| Literature DB >> 32408859 |
Aquillah M Kanzi1, Conrad Trollip2,3,4, Michael J Wingfield2, Irene Barnes2, Magriet A Van der Nest2,5, Brenda D Wingfield2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The taxonomic history of Ceratocystis, a genus in the Ceratocystidaceae, has been beset with questions and debate. This is due to many of the commonly used species recognition concepts (e.g., morphological and biological species concepts) providing different bases for interpretation of taxonomic boundaries. Species delineation in Ceratocystis primarily relied on genealogical concordance phylogenetic species recognition (GCPSR) using multiple standard molecular markers.Entities:
Keywords: Ceratocystis; Hybridisation; Incongruence; Phylogenomics
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32408859 PMCID: PMC7222570 DOI: 10.1186/s12864-020-6772-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Genomics ISSN: 1471-2164 Impact factor: 3.969
General information and assembly statistics of the 17 Ceratocystidaceae isolates used in this study
| Species | Isolate number/Strain | Code | Country | Host (Genus) | Genome accession number | Size (Mb) | N50 | Contigs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CMW17620 | CALB1 | South Africa | JSSU00000000 | 27.15 | 58,335 | 939 | ||
| CMW4068 | CALB2 | South Africa | MAOA02000000 | 27.32 | 50,568 | 1003 | ||
| CMW17274 | CALB4 | South Africa | MANX00000000 | 26.56 | 22,532 | 2122 | ||
| CMW24685 | CALB5 | Kenya | MANZ00000000 | 27.12 | 48,054 | 1072 | ||
| CMW24860 | CALB6 | Tanzania | JAAUVK000000000 | 27.42 | 62,926 | 1064 | ||
| CMW9998 | CEUC | South Africa | LJOA00000000 | 31.26 | 116,489 | 961 | ||
| CMW15049 | CFIM1 | USA | JAAVJK000000000 | 29.5 | 13,763 | 3545 | ||
| CMW14799 | CFIM2 | USA | APWK00000000 | 29.5 | 174,236 | 399* | ||
| CMW14789 | CHAR | Poland | MKGM00000000 | 31.06 | 66,000 | 813* | ||
| CMW17570 | CMAN1 | Oman | JJRZ00000000 | 31.71 | 77,070 | 980* | ||
| CMW22563 | CMAN2 | Indonesia | VIFZ00000000 | 31.87 | 606,428 | 231* | ||
| CMW46461 | CMAN3 | Malaysia | SGIO00000000 | 31.8 | 598,724 | 225* | ||
| CFO | CPLA | Italy | LBBL00000000 | 29.18 | 77,580 | 1213 | ||
| CMW14800 | CSMA | USA | NETT00000000 | 27.3 | – | 1242 | ||
| CMW17339 | DVIR | USA | LJZU00000000 | 33.65 | 118,189 | 561 | ||
| CMW20930 | EPOL | Norway | LXKZ00000000 | 32.46 | 86,326 | 914* | ||
| CMW20928 | ELAR | Scotland | LXGT00000000 | 32.79 | 77,789 | 879* |
aSpecies code used in this study for identification of each isolate. The first letter represents the genus, while the following three letters correspond to species name. Numbers at the end of codes represent different isolates of the same species
bNumber of contigs greater than 500 bp
The genome completeness score assessed by BUSCO on all Ceratocystidaceae genomes
| Species name | Code | BUSCO notation (%) | Complete SCG | Complete DG | Fragmented | Missing | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Completed | Duplicated | Fragmented | Missing | ||||||
| CALB1 | 97 | 7.5 | 1.5 | 1 | 1400 | 109 | 23 | 15 | |
| CALB2 | 97 | 7.5 | 1.1 | 1.4 | 1401 | 108 | 16 | 21 | |
| CALB4 | 97 | 7.8 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 1401 | 113 | 19 | 18 | |
| CALB5 | 97 | 7.6 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1402 | 110 | 18 | 18 | |
| CALB6 | 97 | 11 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1402 | 172 | 18 | 18 | |
| CEUC | 98 | 7.5 | 0.6 | 1 | 1413 | 108 | 10 | 15 | |
| CFIM1 | 97 | 7.4 | 0.7 | 1.4 | 1406 | 107 | 11 | 21 | |
| CFIM2 | 98 | 7.5 | 0.4 | 1 | 1416 | 109 | 7 | 15 | |
| CHAR | 98 | 7.1 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 1410 | 103 | 14 | 14 | |
| CMAN1 | 97 | 7.8 | 1.2 | 0.9 | 1407 | 113 | 18 | 13 | |
| CMAN2 | 97 | 7.5 | 1 | 1 | 1408 | 109 | 15 | 15 | |
| CMAN3 | 98 | 7 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 1414 | 101 | 12 | 12 | |
| CPLA | 98 | 7.9 | 0.8 | 1.1 | 1410 | 115 | 12 | 16 | |
| CSMA | 98 | 12 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 1413 | 182 | 14 | 11 | |
| DVIR | 98 | 6.5 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 1418 | 94 | 13 | 7 | |
| EPOL | 98 | 6.7 | 0.6 | 0.9 | 1415 | 97 | 10 | 13 | |
| ELAR | 98 | 7.3 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 1417 | 105 | 8 | 13 | |
aThe number of Complete Single-Copy Genes
bThe number of Complete Duplicated Genes
Fig. 1Maximum likelihood (ML) species tree estimates of Ceratocystis species using concatenated datasets of both amino acid (a) and nucleotide (b) sequences. All nodes are supported by 100% bootstrap values (not shown). Thickened branches represent difference in topology between the 2 ML species trees using the Pairwise comparison software Compare2trees (Nye et al. [36])
Fig. 2DensiTree analysis of 1121 amino acid and nucleotide ML gene trees of Ceratocystis species. DensiTree analysis revealed 448 and 99 different topologies in the amino acid (a) and nucleotide (b) maximum likelihood (ML) trees respectively drawn using default tree drawing parameters. Consensus trees coloured red, bright green and blue represent the three most supported topologies
Fig. 3Maximum likelihood species phylogeny of the 17 Ceratocystidaceae isolates used in this study. The parameters used in the ML include the GTRGAMMA model of evolution and 1000 bootstrap replicates for branch support estimation. All nodes supporting each species are supported by 100% bootstrap values. Bootstrap for nodes supporting isolates of the same species were below 100% as expected (not shown). Insets A and B are zoomed in images of the C. manginecans and C. albifundus clades respectively
Fig. 4DensiTree analysis of phylogenetic trees of 1069 concatenated gene sequences including all 17 isolates analysed in this study. This image illustrates the difference in branching patterns between the well-defined lineage of CALB (C. albifundus) and the more divergent groupings of CEUC-CMAN (C. eucalypticola and C. manginecans) and CFIM (C. fimbriata). a – DensiTree image of all trees drawn with default drawing settings using the ‘Closest First’ Shuffle. b – DensiTree image of the consensus tree topologies drawn using the star-tree drawing option to illustrate branching patterns of the ML phylogenies. LAC denotes Latin American Clade