TABLE 3.
Growth and spore production
| Analysis, expt, and straina | Genotype | Mean diam (mm) ± SD | Mean no. (105/mm2) ± SD
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conidia | Ascospores | |||
| Radial growth | ||||
| Expt 1 | ||||
| RTMH211.14 | WT | 58.5 ± 1.1 | ||
| RTMH229.24 | WT | 59.3 ± 0.6 | ||
| RTMH218.7 | ΔdclB ΔrsdA ΔrrpB/C | 59.0 ± 1.0 | ||
| RTMH218.39 | ΔdclB ΔrsdA ΔrrpB/C | 59.1 ± 0.6 | ||
| Expt 2 | ||||
| RTMH211-14 | WT | 57.0 ± 1.4 | ||
| RTMH229-24 | WT | 57.3 ± 0.5 | ||
| RTMH212-42 | ΔdclA | 57.9 ± 0.8 | ||
| RTMH212-65 | ΔdclA | 56.4 ± 1.1 | ||
| RTMH211-6 | ΔppdB | 58.6 ± 1.6 | ||
| RTMH211-11 | ΔppdB | 57.8 ± 1.9 | ||
| Spore production | ||||
| Expt 3 | ||||
| RTMH211.14 | WT | 2.17 ± 0.25 | 1.04 ± 0.15 | |
| RTMH218.39 | ΔdclB ΔrsdA ΔrrpB/C | 1.86 ± 0.29 | 0.92 ± 0.19 | |
| RTMH218.7 | ΔdclB ΔrsdA ΔrrpB/C | 2.06 ± 0.14 | 0.83 ± 0.18 | |
| RDIT9.32 | WT | 2.19 ± 0.22 | 0.70 ± 0.15 | |
| Expt 4 | ||||
| RTMH211-14 | WT | 4.90 ± 0.32 | 0.11 ± 0.05 | |
| RTMH211-6 | ΔppdB | 5.12 ± 0.35 | 0.10 ± 0.04 | |
| RTMH212-65 | ΔdclA | 5.78 ± 0.49 | 0.05 ± 0.01 | |
| Expt 5 | ||||
| RTMH229-24 | WT | 4.33 ± 0.52 | 0.23 ± 0.08 | |
| RTMH212-65 | ΔdclA | 4.26 ± 0.49 | 0.21 ± 0.04 | |
Radial growth rate was determined by placing 2 μl of a conidial suspension (100 conidia per μl) in the center of a solid plate of 25.0 ml of GMM, followed by incubation for 5 days at 37°C. Experiment 1, n = 9 to 10; experiment 2, n = 6. Spore production was determined in 6-day-old cultures (37°C, 12 h light). Replicates were prepared by mixing 106 conidia in 5.0 ml of liquid molten GMM agar (0.7%, ∼48°C), followed by plating onto 30.0 ml (experiment 3) or 25.0 ml (experiments 4 and 5) solid GMM. Three 1.4-cm-diameter cores were harvested from each plate and ground in 0.01% Tween 80. Dilutions were then made for hemacytometer-based spore counting. Experiment 3, n = 3; experiment 4, n = 4 to 5; experiment 5, n = 5. The only difference detected in these experiments was in experiment 4, where ΔdclA produced more conidia and fewer ascospores than the wild-type (WT) and ΔppdB mutant strains. However, these results were not consistent with a subsequent experiment (experiment 5), suggesting that experimental error or an unknown genetic difference was a factor in the results for experiment 4.