Research Article
Print
Research Article
Two new species of Colletotrichum (Glomerellales, Glomerellaceae) causing anthracnose on Epimedium sagittatum
expand article infoKaiyun Jiang, Zhong Li, Xiangyu Zeng, Xiangsheng Chen, Shuang Liang, Wensong Zhang
‡ Guizhou University, Guiyang, China
Open Access

Abstract

Epimedium sagittatum (Sieb. et Zucc.) Maxim, a perennial herb belonging to the Berberidaceae family, is widely used in traditional Chinese medicine for its beneficial role in enhancing kidney function, strengthening bones and muscles, and dispelling wind-dampness. Clinically, it is commonly used to treat osteoporosis, rheumatism, hypertension, and cardiovascular diseases. During 2023 to 2024, a disease suspected to be anthracnose was observed to be infecting the bases of Epimedium seedlings in Bibo Town, Kaili City, Guizhou Province. In the fall, the disease incidence reached 90%, with severe infection resulting in total desiccation and foliage death. Tissue isolation and single-conidium methods were used to identify and isolate the pathogens, which were determined to be two anthracnose strains. Multi-locus phylogenetic analysis using ITS, gapdh, act, tub2, chs-1, his3, and cal, and morphological observations of representative isolates indicated that the two isolated fungal strains were new species belonging to the genus Colletotrichum, namely Colletotrichum epimedii and Colletotrichum sagittati. Pathogenicity tests, adhering to Koch’s postulates, confirmed that both fungi could infect E. sagittatum; C. epimedii exhibited a higher pathogenicity than C. sagittati. The present study provides valuable information regarding the prevention of E. sagittatum anthracnose.

Key words:

Epimedium sagittatum, Boninense complex, new species, Spaethianum complex, pathogenicity test

Introduction

Epimedium sagittatum (Sieb. et Zucc.) Maxim is a perennial medicinal plant endemic to China, primarily distributed in northern, central, and southeastern regions (He et al. 2003). Its roots and leaves are traditionally used to treat rheumatism and kidney disorders (Shen et al. 2020; Yang et al. 2020; Zheng et al. 2024). Recent studies highlight its pharmacological potential, including anti-tumour, anti-inflammatory, anti-hepatic fibrosis, and anti-osteoporosis properties. (Deng et al. 2022; Gao and Zhang 2022; Huong and Son 2023).

In October 2023, a novel leaf disease (incidence ~25%) was observed on E. sagittatum seedlings in Bibo Town, Guizhou Province. Initial symptoms included light brown leaf spots that expanded into greyish-white lesions with dark brown margins and yellow halos. Advanced lesions exhibited tissue thinning and saprophytic mycelial proliferation. Currently, major diseases affecting E. sagittatum include anthracnose, grey mould, leaf blight, and root rot (Chu et al. 2024; Hou et al. 2024a, 2024b; Zhou et al. 2024). However, research on these diseases is limited; thus, further studies are required to elucidate the diseases affecting E. sagittatum.

Anthracnose is a significant pathogen and endophyte widely distributed globally, which affects various hosts. Anthracnose causes substantial crop yield losses and even total crop failure annually, mainly affecting the leaves, fruits, and stems (Cannon et al. 2012; Liu et al. 2020; Stutts and Vermerris 2020). A single host plant can be infected by multiple anthrax fungi (Liu et al. 2022), whereas a single anthrax fungus can infect multiple host plants. (Damm et al. 2012; Jayawardena et al. 2021). Identification of Colletotrichum species is complicated by inconsistencies in morphological characteristics and host associations (Hyde et al. 2009; Jayawardena et al. 2021). However, an increasing number of Colletotrichum species have been identified and classified into different species complexes, such as the Orchidearum and Boninense complexes (Damm et al. 2019; Liu et al. 2022).

Therefore, accurate identification of Colletotrichum species is crucial for the control and prevention of anthracnose. Currently, research regarding anthracnose in E. sagittatum is limited. In 2024, Hou et al. (2024b) reported that C. fructicola caused anthracnose in E. sagittatum in the Henan Province. However, the specific pathogen species causing anthracnose in E. sagittatum in the Guizhou Province remains unknown. Thus, this study aimed to identify the pathogens responsible for E. sagittatum anthracnose in the Guizhou Province using a systematic classification combining morphological and multi-locus phylogenetic analyses. This research provides a theoretical basis for accurate diagnosis and effective management of the disease.

Materials and methods

Isolation and culturing of the pathogenic fungi

Samples of leaves exhibiting disease symptoms were collected from E. sagittatum in Bibo Town, Kaili City, Guizhou Province (26°30'38"N, 107°37'23"E). Pathogenic fungi were isolated from symptomatic leaves using single-spore and tissue isolation methods. If visible conidial masses were observed on the leaves, the conidia were retrieved under a microscope and transferred to sterile water to create a conidial suspension, which was then evenly spread on PDA plates in a laminar flow hood (Senanayake et al. 2020). After 24 h, the mycelium was transferred to fresh PDA plates to obtain pure cultures.

For leaves without visible conidial masses, the tissue isolation method was used to isolate the pathogenic strains. Leaf tissue pieces of approximately 0.5 × 0.5 cm were excised from the margin between healthy and diseased areas. The tissue pieces were immersed in 75% ethanol for 30 s for disinfection, followed by three washes with sterile water for a total of 30 s. The leaf pieces were then placed on sterile filter paper to dry before being transferred to PDA plates (Yao et al. 2024). All PDA plates were incubated in the dark at 28 °C for 1–2 days. Once colonies emerged, a small amount of mycelium was picked from the colony edge and transferred to fresh PDA medium for further cultivation. Colonies were purified at least twice until pure cultures were obtained. Type specimens were deposited in the Herbarium of the Department of Plant Pathology, Agricultural College, Guizhou University (HGUP). Ex-type cultures were deposited in the Culture Collection at the Department of Plant Pathology, Agriculture College, Guizhou University, P.R. China (GUCC).

Morphological observations

The purified pathogenic fungi were inoculated onto PDA plates and incubated at 28 °C for 7 days. The colony morphology, including shape and colour, was observed and recorded according to the colour map of Rayner (1970). A small amount of mycelium from the colonies was sampled and examined using a Carl Zeiss AGAxiomo microscope to record structural details such as conidia, setae, and asci. Appressoria germination was induced by slide culture, and the conidial masses from PDA plates were transferred to sterile water to prepare a conidial suspension. A drop of this suspension was placed on a microscope slide and incubated at 28 °C for 12–24 h (Cai et al. 2009). Subsequently, the slides were observed using a Carl Zeiss AGAxiomo microscope to document appressoria shape, colour, and size. Thirty conidia and appressoria were selected randomly to measure their lengths and widths.

DNA extraction and amplification

DNA extraction: After culturing the pathogenic fungi on PDA for 10 days, the mycelium was scraped from the plates using a sterile surgical scalpel and placed into a 2 mL centrifuge tube for storage. DNA of pathogenic fungi was extracted using a Fungal DNA (Biomiga) reagent kit and stored at -20 °C for future use.

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification was performed using the extracted DNA samples as templates. The gene sequences of the following genomic regions were amplified: rDNA internal transcribed spacer (ITS), actin (act), chitin synthase (chs-1), β-tubulin (tub2), glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (gapdh), histone H3 (his3), and calmodulin (cal). Primers used for the amplification are listed in Table 1. Each PCR reaction mixture had a total volume of 25 μL, comprising 1 μL each of forward and reverse primer, 12.5 μL of 2× PCR Master Mix, 9.5 μL of deionised water (ddH2O), and 1.0 μL of the DNA template (Liu 2023).

Table 1.

Polymerase chain reaction and sequencing primers.

Target Primer Primer sequence (5′-3′) Reference
ITS ITS1 CTTGGTCATTTAGAGGAAGTAA (Gardes and Bruns 1993; White 1994)
ITS4 TCCTCCGCTTATTGATATGC
act ACT-512F ATGTGCAAGGCCGGTTTCGC (Carbone and Kohn 1999)
ACT-783R TACGAGTCCTTCTGGCCCAT
tub2 TI AACATGCGTGAGATTGTAAGT (Glass and Donaldson 1995; O’Donnell and Cigelnik 1997)
Bt2b ACCCTCAGTGTAGTGACCCTTGGC
chs-1 CHS-79F TGGGGCAAGGATGCTTGGAAGAAG (Carbone and Kohn 1999)
CHS-354R TGGAAGAACCATCTGTGAGAGTTG
his3 CYLH-3F AGGTCCACTGGTGGCAAG (Crous et al. 2006)
CYLH-3R AGCTGGATGTCCTTGGACTG
gapdh GDF GCCGTCAACGACCCCTTCATT (Guerber et al. 2003)
GDR GGGTGGAGTCGTACTTGAGCATGT
cal CL1C GAATTCAAGGAGGCCTTCTC (Weir et al. 2012)
CL2C CTTCTGCATCATGAGCTGGAC

The amplification protocol for the ITS region was as follows (Woudenberg et al. 2009): first, initial denaturation at 95 °C for 4 min; second, 35 denaturation cycles at 95 °C for 30 s, annealing at 52 °C for 30 s, and extension at 72 °C for 45 s; lastly, single extension at 72 °C for 10 min. The annealing temperatures for the other genes were as follows: 58 °C for act, his3, and chs-1; 55 °C for tub2; 59 °C for gapdh; and 57 °C for cal.

A 1.2% agarose gel was used for electrophoresis, which was stained with 0.5 g/mL ethidium bromide for 10 min. Visualisation was performed using a BIO-RAD gel imaging system. Subsequently, PCR products were sent to the Shanghai Bioengineering Company for sequencing.

Phylogenetic analysis

Phylogenetic analysis was performed using DNA sequence data obtained from GenBank (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/, accessed on 23 October 2024) (Tables 2, 3) and following previous publications (Liu et al. 2022; Zhang et al. 2023; Li et al. 2024). Multiple sequence alignments were performed using MAFFT (Miller et al. 2010); aligned sequences were manually adjusted using BioEdit v7.0.5 software (Rambaut 2009); using SequenceMatrix 1.8 to assemble multiple gene sequences (Vaidya et al. 2011). Phylogenetic trees were constructed using MrBayes and RAxML on the CIPRES Science Gateway V.3.3 website (https://www.phylo.org/portal2/login.action) (Miller et al. 2010; Weir et al. 2012). For the maximum likelihood (ML) analysis, RAxML-HPC2 on XSEDE v.8.2.12 was employed with a PHYLIP-formatted sequence alignment file under the GTR+GAMMA nucleotide substitution model. Branch support values were estimated through 1,000 bootstrap replicates, and the final ML tree retained branch lengths. For the Bayesian inference (BI) analysis, MrBayes v.3.2.6 was executed using a NEXUS-formatted alignment file. The optimal nucleotide substitution model was selected via MrModeltest v.2.3. Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulations were run with sampling every 1,000 generations. To ensure convergence, the first 25% of samples were discarded as burn-in, and a majority-rule consensus tree was generated from the remaining post-burn-in samples. Branch credibility was assessed using posterior probabilities (PP). The resulting tree files were visualised and resized using FigTree v1.4.0 (Rambaut et al. 2018) and then edited with Adobe Illustrator CS5.

Table 2.

Sequence information for the strains used in C. spaethianum for multigene phylogenetic analysis. T = Type.

Species Strain No. Gene Bank Accession Number
ITS gapdh act tub2 chs-1 his3
C. bletillum CGMCC3.5117 T JX625178 KC843506 KC843542 JX625207 MZ799322 MZ673854
C. guizhouensis CGMCC3.15112 T JX625158 KC843507 KC843536 JX625185 MZ799321 MZ673850
C. guizhouensis CGMCC3.15113 JX625164 KC843508 KC843537 JX625192
C. incanum ATCC 64682 T KC110789 KC110807 KC110825 KC110816 KC110798
C. incanum CBS133485 KC110787 KC110805 KC110823 KC110814 KC110796
C. incanum YYH-2 OL457651 OL439729 OL539406 OL439728 OL539407
C. incanum CBS130835 KR003337 KR003362 KR003347 KR003342 KR003357 KR003352
C. incanum JZB330312 OL377888 OL471265 OL471267 OL471271 OL471269
C. incanum lL9A KC110788 KC110806 KC110824 KC110815 KC110797
C. incanum CAUCT34 KP145641 KP145573 KP145505 KP145675 KP145539 KP145607
C. lilii CBS109214 GU227810 GU228202 GU227908 GU228104 GU228300 GU228006
C. liriopes CBS122747 GU227805 GU228197 GU227903 GU228099 GU228295 GU228001
C. liriopes CBS119444 T GU227804 GU228196 GU227902 GU228098 GU228294 GU228000
C. liriopes NN071073 MZ595908 MZ664093 MZ664206 MZ674026 MZ799326 MZ673928
C. liriopes LC11287 MZ595843 MZ664092 MZ664141 MZ673964 MZ799325 MZ673863
C. liriopes LC7623 MZ595842 MZ664091 MZ664140 MZ673963 MZ799324 MZ673862
C. liriopes BZG101 MH291212 MH291256 MH292787 MH291234 MH292815
C. liriopes DHJGF-Z5170 KC244167 KC843505 KC843543 KC244160
C. kingianum DHJGF-ZY MW537100 MW537070 MW537088 MW537094 MW537076 MW537082
C. kingianum DHJGF-P MW537103 MW537075 MW537093 MW537099 MW537081 MW537087
C. disporopsis GUCC12152 OP723106 OP784050 OP740146 OP761917 OP784175
C. disporopsis GUCC12153 OP723107 OP784051 OP740147 OP761918 OP784176
C. riograndense COAD928 T KM655299 KM655298 KM655295 KM655300 KM655297
C. spaethianum CCPO34 MH020771 MH020772 MH045677 MH045678 MH020773
C. spaethianum CBS167.49 T GU227807 GU228199 GU227905 GU228101 GU228297 GU228003
C. spaethianum AJ006 KT122847 KT122856 KT122853 KT122850 MF362664
C. spaethianum CLHJY4-3 MH453905 MH456883 MH456881 MH456884 MH456882
C. spaethianum CFCC57499 OP437705 OP455897 OP455891 OP455900 OP455894
C. tofieldiae CBS495.85 GU227801 GU228193 GU227899 GU228095 GU228291 GU227997
C. tofieldiae CBS168.49 GU227802 GU228194 GU227900 GU228096 GU228292 GU227998
C. verruculosum IMI45525 T GU227806 GU228198 GU227904 GU228100 GU228296 GU228002
C. iris LC3697* MZ595837 MZ664090 MZ664135 MZ673958 MZ799323 MZ673856
C. bicoloratum NN055229 T MZ595899 MZ664100 MZ664197 MZ674017 MZ799332 MZ673919
C. kingianum DHJGF-ML MW537101 MW537071 MW537089 MW537095 MW537077 MW537083
C. destructivum KACC 47639 OR31676 OR449456 OR449427 OR449416 OR449433 OR449494
C. destructivum CBS136228 KM105207 KM105561 KM105417 KM105487 KM105277 KM105347
C. epimedii GUCC 24-0190 PQ555629 PQ650625 PQ650629 PQ650626 PQ650632 PQ650622
C. epimedii GUCC 24-0191 PQ555630 PQ655137 PQ650630 PQ650628 PQ650633 PQ650623
C. epimedii GUCC 24-0192 PQ555631 PQ655138 PQ650631 PQ650627 PQ650634 PQ650624
Table 3.

Sequence information for the strains used in C. boninense for multigene phylogenetic analysis. T = Type.

Species Strain No. Gene Bank Accession Number
ITS gapdh act tub2 chs-1 his3 cal
C. boninense CBS 123755 T MH863323 JQ005240 JQ005501 JQ005588 JQ005327 JQ005414 JQ005674
C. watphraense MFLUCC14-0123T MF448523 MH049479 MH376384 MH351276
Colletotrichum sp. CBS 123921 JQ005163 JQ005250 JQ005511 JQ005597 JQ005337 JQ005424 JQ005684
C. torulosum CBS 128544 T JQ005164 JQ005251 JQ005512 JQ005598 JQ005338 JQ005425 JQ005685
C. torulosum CBS 102667 JQ005165 JQ005252 JQ005513 JQ005599 JQ005339 JQ005426 JQ005686
C. doitungense MFLUCC 14-0128 T MF448524 MH049480 MH376385 MH351277
C. cymbidlicola IMl 347923 T JQ005166 JQ005253 JQ005514 JQ005600 JQ005340 JQ005427 JQ005687
C. cymbidlicola CBS 128543 JQ005167 JQ005254 JQ005515 JQ005601 JQ005341 JQ005428 JQ005688
C. oncidii CBS 129828 T JQ005169 JQ005256 JQ005517 JQ005603 JQ005343 JQ005430 JQ005690
C. oncidii CBS 130242 JQ005170 JQ005257 JQ005518 JQ005604 JQ005344 JQ005431 JQ005691
C. diversum LC11292 T MZ595844 MZ664081 MZ664142 MZ673965 MZ799272 MZ673864
C. beeveri CBS 128527 T JQ005171 JQ005258 JQ005519 JQ005605 JQ005345 JQ005432 JQ005692
C. beeveri NN004142 MZ595881 MZ664082 MZ664179 MZ799277 MZ673901
C. colombiense CBS 129818 T JQ005174 JQ005261 JQ005522 JQ005608 JQ005348 JQ005435 JQ005695
C. karstii CBS127597 T JQ005204 JQ005291 JQ005552 JQ005638 JQ005378 JQ005465 JQ005725
C. karsti CBS 110779 JQ005198 JQ005285 JQ005546 JQ005632 JQ005372 JQ005459 JQ005719
C. annellatum CBS 129826 T JQ005222 JQ005309 JQ005570 JQ005656 JQ005396 JQ005483 JQ005743
C. citricola ACCC 35478 OR240824 OR251061 OR251089 OR251096 OR251075 OR251082 OR251103
C. citricola CBS 134228 T KC293576 KC293736 KC293616 KC293656 KC293792
C. camelliae-japonicae CGMCC 38118 T KX853165 KX893584 KX893576 KX893580 MZ799271 MZ673859
C. phyllanthi CBS 175.67 T JQ005221 JQ005308 JQ005569 JQ005655 JQ005395 JQ005482 JQ005742
C. petchii CBS 125957 JQ005226 JQ005313 JQ005574 JQ005660 JQ005400 JQ005487 JQ005747
C. petchii CBS 378.94 T JQ005223 JQ005310 JQ005571 JQ005657 JQ005397 JQ005484 JQ005744
C. feijoicola CBS 144633 T MK876413 MK876475 MK876466 MK876507
C. feijoicola CPC 34245 MK876414 K876474 MK876465 MK876506 MK876471 MK876477
C. limonicola CPC 27861 KY856471 KY856295 KY856044 KY856553 KY856387
C. limonicola CBS 142410 T KY856472 KY856296 KY856045 KY856554 KY856213 KY856388
C. novae zelandiae CBS 130240 JQ005229 JQ005316 JQ005577 JQ005663 JQ005403 JQ005490 JQ005750
C. parsonsiae CGMCC 35126 JX625181 KC843500 KC843561 JX625210
C. condaoense CBS 134299 T MH229914 MH229920 MH229923 MH229926 MH229927
C. condaoense CBS 135989 MH229916 MH229922 MH229925
C. condaoense CBS 135823 MH229915 MH229921 MH229924
C. brasiliense CBS 128501 T JQ005235 JQ005322 JQ005583 JQ005669 JQ005409 JQ005496 JQ005756
C. brasiliense CBS 128528 JQ005234 JQ005321 JQ005582 JQ005668 JQ005408 JQ005495 JQ005755
C. brasiliense TFL33.2 PP291938 PP318622 PP318621 PP318624 PP318625 PP318623
C. hippeastri CBS 125376 T JQ005231 JQ005318 JQ005579 JQ005665 JQ005405 JQ005492 JQ005752
C. hippeastri CBS 125377 JQ005230 JQ005317 JQ005578 JQ005664 JQ005404 JQ005491 JQ005751
C. hippeastri CBS 241.78 JQ005232 JQ005319 JQ005580 JQ005666 JQ005406 JQ005493
C. constrictum CBS 128503 JQ005237 JQ005324 JQ005585 JQ005671 JQ005411 JQ005498 JQ005758
C. constrictum CBS 128504 T JQ005238 JQ005325 JQ005586 JQ005672 JQ005412 JQ005499 JQ005759
C. constrictum BXG-1 MW828148 MW855886 MW855882 MW855888 MW855884.
C. dacrycarpi CBS 130241 T JQ005236 JQ005323 JQ005584 JQ005670 JQ005410 JQ005497 JQ005757
C. bromeliacearum LC13854 MZ595833 MZ664078 MZ664131 MZ799268
C. bromeliacearum LC13855 MZ595834 MZ664079 MZ664132 MZ799269
C. bromeliacearum LC0951 T MZ595832 MZ664077 MZ664130 MZ673956 MZ799267 MZ673843 MZ799233
C. araujiae BBB:GR3504 T OP035058 OP067659 OP067660
C. cliviigenum CBS 146825 T MZ064415 MZ078178 MZ078143 MZ078260 MZ078161 MZ078180
C. chongqingense CS0612 T MG602060 MG602022 MT976107 MG602044 MT976117
C. spicati CGMCC 38942 T OL842171 OL981266 OL981240 OL981226 OL981292
C. celtidis GUCC 12014 OP723045 OP784060 OP740155 OP761926 OP730613 OP784180
C. chamaedorea NN052884 MZ664083 MZ664187 MZ674007 MZ799273 MZ673909
C. chamaedorea NN052885 T MZ664084 MZ664188 MZ674008 MZ799274 MZ673910
C. catinaense CBS 142417 T KY856400 KY856224 KY855971 KY856482 KY856136 KY856307
C. parsonsiae CBS 128525 T JQ005233 JQ005320 JQ005581 JQ005667 JQ005407 JQ005494 JQ005754
C. bromeliacearum LC13856 MZ595835 MZ664080 MZ664133 MZ799270
C. brassicicola CBS 101059 T JQ005172 JQ005259 JQ005520 JQ005606 JQ005346 JQ005433 JQ005693
C. bromeliacearum LC13854 MZ595833 MZ664078 MZ664131 MZ799268
C. palki CCCT 23.04 T OR644584 OR644991 OR645097 OR645149 OR645044 OR659722
C. laurosilvaticum RGM 3086 OR644581 OR644988 OR645094 OR645146 OR645041 OR659719
C. laurosilvaticum RGM 3406 OR644582 OR644989 OR645095 OR645147 OR645042 OR659720
C. wuxuhaiense F 34 OL842173 OL981268 OL981242 OL981228 OL981294
C. wuxuhaiense YMF1.04951 OL842175 OL981270 OL981244 OL981230 OL981296
C. orchidophilum CBS 632.80 JQ948151 JQ948481 JQ949472 JQ949802 JQ948812 JQ949142.1
C. orchidophilum Clo-170 OR515649 OR566949 OR589427 OR640720
C. orchidophilum COAD 3300 MZ726565 ON512560 ON512556 ON512563 ON512557
C. sagittati GUCC 24-0193 PQ555633 PQ664909 PQ655139 PQ655148 PQ655142 PQ655145 PQ655151
C. sagittati GUCC 24-0194 PQ555634 PQ664910 PQ655140 PQ655149 PQ655143 PQ655146 PQ655152
C. sagittati GUCC 24-0195 PQ555635 PQ664911 PQ655141 PQ655150 PQ655144 PQ655147 PQ655153

Pathogenicity assay

The pathogenic fungus was isolated and purified from diseased Epimedium plants before performing a Koch’s postulate reinoculation experiment. The strains were cultured in a 28 °C incubator for 10–25 days until conidia were produced. Using a punch, fungal cakes were harvested and transferred to conical flasks containing potato dextrose broth (PDB). These flasks were then placed on a shaker set to 220 rpm at 28 °C and cultured for 5 days to prepare a conidial suspension. The conidia concentration was determined using a hemocytometer, and the conidial suspension was adjusted to 1 × 106 conidia/mL using sterile water (Guo 2023). Subsequently, this conidial suspension was sprayed onto the leaves of healthy, injured, and uninjured Epimedium plants for pathogenicity assessment (Than et al. 2008; Cai et al. 2009), with three replicates per treatment and spraying plants with sterile water as controls. The inoculated plants were covered with plastic bags to maintain humidity and placed in a controlled environment chamber (28 °C, 12 h light/12 h dark, 80% humidity) for observation. Regular assessments of disease development were conducted, and the results were recorded. After disease onset, the pathogen was isolated and purified from the diseased tissue.

Results

Field symptom observation

The disease typically starts in April, persisting until October, with a peak incidence from June to August, when the disease incidence reaches up to 25%, and in severe cases, up to 90%. Early symptoms manifest as small light brown or brown circular spots on the middle or edges of the leaves. Gradually, these lesions expand into circular, elliptical and irregular shapes, often accompanied by irregular concentric rings. The centre of the lesions eventually turns greyish-white or grey-brown, and the margins turn dark brown and are surrounded by a yellow halo (Fig. 1A, B). In the late stages of the disease, the lesions become thin and prone to cracking, with distinct fruiting bodies; conidial heads can be observed microscopically (Fig. 1C, D).

Figure 1. 

Symptoms of field anthracnose in Epimedium sagittatum.

Pathogenicity assessment

A total of 16 C. epimedii and 9 C. sagittati isolates were obtained in this study. Three representative strains from each species were selected for pathogenicity re-inoculation experiments. Symptoms began to appear four days after inoculation with C. epimedii, characterised by localised leaf yellowing and discolouration and accompanied by irregular brown spots. Over time, the lesions resembled the symptoms observed in the natural fields (Figs 1A, B, 2A, B). Non-treated control plants remained healthy without any symptoms (Fig. 2C). Similarly, C. sagittati could infect healthy plants but exhibited weaker pathogenicity, requiring wound inoculation to induce disease development. The resultant symptoms resembled field observations (Fig. 2D, E). Negative controls inoculated with sterile water remained asymptomatic (Fig. 2F).

Figure 2. 

Pathogen inoculation and symptom (10 days) A, B symptoms resulting from inoculation with Colletotrichum epimedii C control D, E symptoms resulting from inoculation with Colletotrichum sagittati F control.

Following pathogenicity assays, lesion margin tissues from inoculated E. sagittatum leaves were subjected to re-isolation of both Colletotrichum species. Morphological characterisation of the re-isolated pathogens revealed identical conidial dimensions and colony characteristics to those of the original isolates. These findings were consistent with initial isolation data, confirming C. epimedii and C. sagittati as the causal agents of anthracnose in E. sagittatum.

Phylogenetic analysis

Twenty-five strains of Colletotrichum, isolated from leaves of E. sagittatum, were identified based on phylogenetic analyses of six or seven loci. In the phylogenetic analysis of the C. spaethianum species complex, a total of 2327 characters, including gaps, were identified (ITS: 538, act: 237, chs-1: 251, gapdh: 255, his3: 373 and tub2: 673). Similarly, the phylogenetic analysis of the C. boninense species complex yielded a total of 2583 characters, including gaps (ITS: 554, act: 254, chs-1: 251, gapdh: 242, his3: 375, tub2: 500, and cal: 407). The topology of Bayesian analysis of cascading datasets is almost the same as the ML consistency tree.

In the phylogenetic tree (Figs 3, 4), the isolates from this study formed two distinct, well-supported clades and, thus, were considered to represent two previously unknown species. C. epimedii GUCC 24-0190, GUCC 24-0191 and GUCC 24-0192 without the DNA base differences in six loci amongst strains (ITS, gapdh, act, his3, chs-1 and tub2) form an independent branch with strong support (ML = 95, PP = 1) sister to C. incanum (Fig. 3). Similarly, in the phylogenetic tree (Fig. 4), C. sagittati GUCC 24-0193, GUCC 24-0194 and GUCC 24-0195 also form an independent branch with strong support (ML = 94, PP = 1).

Figure 3. 

Phylogenetic tree of the Colletotrichum spaethianum complex based on multi-gene sequences (ITS, act, tub2, gapdh, chs-1 and his3). Support values at the nodes indicate a maximum likelihood (ML) of > 60% and Bayesian posterior probability (BYPP) of > 0.70. The outgroup is C. destructivum CBS 136228 and C. destructivum AKCC 47638. The strains used were GUCC 24-0190, GUCC 24-0191 and GUCC 24-0192. The scale bar represents 0.02.

Figure 4. 

Phylogenetic tree of the Colletotrichum boninense complex constructed using multi-gene sequences (ITS, act, tub2, gapdh, chs-1, his3 and cal). Support values at the nodes indicate a maximum likelihood (ML) of > 60% and Bayesian posterior probability (BYPP) of > 0.70. The outgroup is C. euphorbiae CBS 134752, COAD 3300, and Col-170. The strains used are GUCC 24-0193, GUCC 24-0194 and GUCC 24-0195, with a scale bar of 0.04.

Taxonomy

Colletotrichum epimedii K.Y. Jiang & Zhong Li, sp. nov.

MycoBank No: 856528
Fig. 5

Etymology.

Named after the host plant genus, Epimedium.

Type.

China • Guizhou Province, Kaili City, Bibao Town (26°30'38"N, 107°37'23"E), from leaves of E. sagittatum, Apr 12, 2024, KY Jiang (holotype HGUP 21489, ex--holotype culture GUCC 24-0190).

Figure 5. 

Morphological characteristics of Colletotrichum epimedii A upper surface of the colony B underside of the colony C Conidiomata D–G appressoria H, I conidiophores J–L conidia M, N setae. Scale bars: 100 μm (C); 5 μm (D–J); 10 μm (I, J–L); 50 μm (H); 50 μm (M, N).

Description.

Sexual morph: Not observed. Asexual morph: Conidiomata, globose to irregular, ash black. Setae and conidiophores formed on a cushion of dark brown and are non-branched. Setae medium to dark brown, straight, 81.2–168.5 μm long, 1–2 septate, tip acut. Conidiophores hyaline, unbranched, upon maturation of the conidia, the apical portion undergoes constriction to form an ampulla or bowling pin-shaped structure, followed by subsequent detachment of the developed conidium. Conidia rough, non-septate, crescent or slightly curved in shape, with a near 1/2 mid-section having a depressed shape or multiple depressions, more towards the round or somewhat acute apex, base truncate, 16.5–18.8 × 4.3–5.4 μm (mean ± SD = 17.9 ± 0.8 × 4.7 ± 0.3 µm, L/W = 3.9). Appressoria single, grey–brown, irregularly shaped, 5.0–8.2 × 3.4–5.4 μm (mean ± SD = 6.1 ± 1.0 × 4.4 ± 0.4 µm, L/W = 1.4).

Culture characteristics.

Colonies on PDA taupe, rapidly growing to 8 cm within 7 days at 28 °C, with a dense mycelium, covered by a velvety grey–brown aerial mycelium on the surface. The reverse side of the colony is black in the centre, gradually lightening towards the edge and fading to grey.

Notes.

Multi-locus phylogenetic analysis indicates that the three C. epimedii strains form distinct branches; our taxonomic unit C. epimedii belongs to the Spaethianum complex. It shares low sequence similarity with the phylogenetically related species C. incanum at act (96%), chs-1 (98%), gapdh (92%), his3 (94%), tub2 (98%) and ITS (99%). Morphologically, C. epimedii and C. incanum had different colony characteristics on PDA. The C. incanum colony has fewer mycelia, growing closely against the plate, whereas C. epimedii has a dense mycelium. Both strains are dark brown but had different conidia sizes: C. epimedii had shorter but wider conidia than C. incanum, length (16.5–18.8 μm vs. 17.0–21.9 μm), width (4.3–5.4 μm vs. 2.3–3.7 μm) and L/W ratio (3.9 vs. 6.5). The setae of C. epimedii were also slightly shorter than those of C. incanum (81.2–168.4 μm vs. 74–202 μm) (Yang et al. 2014). Considering both molecular phylogenetics and morphological characteristics, C. epimedii was identified as a new species.

Colletotrichum sagittati K.Y. Jiang & Zhong Li, sp. nov.

MycoBank No: 856529
Fig. 6

Etymology.

Named after the host plant species sagittatum.

Type.

China • Guizhou Province, Kaili City, Bibao Town (26°30'38"N, 107°37'23"E), from leaves of E. sagittatum. 12 Nov, 2024, KY Jiang (holotype HGUP 21490, ex-holotype culture GUCC 24-0193).

Figure 6. 

Morphological characteristics of Colletotrichum sagittati A colony surface B colony reverse C ascomata D surface of the ascomata E–H asci I–M ascospores N, O appressoria P conidiomata Q, R conidiophores and Conidiogenous cells S conidia. Scale bars: 2.5 cm (C); 25 μm (D–H, Q); 10 μm (I–M, R); 25 μm (P); 5 μm (N, O); 20 μm (S).

Description.

Asexual morph: Conidiomata, irregular, orange. Setae not observed. Conidiophores, formed directly on hyphae, usually reduced to conidiogenous cells, laterally. Conidia hyaline, smooth-walled, aseptate, straight, few conidia slightly curved, cylindrical, the apex and base rounded 14.6–17.9 × 4.9–6.8 μm (mean ± SD = 16.0 ± 0.9 × 6.2 ± 0.6 µm, L/W = 2.56). Appressoria single, dark brown, irregularly, a small amount. Sexual morph: Ascomata perithecia, clustered, superficial, spherical, medium to dark brown, covered with sparse Asci unitunicate, 8–spored, cylindrical or rod-shaped, smooth-surfaced and slightly pointed at the apex, 38.7–70.5 × 11.0–15.7 μm. Ascospores single or multiseriately arranged, aseptate, hyaline, smooth-walled, cylindrical, blunt rounded ends or slightly protruding at one end, 16.0–19.4 × 3.7–5.6 μm (mean ± SD = 17.1 ± 1.0 × 4.8 ± 0.4 μm and L/W ratio = 3.6).

Culture characteristics.

Colonies on PDA flat, with poorly developed aerial mycelium, closely adhered to the medium surface, with numerous ascomata in the centre. Mycelium white, reverse same colour, growth 7 cm in 14 d.

Notes.

Multi-locus phylogenetic analysis indicates that the three strains of C. sagittati formed a distinct branch within the C. boninense species complex (Fig. 4). Every locus sequenced for these species differed from currently recognised Colletotrichum species. A BLASTn search of C. epimedii sequences in the NCBI GenBank revealed low similarity to other species. The highest similarities for cal, act, chs-1, GADPH, his3, ITS and tub2 were found with C. hippeastri CSSG1 (92.01%), C. karsti AGMy0178 (92.54%), C. chamaedorea LC13867 (98.34%), C. bromeliacearum LC13855 (77.78%), C. liriopes HZ-1 (91.30%), C. boninense INBio-275813 (97.96%) and C. karsti BRIP (91.76%). In morphology, they can be distinguished from Colletotrichum hippeastri by its smaller conidia (14.6–17.9 × 4.9–6.8 vs. 19–37.5 × 5.5–8.5) (Damm et al. 2012). Additionally, C. sagittati produces greater conidia than Colletotrichum bromeliacearum (14.6–17.9 × 4.9–6.8 vs. 8.5–16 × 5–7.5) (Liu et al. 2022). Based on the integrated molecular phylogenetics and morphology, C. sagittati was identified as a new species.

Discussion

In fungal identification, the integrated application of morphological and molecular biological approaches represents the most widely utilised metho­dology and demonstrates enhanced taxonomic efficacy. (Cai et al. 2009; Jayawardena et al. 2016). The genus Colletotrichum, commonly known as anthracnose fungi, is an important group of plant pathogens that can infect more than 3,200 plant species, causing substantial harm to various economic crops worldwide. This genus is characterised by its ubiquity and severity (Cannon et al. 2012; Guarnaccia et al. 2017; Fu et al. 2019). The classification of Colletotrichum has historically been complex, but the application of multi-locus molecular methods has facilitated the identification and categorisation of numerous Colletotrichum species into distinct species complexes (Cannon et al. 2012; Crouch 2014; Damm et al. 2019). Currently, the genus is divided into 16 complexes, with more than 750 new species described based on different host plants (Liu et al. 2022). Many closely related species are difficult to differentiate based solely on morphological characteristics. Therefore, constructing multi-gene phylogenetic trees in conjunction with morphological features is fundamental for identifying species within this genus and serves as a primary basis for describing new species (Cai et al. 2009; Jayawardena et al. 2016). Utilising combined multi-gene sequences from ITS, gapdh, chs-1, his3, act, tub2, and cal yields better results than single-gene analyses. This study constructed a phylogenetic tree based on combined multi-gene sequences of ITS, gapdh, chs-1, his3, act, tub2, and cal. Pathogenicity tests led to the identification of two new Colletotrichum species associated with anthracnose disease on E. sagittatum, named C. epimedii and C. sagittati.

In recent years, the cultivation area of Epimedium has been increasing to meet growing market demand. However, this trend has also led to issues such as a high incidence of diseases and the rapid spread of diseases within plantations. Therefore, accurate diagnosis and prevention of these diseases are crucial. The current reports of anthracnose on E. sagittatum are limited to two cases caused by C. fructicola and C. karstii (Hou et al. 2024b; Lin et al. 2025). The symptoms of anthracnose observed here are similar to those reported by Hou et al. (2024b). However, the involved pathogens and their respective species complexes differ. Although we isolated C. fructicola from E. sagittatum, its pathogenicity was weak. Moreover, this variation in pathogenicity among regions may be due to regional adaptation of the pathogens. Thus, we hypothesise that anthracnose in E. sagittatum may represent a complex disease. Before implementing effective control and prevention strategies, it is essential to accurately identify and understand the types of pathogens involved. Further identification and classification of the pathogens responsible for anthracnose are warranted.

Conclusion

This study identified two novel species of anthracnose fungi, C. epimedii and C. sagittati, responsible for anthracnose in E. sagittatum. These species belong to the C. spaethianum and C. boninense complexes. To effectively control the disease, further research is required to elucidate how these two strains respond to climatic conditions, common fungicides and prevalent Epimedium genotypes. Such studies will aid in developing more targeted disease management strategies.

Acknowledgements

No data was used for the research described in the article. We have read and understood your journal’s policies, and we believe that neither the manuscript nor the study violates any of these. There are no conflicts of interest to declare.

Additional information

Conflict of interest

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Ethical statement

No ethical statement was reported.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program under grant number 2021YFD1601001.

Author contributions

Data curation: ZL, XZ, KJ. Formal analysis: XZ, ZL, SL. Funding acquisition: ZL. Investigation: WZ, XC. Writing - original draft: KJ. Writing - review and editing: KJ.

Data availability

All of the data that support the findings of this study are available in the main text.

References

  • Cannon PF, Damm U, Johnston PR, Weir BS (2012) Colletotrichum–current status and future directions. Studies in Mycology 73(1): 181–213. https://doi.org/10.3114/sim0014
  • Chu L, Li D, Hou W, Dan Z, Wang X, Dong C (2024) First report of Fusarium falciforme causing root and rhizome rot of Epimedium sagittatum in China. Plant Disease 108(5): 1400. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-01-24-0185-PDN
  • Crous PW, Groenewald JZ, Risède JM, Simoneau P, Hyde KD (2006) Calonectria species and their Cylindrocladium anamorphs: Species with clavate vesicles. Studies in Mycology 55: 213–226. https://doi.org/10.3114/sim.55.1.213
  • Damm U, Cannon PF, Woudenberg JHC, Johnston PR, Weir BS, Tan YP, Shivas RG, Crous PW (2012) The Colletotrichum boninense species complex. Studise In Mycology 73: 1–36. https://doi.org/10.3114/sim0002
  • Damm U, Sato T, Alizadeh A, Groenewald JZ, Crous PW (2019) The Colletotrichum dracaenophilum, C. magnum and C. orchidearum species complexes. Studies in Mycology 92(1): 1–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simyco.2018.04.001
  • Deng D, Li L, Tan X, Sun Y, Wang C, Zhen G, Wang G, Hu J (2022) Study on the mechanism of icariin inhibiting the proliferation of intrahepatic bile duct cancer cells by regulating glycolysis via Akt/mTOR. Chinese Traditional and Herbal Drugs 53(10): 3061–3069.
  • Fu M, Crous PW, Bai Q, Zhang PF, Xiang J, Guo YS, Zhao FF, Yang MM, Hong N, Xu WX, Wang GP (2019) Colletotrichum species associated with anthracnose of Pyrus spp. In China. Persoonia 42: 1–35. https://doi.org/10.3767/persoonia.2019.42.01
  • Gao L, Zhang SQ (2022) Antiosteoporosis effects, pharmacokinetics, and drug delivery systems of icaritin: Advances and prospects. Pharmaceuticals 15(4): 397. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph15040397
  • Glass NL, Donaldson GC (1995) Development of primer sets designed for use with the PCR to amplify conserved genes from filamentous ascomycetes. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(4): 1323–1330. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.61.4.1323-1330.1995
  • Guerber JC, Liu B, Correll JC, Johnston PR (2003) Characterization of diversity in Colletotrichum acutatum sensu lato by sequence analysis of two gene introns, mtDNA and intron RFLPs, and mating compatibility. Mycologia 95(5): 872–895. https://doi.org/10.1080/15572536.2004.11833047
  • Guo Z (2023) Pathogen diversity of watermelon anthracnose and genetic analysis of Colletotrichum magnum. Huazhong Agricultural University.
  • He S, Guo B, Wang X (2003) Taxonomic study of Epimedium Sagittarius and its related species. Guizhou Science Z 1: 102–106.
  • Hou W, Chu L, Da Z, Dong N, Yang L, Dong C (2024a) First Report of Alternaria alternata Causing Leaf Blight on Epimedium sagittatum in China. Plant Disease 108(5): 1394. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-12-23-2621-PDN
  • Hou W, Chu L, Yang L, Dong N, Dan Z, Zhong H, Dong C (2024b) First report of Colletotrichum fructicola causing anthracnose on Epimedium sagittatum in China. Plant Disease 108(3): 813. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-11-22-2556-PDN
  • Hyde KD, Cai L, McKenzie EHC, Yang YL, Zhang JZ, Prihastuti H (2009) Colletotrichum: A catalogue of confusion. Fungal Diversity 39: 1–17.
  • Jayawardena RS, Hyde KD, Damm U, Cai L, Liu M, Li XH, Zhang W, Zhao WS, Yan JY (2016) Notes on currently accepted species of Colletotrichum. Mycosphere 7(8): 1192–1260. https://doi.org/10.5943/mycosphere/si/2c/9
  • Jayawardena RS, Bhunjun CS, Hyde KD, Gentekaki E, Itthayakorn P (2021) Colletotrichum: Lifestyles, biology, morpho-species, species complexes and accepted species. Mycosphere 12(1): 519–669. https://doi.org/10.5943/mycosphere/12/1/7
  • Li Y, Lin L, Cao J, Gan M, Fan X (2024) Three new species of Colletotrichum (Glomerellales, Glomerellaceae) associated with walnut (Juglans regia) anthracnose from China. MycoKeys 108: 147–167. https://doi.org/10.3897/mycokeys.108.125382
  • Lin R, Li XY, Wu S, Feng K, He YT, Wang XS, Huang ZX, Li JT, Lou T, Sun L (2025) First Report of Anthracnose Caused by Colletotrichum karstii on Epimedium sagittatum in China. Plant Disease 109(1): 235. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-06-24-1277-PDN
  • Liu L, Zhang L, Qiu P, Wang Y, Liu Y, Li Y, Gao J, Hsiang T (2020) Leaf spot of Polygonatum odoratum caused by Colletotrichum spaethianum. Journal of General Plant Pathology 86(2): 157–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10327-019-00903-4
  • Liu F, Ma ZY, Hou LW, Diao YZ, Wu WP, Damm U, Song S, Cai L (2022) Updating species diversity of Colletotrichum, with a phylogenomic overview. Studies in Mycology 101(1): 1–56. https://doi.org/10.3114/sim.2022.101.01
  • Miller MA, Pfeiffer WT, Schwartz T (2010) Creating the CIPRES Science Gateway for Inference of Large Phylogenetic Trees. Gateway Computing Environments Workshop (GCE), 2010. https://doi.org/10.1109/GCE.2010.5676129
  • O’Donnell K, Cigelnik E (1997) Two divergent intragenomic rDNA ITS2 types within a monophyletic lineage of the fungus Fusarium are Nonorthologous. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 7(1): 103–116. https://doi.org/10.1006/mpev.1996.0376
  • Rambaut A, Drummond AJ, Xie D, Baele G, Suchard MA (2018) Posterior summarization in Bayesian phylogenetics using tracer 1.7. Systematic Biology 67(5): 901–904. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syy032
  • Rayner RW (1970) A Mycological Colour Chart. Commonwealth Mycological Institute, Kew, UK.
  • Senanayake IC, Rathnayake AR, Marasinghe DS, Calabon MS, Gentekaki E, Lee HB, Hurdeal VG, Pem D, Dissanayake LS, Wijesinghe SN, Bundhun D, Nguyen TT, Goonasekara ID, Abeywickrama PD, Bhunjun CS, Jayawardena RS, Wanasinghe DN, Jeewon R, Bhat DJ, Xiang MM (2020) Morphological approaches in studying fungi: Collection, examination, isolation, sporulation and preservation. Mycosphere 11(1): 2678–2754. https://doi.org/10.5943/mycosphere/11/1/20
  • Shen B, Tan Z, Shen A, Tan Y (2020) Literature review of Epimedium Sagittarius. Hunan Forestry Science & Technology 47(5): 96–109.
  • Than PP, Jeewon R, Hyde KD, Pongsupasamit S, Mongkolporn O, Taylor PWJ (2008) Characterization and pathogenicity of Colletotrichum species associated with anthracnose on chilli (Capsicum spp.) in Thailand. Plant Pathology 57(3): 562–572. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3059.2007.01782.x
  • Vaidya G, Lohman DJ, Meier R (2011) SequenceMatrix: Concatenation software for the fast assembly of multi-gene datasets with character set and codon information. Cladistics 27(2): 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-0031.2010.00329.x
  • Weir BS, Johnston PR, Damm U (2012) The Colletotrichum gloeosporioides species complex. Studies in Mycology 73(1): 115–180. https://doi.org/10.3114/sim0011
  • Woudenberg JHC, Aveskamp MM, De Gruyter J, Spiers AG, Crous PW (2009) Multiple Didymella teleomorphs are linked to the Phoma clematidina morphotype. Persoonia 22: 56–62. https://doi.org/10.3767/003158509X427808
  • Yang HC, Haudenshield JS, Hartman GL (2014) Colletotrichum incanum sp nov., a curved-conidial species causing soybean anthracnose in USA. Mycologia 106(1): 32–42. https://doi.org/10.3852/13-013
  • Yao Q, Zhao Q, Jiang K, Li C, Liao M, Chen X, Li Z (2024) Diversity of causal agents of Pseudostellaria heterophylla leaf spot from Guizhou Province, China. Journal of Phytopathology 172(4): e13372. https://doi.org/10.1111/jph.13372
  • Zhang Q, Nizamani M, Feng Y, Yang Y, Jayawardena R, Hyde K, Wang Y, Li C (2023) Genome-scale and multi-gene phylogenetic analyses of Colletotrichum spp. Host preference and associated with medicinal plants. Mycosphere 14(si2): 1–106. https://doi.org/10.5943/mycosphere/14/si2/1
  • Zheng X, Li S, Wang K, Wang Z, Li J, Yang Q, Wu Y, Chen Q, Dou Y, Yao S, Xu J, Zheng X (2024) Comparing the pharmacological effects of the prepared folium of Epimedium brevicornu Maxim. And Epimedium sagittatum Maxim. On kidney-Yang deficiency syndrome and liver injury complications. Fitoterapia 176: 106006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fitote.2024.106006
  • Zhou S, Gao Y, An J, Qin L, Ou X, Guo L, Jiang W, Zhou T, Yuan QS (2024) Rhizopus oryzae causes the leaf rot disease of Epimedium sagittatum in guizhou, China. Plant Disease 108(4): 1105. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-10-23-2241-PDN
login to comment