Morphological and phylogenetic analyses reveal three new species of Diaporthe from Yunnan, China

Abstract

Species of Diaporthe have often been reported as plant pathogens, endophytes or saprobes, commonly isolated from a wide range of plant hosts. Sixteen strains isolated from species of ten host genera in Yunnan Province, China, represented three new species of Diaporthe, D. chrysalidocarpi, D. machili and D. pometiae as well as five known species D. arecae, D. hongkongensis, D. middletonii, D. osmanthi and D. pandanicola. Morphological comparisons with known species and DNA-based phylogenies based on the analysis of a multigene (ITS, TUB, TEF, CAL and HIS) dataset support the establishment of the new species. This study reveals that a high species diversity of Diaporthe with wide host ranges occur in tropical rainforest in Yunnan Province, China.

Two new species of Diaporthe (Diaporthaceae, Diaporthales) associated with tree cankers in the Netherlands

“…Phylogenetic analyses were conducted based on a combined DNA sequence matrix of five loci ( ITS , cal , his3 , tef1 and tub2 ) reported as useful markers to distinguish species of Diaporthe ( Udayanga et al 2014 , 2015 ; Guarnaccia et al 2017, 2018a, 2018b ; Tibpromma et al 2018 ; Yang et al 2020 ; Dissanayake et al 2020 ; Huang et al 2021 ; Sun et al 2021 , Wang et al 2021 ). The two novel species in this study can be distinguished from the other known species by all genes studied, but most effectively by cal , his3 , tef1 and tub2 .…”

“…The quality of the amplified nucleotide sequences was checked and the sequences assembled using SeqMan v.7.1.0. Reference sequences were retrieved from the National Center for Biotechnology Information ( NCBI ), based on recent publications on the genus Diaporthe (Dissanayake et al 2021; Gao et al 2021 ; Huang et al 2021 ; Sun et al 2021 , Wang et al 2021 ; Yang et al 2021 ). Sequences were aligned using MAFFT v. 6 ( Katoh and Toh 2010 ) and corrected manually using MEGA 7.0.21.…”

“…However, several taxonomic studies of Diaporthales proved that phylogeny based on multiple genes is suitable to separate species ( Voglmayr et al 2012 , 2017; Fan et al 2018 ; Jiang et al 2019 , 2020 ; Jaklitsch and Voglmayr 2019 , 2020 ). Species of Diaporthe are now characterised and circumscribed both by morphology and phylogeny of multi-locus DNA data, which revealed many cryptic species in recent years ( Diogo et al 2010 ; Lombard et al 2014 ; Gao et al 2016 , 2017 ; Long et al 2019 ; Yang et al 2020 , 2021 ; Zapata et al 2020 ; Huang et al 2021 ). To clarify the species boundaries of the Diaporthe eres complex, the Genealogical Phylogenetic Species Recognition principle ( GCPSR ) and the coalescent-based model Poisson Tree Processes ( PTPs ) were employed, which suggested that the Diaporthe eres species complex actually represents only a single species, D. eres ( Hilário et al 2021 ).…”

Characterization of Diaporthe species on Camellia oleifera in Hunan Province, with descriptions of two new species

“…Diaporthe camelliae-oleiferae can be distinguished from D. pandanicola based on ITS and tub2 loci (24/462 in ITS and 11/401 in tub2); from D. viniferae based on ITS, cal, tef1 and tub2 loci (13/453 in ITS, 42/448 in cal, 7/339 in tef1 and 26/402 in tub2). Morphologically, D. camelliae-oleiferae differs from D. viniferae in having shorter alpha conidia (5-6.5 μm vs. 5-8.3 μm) (Manawasinghe et al 2019); from D. pandanicola in having narrower alpha conidia (1.9-2.3 μm vs. 2.5-3.2 μm) (Huang et al 2021). Description.…”

“…Diaporthe hunanensis can be distinguished from D. chrysalidocarpi based on ITS, cal, his3 and tub2 loci (7/457 in ITS, 28/448 in cal, 8/455 in his3 and 5/401 in tub2); from D. drenthii based on ITS, tef1 and tub2 loci (9/457 in ITS, 13/328 in tef1 and 23/401 in tub2); from D. searlei based on ITS and tub2 loci (10/457 in ITS and 12/401 in tub2); from D. spinosa based on ITS, cal, his3, tef1 and tub2 loci (8/458 in ITS, 31/448 in cal, 5/455 in his3, 8/328 in tef1 and 19/401 in tub2). Morphologically, D. chrysalidocarpi produces only beta conidia, while D. hunanensis produces alpha conidia (Huang et al 2021); D. hunanensis differs from D. drenthii and D. searlei in wider alpha conidia (2.4-2.9 μm in D. hunanensis vs. 1.5-2.5 μm in D. drenthii vs. 1.5-2 μm in D. searlei) (Wrona et al 2020); from D. spinosa in shorter alpha conidia (6.5-7.5 × 2.4-2.9 μm vs. 5.5-8 × 2-3.5 μm) (Guo et al 2020). Therefore, we establish this fungus as a novel species.…”