Mycological Progress

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 71–80 | Cite as

The generic position of Ustilago maydis, Ustilago scitaminea, and Ustilago esculenta (Ustilaginales)

  • Meike PiepenbringEmail author
  • Matthias Stoll
  • Franz Oberwinkler


Three species of smut fungi (Ustilaginales, Basidiomycota) of economic importance, Ustilago maydis on corn, U. scitaminea on sugar cane, and U. esculenta on Zizania latifolia, were investigated in order to define their systematic position using morphological characteristics of the sori, ultrastructure of teliospore walls, and molecular data of the LSU rDNA. LSU rDNA suggests that U. maydis and U. scitaminea belong to the genus Sporisorium. This has already been proposed for U. scitaminea, which develops sori with whip-shaped axes corresponding to columellae. U. maydis and U. scitaminea, like typical species of Sporisorium, present peridia and columellae in their sori. Therefore, U. scitaminea is called Sporisorium scitamineum. U. maydis, however, is not placed in the genus Sporisorium here, because ongoing investigation of molecular data from the ITS rDNA region yields contradictory results and because the name Sporisorium maydis is occupied by an imperfect fungus. U. esculenta is recognized as Yenia esculenta. This placement in a separate genus is based on molecular data and on unique teliospore ultrastructure, i.e. apically enlarged, partly confluent warts developing on a strongly folded plasmalemma, and the exosporium and endosporium forming part of the ornamentation.


Sugar Cane Smut Fungus Vascular Strand Costa RICA Zizania Latifolia 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bakkeren G, Kronstad JW, Lévesque CA (2000) Comparison of AFLP fingerprints and ITS sequences as phylogenetic markers in Ustilaginomycetes. — Mycologia 92: 510–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bauer R, Begerow D, Oberwinkler F, Piepenbring M, Berbee ML (2001) Ustilaginomycetes. In McLaughlin D, McLaughlin E, Lemke PA (eds.) Mycota VII. Systematics and Evolution, pp. 57–83. Springer Verlag Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Begerow D, Bauer R, Oberwinkler F (1997) Phylogenetic studies on nuclear large subunit ribosomal DNA sequences of smut fungi and related taxa. — Canadian Journal of Botany 75: 2045–2056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Begerow D, Bauer R, Boekhout T (2000) Phylogenetic placements of ustilaginomycetous anamorphs as deduced from nuclear LSU rDNA sequences. — Mycological Research 104: 53–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brefeld O (1912). Untersuchungen aus dem Gesammtgebiete der Mykologie. XV. Die Brandpilze und die Brandkrankheiten. V. Commissions-Verlag v. H. Schöningh, Münster.Google Scholar
  6. Liou TN (1949) Sur l'éxistance d'une nouvelle famille des Ustilaginales. — Contributions from the Institute of Botany, National Academy of Peiping 6: 37–47.Google Scholar
  7. Mordue JEM (1991) Ustilago esculenta; IMI Descriptions of Fungi and Bacteria No. 1098. — Mycopathologia 116: 227–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Nagler A, Bauer R, Oberwinkler F, Tschen J (1990) Basidial development, spindle pole body, septal pore, and host-parasite-interaction in Ustilago esculenta. — Nordic Journal of Botany 10: 457–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Piepenbring M (1996) Smut fungi (Ustilaginales and Tilletiales) in Costa Rica. — Nova Hedwigia Beiheft 113: 1–155.Google Scholar
  10. Piepenbring M, Bauer R, Oberwinkler F (1998a) Teliospores of smut fungi: General aspects of teliospores and sporogenesis. — Protoplasma 204: 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Piepenbring M, Bauer R, Oberwinkler F (1998b) Teliospores of smut fungi: Teliospore walls and the development of ornamentation studied by electron microscopy. — Protoplasma 204: 170–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Piepenbring M, Bauer R, Oberwinkler F (1998c) Teliospores of smut fungi: Teliospore connections, appendages, and germ pores studied by electron microscopy; phylogenetic discussion of characteristics of teliospores. — Protoplasma 204: 202–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Piepenbring M, Begerow D, Oberwinkler F (1999) Molecular sequence data assess the value of morphological characteristics for a phylogenetic classification of species of Cintractia. — Mycologia 91: 485–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rambaut A (2000) Se-Al. 2.0a3. Oxford.Google Scholar
  15. Rivolta S (1873) Dei parassiti vegetali come introduzione allo studio delle malattie parassitarie e delle alterazioni dell'alimento degli animali domestici. G. Speirani f figli, Torino.Google Scholar
  16. Rossman A, Miller DR 1996. Systematics solves problems in agriculture and forestry. — Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 83: 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Swofford D (2001) PAUP* Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and other methods), Sunderland.Google Scholar
  18. Vánky K (1990) Taxonomical studies on Ustilaginales. VI. — Mycotaxon 38: 267–278.Google Scholar
  19. Vánky K (1991) Taxonomical studies on Ustilaginales. VIII. — Mycotaxon 41: 483–495.Google Scholar
  20. Vilgalys R, Hester M (1990) Rapid genetic identification and mapping of enzymatically amplified ribosomal DNA from several Cryptococcus-spp. — Journal of Bacteriology 172: 4238–4246.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Yang HC, Leu LS (1978) Formation and histopathology of galls induced by Ustilago esculenta in Zizania latifolia. — Phytopathology 68: 1572–1576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© DGfM 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Meike Piepenbring
    • 1
    Email author
  • Matthias Stoll
    • 2
  • Franz Oberwinkler
    • 2
  1. 1.Botanisches InstitutJ. W. Goethe-UniversitätFrankfurt am MainGermany
  2. 2.Lehrstuhl Spezielle Botanik/Mykologie, Botanisches InstitutUniversität TübingenTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations