Advertisement

Antonie van Leeuwenhoek

, Volume 60, Issue 1, pp 13–19 | Cite as

DNA relatedness among saturn-spored yeasts assigned to the generaWilliopsis andPichia

  • Cletus P. Kurtzman
Article

Abstract

Saturn-spored species assigned to the generaWilliopsis andPichia were compared from extent of nuclear DNA complementarity. Of thePichia spp., four were recognized as distinct taxa:P. dispora, P. saitoi, P. zaruensis andPichia sp. nov. AmongWilliopsis spp., the following were accepted:W. californica, W. mucosa comb. nov.,W. pratensis, W. saturnus var.saturnus, W. saturnus var.mrakii comb. nov.,W. saturnus var.sargentensis comb. nov.,W. saturnus var.subsufficiens comb. nov. andWilliopsis sp. nov. The newPichia andWilliopsis species are described elsewhere. Moderate (36–68%) DNA relatedness was detected between the formerPichia sargentensis and varieties ofW. saturnus again demonstrating that nitrate assimilation is not a reliable criterion for separating yeast species.

Key words

DNA relatedness Pichia saturn-spored yeasts species formation Williopsis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arx JAvon, Rodrigues de Miranda L, Smith MTh & Yarrow D (1977) The genera of yeasts and the yeast-like fungi. Studies in Mycology. 14: 1–42Google Scholar
  2. Fling SP & Gregerson DS (1986) Peptide and protein molecular weight determinations by electrophresis using a high-molarity Tris buffer system without urea. Anal. Biochem. 155: 83–88Google Scholar
  3. Kreger-van Rij NJW (1970)Pichia Hansen. In: Lodder J (Ed) The Yeasts. A Taxonomic Study (pp 455–554). North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  4. Kurtzman CP (1984a)Hansenula H. et P. Sydow. In: Kregervan Rij NJW (Ed) The Yeasts — A Taxonomic Study (pp 165–213). Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  5. (1984b)Pichia Hansen. In: Kreger-van Rij NJW (Ed) The Yeasts — A Taxonomic Study (pp 295–378). Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  6. (1984c) Synonymy of the yeast generaHansenula andPichia demonstrated through comparisons of deoxyribonucleic acid relatedness. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 50: 209–217Google Scholar
  7. (1987) Prediction of biological relatedness among yeasts from comparisons of nuclear DNA complementarity Studies in Mycology 30: 459–468Google Scholar
  8. (1991)Saturnospora ahearnii, a new salt marsh yeast from Louisiana. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 60: 31–34 (this issue)Google Scholar
  9. Kurtzman CP, Smiley MJ, Johnson CJ, Wickerham LJ & Fuson GB (1980) Two new and closely related heterothallic species,Pichia amylophila andPichia mississippiensis: characterization by hybridization and deoxyribonucleic acid reassociation. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 30: 208–216Google Scholar
  10. Liu Z & Kurtzman CP (1991) Phylogenetic relationships among species ofWilliopsis andSaturnospora gen. nov. as determined from partial rRNA sequences. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 60: 21–30 (this issue)Google Scholar
  11. Naumov GI (1987) Developments of genosystematics for yeast generaWilliopsis Zender andZygowilliopsis Kudriavzev. Mol. Genet. Mikrobiol. Virusol. 2: 3–7Google Scholar
  12. Naumov GI, Vustin MM, Babjeva IP & Reshetova IS (1985) Additions to the genotaxonomy ofWilliopsis andZygowilliopsis yeast genera. Mikrobiologiya. 54: 239–244Google Scholar
  13. Peterson SW & Kurtzman CP (1991) Ribosomal RNA sequence divergence among sibling species of yeasts. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 14: 124–129Google Scholar
  14. Price CW, Fuson GB & Phaff HJ (1978) Genome comparison in yeast systematics: Delimitation of species within the generaSchwanniomyces, Saccharomyces, Debaryomyces andPichia. Microbiol. Rev. 42: 161–193Google Scholar
  15. Schildkraut CL, Marmur J & Doty P (1962) Determination of the base composition of deoxyribonucleic acid from its buoyant density in CsCl. J. Mol. Biol. 4: 430–433Google Scholar
  16. Seidler RJ & Mandel M (1971) Quantitative aspects of deoxyribonucleic acid renaturation: base composition, state of chromosome replication, and polynucleotide homologies. J. Bacteriol. 106: 608–614Google Scholar
  17. Stelling-Dekker NM (1931) Die sporogenen Hefen. Verh. Kon. Ned. Akad. Wetensch., Afd. Natuurk., Sect. 11. 28: 1–547Google Scholar
  18. Timberlake WE (1978) Low repetitive DNA content inAspergillus nidulans. Science 202: 973–975Google Scholar
  19. Wickerham LJ (1951) Taxonomy of yeasts. U.S. Dept. Agric. Tech. Bull. 1029: 1–56Google Scholar
  20. (1969) Hybridization as a basis for speciation in the genusHansenula. Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. Yeasts (pp 41–44). BratislavaGoogle Scholar
  21. (1970)Hansenula H. et P. Sydow. In: Lodder J (Ed) The Yeasts — A Taxonomic Study (pp 226–315). North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  22. Wickerham LJ & Kurtzman CP (1971) Two new saturn-spored species ofPichia. Mycologia 63: 1013–1018Google Scholar
  23. Zender J (1925) Sur la classification des Endomycétacées. Bull. Soc. Bot. Genéve 17: 272–302Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cletus P. Kurtzman
    • 1
  1. 1.Microbial Properties Research, National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research, Agricultural Research ServiceU.S. Department of AgriculturePeoriaUSA

Personalised recommendations