Mycological Progress

, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp 83–94

Phylogeny of Hyaloperonospora based on nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacer sequences

  • Markus Göker
  • Alexandra Riethmüller
  • Hermann Voglmayr
  • Michael Weiss
  • Franz Oberwinkler
Article

Abstract

Phylogenetic relationships in Hyaloperonospora (Oomycetes) were investigated by molecular analyses using internal transcribed spacer (ITS) sequences and collections from different host plants. Trees were inferred with Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo, neighbor-joining and maximum parsimony methods and rooted with Perofascia. The results are discussed with respect to host taxonomy and species concepts of downy mildews from the literature. Molecular data mainly support the use of narrow species delimitations and host range as a taxonomic marker. Hyaloperonospora brassicae turns out to be a non-monophyletic assemblage of different species. New combinations are proposed in accordance with the phylogenetic trees.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bremer K (1988) The limits of amino acid sequence data in angiosperm phylogenetic reconstruction. — Evolution 42: 795–803.Google Scholar
  2. Constantinescu O (1991) An annotated list of Peronospora names. — Thunbergia 15: 1–110.Google Scholar
  3. Constantinescu O, Fatehi J (2002) Peronospora-like fungi (Chromista, Peronosporales) parasitic on Brassicaceae and related hosts. — Nova Hedwigia 74: 291–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cooke DEL, Drenth A, Duncan JM, Wagels G, Brasier CM (2000) A molecular phylogeny of Phytophthora and related Oomycetes. — Fungal Genetics and Biology 30: 17–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. De Bary A (1863) Recherches sur le développement des quelques champignons parasites. — Annales des Sciences Naturelles 20: 5–148.Google Scholar
  6. Dickinson CH, Greenhalgh JR (1977) Host range and taxonomy of Peronospora on crucifers. — Transactions of the British Mycological Society 69: 111–116.Google Scholar
  7. Farris JS (1989) The retention index and the rescaled consistency index. — Cladistics 5: 417–419.Google Scholar
  8. Felsenstein J (1985) Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. — Evolution 39: 783–791.Google Scholar
  9. Fischer A (1892) Die Pilze Deutschlands, Österreichs und der Schweiz. IV. Abteilung Phycomycetes. III. Reihe Oomycetes. LXIX. Peronospora. In Rabenhorst L, ed. Kryptogamenflora von Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz 2nd ed., pp. 442–489. E. Kummer Leipzig.Google Scholar
  10. Fitch WM (1971) Toward defining the course of evolution: minimum change for a specific tree topology. — Systematic Zoology 20: 406–416.Google Scholar
  11. Förster H, Cummings MP, Coffey MD (2000) Phylogenetic relationship of Phytophthora species based on ribosomal ITS I DNA sequence analysis with emphasis on Waterhouse groups V and VI. — Mycological Research 104: 1055–1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Foster HH (1947) Reaction of species and varieties of Cruciferae to artificial inoculation of Cabbage downy mildew. — Phytopathology 37: 433.Google Scholar
  13. Gascuel O (1997) BIONJ: An improved version of the NJ algorithm based on a simple model of sequence data. — Molecular Biology and Evolution 14: 685–695.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Gäumann E (1918) Über die Formen der Peronospora parasitica (Pers.) Fries. — Beihefte zum Botanischen Centralblatt 35: 395–533.Google Scholar
  15. Gäumann E (1923) Beiträge zu einer Monographie der Gattung Peronospora Corda. — Beiträge zur Kryptogamenflora der Schweiz 5: 1–360.Google Scholar
  16. Gäumann E (1926) Über die Spezialisierung des falschen Mehltaus (Peronospora brassicae Gm.) auf dem Kohl und seinen Verwandten. — Landwirtschaftliches Jahrbuch der Schweiz 40: 463–468.Google Scholar
  17. Göker M, Voglmayr H, Riethmüller A, Weiss M, Oberwinkle F (2003). Taxonomic aspects of Peronosporaceae inferred from Bayesian molecular phylogenetics. — Canadian Journal of Botany 81: 672–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Greuter W, McNeill J, Barrie FR, Burdet HM, Demoulin V, Filgueira TS, Nicolson DH, Silva PC, Skog JE, Trehane P, Turland NJ, Hawksworth DL (eds) (2000) International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. Koeltz Scientific Books Königstein.Google Scholar
  19. Gustavsson A (1959a) Studies on Nordic Peronosporas. I. Taxonomic revision. — Opera Botanica 3: 1–271.Google Scholar
  20. Gustavsson A (1959b) Studies on Nordic Peronosporas. II. General account. — Opera Botanica 3: 1–61.Google Scholar
  21. Hall GS (1996) Modern approaches to species concepts in downy mildews. — Plant Pathology 45: 1009–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hall JC, Sytsma KJ, Iltis HH (2002) Phylogeny of Capparaceae and Brassicaceae based on chloroplast sequence data. — American Journal of Botany 89: 1826–1842.Google Scholar
  23. Hiura M, Kanegae H (1934) Studies on downy mildews of cruciferous vegetables in Japan I. — Transactions of the Sapporo Natural History Society 13: 125–133.Google Scholar
  24. Huelsenbeck JP, Ronquist FR (2001) MRBAYES: Bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees. — Bioinformatics 17: 754–755.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Huelsenbeck JP, Larget B, Miller RE, Ronquist F (2002) Potential applications and pitfalls of Bayesian inference of phylogeny. — Systematic Biology 51: 673–688.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Janchen E (1942) Das System der Cruciferen. — Österreichische botanische Zeitschrift 91: 1–28.Google Scholar
  27. Koch M, Bishop J, Mitchell-Olds T (1999) Molecular systematics and evolution of Arabidopsis and Arabis. — Plant Biology 1: 529–537.Google Scholar
  28. Koch M, Mummenhoff K (2001) Thlaspi s. str. (Brassicaceae) versus Thlaspi s. l.: morphological and anatomical characters in the light of ITS nrDNA sequence data. — Plant Systematics and Evolution 227: 209–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Legendre P (2000) Reticulate evolution: from Bacteria to philosopher. — Journal of Classification 17: 153–157.Google Scholar
  30. Matsumoto C, Kageyama K, Suga H, Hyakumachi M (1999) Phylogenetic relationships of Pythium species based on ITS and 5.8S sequences of the ribosomal DNA. — Mycoscience 40: 321–331.Google Scholar
  31. McMeekin D (1969) Other hosts for Peronospora parasitica from cabbage and radish. — Phytopathology 59: 693–696.Google Scholar
  32. Mummenhoff K, Brüggemann H, Bowman JL (2001) Chloroplast DNA phylogeny and biogeography of Lepidium (Brassicaceae). — American Journal of Botany 88: 2051–2063.Google Scholar
  33. Mummenhoff K, Franzke A, Koch M (1997) Molecular data reveal convergence in fruit characters used in the classification of Thlaspi s. l. — Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 125: 83–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nixon K (1999) The parsimony ratchet, a new method for rapid parsimony analysis. — Cladistics 15: 407–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Posada D, Crandall KA (1998) MODELTEST: testing the model of DNA substitution. — Bioinformatics 14: 817–818.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Riethmüller A, Voglmayr H, Göker M, Weiß M, Oberwinkler F (2002) Phylogenetic relationships of the downy mildews (Peronosporales) and related groups based on nuclear large subunit ribosomal DNA sequences. — Mycologia 94: 834–849.Google Scholar
  37. Saitou N, Nei M (1987) The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. — Molecular Biology and Evolution 4: 406–425.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Savulescu T (1948) Les éspèces de Peronospora Corda de la Roumainie. — Sydowia 2: 255–307.Google Scholar
  39. Schroeter J (1886) Die Pilze Schlesiens. In Kohn F (ed) Kryptogamen-Flora von Schlesien. Vol. III/1. Kern Breslau.Google Scholar
  40. Sikes DS, Lewis PO (2001) PAUPRat: PAUP* implementation of the parsimony ratchet, version 1. Distributed by the authors. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut Storrs/USA.Google Scholar
  41. Skalicky V (1964) Beitrag zur infraspezifischen Taxonomie der obligat parasitischen Pilze. — Acta Universitatis Carolinae Biologica Suppl. 2: 25–90.Google Scholar
  42. Sorenson MD (1999) TreeRot, version 2. Boston University Boston, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  43. Stearn WT (1992) Botanical Latin. Timber Press Portland.Google Scholar
  44. Swofford DL, Olsen GJ, Waddell PJ, Hillis DM (1996) Phylogenetic Inference. In Hillis DM, Moritz C, Mable BK (eds). Molecular Systematics, pp 407–514. Sinauer Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  45. Swofford DL (2002) PAUP* Phylogenetic Analysis Using parsimony (*and Other Methods) version 4b10. Sinauer Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  46. Voglmayr H (2003) Phylogenetic relationships of Peronospora and related genera based on nuclear ribosomal ITS sequences. — Mycological Research 107: 1132–1142.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Von Hayek A (1911) Entwurf eines Cruciferen-Systems auf phylogenetischer Grundlage. — Beihefte zum botanischen Centralblatt 27: 127–335.Google Scholar
  48. Yerkes DR Jr, Shaw CG (1959) Taxonomy of the Peronospora species on Cruciferae and Chenopodiaceae. — Phytopathology 49: 499–507.Google Scholar
  49. Zabinkova N (1968) Generic names ending in-is and the determination of their stems. — Taxon 17: 19–33.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© DGfM 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Markus Göker
    • 1
  • Alexandra Riethmüller
    • 2
  • Hermann Voglmayr
    • 3
  • Michael Weiss
    • 1
  • Franz Oberwinkler
    • 1
  1. 1.Lehrstuhl für Spezielle Botanik und Mykologie, Botanisches InstitutUniversität TübingenTübingenGermany
  2. 2.Fachgebiet Ökologie, Fachbereich 18 NaturwissenschaftenUniversität KasselKasselGermany
  3. 3.Institut für BotanikUniversität WienWienAustria

Personalised recommendations