Next Article in Journal
Design of a Chimeric Multi-Epitope Vaccine (CMEV) against Both Leishmania martiniquensis and Leishmania orientalis Parasites Using Immunoinformatic Approaches
Next Article in Special Issue
Two New Species and Two New Records of the Lichen-Forming Fungal Genus Peltula (Ascomycota: Peltulaceae) from China
Previous Article in Journal
A Genomics Resource for 12 Edible Seaweeds to Predict Seaweed-Secreted Peptides with Potential Anti-Cancer Function
Previous Article in Special Issue
Additions to the Knowledge of the Genus Pezicula (Dermateaceae, Helotiales, Ascomycota) in China
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Two Novel Lasiodiplodia Species from Blighted Stems of Acer truncatum and Cotinus coggygria in China

1
Institute of Plant Protection, Beijing Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences, Beijing 100097, China
2
College of Forestry, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China
3
College of Life Sciences, Yangtze University, Jingzhou 434025, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Biology 2022, 11(10), 1459; https://doi.org/10.3390/biology11101459
Submission received: 30 August 2022 / Revised: 28 September 2022 / Accepted: 29 September 2022 / Published: 5 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Studies on Species Diversity and Phylogeny of Ascomycota (Fungi))

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Lasiodiplodia species are plurivorous plant pathogens found worldwide, especially in tropical and subtropical regions, that result in fruit and root rot, die-back of branches and stem canker, etc. During the exploration of the fungal diversity of blighted stem samples collected in northern China, two new Lasiodiplodia species, L. acerina G.H. Qiao & W.T. Qin and L. cotini G.H. Qiao & W.T. Qin, were discovered based on integrated studies of phenotypic features, culture characteristics and molecular analyses. They were described and illustrated in detail. This work provided a better understanding of the biodiversity, phylogeny and established concepts of the genus Lasiodiplodia.

Abstract

The Lasiodiplodia are major pathogens or endophytes living on a wide range of plant hosts in tropical and subtropical regions, which can cause stem canker, shoot blight, and rotting of fruits and roots. During an exploration of the stem diseases on Acer truncatum and Cotinus coggygria in northern China, two novel species of Lasiodiplodia, L. acerina G.H. Qiao & W.T. Qin and L. cotini G.H. Qiao & W.T. Qin, were discovered based on integrated studies of the morphological characteristics and phylogenetic analyses of the internal transcribed spacer region (ITS), translation elongation factor 1-α (TEF1-α), beta-tubulin (TUB2) and RNA polymerase II subunit b genes (RPB2). Lasiodiplodia acerina is a sister taxon of L. henannica and distinguishable by smaller paraphysis and larger conidiomata. Lasiodiplodia cotini is closely related to L. citricola but differs in the sequence data and the size of paraphyses. Distinctions between the two novel species and their close relatives were compared and discussed in details. This study updates the knowledge of species diversity of the genus Lasiodiplodia. Furthermore, this is the first report of Lasiodiplodia associated with blighted stems of A. truncatum and C. coggygria in China.

1. Introduction

Lasiodiplodia, established in 1896, is a member of the family Botryosphaeriaceae [1]. Species in the genus Lasiodiplodia have been associated with different plant diseases including fruit and root rots, die-back of branches and stem cankers. The type species of Lasiodiplodia (L. theobromae) was regarded as one of the cosmopolitan, plurivorous pathogens mainly inhabiting tropical and subtropical regions [2,3].
The main morphological characteristics of Lasiodiplodia include hyaline, smooth, cylindrical to conical conidioenous cells, which produce subovoid to ellipsoid-ovoid conidia and the conidia are hyaline without septa or dark-brown with single septae [4]. Species in the genus Lasiodiplodia were mostly differentiated based on the characteristics of the conidia and paraphyses [5]. Some other morphological characteristics, such as annelations of conidiogenous cells, the dimensions and papillate nature of conidiomata, septate and pigmented conidia as well as the pycnidial paraphyses have been gradually used to recognize the Lasiodiplodia species, but to what extent these characteristics are phylogenetically significant warrants further investigation [6].
The Genealogical Concordance Phylogenetic Species Recognition (GCPSR) concept is widely used to delineate different fungal species. This approach relies on determining the concordance between multiple gene genealogies and delimiting species where the branches of multiple trees display congruence [7]. The widespread application of phylogenies based on ITS, TEF1-α, TUB2 and RPB2 genes promotes the accurate identification of species in the genus Lasiodiplodia, and more and more species have been successively introduced over the years; at present, more than 70 Lasiodiplodia species have been identified [8,9,10]. Among them, some species have been introduced almost entirely on the basis of DNA sequence phylogenies. Although the phylogenies were derived from the analysis of multiple loci, some species were introduced only on the basis of minor differences in only one locus, and some species cannot be clearly separated phylogenetically [11,12,13]. Several accepted Lasiodiplodia species (L. brasiliense, L. laeliocattleyae, L. missouriana, L. viticola) may be hybrids based on a detailed phylogenetic analyses of five loci from 19 Lasiodiplodia species [14].
To provide a better understanding of Lasiodiplodia species diversity in China, recent collections of the genus on Acer truncatum and Cotinus coggygria were examined. Two previously unrecognized Lasiodiplodia species were discovered based on integrated studies of phenotypic features, culture characteristics and phylogenetic analyses of the combined sequences of ITS, TEF1-α, TUB2 and RPB2. Detailed comparisons were made between the new taxa and their close relatives.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Isolates and Specimens

Cultures were isolated from the blighted stems of Cotinus coggygria and Acer Truncatum collected from Beijing, China, from 2018 to 2019. Stem segments (0.5 cm × 0.5 cm × 0.2 cm) were cut from the boundary of the lesion or dead tissues, surface sterilized subsequently and incubated on potato dextrose agar (PDA, peeled potatoes 200 g, glucose 20 g, agar 18 g, add water to 1 L) at 25 °C for fungal isolation [15]. Specimens, purified cultures and the ex-type strains were deposited in the culture collection of Institute of Plant Protection, Beijing Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences.

2.2. Morphology and Growth Characterization

Morphological characterization of colonies, such as colony appearance, color and spore production were observed and recorded following the method of previous studies [5,11,16] on three media (PDA, malt extract agar (MEA, malt extract 20 g, agar 18 g, add water to 1 L) and synthetic nutrient-poor agar (SNA, monopotassium phosphate 1 g, potassium nitrate 1 g, Magnesium sulfate heptahydrate 0.5 g, potassium chloride 0.5 g, glucose 0.2 g, saccharose 0.2 g, agar 20 g, add water to 1 L)) with each isolate three replicates. Microscopic characteristics were recorded based on 20 paraphyses, 20 conidiogenous cells and 50 conidia on PDA at 25 °C in darkness. Photographs were taken from material mounted in lactic acid with Axiocam 506 color microscope (Carl Zeiss, Aalen, Germany) using Zeiss Imager Z2 software. The new species were established based on the guidelines outlined by Jeewon and Hyde [17].

2.3. DNA Extraction, PCR Amplification and Sequencing

Purified cultures were incubated on PDA with cellophane for 5 days at 25 °C in darkness. Genomic DNA was extracted using the TsingKe Plant Genomic DNA Extraction Kit® following the manufacturer’s protocol (Beijing, China). The ITS, TEF1-α, TUB2 and RPB2 gene sequences were amplified and sequenced using primer pairs ITS1/4 [18], EF1-728F/986R [19], Bt2a/2b [20] and RPB2-LasF/R [14], respectively. Each PCR reaction (25 μL) consisted of 1 μL 5–10 ng DNA, 22 μL TsingKe Golden Star T6 Super PCR Mix (1.1×) and 1 μL of each primer. PCR amplification followed the manufacturer’s protocol of TsingKe Golden Star T6 Super PCR Mix (Beijing, China), and products were sequenced by Beijing TsingKe Biotech Co. Ltd. (Beijing, China).

2.4. Sequence Alignment and Phylogenetic Analyses

Sequences of the investigated Lasiodiplodia species excluding those of our two new species for phylogenetic analyses were obtained from the NCBI using Tbtools v. 1.09876 [21] (Table 1). Sequences were assembled, aligned and manually adjusted with BioEdit v.7.2.5 [22]. To identify the phylogenetic positions of L. acerina and L. cotini, the combined sequences of ITS, TEF1-α, TUB2 and RPB2 for all strains were used for the phylogenetic analysis by methods of maximum parsimony (MP), maximum likelihood (ML) and MrBayes analyses (BI) with Diplodia mutila and D. seriata as outgroups. NEXUS files were generated with Clustal X 1.83 [23] in Phylosuit v.1.2.2 [24].
ML analyses with 1000 bootstrap replicates were conducted using raxmlGUI v. 2.06 [25]. The best-fit model of nucleotide substitution for each dataset was determined using ModelFinder [26]. Topological confidence of resulted trees was assessed by maximum likelihood bootstrap proportion (MLBP) with 1000 replicates.
MP trees were generated in PAUP v.4.0b [27], using the heuristic search function with tree bisection and reconstruction as branch swapping algorithms and 1000 random addition replicates. Gaps were treated as a fifth character and the characters were unordered and given equal weight. MAXTREES were set to 5000, branches of zero length were collapsed and all multiple, equally parsimonious trees were saved. Tree length (TL), consistency index (CI), retention index (RI), rescaled consistency index (RC) and homoplasy index (HI) were calculated. Topological confidence of resulting trees was tested by maximum parsimony bootstrap proportion (MPBP) with 1000 replications, each with 10 replicates of random addition of taxa.
BI analysis was conducted by MrBayes v. 3.2.6 [28] with Markov Chain Monte Carlo algorithm. Nucleotide substitution models were determined by ModelFinder and GTR + I+G + F was estimated as the best-fit model. Two MCMC chains were run from random trees for 2,000,000 generations and sampled every 100 generations. The first 2500 trees were discarded as the burn-in phase of the analyses, and Bayesian inference posterior probability (BIPP) was determined from the remaining trees. Trees were visualized in FigTree v1.4.4.

3. Results

3.1. Phylogenetic Analyses

The combined ITS, TEF1-α, TUB2 and RPB2 data set comprised 74 taxa with D. mutila and D. seriata as the outgroups. The MP dataset consisted of 1823 characters, of which 1358 characters were constant, 115 characters were parsimony informative and 366 variable characters were parsimony uninformative. A total of 284 most-parsimonious trees with the same topology were generated, one of them is shown in Figure 1 (tree length = 1075, CI = 0.5563, RI = 0.8692, RC = 0.4835, HI = 0.4437). In the ML analyses, GTRGAMMA was specified as the model. The best scoring RAxML tree with the final ML optimization likelihood value of −8913.786383 (ln) yielded. Estimated base frequencies were as follows: A = 0.224747, C = 0.283918, G = 0.271555, T = 0.219781; substitution rates AC = 0.836915, AG = 3.800207, AT = 1.307148, CG = 1.119223, CT = 6.358526, GT = 1.000000; gamma distribution shape parameter α = 0.220772. The ML, MP and BI methods for phylogenetic analyses resulted in trees with similar topologies.
Among all the strains, 141 represented 76 Lasiodiplodia spp. clustered together with high support (MPBP/MLBP/BIPP = 100%/100%/1). Three isolates (JZBHD 1902, 1904 and 1905) representing L. acerina and three isolates (JZBPG 1901, 1903 and 1905) representing L. cotini clustered as distinct lineages from other Lasiodiplodia spp., with the support values MPBP/BIPP = 85%/0.84 and MPBP/MLBP/BIPP = 98%/100%/1, respectively. They showed a close phylogenetic relationship, respectively, with L. henanica and L. citricola.

3.2. Taxonomy

Lasiodiplodia acerina G. H. Qiao & W.T. Qin, sp. nov. MB845417; Figure 2.
Etymology: The specific epithet is in reference to the host, Acer truncatum, from which the fungus was isolated.
Typification: China, Beijing, Haidian district, Summer Palace, Longevity Hill, from blighted stems of Acer truncatum, 18 September 2019, G. H. Qiao (Holotype: JZBHDT1904, ex-type isolate: JZBHD1904).
DNA barcodes: ITS = OP117391, TUB2 = OP141783, RPB2 = OP141788, TEF1-α = OP141777.
Conidiomata were semi-immersed or superficial stromatic on PDA within 14 d, and were solitary, smooth, globose, dark grey to black, covered by dark gray mycelia without conspicuous ostioles and up to 2525 µm in diameter. Paraphyses were filiform, cylindrical, aseptate, thin-walled, hyaline, apex rounded, occasionally swollen at the base and unbranched, arising from the conidiogenous layer, extending above the level of developing conidia, and were up to 39.4 µm long and 3.0 µm wide. Conidiophores were reduced to conidiogenous cells. Conidiogenous cells were hyaline, holoblastic, smooth, discrete, thin-walled, and were cylindrical to ampulliform. Conidia were initially hyaline, ovoid to cylindrical, with a 1-µm-thick wall, (21.64-)21.97–30.83(-30.96) × (10.61-)11.48–15.87(-16.72) µm (n = 50, av. = 26.9 µm × 13.5 µm, L/W ratio = 2.0, by range from 1.58 to 2.61. Mature conidia turned brown with a median septum and longitudinal striations and sometimes with one vacuole. The sexual stage and spermatia were not observed.
Culture characteristics: Colonies on PDA were initially white with thick aerial mycelia reaching the lid of the plate. After 7 d colonies were fluffy, grey to black, with reverse side of the colonies black. The colonies radius reached 32 mm on PDA after 24 h, and mycelia entirely covered the surface of the plate after 48 h in darkness at 25 °C. Aerial mycelia on MEA was moderately dense and reached the lid of the plate and became olive gray to black on the surface of the plate after 7 d. The colonies radius reached 30 mm after 24 h, and 76 mm after 48 h on MEA in darkness at 25 °C. Aerial mycelia on SNA were sparse, white. The colonies radius reached 22 mm after 24 h, and 58 mm after 48 h in darkness at 25 °C. Mycelia entirely covered the surface of the plate after 72 h on all the three culture media in darkness at 25 °C.
Additional strains examined: China, Beijing, Haidian district, Summer Palace, Longevity Hill, 39.91 °N 116.41 °E, from blighted stems of Acer truncatum, 18 September 2019, G. H. Qiao, HDyhy1902, JZBQHD1902; ibid., HDyhy1905, JZBQ1905.
Notes: Phylogenetically, as a separated linage, three strains of L. acerina formed sister groups with L. henanica (MPBP = 99%) and L. huangyanensis (MPBP/BIPP = 99%/0.86). Compared with the sequences of TEF1-α for L. acerina, they shared low similarities with L. henanica (97.71%), L. huangyanensis CGMCC 3.20380 (96.08%) and L. huangyanensis CGMCC 3.20381 (96.41%) by 7, 12 and 11 bp divergent among 306 bp, respectively. Morphologically, mycelia of L. acerina on MEA grew faster than that of L. henanica (colony radius reached 26 mm on MEA after 24 h, and more than 65 mm after 48 h in darkness at 28 °C). The length of paraphysis were longer in L. henanica (105 μm) [6] and L. huangyanensis (82 μm) [9]. In addition, L. henanica had smaller conidiomata (520 µm) (Table 2), and vacuoles in the conidia, which were also different from L. acerina [6].
Lasiodiplodia cotini G. H. Qiao & W.T. Qin, sp. nov. MB845418; Figure 3.
Etymology: The specific epithet is in reference to the host, Cotinus coggygria, from which the fungus is isolated.
Typification: China, Beijing, Pinggu district, Huangsongyu Town, Dadonggou village, from blighted stems of Cotinus coggygria, 20 October 2018, G. H. Qiao (ex-type strain: JZBPG 1905).
DNA barcodes: ITS = OP117389, TUB2 = OP141781, RPB2 = OP141787, TEF1-α = OP141775.
Conidiomata were semi-immersed or superficial stromatic, produced on PDA within 14 d, solitary, smooth, globose, dark grey to black, covered by dark gray mycelia without a conspicuous ostiole, up to 415 µm in diameter. Paraphyses arise from the conidiogenous layer, filiform, extending above the level of developing conidia, up to 41.9 µm long and 2.6 µm wide, hyaline, cylindrical, aseptate, thin-walled, apex rounded, occasionally swollen at the base and unbranched. Conidiophores were reduced to conidiogenous cells. Conidiogenous cells were hyaline, cylindrical to ampulliform, holoblastic, discrete, thin-walled and smooth. Conidia were initially hyaline, ovoid to cylindrical, with a 1-µm-thick wall, mature conidia turned brown with a median septum and longitudinal striations and sometimes with one vacuole, (19.38-)20−27(-28.81) × (12.51-)13.61−16.55(-16.62) µm (n = 50, av. = 24.28 µm × 15.4 µm, L/W ratio = 1.58, by range from 1.40 to 1.69. The sexual stage and spermatia were not observed.
Culture characteristics: Aerial mycelia on PDA were abundant, smoke-grey to olivaceous-grey with the colonies dark black on the reverse side of the plate after 7 d. The colonies radius reached 45 mm on PDA after 24 h, and mycelia entirely covered the surface of the plate after 48 h in darkness at 25 °C. The colonies radius reached 24 mm on MEA after 24 h in darkness at 25 °C, and 51 mm after 48 h. Aerial mycelium is moderately dense and grey. The colonies radius reached 14 mm on SNA after 24 h, and 43 mm after 48 h in darkness at 25 °C. Aerial mycelium on SNA is sparse and white. After 72 h mycelia entirely covered the surface of the plates of the three culture media.
Additional strains examined: China, Beijing, Pinggu district, Huangsongyu Town, Dadonggou village, 40.23 °N 117.29 °E from blighted stems of Cotinus coggygria, 20 October 2018, G. H. Qiao, PGhsy 1901, JZBPG1901; ibid., PGhsy 1903, JZBPG1903.
Notes: Phylogenetically, three strains of L. cotini clustered together (MPBP/MLBP/BIPP = 98%/100%/1) and are closely related to L. citricola (MPBP/MLBP/BIPP = 68%/93%/0.94). Comparison of the sequence data indicated that they shared 4 bp divergent among 259 bp for TEF1-α (98.46%). Morphologically, the colonies of L. citricola and L. cotini were not obviously different; however, L. cotini has smaller paraphyses than those of L. citricola (125 × 3–4 μm) [29] and L. cinnamomi (106 × 3–4 μm) [30]. In addition, larger conidia of L. cinnamomi (18.7–21.1 × 12.7–14.1 μm) also make it distinguishable from L. cotini (Table 2) [30].

4. Discussion

To explore the taxonomic positions of the genus Lasiodiplodia, the phylogenetic tree was constructed based on the combined sequences of ITS, TEF1-α, TUB2 and RPB2 with D. mutila and D. seriata used as outgroups. Two novel species, L. acerina and L. cotini, were found based on the integrated studies of phenotypic and molecular data. All investigated Lasiodiplodia species clustered together (Figure 1), which was basically congruent with the results of a previous study [6]. Lasiodiplodia acerina and L. cotini clustered as separated terminal branches at the top of the tree, and were closely related to L. henanica [6] and L. citricola [30], respectively, but they differed from each other in characters of conidiomata, conidia and paraphyses, etc. (Figure 2 and Figure 3; Table 2).
Although many species in Lasiodiplodia were differentiated on the basis of morphological characters, it is necessary to combine the morphology and molecular data for definitive identifications. The phylogenetic tree in this study was comprised of 76 Lasiodiplodia species represented by 141 strains. When our two new species joined, the tree topology was somewhat changed, including the relationships among species. Lasiodiplodia acerina and four newly reported species, L. henanica on blueberries [6], L. huangyanensis and L. ponkanicola on citrus [9], and L. cinnamomic on Cinnamomum camphora in China formed a separated terminal branch [29]. Lasiodiplodia citricola was reported as the sister group of L. paraphysoides and L. aquilariae [6,9]; however, in this study, four strains representing L. citricola were closely related to L. cotini represented by our three strains (MPBP/MLBP/BIPP = 56%/64%/0.8). Lasiodiplodia citricola were far away from L. paraphysoides, a novel species reported on blueberries [6] as a result of L. cotini in our study and L. mitidjana on citrus [30] joining in the phylogenetic tree.
Further analysis showed that the Lasiodiplodia species sampling from China tend to cluster together (Table 1 and Figure 1), which may be the result of the comprehensive action of fungal adaptive ability, regional climate and human-mediated factors. For example, five newly reported species sampling from China in recent years, L. acerina, L. cinnamomi, L. henanica, L. huangyanensis and L. ponkanicola formed a high-supported group (MPBP/BIPP = 99%/0.68). Geographically, species in the genus Lasiodiplodia tend to live in tropical or subtropical areas or in warm temperature areas associated with stem diseases of woody substrates [30,31]. In this study, two newly described species of Lasiodiplodia were also isolated from the blighted stem of A. truncatum and C. coggygria in Beijing, which are distributed in subtropical or warm temperate areas in China (Table 1).
Acer truncatum and Cotinus coggygria are two kinds of landscape trees that play important roles in urban greening construction. Botryosphaeria dothidea, Fusarium oxysporum, Neofusicoccum parvum and Pestalotiopsis microspora have been reported to be associated with diseased leaves and stems of Acer spp. [32,33,34,35], and Alternaria alternata, Botryosphaeria dothidea and Verticillum dahlia have been isolated from diseased leaves and stems of C. coggygria [36,37,38]; to our knowledge, this is the first report of Lasiodiplodia being associated with A. truncatum and C. coggygria.
Along with an increasing number of species recognized in the genus Lasiodiplodia, our understanding of the genus will become more sophisticated and intelligible through the integrated studies on morphology and phylogeny. Accumulations of our knowledge on Lasiodiplodia will provide useful information for establishing reasonable species concepts, and understand co-relations between morphology and sequence data in the future, which will lay further foundations for the scientific management of stem blight diseases and improvement in the landscape effect in the process of urban greening construction.

5. Conclusions

This study recognized two novel Lasiodiplodia species from blighted stems of A. truncatum and C. coggygria, which were the first reports of Lasiodiplodia associated with these two horticulture trees in China. The discovery provided a better understanding of the biodiversity and phylogeny of the genus Lasiodiplodia and is beneficial for future evaluation of the potential usages and functions of the new species.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, W.Q. and G.Q.; methodology, J.Z.; software, G.Q.; validation, G.Q. and J.L.; writing—original draft preparation, G.Q.; writing—review and editing, W.Q. and J.Z.; visualization, G.Q. and X.T.; funding acquisition, W.Q. and G.Q. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by the Innovation Foundation of Beijing Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences (KJCX201910) and the Rural Revitalization Project of Beijing Municipal Bureau of Agriculture (BJXCZX20221229).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data analyzed in this study are curated from the public domain.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Xing-hong Li, Wei Zhang and Ying Zhou of the Institute of plant protection, Beijing Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences for technical assistance in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Clendinin, I. Lasiodiplodia Ellis. and Everh. n. gen. Bot. Gaz. 1896, 21, 92–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. De Silva, N.I.; Phillips, A.J.L.; Liu, J.-K.; Lumyong, S.; Hyde, K.D. Phylogeny and morphology of Lasiodiplodia species associated with Magnolia forest plants. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 14355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Marques, M.W.; Lima, N.B.; de Morais, M.A.; Barbosa, M.A.G.; Souza, B.O.; Michereff, S.J.; Phillips, A.J.L.; Câmara, M.P.S. Species of Lasiodiplodia associated with mango in Brazil. Fungal Divers. 2013, 61, 181–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Phillips, A.J.L.; Alves, A.; Abdollahzadeh, J.; Slippers, B.; Wingfield, M.J.; Groenewald, J.Z.; Crous, P.W. The Botryosphaeriaceae: Genera and species known from culture. Stud. Mycol. 2013, 76, 51–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Dou, Z.P.; He, W.; Zhang, Y. Does morphology matter in taxonomy of Lasiodiplodia? An answer from Lasiodiplodia hyalina sp. nov. Mycosphere 2017, 8, 1014–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Wang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Bhoyroo, V.; Rampadarath, S.; Jeewon, R. Multigene phylogenetics and morphology reveal five novel Lasiodiplodia species associated with blueberries. Life 2021, 11, 657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Taylor, J.W.; Jacobson, D.J.; Kroken, S.; Kasuga, T.; Geiser, D.M.; Hibbett, D.S.; Fisher, M.C. Phylogenetic species recognition and species concepts in fungi. Fungal Genet. Biol. 2000, 31, 21–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Dissanayake, A.; Phillips, A.; Li, X.; Hyde, K. Botryosphaeriaceae: Current status of genera and species. Mycosphere 2016, 7, 1001–1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Xiao, X.E.; Pu, Z.X.; Wang, W.; Zhu, Z.R.; Li, H.; Crous, P.W. Species of Botryosphaeriaceae associated with citrus branch diseases in China. Persoonia 2021, 47, 106–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zhang, W.; Groenewald, J.Z.; Lombard, L.; Schumacher, R.K.; Phillips, A.J.L.; Crous, P.W. Evaluating species in Botryosphaeriales. Persoonia 2021, 46, 63–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Dou, Z.P.; He, W.; Zhang, Y. Lasiodiplodia chinensis, a new holomorphic species from China. Mycosphere 2017, 8, 521–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Burgess, T.I.; Barber, P.A.; Mohali, S.; Pegg, G.; de Beer, W.; Wingfield, M.J. Three new Lasiodiplodia spp. from the tropics, recognized based on DNA sequence comparisons and morphology. Mycologia 2006, 98, 423–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Liang, L.; Li, H.; Zhou, L.; Chen, F. Lasiodiplodia pseudotheobromae causes stem canker of Chinese hackberry in China. J. For. Res. 2019, 31, 2571–2580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Cruywagen, E.M.; Slippers, B.; Roux, J.; Wingfield, M.J. Phylogenetic species recognition and hybridisation in Lasiodiplodia: A case study on species from baobabs. Fungal Biol. 2017, 121, 420–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Pavlic, D.; Slippers, B.; Coutinho, T.A.; Gryzenhout, M.; Wingfield, M.J. Lasiodiplodia gonubiensis sp. nov., a new Botryosphaeria anamorph from native Syzygium cordatum in South Africa. Stud. Mycol. 2004, 50, 313–322. [Google Scholar]
  16. Ismail, A.; Cirvilleri, G.; Polizzi, G.; Crous, P.; Groenewald, J.; Lombard, L. Lasiodiplodia species associated with dieback disease of mango (Mangifera indica) in Egypt. Australas. Plant Pathol. 2012, 41, 649–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Jeewon, R.; Hyde, K.D. Establishing species boundaries and new taxa among fungi: Recommendations to resolve taxonomic ambiguities. Mycosphere 2016, 7, 1669–1677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. White, T.J.; Bruns, T.; Lee, S.; Taylor, J. Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics. PCR Protoc. A Guide Methods Appl. 1990, 18, 315–322. [Google Scholar]
  19. Carbone, I.; Kohn, L.M. A method for designing primer sets for speciation studies in filamentous ascomycetes. Mycologia 1999, 91, 553–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Glass, N.L.; Donaldson, G.C. Development of primer sets designed for use with the PCR to amplify conserved genes from filamentous ascomycetes. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1995, 61, 1323–1330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Chen, C.; Chen, H.; Zhang, Y.; Thomas, H.R.; Frank, M.H.; He, Y.; Xia, R. TBtools: An integrative toolkit developed for interactive analyses of big biological data. Mol. Plant 2020, 13, 1194–1202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Hall, T.A. BioEdit: A user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT. In Nucleic Acids Symposium Series; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1999; pp. 95–98. [Google Scholar]
  23. Thompson, J.D.; Gibson, T.J.; Plewniak, F.; Jeanmougin, F.; Higgins, D.G. The Clustal X windows interface: Flexible strategies for multiple sequence alignment aided by quality analysis tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 1997, 25, 4876–4882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Zhang, D.; Gao, F.; Jakovlić, I.; Zou, H.; Zhang, J.; Li, W.X.; Wang, G.T. PhyloSuite: An integrated and scalable desktop platform for streamlined molecular sequence data management and evolutionary phylogenetics studies. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2019, 20, 348–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Edler, D.; Klein, J.; Antonelli, A.; Silvestro, D. raxmlGUI 2.0: A graphical interface and toolkit for phylogenetic analyses using RAxML. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2021, 12, 373–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kalyaanamoorthy, S.; Minh, B.Q.; Wong, T.K.F.; von Haeseler, A.; Jermiin, L.S. ModelFinder: Fast model selection for accurate phylogenetic estimates. Nat. Methods 2017, 14, 587–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Swofford, D.P. Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and Other Methods); Version 4.0; Sinauer Associates: Sunderland, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  28. Ronquist, F.; Teslenko, M.; van der Mark, P.; Ayres, D.L.; Darling, A.; Höhna, S.; Larget, B.; Liu, L.; Suchard, M.A.; Huelsenbeck, J.P. MrBayes 3.2: Efficient bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across a large model space. Syst. Biol. 2012, 61, 539–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Jiang, N.; Wang, X.-W.; Liang, Y.-M.; Tian, C.-M. Lasiodiplodia cinnamomi sp. nov. from Cinnamomum camphora in China. Mycotaxon 2018, 133, 249–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Abdollahzadeh, J.; Javadi, A.; Mohammadi Goltapeh, E.; Zare, R.; Phillips, A.J. Phylogeny and morphology of four new species of Lasiodiplodia from Iran. Persoonia 2010, 25, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Wang, Y.; Lin, S.; Zhao, L.; Sun, X.; He, W.; Zhang, Y.; Dai, Y.-C. Lasiodiplodia spp. associated with Aquilaria crassna in Laos. Mycol. Prog. 2019, 18, 683–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zhao, X.; Li, H.; Zhou, L.; Chen, F.; Chen, F. Wilt of Acer negundo L. caused by Fusarium nirenbergiae in China. J. For. Res. 2020, 31, 2013–2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Cui, C.; Wang, Y.; Jiang, J.; Hui, O.; Qin, S.; Huang, T. Identification of the pathogen causing brown spot disease of ‘October Glory’. Sci. Silvae Sin. 2015, 51, 142–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Moricca, S.; Uccello, A.; Ginetti, B.; Ragazzi, A. First Report of Neofusicoccum parvum Associated with Bark Canker and Dieback of Acer pseudoplatanus and Quercus robur in Italy. Plant Dis. 2012, 96, 1699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Wang, X.; Li, Y.X.; Dong, H.X.; Jia, X.Z.; Zhang, X.Y. First report of Botryosphaeria dothidea causing canker of Acer platanoides in China. Plant Dis. 2015, 99, 1857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zhang, S.; Liang, W.; Yang, Q. First report of Alternaria alternata causing leaf spot on Cotinus coggygria Scop. in China. Plant Dis. 2018, 102, 2644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Xiong, D.G.; Wang, Y.L.; Ma, J.; Klosterman, S.J.; Xiao, S.; Tian, C. Deep mRNA sequencing reveals stage-specific transcriptome alterations during microsclerotia development in the smoke tree vascular wilt pathogen, Verticillium dahliae. BMC Genom. 2014, 15, 324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Fan, S.S.; Huang, Y.J.; Zhang, X.J.; Chen, G.H.; Zhou, J.; Li, X.; Han, M.Z. First report of Botryosphaeria dothidea causing canker on Cotinus coggygria in China. Plant Dis. 2019, 103, 2678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Maximum parsimony phylogram reconstructed from the combined sequences of ITS, TEF1-α, TUB2 and RPB2 of Lasiodiplodia. MPBP above 50% (left), MLBP above 50% (middle), BIPP above 0.7 (right) are indicated at the nodes. New species proposed are indicated in red font. The tree is rooted to Diplodia mutila and D. seriata. The strains isolated from samples of China are marked in blue triangles.
Figure 1. Maximum parsimony phylogram reconstructed from the combined sequences of ITS, TEF1-α, TUB2 and RPB2 of Lasiodiplodia. MPBP above 50% (left), MLBP above 50% (middle), BIPP above 0.7 (right) are indicated at the nodes. New species proposed are indicated in red font. The tree is rooted to Diplodia mutila and D. seriata. The strains isolated from samples of China are marked in blue triangles.
Biology 11 01459 g001aBiology 11 01459 g001bBiology 11 01459 g001c
Figure 2. Lasiodiplodia acerina (JZBHD 1904). (A) Disease tree in the field. (B) Cross-section of stem. (C,D) Culture grown on PDA. (E) Conidiomata developing on PDA. (F,G) Conidia developing on conidiogenous cells between paraphyses. (HL) Conidia. Scale bars: E = 200 μm, F−L = 10 μm.
Figure 2. Lasiodiplodia acerina (JZBHD 1904). (A) Disease tree in the field. (B) Cross-section of stem. (C,D) Culture grown on PDA. (E) Conidiomata developing on PDA. (F,G) Conidia developing on conidiogenous cells between paraphyses. (HL) Conidia. Scale bars: E = 200 μm, F−L = 10 μm.
Biology 11 01459 g002
Figure 3. Lasiodiplodia cotini (JZBPG 1905). (A) Diseased tree in the field. (B) Cross-section of the blighted stem. (C,D) Culture grown on PDA. (E,F) Conidiomata developing on PDA. (G) Crushed conidiomata with many conidia. (H) Conidia developing on conidiogenous cells between paraphyses. (IK) Conidia. Scale bars: E − F = 100 μm, H − K = 10 μm.
Figure 3. Lasiodiplodia cotini (JZBPG 1905). (A) Diseased tree in the field. (B) Cross-section of the blighted stem. (C,D) Culture grown on PDA. (E,F) Conidiomata developing on PDA. (G) Crushed conidiomata with many conidia. (H) Conidia developing on conidiogenous cells between paraphyses. (IK) Conidia. Scale bars: E − F = 100 μm, H − K = 10 μm.
Biology 11 01459 g003
Table 1. Details of Lasiodiplodia strains investigated in this study.
Table 1. Details of Lasiodiplodia strains investigated in this study.
SpeciesStrainHostLocalityGenBank Accession Numbers
ITSTEF1-αTUBRPB2
Lasiodiplodia acaciaeCBS 136434TAcacia sp.IndonesiaMT587421MT592133MT592613MT592307
L. acerinaJZBHD1902Acer truncatumChinaOP117390OP141776OP141782N/A
L. acerinaJZBHD1904TAcer truncatumChinaOP117391OP141777OP141783OP141788
L. acerinaJZBHD1905Acer truncatumChinaOP117392OP141778OP141784OP141789
L.americanaCERC1962Pistacia veraUSAKP217060KP217068KP217076N/A
L.americanaCERC1961TPistacia veraUSAKP217059KP217067KP217075N/A
L.americanaCERC1960Pistacia veraUSAKP217058KP217066KP217074N/A
L. aquilariaeCGMCC 3.18471TAquilaria crassnaLaosKY783442KY848600N/AKY848562
L. avicenniaeCMW 41467TAvicennia marinaSouth AfricaKP860835KP860680KP860758KU587878
L. avicenniaeLAS 199Avicennia marinaSouth AfricaKU587957KU587947KU587868KU587880
L. avicenniarumMFLUCC 17-2591TAvicennia marinaThailandMK347777MK340867N/AN/A
L. brasilienseCMW 35884Adansonia sp.LaosKU887094 KU886972KU887466KU696345
L. brasilienseCBS 115447Psychotria tutcheriChinaMT587422MT592134MT592614MT592308
L. brasiliensisCMM 4015TMangifera indicaBrazilJX464063JX464049N/AN/A
L. brasiliensisCMM 4469Anacardium occidentaleBrazilKT325574KT325580N/AN/A
L. bruguieraeCMW 41470TBruguiera gymnorrhizaSouth AfricaKP860833KP860678KP860756KU587875
L. bruguieraeCMW 42480Bruguiera gymnorrhizaSouth AfricaKP860832KP860677KP860755KU587876
L. caatinguensisCMM 1325TCitrus sinensisBrazilKT154760KT008006KT154767N/A
L. caatinguensisIBL 381Spondias purpureaBrazilKT154757KT154751KT154764N/A
L. chiangraiensisMFLUCC 21-0003T/ThailandMW760854MW815630MW815628N/A
L. chiangraiensisGZCC 21-0003/ThailandMW760853MW815629MW815627N/A
L. chinensisCGMCC 3.18061T/ChinaKX499889KX499927KX500002KX499965
L. chinensisCGMCC 3.18063Canarium parvumChinaKX499891KX499929KX500004KX499967
L. chonburiensisMFLUCC 16-0376TPandanaceaeThailandMH275066MH412773MH412742N/A
L. cinnamomiCFCC 51997TCinnamomum camphoraChinaMG866028MH236799MH236797MH236801
L. cinnamomiCFCC 51998Cinnamomum camphoraChinaMG866029MH236800MH236798MH236802
L. citricolaCBS 124707TCitrus sp.IranGU945354GU945340KU887505KU696351
L. citricolaCBS 124706Citrus sp.IranGU945353GU945339KU887504KU696350
L. clavisporaCGMCC 3.19594TVaccinium uliginosumChinaMK802166N/AMK816339MK809507
L. clavisporaCGMCC 3.19595Vaccinium uliginosumChinaMK802165N/AMK816338MK809506
L. cotiniJZBPG1901Cotinus coggygriaChinaOP117387OP141773OP141779OP141785
L. cotiniJZBPG1903Cotinus coggygriaChinaOP117388OP141774OP141780OP141786
L. cotiniJZBPG1905TCotinus coggygriaChinaOP117389OP141775OP141781OP141787
L. crassisporaCBS 118741TSantalum albumAustraliaDQ103550DQ103557KU887506KU696353
L. crassisporaCMW 13488Eucalyptus urophyllaVenezuelaDQ103552DQ103559KU887507KU696352
L. crassisporaWAC 12533Santalum albumAustralia DQ103550DQ103557KU887506KU696353
L. curvataCGMCC 3.18456TAquilaria crassnaLaosKY783437KY848596KY848529KY848557
L. curvataCGMCC 3.18476Aquilaria crassnaLaosKY783443KY848601KY848532KY848563
L. endophyticaMFLUCC 18-1121TMagnolia acuminataChinaMK501838MK584572MK550606N/A
L. euphorbicolaCMW 3609TJatropha curcasBrazil KF234543KF226689KF254926N/A
L. euphorbiicolaCMW 33350TAdansonia digitataBotswanaKU887149KU887026KU887455KU696346
L. euphorbiicolaCMW 36231Adansonia digitataZimbabweKU887187KU887063KU887494KU696347
L. euphorbiaceicolaCMW 33268TAdansonia sp.SenegalKU887131KU887008KU887430KU887367
L. exiguaBL184TRetama raetamTunisia KJ638318KJ638337N/AN/A
L. exiguaCBS 137785Retama raetamTunisia KJ638317KJ638336KU887509KU696355
L. fujianensisCGMCC 3.19593TVaccinium uliginosumChinaMK802164MK887178MK816337MK809505
L. gilanensisCBS 124704TCitrus sp.IranGU945351GU945342KU887511KU696357
L. gilanensisCBS 124705Citrus sp.IranGU945352GU945341KU887510KU696356
L. gonubiensisCMW 14077TSyzygium cordatumSouth AfricaAY639595DQ103566DQ458860KU696359
L. gonubiensisCMW 14078Syzygium cordatumSouth AfricaAY639594DQ103567EU673126KU696358
L. gravistriataCMM 4564TAnacardium humileBrazilKT250949KT250950N/AN/A
L. gravistriataCMM 4565Anacardium humileBrazilKT250947KT266812N/AN/A
L. guilinensisCGMCC3.20378TCitrus sinensisChinaMW880672MW884175MW884204MW884149
L. guilinensisCGMCC3.20379Citrus unshiuChinaMW880673MW884176MW884205MW884150
L. henanicaCGMCC3.19176TVaccinium uliginosumChinaMH729351MH729357MH729360MH729354
L. hormozganensisCBS 124709TOlea sp.IranGU945355GU945343KU887515KU696361
L. hormozganensisCBS 124708Mangifera indicaIranGU945356GU945344KU887514KU696360
L. huangyanensisCGMCC 3.20380TCitrus lataChinaMW880674MW884177MW884206MW884151
L. huangyanensisCGMCC 3.20381Citrus unshiuChinaMW880675MW884178MW884207MW884152
L.hyalinaCGMCC 3.17975TAcacia confusaChinaKX499879KX499917KX499992KX499955
L. hyalinaCGMCC 3.18383/ChinaKY767661KY751302KY751299KY751296
L. indicaIBP 01Tangiospermic woodIndiaKM376151N/AN/AN/A
L. iranensisCBS 124710TSalvadora persicaIranGU945348GU945336KU887516KU696363
L. iranensisCBS 124711Juglans sp.IranGU945347GU945335KU887517KU696362
L. irregularisCGMCC3.18468TAquilaria crassnaLaosKY783472KY848610KY848553KY848592
L. jatrophicolaCMM 3610TJatropha curcasBrazilKF234544KF226690KF254927N/A
L.jatrophicolaCMW36237Adansonia sp.BrazilKU887121KU886998KU887499KU696348
L.jatrophicolaCMW36239Adansonia sp.BrazilKU887123KU887000KU887501KU696349
L. krabiensisMFLUCC 17-2617TBruguiera sp.ThailandMN047093MN077070N/AN/A
L. laeliocattleyaeCBS 130992TMangifera indicaEgyptKU507487KU507454KU887508KU696354
L. laeliocattleyaeBOT 29Mangifera indicaEgyptJN814401JN814428N/AN/A
L. laeliocattleyaeCBS 167.28Laeliocattleya sp.ItalyKU507487KU507454MT592618MT592313
L. laosensisCGMCC 3.18464TAquilaria crassnaLaosKY783471KY848609KY848552KY848591
L. laosensisCGMCC 3.18473Aquilaria crassnaLaosKY783450KY848603KY848536KY848570
L. lignicolaCBS 134112T/ThailandJX646797KU887003JX646845KU696364
L. lignicolaMFLUCC 11-0435/ThailandJX646797JX646862JX646845KP872470
L. lignicolaMFLUCC 11-0656/ThailandJX646798JX646863JX646846N/A
L. linhaiensisCGMCC 3.20386TCitrus unshiuChinaMW880677MW884180MW884209MW884154
L. linhaiensisCGMCC 3.20383Citrus sinensisChinaMW880678MW884181MW884210MW884155
L. loidaceaeDSM 112340TLodoicea maldivicaMexicoMW274148MW604230MW604240MW604219
L. loidaceaeDSM 112341Lodoicea maldivicaMexicoMW274146MW604229MW604239MW604218
L. macroconidiaCGMCC 3.18479TAquilaria crassnaLaosKY783438KY848597KY848530KY848558
L. macrosporaCMM 3833TJatropha curcasBrazilKF234557KF226718KF254941N/A
L. magnoliaeMFLUCC 18-0948TMagnolia acuminataChinaMK499387MK568537MK521587N/A
L. mahajanganaCMW 27801TTerminalia catappaMadagascarFJ900595FJ900641FJ900630KU696365
L. mahajanganaCMW 27818Terminalia catappaMadagascarFJ900596FJ900642FJ900631KU696366
L. mahajanganaCBS:125267Terminalia sambesiacaTanzaniaMT587428MT592140MT592622MT592318
L. margaritaceaCBS 122519TAdansonia gibbosaAustraliaEU144050EU144065KU887520KU696367
L. margaritaceaCBS 138291Combretum obovatumZambiaKP872322KP872351KP872381KP872431
L. marypalmeCMM 2275TCarica papayaBrazilKC484843KC481567N/AN/A
L. marypalmeCMM 2272Carica papayaBrazilKC484842KC481566N/AN/A
L. mediterraneaCBS 137783TQuercus ilexItalyKJ638312KJ638331KU887521KU696368
L. mediterraneaCBS 137784Vitis viniferaItalyKJ638311KJ638330KU887522KU696369
L. mexicanenseDSM 112342TChamaedorea seifriziiMexicoMW274151MW604234MW604243MW604222
L. mexicanenseAGQMy 0015Chamaedorea seifriziiMexicoMW274150MW604233MW604242MW604221
L. microcondiaCGMCC 3.18485TAquilaria crassnaLaosKY783441KY848614N/AKY848561
L. missourianaUCD 2193MOTVitis sp.USAHQ288225HQ288267HQ288304KU696370
L. missourianaUCD 2199MOVitis sp.USAHQ288226HQ288268HQ288305KU696371
L. mitidjanaALG111TCitrus sp.AlgeriaMN104115MN159114N/AN/A
L. mitidjanaALG112Citrus sp.AlgeriaMN104116MN159115N/AN/A
L. nanpingensisCGMCC3.19596TVaccinium uliginosumChinaMK802167N/AMK816340MK809508
L. nanpingensisCGMCC3.19597Vaccinium uliginosumChinaMK802168N/AMK816341MK809509
L. pandanicolaMFLUCC 16-0265TPandanaceaeThailandMH275068MH412774MH412744N/A
L. pandanicolaGBLZ 16BO-008TLitchi chinensisChinaMN540679N/AMN539183N/A
L.paraphysoideCGMCC 3.19174TVaccinium uliginosumChinaMH729349MH729355MH729358MH729352
L.paraphysoidesCGMCC 3.19175Vaccinium uliginosumChinaMH729350MH729356MH729359MH729353
L. parvaCBS 456.78T/USAEF622083EF622063KU887523KU696372
L. parvaCBS 494.78Cassava-field soilColombiaEF622084EF622064EU673114KU696373
L. plurivoraSTE-U 5803TPrunus salicinaSouth AfricaEF445362EF445395KP872421KP872479
L. plurivoraSTE-U 4583Vitis viniferaSouth AfricaAY343482EF445396KP872422KP872480
L. ponkanicolaCGMCC3.20388TCitrus reticulataChinaMW880685MW884188MW884214MW884159
L. pontaeCMM 1277TSpondias purpureaBrazilKT151794KT151791KT151797N/A
L. pontaeCBS 117454Eucalyptus urophyllaVenezuelaMT587432MT592144MT592626N/A
L. pseudotheobromaeCBS 116459TGmelina arboreaCosta RicaEF622077EF622057EU673111KU696376
L.pseudotheobromaeCGMCC 3.18047Pteridium aquilinumChinaKX499876KX499914KX499989|KX499952
L. pseudotheobromaeCBS 121772Acacia melliferaNamibiaEU101310EU101355MT592627MT592323
L. pyriformisCBS 121770TAcacia melliferaNamibia EU101307EU101352KU887527KU696378
L. pyriformisCBS 121771Acacia melliferaNamibia EU101308EU101353KU887528KU696379
L. rubropurpureaWAC 12535TEucalyptus grandisAustraliaDQ103553DQ103571EU673136KU696380
L. rubropurpureaWAC 12536Eucalyptus grandisAustraliaDQ103554DQ103572KU887530KU696381
L. sterculiaeCBS342.78TSterculia oblongaGermanyKX464140KX464634KX464908KX463989
L. subglobosaCMM 3872TJatropha curcasBrazilKF234558KF226721KF254942N/A
L. subglobosaCMM 4046Jatropha curcasBrazilKF234560KF226723KF254944N/A
L. swieteniaeMFLUCC 18-0244TSwietenia mahagoniThailandMK347789MK340870MK412877N/A
L. syzygiiMFLUCC 19-0257TSyzygium samarangenseThailandMT990531MW016943MW014331N/A
L. syzygiiCBS:120512Syzygium samarangenseThailandMT587434MT592147MT592632N/A
L. syzygiiGUCC 9719.2Syzygium samarangenseThailandMW081991MW087101MW087104N/A
L. tenuiconidiaCGMCC 3.18449TAquilaria crassnaLaosKY783466KY848619N/AKY848586
L. thailandicaCBS 138760TMangifera indicaThailandKJ193637KJ193681N/AN/A
L. thailandicaCGMCC 3.18384Albizia chinensisChinaKY767663KY751304KY751301KY751298
L. thailandicaMUCC<JPN>:2738Bryophyllum pinnatumJapanLC567321LC567750LC567780LC567810
L. theobromaeCBS 164.96T/Papua New GuineaAY640255AY640258KU887532KU696383
L. theobromaeCBS 111530Leucospermum sp.USAEF622074EF622054KU887531KU696382
L. tropicaCGMCC 3.18477TAquilaria crassnaLaosKY783454KY848616KY848540KY848574
L. vacciniiCGMCC 3.19022TVaccinium uliginosumChinaMH330318MH330327MH330324MH330321
L. vacciniiCGMCC 3.19023Vaccinium uliginosumChinaMH330319MH330329MH330326MH330322
L. venezuelensisWAC 12539TAcacia mangiumVenezuelaDQ103547DQ103568KU887533KP872490
L. venezuelensisWAC 12540Acacia mangiumVenezuelaDQ103548DQ103569KU887534KP872491
L. viticolaCBS 128313TVitis viniferaUSAHQ288227HQ288269HQ288306KU696385
L. viticolaUCD 2604MOVitis viniferaUSAHQ288228HQ288270HQ288307KU696386
L. vitisCBS 124060TVitis viniferaItalyKX464148KX464642KX464917KX463994
Diplodia mutilaCMW 7060TFraxinus excelsiorNetherlandsAY236955AY236904AY236933EU339574
D. seriataCBS 112555TVitis viniferaPortugalAY259094AY573220DQ458856N/A
T: Type collections. N/A: no sequences in GenBank. /: unknown host. Numbers in bold indicate newly submitted sequences in this study.
Table 2. Morphological characteristic comparison between L. acerina, L. cotini and their close relatives.
Table 2. Morphological characteristic comparison between L. acerina, L. cotini and their close relatives.
SpeciesLength of
Conidia (μm)
Width of
Conidia
(μm)
Average L/W of ConidiaL/W Range of ConidiaLength of
Paraphyses (μm)
Width of
Paraphyses (μm)
Size
of Conidiomata (μm)
Reference
L. acerina(21.64-)21.97–30.83 (-30.96)(10.61-)11.48–15.87(-16.72)2.001.58–2.6139.432525This study
L. henanica(14-)19–26(-27)10–13 (-15)1.861.17–2.601054520[6]
L. huangyanensis(21-)28–32.5(-34)(13-)14–16(-17)2.00-823–4-[9]
L. cinnamomi(17.5-)18.7–21.1(-22.4)(11.5-)12.7–14.1(-15.5)1.50-1063–4-[29]
L. citricola(20-)22–27(-31)(10.9-)12–17(-19)1.60-1253–4-[30]
L. cotini(19.38-)20–27(-28.81)(12.51-)13.61–16.55(-16.62)1.581.40–1.6941.92.6415This study
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Qiao, G.; Zhao, J.; Liu, J.; Tan, X.; Qin, W. Two Novel Lasiodiplodia Species from Blighted Stems of Acer truncatum and Cotinus coggygria in China. Biology 2022, 11, 1459. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology11101459

AMA Style

Qiao G, Zhao J, Liu J, Tan X, Qin W. Two Novel Lasiodiplodia Species from Blighted Stems of Acer truncatum and Cotinus coggygria in China. Biology. 2022; 11(10):1459. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology11101459

Chicago/Turabian Style

Qiao, Guanghang, Juan Zhao, Juanjuan Liu, Xiaoqian Tan, and Wentao Qin. 2022. "Two Novel Lasiodiplodia Species from Blighted Stems of Acer truncatum and Cotinus coggygria in China" Biology 11, no. 10: 1459. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology11101459

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop