| Literature DB >> 31687429 |
Tereza Veselská1,2, Miroslav Kolařík1,2.
Abstract
Comparative ecophysiology is highly valuable approach to reveal adaptive traits linked with specific ecological niches. Although long-term in vitro preserved fungal isolates are often used for analyses, only sparse data is available about the effect of such handling on fungal physiology. The purpose of our data is to show the effect of long-term in vitro preservation of fungal strains on their metabolic profiles. This data is related to research paper "Adaptive traits of bark and ambrosia beetle-associated fungi" (Veselská et al., 2019). Biolog MicroPlates™ for Filamentous fungi were used to compare metabolic profiles between freshly isolated and long-term in vitro preserved strains of two Geosmithia species. Additionally, carbon utilization profiles of 35 Geosmithia species were assessed, including plant pathogen G. morbida and three ambrosia species. Data also shows differences in carbon utilization profiles among diverse ecology types presented in the genus Geosmithia.Entities:
Keywords: Biolog microarray; Comparative ecophysiology; Fungal physiology; Fungi; In vitro preservation; Metabolic profile
Year: 2019 PMID: 31687429 PMCID: PMC6820071 DOI: 10.1016/j.dib.2019.104568
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Data Brief ISSN: 2352-3409
List of Geosmithia species.
| Species | Ecology type | Strain code | Culture collection | Strain code in | Substrate (mostly as insect vector/plant hosts) | Locality | Year of isolation | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PF, G | 1_1790 | CCF4529 | 1 | Azerbaijan, Shaki Rayonu | 2006 | [ | ||
| PF, G | 2_1510 | CCF4270 | 2 | Italy, Termoli | 2004 | [ | ||
| PF, G | 4_1722 | CCF4278 | 4 | Czech R., Břeclav | 2004 | [ | ||
| PF, G | 6_103 | CCF3342 | 6 | Czech R., Velemín | 2000 | [ | ||
| PF, G | 7_264 | CCF3354 | 7 | Slovakia, Muráň castle | 2002 | [ | ||
| PF, HWS | 8_124 | CCF3350 | 8a | Czech R., Prague | 2001 | [ | ||
| 8_1712a | CCF4277 | 8b | Bulgaria, Kardzaly | 2005 | [ | |||
| 37_1806 | CCF4207 | 8c | Australia, Eungella, Credition Hall | 2006 | [ | |||
| PF, G | 11_551 | CCF3555 | 11 | Hungary, Vilányi hegy Mts. | 2003 | [ | ||
| PF, HWS | 12_284 | CCF4300 | 12a | Slovakia, Pieniny National Park | 2002 | [ | ||
| 12_1632 | CCF4274 | 12b | Czech R., Pacov | 2005 | [ | |||
| PF, HWS | 13_924 | CCF4601 | 13 | Czech R., Hodonín, Bulhary | 2004 | [ | ||
| PF, G | 17_391 | CCF3424 | 17 | Czech R., Louny, Hřivice | 2003 | [ | ||
| PF, G | 18_1219 | CCF4268 | 18a | Croatia, Dalmatia, Sibenik | 2005 | [ | ||
| 18_1781 | CCF4285 | 18b | Azerbaijan, Baki Sahari, Baku | 2006 | [ | |||
| PF, G | 19_1085a | CCF3658 | 19 | Italy, Molise, Termoli | 2004 | [ | ||
| PF, G | 20_764 | CCF4527 | 20 | Syria, Krak des Chevaliers | 2004 | [ | ||
| PF, G | 21_1665 | CCF4530 | 21 | Spain, Rosal de la Frontera | 2005 | [ | ||
| PF, G | 22_739 | CCF3645 | 22 | Jordan, Wadi al Mujib | 2004 | [ | ||
| HWS, P | 41_1218 | CCF3879 (CBS 124664) | 41a | USA, Colorado, Boulder | 2007 | [ | ||
| 41_U173 | CCF4576 | 41b | USA, California, Rio Oso | 2009 | [ | |||
| 41_U1259.55 | – | 41c | USA, Oregon | 2008 | [ | |||
| 41_U1259.59 | – | 41d | USA, Oregon | 2008 | [ | |||
| PF, SP | 9_1210 | CCF3703 | 9 | Poland, Myślenice | 2005 | [ | ||
| PF, SP | 16_08 m | CCF4201 | 16 | Pityophthorus pityographus/Picea abies | Poland, Czajowice | 2007 | [ | |
| PF, SP | 24_RJ06ka | CCF4525 | 24 | Poland, Zaborze | 2007 | [ | ||
| PF, SP | 26_1796 | CCF4223 | 26 | Czech R., Seník | 2006 | [ | ||
| PF, SP | 27_0919 | CCF4206 | 27 | Poland, Żurada | 2006 | [ | ||
| PF, SP | 28_279 | CCF4210 | 28 | Poland, Chyszówki | 2007 | [ | ||
| PF, SP | 30_09 m | CCF4209 | 30 | Poland, Czajowice | 2007 | [ | ||
| PF, SP | 31_21k | CCF4526 | 31 | Poland, Czajowice | 2007 | [ | ||
| PF, SP | 33_1827b | CCF4221 | 33 | Czech R., Boubín hill | 2008 | [ | ||
| PF, SP | 34_1833 | CCF4208 | 34 | Czech R., Jílové u Prahy | 2008 | [ | ||
| PF, SP | 35_1835 | CCF4205 | 25 | Czech R., Plešné jezero lake | 2008 | [ | ||
| PF, G | 5_U1.2c.25 | CNR28 | 5a | Czech R., Středokluky | 2009 | [ | ||
| 5_U6.3e.35 | CNR48 | 5b | Czech R., Velký Osek | 2009 | [ | |||
| 5_U7.8b | CNR30 | 5c | Czech R., Velký Osek | 2009 | [ | |||
| 5_U8.1a | CNR49 | 5d | Czech R., Maršovice | 2009 | [ | |||
| 5_U8.1b | – | 5e | Czech R., Maršovice | 2009 | [ | |||
| 5_U8.12b | – | 5f | Czech R., Maršovice | 2009 | [ | |||
| 5_580 | – | 5g | France, Biaritz, Ondres | 2003 | [ | |||
| 5_1550 | CCF4271 | 5h | Czech R., Mlynářův luh, 1997 | 1997 | [ | |||
| 5_137 m | CCF4215 | 5i | Poland, Szydłowiec | 2007 | [ | |||
| PF, G | 10_989 | CCF3560 | 10a | Czech R., Břeclav | 2004 | [ | ||
| 10_1788 | CCF4286 | 10b | Azerbaijan, Suvalan | 2006 | [ | |||
| 10_U2.6a | CNR5 | 10c | Czech R., Středokluky | 2009 | [ | |||
| 10_U7.5a | CNR8 | 10d | Czech R., Velký Osek | 2009 | [ | |||
| 10_942 | – | 10e | Croatia, Brač Island | 2004 | [ | |||
| PF, G | 15_U5.3a | CNR11 | 15a | Czech R., Velký Osek | 2009 | [ | ||
| 15_U7.9a | CNR6 | 15b | Czech R., Velký Osek | 2009 | [ | |||
| 15_U8.6c | CNR117 | 15c | Czech R., Maršovice | 2009 | [ | |||
| 15_U8.12a | – | 15d | Czech R., Maršovice | 2009 | [ | |||
| 15_1645 | – | 15e | Czech R., Neratovice | 2005 | [ | |||
| 15_1683 | CCF4276 | 15f | Czech R., Nové Hrady | 2005 | [ | |||
| 15_1603c | CCF3562 | 15g | Czech R., Poříčí nad Sázavou | 2005 | [ | |||
| 15_1619 | CCF4272 | 15h | Portugal, Sesimbra | 2005 | [ | |||
| AF | 29_1820 | CCF4292 | 29 | Costa Rica, Heredia | 2007 | [ | ||
| AF | 38_A2 | CCF3861 | 38 | Costa Rica, Heredia | 2006 | [ | ||
| AF | 39_A1 | CCF3754 | 39 | Costa Rica, Heredia | 2006 | [ | ||
| AAF | 42_1821 | CCF4524 | 42 | Costa Rica, Heredia | 2007 | [ |
Ecology: PF – association with phloem feeding beetles, G – generalist, SF – specialists to Fagus, SP – specialist to Pinaceae, HWS – hardwood specialists, P – pathogen, AF –ambrosia fungi, AAF – auxiliary ambrosia fungi.
Fig. 1Principal component analysis (PCA) plot of the metabolic profiles of 60 Geosmithia strains and comparison of “new” and “old” strains of G. sp. 5 and G. langdonii. Different ecology types as follow: diamond – long-term co-evolved specialists, dot, triangle, star – facultative symbionts, cross – obligatory symbiont, inverted triangle – auxiliary ambrosial fungi, polygon, square – hardwood specialists, square – pathogen, triangle – new (5a-f) and old (5g-i) strains of G. sp. 5, star – new (15a-d) and old (15e-h) strains of G. langdonii. Based on one-way NPMANOVA, facultative generalists were significantly (p < 0.005) different from long-term co-evolved specialists and phytopathogen.
Specifications Table
| Subject area | |
| More specific subject area | |
| Type of data | |
| How data was acquired | |
| Data format | |
| Experimental factors | |
| Experimental features | |
| Data source location | |
| Data accessibility | |
| Related research article |
Comparative ecophysiology is valuable tool for tracing of species adaptive traits and identification of potential virulence factors in plant, animal and human pathogenic fungi. Usually, long-term Data disproves negative effect of long-term preservation on fungal metabolic profile, which enables researchers to use such strains for physiological studies. Data shows metabolic profiles of carbon utilization for most of Raw data provides growth values on each carbon source. This is helpful for further identification of adaptive traits of these important species. |