@ARTICLE{TreeBASE2Ref30354, author = {Takashi Shirouzu and Susumu Takamatsu and Akira Hashimoto and Jamjan Meeboon and Moriya OHKUMA}, title = {Phylogenetic overview of the Erysiphaceae based on nrDNA and MCM7 sequences}, year = {2020}, keywords = {ErysipheaeGolovinomyceteaeMolecular phylogenyMultigene regionsPhyllactinieaePowdery mildew}, doi = {10.1016/j.myc.2020.03.006}, url = {http://}, pmid = {}, journal = {Mycoscience}, volume = {}, number = {}, pages = {}, abstract = {The classification system and evolutionary history of Erysiphaceae have been studied based on the results of molecular phylogenetic analyses. However, the sequence data used for these phylogenetic estimations have been limited to the nrDNA of ca., 50 taxa, and the relationships among higher taxonomic groups are not well understood. To provide a phylogenetic overview of Erysiphaceae, we performed phylogenetic estimations based on nrDNA and MCM7 sequences obtained from ca., 270 taxa. The phylogenetic tree showed a similar topology to the trees obtained in previous studies, although the branching order between Golovinomyceteae and Phyllactinieae was different and Phyllactinieae was not monophyletic. Phyllactinieae and Erysipheae were estimated to diversify after the divergence of Golovinomyceteae, suggesting an evolutionary trend in which non-catenate conidia + endoparasitic or non-catenate conidia + ectoparasitic lineages were derived from catenate conidia + ectoparasitic lineages. Phyllactinieae was divided into a clade of Phyllactinia + Leveillula and other clade(s) consisting of Pleochaeta and Queirozia. The phylogenetic hypothesis of Erysiphaceae was updated based on the largest dataset to date, but the higher-level phylogenetic relationships remain unclear. For a more robust phylogenetic hypothesis of Erysiphaceae, further sequence data, including protein coding regions, should be added to the dataset of nrDNA sequences.} }

• Go to search
• Citation
• Taxa
• Matrices
• Trees
• Analyses
• 

CiteULike

Delicious

Connotea