Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 Dec 4;20(12):e0322842. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0322842

Multi-locus phylogenetic network analysis of Ampelomyces mycoparasites isolated from diverse powdery mildews in Australia and the generation of two de novo genome assemblies

Lauren Goldspink 1, Alexandros G Sotiropoulos 1, Alexander Idnurm 2, Gavin J Ash 1, John D W Dearnaley 1, Morwenna Boddington 1, Aftab Ahmad 1, Márk Z Németh 3,4, Alexandra Pintye 3,4, Markus Gorfer 5, Hyeon-Dong Shin 6, Gábor M Kovács 3,4, Niloofar Vaghefi 7, Levente Kiss 1,*
Editor: Kandasamy Ulaganathan8
PMCID: PMC12677482  PMID: 41343545

Abstract

The interactions between powdery mildews (Ascomycota, Erysiphaceae), obligate biotrophic pathogens of many plants, and pycnidial fungi belonging to the genus Ampelomyces, are classic examples of specific mycoparasitic relationships. These interactions are common and finely tuned tritrophic relationships amongst host plants, powdery mildews, and Ampelomyces mycoparasites wherever these organisms co-occur in the field. Selected Ampelomyces strains have already been developed as biocontrol agents of powdery mildew infections of some crops. In Australia, their study has received little attention so far. Only a single Ampelomyces strain, included in a whole-genome sequencing (WGS) project, was known from this continent. Here, we report the isolation of 20 more Ampelomyces strains from eight powdery mildew species in Australia. Multi-locus phylogenetic network analyses of all the 21 Australian Ampelomyces strains carried out in combination with 32 reference strains from overseas revealed that the Australian strains belonged to four molecular taxonomic units (MOTUs). All those MOTUs were delimited earlier based on Ampelomyces strains isolated in Europe, North America, and elsewhere. Based on the phylogenetic analyses, two Australian strains belonging to different MOTUs were selected for WGS. Long-read (MinION) and short-read (Illumina) technologies were used to provide genome assemblies with high completeness. Both assemblies have a bipartite structure, i.e., consisted of AT-rich, gene-sparse regions interspersed with GC-balanced, gene-rich regions. These new high-quality assemblies and evidence-based annotations are important resources for future analyses of mycoparasitic interactions to disentangle molecular mechanisms underlying mycoparasitism, possible new biocontrol applications, and naturally occurring tritrophic relationships.

Introduction

Fungi that attack and thrive on other fungi are commonly found in diverse environments. One of the well-known forms of aggressive interactions between fungal strains and species is mycoparasitism, which takes place when a fungus, the mycoparasite, feeds and develops its colonies on or inside another living fungus, the mycohost, and damages it through specific structural or other adaptations to this lifestyle [14].

The interactions between powdery mildews (Helotiales, Erysiphaceae), common obligate biotrophic pathogens of many plants [57], and pycnidial fungi belonging to the genus Ampelomyces (Pleosporales, Phaeosphaeriaceae) are classic examples of widespread mycoparasitic relationships in the field [810]. As powdery mildews can themselves be considered parasites of their host plants [11], Ampelomyces strains are also called hyperparasites, i.e., parasites of other parasites [8,9]. The finely tuned feeding interactions between host plants, powdery mildews and their Ampelomyces mycoparasites are well-known examples of specific tritrophic relationships in food webs [9,10,1214]. These mycoparasites can be isolated from powdery mildew colonies and subcultured on agar media [1521]. Selected strains of Ampelomyces mycoparasites were developed as commercial biological control agents of economically important powdery mildews that infect grapes and some vegetables [8,22,23] although biocontrol of powdery mildews with Ampelomyces strains applied as biological control agents was occasionally reported as poor or inconsistent [22].

The taxonomy of the genus Ampelomyces is still unresolved although molecular phylogenies based on the Internal Transcribed Spacer (ITS) region of the nuclear ribosomal DNA (nrDNA) and actin gene (act) fragments have identified distinct lineages within the genus [10,1618,20,21]. The lineages were sometimes considered as molecular taxonomic units (MOTUs) [24]. These results indicate that the genus includes more than one species, not just Ampelomyces quisqualis, the type species; and all of those are mycoparasites of powdery mildews. The formal recognition of the MOTUs as other Ampelomyces species depends on the taxonomic treatment of over 40 taxa that are still validly described in the older mycological literature [8]. Until this is done, the use of Ampelomyces spp. is recommended when referring to phylogenetically diverse strains within the genus.

The asexual fruiting bodies, i.e., pycnidia, of Ampelomyces are commonly observed in field samples of diverse powdery mildew colonies, typically inside the cells of the powdery mildew conidiophores [810,1621,25]. The asexual life cycle of Ampelomyces is favoured by humid conditions when mucilaginous matrices inside pycnidia take up water, swell, and conidia are released from powdery mildew colonies by the rupture of the pycnidial walls. Splash-dispersed conidia then germinate and the emerging Ampelomyces hyphae penetrate new powdery mildew hyphae on the host plant surfaces. Following penetration, Ampelomyces hyphae continue to grow inside the powdery mildew mycelium, from cell to cell, and consume the powdery mildew cytoplasm. Finally, new pycnidia develop mostly inside powdery mildew conidiophores [9,25]. Hyphae of Ampelomyces can also be carried long distances inside parasitized powdery mildew conidia that are dispersed by air currents. When landed on powdery-mildew infected plants, these mycoparasitic hyphae may grow out of the airborne powdery mildew conidia and penetrate new mycohost colonies [810,26]. Both splash-dispersed and airborne Ampelomyces inocula can contribute to the spread of these mycoparasites to diverse powdery mildew species that are actively growing and infecting diverse host plants in the environment [9,10].

The extent of recombination amongst genetically diverse Ampelomyces strains is poorly understood. A fruiting body described as the sexual morph of A. quisqualis was reported once based on a field sample collected in Italy [27]. There are no other reports of the production of the sexual morph of Ampelomyces in the field or in culture. Nonetheless, population genetics analyses of hundreds of Ampelomyces strains performed with microsatellite or simple sequence repeat (SSR) markers revealed footprints of genetic recombination both within strains isolated from the same mycohost species, and those coming from diverse species of powdery mildew [19]. Similar signals of recombination have been detected in a number of other fungi that were previously thought to be asexual [2836].

The above-mentioned study based on SSR markers [19] had also revealed genetic differentiation of Ampelomyces populations that are parasitising powdery mildews in spring versus the summer/autumn period in Europe. This was explained by temporal isolation of the respective populations rather than strict mycohost specialisations [10,19]. The possible mycohost specialisation of distinct Ampelomyces strains was studied in a number of laboratory and field experiments. Cross-inoculation tests indicated that Ampelomyces strains isolated from diverse powdery mildew species were able to parasitize other powdery mildew species tested as potential mycohosts [16,3741]. This was also demonstrated in field experiments when potted cucumber and tobacco plants infected with Podosphaera xanthii and Golovinomyces orontii, respectively, were exposed to the attack of Ampelomyces strains that parasitised P. leucotricha on apple trees in that environment [10]. However, Falk et al. [39] observed a significantly higher rate of mycoparasitism in the original mycohost species of some strains compared to another powdery mildew species tested. Angeli et al. [42] reported that some, but not all, strains included in their experiments performed better in the original mycohosts than in other powdery mildews tested.

As in most ascomycetes, the hyphae and the conidia of Ampelomyces spp. are haploid. The chromosome numbers in Ampelomyces spp. have not been explored. The highest quality assembly and annotation of an Ampelomyces genome was published by Huth et al. [24] based on DNA long-read sequencing and total RNA sequencing (RNAseq) of a strain isolated from the powdery mildew species G. bolayi infecting Cestrum parqui in Queensland, Australia. The strain was identified as A. quisqualis and deposited as a live culture at the Queensland Plant Pathology Herbarium (BRIP) under the accession number BRIP 72107. Analyses of this genome revealed its bipartite structure with gene-rich, GC-balanced regions interspersed by long or short stretches of AT-rich, gene-sparse regions. This bipartite structure was also revealed in many plant pathogenic fungi and it is hypothesised to arise when duplicated DNA, such as transposons, undergo C to T transitions by the process of repeat-induced point mutation [43]. The substantial proportion of repetitive and AT-rich regions has been proposed to result in the ‘two-speed’ evolution of these genomes, where genes located close to the AT-rich regions have higher rates of evolution [44]. Based on these findings, Huth et al. [24] hypothesised that Ampelomyces mycoparasites may have evolved from plant pathogenic fungi.

The only other genome available for Ampelomyces mycoparasites is of strain designated HMLAC 05119 that was isolated from an undetermined powdery mildew infecting Youngia japonica in China [45]. Huth et al. [24] demonstrated that HMLAC 05119 is not conspecific with BRIP 72107 because the two strains belong to different MOTUs. However, HMLAC 05119 is also available under the binomial A. quisqualis in the NCBI GenBank database due to the yet unresolved taxonomy of the genus Ampelomyces. A near-chromosome level assembly was not generated for either HMLAC 05119 or BRIP 72107.

Most Ampelomyces strains included in different studies were isolated from diverse powdery mildew species infecting their host plants in Europe [10,12,15,18,19,37,42,46], Asia [16,17,20,21], and North America [39,47]. The highest number of strains and field samples, over 600, was included in a population genetics study carried out by Pintye et al. [19]. To date, BRIP 72107 is the only Ampelomyces strain reported from Australia [24]. A few decades ago, Ampelomyces mycoparasites were observed in diverse powdery mildews in Australia with light microscopy [48], but to our knowledge the only strains that were isolated in this country are those included in the current work. A commercial Ampelomyces product was tested in Australia a few decades ago [49] without isolating the mycoparasites from the field.

To reveal the genetic diversity of Ampelomyces mycoparasites in powdery mildews in Australia, and select genetically different strains for further whole-genome sequencing (WGS) projects, the objectives of this study were to (i) isolate Ampelomyces strains from diverse powdery mildew and host plant species in Australia; (ii) perform a multi-locus analysis to reveal their phylogenetic relationships; and (iii) produce high-quality genome assemblies for Australian strains that belong to different MOTUs.

Materials and methods

Sample collections, isolations, and subculturing of Ampelomyces strains

Leaves and stems of different plant species infected with powdery mildew were collected ad hoc in southern Queensland, Australia, from 2017 to 2023. Powdery mildew colonies were examined under a stereomicroscope and a compound microscope for the presence of intracellular pycnidia characteristic of Ampelomyces in powdery mildew conidiophores. When found (Fig 1), pycnidia were removed from the powdery mildew colony one by one with sterile hand-made glass needles and each placed in a 6 cm diameter plate with saccharose-free Czapek-Dox medium supplemented with 2% malt extract (MCzDA) and 0.5% chloramphenicol [37]. Plates were incubated at 22oC in the dark and checked every 2–3 days for the emergence of small, slow-growing colonies that were tentatively identified as Ampelomyces colonies. Those emerging colonies were transferred to new plates as soon as they started to grow on the media. Pure cultures were maintained on MCzDA without chloramphenicol in an incubator at 22oC in dark and subcultured every 6–8 weeks on new plates.

Fig 1. Sources of the three Australian Ampelomyces strains, BRIP 72107, 72102, and 72097, with sequenced genomes.

Fig 1

A, Cestrum parqui infected with Golovinomyces bolayi at the collection site of Ampelomyces strain BRIP 72107. Inset: a part of the G. bolayi mycelium with pycnidia (p) in the powdery mildew conidiophores. Bar = 30 µm. B, Ribwort plantain (Plantago lanceolata) infected with Podosphaera plantaginis at the collection site of Ampelomyces strain BRIP 72102. Inset: a conidiophore of P. plantaginis with a pycnidium (p) of Ampelomyces inside the foot cell. A fragment of an intracellular hypha (ih) of Ampelomyces is also visible inside the powdery mildew hypha. Bar = 10 µm. C, Bigleaf hydrangea or hortensia (Hydrangea macrophylla) infected with Pseudoidium hortensiae at the collection site of Ampelomyces strain BRIP 72097. Inset: An intracellular pycnidium (p) of Ampelomyces removed from the powdery mildew mycelium and surrounded by conidia released from it. Bar = 25 µm.

Strains were deposited to the Plant Pathology Herbarium, Department of Primary Industries, Queensland, and named with their designated herbarium abbreviation (BRIP) and a number (Table 1).

Table 1. Ampelomyces spp. strains isolated from diverse powdery mildew species infecting different host plant species in Australia.

Strain designation Host plant species Host powdery mildew species Place of isolation Date of isolation GenBank accessions
ITS act1 eukNR
BRIP 66222 Hydrangea macrophylla Pseudoidium hortensiae Rangeville, Qld 20-3-2017 PQ813616 PQ838553 PQ838594
BRIP 72097 Hydrangea macrophylla Pseudoidium hortensiae Rangeville, Qld 20-3-2017 PQ813617 PQ838554 PQ838595
BRIP 72098 Hydrangea macrophylla Pseudoidium hortensiae Rangeville, Qld 18-12-2017 PQ813623 PQ838561 PQ838602
BRIP 72099 Hydrangea macrophylla Pseudoidium hortensiae Rangeville, Qld 18-12-2017 PQ813624 PQ838562 PQ838603
BRIP 72100 Lycium barbarum Arthrocladiella mougeotii Killarney, Qld 13-10-2017 PQ813626 PQ838564 PQ838605
BRIP 72101 Plantago lanceolata Podosphaera plantaginis Kearneys Spring, Qld 18-12-2017 PQ813633 PQ838571 PQ838612
BRIP 72102 Plantago lanceolata Podosphaera plantaginis Kearneys Spring, Qld 18-12-2017 PQ813634 PQ838572 PQ838613
BRIP 72103 Plantago lanceolata Podosphaera plantaginis Kearneys Spring, Qld 18-12-2017 PQ813635 PQ838573 PQ838614
BRIP 72104 Cestrum parqui Golovinomyces bolayi Newtown, Qld 15-04-2019 PQ813618 PQ838555 PQ838596
BRIP 72105 Cestrum parqui Golovinomyces bolayi Newtown, Qld 15-04-2019 PQ813619 PQ838556 PQ838597
BRIP 72107 Cestrum parqui Golovinomyces bolayi Newtown, Qld 15-04-2019 MZ054399 PQ838557 PQ838598
BRIP 72108 Cestrum parqui Golovinomyces bolayi Newtown, Qld 15-04-2019 PQ813620 PQ838558 PQ838599
BRIP 72109 Cestrum parqui Golovinomyces bolayi Newtown, Qld 15-04-2019 PQ813621 PQ838559 PQ838600
BRIP 72110 Lagerstroemia indica Erysiphe australiana Middle Ridge, Qld 20-12-2018 PQ813625 PQ838563 PQ838604
BRIP 72111 Cestrum parqui Golovinomyces bolayi Newtown, Qld 22-10-2019 PQ813622 PQ838560 PQ838601
BRIP 72966 Vigna radiata cv. Jade-AU Podosphaera xanthii near Pampas, Qld 27-4-2021 PQ813627 PQ838565 PQ838606
BRIP 72967 Vigna radiata cv. Jade-AU Podosphaera xanthii near Pampas, Qld 27-4-2021 PQ813628 PQ838566 PQ838607
BRIP 72968 Vigna radiata cv. Jade-AU Podosphaera xanthii near Pampas, Qld 27-4-2021 PQ813629 PQ838567 PQ838608
BRIP 76210 Parsonsia straminea Golovinomyces sp.* Irongate, Qld 21-10-2022 PQ813630 PQ838568 PQ838609
BRIP 76211 Parsonsia straminea Golovinomyces sp.* Irongate, Qld 21-10-2022 PQ813631 PQ838569 PQ838610
BRIP 76212 Salvia sp. Golovinomyces sp.* Preston, Qld 3-11-2022 PQ813632 PQ838570 PQ838611

*Based on morphology, the Golovinomyces species on P. straminea was different from the Golovinomyces species on Salvia sp.

Identification of the mycohost powdery mildews

Powdery mildew species that were the mycohosts of the Ampelomyces strains isolated in this study were identified based on morphology, host plants and nrDNA ITS sequencing based on a nested PCR protocol as described by Kiss et al. [50]. The ITS sequences of six mycohost species, i.e., Pseudoidium hortensiae, Arthrocladiella mougeotii, Podosphaera plantaginis, Golovinomyces bolayi, Erysiphe australiana and Podosphaera xanthii, were identical to the ITS sequences determined in other powdery mildew specimens from the same host plants and deposited earlier in NCBI GenBank by Kiss et al. [50]. Based on morphology, the powdery mildew on Parsonsia straminea, the mycohost of BRIP 76210 and BRIP 76211; and the powdery mildew on Salvia sp., the mycohost of BRIP 76212, were identified as two distinct Golovinomyces species. Sequencing of the ITS region of these two powdery mildews with the nested PCR protocol [50] resulted in chromatograms that were uninformative due to poor quality. Therefore, the species identities of these two Golovinomyces specimens could not be determined.

Mycoparasitic tests

The mycoparasitic activity of Ampelomyces strains, i.e., their penetration into powdery mildew hyphae and growth and development inside the hyphae and conidiophores, including the production of their intracellular pycnidia (Fig 1), were studied in laboratory, glasshouse and field experiments with different methods [10,16,22,40,41]. In this study, four Ampelomyces strains that sporulated well on MCzDA, i.e., BRIP 72097, BRIP 72100, BRIP 72107 and BRIP 72110, were selected for mycoparasitic tests. Mungbean (Vigna radiata) plants cv. Jade-AU infected with Erysiphe vignae, a powdery mildew fungus maintained in the laboratory [51], were used in these tests. Plantlets were grown from seeds in pots in an experimental glasshouse, in isolation in Bugdorm® cages as described previously [51]. When the first true, unifoliate leaves developed, plantlets were removed from pots, their roots rinsed with water, and placed each in a 50 mL Falcon tube filled with tap water and kept in a rack. On the same day, leaves were inoculated with E. vignae using powdery mildew-infected potted mungbean plants kept in Bugdorm® cages as described earlier [51]. Following inoculations, plantlets in Falcon tubes were kept in Bugdorm® cages in the glasshouse for 4–6 days, until their leaves were fully covered with sporulating powdery mildew mycelia; then, taken to the laboratory and sprayed with a conidial suspension of one of the four selected Ampelomyces strains using 5 mL plastic spray bottles. Conidial suspensions were produced by pipetting 3–4 mL water purified through reverse osmosis (RO), and autoclaved before use, onto 2–3 weeks old and sporulating Ampelomyces colonies in 6 cm diameter plates with MCzDA; then, rubbing their surfaces with a fine, sterile artist’s brush to release as many conidia as possible from pycnidia. Suspensions were pipetted into 10 mL Falcon tubes from plates and their concentrations adjusted to approximately 106 conidia/mL by dilution, after counting the spores with a Neubauer haemocytometer. Mungbean plantlets sprayed each with 3 mL Ampelomyces conidial suspensions, until runoff, were placed in transparent plastic ziplock bags previously humidified by spraying 5 mL sterile RO water inside the bags; the bags were then kept for 7 days at 21-23oC and 16-hour daily illumination in a plant growth cabinet manufactured by Steridium Pty Ltd, Queensland, Australia (Fig 2A). Plantlets sprayed with 3 mL sterile RO water and kept in bags similar to the treated ones served as uninoculated controls. Conidial suspensions of each of the four selected Ampelomyces strains were sprayed each on two plantlets, i.e., four unifoliate leaves. Two plantlets served as uninoculated controls.

Fig 2. A mycoparasitic test using mungbean (Vigna radiata) cv. Jade-AU plantlets with their first true leaves infected with the powdery mildew fungus Erysiphe vignae and inoculated with Ampelomyces strain BRIP 72097.

Fig 2

A, Each powdery mildew-infected plantlet was placed with its roots in water in a 50 mL Falcon tube kept in a rack inside a transparent ziplock bag. B, Pycnidia (p) of Ampelomyces developed in the conidiophores of E. vignae during the mycoparasitic test. Bar = 25 µm.

Seven days post inoculations (dpi) plantlets were taken out from bags and leaves were first examined under a dissecting microscope for the presence of Ampelomyces pycnidia in the conidiophores of E. vignae. When found (Fig 2B), a few pycnidia were removed one by one with glass needles and placed each in a separate plate with MCzDA supplemented with 0.5% chloramphenicol to re-isolate the mycoparasites and, thus, fulfill Koch’s postulates [52]. Parts of the powdery mildew mycelium were then removed from each leaf with pieces of clear cellotape for further examination. Cellotape pieces were placed on microscope slides in droplets of 80% lactic acid. Slides were examined under a compound microscope to observe the fine details of mycoparasitism in the case of all four selected Ampelomyces strains. The experiment was carried out twice.

DNA extractions, PCR amplifications and Sanger sequencing

Total genomic DNA was extracted from approximately 80–100 mg fresh weight mycelial samples taken from 3–4 weeks old colonies of each of the Ampelomyces strains. Samples were placed each in a 1.5 mL Eppendorf tube, freeze-dried, then ground to fine powder with two steel beads, 3 mm diameter. Grinding was done with a FastPrep-24 (MP Biomedicals, Australia) at 6.5 m/s for 30 s. The next steps were done using a DNeasy Plant Mini Kit (Qiagen, Australia) according to the manufacturer’s instructions, except for the final step where DNA was eluted in 10 mM filter-sterilized Tris–HCl (pH 8.5).

Three loci were amplified from the genomic DNA and sequenced: the nrDNA ITS region; a fragment of the act gene; and a fragment of the nitrate reductase gene (eukNR). All three loci were amplified in 25 µL reactions with NEB HotStart 2× (New England Biolabs, Canada) using primers at a final concentration of 200 nM. Amplicons were submitted to Macrogen (Seoul, South Korea) for Sanger sequencing with the PCR primers. Sequences were deposited in GenBank (see accession details in Tables 1 and 2).

Table 2. Ampelomyces spp. strains isolated outside Australia and included in this work as references. Source information was provided by suppliers. If needed, powdery mildew species names were revised to reflect the current nomenclature.

Strain designation* Host plant species Host powdery mildew species Place and year of isolation GenBank accessions
ITS act1 eukNR
ATCC 201056 Lycium barbarum Arthrocladiella mougeotii Budapest, Hungary; 1990 AF035780 JN621873 PQ838623
A10a Lycium barbarum Arthrocladiella mougeotii Budapest, Hungary; 2007 HM124896 PQ838577 PQ838619
A11a Lycium barbarum Arthrocladiella mougeotii Budapest, Hungary; 2007 HM124897 PQ838579 PQ838620
A47b Lycium barbarum Arthrocladiella mougeotii Budapest, Hungary; 2007 HM124921 PQ838580 PQ838621
A109a Lycium barbarum Arthrocladiella mougeotii Budapest, Hungary; 2007 HM124945 PQ838581 PQ838622
CBS 132347 Vitis vinifera Erysiphe necator Piacenza, Italy; 2009 JN417714 JN621822 PQ838635
CBS 132219 Vitis vinifera Erysiphe necator Jesi, Italy; 2009 JN417738 JN621846 PQ838631
CBS 132220 Vitis vinifera Erysiphe necator Jesi, Italy; 2009 JN417739 JN621847 PQ838632
Vitis79 Vitis vinifera Erysiphe necator Portonovo, Italy; 2009 JN417743 JN621851 PQ838643
CBS 132224 Vitis vinifera Erysiphe necator Eger, Hungary; 2009 JN417752 JN621860 PQ838633
CBS 132225 Vitis vinifera Erysiphe necator Eger, Hungary; 2009 JN417753 JN621861 PQ838634
GYER Carpinus betulus Erysiphe arcuata Budapest, Hungary; 2008 HM124983 MH879022 MH879020
DSM 2222 Cucumis sp. Golovinomyces sp. Germany** U82450 JN621871 PQ838636
CBS 131.31 Helianthus tuberosus Golovinomyces sp. USA; 1931 AF035781 PQ838587 PQ838629
CBS 133.32 Lonicera sp. Erysiphe sp. USA; 1932 HM124974 PQ838588 PQ838630
CBS 129.79 Cucurbita pepo Podosphaera xanthii Canada; 1975 HQ108038 PQ838585 PQ838627
CBS 130.79 Cucurbita pepo Podosphaera xanthii Canada; 1975 U82449 PQ838586 PQ838628
RS1a Rosa sp. Podosphaera pannosa Budapest, Hungary; 2007 HM125010 JN621896 MW570719
Ru1b Rudbeckia sp. Golovinomyces sp. Salföld, Hungary; 2007 HM125006 PQ838590 PQ838639
RU2a Rudbeckia sp. Golovinomyces sp. Salföld, Hungary; 2007 HM125007 PQ838591 PQ838640
Ru4b Rudbeckia sp. Golovinomyces sp. Salföld, Hungary; 2007 HM125008 PQ838592 PQ838641
263 Artemisia absinthium Golovinomyces sp. Canada; 1974 AF035782 PQ838574 PQ838615
3616Aa Plantago lanceolata Podosphaera plantaginis Aland Archipelago, Finland; 2013 KM066096 PQ838576 PQ838617
9031Aa Plantago lanceolata Podosphaera plantaginis Aland Archipelago, Finland; 2013 KM066093 PQ838577 PQ838618
2931Aa Plantago lanceolata Podosphaera plantaginis Aland Archipelago, Finland; 2013 KM066092 PQ838575 PQ838616
HMLAC 05119 Youngia japonica Undetermined powdery mildew China** Extracted from the genome*** Extracted from the genome*** Extracted from the genome***
BgrA Undetermined grass Blumeria sp. Brno, Czechia; 2009 PQ813604 PQ838582 PQ838624
BgrB Undetermined grass Blumeria sp. Brno, Czechia; 2009 PQ813605 PQ838583 PQ838625
BgrC Undetermined grass Blumeria sp. Brno, Czechia; 2009 PQ813606 PQ838584 PQ838626
Trb Trifolium sp. Erysiphe trifolii Budapest, Hungary; 2007 PQ813608 PQ838593 PQ838642
LS1a Lagerstroemia sp. Erysiphe australiana Cestas, France; 2014 PQ813607 PQ838589 PQ838638

*ATCC: American Type Culture Collection, Manassas, Virginia, USA (https://www.atcc.org/); CBS: Culture collection of the Westerdijk Fungal Biodiversity Institute, Utrecht, Netherlands (https://wi.knaw.nl/); DSM: Leibniz Institute DSMZ – German Collection of Microorganisms and Cell Cultures, Braunschweig, Germany (https://www.dsmz.de/). Strains without ATCC, CBS or DSM codes were not deposited in public culture collections.

**Missing data.

***Extracted from the genomic database (GenBank acc. no. VOSX00000000.1).

For ITS amplification, primers ITS1F [53] and ITS4 [54] were used as part of the PCR protocol described by Németh et al. [21]. The act fragment was amplified with primers Act-1 and Act-5ra [55] and the following PCR conditions: initial denaturation at 95ºC for 5 min followed by 38 cycles of 95ºC for 30 s, 60ºC for 1 min and 68ºC for 1 min. A final incubation of 68ºC for 5 min followed. The amplification of the eukNR fragment required development, as below.

To develop primers specific to the eukNR fragment in Ampelomyces spp., the target region was amplified first with a robust, general nested PCR method using primers niaD01F – niaD04R, followed by a second, nested amplification with the degenerate primers niaD15F – niaD12R and sequencing as described by Gorfer et al. [56]. This process was done with five genetically distinct Ampelomyces strains and the PCR products were sequenced and analysed. Based on the sequences obtained, primers niaD31F (CCGTCAGAAAGAGTAAAGGGTTT), niaD31F-alt (TCGTCCGGAAAAGCAAAGGGTTT) and niaD32R (CAATACACTCCAGTACATGTCACG) were designed. Primers niadD31F and niaD32R worked well with most Ampelomyces strains, except BRIP 72097 that needed the primer combination niaD31F-alt – niaD32R to amplify its eukNR region. In all cases, PCR conditions were: 95ºC for 2.5 min followed by 38 cycles of 95ºC for 30 s, 60ºC for 20 s and 68ºC for 1 min followed by a final denaturation of 68ºC for 5 min.

Sequence alignments and phylogenetic analyses

The datasets of each of the three target loci included the sequences of all the Australian isolates and 32 reference Ampelomyces strains isolated overseas and selected based on previous studies (Table 2). To obtain the ITS, act and eukNR sequences from HMLAC 05119, one of the two Ampelomyces strains with a published genome assembly [45], a local BLAST database was built using its assembled genome in Geneious Prime v.2025.0.3 (http://www.geneious.com) and the gene sequences generated in this study were queried against the local database. Seqtk (v.1.3-r106) was used to process the gene sequences.

After compiling the datasets, first each of the three loci was analysed separately. Sequences were aligned with Clustal W (v.1.83) [57]. Sequences were trimmed to the length of the shortest sequence to eliminate missing data and the Clustal alignment was repeated. In the new alignments, Clustal X (v.2.1) was used to visualise the alignments and change their format to a nexus format file. These alignments were used to infer genealogic trees using MrBayes (v.3.2.7a) with Bayesian inference to construct the trees [58] with settings nst = 6 and rates = invgamma (nucleotide substitution model SYM + I + gamma) for all loci. The Markov chain Monte Carlo analysis ran until the probability value decreased to under 0.01 with a sampling frequency of ten and a burn-in of 25% of samples. Trees were visualised with FigTree (v.1.4.4) (https://github.com/rambaut/figtree/). The figures were curated with Inkscape (https://inkscape.org). The three sets of sequences, i.e., ITS, act and eukNR, were concatenated and used to construct a phylogenetic network using the software SplitsTree4 and the NeighborNet algorithm [59], which allows for intergenic recombination. The concatenated alignment is available as S1 Data.

DNA extraction, whole genome sequencing (WGS) and RNAseq

High molecular weight (HMW) DNA was extracted from lyophilised mycelia of Ampelomyces strains BRIP 72097 and BRIP 72102 using a chloroform/isoamyl alcohol protocol followed by isopropanol precipitation. Briefly, 100 mg of lyophilised mycelia was flash-frozen in liquid nitrogen and ground with stainless steel beads using a FastPrep-24 instrument. The ground material was lysed in pre-warmed lysis buffer containing potassium metabisulfite, Tris-HCl, EDTA, NaCl and CTAB, along with Sarcosyl, and incubated at 65ºC for 30 minutes. DNA was extracted using chloroform/isoamyl alcohol and precipitated with isopropanol. RNase treatment was performed at 37ºC for 2 hours, and the DNA was cleaned up using AMPure XP beads. Final purification was carried out using the Qiagen Genomic-tip 20/G kit, and DNA quality and quantity were assessed using a Qubit flurometer, Denovix spectrophotometer, and agarose gel electrophoresis.

Long-read sequencing was performed using Oxford Nanopore Technology (ONT). Libraries were prepared using the Genomic DNA by Ligation kit (SQK-LSK109) and sequenced on a MinION FLO-MIN106 R9.4.1 flow cell for 39 hours. Read quality was assessed using NanoPlot. Short-read sequencing was conducted on the Illumina MiSeq platform. Libraries were prepared using the Illumina DNA Prep kit and Nextera DNA CD Indexes and sequenced using a 600-cycle paired-end V3 reagent kit. Read quality was evaluated using FastQC. Read preparation, genome assembly and annotation were performed as previously described by Huth et al. [24]. Briefly, raw reads were screened and filtered for bacterial contamination using Kraken v.2.1.1 [60]. Adaptors were removed from Illumina reads using BBDuk [61] and from the MinION reads with Porechop v.0.2.4 [62]. The hybrid assembler MaSuRCA v.3.3.3 [63] was used and the program OcculterCut v.1.1 [43] scanned the genomes to determine their percent GC content distribution. The genome size estimation using raw sequence data was conducted using k-mer analysis (k: 31) with Illumina short reads using the Galaxy Server tools Meryl (genomic k-mer counter and sequence utility; Galaxy Version 1.3 + galaxy6) and GenomeScope (reference-free genome profiling; Galaxy Version 2.0.1 + galaxy0) [64].

Total RNA extraction from fresh fungal mycelia were conducted according to Huth et al. [24] and submitted to the Australian Genome Research Facility (Melbourne, Australia) for total mRNA sequencing. Briefly, the mycelia were flash frozen, ground in liquid nitrogen and extracted using an RNeasy Plant Mini Kit (Qiagen) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The final products were checked via agarose gel electrophoresis and quantified using a Qubit v.3.0 fluorometer (ThermoFisher Scientific, Australia). Transcriptome assembly was conducted using Trinity v.2.10.0 [65] and genome annotation using Maker v.2.3.31.9 [66] including a first round of RNA-evidence gene prediction. The resulting annotation was used to produce a hidden Markov model (HMM), which was further refined with a second round of SNAP [67] training for the final annotation. The completeness of the genome assembly was evaluated via Benchmarking Universal Single-Copy Orthologs (BUSCO) v.5.8.0 [68] with the dothideomycetes_odb10 lineage dataset, which contains 3,786 single-copy ortholog genes. Genome completeness was also assessed using the predicted protein dataset and BUSCO ran in protein mode with the dothideomycetes_odb10.

Results

Ampelomyces spp. strains isolated in Australia

Twenty-one Ampelomyces spp. strains were isolated from eight host plants and eight powdery mildew species in southern Queensland, and were deposited as live cultures at the Plant Pathology Herbarium, Queensland (BRIP) (Table 1). Apart from BRIP 72107 that was included in a WGS project [24], no other Ampelomyces strains were reported from Australia prior to this study. Collection sites included roadside areas covered mostly with weeds (Fig 1A, B); parks and gardens with ornamental plants (Fig 1C); and also broadacre cropping systems as three strains, BRIP 72966, BRIP 72967, and BRIP 72968, were isolated from powdery mildew-infected mungbean leaves collected from an irrigated commercial paddock (Table 1).

Mycoparasitic tests confirmed that four strains that sporulated in culture, i.e., BRIP 72097, BRIP 72100, BRIP 72107 and BRIP 72110, and isolated from four different powdery mildew and plant species (Table 1), were all able to produce intracellular pycnidia in E. vignae on mungbean plantlets (Fig 2B). The ITS sequences determined in the re-isolated mycoparasites were identical to those of the strains used for inoculations; therefore, Koch’s postulates were fulfilled with those four strains.

ITS genealogy and phylogenetic network analysis

The ITS sequences of the 21 Ampelomyces strains isolated in Australia (Table 1) were analysed together with 32 reference Ampelomyces strains isolated overseas in previous studies (Table 2), resulting in a 497-character long alignment. The ITS genealogy revealed that these 53 strains clustered into seven MOTUs (Fig 3). MOTU numbers used in this paper followed a previous study [24]. MOTU 1 included the majority of the newly isolated Australian strains, 13 in total, and BRIP 72107, as well, with an already published genome [24], together with 16 reference strains isolated from diverse powdery mildew species in Europe, the USA and Middle East. MOTU 4 contained three Australian strains isolated from mungbean leaves infected with P. xanthii in a commercial paddock. The two Australian strains used for WGS, BRIP 72097 and BRIP 72102, were part of MOTU 9 and MOTU 3, respectively. Two more Australian strains, both isolated from P. plantaginis similar to BRIP 72102, were also included in MOTU 3.

Fig 3. Unrooted tree of the 21 Australian and 32 reference Ampelomyces strains based on nrDNA ITS sequence analyses.

Fig 3

Clustal W software was used for the ITS alignment and then Bayesian inference was used to infer the tree. Molecular taxonomic unit (MOTU) numbers follow a previous study (24). Each MOTU is highlighted with a different colour. The four Ampelomyces strains that have whole genome sequencing assemblies are indicated in bold and grey.

MOTUs 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 delimited in a previous study [24] did not include any strains from Australia. Some of the reference strains from overseas that represented these four MOTUs were available for the present study; therefore, these lineages were identified in this work, too (Fig 3). On the other hand, MOTUs 6 and 7 identified in the previous study [24] are missing from this work because none of their reference strains were available for act and eukNR sequencing that would have been needed for the multi-locus analysis.

As expected based on previous studies [17,18], the act sequence analysis revealed additional clades compared to the ITS genealogy; and some strains, including the commercial strain AQ10 and the Australian strain BRIP 72079, belonged to clades that were different from the MOTUs defined in the ITS analysis (S1 Fig). The eukNR genealogy provided a somewhat different grouping of the same 53 strains (S2 Fig). A multi-locus analysis was also performed on a dataset that included the act, eukNR and ITS sequences and was based on the NeighborNet algorithm using SplitsTree4. The concatenated alignment had a total length of 2,100 characters (act: 742 characters; eukNR: 861 characters; and ITS: 497 characters) with 1,717 identical (act: 647 characters; eukNR: 731 characters; and ITS: 339 characters) and 383 polymorphic (act: 95 characters; eukNR: 130 characters; and ITS: 158 characters) sites. The results of the phylogenetic network analysis are shown using SplitsTree4 (Fig 4). The clustering of the strains was mostly congruent with the ITS genealogy, i.e., the multi-locus work has also identified MOTUs 1, 2, 4, 5, 8 and 9 delimited by the ITS analysis. In addition, the multi-locus analysis split the ITS MOTU 3 into two groups. Three Australian strains, including BRIP 72102 selected for WGS, and strain 2931Aa isolated from the same powdery mildew and plant host in Finland, clustered together and were identified as a new group, MOTU 10. The other three strains from ITS MOTU 3 belonged to a closely related group designated as MOTU 3 in the multi-locus analysis (Fig 4).

Fig 4. A phylogenetic network based on the concatenated alignment of sequences of three loci (a fragment of the actin gene, a fragment of the nitrate reductase gene, and the nrDNA ITS region) of the 21 Australian and 32 reference Ampelomyces strains.

Fig 4

The network was generated using the NeighborNet algorithm in the software SplitsTree4. Molecular taxonomic unit (MOTU) numbers follow a previous study (24). Each MOTU is highlighted with a different colour. MOTU colour codes in this figure and Fig 3 are identical. The four Ampelomyces strains that have whole genome sequencing assemblies are indicated in bold and grey.

Assembly and annotation of two genomes

The Australian Ampelomyces strains BRIP 72097 and 72102 were selected for WGS in this work as these strains represent MOTUs 9 and 10, respectively. These two MOTUs are not closely related to each other and neither to MOTUs 1 and 4 that include each a strain with already available genomic information (Figs 3, 4).

Ampelomyces sp. strain BRIP 72097 was assembled into 22 scaffolds with a total assembly size of 33,451,943 bp and genome ‘completeness’ using Benchmarking Universal Single-Copy Orthologs (BUSCO) of 96.0% (Table 3). When compared to the predicted genome size of 35,397,803 bp using GenomeScope, genome completeness is estimated to be 94.5%. Of the total of 3,786 Dothideomycetes BUSCOs searched, BRIP 72097 included 3,634 complete and single-copy (95.9%), two complete and duplicated (0.1%), 14 fragmented (0.4%) and 138 missing (3.6%) BUSCOs. Based on a genome size of 33.45 Mb, and a total of 4.2 and 3.8 Gb of sequence data generated by MinION and Illumina MiSeq platforms, respectively, we estimated an approximate genome coverage of 240 × . A combination of ab initio and evidence-based gene modelling with two additional rounds of gene predictions after training SNAP in the Maker pipeline resulted in 28,916 predicted exons within 10,417 genes, including 4,206 with 3´ untranslated regions (UTRs) and 4,553 with 5´ UTRs. Of the total of 3,786 Dothideomycetes BUSCOs searched using the predicted proteins, BRIP 72097 included 3,513 complete and single-copy (92.7%), four complete and duplicated (0.1%), 91 fragmented (2.4%) and 182 missing (4.8%) BUSCOs.

Table 3. Genome statistics for the four Ampelomyces strains sequenced to date.

Straina Host plant species Host powdery mildew species Assembly size (Mb) Covb No. of contigs Contig N50 (bp) No. of scaf-folds Scaffold N50 (bp) No. of Ns per Mb GC content (%) Genome comple-teness (%)c NCBI accession number
BRIP 72097 Hydrangea macrophylla Pseudoidium hortensiae 33.45 240 22 1,889,696 22 1,889,696 0 47.9 96.0 JBBBEJ000000000
BRIP 72102 Plantago lanceolata Podosphaera plantaginis 37.32 480 38 3,841,740 38 3,841,740 0 46.2 95.9 JBIFGS010000000
BRIP 72107 Cestrum parqui Golovino-myces bolayi 40.38 400 25 2,994,887 24 2,994,887 2 45.5 96.6 JAGTXZ000000000
HMLAC 05119 Youngia japonica Undeter-mined powdery mildew 36.81 103 468 258,565 73 4,300,649 9,771 46.5 96.3 VOSX00000000.1

aStrain BRIP 72107 was sequenced by Huth et al. (2021). HMLAC 05119 was obtained from the JGI Genome Portal (Haridas et al. 2020).

bGenome coverage

cGenome completeness for the two genomes generated in this work, BRIP 72097 and BRIP 72102, was determined based on benchmarking universal single-copy orthologs (BUSCOs) (Simao et al. 2015) against the dothideomycetes_odb10 database.

The other Ampelomyces sp. strain, BRIP 72102, was assembled into 38 scaffolds with a total assembly size of 37,322,005 bp and genome completeness of 95.9% (Table 3). When compared to the predicted genome size of 39,698,299 bp using GenomeScope, genome completeness is estimated to be 94.0%. Of the total of 3,786 Dothideomycetes BUSCOs searched, BRIP 72102 included 3,633 complete and single-copy (95.8%), five complete and duplicated (0.1%), 15 fragmented (0.4%) and 138 missing (3.7%) BUSCOs. Based on a genome size of 37.32 Mb, and a total of 3.8 and 14.2 Gb of sequence data generated by MinION and Illumina MiSeq platforms, respectively, we estimated an approximate genome coverage of 480 × . A combination of ab initio and evidence-based gene modelling with two additional rounds of gene predictions after training SNAP in the Maker pipeline resulted in 29,360 predicted exons within 10,637 genes, including 3,974 with 3´ UTRs and 4,459 with 5´ UTRs. Of the total of 3,786 Dothideomycetes BUSCOs searched using the predicted proteins, BRIP 72102 included 3,530 complete and single-copy (93.2%), five complete and duplicated (0.1%), 79 fragmented (2.1%) and 172 missing (4.5%) BUSCOs.

Analysis of the assembled genomes for their distributions of AT and GC richness revealed their bipartite structure, consisting of gene-sparse AT-rich regions interspersed within gene-rich AT-balanced genomic regions (S3 Fig). The percentages of AT-rich regions in the assembled genomes of BRIP 72097 and BRIP 72102 were 21% and 27%, respectively.

Discussion

A recent hypothesis suggested that all powdery mildew species recorded in Australia so far were introduced inadvertently since 1788, the beginning of the European colonisation of the continent [50,69]. That particular year is considered as a sharp biogeographic landmark in the history of the Australian land vegetation [70], as it was the beginning of both deliberate and accidental human-assisted introductions of altogether over 28,000 plant species from overseas, including crops, ornamentals, and pasture species [6972]. It appears that powdery mildews were absent from Australia prior to 1788, and species of the Erysiphaceae were introduced accidentally to this continent in association with the massive introduction of their host plants [50,69]. If this hypothesis is true, all Ampelomyces mycoparasites must have been introduced to Australia since 1788, as well, together with their mycohosts, as the only known niche of these mycoparasites is inside powdery mildew colonies [810,40]. In Australia, Ampelomyces mycoparasites were first reported based on light microscopy observations of a number of powdery mildew species in Queensland in the 1960s [48]. However, only BRIP 72107 has been reported from Australia prior to this study [24].

This paper describes the isolation and characterisation of twenty new Ampelomyces strains. These were isolated in southern Queensland, in a relatively small geographical area, from only eight host plant species, all infected with different powdery mildew species representing four genera of the Erysiphaceae. Despite its limitations, the sampling revealed important information about Ampelomyces in Australia. First, the strains belonged to diverse MOTUs, four in total, that indicated the presence of multiple cryptic Ampelomyces species within a small geographic region. Second, phylogenetically different strains were isolated from the same powdery mildew species infecting the same host plant species; i.e., the strains coming from P. hortensiae belonged to two MOTUs. Also, one out of the three strains isolated from P. xanthii, in the same mungbean paddock, exhibited differences in all available marker regions (ITS, act and eukNR) to the two other strains, although the three strains clustered together in the ITS and the multi-locus analyses. Third, both the Australian and the reference strains belonging to MOTUs 1 and 9 were isolated from diverse powdery mildew species, representing different genera, while those in MOTU 4, and all but one strain in MOTU 3 appeared to be associated with a single mycohost species, P. xanthii and P. plantaginis, respectively. Fourth, all four Australian strains, and originating from four different powdery mildew species, included in the mycoparasitic tests were able to parasitize the mycohost species E. vignae, confirming their capacity to parasitize a species different from their original mycohosts. All these results are in agreement with the findings of previous studies on the phylogenetic diversity and mycoparasitic activity of Ampelomyces in relatively small geographic areas, such as Hungary [10,15,18], the Åland archipelago in Finland [12], Shandong, Sichuan and Shaanxi provinces in China [16], South Korea [17], Mie, Shiga and Tochigi Prefectures in Japan [21], and northern Italy [46].

Importantly, this study did not identify any MOTUs that had not been delimited in earlier studies based on strains isolated overseas. These results may indicate that Ampelomyces mycoparasites were introduced to Australia only very recently, together with their mycohosts.

One of the main goals of the phylogenetic analyses conducted in this study was to support the selection of more Ampelomyces strains for WGS. Strain BRIP 72107, sequenced earlier [24], belonged to MOTU 1; therefore, strains representing other MOTUs were prioritized for new WGS projects. The high-quality genome assemblies constructed for two strains representing ITS MOTUs 3 and 9 revealed their bipartite structure, i.e., presence of AT-rich, gene-sparse regions interspersed with GC-balanced, gene-rich regions, similar to BRIP 72107 [24]. The genome sizes of the three sequenced Australian Ampelomyces strains were markedly different, ranging from 33 to 40 Mb. This paper is also a ‘genome announcement’ [73] by providing two new high-quality genome assemblies and evidence-based annotations. The two new assemblies are important resources for future genomic analyses of mycoparasitic interactions to disentangle molecular mechanisms underlying mycoparasitism, possible new biocontrol applications, and towards the understanding of natural tritrophic relationships.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Unrooted tree of the 21 Australian and 32 reference Ampelomyces strains based on actin gene (act) sequence analyses.

Clustal W software was used for the act alignment and then Bayesian inference was used to infer the tree. The four Ampelomyces strains that have whole genome sequencing assemblies are indicated in bold.

(PPTX)

pone.0322842.s001.pptx (230.1KB, pptx)
S2 Fig. Unrooted tree of the 21 Australian and 32 reference Ampelomyces strains based on eukaryotic nitrate reductase gene (eukNR) sequence analyses.

Clustal W software was used for the eukNR alignment and then Bayesian inference was used to infer the tree. The four Ampelomyces strains that have whole genome sequencing assemblies are indicated in bold.

(PPTX)

pone.0322842.s002.pptx (225KB, pptx)
S3 Fig. The GC content distribution of genome assemblies of Ampelomyces strains BRIP 72097 and BRIP 72102.

Vertical blue lines indicate the GC cut-off points selected by OcculterCut (43) to classify genome segments into distinct AT-rich and GC-balanced regions. The percent values on the left and right sides of the graphs indicate the percentage of the genome classified as AT-rich and GC-balanced, respectively.

(PPTX)

pone.0322842.s003.pptx (208.3KB, pptx)
S1 Data. Alignment of the concatenated act and eukNR and ITS sequences of 53 Ampelomyces strains analysed in this work.

(NXS)

pone.0322842.s004.nxs (176.2KB, nxs)

Data Availability

All newly isolated fungal strains were deposited in a public culture collection, BRIP - accession numbers in Table 1. All newly determined DNA sequences were deposited in NCBI GenBank - accession numbers in Tables 1 & 2. All newly generated genome assemblies were deposited in NCBI GenBank - accession numbers in Table 3.

Funding Statement

This study was supported by Discovery Project DP210103869 of the Australian Research Council and the University of Southern Queensland, Australia. There was no additional external funding received for this study.

References

  • 1.Jeffries P, Young TW. Interfungal Parasitic Relationships. Wallingford, UK: CAB International; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Boddy L. Interactions between fungi and other microbes. In: Watkinson SC, Boddy L, Money NP, editors. The Fungi, Third Edition. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2015. p. 337–60. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Schoutteten N, Begerow D, Verbeken A. Mycoparasitism in Basidiomycota. Authorea [Preprint]. 2024. doi: 10.22541/au.171386938.80462578/v1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bermúdez-Cova MA, Haelewaters D, de Bekker C, Piepenbring M, Schoutteten N, Quandt CA. Hyperparasitic fungi - definitions, diversity, ecology, and research. Authorea [Preprint]. 2023. doi: 10.22541/au.168787020.07281183/v2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Glawe DA. The powdery mildews: a review of the world’s most familiar (yet poorly known) plant pathogens. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2008;46:27–51. doi: 10.1146/annurev.phyto.46.081407.104740 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Vaghefi N, Kusch S, Németh MZ, Seress D, Braun U, Takamatsu S, et al. Beyond Nuclear Ribosomal DNA Sequences: Evolution, Taxonomy, and Closest Known Saprobic Relatives of Powdery Mildew Fungi (Erysiphaceae) Inferred From Their First Comprehensive Genome-Scale Phylogenetic Analyses. Front Microbiol. 2022;13. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.903024 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Kusch S, Qian J, Loos A, Kümmel F, Spanu PD, Panstruga R. Long-term and rapid evolution in powdery mildew fungi. Mol Ecol. 2024;33(10):e16909. doi: 10.1111/mec.16909 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Kiss L, Russell JC, Szentiványi O, Xu X, Jeffries P. Biology and biocontrol potential ofAmpelomycesmycoparasites, natural antagonists of powdery mildew fungi. Biocontrol Sci Technol. 2004;14(7):635–51. doi: 10.1080/09583150410001683600 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Kiss L. Chapter 3: Intracellular mycoparasites in action: Interactions between powdery mildew fungi and Ampelomyces. In: Avery SV, Stratford M, Van West P, editors. British Mycological Society Symposia Series. Academic Press. 2008. p. 37–52. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Kiss L, Pintye A, Kovács GM, Jankovics T, Fontaine MC, Harvey N, et al. Temporal isolation explains host-related genetic differentiation in a group of widespread mycoparasitic fungi. Mol Ecol. 2011;20(7):1492–507. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05007.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Brown JKM. Little Else But Parasites. Science. 2003;299(5613):1680–1. doi: 10.1126/science.1083033 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Tollenaere C, Pernechele B, Mäkinen HS, Parratt SR, Németh MZ, Kovács GM, et al. A hyperparasite affects the population dynamics of a wild plant pathogen. Mol Ecol. 2014;23(23):5877–87. doi: 10.1111/mec.12908 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Parratt SR, Laine A-L. Pathogen dynamics under both bottom-up host resistance and top-down hyperparasite attack. J Appl Ecol. 2018;55(6):2976–85. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.13185 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Parratt SR, Barrès B, Penczykowski RM, Laine A-L. Local adaptation at higher trophic levels: contrasting hyperparasite-pathogen infection dynamics in the field and laboratory. Mol Ecol. 2017;26(7):1964–79. doi: 10.1111/mec.13928 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kiss L. Genetic diversity in Ampelomyces isolates, hyperparasites of powdery mildew fungi, inferred from RFLP analysis of the rDNA ITS region. Mycological Research. 1997;101(9):1073–80. doi: 10.1017/s0953756297003705 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Liang C, Yang J, Kovács GM, Szentiványi O, Li B, Xu X, et al. Genetic diversity of Ampelomyces mycoparasites isolated from different powdery mildew fungi in China inferred from analyses of rDNA ITS sequences. Fungal Divers. 2007;24:225–40. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Park M-J, Choi Y-J, Hong S-B, Shin H-D. Genetic variability and mycohost association of Ampelomyces quisqualis isolates inferred from phylogenetic analyses of ITS rDNA and actin gene sequences. Fungal Biol. 2010;114(2–3):235–47. doi: 10.1016/j.funbio.2010.01.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Pintye A, Bereczky Z, Kovács GM, Nagy LG, Xu X, Legler SE, et al. No indication of strict host associations in a widespread mycoparasite: grapevine powdery mildew (Erysiphe necator) is attacked by phylogenetically distant Ampelomyces strains in the field. Phytopathology. 2012;102(7):707–16. doi: 10.1094/PHYTO-10-11-0270 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Pintye A, Ropars J, Harvey N, Shin H-D, Leyronas C, Nicot PC, et al. Host phenology and geography as drivers of differentiation in generalist fungal mycoparasites. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0120703. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120703 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Liyanage KK, Khan S, Brooks S, Mortimer PE, Karunarathna SC, Xu J, et al. Morpho-Molecular Characterization of Two Ampelomyces spp. (Pleosporales) Strains Mycoparasites of Powdery Mildew of Hevea brasiliensis. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:12. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.00012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Németh MZ, Mizuno Y, Kobayashi H, Seress D, Shishido N, Kimura Y, et al. Ampelomyces strains isolated from diverse powdery mildew hosts in Japan: Their phylogeny and mycoparasitic activity, including timing and quantifying mycoparasitism of Pseudoidium neolycopersici on tomato. PLoS One. 2021;16(5):e0251444. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251444 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Legler SE, Pintye A, Caffi T, Gulyás S, Bohár G, Rossi V, et al. Sporulation rate in culture and mycoparasitic activity, but not mycohost specificity, are the key factors for selecting Ampelomyces strains for biocontrol of grapevine powdery mildew (Erysiphe necator). Eur J Plant Pathol. 2015;144(4):723–36. doi: 10.1007/s10658-015-0834-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Németh MZ, Seress D, Nonomura T. Fungi Parasitizing Powdery Mildew Fungi: Ampelomyces Strains as Biocontrol Agents against Powdery Mildews. Agronomy. 2023;13(8):1991. doi: 10.3390/agronomy13081991 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Huth L, Ash GJ, Idnurm A, Kiss L, Vaghefi N. The “Bipartite” Structure of the First Genome of Ampelomyces quisqualis, a Common Hyperparasite and Biocontrol Agent of Powdery Mildews, May Point to Its Evolutionary Origin from Plant Pathogenic Fungi. Genome Biol Evol. 2021;13(8):evab182. doi: 10.1093/gbe/evab182 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Hashioka Y, Nakai Y. Ultrastructure of pycnidial development and mycoparasitism of Ampelomyces quisqualis parasitic on Erysiphales. Transact Mycol Soc of Japan. 1980;21:329–38. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Kiss L, Pintye A, Zséli G, Jankovics T, Szentiványi O, Hafez YM, et al. Microcyclic conidiogenesis in powdery mildews and its association with intracellular parasitism by Ampelomyces. Eur J Plant Pathol. 2009;126(4):445–51. doi: 10.1007/s10658-009-9558-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Bundhun D, Jones EBG, Jayawardena RS, Camporesi E, Wanasinghe DN, Senanayake IC, et al. Taxonomic novelty in Pleomonodictydaceae and new reports for Ampelomycesquisqualis (Phaeosphaeriaceae), Melomastiamaolanensis and M.oleae (Pleurotremataceae). MycoKeys. 2024;111:147–80. doi: 10.3897/mycokeys.111.135456 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ropars J, Dupont J, Fontanillas E, Rodríguez de la Vega RC, Malagnac F, Coton M, et al. Sex in Cheese: Evidence for Sexuality in the Fungus Penicillium roqueforti. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(11):e49665. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0049665 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Burt A, Carter DA, Koenig GL, White TJ, Taylor JW. Molecular markers reveal cryptic sex in the human pathogen Coccidioides immitis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1996;93(2):770–3. doi: 10.1073/pnas.93.2.770 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Dyer PS, O’Gorman CM. A fungal sexual revolution: Aspergillus and Penicillium show the way. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2011;14(6):649–54. doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2011.10.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Giraud T, Fortini D, Levis C, Leroux P, Brygoo Y. RFLP markers show genetic recombination in Botryotinia fuckeliana (Botrytis cinerea) and transposable elements reveal two sympatric species. Mol Biol Evol. 1997;14(11):1177–85. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a025727 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Paoletti M, Rydholm C, Schwier EU, Anderson MJ, Szakacs G, Lutzoni F, et al. Evidence for sexuality in the opportunistic fungal pathogen Aspergillus fumigatus. Curr Biol. 2005;15(13):1242–8. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2005.05.045 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.O’Gorman CM, Fuller HT, Dyer PS. Discovery of a sexual cycle in the opportunistic fungal pathogen Aspergillus fumigatus. Nature. 2009;457(7228):471–4. doi: 10.1038/nature07528 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Lee SC, Ni M, Li W, Shertz C, Heitman J. The evolution of sex: a perspective from the fungal kingdom. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2010;74(2):298–340. doi: 10.1128/MMBR.00005-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Hoff B, Pöggeler S, Kück U. Eighty years after its discovery, Fleming’s Penicillium strain discloses the secret of its sex. Eukaryot Cell. 2008;7(3):465–70. doi: 10.1128/EC.00430-07 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.López-Villavicencio M, Aguileta G, Giraud T, de Vienne DM, Lacoste S, Couloux A, et al. Sex in Penicillium: combined phylogenetic and experimental approaches. Fungal Genet Biol. 2010;47(8):693–706. doi: 10.1016/j.fgb.2010.05.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Szentiványi O, Kiss L, Russell JC, Kovács GM, Varga K, Jankovics T, et al. Ampelomyces mycoparasites from apple powdery mildew identified as a distinct group based on single-stranded conformation polymorphism analysis of the rDNA ITS region. Mycol Res. 2005;109(Pt 4):429–38. doi: 10.1017/s0953756204001820 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Sztejnberg A, Galper S, Mazar S, Lisker N. Ampelomyces quisqualis for Biological and Integrated Control of Powdery Mildews in Israel. J Phytopathol. 1989;124(4):285–95. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0434.1989.tb04925.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Falk SP. Partial Control of Grape Powdery Mildew by the MycoparasiteAmpelomyces quisqualis. Plant Dis. 1995;79(5):483. doi: 10.1094/pd-79-0483 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Németh MZ, Pintye A, Horváth ÁN, Vági P, Kovács GM, Gorfer M, et al. Green Fluorescent Protein Transformation Sheds More Light on a Widespread Mycoparasitic Interaction. Phytopathology. 2019;109(8):1404–16. doi: 10.1094/PHYTO-01-19-0013-R [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Kimura Y, Németh MZ, Numano K, Mitao A, Shirakawa T, Seress D, et al. Hyperparasitic Fungi against Melon Powdery Mildew Pathogens: Quantitative Analysis of Conidia Released from Single Colonies of Podosphaera xanthii Parasitised by Ampelomyces. Agronomy. 2023;13(5):1204. doi: 10.3390/agronomy13051204 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Angeli D, Puopolo G, Maurhofer M, Gessler C, Pertot I. Is the mycoparasitic activity of Ampelomyces quisqualis biocontrol strains related to phylogeny and hydrolytic enzyme production? Biol Control. 2012;63(3):348–58. doi: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2012.08.010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Testa AC, Oliver RP, Hane JK. OcculterCut: A Comprehensive Survey of AT-Rich Regions in Fungal Genomes. Genome Biol Evol. 2016;8(6):2044–64. doi: 10.1093/gbe/evw121 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Dong S, Raffaele S, Kamoun S. The two-speed genomes of filamentous pathogens: waltz with plants. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2015;35:57–65. doi: 10.1016/j.gde.2015.09.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Haridas S, Albert R, Binder M, Bloem J, LaButti K, Salamov A, et al. 101 Dothideomycetes genomes: A test case for predicting lifestyles and emergence of pathogens. Stud Mycol. 2020;96:141–53. doi: 10.1016/j.simyco.2020.01.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Angeli D, Maurhofer M, Gessler C, Pertot I. Existence of different physiological forms within genetically diverse strains of Ampelomyces quisqualis. Phytoparasitica. 2011;40(1):37–51. doi: 10.1007/s12600-011-0197-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Falk SP. Parasitism of Uncinula necator Cleistothecia by the Mycoparasite Ampelomyces quisqualis. Phytopathology. 1995;85(7):794. doi: 10.1094/phyto-85-794 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Clare BG. Ampelomyces quisqualis (Cicinnobolus cesatii) on Queensland Erysiphaceae. University of Queensland Papers: Department of Botany. 1964. p. 147–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Dullahide S. AP249 biological control of apple powdery mildew. NSW: Horticultural Resource Development Corporation; 1996. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Kiss L, Vaghefi N, Bransgrove K, Dearnaley JDW, Takamatsu S, Tan YP, et al. Australia: A Continent Without Native Powdery Mildews? The First Comprehensive Catalog Indicates Recent Introductions and Multiple Host Range Expansion Events, and Leads to the Re-discovery of Salmonomyces as a New Lineage of the Erysiphales. Front Microbiol. 2020;11:1571. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.01571 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Kelly LA, Vaghefi N, Bransgrove K, Fechner NA, Stuart K, Pandey AK, et al. One Crop Disease, How Many Pathogens? Podosphaera xanthii and Erysiphe vignae sp. nov. Identified as the Two Species that Cause Powdery Mildew of Mungbean (Vigna radiata) and Black Gram (V. mungo) in Australia. Phytopathology. 2021;111(7):1193–206. doi: 10.1094/PHYTO-12-20-0554-R [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Bhunjun CS, Phillips AJL, Jayawardena RS, Promputtha I, Hyde KD. Importance of Molecular Data to Identify Fungal Plant Pathogens and Guidelines for Pathogenicity Testing Based on Koch’s Postulates. Pathogens. 2021;10(9):1096. doi: 10.3390/pathogens10091096 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Bruns TD, Gardes M. Molecular tools for the identification of ectomycorrhizal fungi--taxon-specific oligonucleotide probes for suilloid fungi. Mol Ecol. 1993;2(4):233–42. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294x.1993.tb00013.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.White TJ. Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics. In: Innis MA, Gelfand DH, Sninsky JJ, editors. PCR protocols: a guide to methods and applications. San Diego (CA): Academic Press. 1990. p. 315–22. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Voigt K, Wöstemeyer J. Reliable amplification of actin genes facilitates deep-level phylogeny. Microbiol Res. 2000;155(3):179–95. doi: 10.1016/S0944-5013(00)80031-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Gorfer M, Blumhoff M, Klaubauf S, Urban A, Inselsbacher E, Bandian D, et al. Community profiling and gene expression of fungal assimilatory nitrate reductases in agricultural soil. ISME J. 2011;5(11):1771–83. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2011.53 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Larkin MA, Blackshields G, Brown NP, Chenna R, McGettigan PA, McWilliam H, et al. Clustal W and Clustal X version 2.0. Bioinformatics. 2007;23(21):2947–8. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btm404 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Ronquist F, Teslenko M, van der Mark P, Ayres DL, Darling A, Höhna S, et al. MrBayes 3.2: efficient Bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across a large model space. Syst Biol. 2012;61(3):539–42. doi: 10.1093/sysbio/sys029 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Huson DH, Kloepper T, Bryant D. SplitsTree 4.0 - Computation of phylogenetic trees and networks. Bioinformatics. 2008;14(1):68–73. [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Wood DE, Salzberg SL. Kraken: ultrafast metagenomic sequence classification using exact alignments. Genome Biol. 2014;15(3):R46. doi: 10.1186/gb-2014-15-3-r46 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.BBMap: a fast, accurate, splice-aware aligner (No. LBNL7065E) [Internet]. 2014.
  • 62.Porechop: adapter trimmer for Oxford nanopore reads [Internet]. 2017. Available from: https://github.com/rrwick/Porechop
  • 63.Zimin AV, Marçais G, Puiu D, Roberts M, Salzberg SL, Yorke JA. The MaSuRCA genome assembler. Bioinformatics. 2013;29(21):2669–77. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt476 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Vurture GW, Sedlazeck FJ, Nattestad M, Underwood CJ, Fang H, Gurtowski J, et al. GenomeScope: fast reference-free genome profiling from short reads. Bioinformatics. 2017;33(14):2202–4. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btx153 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Grabherr MG, Haas BJ, Yassour M, Levin JZ, Thompson DA, Amit I, et al. Full-length transcriptome assembly from RNA-Seq data without a reference genome. Nat Biotechnol. 2011;29(7):644–52. doi: 10.1038/nbt.1883 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Cantarel BL, Korf I, Robb SMC, Parra G, Ross E, Moore B, et al. MAKER: an easy-to-use annotation pipeline designed for emerging model organism genomes. Genome Res. 2008;18(1):188–96. doi: 10.1101/gr.6743907 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Korf I. Gene finding in novel genomes. BMC Bioinformatics. 2004;5:59. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-5-59 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Simão FA, Waterhouse RM, Ioannidis P, Kriventseva EV, Zdobnov EM. BUSCO: assessing genome assembly and annotation completeness with single-copy orthologs. Bioinformatics. 2015;31(19):3210–2. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv351 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Thines M, Seebens H, Aime MC, Shivas RG, Kiss L, Essl F, et al. Host switching and geographic expansions in (hemi)biotrophic plant pathogens. In: Pöggeler S, James T, editors. Evolution of fungi and fungal-like organisms. Switzerland AG: Springer Nature; 2023. p. 123–48. [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Fensham RJ, Laffineur B. Defining the native and naturalised flora for the Australian continent. Aust J Bot. 2019;67(1):55–69. doi: 10.1071/bt18168 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Randall RP. The introduced flora of Australia and its weed status. Adelaide (SA): CRC for Australian Weed Managment; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Kirkpatrick JB. A continent transformed: human impact on the natural vegetation of Australia. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1999. [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Kusch S, Vaghefi N, Kiss L. The Good, The Bad, and The Misleading: How to Improve the Quality of “Genome Announcements”? Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2023;36(7):393–6. doi: 10.1094/MPMI-01-23-0009-LE [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Kandasamy Ulaganathan

28 May 2025

Dear Dr. Kiss,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 12 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Kandasamy Ulaganathan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement:

 [This study was supported by Discovery Project DP210103869 of the Australian Research Council and the University of Southern Queensland, Australia.].

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.   

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The article entitled “Multi-locus phylogenetic network analysis of Ampelomyces mycoparasites isolated from diverse powdery mildews in Australia and the generation of two de novo genome assemblies” is well witten. It provides detailed analysis on Ampelomyces from diverse powdery mildews in Australia. It is an excellent work that offers valuable contribution to the scientific community in this field. I recommend accepting the article after minor revisions. Here are the suggestions:

1. Abbreviations should be defined at their first appearance in the text. A few abbreviations are not explained such as SNAP and UTRs.

2. The value "4.3" listed as the Contig N50 (bp) for HMLAC 05119 in Table 3 appears to be incorrect. Please verify whether it should be "258,565," as reported in your previous study.

Other minor corrections:

Line 108: “infected with on Podosphaera xanthii” instead of “infected with onPodosphaera xanthii”.

Line 194: There is plants "Mungbean (Vigna radiata) plants cv. Jade" but "(Vigna radiata) cv. Jade-AU" in the figure legend. Make it consistent.

Line 378-379: Check if there need a period here: “BUSCO of 96.0 % (Table 3) Of the total”; check also Line 397-398.

Reviewer #2: This paper represents an important molecular contribution to the study of Ampelomyces mycoparasites. Genetic data has been generated for multiple Australian strains, improving understanding of relationships between strains and their potential origins. Two strains were selected for whole genome assembly and annotation, which appear to be of high quality.

Overall, the rationale and overarching narrative of the paper is clear. However, the impact and clarity of the manuscript has been substantially affected by a lack of some key details and analyses. As a consequence, in its current form, some of the stated conclusions are not supported by the data presented.

A. Essential/Recommended revisions

A1. The Introduction is generally clear and well-written. However, I felt that the genetics/genomics of Ampelomyces needs a bit more detail and clarification, given the focus of the paper. Firstly, it would be useful to be more explicit about the life cycle - the is reference to an asexual life cycle and a sexual morph, but it is not clear how these relate to each other. It is important to be clear about the ploidy, if known, as this has implications for sequencing and assembly. Furthermore, the karyotype should be discussed, even if just to acknowledge that it is unknown. (If this is the case, are there related fungi from which inferences can be made?) Lastly, the loci used for previous molecular phylogenies (L68-70) that define the MOTUs should be listed. Is this based on a few loci, or phylogenomics?

A2. The phylogeny of Figure 3 is interesting but needs a little additional work. In addition to the network from concatenated data (Figure 4), I would like to see the trees of the other two marker genes too for consistency, possibly as supplementary data. From Fig 3, it appears that a lot of the sequences are identical, and there are a very small number of differences within each MOTU. Is the same true for the other genes? I am therefore not convinced (L368) that “The analysis has indicated possible recombination amongst some MOTUs”, as it looks like this is based on very little signal. Furthermore, it is not strictly true that (L366) "The clustering of the strains was congruent with the ITS genealogy, i.e., the multi-locus analysis revealed the same clusters (MOTUs) as the analysis of the ITS sequences" nor that (L344) “The ITS genealogy revealed that these 53 strains clustered into eight MOTUs (Fig 3).” MOTU 3 and MOTU 10 form a single cluster in Fig 3 and cannot be split into separate clades. Figure 3 also needs to be rooted (is it possible to date any of the splits?) or drawn more explicitly as an unrooted tree like Fig 4. (At present it appears to be unrooted but is drawn as if MOTU 9 is an outgroup to the rest, which is not correct.)

L292: "These alignments were used to create genealogic trees … " This should be “infer phylogenetic trees”. Please provide the alignments as supplementary data. How was the substitution model selected? Ideally, a complementary method (NJ or ML) would also be used to check for robustness to assumptions.

A3. Analysis/validation of the two new genomes is incomplete. Assembly sizes should be compared to predicted genome sizes from raw data (e.g. kmer-based like GenomeScope and/or depth-based like DepthSizer) and experimental genome size if known (see A1). Without this, the statement in L461 cannot be supported: “The genome sizes of the three sequenced Australian Ampelomyces strains were markedly different, ranging from 33 to 40 Mb." (This is an observed difference in assembly size, not genome size.)

The kmer completeness, QV and ploidy should also be reported (e.g. Merqury and GenomeScope). It would be good to have a sense as to whether these assemblies are approaching chromosome-length. (What is the karyotype?) Telomere prediction might help with this. Similarly, it would be good to know if 10k genes is lot for this kind of species, or what one would expect. BUSCO completeness should be calculated for the predicted proteome and/or transcriptome, and annotations should also be provided as supplementary data. Basic repeat annotation should also be performed.

A4. The authors have done a lot of work selecting and assembling the two new Australian strains of Ampelomyces, increasing the number of MOTUs with an assembly to four. However, the paper terminates prematurely, without any analysis or comparison of the four genomes. Whilst detailed phylogenomic analysis is probably beyond the scope of this paper, it should be fairly easy to test whether shared BUSCO single copy orthologues give a phylogenetic signal that is consistent with (a) the three marker genes used for defining MOTUs, and (b) each other. This should cover around a third of the genes (if the annotation is complete) and thus give a strong indication whether there seems to be recombination or horizontal gene transfer between these lineages. The contiguity of the assemblies appears to be quite high, so it would also be good to perform some basic synteny analysis - again, the BUSCO genes can be used for this.

A5. L406: “Analysis of the assembled genomes for their distributions of AT and GC richness revealed their bipartite structure, consisting of gene-sparse AT-rich regions interspersed within gene-rich AT-balanced genomic regions. The percentages of AT-rich regions in the assembledgenomes of BRIP 72097 and BRIP 72102 were 21% and 27%, respectively." This is incomplete and needs more detail and visualisation. How are these regions defined and distributed? Something like a Circos plot might be useful.

A6. The assemblies do not appear to be publicly available on Genbank. The authors need to provide details of the BioProject, BioSample and assembly accession numbers.

B. Minor revisions

B1. L74-76. "Until this is done, the use of Ampelomyces spp. is recommended when referring to phylogenetically diverse strains within the genus." It would be good here to highlight the lack of knowledge about recombination (L93-94), and how robust the species concept is likely to be in Ampelomyces.

B2. L108, typo: "onPodosphaera".

B3. L115: "The highest quality assembly and annotation…" It would be informative to summarise how good this assembly is. Is it chromosome-level, for example?

B4. L182: "were identified as two distinct Golovinomyces species" This should be marked in Table 1.

B5. Table 2: "Extracted from the genome***" Please provide the genome scaffold accession numbers and positions.

B6. L303: “High molecular weight (HMW) DNA extraction and long-read sequencing of BRIP 72097 andBRIP 72102 was performed using Oxford Nanopore Technology (ONT) and short-read sequencing performed using the Illumina MiSeq platform with read preparation, genome assembly and annotation as previously described by Huth et al. (24)." The methods here are not clear. Extraction and sequencing should be separated and the essentials of the technologies used (e.g. ONT kit & flowcell, Illumina library & cycles) and assembly methods provided even if more details are given in the citation.

B7. L320: “The completeness of the genome assembly was evaluated via Benchmarking Universal Single-Copy Orthologs (BUSCO) v.1.2 (66).” State the lineage used and number of genes.

B8. Table 3. The contig N50 for HMLAC05119 cannot be 4.3 bp.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: Yes:  Yuan-Min Shen

Reviewer #2: Yes:  Richard Edwards

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2025 Dec 4;20(12):e0322842. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0322842.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


14 Aug 2025

Professor Kandasamy Ulaganathan

Centre for Plant Molecular Biology, Osmania University, Hyderabad, India

Academic Editor, PLoS ONE

Dear Professor Ulaganathan,

Thank you for your comments on our work and judging it as suitable for publication in PLoS ONE pending satisfactory revision.

Please find below our responses and reactions to the comments from Reviewers #1 and #2. Line (L) numbers in their comments refer to our original submission while line numbers in our responses refer to the file uploaded as ‘Revised Manuscript with Track Changes’.

We would like to sincerely thank both Reviewers for their time spent on our manuscript and all their thoughtful comments and suggestions that have been very helpful during the revision of this work.

The manuscript was fully revised in line with their comments, and we think that it has been improved considerably during revision. All changes made in our original submission are shown with tracked changes in the file uploaded as ‘Revised Manuscript with Track Changes’.

The file uploaded as ‘Manuscript’ was generated by accepting all tracked changes shown in ‘Revised Manuscript with Track Changes’.

As detailed in our responses, we think that some of the queries listed by Reviewer #2 referred to further analyses that were beyond the scope of this study. The overarching goal of this work is to:

a) reveal the genetic diversity of Ampelomyces strains isolated in Australia in order to support strain selection for whole-genome sequencing (WGS) projects; and

b) release the newly assembled genomes of two phylogenetically different strains.

This was detailed in the last paragraph of the Introduction.

We are currently performing comprehensive phylogenomic analyses of a number of Ampelomyces genomes, including those two that are reported in this manuscript. The results will be included in another paper; therefore, we cannot fulfil some of the queries listed by Reviewer #2. This was explained in our response to Reviewer #2.

Thank you for considering this revision. We do hope that the revised version is suitable for publication in PLoS ONE.

Kind regards,

Prof Levente Kiss

corresponding author for this submission

Response to Reviewer #1

>COMMENT: The article entitled “Multi-locus phylogenetic network analysis of Ampelomyces mycoparasites isolated from diverse powdery mildews in Australia and the generation of two de novo genome assemblies” is well witten. It provides detailed analysis on Ampelomyces from diverse powdery mildews in Australia. It is an excellent work that offers valuable contribution to the scientific community in this field. I recommend accepting the article after minor revisions.

RESPONSE: Thank you for your positive feedback.

>COMMENT: 1. Abbreviations should be defined at their first appearance in the text. A few abbreviations are not explained such as SNAP and UTRs.

REPLY and REACTION:

• SNAP is not an abbreviation – it is the name of a web server. We added the reference to the first mention of SNAP in the text (L352; Korf 2004, reference #67 – other references were re-numbered as needed following this change).

• UTR (untranslated region) was written in full at first mention (L434).

• No other unexplained abbreviations were found in the text.

>COMMENT: 2. The value "4.3" listed as the Contig N50 (bp) for HMLAC 05119 in Table 3 appears to be incorrect. Please verify whether it should be "258,565," as reported in your previous study.

REPLY and REACTION: Corrected in Table 3.

>COMMENT: Line 108: “infected with on Podosphaera xanthii” instead of “infected with onPodosphaera xanthii”.

RESPONSE AND REACTION: ‘on’ deleted.

>COMMENT: Line 194: There is plants "Mungbean (Vigna radiata) plants cv. Jade" but "(Vigna radiata) cv. Jade-AU" in the figure legend. Make it consistent.

RESPONSE AND REACTION: Agreed, the correct name of the variety is ‘Jade-AU’. Corrected throughout the manuscript and Table 1.

>COMMENT: Line 378-379: Check if there need a period here: “BUSCO of 96.0 % (Table 3) Of the total”; check also Line 397-398.

RESPONSE AND REACTION: Corrected.

Response to Reviewer #2

>COMMENT: This paper represents an important molecular contribution to the study of Ampelomyces mycoparasites. Genetic data has been generated for multiple Australian strains, improving understanding of relationships between strains and their potential origins. Two strains were selected for whole genome assembly and annotation, which appear to be of high quality.

RESPONSE: Thank you for this positive comment.

>COMMENT: Overall, the rationale and overarching narrative of the paper is clear. However, the impact and clarity of the manuscript has been substantially affected by a lack of some key details and analyses. As a consequence, in its current form, some of the stated conclusions are not supported by the data presented.

RESPONSE: The manuscript was revised in line with this general comment. The revised version should now not contain any conclusions that are not supported by the data provided.

A. Essential/Recommended revisions

>COMMENT: A1. The Introduction is generally clear and well-written. However, I felt that the genetics/genomics of Ampelomyces needs a bit more detail and clarification, given the focus of the paper. Firstly, it would be useful to be more explicit about the life cycle - the is reference to an asexual life cycle and a sexual morph, but it is not clear how these relate to each other.

RESPONSE AND REACTION:

• The asexual life cycle of Ampelomyces is well understood and described in detail in the papers referenced in L77-92. References #9 and #10, cited in this paragraph, include detailed figures of the life cycle. During revision, we added #9 one more time, to the last sentence of this paragraph, to provide an even more comprehensive reference list of the asexual life cycle.

• There is a recent observation of a fruiting body reported as the sexual morph of Ampelomyces. We cited this paper (reference #27) without comments in the original submission. In our view, reference #27 is somewhat unclear regarding the identity of that fungal structure. The relevant part was revised (L94-97) to highlight that this is a single observation; and the sexual morph of Ampelomyces has never been reported elsewhere.

>COMMENT: It is important to be clear about the ploidy, if known, as this has implications for sequencing and assembly.

RESPONSE AND REACTION: A sentence was added (L118-119) to state that the hyphae and conidia of Ampelomyces are haploid, similar to most other ascomycetes.

>COMMENT: Furthermore, the karyotype should be discussed, even if just to acknowledge that it is unknown. (If this is the case, are there related fungi from which inferences can be made?)

RESPONSE AND REACTION:

• A sentence was added to state that the chromosome numbers of Ampelomyces spp. have not been revealed yet (L119). Another sentence was added to L139-140 to specify that none of the two genome assemblies available before our study (i.e., those of HMLAC 05119 and BRIP 72107) were near-chromosome level assemblies.

• For your information, we would like to add the following:

We have recently sequenced the genomes of a few more phylogenetically different strains using long-reads with PacBio HiFi; and assembled their genomes at chromosome level. Our unpublished assemblies were supported by a Hi-C study, as well. These results are part of a comprehensive genomic study that will be deposited soon in bioRxiv, and submitted for publication in a relevant journal.

• Chromosome numbers have been reported in some of the relatives of Ampelomyces but may not be useful references for reasons revealed by our unpublished genomic study.

>COMMENT: Lastly, the loci used for previous molecular phylogenies (L68-70) that define the MOTUs should be listed. Is this based on a few loci, or phylogenomics?

RESPONSE AND REACTION: Previous phylogenies were based on ITS and actin gene (act) sequences. This information was added to L69-70.

>COMMENT: A2. The phylogeny of Figure 3 is interesting but needs a little additional work. In addition to the network from concatenated data (Figure 4), I would like to see the trees of the other two marker genes too for consistency, possibly as supplementary data.

RESPONSE AND REACTION: Single-locus trees based on act and eukNR sequences, respectively, were added to the manuscript as Supplementary Figures 1 and 2. The results of the act and the eukNR analyses were briefly mentioned in L396-400.

>COMMENT: From Fig 3, it appears that a lot of the sequences are identical, and there are a very small number of differences within each MOTU. Is the same true for the other genes? I am therefore not convinced (L368) that “The analysis has indicated possible recombination amongst some MOTUs”, as it looks like this is based on very little signal.

RESPONSE AND REACTION: We agree that our analysis did not reveal convincing signals of recombination. Therefore, all comments regarding recombination were deleted during revision from the Abstract, Results, and Discussion.

For your information, our currently ongoing phylogenomics analyses, mentioned above, are considering recombination signals, in addition to a number of other analyses.

>COMMENT: Furthermore, it is not strictly true that (L366) "The clustering of the strains was congruent with the ITS genealogy, i.e., the multi-locus analysis revealed the same clusters (MOTUs) as the analysis of the ITS sequences" nor that (L344) “The ITS genealogy revealed that these 53 strains clustered into eight MOTUs (Fig 3).” MOTU 3 and MOTU 10 form a single cluster in Fig 3 and cannot be split into separate clades.

RESPONSE AND REACTION: Agreed: our conclusions in the original submission were quite superficial in this respect. To rectify these issues, the following revisions were done:

• ITS MOTUs 3 and 10 were combined into MOTU 3 in Fig. 3. The text was modified accordingly: in L381, we now state that the ITS analysis has identified seven MOTUs, not eight. Other changes were made in L387 and L389 to replace ITS MOTU 10 with 3.

• In L407, we specified that “The clustering of the strains was mostly congruent with the ITS genealogy” and introduced MOTU 10 there (L408-413) as a result of the multi-locus analysis.

>COMMENT: Figure 3 also needs to be rooted (is it possible to date any of the splits?) or drawn more explicitly as an unrooted tree like Fig 4. (At present it appears to be unrooted but is drawn as if MOTU 9 is an outgroup to the rest, which is not correct.)

RESPONSE AND REACTION: We prefer to keep the ITS (and also the act and the eukNR) single-locus trees as unrooted due to our difficulties to identify the same outgroup for these three analyses. The revised captions of Fig. 3 (the ITS tree) and Suppl. Figs 1 and 2 (the act and the eukNR trees, respectively) highlight that these are all unrooted. This is also indicated by their revised drawings.

>COMMENT: L292: "These alignments were used to create genealogic trees … " This should be “infer phylogenetic trees”.

RESPONSE AND REACTION: Corrected in the text and also in the caption of Fig. 3.

>COMMENT: Please provide the alignments as supplementary data. How was the substitution model selected? Ideally, a complementary method (NJ or ML) would also be used to check for robustness to assumptions.

RESPONSE AND REACTION: The multi-locus alignment is now provided as Suppl. Data 1. Substitution models were compared in MEGA.

>COMMENT: A3. Analysis/validation of the two new genomes is incomplete. Assembly sizes should be compared to predicted genome sizes from raw data (e.g. kmer-based like GenomeScope and/or depth-based like DepthSizer) and experimental genome size if known (see A1). Without this, the statement in L461 cannot be supported: “The genome sizes of the three sequenced Australian Ampelomyces strains were markedly different, ranging from 33 to 40 Mb." (This is an observed difference in assembly size, not genome size.)

RESPONSE AND REACTION: Genome sizes were estimated using GenomeScope as described in the revised Mat & Meth (L337-342, with reference #64 added – the references from this point were re-numbered as needed). Genome completeness statistics based on GenomeScope were added to the Results (L425-426 and L449-451). The original statements regarding genome sizes still hold true.

>COMMENT: The kmer completeness, QV and ploidy should also be reported (e.g. Merqury and GenomeScope). It would be good to have a sense as to whether these assemblies are approaching chromosome-length. (What is the karyotype?) Telomere prediction might help with this. Similarly, it would be good to know if 10k genes is lot for this kind of species, or what one would expect. BUSCO completeness should be calculated for the predicted proteome and/or transcriptome, and annotations should also be provided as supplementary data. Basic repeat annotation should also be performed.

RESPONSE AND REACTION: BUSCO completeness was repeated using the predicted proteome and results added to the manuscript (L434-437 and L459-461). Annotations for the two strains were added as Supplementary Data 2 and 3 (mentioned in L437-438 and L461-462). The assemblies are still not near-chromosome level, and as mentioned above, the karyotype is unknown in Ampelomyces strains.

As mentioned above, our follow-up study generated chromosome-level assemblies and should be published soon. This manuscript is needed as a foundation work for our more comprehensive genomic analyses.

>COMMENT: A4. The authors have done a lot of work selecting and assembling the two new Australian strains of Ampelomyces, increasing the number of MOTUs with an assembly to four. However, the paper terminates prematurely, without any analysis or comparison of the four genomes. Whilst detailed phylogenomic analysis is probably beyond the scope of this paper, it should be fairly easy to test whether shared BUSCO single copy orthologues give a phylogenetic signal that is consistent with (a) the three marker genes used for defining MOTUs, and (b) each other. This should cover around a third of the genes (if the annotation is complete) and thus give a strong indication whether there seems to be recombination or horizontal gene transfer between these lineages. The contiguity of the assemblies appears to be quite high, so it would also be good to perform some basic synteny analysis - again, the BUSCO genes can be used for this.

RESPONSE AND REACTION: At the end of the Discussion, we have edited the comment “This paper serves as a ‘genome announcement” (L521-522). Therefore, we hope the paper does not ‘terminate prematurely’ but rather serves to set a platform for more sophisticated investigations using additional Ampelomyces genomes in comparison to close relatives. In our view, the requests to analyse single copy orthologues (i.e., to provide a genome-wide phylogeny) and carry out other analyses, as well, are beyond the scope of this paper.

For your information, we are currently performing such analyses that include the two new assemblies reported in this manuscript. The results will be included in a future paper, mentioned above.

>COMMENT: A5. L406: “Analysis of the assembled genomes for their distributions of AT and GC richness revealed their bipartite structure, consisting of gene-sparse AT-rich regions interspersed within gene-rich AT-balanced genomic regions. The percentages of AT-rich regions in the assembled genomes of BRIP 72097 and BRIP 72102 were 21% and 27%, respectively." This is incomplete and needs more detail and visualisation. How are these regions defined and distributed? Something like a Circos plot might be useful.

RESPONSE AND REACTION: We now added to the manuscript that we used OcculterCut to estimate GC content distribution (L341-342). OcculterCut applies a sliding-window approach to calculate GC% across the genome and uses a Gaussian mixture model to separate sequences into high-GC and low-GC components. We have provided the OcculterCut results as Supplementary Figure 3 (mentioned in L461-462).

>COMMENT: A6. The assemblies do not appear to be publicly available on Genbank. The authors need to provide details of the BioProject, BioSample and assembly accession numbers.

RESPONSE AND REACTION:

Attachment

Submitted filename: Ampelomyces_Australia_RESPONSE TO COMMENTS_final.docx

pone.0322842.s006.docx (38.4KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Kandasamy Ulaganathan

7 Sep 2025

Dear Dr. Kiss,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 22 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Kandasamy Ulaganathan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The article "Multi-locus phylogenetic network analysis of Ampelomyces mycoparasites isolated from diverse powdery mildews in Australia and the generation of two de novo genome assemblies" provide important detailed analysis on Ampelomyces from diverse powdery mildews in Australia. It is an great work that offers valuable contribution to the scientific community in this field. Minor revision is suggested since I agree with reviewer 2 that "Figure 3 also needs to be rooted or drawn more explicitly as an unrooted tree like Fig 4."

Reviewer #2: The authors have made a substantial effort to address the previous comments. I think the paper is clearer as a result. I only have a couple of minor residual comments/questions about the BUSCO analysis.

1. Did the authors really use BUSCO v1.2? I did not notice this the first time. BUSCO is now up to v6 and the more recent versions are much more consistent, so should be used preferentially. It does not matter too much for this paper, but the authors mention ongoing work, so they really should switch to at least v5 for that.

2. The proteome analysis uses a different orthdb dataset to the genome analysis. Please use the same for both. It is hard to judge the actual quality of the annotation if the stats relate to a different dataset.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: Yes:  Shen, Yuan-Min

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org

PLoS One. 2025 Dec 4;20(12):e0322842. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0322842.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 2


21 Oct 2025

Professor Kandasamy Ulaganathan

Centre for Plant Molecular Biology, Osmania University, Hyderabad, India

Academic Editor, PLoS ONE

Dear Professor Ulaganathan,

Thank you for your comments on our work and judging it as suitable for publication in PLoS ONE pending a 2nd round of revision.

Please find below our responses and reactions to the comments from Reviewers #1 and #2. Line (L) numbers in our responses refer to the file uploaded as ‘2nd Revision of Manuscript with Tracked Changes’.

In addition to minor changes done in line with the 2nd Reviewer’s comments (as detailed below), we have also done a few cosmetic changes in the manuscript – all shown with tracked changes.

We would like to sincerely thank both Reviewers for their time spent on our manuscript.

The file uploaded as ‘Manuscript’ was generated by accepting all tracked changes shown in ‘2nd Revision of Manuscript with Tracked Changes’.

Thank you for considering this 2nd revision. We do hope that the current version is suitable for publication in PLoS ONE.

Best regards,

Prof Levente Kiss

corresponding author for this submission

Response to Reviewer #1

>COMMENT:

The article "Multi-locus phylogenetic network analysis of Ampelomyces mycoparasites isolated from diverse powdery mildews in Australia and the generation of two de novo genome assemblies" provide important detailed analysis on Ampelomyces from diverse powdery mildews in Australia. It is an great work that offers valuable contribution to the scientific community in this field. Minor revision is suggested since I agree with reviewer 2 that "Figure 3 also needs to be rooted or drawn more explicitly as an unrooted tree like Fig 4."

RESPONSE: Thank you for your kind words. Concerning the three unrooted trees (Figure 3 – ITS tree; and Suppl. Figs. 1 and 2 – the act and the eukNR trees, respectively), these have to remain unrooted because of the difficulty of finding the same outgroup for all these three loci. This was explained in our previous response to Reviewer #2.

To highlight the unrooted nature of these three trees, the captions of all the three figures start with ‘Unrooted tree of …’.

We have experimented with replacing these three figures with network-like and circular trees. However, one of the values of these trees is to display all the details (designations, mycohosts, host plants, and countries of origin) of the mycoparasitic strains included in the analysis, and this can only be achieved in the current format of Figure 3 and Suppl. Figs. 1 and 2. The phylogenetic network (Figure 4) could not display all the information that is available on the unrooted trees.

This is the rationale for presenting these three figures in their current format.

Response to Reviewer #2

>COMMENT:

The authors have made a substantial effort to address the previous comments. I think the paper is clearer as a result. I only have a couple of minor residual comments/questions about the BUSCO analysis.

RESPONSE: Thank you for your positive feedback.

>COMMENT:

1. Did the authors really use BUSCO v1.2? I did not notice this the first time. BUSCO is now up to v6 and the more recent versions are much more consistent, so should be used preferentially. It does not matter too much for this paper, but the authors mention ongoing work, so they really should switch to at least v5 for that.

RESPONSE AND REACTION: Thank you for spotting this typo. We used BUSCO v5.8.0 and corrected the typo in L343.

>COMMENT:

2. The proteome analysis uses a different orthdb dataset to the genome analysis. Please use the same for both. It is hard to judge the actual quality of the annotation if the stats relate to a different dataset.

RESPONSE AND REACTION: Thank you for spotting this issue. The proteome BUSCO was run again with dothideomycetes_odb10 and the results were updated in the manuscript (L422-425 and L444-446).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Ampelomyces_Australia_RESPONSE TO COMMENTS_2nd revision.docx

pone.0322842.s007.docx (26.9KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Kandasamy Ulaganathan

17 Nov 2025

Multi-locus phylogenetic network analysis of Ampelomyces mycoparasites isolated from diverse powdery mildews in Australia and the generation of two de novo genome assemblies

PONE-D-25-16889R2

Dear Dr. Kiss,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Kandasamy Ulaganathan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The revision of the manuscript "Multi-locus phylogenetic network analysis of Ampelomyces mycoparasites isolated

from diverse powdery mildews in Australia and the generation of two de novo genome assemblies" is acceptable.

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed all the comments. I would still present the unrooted tree slightly differently but it is their paper, not mine.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: Yes:  Yuan-Min Shen

Reviewer #2: Yes:  Richard J. Edwards

**********

Acceptance letter

Kandasamy Ulaganathan

PONE-D-25-16889R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kiss,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Kandasamy Ulaganathan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Unrooted tree of the 21 Australian and 32 reference Ampelomyces strains based on actin gene (act) sequence analyses.

    Clustal W software was used for the act alignment and then Bayesian inference was used to infer the tree. The four Ampelomyces strains that have whole genome sequencing assemblies are indicated in bold.

    (PPTX)

    pone.0322842.s001.pptx (230.1KB, pptx)
    S2 Fig. Unrooted tree of the 21 Australian and 32 reference Ampelomyces strains based on eukaryotic nitrate reductase gene (eukNR) sequence analyses.

    Clustal W software was used for the eukNR alignment and then Bayesian inference was used to infer the tree. The four Ampelomyces strains that have whole genome sequencing assemblies are indicated in bold.

    (PPTX)

    pone.0322842.s002.pptx (225KB, pptx)
    S3 Fig. The GC content distribution of genome assemblies of Ampelomyces strains BRIP 72097 and BRIP 72102.

    Vertical blue lines indicate the GC cut-off points selected by OcculterCut (43) to classify genome segments into distinct AT-rich and GC-balanced regions. The percent values on the left and right sides of the graphs indicate the percentage of the genome classified as AT-rich and GC-balanced, respectively.

    (PPTX)

    pone.0322842.s003.pptx (208.3KB, pptx)
    S1 Data. Alignment of the concatenated act and eukNR and ITS sequences of 53 Ampelomyces strains analysed in this work.

    (NXS)

    pone.0322842.s004.nxs (176.2KB, nxs)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Ampelomyces_Australia_RESPONSE TO COMMENTS_final.docx

    pone.0322842.s006.docx (38.4KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Ampelomyces_Australia_RESPONSE TO COMMENTS_2nd revision.docx

    pone.0322842.s007.docx (26.9KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All newly isolated fungal strains were deposited in a public culture collection, BRIP - accession numbers in Table 1. All newly determined DNA sequences were deposited in NCBI GenBank - accession numbers in Tables 1 & 2. All newly generated genome assemblies were deposited in NCBI GenBank - accession numbers in Table 3.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES