Skip to main content
Genome Announcements logoLink to Genome Announcements
. 2017 Apr 6;5(14):e00061-17. doi: 10.1128/genomeA.00061-17

Draft Genome Sequence of Diplodia seriata F98.1, a Fungal Species Involved in Grapevine Trunk Diseases

Guillaume Robert-Siegwald a, Julie Vallet b, Eliane Abou-Mansour c, Jiabao Xu d, Patrice Rey e, Christophe Bertsch f, Cecilia Rego g, Philippe Larignon h, Florence Fontaine b, Marc-Henri Lebrun a,
PMCID: PMC5383879  PMID: 28385831

ABSTRACT

The ascomycete Diplodia seriata is a causal agent of grapevine trunk diseases. Here, we present the draft genome sequence of D. seriata isolate F98.1 (37.27 Mb, 512 contigs, 112 scaffolds, and 8,087 predicted protein-coding genes).

GENOME ANNOUNCEMENT

Diplodia seriata (1, 2) is one of the most common species in the family Botryosphaeriaceae that is associated with grapevine trunk diseases (3, 4). In grapevine, D. seriata is frequently isolated from necrotic tissues (black spots or sectors) localized in the wood of infected trunks or arms (35). This species is also frequently isolated from woody tissues of trees such as Acer sp., Prunus sp., and Quercus sp. (2). Pycnidia are produced on infected grapevine wood or pruning shoots, and liberate pycnidiospores dispersed by rainfall or sprinkler irrigation (6, 7). On grapevine surfaces, pycnidiospores germinate and infectious hyphae penetrate into the plant tissues through pruning wounds (4, 5). Inoculation of D. seriata on wounded stems from grafted grapevines of the highly susceptible cultivar tempranillo induces a local brown necrosis in all plants and foliar symptoms in 50% of plants (8). D. seriata is known to secrete several plant polymers degrading enzymes such as cellulases, xylanases, lipases, and laccases (9, 10). This fungal species also produces phytotoxic secondary metabolites such as (−)-mellein and its derivates (11, 12).

D. seriata F98.1 was isolated in 1998 at Perpignan, France, from the trunk of a grapevine exhibiting foliar symptoms typical of Syrah decline (13). D. seriata F98.1 is pathogenic on grapevine (8, 13). Sequencing was performed by BGI-Tech (China) using Illumina HiSeq 2500 at a coverage of 270× (170-, 500-, and 6,000-bp libraries). After quality filtering, a total of 88,596,792 paired-end reads of 125 bp were obtained. Assembly with SOAPdenovo version 1.05 (14) led to 512 contigs and 112 scaffolds (37.27 Mb; G+C%: 56.8). This high-quality genome (scaffold N50: 2.9 Mb; minimum scaffold length: 1,007 bp; gaps: 250 kb) has 13 scaffolds with a size greater than 1 Mb (90% of the total sequence), likely corresponding to chromosomes. Using GLEAN (15), 8,087 coding sequences (CDSs) were identified, 93% being supported by RNAseq (mycelium on potato dextrose broth or minimal medium for 4 days). Recently, the genome sequence of D. seriata DS831, isolated from an infected grapevine (United States, 2011), was released (16). The genome size of DS831 (37.13 Mb) is similar to the genome size of F98.1, but its assembly is five times more fragmented (1,391 contigs; 695 scaffolds), and it carries 9,398 CDSs. Bidirectional best BLAST hit (BDBH) analysis revealed that 82% of F98.1’s and DS831’s CDSs are similar. OrthoFinder (17) identified 5,935 orthologous single-copy gene families shared between the two genomes. According to BDBH analysis, 1,507 genes are specific to strain F98.1, and 2,763 are specific to strain DS831. Using BLASTN, we found that 2,686 (97.2%) of the genes thought to be specific to strain DS831 were present in the F98.1 genome sequence, and 1,440 (95.6%) of the genes thought to be specific to strain F98.1 are present in the DS831 genome sequence. The difference in CDS numbers between DS831 and F98.1 is likely a consequence of using different annotation software (GLEAN versus Augustus). Fusing the two annotations produces a set of 10,773 CDSs (8,087 from F98.1 and 2,686 from DS831).

Accession number(s).

This whole-genome project has been deposited at NCBI GenBank under the accession number MSZU00000000. The version described in this paper is the first version, MSZU01000000.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project was funded by grants V1301 and V1302 from CASDAR (Compte d’Affectation Spéciale au Développement Agricole et Rural, Ministère de l’Agriculture, France) and CNIV (Comité National Interprofessionnel des Vins, France).

Footnotes

Citation Robert-Siegwald G, Vallet J, Abou-Mansour E, Xu J, Rey P, Bertsch C, Rego C, Larignon P, Fontaine F, Lebrun M-H. 2017. Draft genome sequence of Diplodia seriata F98.1, a fungal species involved in grapevine trunk diseases. Genome Announc 5:e00061-17. https://doi.org/10.1128/genomeA.00061-17.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Phillips AJL, Crous PW, Alves A. 2007. Diplodia seriata, the anamorph of “Botryosphaeriaobtusa. Fungal Divers 25:141–155. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Phillips AJL, Alves A, Abdollahzadeh J, Slippers B, Wingfield MJ, Groenewald JZ, Crous PW. 2013. The Botryosphaeriaceae: genera and species known from culture. Stud Mycol 76:51–167. doi: 10.3114/sim0021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Urbez-Torres JR. 2011. The status of Botryosphaeriaceae species infecting grapevines. Phytopathologia Mediterr 50:5–45. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bertsch C, Ramírez-Suero M, Magnin-Robert M, Larignon P, Chong J, Abou-Mansour E, Spagnolo A, Clément C, Fontaine F. 2013. Grapevine trunk diseases: complex and still poorly understood. Plant Pathol 62:243–265. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3059.2012.02674.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Larignon P. 2011. Les maladies du bois de la vigne. Quelques éléments sur la biologie de deux champignons associés, Phaeoacremonium aleophilum & Diplodia seriata. Phytoma 646:41–44. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Kuntzmann P, Villaume S, Bertsch C. 2009. Conidia dispersal of Diplodia species in a French vineyard. Phytopathologia Mediterr 48:150–154. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Úrbez-Torres JR, Peduto F, Gubler WD. 2010. First report of grapevine cankers caused by Lasiodiplodia crassispora and Neofusicoccum mediterraneum in California. Plant Dis 94:785–785. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-94-6-0785B. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Reis P, Magnin-Robert M, Nascimento T, Spagnolo A, Abou-Mansour E, Fioretti C, Clément C, Rego C, Fontaine F. 2016. Reproducing Botryosphaeria dieback foliar symptoms in a simple model system. Plant Dis 100:1071–1079. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-10-15-1194-RE. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Bénard-Gellon M, Farine S, Goddard ML, Schmitt M, Stempien E, Pensec F, Laloue H, Mazet-Kieffer F, Fontaine F, Larignon P, Chong J, Tarnus C, Bertsch C. 2015. Toxicity of extracellular proteins from Diplodia seriata and Neofusicoccum parvum involved in grapevine Botryosphaeria dieback. Protoplasma 252:679–687. doi: 10.1007/s00709-014-0716-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Esteves AC, Saraiva M, Correia A, Alves A. 2014. Botryosphaeriales fungi produce extracellular enzymes with biotechnological potential. Can J Microbiol 60:332–342. doi: 10.1139/cjm-2014-0134. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Djoukeng JD, Polli S, Larignon P, Abou-Mansour E. 2009. Identification of phytotoxins from Botryosphaeria obtusa, a pathogen of black dead arm disease of grapevine. Eur J Plant Pathol 124:303–308. doi: 10.1007/s10658-008-9419-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Andolfi A, Mugnai L, Luque J, Surico G, Cimmino A, Evidente A. 2011. Phytotoxins produced by fungi associated with grapevine trunk diseases. Toxins (Basel) 3:1569–1605. doi: 10.3390/toxins3121569. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Larignon P, Fulchic R, Cere L, Dubos B. 2001. Observation on black dead arm in French vineyards. Phytopathologia Mediterr 40:336–342. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Luo R, Liu B, Xie Y, Li Z, Huang W, Yuan J, He G, Chen Y, Pan Q, Liu Y, Tang J, Wu G, Zhang H, Shi Y, Liu Y, Yu C, Wang B, Lu Y, Han C, Cheung DW, Yiu SM, Peng S, Xiaoqian Z, Liu G, Liao X, Li Y, Yang H, Wang J, Lam TW, Wang J. 2012. SOAPdenovo2: an empirically improved memory-efficient short-read de novo assembler. Gigascience 1:18. doi: 10.1186/2047-217X-1-18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Elsik CG, Mackey AJ, Reese JT, Milshina NV, Roos DS, Weinstock GM. 2007. Creating a honey bee consensus gene set. Genome Biol 8:R13. doi: 10.1186/gb-2007-8-1-r13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Morales-Cruz A, Amrine KC, Blanco-Ulate B, Lawrence DP, Travadon R, Rolshausen PE, Baumgartner K, Cantu D. 2015. Distinctive expansion of gene families associated with plant cell wall degradation, secondary metabolism, and nutrient uptake in the genomes of grapevine trunk pathogens. BMC Genomics 16:469. doi: 10.1186/s12864-015-1624-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Emms DM, Kelly S. 2015. OrthoFinder: solving fundamental biases in whole genome comparisons dramatically improves orthogroup inference accuracy. Genome Biol 16:157. doi: 10.1186/s13059-015-0721-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Genome Announcements are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES