.P6262AHevea brasiliensisIndian.a.n.a.
P. sp. P6310n.a.P6310ATheobroma cacaoIndonesian.a.n.a.
2bP. capsiciP22F415399, MYA-4034p8ACapsicum annumNew Mexico, USA1948(Leonian 1922)
46012P0253Theobroma cacaoMexico1964
121656P10386Cucumis sativusMichigan, USA1997
P. gloveraSP31E5p167ANicotiana tabacumBraziln.a.(Abad et al. 2011)
62B4121969P11685TNicotiana tabacumBrazil1995
P. mengeiSP42B2MYA-4554p340TPersea americanaCalifornia, USAn.a.(Hong et al. 2009)
42B3MYA-4555p341APersea americanaCalifornia, USAn.a.
P. mexicanaP45G4554.884673192550P0646p355Solanum lycopersicumArgentinan.a.(Hotson & Hartge 1923)
P. siskiyouensisSP41B7122779MYA-4187P15122TStream waterOregon, USA2003(Reeser et al. 2007)
41B8ASoilOregon, USA2003
P. tropicalisP22H5p27Vanila sp.Tahitin.a.(Aragaki & Uchida 2001)
35C8434.9176651, MYA-4218p272TMacadamia integrifoliaHawaii, USAn.a.
P. aff. capsiciP22F515427, MYA-4035p9Nicotiana tabacumNorth Carolina, USAn.a.n.a.
P. sp. brasiliensisn.a.46705P0630ATheobroma cacaoBrazil1969(Oudemans & Coffey 1991)
2cP. acerinaSP61H1133931TAcer pseudoplatanusItaly2010(Ginetti et al. 2014)
61H2ASoilItaly2010
P. capensisSP62C1128319P1819TCurtisia dentataSouth African.a.(Bezuidenhout et al. 2010)
62C2128320P1822AStream waterSouth African.a.
62C3128321P1823AOlea campensisSouth Africa1986
P. citricolaSP33H8221.886044021173P0716p396TCitrus sinensisTaiwan1987(Sawada 1927)
33J2295.29p375ACitrus sp.Japan1929
P. multivoraSP55C5124094TSoilWestern Australia, Australia2007(Scott et al. 2009)
P. pachypleuraSP61H6ASoilUK2006(Henricot et al. 2014)
61H7502404TAcuba japonicaUK2008
61H8ASoilUK2009
P. piniSP22F1MYA-3656p53ARhododendron sp.West Virginia, USA1987(Hong et al. 2011)
45F164532p343TPinus resinosaMinnesota, USA1925
P. plurivoraSP22E9MYA-3657p101Kalmia latifoliaWestern Australia, Australia1998(Jung & Burgess 2009)
22F2p52Rhododendron sp. cv. “Olga Mezitt”New York, USAn.a.
33H9379.61Rhododendron sp.Germany1958
P. sp. 22F3SP22F3p33An.a.Ohio, USAn.a.n.a.
P. sp. 28D1SP28D1p119AFagus sylvaticaNew York, USAn.a.n.a.
28D3p121AFagus sylvaticaNew York, USAn.a.
P. sp. citricola VIIISP27D9AUnidentified leafHainan, Chinan.a.n.a.
P. sp. pini-likeSP56G1ATaxus sp.Pennsylvania, USA2011n.a.
P. taxon emzansiSP61F2AAgathosma betulinaSouth Africa2005(Bezuidenhout et al. 2010)
61F3AAgathosma betulinaSouth Africa2005
2dP. bisheriaSP29D2Rubus idaeus cv. CanbyWisconsin, USA1989(Abad et al. 2008)
31E6122081P10117TFragaria ×ananassaNorth Carolina, USA1999
P1620Rhododendron sp.North Carolina, USAn.a.
P. elongataSP33J3An.a.Australia1995(Rea et al. 2010)
33J4An.a.Australia1995
55C4125799TSoilWestern Australia, Australia2004
P. frigidaP47G6AEucalyptus smithiSouth African.a.(Maseko et al. 2007)
47G7AEucalyptus smithiSouth African.a.
47G8TEucalyptus smithiSouth Africa2001
2eP. multivesiculataSP to NP29E3545.96P10410TCymbidium sp.The Netherlandsn.a.(Ilieva et al. 1998)
30D4ACymbidium sp.The Netherlandsn.a.
P. taxon aquatilisSP38J5MYA-4577AStream waterVirginia, USA2006(Hong et al. 2012)
3P. ilicisSP23A756615, MYA-3897P3939p113Ilex sp.Canadan.a.(Buddenhagen & Young 1957)
34D6Quercus sp.Germany1999
62A7114348TIlex aquifoliumThe Netherlandsn.a.
P. nemorosaSP28J3MYA-4061p141Umbellularia californicaCalifornia, USAn.a.(Hansen et al. 2003)
41C4MYA-2948p320TLithocarpus densiflorusCalifornia, USAn.a.
P. pluvialisSP60B3MYA-4930TRainwaterOregon, USA2008(Reeser et al. 2013)
P. pseudosyringaeSP30A8111772MYA-4222p284TQuercus roburGermany1997(Jung et al. 2003)
30B1Pp285AQuercus roburGermany1997
P. psychrophilaSP29J5803.95TQuercus roburGermany1995(Jung et al. 2002)
29J6MYA-4083p288AQuercus ilexFrance1996
4P. alticolaP47G5121939P16948AEucalyptus dunniiSouth African.a.(Maseko et al. 2007)
P. arenariaP55C2127950TSoilWestern Australia, Australia2009(Rea et al. 2011)
62B7125800ASoilWestern Australia, Australia2009
P. megakaryaP22H7MYA-4040p42Theobroma cacaoAfrican.a.(Brasier & Griffin 1979)
61J5238.8342100202077TTheobroma cacaoCameroonn.a.
61J6239.8342099106327ATheobroma cacaoNigerian.a.
P. palmivoraP22G8MYA-4039P10213p65Citrus sp.Florida, USAn.a.(Butler 1910)
22G9MYA-4038p26Theobroma cacaoCosta Rican.a.
P. quercetorumP15C7SoilSouth Carolina, USA1997(Balci et al. 2008)
15C8SoilSouth Carolina, USA1997
P. quercinaP30A4783.95AQuercus roburGermany1995(Jung et al. 1999)
30A5784.95MYA-4084TQuercus roburGermany1995
30A7Quercus sp.Serbia2003
P. sp. ohioensisn.a.P16050ASoilOhio, USA2006n.a.
5P. agathidicidaP67D5TAgathis australisNew Zealand2006(Weir et al. 2015)
P. castaneaeP22H6MYA-4060p45Castanea sp.Japann.a.(Katsura 1976)
30E7SoilHainan, Chinan.a.
61J7587.8536818325914TSoilTaiwann.a.
P. cocoisP67D6TCocos nuciferaHawaii, USA1990(Weir et al. 2015)
P. heveaeP22J1180616p28THeavae sp.Malaysian.a.(Thompson 1929)
22J216701, MYA-3895p17soilTennessee, USA1964
6aP. geminiNP46H1123382AZostera marinaThe Netherlands1999(Man in’t Veld et al. 2011)
46H2123383AZostera marinaThe Netherlands1999
P. humicolaNP32F8200.8152179, MYA-4080P3826p198TSoilTaiwan1976(Ko & Ann 1985)
32F9P6702p199APhaseolus vulgarisTaiwann.a.
P. inundataNP30J3390121p291TOlea sp.Spain1996(Brasier et al. 2003b)
30J4389751p298TSalix matsudanaUK1972
P8619Pistacia veraIrann.a.
P. rosacearumNP22J9MYA-3662p82APrunus sp.California, USA1987(Hansen et al. 2009)
41C1p321APrunus sp.California, USAn.a.
47J1MYA-4456TMalus domesticaCalifornia, USAn.a.
P. sp. 48H2NP48H2AStream waterVirginia, USA2008n.a.
P. sp. 62C9NP62C9AStream waterTaiwan2013n.a.
P. sp. personiin.a.P11555ANicotiana tabacumNorth Carolina, USAn.a.n.a.
P. taxon walnutNP40A7AIrrigation waterVirginia, USA2006(Brasier et al. 2003a)
43G1AIrrigation waterVirginia, USA2007
6bP. amnicolaNP61G6131652TStream waterWestern Australia, Australia2009(Crous et al. 2012)
62C5133867Pachysandra sp.The Netherlandsn.a.
P. bilorbangNP61G8131653TSoilWestern Australia, Australia2010(Aghighi et al. 2012)
P. borealisNP60B2132023MYA-4881TStream waterAlaska, USA2008(Hansen et al. 2012)
P. crassamuraNP66C9APicea abiesItaly2012(Scanu et al. 2015)
66D1140357TSoilItaly2011
P. fluvialisNP55B6129424TStream waterWestern Australia, Australia2009(Crous et al. 2011)
P. gibbosaNP to SP55B7ASoilWestern Australia, Australia2009(Jung et al. 2011)
62B8127951TSoilWestern Australia, Australia2009
P. gonapodyidesNP21J546726p117WaterEngland, UKn.a.(Buisman 1927, Petersen 1910)
34A8554.6760351P6872Reservoir watern.a.1967
P. gregataNP55B8ASoilWestern Australia, Australia2009(Jung et al. 2011)
62B9127952TSoilWestern Australia, Australia2009
P. lacustrisNP61D6ASoilGermany2003(Nechwatal et al. 2013)
61D8ASoilGermany2003
NP61E1ASoilGermany2006
389725P10337TSalix matsudanaEngland, UK1972
P. litoralisNP55B9127953TSoilWestern Australia, Australia2008(Jung et al. 2011)
P. megaspermaNP62C7402.725881732035P3599TAlthaea roseaWashington DC, USA1931(Drechsler 1931)
P. mississippiaeNP to SP57J1AIrrigation waterMississippi, USA2012(Yang et al. 2013)
57J2AIrrigation waterMississippi, USA2012
57J3MYA-4946TIrrigation waterMississippi, USA2012
57J4AIrrigation waterMississippi, USA2012
P. ornamentataNP66D2140647TSoilItaly2012(Scanu et al. 2015)
66D3ASoilItaly2012
P. pinifoliaNP47H1122924TPinus radiataChile2007(Duran et al. 2008)
47H2122922APinus radiataChile2007
P. ripariaNP60B1132024MYA-4882TStream waterOregon, USA2006(Hansen et al. 2012)
P. thermophilaNP55C1127954TSoilWestern Australia, Australia2004(Jung et al. 2011)
P. ×stagnumNP36H8AIrrigation waterVirginia, USA2006(Yang et al. 2014c)
36J7AIrrigation waterVirginia, USA2006
43F3MYA-4926TIrrigation waterVirginia, USA2007
44F9AIrrigation waterVirginia, USA2007
P. sp. 26E1NP26E1p116AMalus domesticaNew York, USAn.a.n.a.
P. sp. canalensisn.a.P10456ACanal waterCalifornia, USA2002n.a.
P. sp. delawareNP63H4APond waterDelaware, USA2014n.a.
63H7APond waterDelaware, USA2014
P. sp. gregata-likeNP22J516698p16An.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.
P. sp. megasperma-likeNP23A1p81APrunus sp.California, USAn.a.n.a.
23A3MYA-3660p79AActinidia chinensisCalifornia, USA1987
6P. asparagiNP33D7384046AAsparagus officinalisNew Zealand1980(Crous et al. 2012)
62C4132095MYA-4826TAsparagus officinalisMichigan, USA2006
P. sp. sulawesiensisn.a.P6306ASyzygium aromaticumIndonesia1989n.a.
7aP. attenuataNP67C5TSoilTaiwan2013(Jung et al. 2017)
P. europaeaNP30A3Quercus sp.France1998(Jung et al. 2002)
34C2Quercus sp.Germany1999
62A2109049TSoilFrance1998
P. flexuosaNP67C3TSoilTaiwan2013(Jung et al. 2017)
P. formosaNP67C4TSoilTaiwan2013(Jung et al. 2017)
P. fragariaeNP22G611374P3570p114Fragaria ×ananassaMaryland, USAn.a.(Hickman 1940)
30C5Fragaria ×ananassaVirginia, USAn.a.
61J3209.46181417P6231TFragaria ×ananassaEngland, UKn.a.
P. intricataNP67B9TSoilTaiwan2013(Jung et al. 2017)
P. rubiNP30D7p186ARubus sp.Australian.a.(Man in ‘t Veld 2007)
41D5Rubus sp.Norway2005
46C790442p389TRubus idaeus cv. "Glen Clova"Scotland, UKn.a.
P. uliginosaNP62A3109054P10413TSoilPoland1998(Jung et al. 2002)
62A4109055P10328ASoilGermany1998
P. ×alniNP32J6392317MYA-4081p205AAlnus glutinosaFrance1996(Brasier et al. 2004, Husson et al. 2015)
32J7392318p206AAlnus sp.Austria1996
47A7392314TAlnus sp.UK1994
47A8AAlnus sp.The Netherlandsn.a.
P. ×cambivoraNP22F646719, MYA-4076p64Abies sp.Oregon, USAn.a.(Buisman 1927, Jung et al. 2017)
26F8MYA-4075p38n.a.New York, USAn.a.
P. ×heterohybridaNP67C1TStream waterTaiwan2013(Jung et al. 2017)
P. ×incrassataNP67C2TStream waterTaiwan2013(Jung et al. 2017)
P. sp. europaea SWNP33F7p229ASoilWest Virginia, USA2005n.a.
7bP. asiaticaNP45G190455p352ARobinia pseudoacaciaJiangsu, Chinan.a.(Rahman et al. 2014a)
46C656194p388ARobinia pseudoacaciaJiangsu, Chinan.a.
61H3133347TPueraria lobataJapan2005
P. cajaniNP33D9p214Cajanus cajaniIndian.a.(Amin et al. 1978)
45F644389p348ACajanus cajaniIndian.a.
45F744388P3105p349TCajanus cajaniIndian.a.
P. melonisNP32F6MYA-4079P1371p196ACucumis sativusChinan.a.(Katsura 1976)
41B4p318ACucumis sativusIrann.a.
45F3582.6952854TCucumis sativusJapann.a.
P. niederhauseriiNP01D5p312AIrrigation waterVirginia, USA2000(Abad et al. 2014)
23J6MYA-4163p57AUnknown ornamentalIsraeln.a.
31E7P10617p169AThuja occidentalisNorth Carolina, USA2001
P. pisiNP60A4TPeaSweden2009(Heyman et al. 2013)
60A5APeaSweden2009
P. pistaciaeNP33D6MYA-4082386658p216TPistacia veraIran1986(Mirabolfathy et al. 2001)
41A9p314APistacia veraIrann.a.
P. sojaeNP22D8312.6216705, MYA-3899131375p19Glycine maxOntario, Canada1959(Kaufmann & Gerdemann 1958)
28F9p236Glycine maxMississippi, USA1970
P. vignaeNP45G646735p357AGlycine maxn.a.n.a.(Purss 1957)
45G964832316196P3420p379Vigna unguiculataSri Lankan.a.
46C1112.7664129p380Vigna sinensisn.a.n.a.
7cP. cinnamomiNP23B115400, MYA-4057p10Camellia japonicaSouth Carolina, USAn.a.(Rands 1922)
23B215401, MYA-4058p11Persea americanaPuerto Rico1960
61J1144.224667122938P2110TCinnamomum burmanniiIndonesia1922
P. parvisporaNP30G9MYA-4078p178ABeaucarnea sp.Germany1991(Scanu et al. 2014)
46F6ABeaucarnea sp.Germany1992
66C7132771AArbutus unedoItaly2008
66C8132772TArbutus unedoItaly2011
P. sp. axNP46H5AIlex glabra cv. “Shamrock”Virginia, USA2008n.a.
7dP. fragariaefoliaNP61H4135747TFragaria ×ananassaJapan2005(Rahman et al. 2014b)
P. nagaiiNP61H5133248TRosa sp.Japan1968(Rahman et al. 2014b)
8aP. cryptogeaNP61H9113.19180615P1738TSolanum lycopersicumIrelandn.a.(Pethybridge & Lafferty 1919)
P. drechsleriNP15E5SoilSouth Carolina, USA1997(Tucker 1931)
15E6SoilSouth Carolina, USA1998
23J5292.3546724P1087p41TBeta vulgaris var. altissimaCalifornia, USAn.a.
P10331Gerbera jamesoniiNew Hampshire, USA2003
P. erythrosepticaNP61J2129.2334684P1693TSolanum tuberosumIrelandn.a.(Pethybridge 1913)
P. medicaginisNP23A4MYA-3900p37Medicago sativaOhio, USAn.a.(Hansen & Maxwell 1991)
28F144390P1057p124Medicago sativaCalifornia, USA1975
P. pseudocryptogeaNP52402P3103Solanum marginatumEcuadorn.a.(Safaiefarahani et al. 2015)
P. richardiaeNP31E8P10355p170Zantedeschia sp.Japan1989(Buisman 1927)
45F5240.3060353, 46734325930p347TZantedeschia aethiopicaUSAn.a.
P10811Zantedeschia aethiopicaJapan1989
P. sansomeanaNP47H3MYA-4455TGlycine sp.Indiana, USAn.a.(Hansen et al. 2009)
47H4AGlycine sp.Indiana, USAn.a.
47H5AGlycine sp.Indiana, USAn.a.
P. trifoliiNP29B2MYA-3901p142ATrifolium vesiculosumMississippi, USA1978(Hansen & Maxwell 1991)
62A9117687TTrifolium sp.Mississippi, USAn.a.
P. aff. cryptogeaNP22G2308.6215402, MYA-4161325907p12Aster sp.California, USAn.a.n.a.
P. aff. erythrosepticaNP22J4MYA-4041p50n.a.Ohio, USAn.a.n.a.
33A1p207Solanum tuberosumMaine, USA2004
P. sp. kelmaniaNP24A7MYA-4162p102AAbies concolorWest Virginia, USA1998n.a.
31E4P10613p166AAbes fraseriNorth Carolina, USA2002
8bP. brassicaeSP29D8686.95ABrassica oleraceaThe Netherlands1995(Man in’t Veld et al. 2002)
61J8179.87P7517, P19521TBrassica oleraceaThe Netherlands1986
P. cichoriiSP62A8115029TCichorium intybus var. foliosumThe Netherlands2004(Bertier et al. 2013)
P. dauciSP61E5127102TDaucus carotaFrance2009(Bertier et al. 2013)
32E5Duscus carotaFrance2004
32E6P10728Duscus carotaFrance2004
32E7p194Duscus carotaFrance2004
P. lactucaeSP61F4TLactuca sativaGreece2001(Bertier et al. 2013)
61F7ALactuca sativaGreece2002
61F8ALactuca sativaGreece2003
P. primulaeSP29E9620.97p286Primula acaulisGermany1997(Tomlinson 1952)
29F1p287Primula sp.The Netherlands1998
P. aff. brassicae-2n.a.112968P6207AAllium cepaSwitzerlandn.a.n.a.
P. aff. cichoriiSP61E3133815ACichorium intybus var. foliosumUK1999n.a.
P. sp. 29E7SP29E7AAllium porrumThe Netherlandsn.a.n.a.
P. taxon castitisSP61E7131246AFragaria ×ananassaSweden1995(Bertier et al. 2013)
P. taxon parsleySP61G1APetroselinum crispumGreece2006(Bertier et al. 2013)
8cP. foliorumSP49J8121655MYA-3638P10974TRhododendron sp.Tennessee, USA2004(Donahoo et al. 2006)
P. hibernalisSP22H1270.316035236906P6871p115Citrus sinensisPortugal1931(Carne 1925)
32F711410456353, MYA-3896134760P3822p197Citrus sinensisWestern Australia, Australia1958
P. lateralisNP to SP22H9MYA-3898p51AChamaecyparis lawsonianaOregon, USAn.a.(Tucker & Milbrath 1942)
29A9201856p128Chamaecyparis lawsonianaCalifornia, USA1997
P. ramorumSP32G2Camellia japonicaSouth Carolina, USAn.a.(Werres et al. 2001)
33F2Quercus agrifoliaCalifornia, USAn.a.
8dP. austrocedraeSP41B5MYA-4073AAustrocedrus chilensisArgentinan.a.(Greslebin et al. 2007)
41B6122911MYA-4074TAustrocedrus chilensisArgentina2005
P. obscuraSP60E9129273TSoilGermany1994(Grünwald et al. 2012)
60F1APieris sp.Oregon, USA2009
60F2AKalmia latifoliaOregon, USAn.a.
P. syringaeSP21H934002P0649p187Citrus sp.California, USAn.a.(Klebahn 1905)
23A6MYA-3659p35n.a.New York, USAn.a.
8P. strictaNP58A1MYA-4944TIrrigation waterMississippi, USA2012(Yang et al. 2014a)
58A2AIrrigation waterMississippi, USA2012
58A3AIrrigation waterMississippi, USA2012
58A4AIrrigation waterMississippi, USA2012
9a (cluster 9a1)P. aquimorbidaNP40A6MYA-4578TIrrigation waterVirginia, USA2006(Hong et al. 2012)
40E3AIrrigation waterVirginia, USA2006
44G9AIrrigation waterVirginia, USA2007
P. chrysanthemiNP61E9AChrysanthemum sp.Japan1998(Naher et al. 2011)
61F1123163TChrysanthemum ×morifoliumJapan2000
P. hydrogenaNP44G8AIrrigation waterVirginia, USA2007(Yang et al. 2014b)
46A3MYA-4919TIrrigation waterVirginia, USA2007
46A4AIrrigation waterVirginia, USA2007
P. hydropathicaNP05D1MYA-4460p366TIrrigation waterVirginia, USA2000(Hong et al. 2010)
5C11MYA-4459p365AIrrigation waterVirginia, USA2000
P. irrigataNP04E4MYA-4458p335AIrrigation waterVirginia, USA2000(Hong et al. 2008)
23J7MYA-4457p108TIrrigation waterVirginia, USA2000
44E4AStream waterVirginia, USA2007
P. macilentosaNP58A5AIrrigation waterMississippi, USA2012(Yang et al. 2014a)
58A6AIrrigation waterMississippi, USA2012
58A7MYA-4945TIrrigation waterMississippi, USA2012
58A8AIrrigation waterMississippi, USA2012
P. parsianaNP47C3395329TFicus caricaIran1991(Mostowfizadeh-Ghalamfarsa et al. 2008)
P. virginianaNP40A9AIrrigation waterVirginia, USA2006(Yang & Hong 2013)
44G6AIrrigation waterVirginia, USA2007
46A2MYA-4927TIrrigation waterVirginia, USA2007
P. aff. parsiana G1NP47C7APistacia veraIrann.a.n.a.
47C8APistacia veraIrann.a.
395328P8618APistacia veraIran1992
P. aff. parsiana G2NP47C5395330APistacia veraIran1992n.a.
47C6395331APistacia veraIran1992
P. aff. parsiana G3NP47D5APistacia veraIrann.a.n.a.
47D8APistacia veraIrann.a.
47E1APistacia veraIrann.a.
P. sp. 35G4NP35G4AIrrigation waterVirginia, USA2005n.a.
P. sp. 38D9NP38D9ADianthus caryophyllusTaiwann.a.n.a.
P. sp. 40J5NP40J5AUnknown leaf in seawaterHainan, Chinan.a.n.a.
P. sp. cuyabensisn.a.P8213An.a.Ecuador1993n.a.
P. sp. lagoarianaNP60B4P8220An.a.Ecuadorn.a.n.a.
60B5P8217Tn.a.Ecuadorn.a.
P8223An.a.Ecuador1993
9a (cluster 9a2)P. macrochlamydospora-G1SP33E1P10264Glycine maxNew South Wales, Australian.a.(Irwin 1991)
P10267Glycine maxNew South Wales, Australia1994
P. macrochlamydospora-G2SP31E9351473P8017p171Glycine maxQueensland, Australian.a.(Irwin 1991)
33D5240.3060353340618Zantedeschia aethiopicaThe Netherlands1927
P. quinineaNP45F2406.4856964p344ACinchona officinalisPerun.a.(Crandall 1947)
46C4407.4846733p386TCinchona officinalisPerun.a.
9a (cluster 9a3)P. insolitaNP327E1MYA-4077p123Waterfall waterHainan, Chinan.a.(Ann & Ko 1980)
38E1691.7938789288805TSoilTaiwan1980
P6703ASoilTaiwann.a.
P. polonicaNP40G9Irrigation waterVirginia, USA2006(Belbahri et al. 2006)
43F9Irrigation waterVirginia, USA2007
49J9P15005ASoilPoland2006
9bP. captiosaNP46H6AEucalyptus salignaNew Zealand1999(Dick et al. 2006)
46H7P10719TEucalyptus salignaNew Zealand1992
46H8AEucalyptus salignaNew Zealand2000
P10721AEucalyptus salignaNew Zealand1998
P. constrictaNP to SP55C3125801TSoilWestern Australia, Australia2006(Rea et al. 2011)
P. fallaxNP46J2P10722TEucalyptus delegatensisNew Zealand1997(Dick et al. 2006)
46J3AEucalyptus nitensNew Zealand2000
46J5AEucalyptus nitensNew Zealand2000
P10725AEucalyptus fastigataNew Zealand2004
10P. boehmeriaeP45F9291.29180614P6950TBoehmeriae niveaTaiwan1927(Sawada 1927)
P. gallicaNP50A1111474P16826TQuercus roburFrance1998(Jung & Nechwatal 2008)
61D5111475P16827APhragmites australisGermany2004
P. gondwanensisP22G7MYA-3893n.a.Ohio, USAn.a.(Crous et al. 2015)
P. intercalarisNP45B7140632TSD-7TStream waterVirginia, USA2007(Yang et al. 2016)
48A1AStream waterVirginia, USA2008
49A7140631AStream waterVirginia, USA2009
P. kernoviaeP46C8P10956p390Rhododendron ponticumEngland, UK2004(Brasier et al. 2005)
46J6P10681Annona cherimolaNew Zealand2002
46J8P10671SoilNew Zealand2003
P. morindaeP62B5121982TMorinda citrifolia var. citrifoliaHawaii, USA2005(Nelson & Abad 2010)
P. sp. boehmeriae-likeP45F8357.526017332199P1378p350ACitrus sinensisArgentina1939n.a.
n.a.P. liliiNP135746TLilium sp.Japan1987(Rahman et al. 2015)
outgroupElongisporangium undulatumP101728337230P10342TLarix sp.Scotland, UK1989(Uzuhashi et al. 2010)
Phytopythium vexansP340.4912194P3980Tn.a.n.a.n.a.(de Cock et al. 2015)
Halophytophthora fluviatilisP57A9MYA-4961TStream waterVirginia, USA2011(Yang & Hong 2014)

a Molecular (sub)clade as designated in Fig. 1

b Names of taxa informally designated for the first time in this study are underlined.

c Sporangial papillation: NP = non-papillate, P = papillate, and SP = semi-papillate.

d Isolate identification abbreviations: CH, Chuanxue Hong laboratory at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia Beach, VA, USA; CBS, Westerdijk Fungal Biodiversity Institute, Utrecht, The Netherlands; ATCC, American Type Culture Collection, Manassas, VA, USA; IMI, CABI Biosciences, UK; WPC, the World Phytophthora Genetic Resource Collection at University of California, Riverside, USA; MG, Mannon E. Gallegly laboratory at West Virginia University, USA. Local identifications of respective isolates are provided in Table S1.

e Ex-types (T) or authentic (A) isolates (designated as representative isolates by the originators of the respective species).

f n.a.= not available.

Table 2.

Numbers of species and ex-types included in phylogenies for the genus Phytophthora in previous studies and this study.

Number of species
Phylogeny inFormalProvisionalNumber of ex-types
Cooke et al. (2000)4929
Kroon et al. (2004)46218
Blair et al. (2008)721016
Martin et al. (2014)901731
This study14243114

DNA extraction

To extract genomic DNA (gDNA), an approximately 5 × 5 mm culture plug of each isolate was taken from the actively growing area of a fresh culture. This was then grown in 20 % clarified V8 broth (lima bean broth for growing a P. infestans isolate 27A8) at room temperature (ca. 23 °C) for 7–14 d to produce a mycelial mass. The mass was then blot-dried using sterile tissue paper and then lysed in liquid nitrogen or using a FastPrep®-24 system (MP Biomedicals, Santa Ana, CA). gDNA was extracted using the DNeasy® Plant Mini kit (Qiagen, Valencia, CA) or the Maxwell® Plant DNA kit in combination with a Maxwell® Rapid Sample Concentrator (Promega, Madison, WI).

DNA amplification and sequencing

A set of primers for seven genetic markers were used for DNA amplification including 60S Ribosomal protein L10 (60S), beta-tubulin (Btub), elongation factor 1 alpha (EF1α), enolase (Enl), heat shock protein 90 (HSP90), 28S ribosomal DNA (28S), and tigA gene fusion protein (TigA) as indicated in Blair . PCR reaction mixtures were prepared with the Takara Taq DNA polymerase (Takara Shuzo, Shiga, Japan) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The PCR cycling protocol was the same as indicated by Blair , except that the Eppendorf® Mastercycler® Pro thermal cycler (Eppendorf, Hamburg) was used in this study. All PCR products were evaluated for successful amplification using agarose gel electrophoresis. Unsuccessful PCR amplifications were repeated using a modified protocol to attempt successful amplifications by optimizing annealing temperature using gradient PCR (typically with lower annealing temperatures) or using the GoTaq® Flexi DNA Polymerase (Promega, Madison, WI) PCR mixture system. Prior to sequencing, excess primer and dNTPs were removed from successful PCR products with shrimp alkaline phosphatase and exonuclease I (USB Catalog # 70092Y and 70073Z). One unit of each enzyme was added to 15 μL PCR product, incubated at 37 °C for 30 min, followed by heat inactivation at 65 °C for 15 min. Sequencing was performed with both amplifying primers as well as internal primers, if any, for individual genetic markers at the University of Kentucky Advanced Genetic Technologies Center (Lexington, KY). Derived sequencing files were visualized with FinchTV version 1.4.0 (Geospiza, Seattle, WA). Sequences of each isolate with all primers for individual genetic markers were aligned with Clustal W (Larkin ) and edited manually to correct obvious sequencing errors and code ambiguous sites according to the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) nucleotide ambiguity codes to produce a consensus sequence. All sequences produced in this study have been deposited in GenBank (Supplementary Table 1). Among 379 isolates (including three isolates of the outgroup taxa) in the following phylogenetic analyses, all seven phylogenetic markers from 321 isolates were sequenced in this study. Sequences of all markers from 49 isolates by Blair were also included in the analyses. Additionally, for seven isolates, sequences of one or two genes were newly produced in this study while the remaining gene sequences were from Blair . Sequences from P. lilii (CBS 135746) and P. sp. ohioensis (ST18-37) were obtained from Rahman and from the Phytophthora Database (Park ), respectively.

Phylogenetic analyses

Concatenated sequences of all isolates were aligned using Clustal X version 2.1 (Larkin ). The alignment was edited in BioEdit version 7.2.5 (Hall 1999) to trim aligned concatenated sequences to an equal size and set missing data to question marks. The edited alignment was then analyzed in jModelTest version 2.1.7 (Posada 2008) to select the most appropriate model for the following phylogenetic analyses. Maximum likelihood (ML) analysis was performed using RAxML version 8.2.0 (Stamatakis 2014) with the selected model and 1000 bootstrap replicates. Maximum parsimony (MP) analysis was conducted using PAUP version 4.0a147 (Swofford 2002) with 1000 bootstrap replicates. Bayesian analysis (BA) was performed using MrBayes version 3.2.6 (Ronquist ) for two million generations with the selected model. Phylogenetic trees were viewed and edited in FigTree version 1.4.2. Alignment and phylogenetic trees from all methods have been deposited in TreeBASE (S19303).

Ancestral character state reconstructions of sporangial papillation

Information on the sporangial papillation of individual species was compiled from the literature (Erwin & Ribeiro 1996, Gallegly & Hong 2008, Kroon , Martin ) with emphasis given to their respective original descriptions (Table 1). Both likelihood and parsimony ancestral state reconstructions were performed on the ML tree from the phylogenetic analyses using Mesquite version 3.03 (Maddison & Maddison 2017).

RESULTS

Sequences, alignment, and phylogenetic model

PCR amplification and sequencing was successful for almost all isolates and seven genetic markers. Failure to obtain sequences only occurred occasionally for a few isolates, such as the EF1α gene of Phytophthora bilorbang (61G8), the Enl gene of P. macrochlamydospora (33E1, 31E9, and 33D5), and P. quininea (45F2), and TigA of P. megasperma (62C7) (Supplementary Table 1). These failures were set as missing data in the alignment. After trimming, each isolate was represented by an 8435-bp concatenated sequence in the alignment including gaps and missing data. This included 496 bp for 60S, 1136 bp for Btub, 965 bp for EF1α, 1169 bp for Enl, 1758 bp for HSP90, 1270 bp for 28S, and 1641 bp for TigA (TreeBASE S19303). The general time reversible nucleotide substitution model with gamma-distributed rate variation and a proportion of invariable sites (GTR+I+G) was identified by jModelTest as the most appropriate model for the phylogenetic analyses.

An expanded phylogeny including 10 clades and basal taxa

The three phylogenetic analysis methods, including ML, MP, and BA analyses (TreeBASE S19303), resulted in similar tree topologies. The topology and branch lengths of the ML inference are shown in Fig. 1. The monophyly of each of the previously recognized 10 clades was generally well supported with a few exceptions. Specifically, all clades except for clade 4 were highly supported by > 95 % bootstrap values in ML analysis and 100 % posterior probability (PP) in BA analysis (Fig. 1). Clades 1–3, 5, 7, and 10 were also highly supported by > 95 % bootstrap values in the MP analysis (Fig. 1). However, clades 6, 8, and 9, were only moderately supported with bootstrap numbers of 68, 61, and 52 in the MP analysis, respectively (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1.

A phylogeny for the genus Phytophthora based on concatenated sequences of seven nuclear genetic markers. Topology and branch lengths of maximum likelihood analysis are shown. Bootstrap values for maximum likelihood and maximum parsimony, and Bayesian posterior probabilities (percentages) are indicated on individual nodes and separated by a forward slash. An asterisk is used in place of nodes with unambiguous (100 %) support in all three analyses. A dash is used in place of a topology from an analysis ambiguous to the other two analyses and these sets of numbers with ambiguity in one analysis are also highlighted in red. Detailed structures of clades 2, 6, 7, and 9 are shown in Fig. 2, 3, 4, 5, respectively. Species represented by ex-types and authentic isolates are written in brown and blue, respectively. Branches indicating three hypothesized evolutionary paths with all species producing papillate or semi-papillate sporangia are drawn in red or orange, respectively. Scale bar indicates number of substitutions per site.

As nearly half of all taxa included in this phylogeny were recently described, all clades in this phylogeny are expanded here to various extents compared to previously published phylogenies. The general structure of clades 1, 3, 5, 8 and 10 remained as previously assigned by Blair and Martin with additions of new species. For example, clade 1 was divided into three well-supported subclades and P. nicotianae was placed basal to subclades 1b and 1c (Fig. 1). Clade 8 was divided into four generally well-supported subclades, except P. stricta, which was placed basal to all clade 8 species (Fig. 1). New subclades were assigned to clade 2 (Fig. 2), clade 6 (Fig. 3), clade 7 (Fig. 4) and clade 9 (Fig. 5).
Fig. 2.

Structure of Phytophthora clade 2 in a genus-wide phylogeny for the genus Phytophthora based on concatenated sequences of seven nuclear genetic markers. Topology and branch lengths of maximum likelihood analysis are shown. Bootstrap values for maximum likelihood and maximum parsimony, and Bayesian posterior probabilities (percentages) are indicated on individual nodes and separated by a forward slash. An asterisk is used in place of nodes with unambiguous (100 %) support in all three analyses. A dash is used in place of a topology from an analysis ambiguous to the other two analyses and these sets of numbers with ambiguity in one analysis are also highlighted in red. Species represented by ex-types and authentic isolates are written in brown and blue, respectively. Scale bar indicates number of substitutions per site.

Fig. 3.

Structure of Phytophthora clade 6 in a genus-wide phylogeny for the genus Phytophthora based on concatenated sequences of seven nuclear genetic markers. Topology and branch lengths of maximum likelihood analysis are shown. Bootstrap values for maximum likelihood and maximum parsimony, and Bayesian posterior probabilities (percentages) are indicated on individual nodes and separated by a forward slash. An asterisk is used in place of nodes with unambiguous (100 %) support in all three analyses. A dash is used in place of a topology from an analysis ambiguous to the other two analyses and these sets of numbers with ambiguity in one analysis are also highlighted in red. Species represented by ex-types and authentic isolates are written in brown and blue, respectively. Scale bar indicates number of substitutions per site.

Fig. 4.

Structure of Phytophthora clade 7 in a genus-wide phylogeny for the genus Phytophthora based on concatenated sequences of seven nuclear genetic markers. Topology and branch lengths of maximum likelihood analysis are shown. Bootstrap values for maximum likelihood and maximum parsimony, and Bayesian posterior probabilities (percentages) are indicated on individual nodes and separated by a forward slash. An asterisk is used in place of nodes with unambiguous (100 %) support in all three analyses. A dash is used in place of a topology from an analysis ambiguous to the other two analyses and these sets of numbers with ambiguity in one analysis are also highlighted in red. Species represented by ex-types and authentic isolates are written in brown and blue, respectively. Scale bar indicates number of substitutions per site.

Fig. 5.

Structure of Phytophthora clade 9 in a genus-wide phylogeny for the genus Phytophthora based on concatenated sequences of seven nuclear genetic markers. Topology and branch lengths of maximum likelihood analysis are shown. Bootstrap values for maximum likelihood and maximum parsimony, and Bayesian posterior probabilities (percentages) are indicated on individual nodes and separated by a forward slash. An asterisk is used in place of nodes with unambiguous (100 %) support in all three analyses. A dash is used in place of a topology from an analysis ambiguous to the other two analyses and these sets of numbers with ambiguity in one analysis are also highlighted in red. Species represented by ex-types and authentic isolates are written in brown and blue, respectively. Scale bar indicates number of substitutions per site.

Several species were placed basal to other species in their respective clades. First, the cluster of P. quercina and P. sp. ohioensis was placed basal to other species of clade 4 in all three analyses. The bootstrap supports of the ML and MP analyses, and PP (percentage) for the separation of this cluster from that of P. alticola, P. arenaria, P. megakarya, P. palmivora, and P. quercetorum in clade 4 were only 48, 78, and 84, respectively (Fig. 1). Second, P. lilii was excluded from all known clades; it was placed basal to clades 1–5 and 7 (Fig. 1). Third, in clade 6, bootstrap support for the ML and MP analyses, and PP for all species except P. asparagi and P. sp. sulawesiensis were 100/100/100 (Fig. 3). This set of support numbers decreased to 99/92/100 when P. sp. sulawesiensis was included, and to 100/68/100 when further including P. asparagi (Fig. 3). Fourth, the support numbers for clade 8 species excluding P. stricta was 100/100/100, but 96/61/100 when P. stricta was included (Fig. 1). Fifth, all papillate species in clade 10 (Table 1) formed a well-supported main cluster, while two more recently described non-papillate species, P. gallica and P. intercalaris, were placed basal to the main cluster (Fig. 1).

New subclades in clades 2, 6, 7, and 9

(a) Clade 2

In addition to the previously recognized subclades 2a and 2b, many species, such as P. acerina, P. capensis, P. citricola, P. multivora, P. pachypleura, P. plurivora, and P. pini in the commonly referred to “Phytophthora citricola-complex” defined a new subclade 2c (Fig. 2). Furthermore, P. bisheria, P. frigida, and P. elongata formed new subclade 2d and the cluster of P. multivesiculata and P. taxon aquatilis formed new subclade 2e, with maximum support values in each case (Fig. 2).

(b) Clade 6

Subclade 6a included P. gemini, P. humicola, P. inundata, P. rosacearum, P. sp. personii, P. sp. 48H2, P. sp. 62C9 and P. taxon walnut. The cluster of P. rosacearum and P. taxon walnut could not be separated from that represented by P. gemini with only moderate support values for separation (82/61/100) (Fig. 3). Isolates 62C9 and 48H2, belonging to two new species, had ambiguous placements within subclade 6a among the three analyses (Fig. 3). With approximately 20 species newly included in the present phylogeny, the previously recognized “P. megasperma-P. gonapodyides complex” (Brasier ), subclade II of clade 6 (Jung ), or subclade 6b (Kroon ) expanded and its separation from subclade 6a was well-supported by 100/100/100 values (Fig. 3). Within subclade 6b, separation of the cluster of P. bilorbang, P. lacustris, and P. riparia from the other subclade 6b species was highly supported by 97/94/100 (Fig. 3), indicating that these three species may define a new subclade, although this is not done in this study. Phytophthora sp. sulawesiensis was placed basal to other clade 6 species except for P. asparagi, while P. asparagi was basal to all other species in clade 6 (Fig. 3). Phytophthora asparagi was previously assigned as subclade 6c (Kroon ) and subclade III of clade 6 (Jung ); considering that the support value of MP analysis was only moderate (68 %) when this single taxon was included (Fig. 3), this previous assignation as a subclade was not adopted here. In addition, in order to be consistent with subclade names in other clades, subclades 6a and 6b were used here instead of subclades I and II by Jung .

(c) Clade 7

Four subclades were distinguished in clade 7. Separation of the previously assigned subclades 7a and 7b was only moderately supported by values 71/56/100 (Fig. 4). The general structure of subclade 7a remained the same even with the addition of seven new taxa. Six of these new species, including P. attenuata, P. flexuosa, P. formosa, P. intricata, P. ×heterohybrida, and P. ×incrassata were recently recovered from forest soils and streamwater in Taiwan (Jung ). On the other hand, P. cinnamomi and P. parvispora were separated from subclade 7b. They, along with a provisional species, P. sp. ax from Virginia, USA (Table 1), formed a distinct new subclade 7c (Fig. 4). The new subclade 7d, including two recently described species from Japan (Rahman ), P. fragariaefolia and P. nagaii, was placed basal to other subclades in clade 7 (Fig. 4).

(d) Clade 9

The split of clade 9 into two subclades 9a and 9b was highly supported in ML (98 %) and BA (100 %) analyses and moderately supported in the MP (52 %) analysis (Fig. 5). However, monophyly was highly supported for subclade 9b (100/100/100) but not for subclade 9a (44/-/95) (Fig. 5). Within subclade 9a, three monophyletic clusters were formed: 9a1, 9a2, and 9a3. However, support for the separation of these three clusters was moderate or ambiguous. In particular, the MP results did not produce any consistent separation of the three clusters (Fig. 5). Cluster 9a1 included many recently described high-temperature tolerant species, such as P. aquimorbida, P. chrysanthemi, P. hydropathica, P. macilentosa, P. parsiana, and P. virginiana). The cluster of P. macrochlamydospora (two lineages with two isolates in each lineage, Table 1) and P. quininea constituted 9a2 (Fig. 5). The cluster of two other high-temperature tolerant species P. insolita and P. polonica constituted 9a3 (Fig. 5). The well-supported cluster of P. captiosa, P. constricta, and P. fallax was assigned as subclade 9b (Fig. 5).

Evolutionary history of sporangial papillation inferred from ancestral character state reconstructions

Sporangial papillation of individual species is indicated in Table 1 and Fig. 6. Due to the size of the cladograms, clusters including species with the same sporangial papillation within each (sub)clade were compressed in Mesquite. Both likelihood and parsimony methods suggested that non-papillate is the progenitor state of Phytophthora species, and that semi-papillate and papillate types were derived from the non-papillate. The analyses indicated three major clusters of semi-papillate and (or) papillate species diverged from the non-papillate ancestors. First, species in clades 1 to 5 (semi-papillate or papillate) diverged from non-papillate species in clade 7 and P. lilii (Fig. 6). Second, species in subclades 8b to 8d (semi-papillate) diverged from non-papillate subclade 8a species (Fig. 6). Third, papillate clade 10 species including P. boehmeriae, P. gondwanensis, P. kernoviae, and P. morindae diverged from the non-papillate P. gallica and P. intercalaris (Fig. 6). Several species such as P. macrochlamydospora, P. mississippiae, P. gibbosa, and P. constricta also evolved to produce partially semi-papillate sporangia (Fig. 6).
Fig. 6.

Ancestral state reconstructions of sporangial papillation for the genus Phytophthora based on likelihood (left cladogram) and parsimony (right cladogram). Trace character history analyses were performed on the maximum likelihood phylogeny in Mesquite. Clusters including species of uniform sporangial papillation within individual (sub)clades were compressed in Mesquite.

DISCUSSION

Here we presented an expanded phylogeny for the genus Phytophthora, encompassing 142 formally named and 43 provisionally recognized species (Table 2). In addition to this comprehensive coverage, this expanded phylogeny features over 1500 signature sequences generated from 278 ex-type and authentic isolates of 162 Phytophthora taxa (Supplementary Table 1). Furthermore, this study provided new insights into the evolutionary history of sporangial papillation in Phytophthora. The expanded phylogeny provides a sound taxonomic framework for this agriculturally and ecologically important genus. One hundred and fourteen ex-types were included, representing 80 % of the 142 formally named species in this phylogeny. The majority of the 29 species not represented by ex-types, such as P. gonapodyides, P. infestans, P. meadii, P. mexicana, and P. nicotianae, were described long ago without designation of an ex-type culture. Likewise, almost all the 43 provisional species in this phylogeny were represented by authentic isolates from the originators of the respective species (Table 1 and Supplementary Table 1). This new framework will facilitate identification of new taxa in the future. As the genus continues to rapidly expand, some recently described species were not included in this study: P. mekongensis in subclade 2a (Puglisi ), P. amaranthi in subclade 2b (Ann ), P. boodjera in clade 4 (Simamora ), P. chlamydospora in subclade 6b (Hansen ), P. uniformis (basionym: P. alni subsp. uniformis) and P. ×multiformis (basionym: P. alni subsp. multiformis) in subclade 7a (Brasier , Husson ), P. pseudolactucae in subclade 8b (Rahman ), and P. prodigiosa (Puglisi ) and P. pseudopolonica (Li ) in subclade 9a. Likewise, some informally designated species also were not included: such as P. taxon humicola-like, P. taxon kwongan, and P. taxon rosacearum-like in subclade 6a (Jung ). These and other emerging species are yet to be incorporated in the overall phylogeny of the genus. The generation of over 1500 signature sequences from ex-types and authentic isolates in this study will aid researchers and first responders in correctly identifying Phytophthora cultures to the species level. DNA sequencing of selected genetic markers has become common practice in the identification of Phytophthora cultures (Kang ). However, it is recognized that the accuracy of culture identity determined by this approach depends on the quality of the reference sequences used – and currently many sequence deposits are erroneously identified in public repositories, including GenBank (Kang ). These errors originated in sequence deposits of cultures that were identified by morphological characters alone, and compounded by those identified through sequence matches to erroneous reference sequences or by single DNA markers (Kang ). In this study, 29 isolates were found associated with an erroneous or modified identity (Supplementary Table 2). For instance, isolate 29B3 in clade 1 was identified as P. pseudotsugae and used as a key isolate for this species by Gallegly & Hong (2008). However, its sequences were distinct from those of the P. pseudotsugae ex-type (ATCC 52938). In the phylogenetic tree, it was basal to the cluster of P. cactorum and P. hedraiandra, thus its species identity was changed to P. aff. pseudotsugae (Fig. 1). In clade 2, isolate 26H4 was identified as P. citrophthora (Gallegly & Hong 2008) but sequences and phylogeny showed that it was close to but distinct from P. citrophthora isolates 03E5 and 26H3. It formed a cluster with isolate IMI 342898 (P10341), which was coded as P. sp. aff. colocasiae-1 by Martin . The identity of both isolates was then changed to P. aff. citrophthora (Fig. 2). Similarly, in clade 8, isolate 22G2 had been identified as P. cryptogea, although it was distinct from the P. cryptogea ex-type 61H9 (CBS 113.19). In the phylogenetic tree, it was basal to the cluster of P. cryptogea and P. erythroseptica, and the species identity was consequently changed to P. aff. cryptogea (Fig. 1). Changes in the identifications of these isolates, including the new and original names used, are indicated in Supplementary Table 2. The changes in the naming of these isolates highlights the importance of using signature sequences from ex-type or authentic isolates as references in future culture identification. In order to facilitate this practice, the signature sequences generated from ex-types or authentic isolates in the present study are marked as ‘(ex-type)’ or ‘(authentic)’, respectively, under the ‘isolate’ section in the ‘feature’ table of GenBank deposits. The research, diagnostic and regulatory communities are encouraged to use these sequences as references in future culture identification. This study provided new insights into the evolutionary history of sporangial morphology in the genus Phytophthora, a subject that has fascinated generations of mycologists and plant pathologists. There have been three major hypotheses regarding the development of papillation, as illustrated in Fig. 7a, b, and c, respectively. First, papillate species were considered as descendants of Pythium-like, non-papillate ancestors and semi-papillation has been considered as intermediate between non-papillation and papillation (Blackwell 1949, Cooke , Erwin & Ribeiro 1996). Second, some semi-papillate species, exemplified by P. primulae in the group III of Waterhouse (1963) are primitive; they were suggested to have evolved to papillate and non-papillate species through two distinct evolutionary lines (Brasier 1983). Third, semi-papillate sporangia are morphological variants of papillate and non-papillate types (Cooke ). Here we suggest that the non-papillate type is ancestral, and that non-papillate species could have evolved directly into either semi-papillate or papillate species (Fig. 7d). The evolution to semi-papillate species is exemplified by those in subclades 8b–d (Fig. 1), while evolution to papillate species is illustrated by P. boehmeriae and other papillate species in clade 10 (Fig. 1).The relationship between semi-papillate and papillate species appears to be more complicated (Fig. 7d). We also hypothesize that some semi-papillate species, such as those in subclade 1c, may have diverged from papillate ancestors, while some papillate species such as P. frigida may have evolved from semi-papillate ancestors of subclade 2d (Fig. 6).
Fig. 7.

Illustration of hypotheses on evolution of Phytophthora and associated changes in sporangial papillation: (a) species producing papillate sporangia evolved from non-papillate ancestors. Semi-papillation is considered as intermediate between non-papillation and papillation (Blackwell 1949, Cooke , Erwin & Ribeiro 1996); (b) some semi-papillate species, exemplified by P. primulae in the group III of Waterhouse (1963), are primitive and evolved to be non-papillate and papillate through two evolutionary paths, by Brasier (1983); (c) papillate species evolved from non-papillate ancestors. Semi-papillate species have been considered as morphological variants of papillate or non-papillate species, by Cooke ; (d) a new hypothesis developed in this study that non-papillate ancestors evolved directly to either papillate or semi-papillate species. Some semi-papillate species further evolved to be papillate, or vice versa.

These new hypotheses are supported by the results from phylogeny and ancestral state reconstructions that suggest three major evolutionary paths in sporangial papillation of Phytophthora species (Fig. 1). First, the ancestor of modern species in clades 1–5 evolved to be papillate or semi-papillate (Figs 1, 6) while diverging from the common non-papillate ancestor of clade 7 species (Figs 1, 6). Second, the common ancestor of species in subclades 8b–d diverged from that of subclade 8a species while acquiring semi-papillation (Figs 1, 6). Third, the common ancestor of five clade 10 species in the main cluster including P. boehmeriae, P. gondwanensis, P. kernoviae, P. morindae, and P. sp. boehmeriae-like, acquired papillate sporangia while diverging from two non-papillate clade 10 species, P. gallica and P. intercalaris (Figs 1, 6). Besides these three major groups of papillate or semi-papillate species, a few species may have evolved to acquire semi-papillation independently, such as P. macrochlamydospora in clade 9 (Fig. 6). This evolutionary process may be underway for some other species including P. constricta, P. gibbosa, and P. mississippiae, which all produce both semi-papillate and non-papillate sporangia (Fig. 6). Furthermore, evolutionary reversion to partial production of non-papillate sporangia may have occurred in P. multivesiculata and P. lateralis in two semi-papillate subclades 2e and 8c, respectively (Fig. 6). However, that conclusion is uncertain due to limited and ambiguous data from species in these two subclades. Specifically, P. lateralis was ambiguously reported as non-papillate (Erwin & Ribeiro 1996, Gallegly & Hong 2008, Martin , Tucker & Milbrath 1942) or non- to semi-papillate (Kroon ) in different studies. In subclade 2e, the only sister taxon of P. multivesiculata, P. taxon aquatilis, was provisionally described as semi-papillate, but only based on a single isolate (Hong ). Evolutionary reversion in the sporangial papillation of these two species requires validation in the future. Also, more studies are warranted to analyze additional characters based on phylogenies with better clade-to-clade resolutions and provide a more comprehensive picture on the evolutionary history of Phytophthora species. That a number of species were placed basal to other species in their respective clades in this expanded phylogeny presents a significant challenge to the monophyly of their respective clades and the current 10-clade system. First, P. stricta was initially placed close to other species in subclade 8a based on sequences of the cytochrome c oxidase 1 (cox1) gene, but was not grouped in any ITS clade (Yang ). This species was grouped in clade 8 in our expanded phylogeny by ML and BA analyses (Fig. 1); the monophyly of this clade was only moderately supported (61 %) in the MP analysis (Fig. 1). Second, the monophyly of clade 6 including P. asparagi was only moderately supported (68 %) in the MP analysis (Fig. 3). Third, although the inclusion of P. intercalaris in clade 10 was supported with maximum values, the exact positions of this species and P. gallica were still unresolved since the next node was only moderately supported (53 %) in the ML analysis and ambiguous in the MP analysis (Fig. 1). Fourth, similar to the finding of Blair , support for the monophyly of clade 4 including P. quercina and P. sp. ohioensis was only moderate (48/78/84). Also, similar ambiguity in the placement of the ‘P. quercinaP. sp. ohioensis’ cluster was observed among different phylogenetic approaches, and using different datasets including nuclear, mitochondrial, and combined nuclear and mitochondrial sequences (Martin ). Fifth, this phylogeny confirmed the finding by Rahman that P. lilii was not grouped in any clade of the current 10-clade system (Fig. 1). This species was not assigned as a distinct clade in our study, due to the relatively low clade-to-clade resolutions (Fig. 1). Further analyses are warranted to determine whether this unique species should be assigned as a new clade. Although many branches in the expanded phylogeny have consistent maximum support in all three methods, some have only moderate to low or inconsistent support. These results highlight the challenges of correctly inferring the evolutionary separation of many closely related Phytophthora species, even when concatenated sequences from seven phylogenetic markers were used. It can be expected that as the cost of gene sequencing drops further, it will become possible to increase phylogenetic resolution among Phytophthora species by using concatenations of much larger numbers of genes. For example, Ye used 293 concatenated housekeeping proteins to infer a robust phylogeny of seven fully sequenced Phytophthora species and confirmed that downy mildews (represented by three genome sequences) are nested within the genus Phytophthora, close to Phytophthora clade 4 (Ye ). However, even with full genome sequences, ambiguity may not be completely resolved in cases where speciation has involved large populations of sexually reproducing individuals, for example, as a result of geographic separation. In these cases, there may be many sequence polymorphisms shared among separated species and these may confound the inference of a reliable phylogeny. Resolution of this level of ambiguity may require sequencing the whole genome of many isolates from the species of interest as well as using improved phylogenetic and coalescent methods. With the number of described Phytophthora species increasing, recent studies have raised an important concern in the accurate detection of species boundaries using phylogenetic data (Jung & Burgess 2009, Pánek , Safaiefarahani ). One example is the status of P. hedraiandra as a distinct species in subclade 1a (Pánek ). As evidenced by the amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) and phylogenetic analysis based on sequences of ITS, phenolic acid decarboxylase, and cox1 genes, a recent study concluded that P. hedraiandra was just one lineage of P. cactorum, while morphological data provided only limited information to delimitate these two species (Pánek ). Also, phylogenetic analyses in this study indicated that P. cactorum and P. hedraiandra cluster with strong support (98/100/100), and P. aff. hedraiandra isolate 33F4 (previously identified as P. hedraiandra Supplementary Table 2), was clustered with P. cactorum (Fig. 1). Phylogenies based on nuclear sequences prior to this study also supported P. hedraiandra as closely related to P. cactorum (Blair , Martin ). However, in the phylogenies based on concatenated sequences of four mitochondrial loci, and combined seven nuclear and four mitochondrial loci, P. hedraiandra was basal to the cluster of P. cactorum and P. pseudotsugae, and clustered with P. idaei, respectively (Martin ). Phytophthora cactorum and P. hedraiandra also have very distinctive single-strand-conformation polymorphism patterns (Gallegly & Hong 2008). Apparently, more investigations are warranted to resolve the P. cactorum complex. Likewise, indistinct boundaries are present among species in other subclades, such as the ‘P. citricola complex’ or subclade 2c (Brazee , Jung & Burgess 2009), the ‘P. cryptogea complex’ in subclade 8a (Safaiefarahani , 2016) and cluster 9a1 in subclade 9a including P. hydropathica (Hong ), P. parsiana (Mostowfizadeh-Ghalamfarsa ), P. virginiana (Yang & Hong 2013) and other provisionally designated species. Accurately delimiting these closely related species within the genus remains an important task. This expanded phylogeny has highlighted the importance and difficulty of accurately interpreting the position of hybrid Phytophthora species. As exemplified by P. ×alni (Brasier , Husson ), many hybrid species have been identified among emerging plant pathogens (Jung , Man in’t Veld , Nirenberg ). Due to the presence of multiple alleles originated from parent species in their nuclear genes, phylogenetic analysis of these hybrids based on nuclear sequences alone may not produce a robust placement. As illustrated in this phylogeny, the placement of hybrid species may be ambiguous. Specifically, in subclade 6b, support values for the placement of P. ×stagnum and its closely related species, P. mississippiae, P. borealis, and P. sp. delaware were moderate in the ML and BA analyses and ambiguous in the MP analysis (Fig. 3). Similarly, in subclade 7a, the placement of P. ×alni, P. ×cambivora, P. ×heterohybrida, and P. ×incrassata’ cluster was not well resolved due to ambiguous placement in the MP analysis and moderate support values in the other two analyses (Fig. 4). Adding mitochondrial sequences into the phylogenetic analyses may be a solution to this problem. However, due to the uniparental inheritance of mitochondria, the hybrids and their maternal parents are inseparable by mitochondrial sequences and their placements could conflict with nuclear analyses (Martin ).
  71 in total

1.  Phylogenetic relationships among Phytophthora species inferred from sequence analysis of mitochondrially encoded cytochrome oxidase I and II genes.

Authors:  Frank N Martin; Paul W Tooley
Journal:  Mycologia       Date:  2003 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.696

2.  Phytophthora borealis and Phytophthora riparia, new species in Phytophthora ITS Clade 6.

Authors:  Everett M Hansen; Paul W Reeser; Wendy Sutton
Journal:  Mycologia       Date:  2012-07-09       Impact factor: 2.696

3.  Phylogenetic relationships of Pythium and Phytophthora species based on ITS rDNA, cytochrome oxidase II and beta-tubulin gene sequences.

Authors:  Neilyn O Villa; Koji Kageyama; Takahiro Asano; Haruhisa Suga
Journal:  Mycologia       Date:  2006 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.696

4.  A high-temperature tolerant species in clade 9 of the genus Phytophthora: P. hydrogena sp. nov.

Authors:  Xiao Yang; Mannon E Gallegly; Chuanxue Hong
Journal:  Mycologia       Date:  2014-01-06       Impact factor: 2.696

5.  Phytophthora xserendipita sp. nov. and P. xpelgrandis, two destructive pathogens generated by natural hybridization.

Authors:  Willem A Man In 't Veld; Karin C H M Rosendahl; Chuanxue Hong
Journal:  Mycologia       Date:  2012-06-08       Impact factor: 2.696

6.  Evolutionary relationships within the Phytophthora cactorum species complex in Europe.

Authors:  Matěj Pánek; Tomáš Fér; Jaroslav Mráček; Michal Tomšovský
Journal:  Fungal Biol       Date:  2016-03-21

7.  Six new Phytophthora species from ITS Clade 7a including two sexually functional heterothallic hybrid species detected in natural ecosystems in Taiwan.

Authors:  T Jung; M H Jung; B Scanu; D Seress; G M Kovács; C Maia; A Pérez-Sierra; T-T Chang; A Chandelier; K Heungens; K van Poucke; P Abad-Campos; M Léon; S O Cacciola; J Bakonyi
Journal:  Persoonia       Date:  2016-10-21       Impact factor: 11.051

8.  Multiple new phenotypic taxa from trees and riparian ecosystems in Phytophthora gonapodyides-P. megasperma ITS Clade 6, which tend to be high-temperature tolerant and either inbreeding or sterile.

Authors:  Clive M Brasier; David E L Cooke; James M Duncan; Everett M Hansen
Journal:  Mycol Res       Date:  2003-03

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.  Fungal Planet description sheets: 69-91.

Authors:  P W Crous; J Z Groenewald; R G Shivas; J Edwards; K A Seifert; A C Alfenas; R F Alfenas; T I Burgess; A J Carnegie; G E St J Hardy; N Hiscock; D Hüberli; T Jung; G Louis-Seize; G Okada; O L Pereira; M J C Stukely; W Wang; G P White; A J Young; A R McTaggart; I G Pascoe; I J Porter; W Quaedvlieg
Journal:  Persoonia       Date:  2011-05-31       Impact factor: 11.051

View more
  31 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

2.  Genera of phytopathogenic fungi: GOPHY 4.

Authors:  Q Chen; M Bakhshi; Y Balci; K D Broders; R Cheewangkoon; S F Chen; X L Fan; D Gramaje; F Halleen; M Horta Jung; N Jiang; T Jung; T Májek; S Marincowitz; I Milenković; L Mostert; C Nakashima; I Nurul Faziha; M Pan; M Raza; B Scanu; C F J Spies; L Suhaizan; H Suzuki; C M Tian; M Tomšovský; J R Úrbez-Torres; W Wang; B D Wingfield; M J Wingfield; Q Yang; X Yang; R Zare; P Zhao; J Z Groenewald; L Cai; P W Crous
Journal:  Stud Mycol       Date:  2022-06-02       Impact factor: 25.731

3.  Fungal Planet description sheets: 1182-1283.

Authors:  P W Crous; D A Cowan; G Maggs-Kölling; N Yilmaz; R Thangavel; M J Wingfield; M E Noordeloos; B Dima; T E Brandrud; G M Jansen; O V Morozova; J Vila; R G Shivas; Y P Tan; S Bishop-Hurley; E Lacey; T S Marney; E Larsson; G Le Floch; L Lombard; P Nodet; V Hubka; P Alvarado; A Berraf-Tebbal; J D Reyes; G Delgado; A Eichmeier; J B Jordal; A V Kachalkin; A Kubátová; J G Maciá-Vicente; E F Malysheva; V Papp; K C Rajeshkumar; A Sharma; M Spetik; D Szabóová; M A Tomashevskaya; J A Abad; Z G Abad; A V Alexandrova; G Anand; F Arenas; N Ashtekar; S Balashov; Á Bañares; R Baroncelli; I Bera; A Yu Biketova; C L Blomquist; T Boekhout; D Boertmann; T M Bulyonkova; T I Burgess; A J Carnegie; J F Cobo-Diaz; G Corriol; J H Cunnington; M O da Cruz; U Damm; N Davoodian; A L C M de A Santiago; J Dearnaley; L W S de Freitas; K Dhileepan; R Dimitrov; S Di Piazza; S Fatima; F Fuljer; H Galera; A Ghosh; A Giraldo; A M Glushakova; M Gorczak; D E Gouliamova; D Gramaje; M Groenewald; C K Gunsch; A Gutiérrez; D Holdom; J Houbraken; A B Ismailov; Ł Istel; T Iturriaga; M Jeppson; Ž Jurjević; L B Kalinina; V I Kapitonov; I Kautmanová; A N Khalid; M Kiran; L Kiss; Á Kovács; D Kurose; I Kušan; S Lad; T Læssøe; H B Lee; J J Luangsa-Ard; M Lynch; A E Mahamedi; V F Malysheva; A Mateos; N Matočec; A Mešić; A N Miller; S Mongkolsamrit; G Moreno; A Morte; R Mostowfizadeh-Ghalamfarsa; A Naseer; A Navarro-Ródenas; T T T Nguyen; W Noisripoom; J E Ntandu; J Nuytinck; V Ostrý; T A Pankratov; J Pawłowska; J Pecenka; T H G Pham; A Polhorský; A Pošta; D B Raudabaugh; K Reschke; A Rodríguez; M Romero; S Rooney-Latham; J Roux; M Sandoval-Denis; M Th Smith; T V Steinrucken; T Y Svetasheva; Z Tkalčec; E J van der Linde; M V D Vegte; J Vauras; A Verbeken; C M Visagie; J S Vitelli; S V Volobuev; A Weill; M Wrzosek; I V Zmitrovich; E A Zvyagina; J Z Groenewald
Journal:  Persoonia       Date:  2021-07-13       Impact factor: 11.658

4.  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

5.  Development and application of fluorescent loop mediated isothermal amplification technique to detect Phytophthora infestans from potato tubers targeting ITS-1 region.

Authors:  Gaurav Verma; Sanjeev Sharma; Baswaraj Raigond; Shruti Pathania; Kailash Naga; Swarup Kumar Chakrabarti
Journal:  3 Biotech       Date:  2019-08-24       Impact factor: 2.406

6.  Haustorium formation and a distinct biotrophic transcriptome characterize infection of Nicotiana benthamiana by the tree pathogen Phytophthora kernoviae.

Authors:  Shumei Wang; Ramesh R Vetukuri; Sandeep K Kushwaha; Pete E Hedley; Jenny Morris; David J Studholme; Lydia R J Welsh; Petra C Boevink; Paul R J Birch; Stephen C Whisson
Journal:  Mol Plant Pathol       Date:  2021-05-20       Impact factor: 5.663

7.  Comparative Analysis of Host-Associated Variation in Phytophthora cactorum.

Authors:  Charlotte F Nellist; Andrew D Armitage; Helen J Bates; Maria K Sobczyk; Matteo Luberti; Laura A Lewis; Richard J Harrison
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2021-07-02       Impact factor: 5.640

8.  Unravelling hybridization in Phytophthora using phylogenomics and genome size estimation.

Authors:  Kris Van Poucke; Annelies Haegeman; Thomas Goedefroit; Fran Focquet; Leen Leus; Marília Horta Jung; Corina Nave; Miguel Angel Redondo; Claude Husson; Kaloyan Kostov; Aneta Lyubenova; Petya Christova; Anne Chandelier; Slavcho Slavov; Arthur de Cock; Peter Bonants; Sabine Werres; Jonàs Oliva Palau; Benoit Marçais; Thomas Jung; Jan Stenlid; Tom Ruttink; Kurt Heungens
Journal:  IMA Fungus       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 3.515

9.  MALDI-TOF MS as a method for rapid identification of Phytophthora de Bary, 1876.

Authors:  Matěj Božik; Marcela Mrázková; Karolína Novotná; Markéta Hrabětová; Petr Maršik; Pavel Klouček; Karel Černý
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2021-07-19       Impact factor: 2.984

10.  Diverse Trajectories Drive the Expression of a Giant Virus in the Oomycete Plant Pathogen Phytophthora parasitica.

Authors:  Sihem Hannat; Pierre Pontarotti; Philippe Colson; Marie-Line Kuhn; Eric Galiana; Bernard La Scola; Sarah Aherfi; Franck Panabières
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 5.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.