Cargando…
Unambiguous identification of fungi: where do we stand and how accurate and precise is fungal DNA barcoding?
True fungi (Fungi) and fungus-like organisms (e.g. Mycetozoa, Oomycota) constitute the second largest group of organisms based on global richness estimates, with around 3 million predicted species. Compared to plants and animals, fungi have simple body plans with often morphologically and ecological...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7353689/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32714773 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43008-020-00033-z |
_version_ | 1783557935009366016 |
---|---|
author | Lücking, Robert Aime, M. Catherine Robbertse, Barbara Miller, Andrew N. Ariyawansa, Hiran A. Aoki, Takayuki Cardinali, Gianluigi Crous, Pedro W. Druzhinina, Irina S. Geiser, David M. Hawksworth, David L. Hyde, Kevin D. Irinyi, Laszlo Jeewon, Rajesh Johnston, Peter R. Kirk, Paul M. Malosso, Elaine May, Tom W. Meyer, Wieland Öpik, Maarja Robert, Vincent Stadler, Marc Thines, Marco Vu, Duong Yurkov, Andrey M. Zhang, Ning Schoch, Conrad L. |
author_facet | Lücking, Robert Aime, M. Catherine Robbertse, Barbara Miller, Andrew N. Ariyawansa, Hiran A. Aoki, Takayuki Cardinali, Gianluigi Crous, Pedro W. Druzhinina, Irina S. Geiser, David M. Hawksworth, David L. Hyde, Kevin D. Irinyi, Laszlo Jeewon, Rajesh Johnston, Peter R. Kirk, Paul M. Malosso, Elaine May, Tom W. Meyer, Wieland Öpik, Maarja Robert, Vincent Stadler, Marc Thines, Marco Vu, Duong Yurkov, Andrey M. Zhang, Ning Schoch, Conrad L. |
author_sort | Lücking, Robert |
collection | PubMed |
description | True fungi (Fungi) and fungus-like organisms (e.g. Mycetozoa, Oomycota) constitute the second largest group of organisms based on global richness estimates, with around 3 million predicted species. Compared to plants and animals, fungi have simple body plans with often morphologically and ecologically obscure structures. This poses challenges for accurate and precise identifications. Here we provide a conceptual framework for the identification of fungi, encouraging the approach of integrative (polyphasic) taxonomy for species delimitation, i.e. the combination of genealogy (phylogeny), phenotype (including autecology), and reproductive biology (when feasible). This allows objective evaluation of diagnostic characters, either phenotypic or molecular or both. Verification of identifications is crucial but often neglected. Because of clade-specific evolutionary histories, there is currently no single tool for the identification of fungi, although DNA barcoding using the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) remains a first diagnosis, particularly in metabarcoding studies. Secondary DNA barcodes are increasingly implemented for groups where ITS does not provide sufficient precision. Issues of pairwise sequence similarity-based identifications and OTU clustering are discussed, and multiple sequence alignment-based phylogenetic approaches with subsequent verification are recommended as more accurate alternatives. In metabarcoding approaches, the trade-off between speed and accuracy and precision of molecular identifications must be carefully considered. Intragenomic variation of the ITS and other barcoding markers should be properly documented, as phylotype diversity is not necessarily a proxy of species richness. Important strategies to improve molecular identification of fungi are: (1) broadly document intraspecific and intragenomic variation of barcoding markers; (2) substantially expand sequence repositories, focusing on undersampled clades and missing taxa; (3) improve curation of sequence labels in primary repositories and substantially increase the number of sequences based on verified material; (4) link sequence data to digital information of voucher specimens including imagery. In parallel, technological improvements to genome sequencing offer promising alternatives to DNA barcoding in the future. Despite the prevalence of DNA-based fungal taxonomy, phenotype-based approaches remain an important strategy to catalog the global diversity of fungi and establish initial species hypotheses. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7353689 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-73536892020-07-24 Unambiguous identification of fungi: where do we stand and how accurate and precise is fungal DNA barcoding? Lücking, Robert Aime, M. Catherine Robbertse, Barbara Miller, Andrew N. Ariyawansa, Hiran A. Aoki, Takayuki Cardinali, Gianluigi Crous, Pedro W. Druzhinina, Irina S. Geiser, David M. Hawksworth, David L. Hyde, Kevin D. Irinyi, Laszlo Jeewon, Rajesh Johnston, Peter R. Kirk, Paul M. Malosso, Elaine May, Tom W. Meyer, Wieland Öpik, Maarja Robert, Vincent Stadler, Marc Thines, Marco Vu, Duong Yurkov, Andrey M. Zhang, Ning Schoch, Conrad L. IMA Fungus Nomenclature True fungi (Fungi) and fungus-like organisms (e.g. Mycetozoa, Oomycota) constitute the second largest group of organisms based on global richness estimates, with around 3 million predicted species. Compared to plants and animals, fungi have simple body plans with often morphologically and ecologically obscure structures. This poses challenges for accurate and precise identifications. Here we provide a conceptual framework for the identification of fungi, encouraging the approach of integrative (polyphasic) taxonomy for species delimitation, i.e. the combination of genealogy (phylogeny), phenotype (including autecology), and reproductive biology (when feasible). This allows objective evaluation of diagnostic characters, either phenotypic or molecular or both. Verification of identifications is crucial but often neglected. Because of clade-specific evolutionary histories, there is currently no single tool for the identification of fungi, although DNA barcoding using the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) remains a first diagnosis, particularly in metabarcoding studies. Secondary DNA barcodes are increasingly implemented for groups where ITS does not provide sufficient precision. Issues of pairwise sequence similarity-based identifications and OTU clustering are discussed, and multiple sequence alignment-based phylogenetic approaches with subsequent verification are recommended as more accurate alternatives. In metabarcoding approaches, the trade-off between speed and accuracy and precision of molecular identifications must be carefully considered. Intragenomic variation of the ITS and other barcoding markers should be properly documented, as phylotype diversity is not necessarily a proxy of species richness. Important strategies to improve molecular identification of fungi are: (1) broadly document intraspecific and intragenomic variation of barcoding markers; (2) substantially expand sequence repositories, focusing on undersampled clades and missing taxa; (3) improve curation of sequence labels in primary repositories and substantially increase the number of sequences based on verified material; (4) link sequence data to digital information of voucher specimens including imagery. In parallel, technological improvements to genome sequencing offer promising alternatives to DNA barcoding in the future. Despite the prevalence of DNA-based fungal taxonomy, phenotype-based approaches remain an important strategy to catalog the global diversity of fungi and establish initial species hypotheses. BioMed Central 2020-07-10 /pmc/articles/PMC7353689/ /pubmed/32714773 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43008-020-00033-z Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Nomenclature Lücking, Robert Aime, M. Catherine Robbertse, Barbara Miller, Andrew N. Ariyawansa, Hiran A. Aoki, Takayuki Cardinali, Gianluigi Crous, Pedro W. Druzhinina, Irina S. Geiser, David M. Hawksworth, David L. Hyde, Kevin D. Irinyi, Laszlo Jeewon, Rajesh Johnston, Peter R. Kirk, Paul M. Malosso, Elaine May, Tom W. Meyer, Wieland Öpik, Maarja Robert, Vincent Stadler, Marc Thines, Marco Vu, Duong Yurkov, Andrey M. Zhang, Ning Schoch, Conrad L. Unambiguous identification of fungi: where do we stand and how accurate and precise is fungal DNA barcoding? |
title | Unambiguous identification of fungi: where do we stand and how accurate and precise is fungal DNA barcoding? |
title_full | Unambiguous identification of fungi: where do we stand and how accurate and precise is fungal DNA barcoding? |
title_fullStr | Unambiguous identification of fungi: where do we stand and how accurate and precise is fungal DNA barcoding? |
title_full_unstemmed | Unambiguous identification of fungi: where do we stand and how accurate and precise is fungal DNA barcoding? |
title_short | Unambiguous identification of fungi: where do we stand and how accurate and precise is fungal DNA barcoding? |
title_sort | unambiguous identification of fungi: where do we stand and how accurate and precise is fungal dna barcoding? |
topic | Nomenclature |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7353689/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32714773 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43008-020-00033-z |
work_keys_str_mv | AT luckingrobert unambiguousidentificationoffungiwheredowestandandhowaccurateandpreciseisfungaldnabarcoding AT aimemcatherine unambiguousidentificationoffungiwheredowestandandhowaccurateandpreciseisfungaldnabarcoding AT robbertsebarbara unambiguousidentificationoffungiwheredowestandandhowaccurateandpreciseisfungaldnabarcoding AT millerandrewn unambiguousidentificationoffungiwheredowestandandhowaccurateandpreciseisfungaldnabarcoding AT ariyawansahirana unambiguousidentificationoffungiwheredowestandandhowaccurateandpreciseisfungaldnabarcoding AT aokitakayuki unambiguousidentificationoffungiwheredowestandandhowaccurateandpreciseisfungaldnabarcoding AT cardinaligianluigi unambiguousidentificationoffungiwheredowestandandhowaccurateandpreciseisfungaldnabarcoding AT crouspedrow unambiguousidentificationoffungiwheredowestandandhowaccurateandpreciseisfungaldnabarcoding AT druzhininairinas unambiguousidentificationoffungiwheredowestandandhowaccurateandpreciseisfungaldnabarcoding AT geiserdavidm unambiguousidentificationoffungiwheredowestandandhowaccurateandpreciseisfungaldnabarcoding AT hawksworthdavidl unambiguousidentificationoffungiwheredowestandandhowaccurateandpreciseisfungaldnabarcoding AT hydekevind unambiguousidentificationoffungiwheredowestandandhowaccurateandpreciseisfungaldnabarcoding AT irinyilaszlo unambiguousidentificationoffungiwheredowestandandhowaccurateandpreciseisfungaldnabarcoding AT jeewonrajesh unambiguousidentificationoffungiwheredowestandandhowaccurateandpreciseisfungaldnabarcoding AT johnstonpeterr unambiguousidentificationoffungiwheredowestandandhowaccurateandpreciseisfungaldnabarcoding AT kirkpaulm unambiguousidentificationoffungiwheredowestandandhowaccurateandpreciseisfungaldnabarcoding AT malossoelaine unambiguousidentificationoffungiwheredowestandandhowaccurateandpreciseisfungaldnabarcoding AT maytomw unambiguousidentificationoffungiwheredowestandandhowaccurateandpreciseisfungaldnabarcoding AT meyerwieland unambiguousidentificationoffungiwheredowestandandhowaccurateandpreciseisfungaldnabarcoding AT opikmaarja unambiguousidentificationoffungiwheredowestandandhowaccurateandpreciseisfungaldnabarcoding AT robertvincent unambiguousidentificationoffungiwheredowestandandhowaccurateandpreciseisfungaldnabarcoding AT stadlermarc unambiguousidentificationoffungiwheredowestandandhowaccurateandpreciseisfungaldnabarcoding AT thinesmarco unambiguousidentificationoffungiwheredowestandandhowaccurateandpreciseisfungaldnabarcoding AT vuduong unambiguousidentificationoffungiwheredowestandandhowaccurateandpreciseisfungaldnabarcoding AT yurkovandreym unambiguousidentificationoffungiwheredowestandandhowaccurateandpreciseisfungaldnabarcoding AT zhangning unambiguousidentificationoffungiwheredowestandandhowaccurateandpreciseisfungaldnabarcoding AT schochconradl unambiguousidentificationoffungiwheredowestandandhowaccurateandpreciseisfungaldnabarcoding |