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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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.
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