| Literature DB >> 31869352 |
Barbara Scherm1, Virgilio Balmas1, Alessandro Infantino2, Maria Aragona2, Maria Teresa Valente2, Francesca Desiderio3, Angela Marcello1, Sengphet Phanthavong4, Lester W Burgess5, Domenico Rau1.
Abstract
Bakanae disease, caused by the fungal phytopathogen Fusarium fujikuroi, can be detected in most rice (Oryza sativa L.) growing areas worldwide. In this study, we investigated the population structure of this fungus in southern Lao PDR, a country located near the geographic origin of rice domestication. Microsatellites (SSRs) and mating type (MAT) analyses, pathogenicity and fungicide sensitivity tests were integrated in the study. The first key finding is that the population genetic structure of F. fujikuroi in Lao PDR is consistent with high clonal reproduction. Indeed, (i) "true" clones were identified; (ii) within populations, MAT types were frequently skewed from 1:1 ratio, (iii) linkage disequilibrium (among SSRs as also among SSRs and MAT) was present, and (iv) gene-flow between opposite MAT types within the same population is restricted. The presence of genetic divergence among areas and populations and the occurrence of positive spatial autocorrelation of genetic variation, indicate that migration is restricted, and that genetic drift plays an important role in the evolution of this fungus. Two main well-defined groups of isolates were detected (FST = 0.213) that display a non-random spatial distribution. They differ in the ability to induce seedlings death but not seedlings elongation (the typical Bakanae symptom) suggesting that the pathogen's ability to induce the two symptoms is under different genetic control. Finally, we compared two agroecosystems with contrasting characteristics: low-input and traditional (Lao PDR) vs high-input and modern (Italy). We found differences in the level of population structuring and of spatial autocorrelation. This suggests that the evolutionary potential of the fungus not only depends on its intrinsic characteristics, but is strongly influenced by other external factors, most likely by the dynamics of infested seed exchange. Thus, quarantine and chemical treatments are a way to reduce population connectivity and hence the evolutionary potential of this pathogen.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31869352 PMCID: PMC6927642 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226556
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Sampling locations in Laos of the ten populations of Fusarium fujikuroi analysed.
| Population | Village | District | Province | GPS Coordinates |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pop 1 | Dinkone | Kong | Salavan | 15°38’32.8”N; 105°49’34.5”E |
| Pop 2 | Kongkum | Kong | Salavan | 15°35’51.5”N; 105°48’24.3”E |
| Pop 3 | Nongkhulu | Kong | Salavan | 15°31’04.3”N; 105°46’26.1”E |
| Pop 4 | Sonefak | Sanasomboune | Champasak | 15°17’54.2”N; 105°44’16.5”E |
| Pop 5 | Sivilai | Sanasomboune | Champasak | 15°13’49.4”N; 105°43’49.4”E |
| Pop 6 | Sivilai | Sanasomboune | Champasak | 15°12’57.9”N; 105°44’04.2”E |
| Pop 7 | Donkhor | Pakse | Champasak | 15°09’47.7”N; 105°45’02.2”E |
| Pop 8 | --- | Pakse | Champasak | 15°06’03.94”N; 105°46’11.42”E |
| Pop 9 | Don Kong | (Island) | Champasak | 14°07’22.47”N; 105°51’14.47”E |
| Pop 10 | Don Kong | (Island) | Champasak | 14° 07'10.94"N; 105°49'14.15"E |
Populations are sorted from North to South and in accordance with the geographical area of provenance.
Diversity estimates for the 10 Laotian populations of Fusarium fujikuroi.
| Population | N. isolates | Pol. loci (%) | Na | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pop 1 | 23 | 17 (100) | 3.94 | 0.57 |
| Pop 2 | 24 | 17 (100) | 4.12 | 0.56 |
| Pop 3 | 16 | 16 (94.1) | 2.94 | 0.49 |
| 21 | 16.7 a | 3.67 | 0.54 a | |
| 63 | 17 | 5.35 | 0.58 | |
| Pop 4 | 14 | 14 (82.4) | 2.59 | 0.42 |
| Pop 5 | 15 | 14 (82.4) | 2.59 | 0.45 |
| Pop 6 | 11 | 10 (58.8) | 1.71 | 0.22 |
| Pop 7 | 18 | 14 (82.4) | 2.29 | 0.19 |
| Pop 8 | 16 | 14 (82.4) | 2.47 | 0.32 |
| 14.8 | 13.2 b | 2.33 | 0.32 b | |
| 74 | 14 | 3.53 | 0.42 | |
| Pop 9 | 19 | 15 (88.2) | 2.71 | 0.45 |
| Pop 10 | 19 | 16 (94.1) | 2.77 | 0.36 |
| 19 | 15.5 ab | 2.47 | 0.41 ab | |
| 38 | 16 | 3.18 | 0.50 | |
| 17.5 | 14.7 (86.5) | 2.81 | 0.40 | |
| 175 | 17 (100) | 5.94 | 0.53 |
Populations are listed from North to South and according to their area of origin. For each statistic, values for each area and for the total sample are also provided.
a for the columns pol. loci (%) and average HE the average values of areas not connected by same letter are significantly different at Wilcoxon test (P<0.05)
bconsidering all loci
Multilocus statistics for the 10 Laotian populations of Fusarium fujikuroi by area of origin.
| Population | N. | Distribution of haplotype frequencies | N. | Ratio Iso./Hap | Haplotype diversity | Multilocus | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7… | 10 | 11… | 16 | . | All isolates | Clone corrected | ||||
| Pop1 | 23 | 16 | 2 | 1 | 19 | 1.2 | 0.98 | 0.12*** | 0.09*** | |||||||
| Pop 2 | 24 | 18 | 3 | 21 | 1.1 | 0.99 | 0.08*** | 0.07*** | ||||||||
| Pop 3 | 16 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 11 | 1.5 | 0.93 | 0.35*** | 0.27*** | |||||||
| Mean | 21.0 | 14.0 | 2.3 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 17.0 | 1.3 | 0.97 | 0.18 | 0.14 | ||||||
| Pop 4 | 14 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 8 | 2 | 0.81 | 0.34*** | 0.13*** | |||||||
| Pop 5 | 15 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 1.7 | 0.88 | 0.47*** | 0.34*** | |||||||
| Pop 6 | 11 | 5 | 2 | 7 | 1.6 | 0.89 | 0.21*** | 0.19*** | ||||||||
| Pop 7 | 18 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 3 | 0.76 | 0.64*** | 0.56*** | ||||||
| Pop 8 | 16 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 2 | 0.84 | 0.32*** | 0.20*** | ||||||
| Mean | 15.0 | 4.3 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 7.0 | 2.2 | 0.83 | 0.40 | 0.28 | |||||
| Pop 9 | 19 | 15 | 1 | 16 | 1.2 | 0.96 | 0.28*** | 0.23*** | ||||||||
| Pop 10 | 19 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 2.1 | 0.73 | 0.37*** | 0.13*** | |||||||
| Mean | 19.0 | 11.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 12.5 | 1.7 | 0.85 | 0.33 | 0.18 | ||||||
| Grand Mean | 17.5 | 11.3 | 1.7 | 0.88 | 0.32 | 0.22 | ||||||||||
| Total | 175 | 70 | 13 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 97 | 1.8 | 0.81 | 0.13*** | 0.09*** | |
rd = index of multilocus linkage disequilibrium (LD) (57); this was calculated both considering all isolates and clone-corrected samples (***P<0.001).
Distribution of repeated haplotypes.
| Area 1 | Area 2 | Area 3 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ||
| Haplotype | Isolates | (23) | (24) | (16) | (14) | (15) | (11) | (18) | (16) | (19) | (19) |
| I | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| II | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| III | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| IV | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| V | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| VI | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| VII | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| VIII | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| IX | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| X | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| XI | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| XII | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| XIII | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| XIV | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| XV | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| XVI | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| XVII | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| XVIII | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| XIX | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| XX | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| XXI | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| XXII | 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| XXIII | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| XXIV | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| XXV | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| XXVI | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| XXVII | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
The 10 populations are listed by area and sorted from North to South. The number of isolates analysed in each population is between parentheses. In bold: significant clonal lineages (“true clones”) when MLGsim analysis was performed for each population separately
+ = P<0.001,— = P<0.05.
Black contour line: significant (P<0.001) clonal lineages when MLGsim analysis was performed considering all 175 isolates as a unique population.
Results of global AMOVA (as a weighted average over loci) to test for geographical structuring.
| Source of variation | F | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Areas | 0.042 (FCT) | 0.021 | 0.004--0.089 | -0.013--0.125 |
| Populations[areas] | 0.203 (FSC) | <10−5 | 0.177--0.228 | 0.156--0.244 |
| overall | 0.237 (FST) | <10−5 | 0.204--0.273 | 0.179--0.304 |
| Areas | 0.015 (FCT) | 0.079 | -0.006--0.037 | -0.016--0.053 |
| Populations[areas] | 0.079 (FSC) | <10−5 | 0.057--0.103 | 0.045--0.122 |
| Overall | 0.093 (FST) | <10−5 | 0.071--0.116 | 0.056--0.133 |
1tested by permutation (over 106 replicates)
2bootstrap percentile values (over 20000 bootstraps)
Results of mating type frequency survey by area and population of origin.
| Origin | All | C.C. | χ2 | Pχ2 | PB | FST (All) | P (All) | FST (C.C) | P (C.C.) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4:19 | 4:15 | 9.8 | 0.002 | 0.003 | 0.020 | 0.245 | 0.029 | 0.292 |
| 2 | 13:11 | 11:10 | 0.2 | 0.683 | 0.839 | 0.185 | <10−5 | 0.192 | <10−5 |
| 3 | 7:9 | 4:7 | 0.3 | 0.617 | 0.804 | ‘0.325 | <10−5 | 0.149 | 0.124 |
| Subtotal | 24:39 | 19:32 | 3.6 | 0.059 | 0.077 | ||||
| 4 | 17:0 | 7:0 | 17.0 | 3.7x10-5 | 1.53x10-5 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | - |
| 5 | 5:12 | 1:7 | 2.9 | 0.090 | 0.143 | 0.123 | 0.031 | n.a. | - |
| 6 | 10:3 | 6:1 | 3.8 | 0.052 | 0.092 | 0.250 | 0.023 | n.a. | - |
| 7 | 17:1 | 5:1 | 14.2 | 1.6x10-4 | 1.5x10-4 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | - |
| 8 | 15:3 | 7:1 | 8.0 | 0.005 | 0.008 | 0.393 | <10−5 | n.a. | - |
| Subtotal | 64:19 | 26:10 | 24.4 | 7.8x10-7 | 7.4x10-7 | ||||
| 9 | 11:8 | 7:8 | 0.5 | 0.491 | 0.648 | 0.091 | 0.039 | 0.157 | 0.040 |
| 10 | 16:3 | 7:2 | 8.9 | 0.003 | 0.004 | 0.255 | <10−5 | 0.000 | 0.801 |
| Subtotal | 27:11 | 14:10 | 6.7 | 0.009 | 0.014 | ||||
| 115:69 | 59:52 | 11.5 | 7.0x10-4 | 8.6x10-4 | 0.213 | <10−5 | 0.118 | 0.006 | |
Populations were from north to south. All = considering all isolates; c.c. = after clone correction; n.a. = not applicable because of the low polymorphism. Pχ2, probability value for χ2 with 1 degree of freedom (d.f.); PB, likelihood of obtaining the observed result or a more discrepant result, given that the true ratio is 1:1. FST is calculated between the two mating types occurring within the same population.
a The average genetic divergence between MAT types within populations was calculated as FSC (based on the notation of Arlequin software) performing AMOVA with three hierarchical levels: among populations, between MAT types within populations and within MAT type within populations
Results of analysis of variance to test difference in mycelial growth among 21 isolates of Fusarium fujikuroi.
| Source of variation | D.f. | S.S. | F | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Time | 1 | 193.14 | 6109.71 | <10−4 |
| Isolate | 20 | 13.95 | 22.07 | <10−4 |
| Isolate × time | 20 | 3.84 | 6.08 | <10−4 |
| Replicates | 2 | 0.13 | 2.13 | 0.13 |
| Error | 82 | 2.59 | ||
| Total | 125 | 213.67 |
D.f. = degree of freedom, S.S. = sum of squares, F = F ratio, P = significance level.
Multilocus index of association (rd) for 32 geographical populations of F. fujikuroi across three countries (Laos, 10 populations; Italy = 8 populations; Taiwan = 14 populations).
The rd estimates were all for clone-corrected samples. Significance P values: *P<0.05, **P<0.01, P<0.001.
| Laos | Italy | Taiwan | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Population | rd | Population | rd | Population | rd |
| Pop 1 | 0.09*** | Baraggia | 0.18*** | Taoyuan | 0.44*** |
| Pop 2 | 0.07*** | Berra | 0.35*** | Hsinchu | 0.20*** |
| Pop 3 | 0.27*** | Casal Beltrame | 0.10** | Miaoli | 0.19*** |
| Pop 4 | 0.13*** | Lomellina | 0.10*** | Taichung | 0.13*** |
| Pop 5 | 0.34*** | Oristano 1 | 0.30*** | Changhua | 0.13*** |
| Pop 6 | 0.19*** | Oristano 2 | 0.32*** | Yunlin | 0.18*** |
| Pop 7 | 0.56*** | Torbiera di Codigoro | 0.16*** | Chiayi | 0.32* |
| Pop 8 | 0.20*** | Vercelli | 0.21*** | Tainan | 0.18*** |
| Pop 9 | 0.23*** | Kaohsiung | 0.12*** | ||
| Pop 10 | 0.13*** | Pingtung | 0.15*** | ||
| Ilan | 0.12*** | ||||
| Nantou | 0.34** | ||||
| Hualien | 0.31*** | ||||
| Taitung | 0.20*** | ||||
| Mean | 0.221 | 0.214 | 0.215 | ||
| Dev.st | 0.145 | 0.090 | 0.099 | ||
1This study.
2Calculated revisiting SSR data of ref. [11] using the same 17 SSR used in the present study.
3Reported in Table 2 (last column) of ref [28].