Skip to main content
Journal of Fungi logoLink to Journal of Fungi
. 2022 Aug 26;8(9):907. doi: 10.3390/jof8090907

Fungal Species from Rhododendron sp.: Discosia rhododendricola sp.nov, Neopestalotiopsis rhododendricola sp.nov and Diaporthe nobilis as a New Host Record.

Napalai Chaiwan 1,2, Rajesh Jeewon 3, Dhandevi Pem 1,2, Ruvishika Shehali Jayawardena 1, Nadeem Nazurally 4, Ausana Mapook 1, Itthayakorn Promputtha 5,6, Kevin D Hyde 1,2,7,*
Editor: Donald O Natvig
PMCID: PMC9504118  PMID: 36135632

Abstract

In the present study, we report two new asexual fungal species (i.e., Discosia rhododendricola, Neopestalotiopsis rhododendricola (Sporocadaceae) and a new host for a previously described species (i.e., Diaporthe nobilis; Diaporthaceae). All species were isolated from Rhododendron spp. in Kunming, Yunnan Province, China. All taxa are described based on morphology, and phylogenetic relationships were inferred using a multigenic approach (LSU, ITS, RPB2, TEF1 and TUB2). The phylogenetic analyses indicated that D. rhododendronicola sp. nov. is phylogenetically related to D. muscicola, and N. rhododendricola sp. nov is related to N. sonnaratae. Diaporthe nobilis is reported herein as a new host record from Rhododendron sp. for China, and its phylogeny is depicted based on ITS, TEF1 and TUB2 sequence data.

Keywords: leaf litter, multi-loci phylogenetic analyses, new taxa, saprobe, Sordariomycetes, taxonomy

1. Introduction

Rhododendron, a genus of shrub and small to large trees belonging to Ericaceae, is an indicator of health for forest areas [1], commonly found in low-quality acidic soil and sterile conditions. This plant is mainly distributed in India and southeastern Asia, extending from the northwest Himalayas (Arunachal Pradesh) to Bhutan, eastern Tibet, Nepal, north Myanmar, Sikkim, and west central China [2]. Rhododendron flowers are used as food, to produce fermented wine, and to make herbal tea due to their distinctive flavor and color [3,4]. Fungi colonizing Rhododendron include Alternaria alternata, Aspergillus brasiliensis, Chrysomyxa dietelii, C. succinea [5], Diaporthe nobilis [6], Epicoccum nigrum, Mucor hiemalis, Pestalotiopsis sydowiana and Trichoderma koningii [7]. However, given the economic importance of this plant, it is imperative to assess the fungal species associated with it.

Discosia was introduced in Discosiaceae by Maharachchikumbura et al. [8] to accommodate the type genus Discosia and the type species D. artocreas. Senanayake et al. [9,10] introduced Adisciso, Discosia, Discostroma, Immersidiscosia, Sarcostroma and Seimatosporium in the Discosiaceae family. Jaklitsch et al. [11] considered Discosiaceae a synonym of Sporocadaceae based on DNA sequence analyses with strong phylogenetic support. Wijayawardene et al. [12] accepted Discosia species belonging to the family Sporocadaceae. Libert introduced Discosia in 1837, with Discosia strobilina being the lectotype [9,12]. Liu et al. [13] reviewed the generic description of Discosia, an updated morphology, and the phylogenetic relationships based on ITS sequence data [13]. There are 118 epithets of Discosia in Index Fungorum 2022 [14]. Discosia has been identified as an asexual fungus and is characterized by uni- to multilocular conidiomata with muti-layered walls. Conidiogenous cells are monoblastic and phialidic to annellidic. Conidial types are bipolar, polar and subpolar appendages, and usually hyaline to pale brown [9].

The genus Neopestalotiopsis, introduced by Maharachchikumbura et al., (2014) [15], belongs to the family Sporocadaceae (Amphisphaeriales, Sordariomycetes) [8,15,16], with N. protearum being the type species. Neopestalotiopsis species have been reported on saprobes, trees or plant pathogens causing postharvest diseases (fruit rots and leaf blights) [17,18]. The sexual morph of Neopestalotiopsis species remains unknown [15,18,19,20]. Neopestalotiopsis species have a worldwide distribution. This genus has also been reported in caves in China [15,17,18,19,20,21,22]. Studies related to the taxonomy of Neopestalotiopsis included DNA sequence analyses and phylogeny of the ITS, TEF1 and TUB2 [22].

The genus Diaporthe introduced by Nitschke [23] belongs to the families Diaporthaceae, Diaporthales, and Sordariomycetes [8,9]. Diaporthe species have a worldwide distribution [6,24,25,26,27,28]. This genus has been associated with several grapevine diseases in Europe [29] and was detected in Uruguayan deciduous fruit tree (Malus domestica ‘Gala’) wood disease [30]. Studies related to the taxonomy of Diaporthe included DNA sequence analyses and phylogeny of the ITS, TEF1, TUB2 and CAL loci [6,31]. Dissanayake et al. [32] provided phylogenetic relationships of 171 Diaporthe species currently known from culture or direct sequencing, and are linked to their holotype, epitype, isotype or neotype and that can now be recognized with DNA sequence data, essential to species identification [33].

In this study, we introduce the new species D. rhododendricola, N. rhododendricola and a new host record of Diaporthe nobilis, collected from dead leaves of Rhododendron species in China. We further provide descriptions, illustrations, and DNA sequence-based phylogeny to verify identification and placement.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sample Collection, Morphological Observation, and Fungal Isolation

Isolation was performed as described by Senanayake et al. [34]. Dead leaves of Rhododendron spp. were collected from Kunming, Yunnan Province, China and brought to the laboratory in labelled paper envelopes. A light microscope (Nikon ECLIPSE 80i compound microscope, Melville, NY, USA) was used to observe the specimens. Spore mass fruiting bodies were isolated on potato dextrose agar (PDA) plates and incubated at 25 °C.

The isolates were transferred to new PDA plates, incubated at 25 °C, and photographed using a Canon EOS 600D digital camera fitted to the microscope. The Tarosoft (R) Image Frame Work program measured the morphological characteristics. The figures were processed using Adobe Photoshop CS6 Extended version 10.0 (Adobe Systems, San Jose, CA, USA).

The specimens were deposited at the Herbarium of Mae Fah Luang University (Herb. MFLU) and Herbarium of Kungming Institute of Botany (KUN), Chinese Academy of Science, Kunming, China. Living cultures were deposited at the Culture Collection of Mae Fah Luang University (MFLUCC), Chiang Rai, Thailand and the Culture Collection of Kungming Institute of Botany (KUN), Chinese Academy of Science, Kunming, China. Faces of Fungi and Index Fungorum data are also provided [14,35]. New species were established based on guidelines provided by Jeewon and Hyde [36].

2.2. DNA Extraction, PCR Amplification, and Sequencing

Fungal cultures were grown on PDA at 25 °C for 2–4 weeks. The Biospin Fungus Genomic DNA Extraction Kit-BioFlux (BioFlux®, Hangzhou, China) was used to extract DNA from the mycelium. PCR amplification was performed using primer pairs, ITS4/ITS5 for the internal transcribed spacer region of ribosomal DNA [37], LR0R/LR5 for large subunit nuclear ribosomal DNA [38], EF-728F/EF-986R for translation elongation factor 1-alpha gene [39], fRPB2-5f/fRPB2-7cR for the second largest subunit of RNA polymerase [40] and Bt2a/Bt2b for beta-tubulin [41]. The PCR conditions were based on the methodology as described by Chaiwan et al. [42].

2.3. Phylogenetic Analyses

The sequence alignment and phylogenetic analyses were performed as outlined by Dissanayake et al. [43] and Chaiwan et al. [42,44,45]. Phylogenetic analyses were performed using a combined Discosia dataset of ITS, LSU, RPB2, TEF1 and TUB2 sequence data and a combined Neopestalotiopsis and Diaporthe dataset of ITS, TEF1 and TUB2 sequence data. Taxa used in the analyses were obtained through recent publications [16,28,46]. The phylogenetic analyses were carried out using maximum parsimony (MP), maximum likelihood (ML) and Bayesian posterior probabilities (BYPP). PAUP v4.0b10 was used to conduct the parsimony analysis to obtain the phylogenetic trees [47]. Trees were inferred using the heuristic search option with 1000 random sequence additions. Maxtrees were set to 1000, branches of zero length were collapsed and all multiple parsimonious trees were saved. Descriptive tree statistics for parsimony—tree length (TL), consistency index (CI), retention index (RI), relative consistency index (RC) and homoplasy index (HI)—were calculated for trees generated following the Kishino-Hasegawa test (KHT) criteria [48], which was performed in order to determine whether trees were significantly different. Maximum-parsimony bootstrap values equal or greater than 60% are given as the second set of numbers above the nodes.

Maximum likelihood analysis was performed by using RAxML-HPC2, New Orleans, LA on XSEDE (8.2.8) [45,48,49,50]. The search strategy was set to rapid bootstrapping and the analysis was carried out using the GTRGAMMAI model of nucleotide substitution. Maximum likelihood bootstrap values equal to or greater than 60% are given as the first set of numbers above the nodes.

Bayesian inference (BI) analysis was conducted with MrBayes v. 3.1.2 to evaluate the posterior probabilities (BYPP) using Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling [51]. Two parallel runs were conducted using the default settings, but with the following adjustments: six simultaneous Markov chains were run for 2,000,000 generations and trees were sampled every 200 generations. The distribution of log-likelihood scores were examined to determine stationary phase for each search and to decide if extra runs were required to achieve convergence, using the program Tracer 1.4 [52]. The first 10% of generated trees were discarded and the remaining 90% of trees were used to calculate posterior probabilities (PP) of the majority rule consensus tree. The phylogenetic trees were viewed in FigTree v. 1.4 [53] and edited using Microsoft Office Power Point 2007 and Adobe Photoshop CS6 Extended [42].

2.4. Genealogical Concordance Phylogenetic Species Recognition (GCPSR) Analysis

The related species were analyzed using the Genealogical Concordance Phylogenetic Species Recognition model. The pairwise homoplasy index (PHI) [54] is a model test based on the fact that multiple gene phylogenies will be concordant between species and discordant due to recombination and mutations within a species. The data were analyzed by the pairwise homoplasy index (PHI) test [54]. The test was performed in SplitsTree4 [55,56] as described by Quaedvlieg [57] to determine the recombination level within phylogenetically closely related species using a five-locus concatenated dataset to determine the recombination level within phylogenetically closely related species. If the PHI is below the 0.05 threshold (Φw < 0.05), it indicates that there is significant recombination in the dataset. This means that related species in a group and recombination level are not different. If the PHI is above the 0.05 threshold (Φw > 0.05), it indicates that it is not significant, which means the related species in a group level are different. The new species and its closely related species were analyzed using this model. The relationships between closely related species were visualized by constructing a split graph, using both the LogDet transformation and splits decomposition options.

2.5. Discosia, Habitat and Known Distribution Checklist Associated with Rhododendron sp.

An updated checklist of Discosia based on the SMML database (https://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/) (accessed on 10 June 2022) is provided [58]. Those species for which molecular data are available are indicated. The distribution information regarding the type or original descriptions available and the locality from which Discosia have been recorded on Rhododendron spp. is provided, including all the specimens encountered during this study.

3. Results

3.1. Phylogenetic Analyses

The combined sequence alignments of Discosia comprised 54 taxa (Table 1), with Immersidiscosia eucalypti MFLU16-1372 and NBRC 104195 as the outgroup taxa. The dataset comprised 4364 characters including alignment gaps (LSU, ITS, RPB2, TEF1 and TUB2 sequence data). The MP analysis for the combined dataset had 430 parsimony-informative, 3522 constant, and 412 parsimony-uninformative characters, and yielded a single most parsimonious tree (TL = 1353, CI = 0.777, RI = 0.764, RC = 0.594; HI = 0.223). The RAxML analysis of the combined dataset yielded a best scoring tree with a final ML optimization likelihood value of −22,013.917605. The matrix had 840 distinct alignment patterns, with 66% undetermined characters or gaps. Bayesian posterior probabilities from Bayesian inference analysis were assessed with a final average standard deviation of split frequencies = 0.009983. The phylogenetic tree in this study showed that our strain (Discosia rhododendricola KUN-HKAS 123205 and MFLU20-0486) is related to D. muscicola with high support value in the phylogenbetic tree (Figure 1). Sequence alignments are deposited in TreeBASE.

Table 1.

Culture collection numbers and GenBank accession numbers for Discosia used in this study. The type species are indicated in bold. The newly generated sequences are indicated in red. Instances where the GenBank Accession No. did not show the molecular data are marked with a dash.

Species Name Culture Collection No. Substrate/Host Country GenBank Accession No References
LSU ITS TUB2 TEF1 RPB2
Discosia pleurochaeta KT 2179 - - KT281912 KT284775 - - - [9]
Discosia pleurochaeta KT 2188 - - AB593713 AB594781 AB594179 - - [9]
Discosia pleurochaeta KT 2192 - - AB593714 AB594782 AB594180 - - [9]
Discosia artocreas CBS 124848 Fagus sylvatica Germany MH554213 MH553994 MH554662 MH554420 MH554903 [13]
Discosia brasiliensis MFLUCC 12-0429 Dead leaf Thailand KF827436 KF827432 KF827469 KF827465 KF827473 [59]
Discosia brasiliensis MFLUCC 12-0431 Dead leaf Thailand KF827437 KF827433 KF827470 KF827466 KF827474 [59]
Discosia brasiliensis MFLUCC 12-0435 Dead leaf Thailand KF827438 KF827434 KF827471 KF827467 KF827475 [59]
Discosia fagi MFLU 14-0299A Fagus sylvatica Italy KM678048 KM678040 - - - [60]
Discosia fagi MFLU 14-0299B Fagus sylvatica Italy KM678047 KM678039 - - - [60]
Discosia fagi MFLU 14-0299C Fagus sylvatica Italy KM678048 KM678040 - - - [60]
Discosia italica MFLU 14-0298B Fagus sylvatica Italy KM678045 KM678042 - - - [60]
Discosia italica MFLU 14-0298C Fagus sylvatica Italy KM678044 KM678041 - - - [60]
Discosia macrozamiae CPC 32109 - - MH327856 MH327820 MH327895 MH327884 - [61]
Discosia muscicola CBS 109.48 - - MH867828 - - - - [62]
Discosia neofraxinea NTIT 469 Fagus sylvatica Italy KF827439 KF827435 KF827472 KF827468 KF827476 [59]
Discosia neofraxinea MFLUCC 13-0204 Fagus sylvatica Italy KR072672 KR072673 - - - [10]
Discosia pseudoartocreas CBS 136438 Tilia sp. Austria KF777214 KF777161 MH554672 MH554430 MH554913 [63]
Discosia pini MAFF 410149 Pinus densiflora Japan AB593708 AB594776 AB594174 - - [9]
Discosia querci MFLUCC 16-0642 - - MG815830 MG815829 - - - [64]
Discosia ravennica MFLU 18-0131 Pyrus sp. Italy MT376617 MT376615 MT393594 - - [46]
Discosia rhododendricola KUN-HKAS 123205 Rhododendron sp. China MT741963 MT741959 - - MW143037 This study
MFLU20-0486 Rhododendron sp. China OP162409 OP162414 - - OP169687 This study
Discosia rubi CBS 143893 Rubus phoenicolasius USA MH554334 MH554131 MH554804 MH554566 MH555038 [13]
Discosia sp. F 233 - - - KU751876 - - - [13]
Discosia sp. 3T30CF - - - FJ861385 - - - [65]
Discosia sp. 3T9A - - - FJ861386 - - - [65]
Discosia sp. 3T9C - - - FJ861387 - - - [65]
Discosia sp. FIHB 571 - - - DQ536523 - - - [66]
Discosia sp. HKUCC 6626 - - AF382381 AF405303 - - - [67]
Discosia sp. JSP0111c42 - - - KR093849 - - - [68]
Discosia sp. KT 2193 - - AB593706 AB594774 - - - [9]
Discosia sp. OT1 143c - - - KT804147 - - - [13]
Discosia sp. OT2 143a - - - KT804075 - - - [13]
Discosia sp. OT3 176b - - - KT804146 - - - [13]
Discosia sp. P4 A7 53 - - - KU325138 - - - [13]
Discosia sp. P8 A7-852 - - - KU325418 - - - [13]
Discosia sp. R 158 - - - JN689956 - - - [13]
Discosia sp. UNH ID260 - - - KX459431 - - - [13]
Discosia sp. UWR 012 - - - KX426948 - - - [13]
Discosia sp. UWR 040 - - - KX426977 - - - [13]
Discosia sp. KT 2109 - - - MT236494 - - - [69]
Discosia sp. SH 125 - - - JF449727 - - - [13]
Discosia sp. SH 288 - - - AB594783 - - - [9]
Discosia sp. MAFF 236709 - - - KU751876 - - - [13]
Discosia sp. CBS 241.66 Acacia karroo South Africa MH554244 MH554022 MH554698 - - [13]
Discosia sp. CBS 684.70 Aesculus hippocastanum Netherlands MH554277 MH554064 MH554740 - - [13]
Discosia tricellularis MAFF 237478 - - AB593730 AB594798 AB594189 - - [9]
Discosia tricellularis NBRC 32705 Rhododendron indicum Japan AB593728 AB594796 AB594188 - - [9]
Discosia yakushimensis MAFF 242774 Symplocos prunifolia Japan AB593721 AB594789 AB594187 - - [9]
Sporocadus cornicola MFLUCC 14-0448 Cornus sanguinea Italy - KU974967 - - - [70]
Sporocadus rosarum MFLUCC 14-0466 Rosa canina Italy KT281912 KT284775 - - - [70]

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Phylogram generated from maximum parsimony analysis of LSU, ITS, RPB2, TEF1 and TUB2 gene regions. Bootstrap support values for MP and ML equal to or greater than 60% and Bayesian posterior probabilities (PP) equal to or greater than 0.90 are defined as MP/ML/PP above or below the nodes. Taxonomic novelty is indicated in red. The tree is rooted with Immersidiscosia eucalypti (MFLU 16-1372) and (NBRC 104195).

The combined sequence alignments of Neopestalotiopsis comprised 89 taxa (Table 2), with Monochaetia monochaeta CBS115004 and M. ilexae CBS101009 as the outgroup taxa. The dataset comprised 2634 characters including alignment gaps (ITS, TUB2 and TEF1 sequence data). The MP analysis for the combined dataset had 631 parsimony-informative, 1524 constant, and 479 parsimony-uninformative characters, and yielded a single most parsimonious tree (TL = 2304, CI = 0.679, RI = 0.813, RC = 0.552; HI = 0.321). The RAxML analysis of the combined dataset yielded a best scoring tree with a final ML optimization likelihood value of −24,500.881631. The matrix had 1268 distinct alignment patterns, with 35.77% undetermined characters or gaps. Bayesian posterior probabilities from Bayesian inference analysis were assessed with a standard deviation of split frequencies = 0.024223. The phylogenetic tree in this study showed that N. rhododendricola KUN-HKAS 123204 and MFLU20-0046 belonged to a separate clade, phylogenetically related to N. sonneratae, N. coffeae-arabicae and N. thailandica with 88% MP support (Figure 2). Sequence alignments are deposited in TreeBASE.

Table 2.

Culture collection numbers and GenBank accession numbers for Neopestalotiopsis used in this study. The type species are indicated in bold. The newly generated sequences are indicated in red. Instances where the GenBank Accession No. did not show the molecular data are marked with the dash.

Species Name Culture Collection No. Substrate/Host Country GenBank Accession No References
ITS TUB2 TEF1
Monochaetia ilexae CBS 101009 Air Japan MH55395 MH554612 MH554371 [13]
M. monochaeta CBS 115004 Quercus robur Netherlands AY853243 MH554639 MH554398 [13]
Neopestalotiopsis acrostichi MFLUCC 17-1754 Acrostichum aureum Thailand MK764272 MK764338 MK764316 [21]
N. acrostichi MFLUCC 17-1755 Acrostichum aureum Thailand MK764273 MK764339 MK764317 [21]
N. alpapicalis MFLUCC 17-2544 Rhizophora mucronata Thailand MK357772 MK463545 MK463547 [71]
N. alpapicalis MFLUCC 17-2545 Symptomatic Rhizophora apiculata leaves Thailand MK357773 MK463546 MK463548 [71]
N. aotearoa CBS 367.54 Canvas New Zealand KM199369 KM199454 KM199526 [15]
N. asiatica MFLUCC 12-0286 Prunus dulcis China JX398983 JX399018 JX399049 [15]
N. australis CBS 114159 Telopea sp. Australia KM199348 KM199432 KM199537 [15]
N. brachiata MFLUCC 17-555 Rhizophora apiculata Thailand MK764274 MK764340 MK764318 [21]
N. brasiliensis COAD 2166 Psidium guajava Brazil MG686469 MG692400 MG692402 [72]
N. cavernicola KUMCC 20-0269 Cave China MW545802 MW557596 MW550735 [22]
N. chiangmaiensis MFLUCC 18-0113 Pandanus sp. Thailand - MH412725 MH388404 [73]
N. chrysea MFLUCC 12-0261 Dead leaves China JX398985 JX399020 JX399051 [74]
N. chrysea MFLUCC 12-0262 Dead plant China JX398986 JX399021 JX399052 [74]
N. clavispora MFLUCC 12-0280 Magnolia sp. China JX398978 JX399013 JX399044 [74]
N. clavispora MFLUCC 12-0281 Magnolia sp. China JX398979 JX399014 JX399045 [74]
N. cocoës MFLUCC 15-0152 Cocos nucifera Thailand KX789687 - KX789689 [17]
N. coffeae-arabicae HGUP4015 Coffea arabica China KF412647 KF412641 KF412644 [75]
N. coffeae-arabicae HGUP4019 Coffea arabica China KF412649 KF412643 KF412646 [75]
N. cubana CBS 600.96 Leaf Litter Cuba KM199347 KM199438 KM199521 [15]
N. dendrobii MFLUCC 14-0099 Dendrobium cariniferum Thailand MK993570 MK975834 MK975828 [76]
N. dendrobii MFLUCC 14-0106 Dendrobium cariniferum Thailand MK993571 MK975835 MK975829 [76]
N. egyptiaca CBS H 22294 Mangifera indica Egypt KP943747 KP943746 KP943748 [77]
N. ellipsospora MFLUCC 12-0283 Dead plant materials China JX398980 JX399016 JX399047 [74]
N. eucalypticola CBS 264.37 Eucalyptus globulus - KM199376 KM199431 KM199551 [15]
N. foedans CGMCC 3.9123 Mangrove plant China JX398987 JX399022 JX399053 [74]
N. foedans CGMCC 3.9178 Neodypsis decaryi China JX398989 JX399024 JX399055 [74]
N. formicidarum CBS 115.83 Plant debris Cuba KM199344 KM199444 KM199519 [78]
N. formicidarum CBS 362.72 Dead Formicidae (ant) Cuba KM199358 KM199455 KM199517 [78]
N. honoluluana CBS 111535 Telopea sp. USA KM199363 KM199461 KM199546 [15]
N. honoluluana CBS 114495 Telopea sp. USA KM199364 KM199457 KM199548 [15]
N. hydeana MFLUCC 20-0132 Artocarpus heterophyllus Thailand MW266069 MW251119 MW251129 [79]
N. iranensis CBS 137767 Fragaria ananassa Iran KM074045 KM074056 KM074053 [80]
N. iranensis CBS 137768 Fragaria ananassa Iran KM074048 KM074057 KM074051 [81]
N. javaensis CBS 257.31 Cocos nucifera Java KM199357 KM199437 KM199543 [15]
N. keteleeria MFLUCC 13-0915 Keteleeria pubescens China KJ023087 KJ023088 KJ023089 [75]
N. macadamiae BRIP 63737c Macadamia integrifolia Australia KX186604 KX186654 KX186627 [81]
N. macadamiae BRIP 63742a Macadamia integrifolia Australia KX186599 KX186657 KX186629 [82]
N. magna MFLUCC 12-652 Pteridium sp. France KF582795 KF582793 KF582791 [15]
N. mesopotamica CBS 299.74 Eucalyptus sp. Turkey KM199361 KM199435 KM199541 [15]
N. mesopotamica CBS 336.86 Pinus brutia Iraq KM199362 KM199441 KM199555 [15]
N. musae MFLUCC 15-0776 Musa sp. Thailand KX789683 KX789686 KX789685 [17]
N. natalensis CBS 138.41 Acacia mollissima South Africa KM199377 KM199466 KM199552 [15]
N. nebuloides BRIP 66617 Sporobolus elongatus Australia MK966338 MK977632 MK977633 [82]
N. pandanicola KUMCC 17-0175 Pandanus sp. China - MH412720 MH388389 [73]
N. pernambucana URM7148 Vismia guianensis Brazil KJ792466 - KU306739 [83]
N. pernambucana RV02 Vismia guianensis Brazil KJ792467 - KU306740 [83]
N. petila MFLUCC 17-1737 Rhizophora mucronata Thailand MK764275 MK764341 MK764319 [21]
N. petila MFLUCC 17-1738 Rhizophora mucronata Thailand MK764276 MK764342 MK764320 [21]
N. phangngaensis MFLUCC 18-0119 Pandanus sp. Thailand MH388354 MH412721 MH388390 [73]
N. piceana CBS 254.32 Cocos nucifera Indonesia KM199372 KM199452 KM199529 [15]
N. piceana CBS 394.48 Picea sp. UK KM199368 KM199453 KM199527 [15]
N. protearum CBS 114178 Leucospermum cuneiforme cv. “Sunbird” Zimbabwe JN712498 KM199463 LT853201 [15]
N. rhizophorae MFLUCC 17-1550 Rhizophora mucronata Thailand MK764277 MK764343 MK764321 [21]
N. rhizophorae MFLUCC 17-1551 Rhizophora mucronata Thailand MK764278 MK764344 MK764322 [21]
N. rhododendricola KUN-HKAS 123204 Rhododendron sp. China OK283069 OK274147 OK274148 This study
MFLU20-0046 Rhododendron sp. China OP11897554 OP169689 OP169688 This study
N. rosae CBS 101057 Rosa sp. New Zealand KM199359 KM199429 KM199523 [15]
N. rosae CBS 124745 Paeonia suffruticosa USA KM199360 KM199430 KM199524 [15]
N. rosicola CFCC 51992 Rosa chinensis China KY885239 KY885245 KY885243 [84]
N. rosicola CFCC 51993 Rosa chinensis China KY885240 KY885246 KY885244 [84]
N. samarangensis CBS 115451 Unidentified tree China KM199365 KM199447 KM199556 [85]
N. saprophytica MFLUCC 12-0282 Magnolia sp. China JX398982 JX399017 JX399048 [74]
N. sichuanensis CFCC 54338 Castanea mollissima China MW166231 MW218524 MW199750 [86]
N. sichuanensis SM15-1C Castanea mollissima China MW166232 MW218525 MW199751 [86]
N. sonneratae MFLUCC 17-1744 Sonneronata alba Thailand MK764279 MK764345 MK764323 [21]
N. sonneratae MFLUCC 17-1745 Sonneronata alba Thailand MK764280 MK764346 MK764324 [21]
N. steyaertii IMI 192475 Eucalyptus viminalis Australia KF582796 KF582794 KF582792 [15]
N. surinamensis CBS 450.74 Soil under Elaeis guineensis Suriname KM199351 KM199465 KM199518 [15]
N. thailandica MFLUCC 17-1730 Rhizophora mucronata Thailand MK764281 MK764347 MK764325 [21]
N. thailandica MFLUCC 17-1731 Rhizophora mucronata Thailand MK764282 MK764348 MK764326 [21]
N. umbrinospora MFLUCC 12-0285 Unidentified plant China JX398984 JX399019 JX399050 [74]
N. vitis MFLUCC 15-1265 Vitis vinifera cv. “Summer black” China KU140694 KU140685 KU140676 [87]
N. vitis MFLUCC 15-1270 Vitis vinifera cv. “Kyoho” China KU140699 KU140690 KU140681 [87]
N. zimbabwana CBS 111495 Leucospermum cunciforme Zimbabwe JX556231 KM199456 KM199545 [15]
Pestalotiopsis adusta ICMP6088 On refrigerator door PVC gasket Fiji JX399006 JX399037 JX399070 [74]
P. adusta MFLUCC10-0146 Syzygium sp. Thailand JX399007 JX399038 JX399071 [74]
P. anacardiacearum IFRDCC 2397 Mangifera indica China KC247154 KC247155 KC247156 [88]
P. humus CBS 115450 Ilex cinerea China KM199319 KM199418 KM199487 [15]
P. humus CBS 336.97 Soil Papua New Guinea KM199317 KM199420 KM199484 [15]
P. hydei MFLUCC 20135 Litsea petiolata Thailand MW266063 MW251112 MW251113 [79]
N. thailandica MFLUCC 17-1730 Rhizophora mucronata Thailand MK764281 MK764347 MK764325 [21]
N. thailandica MFLUCC 17-1731 Rhizophora mucronata Thailand MK764282 MK764348 MK764326 [21]
N. umbrinospora MFLUCC 12-0285 Unidentified plant China JX398984 JX399019 JX399050 [74]
P. hydei E-72-02 Eucalyptus grandis Brazil KU926708 KU926716 KU926712 [79]
P. inflexa MFLUCC12-0270 Unidentifified tree China JX399008 JX399039 JX399072 [74]
P. linearis MFLUCC12-0271 Trachelospermum sp. China JX398992 JX399027 JX399058 [74]
Pseudopestalotiopsis cocos CBS 272.29 Cocos nucifera Indonesia KM199378 KM199467 KM199553 [15]
Ps. indica CBS 459.78 Hibiscus rosa-sinensis India KM199381 KM199470 KM199560 [15]
Ps. theae MFLUCC12-0055 T Camellia sinensis Thailand JQ683727 JQ683711 JQ683743 [15]
Ps. theae SC011 Camellia sinensis Thailand JQ683726 JQ683710 JQ683742 [15]

Figure 2.

Figure 2

RAxML tree based on a combined dataset of ITS, TUB2 and TEF1 gene regions. Bootstrap support values for ML and MP equal to or greater than 60% and Bayesian posterior probabilities (PP) equal to or greater than 0.90 are defined as ML/MP/PP above or below the nodes. Our new taxon is indicated in red. The tree was rooted with Monochaetia monochaeta strains (CBS115004) and Monochaetia ilexae strains (CBS101009).

The combined sequence alignments of Diaporthe comprised 56 taxa (Table 3), with Diaporthella corylina CBS 121124 used as the outgroup taxon. The dataset comprised 2350 characters, including alignment gaps (ITS, TEF1 and TUB2 sequence data). After alignment, 641 characters were derived from ITS, 916 from TEF1, and 793 from TUB2. The MP analysis for the combined dataset had 730 parsimony-informative, 1216 constant, and 404 parsimony-uninformative characters, and yielded a single most parsimonious tree (TL = 3968, CI = 0.480, RI = 0.622, RC = 0.298; HI = 0.520). The RAxML analysis of the combined dataset yielded a best scoring tree with a final ML optimization likelihood value of −21,299.667012. The matrix had 1319 distinct alignment patterns, with 37.51% undetermined characters or gaps. Estimated base frequencies were as follows: A = 0.226983, C = 0.316389, G = 0.231894, T = 0.224734; substitution rates AC = 1.153998, AG = 3.111864, AT = 1.039115, CG = 0.869376, CT = 4.271324, GT = 1.000000; gamma distribution shape parameter α = 0.376625. Bayesian posterior probabilities from Bayesian inference analysis were assessed with a standard deviation of split frequencies = 0.009867. The phylogenetic tree in this study showed that D. nobilis KUN-HKAS 123203 grouped with the ex-type strain of D. nobilis, and formed a supported clade with 0.99 PP (Figure 3). Sequence alignments are deposited in TreeBASE.

Table 3.

Culture collection numbers and GenBank accession numbers for Diaporthe used in this study. The type species are indicated in bold. The newly generated sequences are indicated in red. Instances where the GenBank Accession No. did not show the molecular data are marked with the dash.

Species Name Culture Collection No. Substrate/Host Country GenBank Accession No References
ITS TUB2 TEF1
Diaporthe acaciigena CBS 129521 Acacia retinodes - KC343005 KC343973 KC343731 [6]
Diaporthe alleghaniensis CBS 495.72 Betula alleghaniensis - KC343007 KC343975 KC343733 [6]
Diaporthe alnea CBS 146.46 Alnus sp. - KC343008 KC343976 KC343734 [6]
Diaporthe ambigua CBS 187.87 Helianthus annuus Italy KC343015 KC343983 KC343741 [6]
Diaporthe ampelina CBS 111888 Vaccinium vinifera USA KC343016 KC343984 KC343742 [6]
Diaporthe amygdali CBS 126679 Prunus dulcis - KC343022 KC343990 AY343748 [6]
Diaporthe anacardii CBS 720.97 Anacardium ocidentale - KC343024 KC343992 KC343750 [6]
Diaporthe arecae CBS 161.64 Areca catechu - KC343032 KC344000 KC343758 [6]
Diaporthe arengae CBS 114979 Arenga engleri - KC343034 KC344002 KC343760 [6]
Diaporthe australafricana CBS 111886 Vaccinium vinifera Australia KC343038 KC344006 KC343764 [6]
Diaporthe baccae CBS 136972 Vaccinium corymbosum - KJ160565 - KJ160597 [45]
Diaporthe bicincta CBS 121004 Juglans sp. - KC343134 KC344102 KC343860 [6]
Diaporthe bohemiae CBS 143347 Vitis spp. Czech Republic MG281015 MG281188 MG281536 [29]
Diaporthe carpini CBS 114437 Carpinus betulus Sweden KC343044 KC344012 KC343770 [6]
Diaporthe celastrina CBS 139.27 Celastrus scandens - KC343047 KC344015 KC343773 [6]
Diaporthe celeris CBS 143349 Vaccinium vinifera UK MG281017 MG281190 MG281538 [29]
Diaporthella corylina CBS 121124 Corylus sp. - KC343004 KC343972 KC343730 [6]
Diaporthe citri AR 3405 - - KC843311 KC843187 KC843071 [89]
Diaporthe cucurbitae DAOM 42078 Cucumis sativus - KM453210 KP118848 KM453211 [89]
Diaporthe decedens CBS 109772 Corylus avellana Austria KC343059 KC344027 KC343785 [6]
Diaporthe detrusa CBS 109770 Berberis vulgaris Austria KC343061 KC344029 KC343787 [6]
Diaporthe elaeagni CBS 504.72 Eleagnus sp. Netherlands KC343064 KC344032 KC343790 [6]
Diaporthe nobilis KUN-HKAS 123203 Rhododendron sp. China MT741962 MW150988 MW248138 This study
Diaporthe nobilis CBS 338.89 Hedera helix - KC343152 KC344120 KC343878 [6]
Diaporthe nobilis CBS 200.39 Laurus nobilis Germany KC343151 KC344119 KC343877 [6]
Diaporthe nobilis CBS 113470 - - KC343146 - - [6]
Diaporthe nobilis CBS 116953 - - KC343147 - - [6]
Diaporthe nobilis CBS 124030 - - KC343149 - - [6]
Diaporthe nobilis CBS 129167 - - KC343150 - - [6]
Diaporthe nobilis CBS 587.79 Pinus pantepella - KC343153 KC344121 KC343879 [6]
Diaporthe fibrosa CBS 109751 - - KC343099 KC344067 KC343825 [6]
Diaporthe foeniculacea CBS 187.27 - - KC343107 KC344075 KC343833 [6]
Diaporthe helianthi CBS 592.81 Helianthus annuus - KC343115 KC344083 KC343841 [6]
Diaporthe nitschkei AR 5211 Hedera helix - KJ210538 KJ420828 KJ210559 [89]
Diaporthe hispaniae CBS 143351 - - MG281124 MG281296 MG281645 [29]
Diaporthe hongkongensis CBS 115448 Dichroa febrífuga - KC343119 KC344087 KC343845 [6]
Diaporthe hungariae CPC 30129 - - - - MG281646 [29]
Diaporthe impulse CBS 114434 - - KC343122 KC344089 KC343847 [6]
Diaporthe inconspicua CBS 133813 Maytenus ilicifolia - KC343123 KC344091 KC343849 [6]
Diaporthe infecunda CBS 133812 Schinus terebinthifolius - KC343126 KC344094 KC343852 [6]
Diaporthe neilliae CBS 144. 27 Spiraea sp. - KC343144 KC344112 KC343870 [90]
Diaporthe nothofagi BRIP 54801 Nothofagus cunninghamii - JX862530 KF170922 JX862536 [91]
Diaporthe novem CBS 127271 - - HM347710 - HM347698 [6]
Diaporthe oncostoma CBS 589.78 - - KC343162 KC344130 KC343888 [6]
Diaporthe perjuncta CBS 109745 Ulmus glabra - KC343172 KC344140 KC343898 [6]
Diaporthe perseae CBS 151.73 Persea gratissima - KC343173 KC344141 KC343899 [6]
Diaporthe pseudomangiferae CBS 101339 Mangifera indica - KC343181 KC344149 KC343907 [6]
Diaporthe pseudophoenicicola CBS 462.69 Phoenix dactylifera - KC343183 KC344151 KC343909 [6]
Diaporthe rudis CBS 2665 - - - KM396309 KM396311 [6]
Diaporthe saccarata CBS 116311 Protea repens - KC343190 KC344158 KC343916 [6]
Diaporthe schini CBS 133181 Schinus terebinthifolius - KC343191 KC344159 KC343917 [6]
Diaporthe sterilis CBS 136969 Vaccinium corymbosum - KJ160579 KJ160528 KJ160611 [92]
Diaporthe subclavata ZJUD 95 - - KJ490630 KJ490451 KJ490509 [93]
Diaporthe toxica CBS 534.93 Lupinus angustifolius - KC343220 KC344188 KC343946 [6]
Diaporthe vaccinii CBS 160.32 Vaccinium macrocarpon - AF317578 JX270436 GQ250326 [92]
Phomopsis sp. FH 2012b - - JQ954649 - JQ954667 [93]

Figure 3.

Figure 3

RAxML tree based on a combined dataset of ITS, TEF1 and TUB2 gene regions. Bootstrap support values for ML and MP equal to or greater than 60% and Bayesian posterior probabilities (PP) equal to or greater than 0.90 are defined as ML/MP/PP above or below the nodes. Our new taxon is indicated in red. The tree was rooted with Diaporthella corylina (CBS 121124).

3.2. Taxonomy

3.2.1. Discosia rhododendricola Chaiwan & K.D. Hyde, sp. Nov. (Figure 4)

MycoBank number: 845145; Facesoffungi number: FoF 09452

Etymology: name reflects the host from which the fungus was isolated.

Holotype: KUN-HKAS 123205

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Discosia rhododendricola (KUN-HKAS 123205, holotype). (ac) Appearance on host surface; (d) vertical section of conidioma; (ei) conidiogenous cells and developing conidia; (jo) conidia from holotype. Scale bars: (b) 500 μm; (c) 200 μm; (d) 100 μm; (gi) 50 μm; (e,jo) 20 μm; (f) 10 μm.

Saprobic on dead leaves of Rhododendron sp. Sexual morph: Undetermined. Asexual morph: Conidiomata 200–250 × 30–75 μm, pycnidial, cervular, applanate to disc-like, partly immersed or superficial, black, rounded to irregular in outline, glabrous, unilocular or divided into several locules by tissue conspicuous at the surface. Conidiophores were observed arising from the base, hyaline, filiform to cylindrical, smooth, and reduced to conidiogenous cells. Conidiogenous cells appeared subcylindrical, flask-shaped, hyaline, smooth, phialidic, each producing a single unbranched conidium. Conidia 20–30 × 4–5 μm (x¯ = 25 × 4.5 μm, n = 30), subcylindrical, slightly curved, 3-septate, with slight constrictions at the septa, brown, smooth-walled with unequal cells; bipolar appendages; with a long, tubular base, two median cells subcylindrical, second cell joined to the base, 10–15 μm (x¯ = 12.5 μm) long, the third cell joined to the apex, 11–15 μm (x¯ = 13 μm) long; apical cell subconical with a rounded apex; apical and basal cells each with a subapical, unbranched, filiform, straight appendage; apical appendage, 9–11 μm (x¯ = 10 μm), basal appendage, 20–25 μm (x¯ = 22.5 μm).

Culture characteristics: Colonies grown on PDA were filamentous, raised, filiform margin, reached 4–5 cm in 5 days at 25 °C, brown to black, mycelium superficial, branched, septate, white mycelium with aerial on the surface, and produced black spore mass.

Material examined: CHINA, Kunming Yunnan Province; on dead leaves of Rhododendron sp. (Ericaceae), 28 July 2018, Napalai Chaiwan, KIB009 (KUN-HKAS 123205, holotype; isolate MFLU20-0486; Ex-type living culture KUNCC22-10804, isolate MFLUCC21-0004.

Notes: Discosia rhododendricola is similar to D. macrozamiae CPC 32109 [94] with regards to conidiomata size (D. rhododendricola a: 200–250 μm diam., 30–75 μm high vs. D. macrozamiae CPC 32109: 250 μm diam, 50 μm height). Discosia rhododendricola and D. artocreas (type species) share similar conidiophores lining the inner cavity (0–2-septate, rarely branched at base). There are also similar in conidial characteristics (conidial dimensions between 30 and 32 μm; the second cell joining to the base was 10–15 μm in length (x¯ = 12.5 μm) in D. rhododendricola; 10–11 μm (x¯ = 10.5 μm) in D. macrozamiae CPC 32109; the third cell joining to the apex was 11–15 μm in length (x¯ = 13 μm) in D. rhododendria and 4–5 μm (x¯ = 4.5 μm) in D. macrozamiae CPC 32109. The apical appendage of D. rhododendricola was 9–11 μm in length (x¯ = 10 μm), while in D. macrozamiae (CPC 32109) it was 7–11 μm (x¯ = 9 μm). The basal appendage in D. rhododendricola was 20–25 μm (x¯ = 22.5 μm) in length, and in D. macrozamiae (CPC 32109) 10–16 μm (x¯ = 13 μm).

Discosia rhododendricola differs from the type species, D. artocreas, in ascomatal size (D. rhododendricola: 200–250 μm diam., 30–75 μm high; D. artocreas 150–500 μm diam, 60 μm high). The two species share similar conidiophores and conidiogenous cells characteristics. However, D. rhododendricola has hyaline to pale brown conidiogenous cells and conidia, whereas D. artocreas has hyaline conidiogenous cells and conidia. The second cell joining to the base measured 10–15 μm in length (x¯ = 12.5 μm) in D. rhododendricola but 5–9 μm (x¯ = 7.5 μm) in D. artocreas. The third cell joining to the apex was 11–15 μm in length (x¯ = 13 μm) in D. rhododendria and 3–6 μm (x¯ = 4.5 μm) in D. artocreas. The apical appendage of D. rhododendricola was 9–11 μm in length (x¯ = 10 μm), while in D. artocreas it was 6–12 μm (x¯ = 10 μm). The basal appendage in D. rhododendricola was 20–25 μm in length (x¯ = 22.5 μm), while in D. artocreas it was 7–12 μm (x¯ = 10 μm).

The NCBI BLAST search of ITS sequence D. rhododendricola presented 95.32% similarity with Immersdiscosia eucalypti. A comparison of the 542 ITS (+5.8S) nucleotides of D.rhododendricola sp. nov. and I. eucalypti reveals 21 (3.87%) nucleotides differencess. We compared 876 LSU nucleotides of D. rhododendricola with D. muscicola CBS 109.48, and a 0.34% bp difference was observed (a difference of 3 bp in a total 879 bp) (Table 4).

Table 4.

LSU and ITS nucleotides comparisons of Discosia species related to our new taxon.

LSU ITS
Base Pair Positions Base Pair Positions
70 369 379 407 502 646 872 873 939 959 1003 1004 1019 1039 1303 1402 1404
D. rhododendricola (KUN-HKAS 123205) G A T T G A C T C T A C A T A C T
D. macrozamiae CPC 32109 A A T T G G - - C G G T T T A G A
D. muscicola CBS 109.48 G G T C A A - - - - - - - - - - -
D. pleurochaeta KT2179 A A C T G G T C C G G T T T A G A
D. pleurochae KT 2188 A A T T G G T C C G G T T T A G A
D. pleurochae KT 2192 A A T T G G T C C G G T T T A G A
D. tricellularis MAFF237478 - - - - - - - - G G G T T A G G A
D. tricellularis NCBR32705 - - - - - - - - G G G T T A G G A
D. yakushimensis MAFF 242774 - - - - - - - - C G G T T T A G A

When analyzing the sequences, D. rhododendricola sp. nov. (KUN-HKAS123205 and MFLU20-0486) were found to be phylogenetically related to D. macrozamiae CPC 32109, D. muscicola CBS 109.48, D. pleurochaeta KT2179, D. pleurochae KT 2188 and KT 2192, while D. tricellularis MAFF237478 and NCBR32705 and D. yakushimensis MAFF 242774 were found to be in a clade. The two isolates of the new taxon (KUN-HKAS123205 and MFLU20-0486) have a high support value in the phylogenetic tree in a distinct clade (Figure 1). The ITS and LSU base pair differences between D. rhododendricola and other related species are shown in Table 4.

Discosia rhododendricola KUN-HKAS 123205 is closely related to the clade consisting of D. muscicola CBS 109.48, D. tricellularis MAFF 237478, NBRC 32705, and D. yakushimensis MAFF 242774 (Figure 5). The results of molecular analyses based on the Genealogical Concordance Phylogenetic Species Recognition (GCPSR) also showed that D. rhododendricola KUN-HKAS 123205 can be distinguished as a separate species by genealogical concordance (PHI = 1.0).

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Results of the pairwise homoplasy index (PHI) test of closely related species using both LogDet transformation and splits decomposition. PHI test results (Φw) <0.05 indicate significant recombination within the dataset. The new taxon is in red bold type.

3.2.2. Neopestalotiopsis Rhododendricola Chaiwan & K.D. Hyde, sp. Nov. (Figure 6)

MycoBank number: 845144; Facesoffungi number: FoF 10475

Etymology: Name reflects the host from which the fungus was isolated.

Holotype: KUN-HKAS 123204

Figure 6.

Figure 6

Neopestalotiopsis rhododendricola (KUN-HKAS 123204). (a) The habitat of the host plant (Rhododendron sp.); (b) Pycnidia with drops of conidial exudate on the leaf surface; (c,d) colonies growing on PDA; (e,f) culture; (gj) conidiogenous cells and developing conidia; (kp) conidia. Scale bars: (c) 500 µm; (d) 200 µm; (h) 20 µm; (ip) 10 µm.

Saprobic on dead leaves of Rhododendron sp. Sexual morph: Undetermined. Asexual morph: Conidiomata (on PDA) 60–80 × 50–75 μm, pycnidial, cervular, applanate to disc-like, partly immersed or superficial, globose to clavate, solitary or confluent, embedded or semi-immersed to erumpent, dark brown, exuding globose, dark brown to black conidial masses, rounded to irregular in outline, glabrous, and unilocular or divided into several locules by tissue cells. Conidiophores are indistinct, arising from the base, hyaline, filiform to cylindrical, smooth, and are often reduced to conidiogenous cells. Conidiogenous cells appeared subcylindrical, flaskshaped, hyaline, smooth, and phialidic, with each producing a single conidium. Conidia 20–30 × 5–7 μm (x¯ = 25 × 6 μm, n = 30), subcylindrical fusoid, ellipsoid, straight to slightly curved, 4-septate, (19–28) × 5–7 μm (x¯ = 23.5 × 6 μm, n = 30), μm; basal cell conic with a truncate base, hyaline, rugose and thin-walled, with constrictions at the septa, hyaline, smooth-walled; with a long, tubular base, two median cells subcylindrical, second cell joined to the base, 10–15 μm (x¯ = 12.5 μm) long, the third cell joined to the apex, 11–15 μm (x¯ = 13 μm) long; apical cell subconical with a rounded apex; apical and basal cells each with a subapical, unbranched, filiform, straight appendage; apical appendage, 9–11 μm (x¯ = 10 μm), basal appendage, 20–25 μm (x¯ = 22.5 μm).

Culture characteristics: Colonies grown on PDA, with an undulating edge, reached 4–5 cm in 5 days at 25 °C, mycelium superficial, branched, septate, white mycelium with aerial on the surface, and produced black spore mass.

Material examined: CHINA, Kunming Yunnan Province; on dead leaves of Rhododendron sp. (Ericaceae), 28 July 2018, Napalai Chaiwan, KIB008 (KUN-HKAS 123204, holotype; isolate MFLU20-0046; Ex-type living culture KUNCC22-10802; isolate MFLUCC22-0004).

Notes: Neopestalotiopsis rhododendricola (KUN-HKAS 123204 and MFLU20-0046) were isolated from a Rhododendron sp. in China. In the phylogenetic analyses, N. rhododendricola forms a distinct highly supported lineage sister to N. sonneratae (MFLUCC17-1745T, MFLUCC17-1744), N. coffeae-arabicae (HGUP4019T, HGUP4015), N. thailandica (MFLUCC17-1730T, MFLUCC17-1731) and N. macadamiae (Figure 2). Neopestalotiopsis sonneratae was reported from leaf spots on Sonneronata alba in Thailand [21], Neopestalotiopsis thailandica was reported from leaf spots on Rhizophora mucronata Lam. in Thailand [21], and N. coffeae-arabicae was found on leaves of Coffea arabica in China [75].

Neopestalotiopsis rhododendricola sp. nov. resembles N. thailandica in having similar conidial size [21], but the difference is that N. rhododendricola has two to three tubular appendages on the apical cell, while N. thailandica showed only one to two tubular appendages on the apical cell. Comparison of ITS sequence differences revealed 2 base pairs, comparison of TEF sequence differences revealed 15 base pairs, and comparison of TUB differences revealed 6 base pairs of N. rhododendricola and N. thailandica. Therefore, based on morphology and phylogeny, we justify the description of N. rhododendricola as a new species in the Neopestalotiopsis genus.

3.2.3. Diaporthe nobilis Tanaka & S. Endô, in Endô, J. Pl. Prot. Japan 13: (1927) (Figure 7)

Faces of Fungi number: FoF 02717

Saprobic on dead leaves of Rhododendron sp. Sexual morph: Undetermined. Asexual morph: Conidiomata pycnidial 50–100 × 25–75 μm. (x¯ = 75 × 50 μm, n = 10), globose to stromatic, multilocular, dark brown to black, scattered. Conidiophores were observed arising from the base, hyaline, filiform to cylindrical, smooth, straight. Conidiogenous cells, 35–40 × 1–2 μm (x¯ = 37.5 × 1.5 μm, n = 10), phialidic, cylindrical, terminal and lateral, slightly tapered towards the apex, with visible periclinal, thickening, hyaline, and smooth-walled. Beta conidia 16–20 × 1–2 μm (x¯ = 18 × 1.5 μm, n = 30), hyaline smooth, guttulate, fusoid to ellipsoid, straight, tapered towards both ends, apex sub obtuse, base sub truncate, and aseptate. Alpha conidia not found.

Culture characteristics: Colonies grew on PDA, filamentous, flattened, dense and felty, reaching 5–6 cm in 14 days at 25 °C, white to brown on the surface, mycelium superficial, branched, and septate.

Figure 7.

Figure 7

Diaporthe nobilis (KUN-HKAS 123203). (a) Habitat of host; (b,c) appearance of fungi on host surface; (d,e) culture characters on PDA; (g,h) conidiophore with attached conidium; (ip) conidia. Scale bars: (b,c) 200 μm; (df,ip) 10 μm.

Material examined: CHINA, Kunming Yunnan Province, on dead leaves of Rhododendron sp. (Ericaceae), 28 July 2018, Napalai Chaiwan, KIB003 (KUN-HKAS 123203, new host record; isolate MFLU20-0485; living culture KUNCC22-10803; isolate MFLUCC 18–1482.

Notes: Diaporthe nobilis KUN-HKAS 123203 clustered with D. nobilis CBS 587.79 and CBS113470 with high 0.99 PP bootstrap support. Conidiomata from the MFLUCC 18–1482 strain was acervular, semi-immersed, globose to eustromatic, and multilocular, while D. nobilis CBS 587.79 has pycnidia subcuticular, scattered to confluent, and uniloculate. Our strain was observed to share similar morphological characteristics with other Diaporthe nobilis strains in having conidiogenous cells formed at the apex of the conidiophores, cylindric, straight or curved hyaline and smooth-walled. Comparison of ITS, TEF1 and TUB2 sequence data of isolate KUN-HKAS 123203 and D. nobilis CBS113470, revealed 9 bp (1.41%) in 637 ITS (+5.8S) nucleotides, 2 bp (0.40%) in 496 TEF1 nucleotides and 6 bp (0.71%) in 844 TUB2 nucleotides. Therefore, we consider our strain (KUN-HKAS 123203) as D. nobilis and as a new host record from Rhododendron sp. in China.

4. Discussion

Discosia species are distributed on various vascular plants and a wide range of hosts, and occur primarily in their asexual state as endophytes, saprobes and pathogens [20,58]. Host-specificity of species in this genus has not yet been established. Discosia species can be found on Fagus sylvatica (Fagaceae), Gaultheria procumbens (Ericaceae), Platanus orientalis (Platanaceae), Quercus sp. (Fagaceae), Syzygium cumini (Myrtaceae), Smilax rotundifolia (Smilacaceae), and leaves of undetermined plants [60]. Discosia blumencronii Bubák was reported from Rhododendron poniicum [92], while other species can be found on leaves of Beilschmeidia tarairi (Lauraceae), Brachychiton populneus (Malvaceae), Ceanothus fiedleri (Rhamnaceae), Eucalyptus sp. (Myrtaceae), Laurus nobilis (Lauraceae) and Phillyrea latifolia (Oleaceae) [9,60]. Discosia species is distributed in temperate regions, being previously reported in Algeria, Austria, Brazil, France, Germany, India, Italy, New Zealand, Portugal, the USA, Sweden, Tunisia and Turkey [9].

The new taxon, D. rhododendricola, was phylogenetically related to D. muscicola, described by Nicot-Toulouse Morelet (1968), and isolated from Cephalozia bicuspidate (Cephaloziaceae) in France. However, no morphological data are available for comparison [94]. Discosia rhododendricola sp. nov. was isolated from Rhododendron sp. and its morphology was compared. The ascomata and conidia of D. rhododendricola were larger than those of D. artocreas, whereas the sizes of conidiophores, conidiogenous cells and apical appendage were similar.

Discosia rhododendricola is similar to D. macrozamiae (CPC 32109) [62], but the phylogenetic tree showed that our species was closely related to D. muscicola CBS 109.48. However, for D. muscicola CBS 109.48, only rDNA sequence data were available (Figure 1). It should be pointed out that when the ITS DNA sequences of Discosia muscicola were subjected to a blast search, the closest hits were Aspergillus species similar to A. avenaceus. Our novel species have DNA sequence data from three regions (LSU, ITS, and RPB2), but we can only compare the LSU region for D. muscicola CBS 109.48, as there are no sequence data of the protein coding gene available for comparison. Based on the previous study of Wijayawardene et al. [16], 34 genera are recognized in Sporocadaceae. In this study, we introduce Discosia rhododendricola as a new species based on phylogenetic analyses and the pairwise homoplasy index.

Discosia species share similar morphological characters, but most characters are not meaningful in species delineation. In this study, our new species constitutes a different branching pattern in our phylogeny and appears distinct from extant species. A relationship among species based on similar conidial characters does not necessarily correlate with our phylogenetic relationships, and this indicates that morphology has little significance for reliable species identification.

Herein, we introduce a new species, Neopestalotiopsis rhododendricola KUN-HKAS 123204, within the Neopestalotiopsis genus that was separated from the other Neopestalotiopsis clade based on morphological and molecular phylogenetic analyses (Figure 2). Neopestalotiopsis are characterized by their conidia with versicolor median cells, by indistinct conidiogenous cells [15] and the ITS, TUB2 and TEF1 sequences. The newly described species is phylogenetically related to the group of N. sonneratae, N. coffeae-arabicae and N. thailandica in the phylogenetic tree (Figure 2), and the relationship is not strongly supported. Our new species was found on a Rhododendron sp. plant host from China, while N. sonneratae was reported on leaf spots on Sonneronata alba L. [21] and Neopestalotiopsis thailandica was reported on leaf spots of Rhizophora mucronata Lam. Both strains have been reported in Thailand [21], and N. coffeae-arabicae was found on leaves of Coffea arabica in China [75].

Diaporthe species have been reported as plant pathogens, saprobes and endophytes on many plant hosts [23,28,58]. Species of Diaporthe are not host-specific [6,28,40]. Substrates colonized by members of Diaporthe recorded to date are mainly dicotyledons of Ericaceae, Fagaceae, Pinaceae, Rhizophoraceae, Rosaceae and Theaceae. Some species of Diaporthe can be found on more than one host. For example, Diaporthe nobilis was reported on Camellia sinensis (Theaceae), Castanea sativa (Fagaceae), Malus pumila (Rosaceae), Pinus pantepella (Pinaceae), Pyrus pyrifolia (Rosaceae) and Rhododendron sp. (Ericaceae) [6,28,40,58]. Diaporthe is mostly presented in the asexual morph as coelomycetes [23]. Diaporthe nobilis complex [6] has alpha and beta conidia [28]. However, our strain was only found to have beta conidia.

Diaporthe have been reported on Rhododendron spp. from Europe (Latvia) [6]. The strain (KUN-HKAS 123203) was isolated from Asia (China), indicating that the species is distributed in different geographical locations on the host; however, there is a need for more collections of microfungi associated with Rhododendron, targeting a wide variety of geographical locations. A checklist for Discosia species associated with Rhododendron is also provided herein.

5. Discosia Species Associated with Rhododendron sp.: Habitat, Known Distribution and Checklist

The above information is based on the USDA Systematic Mycology and Microbiology Laboratory (SMML) database [58], relevant literature, date from this study while current names and fungal classifications used are according to Index Fungorum (2022) [14], and an outline of Ascomycota [16]. Species confirmed with DNA sequence data are marked with an asterisk.

  1. Discosia artocreas (Tode) Fr., Summa veg. Scand., Sectio Post. (Stockholm): 423 (1849)

    = Sphaeria artocreas Tode, F. Meckl. 2: 77, 1791; Fries, Syst. Myc. 2: 523, 1823.

    Habitat: Rhododendron arboretum, R. campylocarpum, R. nudiflorum [95,96], R. catawbiense, R. maximum [97], R. ponticum [98,99] and Rhododendron sp. [95,96,100]

    Known distribution: Italy [98], Maryland [95,96,97], New York [97], United Kingdom [100], Turkey* [99], Washington [95,96].

  2. Discosia blumencronii Bubák, in Handel-Mazzetti, Annln K. K. naturh. Hofmus. Wien 23: 106 (1910)

    Habitat: Rhododendron ponticum (on dead leaves) [101]

    Known distribution: Turkey [101]

  3. Discosia himalayensis Died., Annls mycol. 14(3/4): 218 (1916)

    = Discosia strobilina Lib. ex Sacc., Syll. Fung. (Abellini) 3: 656 (1884)

    Habitat: Rhododendron arboretum, R. campanulatum (on dead leaves) [101,102,103]

    Known distribution: India [101,102,103]

  4. Discosia rhododendri (Speschnew, Monit. Jard. Bot. Tiflis 4: 10 (1906)

    Habitat: Rhododendron albrechtii (on dead leaves)* [104], R. ponticum* [99], Rhododendron sp. (on leaves) [101]

    Known distribution: Japan* [104], Turkey* [99]

  5. Discosia rhododendricola (This study *)

    Habitat: Rhododendron sp. (on dead leaves) (This study *)

    Known distribution: China (This study *)

  6. Discosia sp.

    Habitat: Rhododendron sp.* [104]

    Known distribution: Japan* [104]

  7. Discosia tricellularis (Okane, Nakagiri & Tad. Ito) F. Liu, L. Cai & Crous, in Liu, Bonthond, Groenewald, Cai & Crous, Stud. Mycol. 92: 322 (2018) (2019)

    Habitat: Rhododendron indicum [105]

    Known distribution: Japan [105]

  8. Discosia vagans De Not., Atti Acad. Tor.: 354 (1849)

    Habitat: Rhododendron arboretum, R. nilagiricum, R. veitchianum* [59,103], R. ponticum* [61]

    Known distribution: India* [99,105], Scotland* [59]

Acknowledgments

N.C. is grateful to the Thailand Research Fund (TRF) grant no PHD60K0147 and the Centre of Excellence in Fungal Research, Mea Fha Luang University (Thailand). K.D.H. thanks Chiang Mai University for the award of Visiting Professor.

Author Contributions

N.C., D.P., R.J., R.S.J., N.N., A.M., I.P. and K.D.H. designed the study and were involved in the writing of the paper. N.C. performed the sample collections. N.C. and R.S.J. were involved in phylogenetic analyses. N.N. contributed to paper planning and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All sequences generated in this study were submitted to GenBank.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Funding Statement

We are grateful to the Thailand Research Fund (TRF) grant no PHD60K0147 and Kunming Institute of Botany for partially supporting this work. Shaun Pennycook is thanked for nomenclatural advice. K.D. Hyde would like to thank the Thailand Research Fund projects entitled ‘The future of specialist fungi in a changing climate: baseline data for generalist and specialist fungi associated with ants, Rhododendron species and Dracaena species (No. DBG6080013)’ and ‘Impact of climate change on fungal diversity and biogeography in the Greater Mekong Subregion (No. RDG6130001)’. K.D. Hyde thanks Chiang Mai University for the award of Visiting Professor. Adam Kaplan is thanked for the English editing of the manuscript.

Footnotes

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  • 1.Mainra A., Badola H.K., Mohanty B. Rhododendrons: Conservation and Sustainable Use International Conference. Government of Sikkim; Gangtok-Sikkim, India: 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Sekar K.C., Srivastava S.K. Rhododendrons in Indian Himalayan Region: Diversity and Conservation. Am. J. Plant Sci. 2010;1:131–137. doi: 10.4236/ajps.2010.12017. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Samant S.S., Dhar U. Diversity, endemism and economic potential of wild edibles plants of Indian Himalaya. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 1997;4:179–191. doi: 10.1080/13504509709469953. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Negi V.S., Maikhuri R.K., Rawat L.S., Chandra A. Bioprospecting of Rhododendron arboreum for Livelihood Enhancement in Central Himalaya. Indian J. Sci. Technol. 2013;8:61–70. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Crane P.E. Rust fungi on rhododendrons in Asia: Diaphanopellis forrestii gen. et sp. nov., new species of Caeoma, and expanded descriptions of Chrysomyxa dietelii and C. succinea. Mycologia. 2005;97:534–548. doi: 10.1080/15572536.2006.11832828. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Gomes R.R., Glienke C., Viderira S.I.R., Lombard L., Groenewald J.Z., Crous P.W. Diaporthe, a genus of endophytic, saprobic and plant pathogenic fungi. Persoonia. 2013;31:1–41. doi: 10.3767/003158513X666844. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Kierpiec-Baran B., Zolna M., Kowalik M. Diversity of fungi colonizing leaves of rhododendron (Rhododendron L.) cuttings. Acta Agrobot. 2014;67:21–26. doi: 10.5586/aa.2014.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Maharachchikumbura S.S.N., Hyde K.D., Jones E.B.G., McKenzie E.H.C., Huang S.K., Abdel-Wahab M.A., Daranagama D.A., Dayarathne M., D’souza M.J., Goonasekara I.D., et al. Towards a natural classification and backbone tree for Sordariomycetes. Fungal Divers. 2015;72:199–301. doi: 10.1007/s13225-015-0331-z. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Tanaka K., Endo M., Hirayama K., Okeanae I., Hosoya T., Sato T. Phylogeny of Discosia and Seimatosporium, and introduction of Adisciso and Immersidiscosia genera nova. Persoonia. 2011;26:85–98. doi: 10.3767/003158511X576666. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Senanayake I.C., Maharachchikumbura S.S.N., Hyde K.D., Bhat J.D., Gareth Jones E.B., McKenzie E.H.C., Dai D.Q., Daranagama D.A., Dayarathne M.C., Goonasekara I.D., et al. Towards unraveling relationships in Xylariomycetidae (Sordariomycetes) Fungal Divers. 2015;73:73–144. doi: 10.1007/s13225-015-0340-y. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Jaklitsch W.M., Gardiennet A., Voglmayr H. Resolution of morphology-based taxonomic delusions: Acrocordiella, Basiseptospora, Blogiascospora, Clypeosphaeria, Hymenopleella, Lepteutypa, Pseudapiospora, Requienella, Seiridium and Strickeria. Persoonia. 2016;37:82–105. doi: 10.3767/003158516X690475. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Libert M.A. Plantae Cryptogamae, quas in Arduenna collegit. Fasc. 1837;4:301–400. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Liu F., Bonthond G., Groenewald J.Z., Cai L., Crous P.W. Sporocadaceae, a family of coelomycetous fungi with appendagebearing conidia. Stud. Mycol. 2019;92:287–415. doi: 10.1016/j.simyco.2018.11.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Index Fungorum. 2022. [(accessed on 26 June 2022)]. Available online: http://www.indexfungorum.org/names/Names.asp.
  • 15.Maharachchikumbura S.S.N., Hyde K.D., Groenewald J.Z., Xu J., Crous P.W. Pestalotiopsis revisited. Stud. Mycol. 2014;79:121–186. doi: 10.1016/j.simyco.2014.09.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Wijayawardene N.N., Hyde K.D., Al-Ani L.K.T., Tedersoo L., Haelewaters D., Rajeshkumar K.C., Zhao R.L., Aptroot A., Leontyev D.V., Saxena R.K., et al. Outline of Fungi and fungus-like taxa. Mycosphere. 2020;11:1060–1456. doi: 10.5943/mycosphere/11/1/8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Hyde K.D., Hongsanan S., Jeewon R., Bhat D.J., McKenzie E.H.C., Gareth Jones E.B., Phookamsak R., Ariyawansa H.A., Boonmee S., Zhao Q., et al. Fungal diversity notes 367–490: Taxonomic and phylogenetic contributions to fungal taxa. Fungal Divers. 2016;80:1–270. doi: 10.1007/s13225-016-0373-x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Gerardo-Lugo S.S., Tovar-Pedraza J.M., Maharachchikumbura S.S.N., Apodaca-Sánchez M.A., Correia K.C., Sauceda-Acosta C.P., Camacho-Tapia M., Hyde K.D., Marraiki N., Elgorban A.M., et al. Characterization of Neopestalotiopsis species associated with mango grey leaf spot disease in Sinaloa, Mexico. Pathogens. 2020;9:788. doi: 10.3390/pathogens9100788. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Maharachchikumbura S.S.N., Hyde K.D., Jones E.B.G., McKenzie E.H.C., Bhat D.J., Dayarathne M.C., Huang S.K., Norphanphoun C., Senanayake I.C., Perera R.H., et al. Families of Sordariomycetes. Fungal Divers. 2016;79:1–317. doi: 10.1007/s13225-016-0369-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Hyfe K.D., Norphanphoun C., Maharachchikumbura S.S.N., Bhat D.J., Jones E.B.G., Bundhun D., Chen Y.J., Bao D.F., Boonmee S., Calabon M.S., et al. Refined families of Sordariomycetes. Mycosphere. 2020;11:305–1059. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Norphanphoun C., Jayawardena R.S., Chen Y., Wen T.C., Meepol W., Hyde K.D. Morphological and phylogenetic characterization of novel pestalotioid species associated with mangroves in Thailand. Mycosphere. 2019;10:531–578. doi: 10.5943/mycosphere/10/1/9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Liu X., Tibpromma S., Zhang F., Xu J., Kandawatte T.C., Karunarathna S.C., Mortimer P.E. Neopestalotiopsis cavernicola sp. nov. from Gem Cave in Yunnan Province, China. Phytotaxa. 2021;512:1–27. doi: 10.11646/phytotaxa.512.1.1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Nitschke T. Pyrenomycetes Germanici. Volume 2. Eduard Trewendt Breslau; Germany: 1870. pp. 161–320. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kishi K., editor. Plant Diseases in Japan. Zenkoku Noson Kyoiku Kyokai; Tokyo, Japan: 1998. (In Japanese) [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kajitani Y., Kanematsu S. Diaporthe kyushuensis sp. nov., the teleomorph of the causal fungus of grapevine swelling arm in Japan, and its anamorph Phomopsis vitimegaspora. Mycoscience. 2000;41:111–114. doi: 10.1007/BF02464318. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Katsumoto K. List of Fungi Recorded in Japan. Kanto Branch of the Mycological Society of Japan; Chiba, Japan: 2010. (In Japanese) [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ando Y., Masuya H., Aikawa T., Ichihara M. Diaporthe toxicodendri sp. nov., a causal fungus of the canker disease on Toxicodendron vernicifluum in Japan. Mycosphere. 2017;8:1157–1167. doi: 10.5943/mycosphere/8/5/6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Li Y., Tan P., Zhao D.G. Diaporthe nobilis, a new record on Camellia sinensis in Guizhou Province, China. Mycosphere. 2017;8:1–8. doi: 10.5943/mycosphere/8/1/1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Guarnaccia V., Groenewald J.Z., Woodhall J., Armengol J., Cinelli T., Eichmerier A., Ezra D., Fontaine F., Gramaje D., Gutierrez-Aguirregabiria A. Diaporthe diversity and pathogenicity revealed from a broad survey of grapevine diseases in Europe. Persoonia. 2018;40:135–153. doi: 10.3767/persoonia.2018.40.06. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Sessa L., Abreo E., Bettucci L., Lupo S. Diversity and virulence of Diaporthe species associated with wood disease symptoms in deciduous fruit trees in Uruguay. Phytopathol. Mediterr. 2017;56:431–444. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Udayanga D., Liu X.Z., Crous P.W., McKenzie E.H.C., Chukeatirote E., Hyde K.D. A multi-locus phylogenetic evaluation of Diaporthe (Phomopsis) Fungal Divers. 2012;56:157–171. doi: 10.1007/s13225-012-0190-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Dissanayake A.J., Camporesi E., Hyde K.D., Zhang W., Yan J.Y., Li X.H. Molecular phylogenetic analysis reveals seven new Diaporthe species from Italy. Mycosphere. 2017;8:853–877. doi: 10.5943/mycosphere/8/5/4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Marin-Felix Y., Hernandez-Restrepo M., Wingfield M.J., Akulov A., Carnegie A.J., Cheewangkoon R., Gramaje D., Groenewald J.Z., Guarnaccia V., Halleen F. Genera of phytopathogenic fungi: GOPHY 2. Stud. Mycol. 2019;92:47–133. doi: 10.1016/j.simyco.2018.04.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Senanayake I.C., Rathnayaka A.R., Marasinghe D.S., Calabon M.S., Gentekaki E., Lee H.B., Pem D., Dissanayake L., Wijesinghe S.N., Bundhun D., et al. Morphological approaches in studying fungi: Collection, examination, isolation, sporulation and preservation. Mycosphere. 2020;11:2678–2754. doi: 10.5943/mycosphere/11/1/20. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Jayasiri S.C., Hyde K.D., Ariyawansa H.A., Bhat D.J., Buyck B., Cai L., Dai Y.C., Abd-Elsalam K.A., Ertz D., Hidayat I., et al. The faces of fungi database: Fungal names linked with morphology, phylogeny and human impacts. Fungal Divers. 2015;74:3–18. doi: 10.1007/s13225-015-0351-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Jeewon R., Hyde K.D. Establishing species boundaries and new taxa among fungi: Recommendations to resolve taxonomic ambiguities. Mycosp. 2016;11:1669–1677. doi: 10.5943/mycosphere/7/11/4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.White T.J., Burns T., Lee S., Taylor J.W. Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics. In: Innis M.A., Gelfand D.H., Sninsky J.J., White T.J., editors. PCR Protocols: A Guide to Methods and Applications. Academic Press; San Diego, CA, USA: 1990. pp. 315–322. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Vilgalys R., Hester M. Rapid genetic identification and mapping of enzymatically amplified ribosomal DNA from several Cryptococcus species. J. Bacteriol. 1990;172:4238–4246. doi: 10.1128/jb.172.8.4238-4246.1990. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Carbone I., Kohn L.M. A method for designing primer sets for speciation studies in filamentous ascomycetes. Mycologia. 1999;91:553–556. doi: 10.1080/00275514.1999.12061051. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Liu Y.J., Whelen S., Hall B.D. Phylogenetic relationships among ascomycetes: Evidence from an RNA polymerase II subunit. Mol. Biol. Evol. 1999;16:1799–1808. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a026092. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.O’Donnell K., Cigelnik E. Two divergent intragenomic rDNA ITS2 types within a monophyletic lineage of the fungus Fusarium are nonorthologous. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 1997;7:103–116. doi: 10.1006/mpev.1996.0376. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Chaiwan N., Maharachchikumbura S.S.N., Wanasinghe D.N., Doilom M., Jayaeardena R.S., Hyde K.D. First sexual morph record of Sarcopodium vanilla. Mycotaxon. 2020;134:707–717. doi: 10.5248/134.707. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Dissanayake A.J., Bhunjun C.S., Maharachchikumbura S.S.N., Liu J.K. Applied aspects of methods to infer phylogenetic relationships amongst fungi. Mycosphere. 2020;11:2653–2677. doi: 10.5943/mycosphere/11/1/18. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Hall T.A. BioEdit: A user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucleic Acid Symp. Ser. 1999;41:95–98. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Katoh K., Standley D.M. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: Improvements in performance and usability. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2017;30:772–780. doi: 10.1093/molbev/mst010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Bundhun D., Jeewon R., Senanayake I.C., Camporesi E., Aluthmuhandiram J.V.S., Tang A.M.C., Kang J.C., Bhoyroo V., Hyde K.D. Morpho-molecular characterization of Discosia ravennica sp. nov. and a new host record for Sporocadus rosigena. MycoKeys. 2021;79:173–192. doi: 10.3897/mycokeys.79.60662. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Rannala B., Yang Z. Probability distribution of molecular evolutionary trees: A new method of phylogenetic inference. J. Mol. Evol. 1996;43:304–311. doi: 10.1007/BF02338839. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Kishino H., Hasegawa M. Evaluation of the maximum likelihood estimate of the evolutionary tree topologies from DNA sequence data, and the branching order in hominoidea. J. Mol. Evol. 1989;29:170–179. doi: 10.1007/BF02100115. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Zhaxybayeva O., Gogarten J.P. Bootstrap, Bayesian probability and maximum likelihood mapping: Exploring new tools for comparative genome analyses. BMC Genom. 2002;3:4. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-3-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Stamatakis A. RAxML version 8: A tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:1312–1313. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu033. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Huelsenbeck J.P., Ronquist F. MRBAYES: Bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics. 2001;17:754–755. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/17.8.754. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Rambaut A., Drummond A.J. Tracer v1.4. 2007. [(accessed on 30 June 2022)]. Available online: http://beast.bio.ed.ac.uk/Tracer.
  • 53.Rambaut A. FigTree v1.4: Tree Figure Drawing Tool. 2014. [(accessed on 30 June 2022)]. Available online: http://treebio.ed.ac.uk/software/figtree/
  • 54.Bruen T.C., Philippe H., Bryant D. A simple and robust statistical test for detecting the presence of recombination. Genetics. 2006;172:2665–2681. doi: 10.1534/genetics.105.048975. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Huson D.H. Splits Tree: Analyzing and visualizing evolutionary data. Bioinformatics. 1998;14:68–73. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/14.1.68. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Huson D.H., Bryant D. Application of phylogenetic networks in evolutionary studies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2006;23:254–267. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msj030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Quaedvlieg W., Binder M., Groenewald J.Z., Summerell B.A., Carnegie A.J., Burgess T.I., Crous P.W. Introducing the consolidated species concept to resolve species in the Teratosphaeriaceae. Persoonia. 2014;33:1–40. doi: 10.3767/003158514X681981. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Farr D.F., Rossman A.Y. Fungal Databases, Systematic Mycology and Microbiology Laboratory, ARS, USDA. [(accessed on 10 June 2022)];2022 Available online: http://nt.arsgrin.gov/fungaldatabases.
  • 59.Tangthirasunun N., Silar P., Bhat D.J., Chukeatirote E., Wijayawardene D.N.N., Maharachchikumbura S.S.N., Hyde K.D. Morphology and phylogeny of Pseudorobillarda eucalypti sp. nov., from Thailand. Phytotaxa. 2014;176:251–259. doi: 10.11646/phytotaxa.176.1.24. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Li W.J., Liu J.K., Bhat D.J., Camporesi E., Dai D.Q., Mortimer P.E., Xu J., Hyde K.D., Chomnunti P. Molecular phylogenetic analysis reveals two new species of Discosia from Italy. Phytotaxa. 2015;203:37–46. doi: 10.11646/phytotaxa.203.1.3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Crous P.W., Wingfield M.J., Burgess T.I., Hardy G.S.J., Gene J., Guarro J., Baseia I.G., Garcia D., Gusmao L.F.P., Souza-Motta C.M., et al. Fungal Planet description sheets: 716–784. Persoonia. 2018;40:240–393. doi: 10.3767/persoonia.2018.40.10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Vu D., Groenewald M., de Vries M., Gehrmann T., Stielow B., Eberhardt U., Al-Hatmi A., Groenewald J.Z., Cardinali G., Houbraken J., et al. Large-scale generation and analysis of filamentous fungal DNA barcodes boosts coverage for kingdom fungi and reveals thresholds for fungal species and higher taxon delimitation. Stud. Mycol. 2019;92:135–154. doi: 10.1016/j.simyco.2018.05.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Crous P.W., Wingfield M.J., Guarro J., Cheewangkoon R., van der Bank M., Swart W.J., Stchigel A.M., Cano-Lira J.F., Roux J., Madrid H., et al. Fungal Planet description sheets: 154–213. Persoonia. 2013;31:188–296. doi: 10.3767/003158513X675925. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Hyde K.D., Chaiwan N., Norphanphoun C., Boonmee S., Camporesi E., Chethana K.W.T., Dayarathne M.C., de Silva N.I., Dissanayake A.J., Ekanayaka A.H., et al. Mycosphere notes 169–224. Mycosphere. 2018;9:271–430. doi: 10.5943/mycosphere/9/2/8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Greengarten P.J., Tuininga A.R., Morath S.U., Falco R.C., Norelus H., Daniels T.J. Occurrence of Soil- and Tick-Borne Fungi and Related Virulence Tests for Pathogenicity to Ixodes scapularis (Acari: Ixodidae) J. Med. Entomol. 2011;48:337–344. doi: 10.1603/ME09116. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Rahi P., Vyas P., Sharma S., Gulati A., Gulati A. Plant growth promoting potential of the fungus Discosia sp. FIHB 571 from tea rhizosphere tested on chickpea, maize and pea. Indian J. Microbiol. 2009;49:128–133. doi: 10.1007/s12088-009-0026-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Jeewon R., Liew E.C.Y., Hyde K.D. Phylogenetic relationships of Pestalotiopsis and allied genera inferred from ribosomal DNA sequences and morphological characters. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2002;25:378–392. doi: 10.1016/S1055-7903(02)00422-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Pereira J.S., Costa R.R., Nagamoto N.S., Forti L.C., Pagnocca F.C., Rodrigues A. Comparative analysis of fungal communities in colonies of two leafcutting ant species with different substratum preferences. Fungal Ecol. 2016;21:68–75. doi: 10.1016/j.funeco.2016.03.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Marčiulynas A., Marčiulynienė D., Lynikiene J., Gedminas A., Vaiciukyne M., Menkis A. Fungi and Oomycetes in the Irrigation Water of Forest Nurseries. Forests. 2020;11:459. doi: 10.3390/f11040459. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Wijayawardene D.N.N., Goonasekara I.D., Camporesi E., Wang Y., An Y.L. Two new Seimatosporium species from Italy. Mycosphere. 2016;7:204–213. doi: 10.5943/mycosphere/7/2/9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Kumar V., Cheewangkoon R., Gentekaki E., Maharachchikumbura S.S.N., Brahmanage R.S., Hyde K.D. Neopestalotiopsis alpapicalis sp. nov. a new endophyte from tropical mangrove trees in Krabi Province (Thailand) Phytotaxa. 2019;393:251–262. doi: 10.11646/phytotaxa.393.3.2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Bezerra J.D.P., Machado A.R., Firmino A.L., Rosado A.W.C., de Souza C.A.F., de Souza-Motta C.M., de Sousa Freire K.T.L., Paiva L.M., Magalhaes O.M.C., Pereira O.L. Mycological diversity description I. Acta Bot. Bras. 2018;32:656–666. doi: 10.1590/0102-33062018abb0154. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Tibpromma S., Hyde K.D., McKenzie E.H.C., Bhat D.J., Phillips A.J.L., Wanasinghe D.N., Samarakoon M.C., Jayawardena R.S., Dissanayake A.J., Tennakoon D.S., et al. Fungal diversity notes 840-928: Micro-fungi associated with Pandanaceae. Fungal Divers. 2018;93:1–160. doi: 10.1007/s13225-018-0408-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Maharachchikumbura S.S.N., Guo L.D., Lei C., Chukeatirote E., Wu W., Sun X., Crous P.W., Bhat D.J., McKenzie E., Bahkali A. A multi-locus backbone tree for Pestalotiopsis, with a polyphasic characterization of 14 new species. Fungal Divers. 2012;56:95–129. doi: 10.1007/s13225-012-0198-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Song Y., Geng N., Hyde K.D., Zhao W.S., Wei J.G., Kang J.C., Wang Y. Two new species of Pestalotiopsis from Southern China. Phytotaxa. 2013;126:22–30. doi: 10.11646/phytotaxa.126.1.2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Ma X.Y., Maharachchikumbura S.S.N., Chen B.W., Hyde K.D., McKenzie E.H.C., Chomnunti P., Kang J.C. Endophytic pestaloid taxa in Dendrobium orchids. Phytotaxa. 2019;419:268–286. doi: 10.11646/phytotaxa.419.3.2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Crous P.W., Wingfield M.J., Le Roux J.J., Richardson D.M., Strasberg D., Shivas R.G., Alvardo P., Edwards J., Moreno G., Sharma R., et al. Fungal Planet description sheets: 371–399. Persoonia. 2015;35:264–327. doi: 10.3767/003158515X690269. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Maharachchikumbura S.S.N., Guo L.D., Chukeatirote E., Hyde K.D. Improving the backbone tree for the genus Pestalotiopsis; addition of P. steyaertii and P. magna sp. nov. Mycol. Prog. 2014;13:617–624. doi: 10.1007/s11557-013-0944-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Huanluek N., Jjayawardena R.S., Maharachchikumbura S.S.N., Harishchandra D.L. Additions to pestalotioid fungi in Thailand: Neopestalotiopsis hydeana sp. nov. and Pestalotiopsis hydei sp. nov. Phytotaxa. 2021;479:23–43. doi: 10.11646/phytotaxa.479.1.2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Ayoubi N., Soleimani M.J. Strawberry fruit rot caused by Neopestalotiopsis iranensis sp. nov. and N. mesopotamica. Curr. Microbiol. 2016;72:329–336. doi: 10.1007/s00284-015-0955-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Akinsanmi O.A., Nisa S., Jeff-Ego O.S., Shivas R.G., Drenth A. Dry flower disease of Macadamia in Australia caused by Neopestalotiopsis macadamiae sp. nov. and Pestalotiopsis macadamiae sp. nov. Plant Dis. 2016;101:45–53. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-05-16-0630-RE. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Crous P.W., Wingfield M.J., Chooi Y.H., Gilchrist C.L.M., Lacey E., Pitt J.I., Roets F., Swart W.J., Cano-Lira J.F., Valenzuela-Lopez N., et al. Fungal Planet description sheets: 1042–1111. Persoonia. 2020;44:301–459. doi: 10.3767/persoonia.2020.44.11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Silvério M.L., Cavalcanti M.A.Q., Silva G.A., Oliveira R.J.V., Bezerra J.L. A new epifoliar species of Neopestalotiopsis from Brazil. Agrotropica. 2016;28:151–158. doi: 10.21757/0103-3816.2016v28n2p151-158. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Jiang N., Bonthond G., Fan X.L., Tian C.M. Neopestalotiopsis rosicola sp. nov. causing stem canker of Rosa chinensis in China. Mycotaxon. 2018;133:271–283. doi: 10.5248/133.271. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Maharachchikumbura S.S.N., Guo L.D., Chukeatirote E., Mckenzie E.H.C., Hyde K.D. A destructive new disease of Syzygium samarangense in Thailand caused by the new species Pestalotiopsis amarangensis. Trop. Plant Pathol. 2013;38:227–235. doi: 10.1590/S1982-56762013005000002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Jiang N., Fan X.L., Tian C.M. Identification and Characterization of Leaf-Inhabiting Fungi from Castanea Plantations in China. J. Fungi. 2021;7:64. doi: 10.3390/jof7010064. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Jayawardena R.S., Liu M., Maharachchikumbura S.S.N., Zhang W., Xing Q., Hyde K.D., Nilthong S., Li X., Yan J. Neopestalotiopsis vitis sp. nov. causing grapevine leaf spot in China. Phytotaxa. 2016;258:63–74. doi: 10.11646/phytotaxa.258.1.4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Maharachchikumbura S.S.N., Zhang Y.M., Wang Y., Hyde K.D. Pestalotiopsis anacardiacearum sp. nov. (Amphisphaeriaceae) has an intricate relationship with Penicillaria jocosatrix, the mango tip borer. Phytotaxa. 2013;99:49–57. doi: 10.11646/phytotaxa.99.2.1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Udayanga D., Castlebury L.A., Rossman A.Y., Hyde K.D. Species limits in Diaporthe: Molecular re-assessment of D. citri, D. cytosporella, D. foeniculina and D. rudis. Persoonia. 2014;32:83–101. doi: 10.3767/003158514X679984. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Tan Y.P., Edwards J., Grice K.R.E., Shivas R.G. Molecular phylogenetic analysis reveals six new species of Diaporthe from Australia. Fungal Divers. 2013;61:251–260. doi: 10.1007/s13225-013-0242-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Santos J.M., Vrandecic K., Cosic’ J., Duvnjak T., Phillips A.J.L. Resolving the Diaporthe species occurring on soybean in Croatia. Persoonia. 2011;27:9–19. doi: 10.3767/003158511X603719. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Lombard L., van Leeuwen G.C.M., Guarnaccia V., Polizzi G., van Rijswick P.C.J., Rosendahl K., Gabler J., Crous P.W. Diaporthe species associated with Vaccinium, with specific reference to Europe. Phytopathol. Mediterr. 2014;53:85–97. [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Huang F., Hou X., Dewdney M.M., Fu Y., Chen G., Hyde K.D., Li H. Diaporthe species occurring on citrus in China. Fungal Divers. 2013;61:237–250. doi: 10.1007/s13225-013-0245-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Toulouse N. Morelet in Ann. Soc. Sci. nat. 1968, Archeol, Toulon and Var, 20, p. 104. [(accessed on 26 June 2022)]. Available online: http://sftp.kew.org/pub/data-repositories/LibriFungorum/IXF3/IXF3-550.jpg.
  • 95.Shaw C.G. Host fungus index for the Pacific Northwest. I. Hosts. Wash. State Univ. Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. 1973;765:1–121. [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Eglitis M., Gould C.J., Johnson F. Fungi found on Ericaceae in the Pacific coastal area. Wash. State Univ. Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. 1966;675:21. [Google Scholar]
  • 97.United States Agricultural Research Service. Crops Research Division . Index of Plant Diseases in the United States. US Department of Agriculture; Annapolis, MD, USA: 1960. pp. 1–531. Agriculture handbook. [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Tassi F. Origine e sviluppo delle Leptostromacee e loro rapporti con le famiglie affini. Bull. Lab. Orto Bot. Reale Univ. Siena. 1904;6:3–124. [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Huseyinov E., Selcuk F. Contribution to study of mycoflora of Turkey I. Coelomycetes of orders Melanconiales and Sphaeropsidales on forest trees and shrubs in the Black Sea coast (Rize and Trabzon Provinces) Mikol. Fitopatol. 2001;35:28–33. [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Dennis R.W.G. Fungi of the Hebrides. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; Richmond, UK: 1986. pp. 1–383. [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Nag Raj T.R. Coelomycetous Anamorphs with Appendage-Bearing Conidia. Mycologue Publications; Waterloo, ON, Canada: 1993. pp. 1–1101. [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Sydow P., Sydow H., Butler E.J. Fungi Indiae Orientalis. Ann. Mycol. 1916;14:177–220. [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Mathur R.S. The Coelomycetes of India. Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh; Delhi, India: 1979. pp. 1–460. [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Kobayashi T. Index of Fungi Inhabiting Woody Plants in Japan. Zenkoku-Noson-Kyoiku Kyokai Publishing Co., Ltd.; Tokyo, Japan: 2007. pp. 1–1227. Host, Distribution and Literature. [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Kirk P.M., Spooner B.M. An account of the fungi of Arran, Gigha and Kintyre. Kew Bull. 1984;38:503–597. doi: 10.2307/4108573. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Data Availability Statement

All sequences generated in this study were submitted to GenBank.


Articles from Journal of Fungi are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)

RESOURCES