Research Article
Print
Research Article
Comprehensive genome analysis of two Cytospora (Cytosporaceae, Diaporthales) species associated with canker disease of spruce: C. piceae and C. piceicola sp. nov.
expand article infoEvgeny Ilyukhin, Yanpeng Chen§, Svetlana Markovskaja|, Ashwag Shami, Sajeewa S. N. Maharachchikumbura§
‡ Unaffiliated, Saskatchewan, Canada
§ University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China
| Laboratory of Mycology, Nature Research Centre, Vilnius, Lithuania
¶ Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Open Access

Abstract

Cytospora canker (CC) is among the most important diseases in conifer trees (Picea spp., mainly). This disease poses a significant risk factor for forest health, potentially leading to economic losses for wood producers. To provide a genomic basis of the CC pathogenesis, the genomes of two Cytospora species associated with the disease were sequenced and further analyzed within a set of Diaporthales species. The first species was identified as C. piceae. The second was described as C. piceicola sp. nov. based on morphological characteristics and multi-gene phylogenetic analysis. The novel species is sister to other Cytospora species isolated from conifers. Here, we report 39.7 and 43.8 Mb highly contiguous genome assemblies of C. piceae EI-19(A) and C. piceicola EI-20, respectively, obtained using Illumina sequencing technology. Despite notably different genome sizes, these species share the main genome characteristics, such as predicted gene number (10,862 and 10,742) and assembly completeness (97.6% and 98.1%). A wide range of genes encoding carbohydrate-active enzymes, secondary metabolite biosynthesis clusters, and secreted effectors were found. Multiple experimentally validated virulence genes were also identified in the studied species. The defined arsenals of enzymes and effectors generally relate to the hemibiotrophic lifestyle with a capability to switch to biotrophy. The obtained evidence also supports that C. piceae EI-19(A) and C. piceicola EI-20 can cause severe canker disease symptoms in Picea spp. specifically. It was additionally observed that the strains of C. piceae may have different pathogenicity and virulence characteristics based on the analyses of predicted secondary metabolite complements, effectomes, and virulence-related genes. Phylogenomic analysis and timetree estimations indicated that divergence of the studied species may have occurred relatively late, 11-10 million years ago. Compared to other members of Diaporthales, C. piceae EI-19(A) and C. piceicola EI-20 implied a moderate rate of gene contraction, but the latter experienced significant gene loss that can additionally support host specificity attributed to these species. But uncovered gene contraction events may point out potential lifestyle differentiation and host shift of the studied species. It was revealed that EI-19(A) and C. piceicola EI-20 carry distinct secretomes and effectomes among Diaporthales species. This feature can indicate a species lifestyle and pathogenicity potential. These findings highlight potential targets for identification and/or detection of pathogenic Cytospora in conifers. The introduced draft genome sequences of C. piceae and C. piceicola can be employed as tools to understand basic genetics and pathogenicity mechanisms of fungal species causing canker disease in woody plants. The identified pathogenicity and virulence-related genes would serve as potential candidates for host-induced gene silencing aimed at making plant hosts more resistant to pathogenic species. Furthermore, the comparative genomics component of the study will facilitate the functional analysis of the genes of unknown function in all fungal pathogens.

Key words:

Carbohydrate-active enzymes, Cytospora canker, effector proteins, Sordariomycetes, virulence genes

Introduction

The ascomycetous genus Cytospora (Cytosporaceae, Diaporthales) includes fungal species occurring mainly on woody plants worldwide. Cytospora spp. are found to be associated with more than 600 hosts, including both angiosperms and gymnosperms (Farr and Rossman 2024). The species are usually considered as endophytes or weak pathogens with the latent phase of the life cycle in healthy plants. Some species can cause severe disease symptoms in infected trees under stress, eventually leading to disease outbreaks. The pathogenic Cytospora species are often isolated from cankered wood or necrotic lesions developing on branches and twigs of affected trees (Zhu et al. 2020; Eken and Sevindik 2024; Lin et al. 2024; Wang et al. 2024).

Cytospora canker (CC) is one of the most common diseases of spruce (Picea spp.) and fir (Abies spp.) in North America. In Canada, forests cover about half of the territory with a predominance of conifers (67.8%) (The State of Canada’s Forests 2023). Thus, wood canker pathogens can cause significant ecological and economic consequences. The canker disease usually progresses when a tree becomes stressed or injured by common abiotic factors such as drought or ice damage (Proffer and Hart 1988). Cankers form on branches and are often coated in a thick layer of resin, causing deformation, growth reduction, dieback, needle yellowing, premature defoliation, and occasionally tree collapse (Pan et al. 2018). The disease decreases wood quality or makes trees hideous when used as ornamental plants (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. 

Picea spp. with typical CC symptoms: branch dieback (A), stem deformation (B), resin coating (C), and needle yellowing (D).

Early and accurate species identification is crucial for disease management practices. Previously, Cytospora (Valsa) kunzei was the only species reported as a causal agent of CC in the region (Kamiri and Laemmlen 1981). However, recent studies showed that several Cytospora species were associated with canker disease of spruce trees (Pan et al. 2018; Pan et al. 2021). The family Cytosporaceae was introduced by Fries in 1825, but it was synonymized under Valsaceae in 1861. Recently, the family name of Cytosporaceae was legitimated again (Rossman et al. 2015). The genus Cytospora was introduced by Ehrenberg in 1818 with four described species (C. betulina, C. epimyces, C. resinae, and C. ribis). Currently, the genus name has priority over Leucocytospora, Leucostoma, Valsa, Valsella, and Valseutypella based on the dual-nomenclature criterion (Adams et al. 2005; Rossman et al. 2015). The identification of Cytospora species was initially based on morphological characteristics and host affiliation. However, these criteria for species delimitation are not robust due to significant overlap in morphological traits and lack of host specificity. A systematic approach that combines ecological, morphological, and phylogenetic analyses is essential to identify, correctly describe, and name Cytospora species. Recent studies have supplied updated phylogenies for the genus using partial protein coding gene sequence data (act1, rpb2, tef1-α, tub2) with reference strains included in analyses (Hanifeh et al. 2022; Jia et al. 2024; Lin et al. 2024).

Since Cytospora species are found to be the main causal agents of spruce canker disease, more information is required to understand pathogen-host interactions and disease pathogenesis. In order to successfully colonize plant tissue, a fungus needs to overcome chemical and physical barriers established by a host. Fungal plant pathogens evolved different lifestyles (e.g., biotrophy), which require specific gene sets (de Wit et al. 2012). The gene contents of pathogenic fungi formed through gene family expansion or contraction events can be related to genome size and architecture (Raffaele and Kamoun 2011). The main gene families associated with pathogenesis include cell wall degrading enzymes (CWDE), biosynthesis gene clusters (BSGC), and effector proteins (Keller et al. 2005; Chang et al. 2016; Selin et al. 2016). The experimentally validated genes involved in the pathogen–host interactions can also be important pathogenicity determinants and virulence factors (Winnenburg et al. 2005). Comparative genomic analysis can provide insights into the molecular basis of pathogenicity mechanisms of Cytospora species isolated from affected trees. Such an analysis is usually performed for studied pathogenic species within a genus or a family (Wang et al. 2018; Yu et al. 2022; Liang et al. 2024). Considering that Diaporthales is a well-defined and diverse order of Sordariomycetes that comprises a number of plant pathogens (Rossman et al. 2007; Senanayake et al. 2017), the two introduced Cytospora genomes were included in a set of the diaporthalean species with publicly available genomic data.

Of the Cytospora genomes available via NCBI (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) and Mycocosm (Grigoriev et al. 2014), the strain C. piceae CFCC52841 (ex-type living culture) was previously reported as a pathogen of Picea crassifolia (Pan et al. 2018). The genome was sequenced with a third-generation sequencing platform and analyzed within a set of six Cytospora species (Zhou et al. 2021). The performance in terms of quality between short and long-read sequencing has been broadly discussed (Miyamoto et al. 2014; Meslier et al. 2022). A comparison of two assemblies of C. piceae obtained from PacBio and Illumina reads will contribute to this discussion. The evidence will eventually help researchers with the selection of sequencing options. Genomic resources for another species isolated from diseased trees, C. piceicola, are unavailable.

This study identifies the species of Cytospora associated with canker disease of Picea glauca (Moench) Voss in the Niagara Region, Ontario, Canada. The genomes of C. piceae EI-19(A) and novel species C. piceicola EI-20 were sequenced and analyzed to identify the contents of CWDEs, BSGCs, effectors, and virulence-associated genes. Additionally, a comparative analysis was performed to reveal the lifestyle and pathogenicity potential of the studied species. There is a noticeable lack of updated studies for the region. This absence hinders a comprehensive understanding of CC and its associated pathogens. Therefore, the results of this study will provide a foundation for further research of pathogenicity and virulence-related genes of fungal plant pathogens and formulate effective canker disease prevention and control strategies.

Materials and methods

Sample collection and pathogen isolation

Branches of Picea glauca were collected from the trees with typical symptoms of CC in the Niagara region, Ontario, Canada, in 2020. The isolates were first obtained using the single spore isolation technique (Phookamsak et al. 2015). To isolate species of Cytospora from plant tissue, small pieces (0.5–1 cm) of cankered wood were surface sterilized with 70% ethanol for 30 s, following sterilization with 0.5% sodium hypochlorite for 2 min, rinsed three times with sterile water, and plated on malt extract agar (MEA). Purification of Cytospora-like colonies was performed by transferring hyphal tips to new MEA plates. The representative isolate obtained from necrotic plant tissue clearly resembling a Cytospora colony was selected for further analysis. The isolate EI-19(A) was identified based on morphological characteristics and sequence data analysis. To correctly identify the isolate EI-20, both detailed morphological and phylogenetic analyses were conducted. The specimens (branches with fruiting structures, wood samples, and living cultures) were deposited into the Herbarium of the Nature Research Centre (BILAS), Institute of Botany, Vilnius, Lithuania, the Canadian National Mycological Herbarium (DAOM), and the Canadian Collection of Fungal Cultures (DAOMC), Ottawa, Canada.

Morphological analysis

The description of the new species was carried out using the pure culture of the representative isolate. Radial colony growth and color were assessed after 7 and 14 days of fungus incubation under room temperature in the dark on MEA, respectively. Morphological characterization and measurements of asexual reproductive structures (conidiomata (n = 10), conidiophores (n = 20), and conidia (n = 50)) were performed with dissecting (AmScope SE306R-PZ) and compound (AmScope B120C-E5) microscopes. Pictures were taken with a 12 MP digital AmScope camera MD1200A supplied with AmScopeX software (AmScope, Irvine, CA, USA).

DNA extraction, PCR amplification, and sequencing

Total genomic DNA (gDNA) was extracted from 8-10-day-old pure cultures using the DNeasy PowerSoil Pro Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) following the manufacturer’s instructions. The internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region was amplified with the primer pair ITS1/ITS4 (White et al. 1990) using a C-1000 thermal cycler (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA, USA) under the conditions described in the references for the region. The quality of PCR products was examined using electrophoresis in 1% agarose gel. Sanger sequencing was carried out at the Genome Quebec Innovation Centre (Montreal, QC, Canada). The partial protein-coding gene (act, rpb2, tef1-α, tub2) sequence data were obtained from assemblies of the strains EI-19(A) and EI-20. The available sequences of the strain C. piceae CFCC 52842 were run against the strains’ genome assemblies to locate corresponding gene regions with the BLASTn search algorithm. The nucleotide sequences were further retrieved using BioEdit v.7.0 (Hall 1999).

Sequence alignment and phylogenetic analysis

The initial identification was performed employing the BLASTn tool against the GenBank nucleotide database of the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). Sequence data of the related reference strains (Lin et al. 2024) were downloaded from the GenBank database. The sequences were initially aligned employing CLUSTAL-X2 v.2.1 (Thompson et al. 1994). Some characters were trimmed from both ends of the alignments to approximate the size of the obtained sequences to those included in the dataset with MEGA-X (Kumar et al. 2018). Phylogenetic analyses were executed using randomized accelerated maximum likelihood (RAxML) v. 8.0 (Stamatakis 2014) for maximum likelihood (ML) analysis. Bayesian posterior (BP) probabilities were defined using MrBayes v.3.2.7 (Huelsenbeck and Ronquist 2001) with the TrEase web server (Mishra et al. 2023). The ML analysis was performed using the general time-reversible (GTR) substitution model with a gamma-distributed rate of heterogeneity and a proportion of invariant sites selected with ModelTest-NG v.0.1.7 (Darriba et al. 2020). The statistical support values were estimated with bootstrapping of 1,000 replicates (Hillis and Bull 1993). The GTR model was also chosen for the BI analysis. The Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithm was used to estimate Bayesian posterior probabilities (BPP). Six simultaneous Markov chains were run for 1,000,000 generations. A burn-in was implemented by discarding the first 30% of generated trees. The phylograms were visualized using FigTree v. 1.4.4 (Rambaut 2018). The newly generated sequences were deposited in GenBank (Table 1). The master alignment used in the analyses was submitted to TreeBase (www.treebase.org; ID: S31874).

Table 1.

Strains of the Cytospora genus used in phylogenetic analysis with their GenBank accession numbers. Ex-type strains are marked with T. Strains obtained in this study are marked in bold. Sequence data retrieved from genome assemblies is marked with *. NA indicates that data is not available.

Species Strain Host GenBank accession numbers
ITS act rpb2 tef1-α tub2
Cytospora ailanthicola CFCC 89970 Ailanthus altissima MH933618 MH933526 MH933592 MH933494 MH933565
C. albodisca CFCC 53161 Platycladus orientalis MW418406 MW422899 MW422909 MW422921 MW422933
C. albodisca CFCC 54373 Platycladis orientalis MW418407 MW422900 MW422910 MW422922 MW422934
C. alba CFCC 55462T Salix matsudana MZ702593 OK303457 OK303516 OK303577 OK303644
C. alba CFCC 55463 Salix matsudana MZ702594 OK303458 OK303517 OK303578 OK303645
C. ampulliformis MFLUCC 16-0583T Sorbus intermedia KY417726 KY417692 KY417794 NA NA
C. ampulliformis MFLUCC 16-0629 Acer platanoides KY417727 KY417693 KY417795 NA NA
C. amydgali CBS 144233T Prunus dulcis MG971853 MG972002 NA MG971659 MG971718
C. atrocirrhata CFCC 89615 Juglans regia KR045618 KF498673 KU710946 KP310858 KR045659
C. atrocirrhata CFCC 89616 Juglans regia KR045619 KF498674 KU710947 KP310859 KR045660
C. beilinensis CFCC 50493T Pinus armandii MH933619 MH933527 NA MH933495 MH933561
C. beilinensis CFCC 50494 Pinus armandii MH933620 MH933528 NA MH933496 MH933562
C. berberidis CFCC 89927T Berberis dasystachya KR045620 KU710990 KU710948 KU710913 KR045661
C. berberidis CFCC 89933 Berberis dasystachya KR045621 KU710991 KU710949 KU710914 KR045662
C. bungeana CFCC 50495T Pinus bungeanae MH933621 MH933529 MH933593 MH933497 MH933563
C. bungeana CFCC 50496 Pinus bungeanae MH933622 MH933530 MH933594 MH933498 MH933564
C. californica CBS 144234T Juglans regia MG971935 MG972083 NA MG971645 NA
C. carbonacea CFCC 89947 Ulmus pumila KR045622 KP310842 KU710950 KP310855 KP310825
C. carpobroti CMW 48981T Carpobrotus edulis MH382812 NA NA MH411212 MH411207
C. celtidicola CFCC 50497T Celtis sinensis MH933623 MH933531 MH933595 MH933499 MH933566
C. celtidicola CFCC 50498 Celtis sinensis MH933624 MH933532 MH933596 MH933500 MH933567
C. centrivillosa MFLUCC 16-1206T Sorbus domestica MF190122 NA MF377600 NA NA
C. centrivillosa MFLUCC 17-1660 Sorbus domestica MF190123 NA MF377601 NA NA
C. ceratosperma CFCC 89624 Juglans regia KR045645 NA KU710976 KP310860 KR045686
C. ceratosperma CFCC 89625 Juglans regia KR045646 NA KU710977 KP31086 KR045687
C. chrysosperma CFCC 89981 Populus alba MH933625 MH933533 MH933597 MH933501 MH933568
C. chrysosperma CFCC 89982 Ulmus pumila KP281261 KP310835 NA KP310848 KP310818
C. cinnamomea CFCC 53178T Prunus armeniaca MK673054 MK673024 NA NA MK672970
C. coryli CFCC 53162T Corylus mandshurica MN854450 NA MN850751 MN850758 MN861120
C. corylina CFCC 54684T Corylus heterophylla MW839861 MW815951 MW815937 MW815886 MW883969
C. corylina CFCC 54685 Corylus heterophylla MW839862 MW815952 MW815938 MW815887 MW883970
C. cotini MFLUCC 14-1050T Cotinus coggygria KX430142 NA KX430144 NA NA
C. cotoneastricola CF 20197027 Cotoneaster sp. MK673072 MK673042 MK673012 MK672958 MK672988
C. cotoneastricola CF 20197028 Cotoneaster sp. MK673073 MK673043 MK673013 MK672959 MK672989
C. curvispora CFCC 54000T Corylus heterophylla MW839851 MW815931 MW815945 MW815880 MW883963
C. curvispora CFCC 54001 Corylus heterophylla MW839854 MW815933 MW815947 MW815882 MW883965
C. davidiana CXY 1350T Populus davidiana KM034870 NA NA NA NA
C. diopuiensis CFCC55479 Undefined wood MK912137 MN685819 NA NA NA
C. diopuiensis CFCC55527 Koelreuteria paniculata ON376918 ON390905 ON390908 ON390914 ON390923
C. discotoma CFCC 53137T Platycladus orientalis MW418404 MW422897 MW422907 MW422919 MW422931
C. discotoma CFCC 54368 Platycladus orientalis MW418405 MW422898 MW422908 MW422920 MW422932
C. donetzica MFLUCC 15-0864 Crataegus monogyna KY417729 KY417695 KY417797 NA NA
C. donetzica MFLUCC 16-0574T Crataegus monogyna KY417731 KY417697 KY417799 NA NA
C. donglingensis CFCC 53159T Platycladus orientalis MW418412 MW422903 MW422915 MW422927 MW422939
C. donglingensis CFCC 53160 Platycladus orientalis MW418414 MW422905 MW422917 MW422929 MW422941
C. elaeagni CFCC 89632 Elaeagnus angustifolia KR045626 KU710995 KU710955 KU710918 KR045667
C. elaeagni CFCC 89633 Elaeagnus angustifolia KF765677 KU710996 KU710956 KU710919 KR045668
C. elaeagnicola CFCC 52882T Elaeagnus angustifolia MK732342 MK732345 MK732348 NA NA
C. elaeagnicola CFCC 52883 Elaeagnus angustifolia MK732343 MK732346 MK732349 NA NA
C. erumpens CFCC 50022 Prunus padus MH933627 MH933534 NA MH933502 MH933569
C. erumpens CFCC 53163 Prunus padus MK673059 MK673029 MK673000 MK672948 MK672975
C. eucalypti CBS 144241 Eucalyptus globulus MG971907 MG972056 NA MG971617 MG971772
C. euonymicola CFCC 50499T Euonymus kiautschovicus MH933628 MH933535 MH933598 MH933503 MH933570
C. euonymicola CFCC 50500 Euonymus kiautschovicus MH933629 MH933536 MH933599 MH933504 MH933571
C. euonymina CFCC 89993T Euonymus kiautschovicus MH933630 MH933537 MH933600 MH933505 MH933590
C. euonymina CFCC 89999 Euonymus kiautschovicus MH933631 MH933538 MH933601 MH933506 MH933591
C. fugax CXY 1371 Populus simonii KM034852 NA NA NA KM034891
C. fugax CXY 1381 Populus ussuriensis KM034853 NA NA NA KM034890
C. galegicola MFLUCC 18-1199T Galega officinalis MK912128 MN685810 MN685820 NA NA
C. gigalocus CFCC 89620T Juglans regia KR045628 KU710997 KU710957 KU710920 KR045669
C. gigalocus CFCC 89621 Juglans regia KR045629 KU710998 KU710958 KU710921 KR045670
C. gigaspora CFCC 50014 Juniperus procumbens KR045630 KU710999 KU710959 KU710922 KR045671
C. gigaspora CFCC 89634T Salix psammophila KF765671 KU711000 KU710960 KU710923 KR045672
C. globosa MFLU 16-2054T Abies alba MT177935 NA MT432212 MT454016 NA
C. globosa CBS 118977 Abies alba PP988852 KX964768 KX965518 KX965130 KX964947
C. granati CBS 144237T Punica granatum MG971799 MG971949 NA MG971514 MG971664
C. haidianensis CFCC 54056 Euonymus alatus MT360041 MT363978 MT363987 MT363997 MT364007
C. haidianensis CFCC 54057T Euonymus alatus MT360042 MT363979 MT363988 MT363998 MT364008
C. hejingensis CFCC 59571T Salix sp. PP060455 PP059657 PP059663 PP059667 PP059673
C. hejingensis C3479 Salix sp. PP060456 PP059658 PP059664 PP059668 PP059674
C. hippophaës CFCC 89639 Hippophaë rhamnoides KR045632 KU711001 KU710961 KU710924 KR045673
C. hippophaës CFCC 89640 Hippophaë rhamnoides KF765682 KF765730 KU710962 KP310865 KR045674
C. japonica CFCC 89956 Prunus cerasifera KR045624 KU710993 KU710953 KU710916 KR045665
C. japonica CFCC 89960 Prunus cerasifera KR045625 KU710994 KU710954 KU710917 KR045666
C. jilongensis CFCC 59569T Prunus davidiana PP060457 PP059659 NA PP059669 PP059675
C. jilongensis XZ083 Prunus davidiana P060458 PP059660 NA PP059670 PP059676
C. joaquinensis CBS 144235 Populus deltoides MG971895 MG972044 NA MG971605 MG971761
C. junipericola MFLU 17-0882T Juniperus communis MF190125 NA NA MF377580 NA
C. juniperina CFCC 50501T Juniperus przewalskii MH933632 MH933539 MH933602 MH933507 NA
C. juniperina CFCC 50502 Juniperus przewalskii MH933633 MH933540 MH933603 MH933508 MH933572
C. kantschavelii CXY 1383 Populus maximowiczii KM034867 NA NA NA NA
C. kuanchengensis CFCC 52464T Castanea mollissima MK432616 MK442940 MK578076 NA NA
C. kuanchengensis CFCC 52465 Castanea mollissima MK432617 MK442941 MK578077 NA NA
C. kunsensis CFCC 59570T Prunus padus PP060459 PP059661 PP059665 PP059671 PP059677
C. kunsensis C3488 Prunus padus PP060460 PP059662 PP059666 PP059672 PP059678
C. leucosperma CFCC 89622 Pyrus bretschneideri KR045616 KU710988 KU710944 KU710911 KR045657
C. leucosperma CFCC 89894 Pyrus bretschneideri KR045617 KU710989 KU710945 KU710912 KR045658
C. longispora CBS 144236T Prunus domestica MG971905 MG972054 NA MG971615 MG971764
C. longistiolata MFLUCC 16-0628 Salix × fragilis KY417734 KY417700 KY417802 NA NA
C. lumnitzericola MFLUCC 17-0508T Lumnitzera racernosa MG975778 MH253457 MH253453 NA NA
C. mali CFCC 50028 Malus pumila MH933641 MH933548 MH933606 MH933513 MH933577
C. mali CFCC 50029 Malus pumila MH933642 MH933549 MH933607 MH933514 MH933578
C. mali-spectabilis CFCC 53181T Malus spectabilis MK673066 MK673036 MK673006 MK672953 MK672982
C. melnikii CFCC 89984 Rhus typhina MH933678 MH933551 MH933609 MH933515 MH933580
C. mougeotii ATCC 44994T Picea abies AY347329 NA NA NA NA
C. mougeotii CBS 198.50 Picea abies PP988918 KX964794
C. myrtagena CFCC 52454 Castanea mollissima MK432614 MK442938 MK578074 NA NA
C. myrtagena CFCC 52455 Castanea mollissima MK432615 MK442939 MK578075 NA NA
C. nivea CFCC 89641 Elaeagnus angustifolia KF765683 KU711006 KU710967 KU710929 KR045679
C. nivea MFLUCC 15-0860 Salix acutifolia KY417737 KY417703 KY417805 NA NA
C. notastroma NE_TFR5 Populus tremuloides JX438632 NA NA JX438543 NA
C. notastroma NE_TFR8 Populus tremuloides JX438633 NA NA JX438542 NA
C. ochracea CFCC 53164T Cotoneaster sp. MK673060 MK673030 MK673001 MK672949 MK672976
C. oleicola CBS 144248T Olea europaea MG971944 MG972098 NA MG971660 MG971752
C. olivacea CFCC 53174 Prunus cerasifera MK673058 MK673028 MK672999 NA MK672974
C. olivacea CFCC 53175 Prunus dulcis MK673062 MK673032 MK673003 NA MK672978
C. palm CXY 1276 Cotinus coggygria JN402990 NA NA KJ781296 NA
C. palm CXY 1280T Cotinus coggygria JN411939 NA NA KJ781297 NA
C. parakantschavelii MFLUCC 15-0857T Populus × sibirica KY417738 KY417704 KY417806 v
C. paracinnamomea CFCC 55453 Salix matsudana MZ702594 OK303456 OK303515 OK303576 OK303643
C. paracinnamomea CFCC 55455T Salix matsudana MZ702598 OK303460 OK303519 OK303580 OK303647
C. parapistaciae CBS 144506T Pistacia vera MG971804 MG971954 NA MG971519 MG971669
C. paraplurivora FDS-439 Prunus armeniaca OL640182 OL631586 NA OL631589 NA
C. paraplurivora FDS-564T Prunus persica OL640183 OL631587 NA OL631590 NA
C. parasitica CFCC 53173 Berberis sp. MK673070 MK673040 MK673010 MK672957 MK672986
C. paratranslucens MFLUCC 15-0506T Populus alba var. bolleana KY417741 KY417707 KY417809 NA NA
C. paratranslucens MFLUCC 16-0627 Populus alba KY417742 KY417708 KY417810 NA NA
C. phialidica MFLUCC 17-2498 Alnus glutinosa MT177932 NA MT432209 MT454014 NA
C. piceae CFCC 52841T Picea crassifolia MH820398 MH820406 MH820395 MH820402 MH820387
C. piceae CFCC 52842 Picea crassifolia MH820399 MH820407 MH820396 MH820403 MH820388
C. piceae EI-19(A), BILAS 51883 Picea glauca ON352564 genome* genome* genome* genome*
C. piceicola EI-20, BILAS 51886T Picea glauca ON352567 genome* genome* genome* genome*
C. pinastri CBS 113.81 Abies alba KY051777 KX964689 NA NA KX964886
C. pinastri CBS 505.7 Abies alba KY051939 KX964819 NA NA KX964992
C. pingbianensis MFLUCC 18-1204T Undefined wood MK912135 MN685817 MN685826 NA NA
C. pistaciae CBS 144238T Pistacia vera MG971802 MG971952 NA MG971517 MG971667
C. platyclade CFCC 50504T Platycladus orientalis MH933645 MH933552 MH933610 MH933516 MH933581
C. platyclade CFCC 50505 Platycladus orientalis MH933646 MH933553 MH933611 MH933517 MH933582
C. platycladicola CFCC 50038T Platycladus orientalis KT222840 MH933555 MH933613 MH933519 MH933584
C. platycladicola CFCC 50039 Platycladus orientalis KR045642 KU711008 KU710973 KU710931 KR045683
C. plurivora CBS 144239T Olea europaea MG971861 MG972010 NA MG971572 MG971726
C. populi CFCC 55472T Populus sp. MZ702609 OK303471 OK303530 OK303591 OK303658
C. populi CFCC 55473 Populus sp. MZ702610 OK303472 OK303531 OK303592 OK303659
C. populicola CBS 144240 Populus deltoides MG971891 MG972040 NA MG971601 MG971757
C. populina CFCC 89644T Salix psammophila KF765686 KU711007 KU710969 KU710930 KR045681
C. populinopsis CFCC 50032T Sorbus aucuparia MH933648 MH933556 MH933614 MH933520 MH933585
C. populinopsis CFCC 50033 Sorbus aucuparia MH933649 MH933557 MH933615 MH933521 MH933586
C. predappioensis MFLUCC 17-2458T Platanus hybrida MG873484 NA NA NA NA
C. pruinopsis CFCC 50034T Ulmus pumila KP281259 KP310836 KU710970 KP310849 KP310819
C. pruinopsis CFCC 53153 Ulmus pumila MN854451 MN850763 MN850752 MN850759 MN861121
C. pruinosa CFCC 50036 Syringa oblata KP310800 KP310832 NA KP310845 KP310815
C. pruinosa CFCC 50037 Syringa oblata MH933650 MH933558 NA MH933522 MH933589
C. prunicola MFLU 17-0995T Prunus sp. MG742350 MG742353 MG742352 NA NA
C. pruni-mume CFCC 53179 Prunus armeniaca MK673057 MK673027 NA MK672947 MK672973
C. pruni-mume CFCC 53180T Prunus mume MK673067 MK673037 MK673007 MK672954 MK672983
C. quercicola MFLU 17-0881 Quercus sp. MF190128 NA NA NA NA
C. ribis CFCC 50026 Ulmus pumila KP281267 KP310843 KU710972 KP310856 KP310826
C. ribis CFCC 50027 Ulmus pumila KP281268 KP310844 NA KP310857 KP310827
C. rosicola CF 20197024T Rosa sp. MK673079 MK673049 MK673019 MK672965 MK672995
C. rostrata CFCC 89909 Salix cupularis KR045643 KU711009 KU710974 KU710932 KR045684
C. rostrata CFCC 89910 Salix cupularis KR045644 KU711010 KU710975 KU710933 NA
C. rusanovii MFLUCC 15-0853 Populus × sibirica KY417743 KY417709 KY417811 NA NA
C. rusanovii MFLUCC 15-0854T Salix babylonica KY417744 KY417710 KY417812 NA NA
C. saccardoi CBS 109752 Juniperus communis PP988975 KX964683 KX965461 KX965050 KX964883
C. saccardoi CBS 141615 Unknown PP988976 NA NA NA NA
C. sacculus CFCC 89626T Juglans regia KR045647 KU711011 KU710978 KU710934 KR045688
C. sacculus CFCC 89627 Juglans regia KR045648 KU711012 KU710979 KU710935 KR045689
C. salicacearum MFLUCC 15-0509 Salix alba KY417746 KY417712 KY417814 NA NA
C. salicacearum MFLUCC 15-0861 Salix × fragilis KY417745 KY417711 KY417813 NA NA
C. salicicola MFLUCC 14-1052T Salix alba KU982636 KU982637 NA NA NA
C. salicicola MFLUCC 15-0866 Salix sp. KY417749 KY417715 KY417817 NA NA
C. salicina MFLUCC 15-0862 Salix alba KY417750 KY417716 KY417818 NA NA
C. salicina MFLUCC 16-0637 Salix × fragilis KY417751 KY417717 KY417819 NA NA
C. schulzeri CFCC 50042 Malus pumila KR045650 KU711014 KU710981 KU710937 KR045691
C. sibiraeae CFCC 50045T Sibiraea angustata KR045651 KU711015 KU710982 KU710938 KR045692
C. sibiraeae CFCC 50046 Sibiraea angustata KR045652 KU711015 KU710983 KU710939 KR045693
C. sophorae CFCC 50047 Styphnolobium japonicum KR045653 KU711017 KU710984 KU710940 KR045694
C. sophorae CFCC 89598 Styphnolobium japonicum KR045654 KU711018 KU710985 KU710941 KR045695
C. sophoricola CFCC 89595T Styphnolobium japonicum KR045655 KU711019 KU710986 KU710942 KR045696
C. sophoricola CFCC 89596 Styphnolobium japonicum KR045656 KU711020 KU710987 KU710943 KR045697
C. sophoriopsis CFCC 55489 Salix matsudana MZ702583 OK303445 OK303504 OK303565 OK303632
C. sophoriopsis CFCC 89600 Styphnolobium japonicum KR045623 KU710992 KU710951 KU710915 KP310817
C. sorbi MFLUCC 16-0631T Sorbus aucuparia KY417752 KY417718 KY417820 NA NA
C. sorbicola MFLUCC 16-0584T Acer pseudoplatanus KY417755 KY417721 KY417823 NA NA
C. sorbicola MFLUCC 16-0633 Cotoneaster melanocarpus KY417758 KY417724 KY417826 NA NA
C. sorbina CF 20197660T Sorbus tianschanica MK673052 MK673022 NA MK672943 MK672968
C. spiraeae CFCC 50049T Spiraea salicifolia MG707859 MG708196 MG708199 NA NA
C. spiraeae CFCC 50050 Spiraea salicifolia MG707860 MG708197 MG708200 NA NA
C. spiraeicola CFCC 53138T Spiraea salicifolia MN854448 NA MN850749 MN850756 MN861118
C. spiraeicola CFCC 53139 Tilia nobilis MN854449 NA MN850750 MN850757 MN861119
C. tamaricicola CFCC 50507 Rosa multifolora MH933651 MH933559 MH933616 MH933525 MH933587
C. tamaricicola CFCC 50508T Tamarix chinensis MH933652 MH933560 MH933617 MH933523 MH933588
C. tanaitica MFLUCC 14-1057T Betula pubescens KT459411 KT459413 NA NA NA
C. thailandica MFLUCC 17-0262T Xylocarpus moluccensis MG975776 MH253459 MH253455 NA NA
C. thailandica MFLUCC 17-0263 Xylocarpus moluccensis MG975777 MH253460 MH253456 NA NA
C. tibetensis CF 20197026 Cotoneaster sp. MK673076 MK673046 MK673016 MK672962 MK672992
C. tibetensis CF 20197029 Cotoneaster sp. MK673077 MK673047 MK673017 MK672963 MK672993
C. tibouchinae CPC 26333T Tibouchina semidecandra KX228284 NA NA NA NA
C. translucens CXY 1351 Populus davidiana KM034874 NA NA NA KM034895
C. translucens CXY 1359 Populus × beijingensis KM034871 NA NA NA KM034894
C. ulmi MFLUCC 15-0863T Ulmus minor KY417759 NA NA NA NA
C. verrucosa CFCC 53157T Platycladus orientalis MW418408 NA MW422911 MW422923 MW422935
C. verrucosa CFCC 53158 Platycladus orientalis MW418410 MW422901 MW422913 MW422925 MW422937
C. vinacea CBS 141585T Vitis interspecific KX256256 NA NA KX256277 KX256235
C. viridistroma CBS 202.36T Cercis canadensis MN172408 NA NA MN271853 NA
C. viticola Cyt2 Vitis interspecific KX256238 NA NA KX256259 KX256217
C. viticola CBS 141586T Vitis vinifera KX256239 NA NA KX256260 KX256218
C. xinjiangensis CFCC 53182 Rosa sp. MK673064 MK673034 MK673004 MK672951 MK672980
C. xinjiangensis CFCC 53183T Rosa sp. MK673065 MK673035 MK673005 MK672952 MK672981
C. xinglongensis CFCC 52458T Castanea mollissima MK432622 MK442946 MK578082 NA NA
C. xinglongensis CFCC 52459 Castanea mollissima MK432623 MK442947 MK578083 NA NA
C. xylocarpi MFLUCC 17-0251T Xylocarpus granatum MG975775 MH253458 MH253454 NA NA
C. zhaitangensis CFCC 56227T Euonymus japonicus OQ344750 OQ398760 OQ398789 OQ410623 OQ398733
C. zhaitangensis CFCC 57537 Euonymus japonicus OQ344751 OQ398761 OQ398790 OQ410624 OQ398734
Diaporthe vaccinii CBS 160.32 Vaccinium macrocarpon KC343228 JQ807297 NA KC343954 KC344196

Library preparation, genome sequencing, and assembly

The obtained gDNA of the strains EI-19(A) and EI-20 was quantified employing the Quant-iT PicoGreen dsDNA Assay Kit (Life Technologies, Carlsbad, CA, USA). Libraries were prepared with the NEBNext Ultra II DNA Library Preparation Kit for Illumina (New England Biolabs, Ipswich, MA, USA). Whole genome sequencing was performed using the NovaSeq 6000 platform with a 150 bp pair-end sequencing strategy. This option was selected as being more cost-effective for obtaining draft genome sequences compared to third-generation sequencing. All procedures were performed at the Genome Quebec Innovation Centre (Montreal, Canada). The raw reads were quality-filtered using Trimmomatic v. 0.38.1 (Bolger et al. 2014) with the implementation of Nextera (pair-ended) and sliding window settings. The obtained reads were assembled into scaffolds using SPAdes v. 3.14.1 with K-mer values 21, 33, 45, 57, 69, 81, 93, 105, and 117. The genome assembly characteristics were assessed using QUAST v. 5.2.0 (Mikheenko et al. 2018). Repeat sequence content was estimated with RepeatMasker v. 4.1.5 (Smit et al. 2013), employing the Repbase library of repeats for fungi (Bao et al. 2015). The tRNA regions were predicted using the tRNA scan tool v. 0.4 (Lowe and Eddy 1997). The completeness of assembly was estimated with BUSCO v.5.7.1 (Simão et al. 2015) based on the dataset ascomycota_odb10 (Manni et al. 2021).

Gene prediction and functional annotation

Gene prediction from assemblies of the strains EI-19(A) and EI-20 was performed using Augustus v. 3.4.0 (Stanke and Morgenstern 2005) with the gene models of C. mali 03-8 employed to train the tool. For consistency, the genes of other strains included in the analysis were predicted using Fusarium graminearum as a model organism with default parameters. The eggNOG mapper tool v. 2.1.9 (Huerta-Cepas et al. 2019) was employed for functional annotation of the genes predicted. The annotation of CWDEs was performed using dbCAN3 (Yin et al. 2012) with the HMMER-based classification tool. BSGCs were predicted with antiSMASH v. 6.1.1 (Blin et al. 2021). Secretomes were identified using the SECRETOOL pipeline (Cortázar et al. 2014) with default cut-off values and further classified (Miyauchi et al. 2020). EffectorP-fungi v.3.0 (Sperschneider and Dodds 2022) was employed to predict effector proteins. The PHI-base dataset v. 4.17 (Urban et al. 2017), containing 9,056 protein sequences, was used to identify virulence-related genes. A local BLASTp search was performed based on the following parameters: e-value 1 × 10−5, minimum query coverage per HSP 100%, and percent identity cut off ≥ 65%.

Phylogenetic tree reconstruction, genome alignment, divergence time estimation, and gene family analysis

The single-copy orthogroups (SCOs) within all species included in the analysis were identified with Orthofinder v. 2.5.4 (Emms and Kelly 2015). Multiple sequence alignment was performed using MAFFT v. 7.310 (Katoh and Standley 2013). ModelFinder (Kalyaanamoorthy et al. 2017) was used to select a model for each alignment. The phylogenetic tree was produced based on concatenated alignments employing IQ-Tree v. 2.1.3 (Nguyen et al. 2015). Genome sequences were aligned with MashMap v. 2.0 (Jain et al. 2018) and displayed as dot-plot graphs using D-Genies (Cabanettes and Klopp 2018). The RealTime tool implemented in MEGA-X (Kumar et al. 2018) was employed to estimate divergence times. The secondary calibration nodes for the splits of Juglanconis juglandina and Diaporthe citrichinensis (mean: 55.9 MYA, standard deviation: 1 MYA) and Diaporthe citrichinensis and Cytospora chrysosperma (mean: 42.3 MYA, standard deviation: 1 MYA) were used for divergence time estimations based on the TimeTree dataset (Kumar et al. 2017). Gene family expansion and contraction events were revealed using CAFE5 (Mendes et al. 2020) with a p-value of 0.01 as the threshold.

Results and discussion

Phylogenetic analyses

The ML and BP analyses of the combined ITS, act, rpb2, tef1-α, and tub2 sequence data produced phylogenetic trees with highly similar topologies. The best-scoring ML tree with a log-likelihood value of −63932.107826 is shown in Fig. 2. Estimated base frequencies were as follows: A = 0.245570, C = 0.2245652, G = 0.261603, T = 0.247175; substitution rates: AC = 1.770329, AG = 2.617916, AT = 1.724382, CG = 1.002700, CT = 5.573700, GT = 1.000000. The strain of the novel species C. piceicola EI-20 was nested separately, forming a well-supported clade with C. globosa and C. pinastri (95% ML). Notably, C. piceicola was also grouped (80% ML) with other species isolated from conifer trees (C. mougeotii, C. piceae, C. saccardoi, and C. verrucosa).

Figure 2. 

Phylogram of the RAxML tree generated based on the analysis of combined ITS, act, rpb2, tef1-α, and tub2 sequence data of the Cytospora genus. Bootstrap support values for ML ≥ 50% and BP ≥ 0.90 are shown as ML/BP above or below the nodes. Ex-type strains are in bold. Strains obtained in this study are in blue. The tree is rooted to Diaporthe vaccinii (CBS 160.32).

Taxonomy

Cytosporaceae Fr., Systema Orbis Vegetabilis 1: 118 (1825)

Cytospora Ehrenb., Sylvae mycologicae Berolinenses: 28 (1818)

Cytospora piceae X.L. Fan, in Pan, Zhu, Tian, Alvarez & Fan, Phytotaxa 383(2): 188 (2018)

Fig. 3

Description.

Sexual morph : not observed. Asexual morph: Conidiomata pycnidial, immersed in bark, erumpent, ostiolated, with multiple irregularly arranged circular or ovoid locules, 1,050–1,400 μm in diam. Conceptacle absent, ostiole conspicuous, circular, dark gray, at the same level as the disc. Conidiophores semimacronematous, hyaline, filamentous, mainly unbranched or branched at base, elongated, smooth, thin-walled, (16.0–)17.7–22.2(–23.5) μm. Conidiogenous cells enteroblastic, polyphialidic. Conidia abundant, single, hyaline, aseptate, curved, allantoid, thin-walled (5.0–)5.4–6.1(–6.5) × (1.0–)1.2–1.5 μm.

Figure 3. 

Asexual morph of Cytospora piceae A habit of conidiomata on twig of P. glauca B transverse section of conidioma C conidiophores and conidiogenous cells D conidia E adverse and reverse view of seven-day-old culture on MEA. Scale bars: 1 mm (A, B); 5 μm (C, D).

Culture characteristics.

Colonies on MEA initially white, becoming beige with dense aerial mycelium, slow-growing (17 mm in diameter) after 7 days of incubation. Hyphae hyaline, smooth, branched, and septate.

Material examined.

Canada • Ontario, Lincoln, 43°06'38.2"N, 79°19'17.5"W, branches of Picea glauca (Moench) Voss, pycnidia (conidiomata) formed on cankered branches and twigs, April 2020, E. Ilyukhin (BILAS 51883, DAOM 985023, DAOMC 256987).

Notes.

Morphologically, two isolates of C. piceae are very similar, but EI-19(A) has slightly longer conidiophores and conidia than CFCC 52841. Originally, C. piceae was described as a pathogen associated with the canker disease of Picea crassifolia in China (Pan et al. 2018). But the species was isolated from different hosts (including non-conifers) in other parts of Canada based on ITS sequence data (ON352565, PQ671332, PQ671333, PQ666762) available in GenBank.

Cytospora piceicola Ilyukhin & Markovsk., sp. nov.

MycoBank No: 856480
Fig. 4

Etymology.

The name refers to the host genus, Picea, from which the fungus was first isolated.

Figure 4. 

Asexual morph of C. piceicola A isolation source (cankered branches of P. glauca) B adverse and reverse view of seven-day-old culture on MEA C pycnidia (with locules) on the surface of the colony after 25 days of incubation D conidiogenous cells E conidia. Scale bars: 1 mm (C); 5 μm (D, E).

Holotype.

Canada • Ontario, Lincoln, 43°06'39.0"N, 79°19'15.4"W, isolated from cankered wood (branches) of Picea glauca, April 2020, E. Ilyukhin (holotype BILAS 51884, ex-holotype living culture BILAS 51886=EI-20, isotype DAOM 985024, DAOMC 256985).

Description.

Sexual morph : not observed in culture. Asexual morph: Conidiomata appearing after 25 days of incubation on MEA, rare, pycnidial, solitary, globose to subglobose, dark grey to black when dry, with few ovoid locules, (610–)824–1071(–1380) μm diam. Conidiophores micronematous, hyaline, smooth-walled, reduced to unbranched conidiogenous cells. Conidiogenous cells enteroblastic, phialidic, lageniform, or ampulliform (7.5–)8.8–10.6(–13.0) × (1.0–)1.3–1.7(–2.0) μm. Conidia abundant, relatively small, single, hyaline, aseptate, slightly curved, allantoid, thin-walled (3.5–)3.8–4.9(–5.5) × (1.0–)0.8–1.3(–1.5) μm.

Culture characteristics.

Colonies on MEA white to light brown with short aerial mycelium tufts in the center, becoming darker with age, relatively slow-growing (28 mm in diameter) after 7 days of incubation. Hyphae hyaline, smooth, branched, and septate.

Notes.

Based on ITS sequence data, C. piceicola is 99% similar to C. globosa MFLU:16-2054 (554/559, 3 gaps) and C. pinastri CBS 113.81 (540/545, 0 gaps). But combined multi-gene phylogenetic analysis clearly distinguished C. piceicola from these two species (ML/BI = 95/-). The new species, C. piceicola, differs from C. globosa (4–6.5 × 1–2 µm) and C. pinastri (4–7 × 1–1.3 μm) by having shorter conidia and clearly lageniform or ampulliform conidiogenous cells (Hayova and Minter 2013; Li et al. 2020). The culture characteristics cannot be used for species discrimination as they are either unavailable (C. pinastri) or different media has been used (C. globosa). Thus, C. piceicola is considered a novel species based on both molecular data and morphological characteristics.

Synteny analysis and genome assembly characteristics

Synteny analysis employed in comparative genomics is crucial to understanding molecular-level similarities and differences in species diversity and genome evolution (He et al. 2023). Despite the close phylogenetic relationship between the studied species and the same sequencing strategy used, only 49.08% of synteny blocks in C. piceae EI-19(A) matched those in C. piceicola EI-20 with minor gaps and few inversions (Fig. 5A). The low-scale synteny linked to genome rearrangements might facilitate species-specific evolution of pathogenicity-related genes and contribute to ecological niche adaptation (e.g., host switch) (Sillo et al. 2015; Zeng et al. 2017). The analysis between assemblies of two strains of C. piceae revealed that there was no match for 6.51% of aligned sequences while 93.49% of them were more than 75% similar with large gaps, multiple inversions, and some repeats (Fig. 5B). It indicated a high degree of homology between the two genomes, typical for different strains of the same species (Hao et al. 2021). However, some assembly characteristics of the C. piceae strains appeared to differ (Table 2). The genome of C. piceae CFCC 52841 consisted of 21 scaffolds with N50 of 2.94 Mbp, which indicated better assembly quality than C. piceae EI-19(A) (105 scaffolds with N50 of 1.22). In addition, the assembly of the former contained notably fewer tRNAs (176) compared to C. piceae EI-19(A) (203). 8.82% of repeat classes were detected in the assembly of C. piceae CFCC 52841 based on multiple repeat masking tools (Zhou et al. 2021). This is higher than the average repeat content (5.18%) revealed for a large set of ascomycete genomes sequenced with an Illumina platform (Yu et al. 2022). A nearly complete (99.7%) genome assembly was reported for the strain C. piceae CFCC 52841 based on the fungi_odb9 dataset (Zhou et al. 2021). When employing the more specific ascomycota_odb10 dataset (Manni et al. 2021), assemblies of both strains were found to have lower completeness (C. piceae EI-19(A) (97.6%), C. piceae CFCC52841 (97.4%)). The genome of C. piceicola EI-20 was 98.1% complete. Among the analyzed Cytosporaceae species, the assembly of C. chrysosperma CFL2056 sequenced with a PacBio platform was 93.7% complete, whereas the completeness of the C. leucostoma SXYLt’s genome obtained with Illumina short reads was 98.6%.

Table 2.

Genome assembly statistics of C. piceae EI-19(A), C. piceae CFCC 52841, and C. piceicola EI-20.

Assembly Features C. piceae EI-19(A) C. piceae CFCC 52841 C. piceicola EI-20
Genome size 39.7 39.2 43.8
Genome coverage (×) 217 200 195
Scaffolds (>1000 bp) 105 21 130
Scaffold N50 (Mb) 1.22 2.94 0.81
GC content (%) 51.37 51.79 49.11
N of genes predicted 10,862 10,835 10,742
Repeat rate (%) 2.29 2.62* 3.15
tRNAs 203 176 207
BUSCO estimates (%) 97.6 97.4* 98.1
Figure 5. 

Dot-plot diagram showing genome sequence alignments of C. piceae EI-19(A) and C. piceicola EI-20(A), and C. piceae EI-19(A) and C. piceae CFCC 52841(B).

Another study reported similar BUSCO estimates (97.8%–99.2%) for a set of the eleven Diaporthe species assemblies obtained with both the second and third-generation sequencing technologies (Hilário et al. 2022). Considering some limitations such as higher error rates (Alkan et al. 2011; Stoler and Nekrutenko 2021), Illumina technology can still produce high-quality reads, allowing for the assembly of nearly complete genomes that are reliable for downstream analyses.

CWDE and BSGC contents reveal lifestyles and pathogenicity potential of Cytospora piceae EI-19(A) and C. piceicola EI-20

CWDEs are enzymes involved in carbohydrate synthesis or breakdown (Cantarel et al. 2009). They are enriched in many fungal species associated with plant hosts. Carbohydrate enzyme (CAZy) profiles of such fungi can provide clues to reveal their lifestyles and pathogenicity (Zhao et al. 2013). Functional modules of these enzymes are grouped into the classes: glycosyl transferases (GTs), glycoside hydrolases (GHs), polysaccharide lyases (PLs), carbohydrate esterases (CEs), enzymes for auxiliary activities (AAs), and carbohydrate-binding modules (CBMs) (Huang et al. 2018). The rich content of CWDE homologs in the genomes of hemibiotrophic and necrotrophic plant pathogens indicates their important role in cell wall breakdown. The reduced number of CAZy superfamilies (GHs, PLs, and CEs, in particular) can be attributed to biotrophy when organisms derive nutrients from living plant cells (O’Connell et al. 2012).

The number of secreted CWDEs in Diaporthales species included in the analysis ranged from 177 (C. leucostoma CXYLt) to 439 (D. vochysiae LGMF1583) (Fig. 6). A relatively low number of CAZy enzymes was identified in C. piceicola EI-20 (196 secreted out of a total of 498) and C. piceae EI-19(A) (209 secreted out of a total of 505). The strain of C. piceae CFCC 52841 contained a reduced set of GHs and a slightly larger number of AAs than C. piceae EI-19(A). The total number of CAZy detected in both studied species was slightly lower compared to those annotated for the model biotrophic fungus Melampsora larici-populina (526) and hemibiotrophic species Zymoseptoria tritici (537) (Wang et al. 2022). Colletotrichum spp., known as hemibiotrophic plant pathogens mainly, also possessed larger arsenals of secreted CWDEs (from 246 (Col. falcatum Cf671) to 512 (Col. fructicola Cg38)) (Chen et al. 2022). C. piceae EI-19(A) and C. piceicola EI-20 were clustered with other Cytospora species and Celoporthe dispersa CMW9976. This species of Celoporthe was found to be a non-pathogen or potential pathogen of Myrtales (Nakabonge et al. 2006) and carried 220 CAZy, while a highly virulent strain of C. mali 03-8 causing canker disease of Malus spp. (Wang et al. 2011) had a content of 207 such enzymes.

Figure 6. 

Contents of CWDEs and BSGCs predicted in genomes of Diaporthales species included in the analysis. The species are clustered based on the richness of each CWDE or BSGC group.

The genus Diaporthe had diverse sets of CWDEs across the species, from 325 for D. helianthi 7–96 to 439 for D. vochysiae LGMF1583. Interestingly, the former was well studied as a causal agent of sunflower stem canker (Baroncelli et al. 2016), but the latter was first isolated as an endophyte of Vochysia divergens (Noriler et al. 2019). Based on the obtained evidence, it can be assumed that C. piceae EI-19(A) and C. piceicola EI-20 have a biotrophy-like relationship with the corresponding plant host. It can also be concluded that CWDE contents in both studied species allow for causing symptomatic canker disease that may unlikely lead to tree collapse.

Secondary metabolites (SM) consist of low-molecular-weight compounds that can play an important role in species pathogenesis. Nonribosomal peptides (NRP), polyketides (PKS), terpenes, and hybrid metabolites are synthesized by BSGC pathways (Keller et al. 2005). Produced chemical compounds (mycotoxins, in particular) are directly involved in fungus interactions with related hosts (Howlett 2006; Pusztahelyi et al. 2015).

The Diaporthaceae species (incl., Melanconium sp. and Stenocarpella maydis) had the richest complement of SMs (from 77 (D. ampelina DA912) to 122 (D. nobilis DJY16A 5-1)) compared to Schizoparmaceae (from 36 (Co. lustricola B22-T-1) to 42 (Co. vitis QNYT13637)) (Fig. 6). Significant variability in the number of these gene clusters (PKS, especially) was previously noticed on the genus level for Diaporthe species (Hilário et al. 2022). Despite the relatively low number of BSGCs, Coniella species were found to be pathogens of some economically valuable crops (Çeliker et al. 2012; Zambounis et al. 2024). The Cytospora species shared similar proportions of different SMs: from 49 predicted for C. chrysosperma CFL2056 to 60 identified in C. leucostoma CXYLt. It is worth noting that the smallest content of CWDEs within the order was detected for the latter. There were 50 and 54 gene clusters involved in the secondary metabolism identified in C. piceae EI-19(A) and C. piceicola EI-20, respectively. C. piceicola EI-20 had a nearly identical repertoire of BSGCs as C. mali var. pyri SXYL 134, a variety of C. mali with reduced pathogenicity (Wang et al. 2011). Both species carried 30 polyketides, which were found to be involved in fungal virulence (Baker et al. 2006; Ruocco et al. 2018). That was notably higher than those predicted for C. piceae EI-19(A) (24). Generally, the Cytospora species possessed nearly the same number of SMs as many of the analyzed Cryphonectria species (e.g., 51 for Cr. parasitica ES15 and 55 for Cr. carpinicola M9290). The Cryphonectria species were previously related to hemibiotrophic or necrotrophic fungi and considered latent pathogens similar to some endophytes (Stauber et al. 2020). However, some were associated with important plant diseases such as chestnut blight (Rigling and Prospero 2018) and hornbeam decline (Cornejo et al. 2021). Functional genomics and transcriptomic studies have recently revealed an important role of NRPs in C. mali’s pathogenesis (Ma et al. 2016; Feng et al. 2020). This well-studied Cytospora species was previously classified as both necrotrophic (Yin et al. 2015) and hemibiotrophic (Stauber et al. 2020). 17 and 19 NRPs were predicted for C. piceicola EI-20 and C. piceae EI-19(A), respectively, smaller than those detected in C. mali 03-8 (23). However, the strain of C. piceae CFCC 5284 carried 22 of these SMs in its genome. Considering a reduced number of BSGCs identified in C. piceae EI-19(A) and C. piceicola EI-20, it is assumed that the lifestyle of both studied species can be multitrophic (closer to hemibiotrophic) with a capability to infect plant tissue and cause the CC disease quickly. The analysis also suggested that the different strains of C. piceae may have distinct pathogenicity and virulence characteristics.

Cytospora piceae EI-19(A) and C. piceicola EI-20 experienced gene family contraction during genome evolution

A phylogenetic tree with estimated divergence times inferred based on the set of 1,706 SCOs is depicted in Fig. 7. The tree topology mainly supported the taxonomic positions of the families and genera within Diaporthales (Senanayake et al. 2017). The analysis showed the placement of S. maydis A1-1 within Diaporthaceae (Lamprecht et al. 2011). The strain of Melanconium sp. NRRL 54901 of Melanconidaceae (Castlebury et al. 2002) was also clustered with species of this family. The family-level classification (as Cytosporaceae) was confirmed for both Cytospora species analyzed in this study. The obtained divergence times matched those previously estimated for some Diaporthales families (e.g., 29.6 MYA for Cryphonectriaceae and 35.1 MYA for Cytosporaceae) (Guterres et al. 2018). The clade of C. picea and C. piceicola originated at 11-10 MYA, which might be considered a relatively late divergence compared to other Diaporthales such as Co. vitis QNYT13637 and Co. lustricola B22-T-1 or D. amygdali DUCC20226 and D. ilicicola FPH2015-502.

Figure 7. 

An ML tree showing phylogenomic relationships of C. piceae EI-19(A), C. piceicola EI-20, and other species of Diaporthales. Bootstrap support for all clades is 100. Blue and red numbers on nodes indicate the number of expanded and contracted gene families, respectively. Circles represent the number of expanded and contracted gene families for the top eight COG categories. Abbreviations: Q—Quaternary, N—Neogene, PG—Paleogene, K—Cretaceous, MYA—Million Years Ago.

A total of 7,579 expanded and 13,984 contracted gene families were identified in the species of Diaporthales included in the analysis. The studied species harbored notably different numbers of expanded and contracted gene families (C. piceae (+46/-109), C. piceicola (+108/-319)), implying a moderate rate of gene contraction (+45/-82) (Fig. 7). For example, C. leucostoma CXYLt experienced a significantly higher rate of gene loss (+107/-638). In contrast, some species within the order have undergone gene family expansion (e.g., D. amygdali (+336/-250), Oph. clavigignenti-juglandacearum (+485/-369), Cr. nitschikei (+81/-16)). Gene family expansion is considered more beneficial for fungal pathogenesis. It may be linked to broader host adaptation, different reproductive strategies, and larger genomes carrying more pathogenicity-related genes (Ma et al. 2010). The species of Diaporthaceae harboring larger genomes compared to other Diaporthales experienced significant gene family expansion (+462/-84), while the reverse was true for the Cytosporaceae (+47/-701) and Schizoparmaceae (+23/-639) families. Host specificity and biotrophy characteristics were observed for the species after gene family contraction events (Zhang et al. 2018; Rogers et al. 2022). It was also found that the plant pathogenic species of Dothideomycetes contained more contracted gene families compared to saprophytes (Yu et al. 2022). This evidence can additionally support the biotrophic-like relationship of C. piceae EI-19(A) and C. piceicola EI-20 with Picea spp. specifically. On the other hand, gene family contraction may drive lifestyle differentiation and host shift in the studied species (Zhang et al. 2018).

The gene families with unknown function (S) were most frequently observed among the analyzed taxa of Diaporthales. Almost all the species experienced gene contraction of this category with some exceptions (e.g., D. caulivora D57 (+121/-95) or Cr. nitschkei CBS 109776 (+36/-7). The studied species showed moderate contraction of the S-categorized gene families (C. piceae EI-19(A) (+18/-53), C. piceicola EI-20 (+37/-154) than the other members of Cytosporaceae (C. leucostoma (+41/-269) or Diaporthaceae (D. helianthi 7–96 (+36/-349)). The secondary structure (Q) and carbohydrate metabolism and transport (G) gene families were also found to be contracted in C. piceae EI-19(A) and C. piceicola EI-20. But the latter underwent a notable loss (+7/-37) of the G category gene families compared to the former (+3/-8). A minor expansion (+9/-5) of the Q-categorized genes was observed for the strain C. piceae CFCC52841. This funding points out that the closely related species or different strains of the same species may differently affect corresponding hosts in terms of pathogenicity and virulence.

Cytospora piceae EI-19(A) and C. piceicola EI-20 constrain specific secretomes and effectomes within Diaporthales

Fungal plant pathogens secrete various proteins and metabolites to facilitate host infection. Among them are effectors secreted to reprogram host cells and modulate plant immunity (Stergiopoulos and de Wit 2009; Shao et al. 2021). The predicted secretome and effectome sizes varied significantly among 46 genomes of Diaporthales species included in the analysis. The number of secreted proteins ranged from 347 (C. leucostoma CXYLt) to 928 (D. vochysiae LGMF1583), or 3.45–5.55% of their respective proteomes (S/P). Effectome size ranged from 82 to 290, that is, 0.82–1.74% of the corresponding proteomes (E/P) (Table 3).

Table 3.

Proteomes, secretomes, and effectomes of C. piceae EI-19(A), C. piceicola EI-20, and other Diaporthales species.

Family/Order Strain Accession number Proteome S/P (%) E/P(%)
Cryphonectriaceae Celoporthe dispersa CMW9976 GCA_016584495 11,185 3.79 1.02
Cryphonectriaceae Chrysoporthe austroafricana CMW 2113 GCA_001051155 12,161 3.6 0.96
Cryphonectriaceae Ch. cubensis GJS 09-446 GCA_004802525 11,658 3.65 1.01
Cryphonectriaceae Ch. deuterocubensis CMW 8650 GCA_001513825 12,430 3.61 1.03
Cryphonectriaceae Cryphonectria carpinicola M9290 GCA_014849695 10,827 4.1 1.22
Cryphonectriaceae Cr. japonica M9249 GCA_014851275 10,290 4.19 1.24
Cryphonectriaceae Cr. macrospora CBS 109764 GCA_004802535 10,300 4.24 1.24
Cryphonectriaceae Cr. naterciae M3656 GCA_014850565 10,548 4.25 1.23
Cryphonectriaceae Cr. nitschkei CBS 109776 GCA_004802565 10,761 4.05 1.16
Cryphonectriaceae Cr. parasitica ES15 GCA_018104285 10,779 4.23 1.15
Cryphonectriaceae Cr. radicalis AR3913 GCA_002179595 10,989 4.13 1.25
Cryphonectriaceae Immersiporthe knoxdaviesiana CMW 37318 GCA_021117315 10,442 3.88 1.15
Cytosporaceae Cytospora chrysosperma CFL2056 NA* 10,304 3.52 0.96
Cytosporaceae C. leucostoma CXYLt GCA_003795295 10,045 3.45 0.82
Cytosporaceae C. mali 03-8 GCA_000818155 10,564 3.73 0.98
Cytosporaceae C. mali var. pyri SXYL134 GCA_000813385 10,248 3.78 1.16
Cytosporaceae C. malicola 03-1 GCA_003795315 10,345 3.48 0.97
Cytosporaceae C. piceae CFCC 52841 GCA_016508685 10,911 3.46 1.03
Cytosporaceae C. piceae EI-19(A) GCA_023375665 10,862 3.63 1.01
Cytosporaceae C. piceicola EI-20 GCA_023375675 10,742 3.68 1.02
Diaporthaceae Diaporthe ampelina DA912 GCA_001006365 13,155 4.9 1.55
Diaporthaceae D. amygdali DUCC20226 GCA_021655905 14,520 5.39 1.74
Diaporthaceae D. aspalathi MS-SSC91 GCA_001447215 14,023 4.98 1.32
Diaporthaceae D. batatas CRI 302-4 GCF_019321695 14,366 5.18 1.5
Diaporthaceae D. capsici GY-Z16 GCA_013364905 16,219 5.44 1.72
Diaporthaceae D. caulivora D57 GCA_023703485 15,612 4.83 1.48
Diaporthaceae D. citri NFHF-8-4 GCF_014595645 15,950 4.97 1.4
Diaporthaceae D. citriasiana ZJUD30 GCA_014872975 14,345 5.07 1.67
Diaporthaceae D. citrichinensis ZJUD34 GCA_014872995 16,322 5.48 1.73
Diaporthaceae D. destruens CRI305-2 GCA_016859255 13,948 5.2 1.48
Diaporthaceae D. eres CBS 160.32 GCA_024867555 15,503 5.14 1.64
Diaporthaceae D. helianthi 7-96 GCA_001702395 12,718 4.8 1.31
Diaporthaceae D. ilicicola FPH2015-502 GCA_023242295 14,231 4.66 1.36
Diaporthaceae D. longicolla TWH P74 GCA_000800745 16,334 5.25 1.6
Diaporthaceae D. nobilis DJY16A 5-1 GCA_023078575 16,460 5.42 1.68
Diaporthaceae D. vexans PV 4 GCA_021188095 16,603 5.39 1.62
Diaporthaceae D. vochysiae LGMF1583 NA* 17,434 5.32 1.66
Gnomoniaceae Cryptodiaporthe populea CFL2025 NA* 12,384 4.24 1.24
Gnomoniaceae Gnomoniopsis castanea Behrend NA* 11,294 5.4 1.67
Gnomoniaceae Op. clavigignenti-juglandacearum ATCC 36624 GCA_003671545 13,194 5.55 1.58
Incertae sedis Stenocarpella maydis A1-1 GCA_002270565 12,795 4.29 1.23
Juglanconidaceae Juglanconis juglandina CBS 121083 GCA_003012975 12,328 4.13 1.22
Juglanconidaceae J. oblonga AR4414 GCA_003012965 12,012 4.37 1.22
Melanconidaceae Melanconium sp. NRRL 54901 NA* 14,018 4.32 1.33
Schizoparmaceae Coniella lustricola B22-T-1 GCA_003019895 9,148 3.95 0.94
Schizoparmaceae Co. vitis QNYT13637 GCA_011317545 9,650 3.68 0.96
Incertae sedis Stenocarpella maydis A1-1 GCA_002270565 12,795 4.29 1.23

C. piceae EI-19(A) and C. piceicola EI-20 harbored very similar secretomes and effectomes, accounting for 3.63% (1.01%) and 3.68% (1.02%), respectively. It is worth noting that the strain C. piceae CFCC 52841 carried a smaller secretome (3.46%) with a higher number of effectors (1.03), which separated it from the studied strains (Fig. 8). Principal component analysis using the ratios of secreted proteins and effectors to respective proteomes grouped C. piceae EI-19(A) and C. piceicola EI-20 with the species of Cryphonectriaceae and Cytosporaceae. The closest species were C. chrysosperma CFL2056, C. malicola (C. schulzeri) 03-1, Ch. austroafricana CMW 2113, and Ch. deuterocubensis CMW 8650, the well-known canker-causing necrotrophic pathogens (Wang et al. 2011; Kepley et al. 2015; Dahali et al. 2023; Suzuki et al. 2023). Interestingly, Melanconium sp. NRRL 54901 and S. maydis A1-1 clustered with the Diaporthaceae species based on the contents of CWDEs and BSGCs had different secretome and effectome parameters.

Figure 8. 

PCA plot showing secretome and effectome sizes of C. piceae EI-19(A), C. piceicola EI-20, and other Diaporthales species.

A distinct separation of some Diaporthales taxa (Diaporthaceae, especially) can indicate genetic diversity variations of secreted proteins and effectors (Wang et al. 2022; Jia et al. 2023). This feature can be employed as a tool to reveal species lifestyles and pathogenicity potential of fungal species associated with plant diseases.

Cytospora piceae EI-19(A) and C. piceicola EI-20 harbor a wide range of virulence-related genes

Virulence genes encode proteins related to counteraction of host defense mechanisms that eventually lead to pathogen spread (Toth et al. 2003). The search of such genes was performed against the database of experimentally verified pathogenicity, virulence, and effector genes from fungal, oomycete, and bacterial pathogens of different hosts (PHI-base). The frequency of virulence-associated genes relative to their proteomes was nearly the same for the studied species (2.58–2.61%) (Table 4). The strain C. piceae CFCC 52841 had a relatively lower number of these genes (2.48%) in its proteome. The majority of the hits with PHI-base accessions for all three strains belonged to the categories with reduced virulence (144–148). The genes with unaffected pathogenicity (47–50) and loss of pathogenicity (32–35) were also defined in the analyzed species (Suppl. material 1). It showed that the main part of the identified genes (reduced virulence and loss of pathogenicity) was directly involved in fungal pathogenesis. The strains of C. piceae and C. piceicola EI-20 shared 238 virulence-associated genes. Notably, C. piceicola EI-20 carried 24 unique genes that was significantly more than C. piceae EI-19(A)(6) and C. piceae CFCC 52841(5). The findings additionally confirm that different strains or phylogenetically close species may have distinct pathogenicity and virulence characteristics. The content of virulence-related genes can be a strong indicator of fungus pathogenicity potential. For instance, the less pathogenic C. mali var. pyri SXYL134 (Wang et al. 2011) carried twice the lower number of these genes than the highly aggressive strain C. mali 03-8 (66 and 121, respectively) (Sun et al. 2023). This kind of analysis was also performed for other ascomycetous fungi associated with plant diseases such as Diaporthe (Hilário et al. 2022), Neonectria (Salgado-Salazar et al. 2021), etc. Because of different search parameters employed, the obtained results cannot be properly compared to those from the previous studies.

Table 4.

Summary of predicted virulence-related genes after search against PHI-base.

Category C. piceae EI-19(A) C. piceae CFCC 52841 C. piceicola EI-20
Reduced Virulence 148 144 147
Unaffected Pathogenicity 50 47 50
Loss of Pathogenicity 32 32 35
Lethal 10 8 10
Increased Virulence 8 7 5
Other* 33 33 34
Total 281 271 281
Relative Frequency (%) 2.58 2.48 2.61

Host-induced gene silencing (HIGS) is a powerful alternative to traditional (e.g., chemical) treatments employed to protect plants from pathogenic organisms. The technology allows for the downregulation of the target genes in organisms associated with hosts that are not recalcitrant to genetic modifications (Hartmann et al. 2020; Koch and Wassenegger 2021). Target gene selection is the first and crucial step in HIGS. The pathogenicity and virulence factors identified in a pathogen isolated from a specific host significantly contribute to this process. For example, suppression of the effector genes (e.g., AGLIP1, Avra10) resulted in a reduction of fungus growth and disease development caused by Rhizoctonia solani and Blumeria hordei in such economically important crops as barley, rice, and wheat (Nowara et al. 2010; Mei et al. 2024). Overall, properly selected candidate genes for HIGS enhance host resistance against a pathogen and help with disease control. The genes (effectors and virulence-associated genes, specifically) annotated for two Cytospora species associated with canker disease of spruce can be potential candidates for HIGS and other related gene engineering technologies.

Conclusion

The study introduces genomes of C. piceae and C. piceicola sp. nov. assembled from Illumina reads. A number of pathogenicity-related factors, such as carbohydrate enzymes, secondary metabolites, effectors, and virulence-associated genes, were identified in the genomes of both studied species. The comparative genomics analysis revealed that C. piceae EI-19(A) and C. piceicola EI-20 are able to cause severe symptoms of canker disease in Picea spp. The findings contribute to understanding the biological processes that make these Cytospora species successful hemibiotrophic or biotrophic pathogens. However, more genomic studies should be conducted. For example, the transcriptomic approach using RNA-seq data can provide additional insights into the CC pathogenesis, showing the responses of a plant host during the early stage of infection and disease progression. Functional genomics techniques (e.g., gene knockout or RNA silencing) can be employed for phenotypic validation of genes with unknown functions that play an important role in fungal pathogenesis.

Acknowledgments

The authors express their gratitude to Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University Researchers Supporting Project number (PNURSP2025R31), Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Additional information

Conflict of interest

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Ethical statement

No ethical statement was reported.

Funding

Funded by PNURSP2025R31, Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University, Saudi Arabia, and A1098531023601245, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China.

Author contributions

Conceptualization: EI. Data curation: EI, YC, SM. Formal analysis: EI, YC. Funding acquisition: AS, SSNM: Methodology: EI, YC, SM, SSNM. Writing—original draft: EI, SSNM.

Author ORCIDs

Evgeny Ilyukhin https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2358-0023

Yanpeng Chen https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2554-5272

Svetlana Markovskaja https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3111-6949

Ashwag Shami https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5336-038X

Sajeewa S. N. Maharachchikumbura https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9127-0783

Data availability

This Whole Genome Shotgun project, including sequencing reads, has been deposited at DDBJ/ENA/GenBank under BioProject PRJNA796963, accession numbers JALQBB000000000 (C. piceae EI-19(A)) and JALQBC000000000 (C. piceicola EI-20).

References

  • Adams GC, Roux J, Wingfield MJ, Common R (2005) Phylogenetic relationships and morphology of Cytospora species and related teleomorphs (Ascomycota, Diaporthales, Valsaceae) from Eucalyptus. Studies in Mycology 52: 1–144.
  • Baker SE, Kroken S, Inderbitzin P, Asvarak T, Li BY, Shi L, Yoder OC, Turgeon BG (2006) Two polyketide synthase-encoding genes are required for biosynthesis of the polyketide virulence factor, t-toxin, by Cochliobolus heterostrophus. Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions 19: 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1094/MPMI-19-0139
  • Bankevich A, Nurk S, Antipov D, Gurevich AA, Dvorkin M, Kulikov AS, Lesin VM, Nikolenko SI, Pham S, Prjibelski AD, Pyshkin AV, Sirotkin AV, Vyahhi N, Tesler G, Alekseyev MA, Pevzner PA (2012) SPAdes: A new genome assembly algorithm and its applications to single–cell sequencing. Journal of Computational Biology 19: 455–477. https://doi.org/10.1089/cmb.2012.0021
  • Baroncelli R, Scala F, Vergara M, Thon MR, Ruocco M (2016) Draft whole-genome sequence of the Diaporthe helianthi 7/96 strain, causal agent of sunflower stem canker. Genomics Data 10: 151–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gdata.2016.11.005
  • Blin K, Shaw S, Kloosterman AM, Charlop-Powers Z, van Wezel GP, Medema MH, Weber T (2021) AntiSMASH 6.0: Improving cluster detection and comparison capabilities. Nucleic Acids Research 49: 29–35. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkab335
  • Cantarel BL, Coutinho PM, Rancurel C, Bernard T, Lombard V, Henrissat B (2009) The carbohydrate-active enzymes database (CAZy): An expert resource for glycogenomics. Nucleic Acids Research 37: 233–238. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkn663
  • Castlebury LA, Rossman AY, Jaklitsch WJ, Vasilyeva LN (2002) A preliminary overview of the Diaporthales based on large subunit nuclear ribosomal DNA sequences. Mycologia 94: 1017–1031. https://doi.org/10.1080/15572536.2003.11833157
  • Çeliker NM, Uysal A, Çetinel B, Poyraz D (2012) Crown rot on pomegranate caused by Coniella granati in Turkey. Australasian Plant Disease Notes, Australasian Plant Pathology Society 7: 161–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13314-012-0074-6
  • Chang HX, Yendrek CR, Caetano-Anolles G, Hartman GL (2016) Genomic characterization of plant cell wall degrading enzymes and in silico analysis of xylanases and polygalacturonases of Fusarium virguliforme. BMC Microbiology 16: 147. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-016-0761-0
  • Chen Y, Wu T, Tian WH, Ilyukhin E, Hyde KD, Maharachchikumbura SSN (2022) Comparative genomics provides new insights into the evolution of Colletotrichum. Mycosphere : Journal of Fungal Biology 13: 134–187. https://doi.org/10.5943/mycosphere/si/1f/5
  • Dahali R, Lee SH, Md Tahir P, Salim S, Hishamuddin MS, Che Ismail A, Khoo PS, Krystofiak T, Antov P (2023) Influence of Chrysoporthe deuterocubensis canker disease on the chemical properties and durability of Eucalyptus urograndis against wood rotting fungi and termite infestation. Forests 14: 350. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14020350
  • Darriba D, Posada D, Kozlov AM, Stamatakis A, Morel B, Flouri T (2020) ModelTest–NG: A new and scalable tool for the selection of DNA and protein evolutionary models. Molecular Biology and Evolution 37: 291–294. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msz189
  • de Wit PJ, van der Burgt A, Ökmen B, Stergiopoulos I, Abd-Elsalam KA, Aerts AL, Bahkali AH, Beenen HG, Chettri P, Cox MP et al. (2012) The genomes of the fungal plant pathogens Cladosporium fulvum and Dothistroma septosporum reveal adaptation to different hosts and lifestyles but also signatures of common ancestry. PLOS Genetics 8: e1003088. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003088
  • Emms DM, Kelly S (2015) OrthoFinder: Solving fundamental biases in whole genome comparisons dramatically improves orthogroup inference accuracy. Genome Biology 16: 157. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-015-0721-2
  • Feng Y, Yin Z, Wu Y, Xu L, Du H, Wang N, Huang L (2020) LaeA controls virulence and secondary metabolism in apple canker pathogen Valsa mali. Frontiers in Microbiology 11: 581203. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.581203
  • Grigoriev IV, Nikitin R, Haridas S, Kuo A, Ohm R, Otillar R, Riley R, Salamov A, Zhao X, Korzeniewski F, Smirnova T, Nordberg H, Dubchak I, Shabalov I (2014) MycoCosm portal: Gearing up for 1000 fungal genomes. Nucleic Acids Research 42: 699–704. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkt1183
  • Guterres DC, Galvão-Elias S, de Souza BCP, Pinho DB, Dos Santos MDDM, Miller RNG, Dianese JC (2018) Taxonomy, phylogeny, and divergence time estimation for Apiosphaeria guaranitica, a neotropical parasite on bignoniaceous hosts. Mycologia 110: 526–545. https://doi.org/10.1080/00275514.2018.1465774
  • Hall TA (1999) BioEdit: A user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucleic Acids Symposium Series 41: 95–98.
  • Hanifeh S, Zafari D, Soleimani MJ, Arzanlou M (2022) Multigene phylogeny, morphology, and pathogenicity trials reveal novel Cytospora species involved in perennial canker disease of apple trees in Iran. Fungal Biology 126: 707–726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.funbio.2022.08.009
  • Hao Z, Li Y, Jiang Y, Xu J, Li J, Luo L (2021) Genome sequence analysis of the fungal pathogen Fusarium graminearum using Oxford Nanopore technology. Journal of Fungi 7: 699. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof7090699
  • Hartmann M, Voß S, Requena N (2020) Host-induced gene silencing of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal genes via Agrobacterium rhizogenes-mediated root transformation in Medicago truncatula. Methods in Molecular Biology 2146: 239–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-0603-2_18
  • He W, Yang J, Jing Y, Xu L, Yu K, Fang X (2023) NGenomeSyn: An easy-to-use and flexible tool for publication-ready visualization of syntenic relationships across multiple genomes. Bioinformatics 39: btad121. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btad121
  • Hilário S, Gonçalves MFM, Fidalgo C, Tacão M, Alves A (2022) Genome analyses of two blueberry pathogens: Diaporthe amygdali CAA958 and Diaporthe eres CBS 160.32. Journal of Fungi 8: 804. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof8080804
  • Hillis DM, Bull JJ (1993) An empirical test of bootstrapping as a method for assessing confidence in phylogenetic analysis. Systematic Biology 42: 182–192. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/42.2.182
  • Huang L, Zhang H, Wu P, Entwistle S, Li X, Yohe T, Yi H, Yang Z, Yin Y (2018) dbCAN-seq: A database of carbohydrate-active enzyme (CAZyme) sequence and annotation. Nucleic Acids Research 46: 516–521. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkx894
  • Huerta-Cepas J, Szklarczyk D, Heller D, Hernández-Plaza A, Forslund SK, Cook HV, Mende DR, Letunic I, Rattei T, Jensen LJ, von Mering C, Bork P (2019) EggNOG 5.0: A hierarchical, functionally and phylogenetically annotated orthology resource based on 5090 organisms and 2502 viruses. Nucleic Acids Research 47: 309–314. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gky1085
  • Jia M, Gong X, Fan M, Liu H, Zhou H, Gu S, Liu Y, Dong J (2023) Identification and analysis of the secretome of plant pathogenic fungi reveals lifestyle adaptation. Frontiers in Microbiology 14: 1171618. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1171618
  • Jia A, Chen B, Lu H, Xing Y, Li B, Fan X (2024) Multigene phylogeny and morphology reveal three new species of Cytospora isolated from diseased plant branches in Fengtai district, Beijing, China. MycoKeys 101: 163–189. https://doi.org/10.3897/mycokeys.101.116272
  • Kalyaanamoorthy S, Minh BQ, Wong TKF, von Haeseler A, Jermiin LS (2017) ModelFinder: Fast model selection for accurate phylogenetic estimates. Nature Methods 14: 587–589. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4285
  • Kamiri LK, Laemmlen FF (1988) Epidemiology of Cytospora canker caused in Colorado blue spruce by Valsa kunzei. Phyotopathology 9: 941–947.
  • Katoh K, Standley DM (2013) MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: Improvements in performance and usability. Molecular Biology and Evolution 30: 772–780. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mst010
  • Keller NP, Turner G, Bennett JW (2005) Fungal secondary metabolism–from biochemistry to genomics. Nature Reviews. Microbiology 3: 937–947. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro1286
  • Kepley JB, Reeves FB, Jacobi WR, Adams GC (2015) Species associated with Cytospora canker on Populus tremuloides. Mycotaxon 130: 783–805. https://doi.org/10.5248/130.783
  • Kumar S, Stecher G, Suleski M, Hedges SB (2017) TimeTree: A resource for timelines, timetrees, and divergence times. Molecular Biology and Evolution 34: 1812–1819. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msx116
  • Kumar S, Stecher G, Li M, Knyaz C, Tamura K (2018) MEGA X: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis across computing platforms. Molecular Biology and Evolution 35: 1547–1549. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msy096
  • Li WJ, McKenzie EHC, Liu JK, Bhat DJ, Dai DQ, Camporesi E, Tian Q, Maharachchikumbura SSN, Luo ZL, Shang QL et al. (2020) Taxonomy and phylogeny of hyaline-spored Coelomycetes. Fungal Diversity 100: 279–801. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-020-00440-y
  • Liang D, Jiang Y, Zhang Y, Mao C, Ma T, Zhang C (2024) The comparative genomics of Botryosphaeriaceae suggests gene families of Botryosphaeria dothidea related to pathogenicity on Chinese hickory tree. Journal of Fungi 10: 299. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof10040299
  • Lin L, Fan XL, Groenewald JZ, Jami F, Wingfield MJ, Voglmayer H, Jaklitsch W, Castlebury LA, Tian CM, Crous PW (2024) Cytospora: An important genus of canker pathogens. Studies in Mycology 109: 323–401. https://doi.org/10.3114/sim.2024.109.05
  • Lowe TM, Eddy SR (1997) tRNAscan-SE: A program for improved detection of transfer RNA genes in genomic sequence. Nucleic Acids Research 25: 955–964. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/25.5.955
  • Ma J, van der Does HC, Borkovich KA, Coleman JJ, Daboussi MJ, Di Pietro A, Dufresne M, Freitag M, Grabherr M, Henrissat B, Houterman PM, Kang S, Shim W-B, Woloshuk C, Xie X, Xu J-R, Antoniw J, Baker SE, Bluhm BH, Breakspear A, Brown DW, Butchko RAE, Chapman S, Coulson R, Coutinho PM, Danchin EGJ, Diener A, Gale LR, Gardiner DM, Goff S, Hammond-Kosack KE, Hilburn K, Hua-Van A, Jonkers W, Kazan K, Kodira CD, Koehrsen M, Kumar L, Lee Y-H, Li L, Manners JM, Miranda-Saavedra D, Mukherjee M, Park G, Park J, Park S-Y, Proctor RH, Regev A, Ruiz-Roldan MC, Sain D, Sakthikumar S, Sykes S, Schwartz DC, Turgeon BG, Wapinski I, Yoder O, Young S, Zeng Q, Zhou S, Galagan J, Cuomo CA, Kistler HC, Rep M (2010) Comparative genomics reveals mobile pathogenicity chromosomes in Fusarium. Nature 464: 367–373. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08850
  • Ma C, Li Z, Dai Q, Han Q, Huang L (2016) Wei Sheng Wu Xue Bao 56: 1273–1281. [Function of nonribosomal peptide synthetase gene VmNRPS12 of Valsa mali] [in Chinese]
  • Manni M, Berkeley MR, Seppey M, Simão FA, Zdobnov EM (2021) BUSCO update: Novel and streamlined workflows along with broader and deeper phylogenetic coverage for scoring of eukaryotic, prokaryotic, and viral genomes. Molecular Biology and Evolution 38: 4647–4654. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msab199
  • Mei Z, Xiaoxue L, Jun W, Erxun Z, Canwei S (2024) Host-induced gene silencing of effector AGLIP1 enhanced resistance of rice to Rhizoctonia solani AG1-IA. Rice Science 31: 463–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsci.2024.04.005
  • Meslier V, Quinquis B, Da Silva K, Oñate FP, Pons N, Roume H, Podar M, Almeida M (2022) Benchmarking second and third-generation sequencing platforms for microbial metagenomics. Scientific Data 9: 694. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01762-z
  • Miyamoto M, Motooka D, Gotoh K, Imai T, Yoshitake K, Goto N, Iida T, Yasunaga T, Horii T, Arakawa K et al. (2014) Performance comparison of second- and third-generation sequencers using a bacterial genome with two chromosomes. BMC Genomics 15: 699. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-15-699
  • Miyauchi S, Kiss E, Kuo A, Drula E, Kohler A, Sánchez-García M, Morin E, Andreopoulos B, Barry KW, Bonito G et al. (2020) Large-scale genome sequencing of mycorrhizal fungi provides insights into the early evolution of symbiotic traits. Nature Communications 11: 5125. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18795-w
  • Nakabonge G, Gryzenhout M, Roux J, Wingfield BD, Wingfield MJ (2006) Celoporthe dispersa gen. et sp. nov. from native myrtales in South Africa. Studies in Mycology 55: 255–267. https://doi.org/10.3114/sim.55.1.255
  • Nguyen LT, Schmidt HA, von Haeseler A, Minh BQ (2015) IQ-TREE: A fast and effective stochastic algorithm for estimating maximum-likelihood phylogenies. Molecular Biology and Evolution 32: 268–274. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msu300
  • Noriler SA, Savi DC, Ponomareva LV, Rodrigues R, Rohr J, Thorson JS, Glienke C, Shaaban KA (2019) Vochysiamides A and B: Two new bioactive carboxamides produced by the new species Diaporthe vochysiae. Fitoterapia 138: 104273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fitote.2019.104273
  • Nowara D, Gay A, Lacomme C, Shaw J, Ridout C, Douchkov D, Hensel G, Kumlehn J, Schweizer P (2010) HIGS: Host-induced gene silencing in the obligate biotrophic fungal pathogen Blumeria graminis. The Plant Cell 22: 3130–3141. https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.110.077040
  • O’Connell RJ, Thon MR, Hacquard S, Amyotte SG, Kleemann J, Torres MF, Damm U, Buiate EA, Epstein L, Alkan N et al. (2012) Lifestyle transitions in plant pathogenic Colletotrichum fungi deciphered by genome and transcriptome analyses. Nature Genetics 44: 1060–1065. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.2372
  • Pan M, Zhu H, Tian C, Huang M, Fan XL (2021) Assessment of Cytospora isolates from conifer cankers in China, with the descriptions of four new Cytospora species. Frontiers in Plant Science 12: 636460. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.636460
  • Phookamsak R, Norphanphoun C, Tanaka K, Dai DQ, Luo ZL, Liu JK, Su HY, Bhat DJ, Bahkali AH, Mortimer PE et al. (2015) Towards a natural classification of Astrosphaeriella-like species; introducing Astrosphaeriellaceae and Pseudoastrosphaeriellaceae fam. nov. and Astrosphaeriellopsis, gen. nov. Fungal Diversity 74: 143–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-015-0352-7
  • Raffaele S, Kamoun S (2011) Genome evolution in filamentous plant pathogens: Why bigger can be better. Nature Reviews. Microbiology 10: 417–430. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro2790
  • Rambaut A (2018) FigTree, version 1.4.4; Institute of Evolutionary Biology, University of Edinburgh: Edinburgh, UK.
  • Rigling D, Prospero S (2018) Cryphonectria parasitica, the causal agent of chestnut blight: Invasion history, population biology and disease control. Molecular Plant Pathology 19: 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/mpp.12542
  • Rogers LW, Koehler AM, Crouch JA, Cubeta MA, LeBlanc NR (2022) Comparative genomic analysis reveals contraction of gene families with putative roles in pathogenesis in the fungal boxwood pathogens Calonectria henricotiae and C. pseudonaviculata. BMC Ecology and Evolution 22: 79. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-022-02035-4
  • Rossman AY, Adams GC, Cannon PF, Castlebury LA, Crous PW, Gryzenhout M, Jaklitsch WM, Mejia LC, Stoykov D, Udayanga D et al. (2015) Recommendations of generic names in Diaporthales competing for protection or use. IMA Fungus 6: 145–154. https://doi.org/10.5598/imafungus.2015.06.01.09
  • Ruocco M, Baroncelli R, Cacciola SO, Pane C, Monti MM, Firrao G, Vergara M, Magnano di San Lio G, Vannacci G, Scala F (2018) Polyketide synthases of Diaporthe helianthi and involvement of DhPKS1 in virulence on sunflower. BMC Genomics 19: 27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-017-4405-z
  • Salgado-Salazar C, Skaltsas DN, Phipps T, Castlebury LA (2021) Comparative genome analyses suggest a hemibiotrophic lifestyle and virulence differences for the beech bark disease fungal pathogens Neonectria faginata and Neonectria coccinea. G3 (Bethesda, Md.) 11: jkab071. https://doi.org/10.1093/g3journal/jkab071
  • Selin C, de Kievit TR, Belmonte MF, Fernando WG (2016) Elucidating the role of effectors in plant-fungal interactions: Progress and challenges. Frontiers in Microbiology 7: 600. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.00600
  • Senanayake IC, Crous PW, Groenewald JZ, Maharachchikumbura SSN, Jeewon R, Phillips AJL, Bhat JD, Perera RH, Li QR, Li WJ, Tangthirasunun N, Norphanphoun C, Karunarathna SC, Camporesi E, Manawasighe IS, Al-Sadi AM, Hyde KD (2017) Families of Diaporthales based on morphological and phylogenetic evidence. Studies in Mycology 86: 217–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simyco.2017.07.003
  • Sillo F, Garbelotto M, Friedman M, Gonthier P (2015) Comparative genomics of sibling fungal pathogenic taxa identifies adaptive evolution without divergence in pathogenicity genes or genomic structure. Genome Biology and Evolution 7: 3190–3206. https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evv209
  • Simão FA, Waterhouse RM, Ioannidis P, Kriventseva EV, Zdobnov EM (2015) BUSCO: Assessing genome assembly and annotation completeness with single–copy orthologs. Bioinformatics 31: 3210–3212. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btv351
  • Sperschneider J, Dodds PN (2022) EffectorP 3.0: Prediction of apoplastic and cytoplasmic effectors in Fungi and Oomycetes. Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions 35: 146–156. https://doi.org/10.1094/MPMI-08-21-0201-R
  • Stanke M, Morgenstern B (2005) AUGUSTUS: A web server for gene prediction in eukaryotes that allows user–defined constraints. Nucleic Acids Research 33: 465–467. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gki458
  • Stauber L, Prospero S, Croll D (2020) Comparative genomics analyses of lifestyle transitions at the origin of an invasive fungal pathogen in the genus Cryphonectria. MSphere 5: e00737–e20. https://doi.org/10.1128/mSphere.00737-20
  • Sun G, Xie S, Tang L, Zhao C, Zhang M, Huang L (2023) Comparative genomics of five Valsa species gives insights on their pathogenicity evolution. G3 (Bethesda, Md.) 13: jkac312. https://doi.org/10.1093/g3journal/jkac312
  • Suzuki H, Marincowitz S, Roux J, Wingfield BD, Wingfield MJ (2023) First report of canker caused by Chrysoporthe austroafricana on the plantation-grown eucalypt Corymbia henryi in South Africa. Forestry. International Journal of Forestry Research 96: 509–517. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpac054
  • Thompson JD, Higgins DG, Gibson TJ (1994) CLUSTAL W: Improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position–specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Research 22: 4673–4680. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/22.22.4673
  • Urban M, Cuzick A, Rutherford K, Irvine A, Pedro H, Pant R, Sadanadan V, Khamari L, Billal S, Mohanty S, Hammond-Kosack KE (2017) PHI-base: A new interface and further additions for the multi-species pathogen-host interactions database. Nucleic Acids Research 45: 604–610. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkw1089
  • Wang X, Wei J, Huang L, Kang Z (2011) Re-evaluation of pathogens causing Valsa canker on apple in China. Mycologia 103: 317–324. https://doi.org/10.3852/09-165
  • Wang B, Liang X, Gleason ML, Zhang R, Sun G (2018) Comparative genomics of Botryosphaeria dothidea and B. kuwatsukai, causal agents of apple ring rot, reveals both species expansion of pathogenicity-related genes and variations in virulence gene content during speciation. IMA Fungus 9: 243–257. https://doi.org/10.5598/imafungus.2018.09.02.02
  • Wang Y, Wu J, Yan J, Guo M, Xu L, Hou L, Zou Q (2022) Comparative genome analysis of plant ascomycete fungal pathogens with different lifestyles reveals distinctive virulence strategies. BMC Genomics 23: 34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-021-08165-1
  • Wang S, Jiang N, Ma R (2024) Morphology and phylogeny reveal three new species of Cytospora associated with tree cankers in China. Journal of Fungi 10: 139. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof10020139
  • White TJ, Bruns T, Lee S, Taylor J (1990) Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics. In: Innis MA, Gelfand DH, Sninsky JJ, White TJ (Eds) PCR protocols: a guide to methods and applications. Academic Press, San Diego, 315–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-372180-8.50042-1
  • Winnenburg R, Baldwin TK, Urban M, Rawlings C, Köhler J, Hammond-Kosack KE (2005) PHI-base: A new database for pathogen host interactions. Nucleic Acids Research 34: 459–464. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkj047
  • Yin Y, Mao X, Yang J, Chen X, Mao F, Xu Y (2012) dbCAN: A web resource for automated carbohydrate-active enzyme annotation. Nucleic Acids Research 40: 445–451. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gks479
  • Yin Z, Liu H, Li Z, Ke X, Dou D, Gao X, Song N, Dai Q, Wu Y, Xu JR, Kang Z, Huang L (2015) Genome sequence of Valsa canker pathogens uncovers a potential adaptation of colonization of woody bark. The New Phytologist 208: 1202–1216. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13544
  • Yu C, Diao Y, Lu Q, Zhao J, Cui S, Xiong X, Lu A, Zhang X, Liu H (2022) Comparative genomics reveals evolutionary traits, mating strategies, and pathogenicity-related genes variation of Botryosphaeriaceae. Frontiers in Microbiology 13: 800981. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.800981
  • Zambounis A, Maniatis EI, Mincuzzi A, Gray N, Hossain M, Tsitsigiannis DI, Paplomatas E, Ippolito A, Schena L, Hane JK (2024) Highly repetitive genome of Coniella granati (syn. Pilidiella granati), the causal agent of pomegranate fruit rot, encodes a minimalistic proteome with a streamlined arsenal of effector proteins. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 25: 9997. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms25189997
  • Zeng F, Lian X, Zhang G, Yu X, Bradley CA, Ming R (2017) A comparative genome analysis of Cercospora sojina with other members of the pathogen genus Mycosphaerella on different plant hosts. Genomics Data 13: 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gdata.2017.07.007
  • Zhang W, Zhang X, Li K, Wang C, Cai L, Zhuang W, Xiang M, Liu X (2018) Introgression and gene family contraction drive the evolution of lifestyle and host shifts of Hypocrealean fungi. Mycology 9: 176–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/21501203.2018.1478333
  • Zhao Z, Liu H, Wang C, Xu R (2013) Comparative analysis of fungal genomes reveals different plant cell wall degrading capacity in fungi. BMC Genomics 14: 274. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-14-274
  • Zhou W, Tian C, You C (2021) Acta Microbiologica Sinica 61: 3128–3148. [Genomic sequencing analysis of Cytospora piceae associated with spruce canker disease and comparative genomic analysis of Cytospora species] [Chinese.]
  • Zhu H, Pan M, Bezerra JDP, Tian C, Fan X (2020) Discovery of Cytospora species associated with canker disease of tree hosts from Mount Dongling of China. MycoKeys 62: 97–121. https://doi.org/10.3897/mycokeys.62.47854

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 

PHI-base annotated genes identified in C. piceae CFCC52841

Evgeny Ilyukhin, Yanpeng Chen, Svetlana Markovskaja, Ashwag Shami, Sajeewa S. N. Maharachchikumbura

Data type: xlsx

This dataset is made available under the Open Database License (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/). The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited.
Download file (33.21 kb)
login to comment