Unambiguous identification of fungi: where do we stand and how accurate and precise is fungal DNA barcoding?

Lücking, Robert; Aime, M. Catherine; Robbertse, Barbara; Miller, Andrew N.; Ariyawansa, Hiran A.; Aoki, Takayuki; Cardinali, Gianluigi; Crous, Pedro W.; Druzhinina, Irina S.; Geiser, David M.; Hawksworth, David L.; Hyde, Kevin D.; Irinyi, Laszlo; Jeewon, Rajesh; Johnston, Peter R.; Kirk, Paul M.; Malosso, Elaine; May, Tom W.; Meyer, Wieland; Öpik, Maarja; Robert, Vincent; Stadler, Marc; Thines, Marco; Vu, Duong; Yurkov, Andrey M.; Zhang, Ning; Schoch, Conrad L.

doi:10.1186/s43008-020-00033-z

Nomenclature
Open access
Published: 10 July 2020

Unambiguous identification of fungi: where do we stand and how accurate and precise is fungal DNA barcoding?

IMA Fungus volume 11, Article number: 14 (2020) Cite this article

42k Accesses
215 Citations
37 Altmetric
Metrics details

ABSTRACT

True fungi (Fungi) and fungus-like organisms (e.g. Mycetozoa, Oomycota) constitute the second largest group of organisms based on global richness estimates, with around 3 million predicted species. Compared to plants and animals, fungi have simple body plans with often morphologically and ecologically obscure structures. This poses challenges for accurate and precise identifications. Here we provide a conceptual framework for the identification of fungi, encouraging the approach of integrative (polyphasic) taxonomy for species delimitation, i.e. the combination of genealogy (phylogeny), phenotype (including autecology), and reproductive biology (when feasible). This allows objective evaluation of diagnostic characters, either phenotypic or molecular or both. Verification of identifications is crucial but often neglected. Because of clade-specific evolutionary histories, there is currently no single tool for the identification of fungi, although DNA barcoding using the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) remains a first diagnosis, particularly in metabarcoding studies. Secondary DNA barcodes are increasingly implemented for groups where ITS does not provide sufficient precision. Issues of pairwise sequence similarity-based identifications and OTU clustering are discussed, and multiple sequence alignment-based phylogenetic approaches with subsequent verification are recommended as more accurate alternatives. In metabarcoding approaches, the trade-off between speed and accuracy and precision of molecular identifications must be carefully considered. Intragenomic variation of the ITS and other barcoding markers should be properly documented, as phylotype diversity is not necessarily a proxy of species richness. Important strategies to improve molecular identification of fungi are: (1) broadly document intraspecific and intragenomic variation of barcoding markers; (2) substantially expand sequence repositories, focusing on undersampled clades and missing taxa; (3) improve curation of sequence labels in primary repositories and substantially increase the number of sequences based on verified material; (4) link sequence data to digital information of voucher specimens including imagery. In parallel, technological improvements to genome sequencing offer promising alternatives to DNA barcoding in the future. Despite the prevalence of DNA-based fungal taxonomy, phenotype-based approaches remain an important strategy to catalog the global diversity of fungi and establish initial species hypotheses.

INTRODUCTION

Fungi are eukaryotic heterotrophic organisms that mostly grow with elongated, polarized cells (hyphae) or in the form of budding cells (yeast-like), reproducing via meiotic and/or mitotic spores. The fungal lifestyle evolved several times independently in the Tree of Life (Fig. 1). The majority of the known species (close to 99%) are true fungi (Fungi), whereas about 0.7% represent Eumycetozoa and other groups of slime molds in the Amoebozoa (supergroup Amorphea), and another 0.7% the Oomycota in the Straminipila (Stephenson et al. 2008; Beakes and Thines 2017; Hawksworth and Lücking 2018; Lado and Eliasson 2017; Willis 2018; Burki et al. 2019; Wijayawardene et al. 2020). Fungi rank third among eukaryotic kingdoms in terms of known species richness, with approximately 140,000 species, but the total number has been predicted as between 2.2 and 3.8 million, with a mean of 3 million (Hawksworth and Lücking 2018), with other estimates as low as 700,000 and as high as 12 million (Schmit and Mueller 2007; Blackwell 2011; Vu et al. 2019).

Fungi in the broad sense are ubiquitous in terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems (Dix and Webster 1995; Mueller et al. 2004; Rodriguez et al. 2009; Thines 2014; Asplund and Wardle 2017; Buzzini et al. 2017; Glime 2019; Jones et al. 2019). They carry out important processes as decomposers of organic material contributing to nutrient cycles, parasites controlling host population structure, anaerobic gut mutualists, and mutualists with autotrophic organisms, e.g. the various forms of endophytes, lichens and mycorrhizae. Fungi have economic impact as plant and animal (including human) pathogens, in the biological control of crop pests, in the food and pharmaceutical industry, as edible mushrooms, and are also applied as indicators of environmental health (May and Adams 1997; Nimis et al. 2002; Crawford 2019; Hyde et al. 2019).

Accurate and precise identification of fungi is challenging. Compared to other multicellular eukaryotes, fungi have simple body plans and diagnostic features are generally limited to their sexual and asexual spore-producing bodies, requiring microscopic examination (Beakes and Thines 2017; Nagy et al. 2017; Lücking 2019). Some fungi are only known from vegetative structures, rendering traditional approaches to classification nearly impossible (e.g. Koch et al. 2017, 2018). Precise identification of fungi thus requires removal from their habitat and careful investigation in the laboratory. Exceptions would be well-established taxa which exhibit features discernable in the field, such as the lung lichen, Lobaria pulmonaria, the split gill mushroom, Schizophyllum commune (Fig. 1ad), or the familiar pathogen causing tar spot on Acer leaves, Rhytisma acerinum (Fig. 1s). However, even in such cases, unrecognized cryptic speciation may lead to erroneous phenotype-based identifications, as shown by the recently described Rhytisma americanum, which had long been mistaken for R. acerinum (Hudler et al. 1998). Even if only a single, morphologically well-defined species is recognized, such as S. commune, its genetic structure may be complex (James et al. 2001). This raises questions about species limits and at what level of precision phylogenetic complexity should be recognized taxonomically and, by extension, incorporated in identification tools.

The non-reproductive phase of fungi, typically forming hyphae or budding (yeast-like) cells, or plasmodia in slime molds, is usually cryptic, exhibiting little useful diagnostic information, except for classification attempts based on fungal cultures (Nobles 1965; Stalpers 1978; Pazouki and Panda 2000; Kurtzman et al. 2011). In contrast, many lichen-formers can be identified to species level in the absence of spore-producing structures, due to their persistent thalli (Honegger 2012). Both the higher classification of fungi and the delimitation of species have been notoriously difficult and underwent dramatic changes with the development of molecular approaches (Taylor et al. 2000; James et al. 2006; Hibbett et al. 2007, 2016; Schoch et al. 2009; Crous et al. 2015; Spatafora et al. 2016; Beakes and Thines 2017; Hawksworth and Lücking 2018; Tedersoo et al. 2018a). A further dimension has been added through environmental sequencing, in which the phenotype of detected lineages is unknown except for ecological preferences inferred from metadata (O'Brien et al. 2005; Bellemain et al. 2013; Sirohi et al. 2013; Menkis et al. 2014; Ohsowski et al. 2014; Grube et al. 2017; Lücking and Hawksworth 2018; Thines et al. 2018; Nilsson et al. 2019; Vu et al. 2019; Davison et al. 2020).

Due to the heterogeneity of approaches to fungal taxonomy and the complexity of lineage-dependent evolutionary processes, there are no simple strategies to unambiguously identify fungi (Grube et al. 2017; Steencamp et al. 2018; Inderbitzin et al. 2020). Best practice depends on the group in question and the required level of precision (Raja et al. 2017a). Many macrofungi, some microfungi, and many lichen-formers can be identified using phenotype characters once a reliable taxonomic framework has been established. However, the majority of fungi, especially asexual forms, yeasts and other basal lineages, and those important in fields such as plant pathology and medical mycology, require time-consuming and labour-intensive methods that may include culturing, DNA barcoding and phylogenetic analysis, as well discipline- or taxon-specific approaches, such as physiological profiling (see below).

Two fundamental aspects of identification are accuracy and precision (Vu et al. 2019). To illustrate this concept: accuracy would identify a mushroom as either a true (Cantharellus cibarius s.lat.) or a false chanterelle (Hygrophoropsis aurantiaca), two unrelated species in different fungal orders. Once verified that the query taxon is a true chanterelle, precision would determine the exact species, as Cantharellus cibarius s.lat. Represents several more narrowly defined taxa (Buyck and Hofstetter 2011; Foltz et al. 2013; Leacock et al. 2016). While accuracy is indispensable for identifications, precision depends on the purpose. The latter is particularly critical for legal compliance and regulatory controls, in biosafety regarding clinical diagnosis and subsequent recommendations for disease management of plant and human/animal pathogens, in food security (edible mushrooms, FDA approved species), for quarantine regulations (plant pests), industrial usage, the distribution of dual-use organisms (toxic fungi), or where conservation measures are being administered (Druzhinina et al. 2010; Dahlberg and Mueller 2011; Criseo et al. 2015; Crous et al. 2015; Raja et al. 2017b; Blackwell and Vega 2018; Heim et al. 2018; Frøslev et al. 2019).

SPECIES: FROM CONCEPTS TO IDENTIFICATION

Often conflated, species conceptualization, delimitation, recognition, identification, and verification involve largely separate approaches, although they logically depend on each other (Fig. 2). Ultimately, for accurate and precise identification in any given fungal group, an underlying concept to delimit species and evaluate their diagnostic characters for recognition needs to be agreed upon before tools for identification and verification can be employed (Harrington and Rizzo 1999; Steenkamp et al. 2018; Inderbitzin et al. 2020).

Concepts

Across the Tree of Life, species concepts are the theoretical basis upon which we recognize and name species; they play, therefore, a crucial role in the development of identification tools. For instance, sexual and asexual morphs in fungi were traditionally named and identified separately under the concept of dual nomenclature. With the advent of DNA sequencing and the ability to match sexual and asexual morphs through sequence data, this approach was no longer necessary, and dual nomenclature was replaced by the concept of “one fungus, one name” (Hawksworth 2011; Taylor 2011; Wingfield et al. 2012; Geiser et al. 2013).

Over 30 concepts have been proposed to delimit species across the Tree of Life (Mayden 1997; Zachos 2016; Wilkins 2018). All consider one or several of three fundamental criteria (Fig. 2): genealogical coherence (in particular monophyly), reproductive isolation, and phenotypic distinctiveness (including autecology; e.g. Eyualem and Blaxter 2003). Thus, ‘genealogical concordance species’ and ‘phylospecies’ refer to aspects of genealogy. ‘Morphospecies’ (‘phenospecies’) relate to morphological, anatomical, biochemical or behavioral features, which by extension also include autecology (environmental niche space). ‘Biospecies’ and ‘recognition species’ take into account mating compatibility and reproductive barriers. Special cases include ‘agamospecies’ (asexual lineages not known to reproduce sexually) and ‘nothospecies’ (of hybrid origin). Some concepts integrate criteria of genealogy, phenotype and/or reproduction, such as ‘cohesion species’ and ‘evolutionary species’, whereas others aim at the highest possible resolution, e.g. ‘evolutionary significant unit’ and ‘least inclusive taxonomic unit’ (Moritz 1994; Wilkins 2018). As a result, different concepts may result in delimiting species of different size and complexity (Agapow et al. 2004; Taylor et al. 2006; Yurkov et al. 2015a), which may confound users employing identification tools based on “competing” species concepts.

Hawksworth (1996: 32) pragmatically defined fungal species as “... groups of individuals separated by inheritable character discontinuities and which it is useful to give a species name to ...”. Since inheritable character discontinuities can only be assessed by simultaneous analysis of phylogenetic relationships and clade-based phenotype variation, this definition is largely congruent with ‘phylogenetic taxon species’ (Eldredge and Cracraft 1980; Nelson and Platnick 1981; Wilkins 2018). It is also in agreement with the ‘consolidated species concept’ of Quaedvlieg et al. (2014). Other terms that have been coined for this approach are the polyphasic species concept and integrative taxonomy (Vandamme et al. 1996; Yeates et al. 2011; Goulding and Dayrat 2016; Lücking 2019; Vinarski 2019). Fungi are no exception to the notion that species have individual evolutionary histories, and so aspects of their genealogical coherence, reproductive isolation and phenotypic distinctiveness may differ. This implies that there is no single, universal approach to species delimitation and consequently for species identification.

The diversity of trophic and reproductive strategies of fungi and their often complex lifecycles add further complications. What is perceived as phenotypically distinct entities may be manifestations of one and the same fungus, often representing sexual versus asexual forms (Kendrick 1979; Aoki and O'Donnell 1999; Covert et al. 2007; Wingfield et al. 2012; Rossman et al. 2016; Tanaka and Honda 2017; Tanney and Miller 2017). Exemplar cases are the rust fungi (Aime et al. 2018; Kolmer et al. 2018), which can produce up to seven morphologically and functionally distinct types of spores (Bruckart et al. 2010). So-called “species pairs” in lichens may belong to a single taxon or exhibit complex phylogenies in which the mode of reproduction is not necessarily diagnostic (Mattsson and Lumbsch 1989; Kroken and Taylor 2001; Crespo and Pérez-Ortega 2009; Crespo and Lumbsch 2010; Messuti et al. 2016). The same lichen fungus can also form different vegetative structures depending on the associated photobiont, resulting in strikingly disparate “photosymbiodemes” (Armaleo and Clerc 1991; Högnabba et al. 2009; Moncada et al. 2013).

Delimitation

While it is difficult to decide a priori which approach to species delimitation best applies to a given fungal group, biological and phenotypic aspects have practical and theoretical limitations. The phenotypic approach is limited due to the simplicity of fungal features, such as spore characters, as homoplasious evolution and a disjunct between the timing of genealogical and phenotypic separation may lead to phenotypically cryptic taxa (Carriconde et al. 2008; Lumbsch and Leavitt 2011; Hyde et al. 2011; Balasundaram et al. 2015; Hawksworth and Lücking 2018). Perceived lack of phenotypical divergence can also stem from failure to properly observe diagnostic characters (Moncada et al. 2014; Lücking et al. 2017; Merényi et al. 2017). This is particularly obvious in microfungi; for instance, Johnston et al. (2017) showed that 23% of historical Phoma cultures determined based on phenotype had been misidentified.

Reproductive isolation is emphasized as a key trait in the biological species concept (Mayr 1942). In the original description of Neurospora, species were recognized in part based on mating compatibility (Shear and Dodge 1927), long before the term “biological species” was first applied. However, more often than not it is difficult to assess reproductive isolation in fungi, and this approach is largely restricted to select taxa including model organisms (Yarden 2016). Mating is inherently cryptic and often complex, involving the fusion of minute gametangial elements, an event rarely observed in nature or even in the laboratory (Kück and Pöggeler 2009; Ni et al. 2011; Ropars et al. 2016; Bruns et al. 2018; Nagel et al. 2018; Li et al. 2020a). There are challenges in the interpretation of mating experiments, as failed mating does not necessarily prove two lineages to represent different species. Sexual reproduction of biotrophic lineages depends on the availability of a suitable host, the absence of which may result in unsuccessful mating tests (Cai et al. 2011; Yurkov et al. 2015b). Successful mating can also occur through homothallism or through hybridization between phylogenetically and morphologically distinct species (Sun et al. 2014). Additionally, many fungi do not appear to reproduce sexually, having lost this ability during evolution (Seifert and Gams 2001; Shenoy et al. 2007; Hyde et al. 2011), although it can sometimes be induced under laboratory conditions (O'Gorman et al. 2009). Given these shortcomings, historical reproductive isolation can be documented through a genealogical concordance phylogenetic species recognition (GCPSR) approach, which identifies shared genealogical partitions between lineages across multiple loci as evidence of isolation (Taylor et al. 2000). While this approach has been applied in fungi (Koufopanou et al. 1997; Geiser et al. 1998, 2007; O'Donnell et al. 2004; Aoki et al. 2019), it does not necessarily identify intrinsic reproductive barriers as the basis for a lack of genetic exchange, and it may reveal populations rather than species (Sukumaran and Knowles 2017). Another approach is the analysis of mating genes to predict sexual compatibility in fungi (Sun et al. 2014, 2019; Yurkov et al. 2015b; Diaz-Valderrama and Aime 2016). In general, reproductively incompatible groups within phenotypically defined species tend to correlate fairly well with phylogenetically supported lineages, as observed in Neurospora (Dettman et al. 2003a, b), Cryptococcus (Passer et al. 2019), Fusarium (Aoki and O'Donnell 1999; O'Donnell et al. 2000), Penicillium (López-Villavicencio et al. 2010), Lentinellus (Miller and Methven 2000), and Pleurotus (Vilgalys and Sun 1994). However, over-reliance on Mendelian-inherited traits may lead to incongruences between phenotypically and phylogenetically defined species (Aime 2004).

Because of these challenges, modern fungal taxonomy emphasizes a genealogical approach, including single- or concatenated multi-gene phylogenies, genealogical concordance, and phylogenomics. The main advantage of this approach is that it can be explored within an explicit hypothetical framework, and phenotypic characters can be placed a posteriori into an evolutionary context. Another advantage is the large number of characters analyzed: whereas phenotype matrices may at best contain a few hundred characters and often less than one hundred, sequence data range from several hundred (single-marker) to thousands (multi-locus) to hundreds of thousands or more (phylogenomics) of sites. However, even with molecular data, difficulties arise from a lack of understanding of evolutionary processes, which are not always discernible in a phylogeny. For instance, recently emerging species may not resolve through reciprocal monophyly (Cunnington et al. 2005; Goodman et al. 2009; Przyboś et al. 2015; Lachance 2016; Leavitt et al. 2016; Liu et al. 2017). These problems are further compounded by often improper taxon selection for molecular analysis, as the most closely related sequences may not be included in the data set or the closest relatives may not have been sequenced. For instance, Evans et al. (2002) suggested placement of the frosty pod rod, Moniliophthora roreri, an important pathogen on cacao, in the genus Crinipellis, based on the notion that its ITS sequence blasted most closely to Crinipellis perniciosa. Subsequent phylogenetic analysis, however, demonstrated that the latter was not a genuine Crinipellis but formed a separate generic lineage together with Moniliophthora roreri in Marasmiaceae (Aime and Phillips-Mora 2005; Kerekes and Desjardin 2009; Evans 2016; Niveiro et al. 2020).

Whole-genome level approaches are increasingly employed in fungi to surmount issues of resolution and support in single- and multi-marker studies (Gladieux et al. 2015; Magain et al. 2017; Lorch et al. 2018; Kobmoo et al. 2019; Morin et al. 2019; Haridas et al. 2020). For prokaryotes, the computationally inexpensive assessment of average nucleotide identity (ANI) has proven popular, although maximum-likelihood methods are also being applied (Parks et al. 2018). Multiple prokaryotic genomes are readily available including from type material (Konstantinidis and Tiedje 2005; Ciufo et al. 2018). Another genome-based approach to resolve species complexes in prokaryotes is Percentage of Conserved Proteins (POCP) analysis (Qin et al. 2014; Martinez-Romero and Ormeño-Orrillo 2019; Peix et al. 2019; Wittouck et al. 2019; Rensink et al. 2020), a method that has now also been implemented in fungi (Wibberg et al. 2020). These strategies are still impractical for broad exploration of fungal diversity, as the accurate analysis of fungal genomes is a time-consuming process and sampling remains sparse, although high quality genomes requiring fewer analytical resources may soon become available with improved third generation sequencing techniques, such as PacBio Sequel and Oxford Nanopore Technologies (Tedersoo et al. 2018b; Loit et al. 2019; Stadler et al. 2020; Wibberg et al. 2020). For difficult species complexes, sequencing of restriction site-associated DNA markers (RADSeq) is another emerging approach in fungal taxonomy (Grewe et al. 2017, 2018; Salas-Lizana and Oono 2018).

Integrative taxonomy attempts to combine as much evidence as possible from genealogical, biological, phenotypic and other approaches to delimit species (Aime 2004; Will et al. 2005; Yang and Rannala 2010; Padial et al. 2010; Udayanga et al. 2014; Haelewaters et al. 2018; Kruse et al. 2018a). The different approaches are thereby not competitive but components of a holistic strategy. Species hypotheses are normally established using phenotypic characters and, where possible, tested by reconstructing the underlying genealogy through molecular phylogeny. This strategy is now often inverted, by detecting novel lineages through phylogenetic analysis and then evaluating these through correlation with phenotypic characters (Millanes et al. 2011; Liu et al. 2015; Lücking et al. 2017; Kruse et al. 2018b). The phenotype has not become obsolete, but forms an important component of integrative taxonomy, including by extension aspects of autecology, physiology, and biochemistry. The phenotype also remains important when evaluating diagnostic characters for identification tools and in cases where it has not been possible to obtain sequence data. Biogeography represents an additional dimension assessed independently of phenotype and ecology and is often used to recognize phenotypically cryptic, allopatric lineages (James et al. 2001; Yurkov et al. 2015a; Sánchez-Ramírez et al. 2015; Lücking et al. 2017).

Recognition

Quantitative species delimitation analyzes topological aspects of one or several phylogenetic trees, such as genetic distance (branch length patterns), support and concordance (Ence and Carstens 2011; Lim et al. 2011; Fujita et al. 2012; Puillandre et al. 2012; Zhang et al. 2013; Fujisawa et al. 2016). In contrast, recognition subsequently detects diagnostic features that allow lineages delimited through phylogeny to be recognized (Somervuo et al. 2006; Trifa et al. 2008; Kruse et al. 2018a, b). Delimitation may be based on a broad set of data, including whole-genome data, whereas lineages thus delimited may be recognized by few diagnostic features, either phenotypic or through DNA barcodes. For certain fungi, including molds and yeasts, diagnostics may be derived from physiological profiles as determined by VITEK or API systems, high-resolution melting (HRM) assays, and proteomics via MALDI-TOF (Buesching et al. 1979; Fenn et al. 1994; Kurtzman 2006; Gazis et al. 2011; Nenoff et al. 2013; Yurkov et al. 2015a, b; Fidler et al. 2017; Patel 2019; Passer et al. 2019). Species delimitation and recognition are often confounded, and “species recognition approaches” often refer to species delimitation (e.g. Dettman et al. 2003a, b; Geiser et al. 2007; Grünig et al. 2007).

Single phenotype characters or DNA barcoding markers may provide reliable discrimination in many fungi. However, often a combination of characters or markers is needed to achieve the desired accuracy and precision, sometimes incorporating character weighting (Berger et al. 2011; Dupuis et al. 2012; Krüger et al. 2012; Kruse et al. 2018b; Liu et al. 2015; Yurkov et al. 2015b). Another conceptual difference between species delimitation and recognition is that diagnostic characters are not necessarily used for delimitation; typically, delimitation is based on molecular phylogeny, whereas recognition relies on quantitative (statistically tested) analysis of phenotypic characters mapped a posteriori onto phylogenetic trees, the desirable standard approach not only in fungal taxonomy.

Identification

Following species delimitation and recognition, a critical step is needed to enable identification: the generation of effective identification tools that synthesize the available information (Fig. 2). These may range from traditional dichotomous to computerized interactive keys based on the phenotype, to molecular identification, such as DNA barcoding, or a combination of various methods (Druzhinina et al. 2005; Coleman et al. 2010; Reginato 2016; Attigala et al. 2016; Smith Jr 2017; Nguyen et al. 2017; Van Sinh et al. 2017; Tofilski 2018). Recent developments in plant taxonomy include machine-learning tools to evaluate phenotype features (Hernández-Serna and Jiménez-Segura 2014). This approach works rather well in features with a particular architecture, such as leaves, enabling powerful applications, such as Leafsnap and Leafnet (Kumar et al. 2012; Barré et al. 2017; Kress et al. 2018). For fungi, image-based identification is challenging, since quantitative morphometry cannot usually be applied, although there might be some use in the detection of plant diseases (Pujari et al. 2015; Heim et al. 2018).

Providing effective identification tools is one of the fundamental tasks of taxonomists, not only in mycology. Based on available phylogenetic treatments, taxonomic experts are encouraged to employ state-of-the-art methods to assemble comprehensive data sets for diagnostic characters, which allow the creation of interactive and/or automatically derived dichotomous or synoptic keys for a given group (e.g. Rambold 1997; Zambonelli et al. 2000; Druzhinina et al. 2005; Triebel et al. 2016; Nguyen et al. 2017). MycoBank Polyphasic Identifications Databases provides links to identification tools for various groups of fungi [http://www.mycobank.org/DefaultInfo.aspx? Page = polyphasicID]. For plant pathogens, the USDA Fungal Databases website [https://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases] is also helpful (Farr and Rossman 2020).

Identification tools and descriptions of new taxa should be freely accessible. The latter is possible through registration of fungal names in MycoBank, Index Fungorum or Fungal Names; the deposition of images is not obligatory but strongly recommended. Open access options for identification tools often conflict with the needs for publication impact and the inflated costs for open access models. In such cases, a practical remedy is to post pre-publication manuscripts in a free repository, such as bioRxiv (Sever et al. 2019), so that users can freely access the information while citing the original paper. Unified digital protologues with semantic standardization can be a further step towards automated collection, structuring and analysis of taxonomic data, based on both specimens and species (Kilian et al. 2015; Triebel et al. 2016; Plitzner et al. 2019; Dallwitz et al. 2020). However, this approach is challenging due to terminological ambiguity and the large set of characters required to cover all fungi, only a fraction of which is typically used in a particular lineage.

Verification

Users often uncritically accept identifications achieved with a given tool, although the identification process may lead to a wrong name. This happens not only in phenotype-based approaches but also with molecular identifications, when reference sequences are incorrectly labeled or follow an inappropriate taxonomic concept, or through uncritical use of pairwise similarity-based approaches such as BLAST (see below and Fig. 3). Different BLAST algorithms (megablast, discontinuous megablast and blastn) can yield different matches, depending on the length of the query and/or reference sequences, what score is observed, and whether sequences of the underlying marker, such as the ITS, were deposited in their entirety or separately, e.g. ITS1 versus ITS2 (Altschul et al. 1990; Camacho et al. 2009; Nilsson et al. 2008; Blaalid et al. 2013; Tedersoo et al. 2015; Madden et al. 2019; Větrovský et al. 2020). This underlines the importance of the verification process. Verification must thereby go beyond the data used for identification, to avoid circular conclusions (Lindahl et al. 2013; Hart et al. 2015; Vu et al. 2019). Unfortunately, verification is impractical or next to impossible for massive amounts of data, such as in environmental metabarcoding approaches, which consequently require trade-off between speed and accuracy (see below).

Verification steps are manifold but largely depend on the nature of diagnostic characters and whether phenotypic or molecular annotations are being used. For phenotype-based identifications, verification relies on consultation of original descriptions and examination of authentic specimens (including cultures) and/or imagery, including digitized type material in repositories, such as JSTOR Global Plants (Ryan 2013, 2018) or the Mycology Collections Portal (Miller and Bates 2017). Species Fungorum [http://www.speciesfungorum.org], MycoBank [http://www.mycobank.org], The Faces of Fungi [http://www.facesoffungi.org], The Yeasts Trust Database [http://www.theyeasts.org], USDA Fungal Databases [https://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases], the Biodiversity Heritage Library [https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org], Cyberliber [http://www.cybertruffle.org.uk/cyberliber], and Google Scholar [https://scholar.google.com], are excellent tools to obtain information about original and other taxonomic literature, often with direct links to available sources (Crous et al. 2004; Robert et al. 2013; Jayasiri et al. 2015; Farr and Rossman 2020; Boekhout et al. 2020). Confirmation by specialists is another option, which of course requires the continued existence of a sufficient number of taxonomic experts (Lücking 2020).

Although often neglected, phenotype-based verification is also indispensable for sequence-based identifications. To facilitate this process, it is recommended to generate digitally accessible images of sequenced voucher material and deposit the material in registered fungaria (Thiers 2018), with links between sequence data, voucher information, and digital imagery (Krah et al. 2019). Other possibilities include improving the accurate annotation of vouchers enforcing structured information for biorepositories (Güntsch et al. 2017; Sharma et al. 2018), especially during name registration, publication and sequence submission to GenBank and its partners in the International Sequence Database Collaboration (INSDC). The AJOM fungal notes series publishes new collections of known species with sequence data (Hyde et al. 2020) in a novel format to emphasize the importance of such contributions. The data with imagery is also placed online in websites developed for specific groups (Jayawardena et al. 2019; Pem et al. 2019; Li et al. 2020b).

Entirely sequence-based verification can be achieved through multiple alignment-based phylogenetic analysis and checking the placement of authentic reference sequences, in particular those based on type specimens. BLAST offers the option to limit hits to “Sequences from type material” (Federhen 2015), but since their number is still low and biased towards particular lineages, this option is currently only of theoretical use for broad fungal surveys. If type-derived sequences are not available, curated sequence databases can be consulted for vetted non-type reference sequences, such as UNITE (Abarenkov et al. 2010; Kõljalg et al. 2013, 2019; Nilsson et al. 2019), NCBI RefSeq (Targeted Loci) (Schoch et al. 2014), the various group-specific sources linked through MycoBank BioloMICS Sequences (Robert et al. 2013), or specialized databases for plant and animal/human pathogens, such as Q-Bank and the International Society of Human and Animal Mycology (ISHAM) ITS reference DNA barcoding database (Bonants et al. 2013; Irinyi et al. 2015). Third-party annotations in primary repositories, such as GenBank, both directly and as push-back mechanism from curated databases (Fig. 3), would also be valuable. Alternatively, NCBI RefSeq (Targeted Loci) could be extended to include additional sequences from reference material in public collections, e.g. non-type sequences vetted through multi-locus phylogenetic analysis by third parties in a publication. Another option would be to implement a simple, third-party annotation system that links three unique identifiers: (a) GenBank accession of sequence to be annotated; (b) MycoBank/Index Fungorum/FungalNames registration number of the name representing the correct identification; (c) DOI of the publication that documents the correct identification. Such a flat table could be centrally curated and incorporated in automated identification pipelines.

Interactive polyphasic identification tools such those based on DELTA IntKey, MycoKeys, DiscoverLife IDnature guides, Dryades KeyToNature or MyCoPortal keys offer the possibility to obtain verification feedback through the identification process about the taxa remaining in a pool, after selecting a set of characters and states (Dallwitz 1993; Han et al. 2010; Nimis et al. 2012; Lücking and Pickering 2020; Miller and Promputtha 2020a, b; Miller et al. 2020a, b). Phenotype-based phylogenetic binning (Berger et al. 2011) not only integrates molecular and phenotype data but also allows the establishment of automated identification tools, such as PhyloKey, which compute bootstrap support values as reliability measures for phenotype-based identifications on a molecular phylogenetic backbone, thus incorporating an automated verification step (Lücking et al. 2016). Assembling the underlying data matrices for such approaches is time-consuming, but it results in directly verifiable identifications and a structured, more objective, reproducible identification process.

CHALLENGES WITH REGARD TO UNAMBIGUOUS IDENTIFICATION OF FUNGI

Universal, unambiguous identification of fungi: does one size fit all?

Phenotypically cryptic speciation and convergent evolution are frequent in fungi (Crespo and Pérez-Ortega 2009; Cai et al. 2011; Moncada et al. 2014; Balasundaram et al. 2015; Jayawardena et al. 2016; Liu et al. 2017; Kruse et al. 2018b). Formal taxonomy that recognizes cryptic species may appear impractical because the molecular tools necessary for precise identification are out of reach for many users. However, phylogenetic distinctiveness of lineages should not be dismissed because methods for their detection are not readily available (Hawksworth 2016). For each group of fungi, approaches to identification have to be cognizant of the current species concept established for that group, the methods to evaluate that concept, and the required level of precision. Lack of accuracy of fungal identifications cannot be excused by the lack of adequate tools, and so the availability of tools determines which fungi can be studied. However, lack of molecular tools can be partially balanced by expertise: talented and knowledgeable mycologists may provide more accurate species identifications through non-molecular approaches than unexperienced users do through DNA-based identifications.

Ecological studies in fungi often emphasize statistical data analysis over accuracy and precision of taxon identifications. The common practice of identifying operational taxonomic units (OTUs) to only higher taxa (genus, family, order) should be avoided, unless this is the desired level of precision, justified by the objectives and underlying assumptions, or in environmental metabarcoding when no close relatives have been sequenced (Caporaso et al. 2010; Huson et al. 2011; Veresoglou et al. 2013; Kemler et al. 2017; Kahlke and Ralph 2019). This also includes the use of uncritically adopted generic names in polyphyletic circumscriptions and listing informally named morphospecies without proper reference allowing their recognition in another context. The obvious solution lies in interdisciplinary collaboration (Öpik and Davison 2016; Grube et al. 2017). However, this is rarely realized, one of the reasons why the importance of taxonomy is not broadly acknowledged (Seifert et al. 2008; Lücking 2020). We recommend ecologists, plant pathologists and researchers in other fields of study that rely on fungal taxonomy and associated data (e.g. species traits such as functional spore morphology; e.g. Aguilar-Trigueros et al. 2019) to collaborate with taxonomists, and we encourage taxonomists to make themselves available for such collaborations. After all, this is one of the core duties of taxonomic experts, but it also requires continuous support for this field of study (Lücking 2020).

In cases of DNA-based identifications, users often blindly rely on the presumed accuracy of reference data (see below), and there is usually no consultation with taxonomic expertise. Another issue is the habit of citing sequence accession numbers as “sources” of identifications, while ignoring the underlying taxonomic work that let to the deposition of these valuable reference sequences in the first place. Looking up and citing these works is an important step in quality filtering of reference sequences and to some extent can replace taxonomic expertise when assessing results of DNA-based identifications. In environmental metabarcoding approaches, taxonomic expertise is unfortunately largely fruitless due to the absence of physical voucher specimens. Also, since metabarcoding typically encompasses a broad diversity of higher taxa (Tedersoo et al. 2014; Davison et al. 2018; Ruppert et al. 2019), it is impossible to achieve high levels of accuracy and precision for species identifications across all lineages, but there are alternative strategies to obtain reliable results in such studies (see below).

For plant- and animal/human-pathogenic or industrial fungi, a high level of taxonomic precision is required that cannot usually be achieved by phenotypic identifications. Instead, DNA barcoding or specific diagnostic testing and profiling have become indispensable (Criseo et al. 2015; Crous et al. 2015, 2016; Irinyi et al. 2015; Heim et al. 2018; Hoang et al. 2019). The emerging multi-drug resistant yeast Candida auris is one example of a fungus misidentified by phenotypic tools (Chatterjee et al. 2015; Lockhart et al. 2017). Identification of quarantine pests, such as Phyllosticta citricarpa, the causal agent of Citrus Black Spot disease (Guarnaccia et al. 2017), is another example where a particular molecular marker should be employed, as recommended by the Q-Bank of the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO; Bonants et al. 2013). Manuals help to select proper genetic markers for identification of plant pathogenic, clinical and food-borne fungi (Marin-Felix et al. 2019; Samson et al. 2019; de Hoog et al. 2020). In certain cases, the species level may not be sufficiently precise, and identification of particular lineages or strains may be required (Pegg et al. 2019).

Because of these issues, presently there is no single identification method that would universally apply to all fungi and be broadly available to users.

Reference data: the bread and butter of identification tools

Identification tools are only as good as the reference data behind them. For phenotype-based keys, taxa under all published names in a group need to have been studied, usually as the result of monographic treatments or revisions. Where no keys are available, it is necessary to consult published descriptions and reference specimens, an often painstaking, yet indispensable, approach that is nowadays facilitated by digital repositories (see above). The accessibility of reference material, both physically and virtually, is crucial in this process. Ideally, a broad array of characters needs to be quantitatively analyzed to determine those most effective for identification (e.g., Sieber et al. 1998).

For DNA barcoding, completeness of reference sequences is critical, but unfortunately still rudimentary for many fungi, especially for species-rich genera (Fig. 4). Currently, sequence data exist for ca. 45,000 named fungal species, most of these including ITS. This corresponds to about 30% of known species, but only 6% when assuming a minimum of 700,000 species (Schmit and Mueller 2007) and 1–2% when considering 2.2–3.8 million (Hawksworth and Lücking 2018). Closing this substantial gap must be a priority of the mycological community (Osmundson et al. 2013). Curated databases, such as UNITE, MaarjAM, ISHAM DNA barcoding, NCBI RefSeq (Targeted Loci) and CBS/WI (Öpik et al. 2010, 2014; Kõljalg et al. 2013, 2019; Schoch et al. 2014; Irinyi et al. 2015; Vu et al. 2016, 2019) play an important role in this endeavor. UNITE features close to 2.5 million curated fungal ITS sequences, corresponding to over 100,000 species hypotheses at a default threshold of 98.5% identity. However, most of these species hypotheses remain unnamed. Many newly published species names remain unrecorded in public sequence databases by failure of submitters to update their records, a problem that can be remedied by standardized keywords and/or listing of type-based DNA barcode accessions in taxonomic treatments (Lücking et al. 2017; Schoch et al. 2017).

A common misconception in DNA barcoding is the assumption that existing reference data provide a definitive answer, either in species identification or to establish whether a taxon is new. Such an approach will fail when reference data are incomplete or sequences are improperly labeled (Nilsson et al. 2006). Methods such as reference OTU picking, implemented in QIIME and other pipelines (Caporaso et al. 2010; Bik et al. 2012; Rideout et al. 2014; Cline et al. 2017), are highly sensitive to the quality and scope of reference databases, although open reference OTU picking allows recognition of query sequences that do not have close reference matches. Potential error is also hidden in what has been called last (lowest) common ancestor (LCA) analysis in analytical packages, such as MEGAN, QIIME and BASTA (Caporaso et al. 2010; Huson et al. 2011; Kahlke and Ralph 2019), an approach commonly used in environmental metabarcoding of fungi (Majaneva et al. 2015; Miller et al. 2016; Sinha et al. 2017; Anslan et al. 2018). This algorithm identifies the most similar sequences in a reference database and returns the highest shared taxonomy level obtained from the corresponding NCBI taxonomy. For instance, if the five best hits all represent (a) the same species, (b) the same genus but different species, or (c) the same family but different genera, the query sequence is identified either to the level of (a) species, (b) genus, or (c) family. The accuracy and precision of this approach is determined by the sequence labels, as well as how similar the closest hits are to the query sequence. In the case of the above barcoding example of Trametes menziesii from Vietnam (Fig. 3), LCA would return Basidiomycota (phylum) as the highest level of precision, even if the underlying data would allow an identification to species. Excluding all undetermined sequences, the best hits would include the genus names Trametes, Lenzites and Leiotrametes and hence return the family Polyporaceae as highest level of precision. Curated databases, such as UNITE permit the use of the species hypothesis identifier as highest level of precision, but this is cumbersome in the interpretation of massive amounts of data.

For phenotype-based identifications, a frequent error is the use of improper identification tools which may either be outdated, incomplete, or geographically inappropriate. For a given group in a geographic region, proper identifications tools are often not available and one has to rely on “alien” sources. In such cases, identifications should at best be considered initial approximations. Unfortunately, checklists and digital specimen repositories contain numerous presumably widespread fungal species because a tool established for a particular region has been used to identify taxa elsewhere. High quality treatments, such as Mushrooms of North America (Phillips 1991) and Lichens of North America (Brodo et al. 2001) have become popular identification tools for users across the world (e.g. Ecuador, macrolichens: González et al. 2017; Brazil, ectomycorrhizal fungi: Giachini et al. 2000; Israel, Acarospora lichens: Temina et al. 2005; India, edible mushrooms: Singh et al. 2017). However, identifications based on such “alien” sources have to be treated with caution.

CAVEATS OF THE ITS AS UNIVERSAL DNA BARCODING MARKER IN FUNGI

Molecular identification is rapidly becoming a major tool in fungal taxonomy, due to its universal applicability, speed, and the presumption that it replaces taxonomic expertise, making this approach broadly applicable in many fields of mycology (Yahr et al. 2016). In environmental metabarcoding, it is in fact the only tool available (Epp et al. 2012; Toju et al. 2012; Hibbett et al. 2016; Miller et al. 2016; Lücking and Hawksworth 2018; Tedersoo et al. 2018b; Ruppert et al. 2019). The latter issue is of particular importance, as data from environmental studies grow exponentially. The already outdated number of fungal ITS reads in the SRA (9,762,039,423 as of January 2019) surpasses the number of fungal ITS sequences accessioned in GenBank (1,367,715 as of March 2020) by a factor of more than 7000 (currently likely over 10,000). Six years ago, this ratio was 20:1 and just two years ago, it had increased to 1000:1 (Lücking and Hawksworth 2018). Many developments in this context work towards automated pipelines which rely principally on sequence similarity assessment based on the idea of a universal fungal barcoding marker, such as the ITS (Majaneva et al. 2015; Sinha et al. 2017; Anslan et al. 2018).

Following the initial idea of universal DNA barcoding (Gressel and Ehrlich 2002; Hebert et al. 2003; Seifert et al. 2007; Meusnier et al. 2008; Begerow et al. 2010), the fungal ITS was proposed as the first universal fungal barcoding marker, being mostly easily amplified and sequenced and providing acceptable resolution in a wide range of taxa (Nagy et al. 2012; Schoch et al. 2012; Xu 2016). Large secondary repositories, such as UNITE, ISHAM DNA barcoding, and NCBI RefSeq (Targeted Loci) (Kõljalg et al. 2013, 2019; Schoch et al. 2014; Irinyi et al. 2015, 2016; O'Leary et al. 2016) became major resources for curated fungal ITS reference sequences. A major advantage of such curated databases is that curation, annotation and expansion of the database is being performed by the research community (Abarenkov et al. 2010; Irinyi et al. 2015; Nilsson et al. 2019). The ITS oligonucleotide hallmark approach attempted to refine DNA barcoding and its use in formalized interactive identification tools, by using a combination of short, species-specific sequence patterns (motifs, anchors) rather than overall sequence similarity (Druzhinina et al. 2005). This approach should be revisited as an integrated tool as it allows adjustment to situations where more than one DNA barcode is needed, and for genome-wide studies through which diagnostic short sequences may subsequently be identified.

Lack of resolution of the ITS and use of secondary barcodes

A growing number of studies is challenging the utility of ITS for delimiting, recognizing and identifying fungal species in certain lineages (O'Donnell and Cigelnik 1997; Nilsson et al. 2008; Bellemain et al. 2010; Pino-Bodas et al. 2013; Kijpornyongpan and Aime 2016; Thiery et al. 2016; Hughes et al. 2018; Kruse et al. 2018a, b; Parks et al. 2019; Tremble et al. 2019; Stadler et al. 2020). A minor problem is that ITS may not amplify in all fungi (Kijpornyongpan and Aime 2016), but sequencing success is better than with many other markers (Schoch et al. 2012). More important caveats include lack of resolution and the potential presence of non-homologous ITS copies in the genome.

It has been demonstrated that ITS does not provide sufficient resolution among closely related species of indoor and food-borne molds (e.g. Aspergillus, Penicillium), plant or human/animal pathogens (Alternaria, Cladosporium, Colletotrichum, Fusarium, as well as Phytophthora in the Oomycota) or other fungi (e.g. freshwater Sordariomycetes, Trichoderma) including slime molds. For these, secondary barcoding markers, such as the intergenic spacer (IGS), β-tubulin II (TUB2), DNA-directed RNA polymerase II largest (RPB1) and second largest (RPB2) subunits, translational elongation factor 1α (TEF1), DNA topoisomerase I (TOP1), phosphoglycerate kinase (PGK), and cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COX1) and subunit II (COX2), have been proposed (Table 1; Geiser et al. 2007; Gilmore et al. 2009; Damm et al. 2012; Maharachchikumbura et al. 2012; López-Quintero et al. 2013; Balasundaram et al. 2015; Choi et al. 2015; Stielow et al. 2015; Xu 2016; Al-Hatmi et al. 2016; Irinyi et al. 2016; Větrovský et al. 2016; Woudenberg et al. 2017; Schnittler et al. 2017; Tekpinar and Kalmer 2019; Luo et al. 2019; Meyer et al. 2019). Occasional cases in fungal groups where ITS otherwise provides sufficient resolution, such as the subcosmopolitan and threatened macrolichens, Sticta fuliginosa and S. limbata (Magain and Sérusiaux 2015; Moncada et al. 2020), indicate that this problem is not necessarily taxon-specific, but may denote recently or dynamically evolving lineages, which can occur in any group of fungi but is apparently more prevalent in some than in others. In recently analyzed barcode datasets (Vu et al. 2016, 2019), between 6 and 17% of yeast and filamentous fungal species were shown to be indistinguishable by ITS. Meyer et al. (2019) found that 25% of human/animal pathogenic fungi cannot be identified based on ITS alone. Many plant-parasitic lineages in Dothideomycetes and Sordariomycetes cannot be resolved to species level using ITS (Damm et al. 2012; Maharachchikumbura et al. 2012; Hyde et al. 2013; Manamgoda et al. 2014; Woudenberg et al. 2017; Haridas et al. 2020). On the other hand, for lichen-formers in Dothideomycetes, such as the genus Strigula, ITS provides a high level of resolution (Jiang et al. 2016, 2017a, b, 2020; Ford et al. 2019; Woo et al. 2020). A possible correlation between intragenomic variability of ITS and fungal life strategies should be explored further; the observed patterns indicate that fungal lineages exhibiting life strategies such as highly specific parasitism may undergo fast and complex speciation not immediately reflected in the ITS. On the other hand, economically and medically important fungi are also more densely sampled, allowing for a more fine-grained taxonomy reflecting minor but important differences between individual strains.

Table 1 DNA Barcoding markers proposed for fungi, their recommended nomenclature and selected examples (see also Stielow et al. 2015; Xu 2016)

Full size table

In certain cases, differential levels of resolution between ITS and more variable markers is being resolved by recognizing infraspecific taxa, such as in the lichen-forming ascomycete Thamnolia (Onuţ-Brännström et al. 2017; Ioana et al. 2018; Jørgensen 2019); in other cases, e.g. the various IGS-defined clades of the ubiquitous basidiomycete Schizophyllum commune (James et al. 2001), no formal taxonomy has been implemented. As a result, the same underlying phylogenetic structure may translate into different taxonomic solutions, usually depending on the need. The level of precision to be achieved by DNA barcoding should therefore be dictated through context, regardless of how that precision is taxonomically formalized. In several fungal groups, ITS can only provide an initial approximation within a given clade, usually to a species complex, but cannot discriminate to the level of species. Two-marker barcoding systems, such as nuLSU/ITS and TEF1 for yeasts or human/animal pathogens, are a practicable solution in such cases (Kurtzman 2006; Robert et al. 2011; Stielow et al. 2015; Vu et al. 2016; Hoang et al. 2019), although the application of this approach in metabarcoding remains challenging.

Intragenomic variation in the ITS

More troubling than insufficient resolution is evidence of intragenomic variation of the ribosomal DNA (rDNA) cistron, including the ITS region, particularly when producing non-homologous discrete ITS variants, as this may result in conflicting molecular identifications. Intragenomic ITS variation is well-documented for bacteria, plants and animals (e.g. Wörheide et al. 2004; Rosselló et al. 2006; Stewart and Cavanaugh 2007). There is also growing evidence in certain fungal lineages (Smith et al. 2007; Simon and Weiß 2008; Lindner and Banik 2011; Kiss 2012; Vydryakova et al. 2012; Wilson et al. 2012; Harrington et al. 2014; Li et al. 2013, 2017; Kijpornyongpan and Aime 2016; McTaggart and Aime 2018; Colabella et al. 2018; Heeger et al. 2018; Hughes et al. 2018; Stadler et al. 2020). In most fungi, however, the rDNA cistron, including the ITS, appears to follow the principle of concerted evolution (Ganley and Kobayashi 2007).

Intragenomic ITS variation may largely stem from three processes: (1) stochastic point mutations resulting from DNA replication errors during cell division, (2) recombination through hybridization and introgression (e.g., McTaggart and Aime 2018), and (3) gene duplication leading to paralogs and pseudogenes (Dufayard et al. 2005). Paralogs and pseudogenes have been demonstrated for ITS, particularly in plants (Álvarez and Wendel 2003; Zheng et al. 2008; Xu et al. 2017), but convincing evidence in fungi is rare (Li et al. 2017). The distinction between hybridization and introgression or gene duplication as causes for intragenomic ITS variation is crucial, as the first may result in erroneous identifications of actually existing taxa present in an alien genome, whereas the second will produce “ghost” taxa, particularly in metabarcoding data.

Neither hybridization and introgression nor gene duplication are unique to the ITS, but the specific challenge of utilizing ITS is its presence in multiple copies in the genome, as part of 18S-ITS-28S tandem repeats located on several chromosomes. Intragenomic variation in point mutations is an obligate consequence of this, because DNA polymerases introduce stochastic errors during DNA replication. Under laboratory conditions, error rates of Taq polymerase vary between 0.1% and less than 0.01% (Chen et al. 1991; McInerney et al. 2014; Potapov and Ong 2017). With an average number of 100 copies in the fungal genome (Lofgren et al. 2019) and an average length of 550 bases (Schoch et al. 2014; Nilsson et al. 2015), the average number of bases in the entire ITS array is 55,000, so per replication cycle, 0.5 errors per ITS copy may be introduced on average. Such variation should not result in problems in ITS barcoding approaches, as it is substantially below even narrow identity thresholds. In contrast, processes such as hybridization and introgression or gene duplication introduce discrete ITS variants into the genome, which will result in serious identification errors if not properly recognized.

Intragenomic ITS variation is commonly misinterpreted, and its correct understanding is crucial for assessing potential problems. For instance, in the smut fungus Ceraceosorus (Kijpornyongpan and Aime 2016), intragenomic variation was found to be both stochastic and phylogenetically structured, affecting 25 and 15 out of 856 sites, respectively. Stochastic variation is a result of DNA replication errors but it does not affect phylogenetic placement of individual haplotypes when analyzed in a phylogenetic context (Lücking et al. 2014). While in the above study, the total number of stochastically varying sites (25) was high, individual sequences varied in up to four sites only, resulting in pairwise similarity of over 99.5%, thus uncritical for barcoding approaches. The 15 sites with phylogenetically structured variation resulted in the formation of three clades (Kijpornyongpan and Aime 2016). While these distinctive clades appear to represent non-homologous, discrete ITS copies, they may also be highly specific for this taxon and hence could be used for identification purpures.

Another factor concerning the impact of intragenomic variation in the ITS is the sequencing technique. In genomes dominated by one functional copy, Sanger sequencing will mask variation in spurious background signal and provide clean sequences. If several frequent haplotypes with point mutations exist, variants may appear as ambiguous base calls in specific positions with Sanger sequencing. On the other hand, discrete variants originating from hybridization or gene duplication will produce largely unresolved sequence chromatograms, requiring cloning or other techniques. In contrast to Sanger sequencing, correct interpretation of ITS variants is particularly critical in environmental metabarcoding, with the additional challenge of separating true intragenomic variation from sequencing errors (Lücking et al. 2014; Heeger et al. 2018; Thines et al. 2018). In metabarcoding approaches, natural and artifactual variants will skew diversity estimates and introduce “ghost” taxa if not properly assessed (see below). One example is the nectar yeasts (Metschnikowiaceae), which display high intragenomic rDNA variation (Heeger et al. 2018; Sipiczki et al. 2018), so species richness revealed through ITS metabarcoding (Vannette and Fukami 2017) will be overestimated, influencing conclusions about alpha- and beta-diversity. Similar considerations apply to other groups, such as arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (Lekberg et al. 2014, 2018; Thiery et al. 2016). Therefore, metabarcoding data have to be interpreted with great care and multiple alignment-based approaches should be employed to identify and resolve potential issues (see below).

The availability of well-documented reference data is of particular importance to properly assess ITS variants stemming from intragenomic variation. If ITS pseudogenes have been identified for a fungal lineage (e.g. Li et al. 2017), their deposition and proper annotation will assist automated pipelines to identify such cases. Alternatively, long-fragment reads, including flanking regions of the small and/or large subunit (nuSSU, nuLSU), have been proposed as a possible solution to assess intragenomic ITS variation in metabarcoding approaches (Krüger et al. 2012; Heeger et al. 2018; Tedersoo et al. 2018b). PacBio RS produces read lengths of 3000–6000 bases, which is not sufficient to resolve intragenomic rDNA variation, as only single tandem repeats are covered, but PacBio RS II can achieve up to 60,000 bases (Rhoads and Au 2015). Given that the average number of ITS copies in the fungal genome is around 100 (Lofgren et al. 2019), PacBio Sequel II is particularly promising, as it can achieve read lengths of up to 250,000 bases, matching those obtained with Oxford Nanopore Technologies sequencing (Jain et al. 2016; Payne et al. 2019; De Coster et al. 2020; Stadler et al. 2020). While it is unclear whether the necessary high-molecular weight DNA can be obtained, since commonly used extraction techniques require a mechanical disruption of fungal cells, successful rDNA tandem repeat sequencing using a combination of PacBio and Oxford Nanopore sequencing has been performed in fungi (Wurzbacher et al. 2019). Long-fragment reads have the added advantage that nuSSU and/or nuLSU flanking regions help to anchor the ITS within a more conserved backbone (Heeger et al. 2018; Tedersoo et al. 2018b).

Another caveat of the ITS is interspecific and intragenomic length heterogeneity. In some groups, such as ascomycetous yeasts, the full length (ITS1, 5.8S and ITS2) may vary from less than 400 (Yarrowia lipolytica) to over 1000 bases (Schizosaccharomyces pombe; Esteve-Zarzoso et al. 1999). In most fungi, the length of the ITS is more uniform, but even minor variation may result in regions with low alignment confidence. Environmental metabarcoding approaches often target spacer regions only, either ITS1 or ITS2, and so short but full-length ITS reads may be unintentionally excluded from subsequent analysis by bioinformatic pipelines that by default exclude reads less than 150–200 bp long (Majaneva et al. 2015; Sinha et al. 2017; Anslan et al. 2018). Strategies to avoid this would be primer-based filtering or, as outlined above, anchoring with nuSSU or nuLSU flanking regions via long-fragment reads. While single-copy protein-coding markers proposed as secondary DNA barcodes in fungi do not exhibit the problems associated with multiple copies, phenomena such as paralogs may apply to them as well, such as in COX1, RPB2, and TUB2 (Gilmore et al. 2009; Zhao et al. 2014), and their accurate interpretation likewise depends on proper data analysis and completeness of reference databases.

Regardless of the marker, the quality of reference data is of utmost importance, particularly in environmental metabarcoding. While it may not work for all fungi at the desired level of precision, ITS remains the first choice for fungal identifications at a broad level. It is not only easily amplified (with some exceptions; e.g. Kijpornyongpan and Aime 2016), but it also is the most frequently sequenced fungal marker both in specimen-based and metabarcoding approaches, making it unchallenged as a reference compared to any other marker. Even if secondary barcode markers are increasingly employed, they only represent a small fraction of available sequence data compared to ITS. GenBank currently has about 110,000 records for fungal TEF1 and 67,000 for fungal RPB2, but over 1.3 million for fungal ITS. The application of ITS is thus comparable to a first diagnosis across all fungi. Depending on the results, secondary DNA barcodes may be required to obtain the desired resolution. Unfortunately, in some common and diverse fungal genera, such as Fusarium and Trichoderma, due to lack of resolution, some taxonomists have stopped sequencing the ITS. This practice is not recommended, as it excludes these taxa from being detected in metabarcoding surveys. Even if not necessarily providing enough resolution, ITS should be sequenced for each fungal lineage in addition to other markers, in order to provide a broad reference database that offers a compromise between coverage and precision. Metabarcoding studies would then employ ITS as default marker and additionally one or several secondary barcodes (e.g. Větrovský et al. 2016; Cobo-Díaz et al. 2019).

PAIRWISE SIMILARITY ASSESSMENTS: LIMITATIONS AND SOLUTIONS

OTU clustering

The single major issue of DNA barcoding is the routine application of pairwise similarity assessments, either through BLAST searches or clustering algorithms such as in USEARCH, VSEARCH or MultiLevel Clustering (Edgar 2010, 2013; Vu et al. 2014; Rognes et al. 2016). These approaches have become popular as they are easily integrated into automated pipelines and allow the analysis of extremely large data sets in a short time and with little manual work involved (Majaneva et al. 2015; Sinha et al. 2017; Anslan et al. 2018). In contrast to multiple alignment-based phylogenetic approaches, pairwise similarity may wrongly assess positional variation and hence not accurately reflect taxonomic entities or phylogenetic relationships. For instance, a position with a varying indel comprising either [AG], [A] or [G], in a multiple alignment will align all [A] with either [A] or a gap, but not with [G], whereas pairwise alignment will interpret a single [A] and [G] as a substitution. This issue may appear minor but can cause dramatic effects in OTU clustering, especially when such variation is caused by sequencing errors (e.g. Lücking et al. 2014). As a consequence, OTUs derived from clustering are different in number and composition when compared to actual phylogenetic entities (Porter and Golding 2011; Powell et al. 2011; Lücking et al. 2014). Huse et al. (2010) designed a two-step clustering approach that reduces the effect of OTU inflation in de-novo clustering. Swarm (Mahé et al. 2014, 2015) reduces the issue of random effects on cluster formation and inflation. Increased accuracy while not compromising in computational speed can also be achieved by hc-OTU clustering through homopolymer compaction (Park et al. 2016). Employing PaPaRa (Berger and Stamatakis 2012; Wegmann 2019) in read processing can substantially reduce sequencing errors prior to OTU clustering: Lücking et al. (2014) found that after automated removal of homopolymer-based errors using PaPaRa, OTU clustering accuracy improved by 94%. Post-processing of clusters to filter out potentially artifactual OTUs can be performed with the LULU package (Frøslev et al. 2017).

Clustering approaches require predefined similarity thresholds, but such fixed thresholds do not exist when it comes to the delimitation of species. In phylogenetic treatments based on ITS, sister species can differ in as few as three bases (around 99.5% similarity; Garnica et al. 2016; Lücking et al. 2017; Urbina and Aime 2018; Vu et al. 2016, 2019). Indeed, in certain groups of fungi, such as Hypocreales (Fusarium, Gibberella, Trichoderma), species hypotheses delimited at 98.5% in UNITE include sequences from type material of several to numerous different species (Robbertse et al. 2017). Varying optimal thresholds have been determined for different lineages based on two large barcode datasets (Vu et al. 2016, 2019). If the marker of choice lacks resolution, then even the highest similarity threshold will not yield reliable OTU estimates. Clustering approaches set the threshold at either 97%, the default in most pipelines (Majaneva et al. 2015; Sinha et al. 2017; Anslan et al. 2018), or at 98.5%, the default used in curated databases, such as UNITE and ISHAM DNA barcoding for “species hypotheses” based on ITS (Kõljalg et al. 2013, 2019; Irinyi et al. 2015; Jeewon and Hyde 2016). This latter threshold does reflect empirically derived estimates (e.g. Lücking et al. 2020; and Fig. 3); the aforementioned analysis of 9000 yeast cultures showed that a threshold of 98.41% similarity (towards the corresponding type strain) for the ITS worked well for most species (Vu et al. 2016).

The potential underestimation of species richness using fixed pairwise similarity thresholds is counterbalanced by the overestimation of taxonomic units through OTU clustering bias. As a result, a proportion of OTUs may not be real taxonomic entities, whereas a proportion of real taxonomic entities may be missed. This situation is further complicated in lineages characterized by high heterogeneity of ITS sequences (sometimes more than 10%; Thiery et al. 2016; Sipiczki et al. 2018). Arbitrary variation of predefined thresholds, e.g. between 97 and 98.5%, will further affect the recovery of taxonomic entities in clustering approaches (Lücking et al. 2014; Garnica et al. 2016; Edgar 2018).

BLAST mapping

Similarity assessment through pairwise alignment also poses limitations for BLAST-based identifications of individual amplicon variant metabarcoding reads (Callahan et al. 2017), such as implemented in BLAST+, the RDP Bayesian classifier or MycoBank BioloMICS Sequences (Camacho et al. 2009; Robert et al. 2013; Deshpande et al. 2016). While amplicon variant BLAST mapping avoids potential bias of OTU clustering, it also relies on pairwise alignment scores, particularly max score, query cover, e value and percentage identity. Max score, the sum of match rewards and mismatch and gap penalties, depends on query and reference sequence length: shorter matches with higher identity may receive a lower score and not be immediately visible as best hits. The e value, the number of expected hits of similar score that could be found by chance, is computed from max score and results in the same sorting of matches but depends on query sequence length and reference database size and hence is not comparable across databases. Both max score and e value are also affected by the structure of reference sequences, such as partial ITS sequences that include long portions of the conserved nuSSU or nuLSU or are dominated by the 5.8S region. Algorithms that extract the diagnostic ITS spacer regions, such as the FungalITSextractor (Nilsson et al. 2010) and ITSx (Bengtsson-Palme et al. 2013), address this issue: metabarcoding pipelines that contain FungalITSextractor (Bálint et al. 2014) or ITSx (Hildebrand et al. 2014; Gweon et al. 2015; Anslan et al. 2017) perform best in relation to BLAST mapping (Anslan et al. 2018).

Percentage identity can be measured in three ways: (1) N_matches / N_{total pairwise alignment length} (BLAST identity), (1) N_matches / N_{total pairwise alignment length minus indels} (gap-excluded identity), and (3) N_matches / N_{total pairwise alignment length minus indel groups} (gap-compressed identity). BLAST identity considers individual indels as mismatches and hence results in lower similarity values than the other two approaches for a given sequence pair. It is also more sensitive to homopolymer-based sequencing errors in the query reads and affected by improper trimming of low-quality terminal portions of reference sequences (Nilsson et al. 2017). As a result, sequences retrieved as best hits in BLAST searches are not necessarily most closely related (e.g. Thiery et al. 2016; Lücking et al. 2020). The above issues also depend on whether query and reference sequences represent the full ITS or only the ITS1 or ITS2 spacer regions (Nilsson et al. 2008; Blaalid et al. 2013; Tedersoo et al. 2015; Garnica et al. 2016; Badotti et al. 2017; Větrovský et al. 2020).

Even so, BLAST is the most commonly employed read mapping technique, either against a primary sequence repository, such as GenBank or against curated or otherwise specialized databases, such as UNITE. Notably, reported problems can largely be solved by increasing the quality and representativity of reference databases, in particular correct sequence labeling, and by adding a verification step (Lücking et al. 2020). The latter is not possible for metabarcoding studies, as BLAST results cannot be inspected individually. However, automated verification can be achieved through phylogeny-based analysis of metabarcoding reads that compute statistical support values for alternative placements. This can be achieved either through local alignments of BLAST hits under a Bayesian framework (Munch et al. 2008; Porter and Golding 2011), with a probabilistic approach such as PROTAX Fungi (Abarenkov et al. 2018), through a "random forest" learning tool (Meher et al. 2019), or through read placement into a separately established reference tree (Berger et al. 2011; Matsen et al. 2012; Barbera et al. 2019).

Multiple alignment-based read placement

Read placement into a reference tree is a promising approach that increases accuracy and precision in metabarcoding studies compared to OTU clustering and BLAST-based amplicon variant read mapping (Stark et al. 2010; Berger et al. 2011; Matsen et al. 2012; Paul et al. 2018; Czech et al. 2018, 2019; Barbera et al. 2019; Carbone et al. 2019). The method, also dubbed phylogenetic binning, relies on three components: (1) a reference tree for a set of taxa which can be derived through phylogenetic analysis of existing data; (2) a fixed alignment of reference sequences corresponding to the metabarcoding marker (e.g. ITS) for the taxa included in the reference tree; (3) a set of query reads from a metabarcoding study corresponding to the same barcoding marker. In a first step, the query reads are automatically aligned to the fixed reference alignment (Berger et al. 2011), using for instance PaPaRa (Berger and Stamatakis 2012) and the [−-add] function in MAFFT (Katoh and Frith 2012). In a second step, each query sequence is individually placed into the reference tree based on its alignment by invoking the Evolutionary Placement Algorithm (EPA; Stamatakis et al. 2010; Berger et al. 2011; Barbera et al. 2019). In addition to a maximum likelihood or maximum parsimony approach offered by the EPA, read placement can also be performed in a Bayesian framework using pplacer (Matsen et al. 2010). Mirarab et al. (2012) proposed SATé-enabled phylogenetic placement (SEPP) to improve alignment accuracy through simultaneous alignment and tree building.

Phylogenetic binning placed each query sequence at the most closely matching node under an evolutionary model: if the query sequence matches a terminal, it will cluster with that terminal; alternatively, it attaches to an internal node representing a higher taxonomic level, an approach that conceptually corresponds to the LCA. While the Bayesian framework in pplacer offers direct assessment of statistical confidence, the EPA allows the computing of bootstrap support values for potential alternative read placements. These options provide an automated, quantitative verification step not available through OTU clustering or BLAST mapping, except with approaches such as PROTAX Fungi and “random forest” learning (Abarenkov et al. 2018; Meher et al. 2019). Optionally, prior to invoking the EPA, the phylogenetic pattern of the metabarcoding marker over the fixed reference alignment can be analyzed using a maximum parsimony or maximum likelihood approach in order to compute a weight vector. In doing so, potential homoplasy through saturation in highly variable regions of the metabarcoding marker can be assessed to improve the subsequent placement of query sequences into the reference tree. Therefore, the reference tree should be inferred based on markers that do not include the metabarcoding marker, to avoid circular conclusions.

Apart from bootstrapping and Bayesian posterior probabilities offering automated verification, phylogenetic binning has further, important advantages over OTU clustering and BLAST mapping. Point variation in query reads, whether representing sequencing errors or real variation, does not prevent their accurate placement into a reference tree (Berger et al. 2011; Lücking et al. 2014). The absence of close relatives in a reference tree is immediately discernible by placement of a query read at a deeper node, a more accurate approach than LCA, as it avoids the ambiguity of low similarity values in the latter. Read placement also allows the implementation of quantitative species delimitation methods to automatically assess taxonomic diversity, an approach already integrated into the phylogenetic binning approach (Zhang et al. 2013). Broad reference trees can be assembled and centrally maintained to be used in analytical pipelines (Tedersoo et al. 2018a; Carbone et al. 2019), or alternatively computed automatically from published sequences (Czech et al. 2019), allowing dynamic on-the-fly solutions for particular situations.

Given the large amount of data to be analyzed, often encompassing hundreds of thousands of reads, environmental metabarcoding of fungi requires a trade-off between speed on one hand and accuracy and precision on the other (see below). Up to the recent past, OTU clustering was the only viable approach to achieve this goal. However, phylogenetic binning is now possible through massive parallel computing on large clusters (Barbera et al. 2019; Carbone et al. 2019) and may become the method of choice for metabarcoding studies. Even when OTU clustering and/or BLAST mapping are preferred, certain strategies can help to improve results, including PaPaRa read processing to remove specific sequencing errors, algorithms such as FungalITSextractor and ITSx to increase diagnostic power, taxon-specific dynamic pairwise similarity thresholds, the analysis of a given sample with both the ITS and secondary barcodes, and locally aligning and analysing BLAST hits using automated phylogenetic approaches.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

As is true for other organisms, fungal species are not only defined horizontally through phylogenetic and phenotypic coherence, but also vertically through time of origin and subsequent diversification. Individually different evolutionary histories thus make it impossible to apply universal and unambiguous criteria for the delimitation, recognition, and identification of fungi. Best practice depends on each group, and residual ambiguity remains in many cases, also due to incompleteness of identification tools and reference data. The desire for rapid, automated approaches, such as OTU clustering and pairwise similarity-based BLAST mapping amplifies these problems.

Full exploration of the various conceptual approaches to delimit fungal species, including reproductive biology, is currently only feasible for selected taxa including model organisms. Since generalizations from model studies are limited to close relatives or ecologically equivalent taxa, this approach should be expanded to cover selected species in all groups of fungi, representing the diversity of phenotypes, lineages, and nutritional strategies. For broadly cataloguing fungal diversity, an integrative (polyphasic) taxonomic approach seems most effective, adjusted to the group under study and combining molecular and phenotype data. In many groups, single-marker DNA barcoding may suffice, whereas more complex taxa require a combination of primary and secondary barcoding markers or multi-marker approaches. Phylogenomics may be employed to resolve particularly difficult species complexes, but this approach demands large computational and personal resources and is currently limited to exemplar case studies.

The phenotype remains an integrative component of fungal taxonomy, encompassing also data derived from cultures and other sources. Taxonomists will continue to describe new species in the absence of molecular data, in groups where this approach is justified. However, phenotypic data should be thoroughly analyzed before establishing new species by any method. If the material would allow the generation of molecular data but the methodology to do so is not available, then collaboration to produce such data is recommended. In general, the goal remains to document all fungi with molecular data. Phenotypic data are of particular importance when assessing the status of phylogenetically distinct clades through integrative taxonomy. In such cases, quantitative analysis of structured phenotype matrices should be implemented to assess phenotypic variation in a phylogenetic context, which will then also allow the detection of reliable diagnostic characters.

On a molecular level, ITS remains the universal fungal barcode marker to initially identify phylogenetic lineages. It can thus be considered a first diagnosis. Where ITS does not suffice to discriminate between species, secondary barcoding markers or multi-locus approaches need to be employed to achieve the desired level of precision and accuracy. How individual markers resolve species is determined by context, and feasibility of particular markers should not be uncritically transferred from one taxonomic group to another but instead empirically explored for each taxon. ITS will likely remain the marker of choice for fungal metabarcoding studies, although long-read approaches or the addition of secondary barcoding markers will improve accuracy and precision. However, metabarcoding approaches should move away from OTU clustering and BLAST mapping exercises and instead implement phylogenetic methods, such as read placement (phylogenetic binning).

Current issues arising with DNA barcoding of fungi are not primarily due to conceptual limitations of the approach but due to shortcomings of reference databases, including incompleteness in terms of taxonomic coverage, lack of properly documented genetic diversity, and inaccuracy of sequence labels. Major efforts must therefore be directed at further improving these resources, particularly the continued and critical revision of existing data to achieve high quality labels.

Availability of data and materials

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed specifically for this purpose.

REFERENCES

Abarenkov K, Nilsson RH, Larsson KH, Alexander IJ, Eberhardt U, Erland S, Høiland K, Kjøller R, Larsson E, Pennanen T, Sen R (2010) The UNITE database for molecular identification of fungi – recent updates and future perspectives. New Phytologist 186:281–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.03160.x
Article Google Scholar
Abarenkov K, Somervuo P, Nilsson RH, Kirk PM, Huotari T, Abrego N, Ovaskainen O (2018) Protax-fungi: a web-based tool for probabilistic taxonomic placement of fungal internal transcribed spacer sequences. New Phytologist 220:517–525. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15301
Article CAS Google Scholar
Agapow PM, Bininda-Emonds OR, Crandall KA, Gittleman JL, Mace GM, Marshall JC, Purvis A (2004) The impact of species concept on biodiversity studies. The Quarterly Review of Biology 79:161–179. https://doi.org/10.1086/383542
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Aguilar-Trigueros CA, Hempel S, Powell JR, Cornwell WK, Rillig MC (2019) Bridging reproductive and microbial ecology: a case study in arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. The ISME Journal 13:873–884. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-018-0314-7
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Aime MC (2004) Intercompatibility tests and phylogenetic analysis in the Crepidotus sphaerula group complex: concordance between ICGs and nuclear rDNA sequences highlight phenotypic plasticity within Appalachian species. In: Cripps CL (ed) Fungi in Forest Ecosystems: Systematics, Diversity, and Ecology. New York Botanical Gardens, New York, pp 71–80
Google Scholar
Aime MC, Bell CD, Wilson AW (2018) Deconstructing the evolutionary complexity between rust fungi (Pucciniales) and their plant hosts. Studies in Mycology 89:143–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simyco.2018.02.002
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Aime MC, Phillips-Mora W (2005) The causal agents of witches’ broom and frosty pod rot of cacao (chocolate, Theobroma cacao) form a new lineage of Marasmiaceae. Mycologia 97:1012–1022. https://doi.org/10.1080/15572536.2006.11832751
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Al-Hatmi AM, Van Den Ende AG, Stielow JB, Van Diepeningen AD, Seifert KA, McCormick W, Assabgui R, Gräfenhan T, De Hoog GS, Levesque CA (2016) Evaluation of two novel barcodes for species recognition of opportunistic pathogens in Fusarium. Fungal Biology 120:231–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.funbio.2015.08.006
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ (1990) Basic local alignment search tool. Journal of Molecular Biology 215:403-410. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-2836(05)80360-2
Álvarez I, Wendel JF (2003) Ribosomal ITS sequences and plant phylogenetic inference. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 29:417–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1055-7903(03)00208-2
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Anslan S, Bahram M, Hiiesalu I, Tedersoo L (2017) PipeCraft: Flexible open-source toolkit for bioinformatics analysis of custom high-throughput amplicon sequencing data. Molecular Ecology Resources 17:e234–e240. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12692
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Anslan S, Nilsson RH, Wurzbacher C, Baldrian P, Tedersoo L, Bahram M (2018) Great differences in performance and outcome of high-throughput sequencing data analysis platforms for fungal metabarcoding. MycoKeys 39:29–40. https://doi.org/10.3897/mycokeys.39.28109
Article Google Scholar
Aoki T, O'Donnell K (1999) Morphological characterization of Gibberella coronicola sp. nov., obtained through mating experiments of Fusarium pseudograminearum. Mycoscience 40:443–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461021
Article Google Scholar
Aoki T, Smith JA, Kasson MT, Freeman S, Geiser DM, Geering ADW, O'Donnell K (2019) Three novel Ambrosia Fusarium clade species producing clavate macroconidia known (F. floridanum and F. obliquiseptatum) or predicted (F. tuaranense) to be farmed by Euwallacea spp. (Coleoptera: Scolytinae) on woody hosts. Mycologia 111:919–935. https://doi.org/10.1080/00275514.2019.1647074
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Armaleo D, Clerc P (1991) Lichen chimeras: DNA analysis suggests that one fungus forms two morphotypes. Experimental Mycology 15:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-5975(91)90002-U
Article CAS Google Scholar
Asplund J, Wardle DA (2017) How lichens impact on terrestrial community and ecosystem properties. Biological Reviews 92:1720–1738. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12305
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Attigala L, De Silva NI, Clark LG (2016) Simple web-based interactive key development software (WEBiKEY) and an example key for Kuruna (Poaceae: Bambusoideae). Applications in Plant Sciences 4:1500128. https://doi.org/10.3732/apps.1500128
Article Google Scholar
Badotti F, de Oliveira FS, Garcia CF, Vaz ABM, Fonseca PLC, Nahum LA, Oliveira G, Góes-Neto A (2017) Effectiveness of ITS and sub-regions as DNA barcode markers for the identification of Basidiomycota (Fungi). BMC Microbiology 17:42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-017-0958-x
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Balasundaram SV, Engh IB, Skrede I, Kauserud H (2015) How many DNA markers are needed to reveal cryptic fungal species? Fungal Biology 119:940–945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.funbio.2015.07.006
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Bálint M, Schmidt PA, Sharma R, Thines M, Schmitt I (2014) An Illumina metabarcoding pipeline for fungi. Ecology and Evolution 4:2642–2653. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1107
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Barbera P, Kozlov AM, Czech L, Morel B, Darriba D, Flouri T, Stamatakis A (2019) EPA-ng: massively parallel evolutionary placement of genetic sequences. Systematic Biology 68:365–369. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syy054
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Barré P, Stöver BC, Müller KF, Steinhage V (2017) LeafNet: A computer vision system for automatic plant species identification. Ecological Informatics 40:50–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2017.05.005
Article Google Scholar
Beakes GW, Thines M (2017) Hyphochytriomycota and Oomycota. In: Archibald J, Simpson A, Slamovits C (eds) Handbook of the Protists. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 435–505. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28149-0_26
Chapter Google Scholar
Begerow D, Nilsson RH, Unterseher M, Maier W (2010) Current state and perspectives of fungal DNA barcoding and rapid identification procedures. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 87:99–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-010-2585-4
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Bellemain E, Carlsen T, Brochmann C, Coissac E, Taberlet P, Kauserud H (2010) ITS as an environmental DNA barcode for fungi: an in silico approach reveals potential PCR biases. BMC Microbiology 10:189. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2180-10-189
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Bellemain E, Davey ML, Kauserud H, Epp LS, Boessenkool S, Coissac E, Geml J, Edwards M, Willerslev E, Gussarova G, Taberlet P (2013) Fungal palaeodiversity revealed using high-throughput metabarcoding of ancient DNA from arctic permafrost. Environmental Microbiology 15:1176–1189. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.12020
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Bengtsson-Palme J, Ryberg M, Hartmann M, Branco S, Wang Z, Godhe A, De Wit P, Sánchez-García M, Ebersberger I, de Sousa F, Amend A (2013) Improved software detection and extraction of ITS1 and ITS 2 from ribosomal ITS sequences of fungi and other eukaryotes for analysis of environmental sequencing data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 4:914–919. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12073
Article Google Scholar
Berger SA, Krompass D, Stamatakis A (2011) Performance, accuracy, and web server for evolutionary placement of short sequence reads under maximum likelihood. Systematic Biology 60:291–302. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syr010
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Berger SA, Stamatakis A (2012) PaPaRa 2.0: a vectorized algorithm for probabilistic phylogeny-aware alignment extension. HeidelbergInstitute for Theoretical Studies, Heidelberg http://sco.h-its.org/exelixis/publications.html. Exelixis-RRDR-2012-2015
Google Scholar
Bik HM, Porazinska DL, Creer S, Caporaso JG, Knight R, Thomas WK (2012) Sequencing our way towards understanding global eukaryotic biodiversity. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 27:233–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.11.010
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Blaalid R, Kumar S, Nilsson RH, Abarenkov K, Kirk PM, Kauserud H (2013) ITS 1 versus ITS 2 as DNA metabarcodes for fungi. Molecular Ecology Resources 13:218–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12065
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Blackwell M (2011) The fungi: 1, 2, 3 ... 5.1 million species? American Journal of Botany 98:426–438. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1000298
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Blackwell M, Vega FE (2018) Lives within lives: hidden fungal biodiversity and the importance of conservation. Fungal Ecology 35:127–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.funeco.2018.05.011
Article Google Scholar
Boekhout T, Bai FY, Daniel HM, Groenewald M, Robert V, Yurkov AM (2020) The Yeasts. http://www.theyeasts.org
Google Scholar
Bonants P, Edema M, Robert V (2013) Q-bank, a database with information for identification of plant quarantine plant pest and diseases. EPPO Bulletin 43:211–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/epp.12030
Article Google Scholar
Brodo IM, Sharnoff SD, Sharnoff S (2001) Lichens of North America. Yale University Press, New Haven
Bruckart WL, Eskandari FM, Berner DK, Aime MC (2010) Life cycle of Puccinia acroptili on Rhaponticum (= Acroptilon) repens. Mycologia 102:62–68. https://doi.org/10.3852/08-215
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Bruns TD, Corradi N, Redecker D, Taylor JW, Öpik M (2018) Glomeromycotina: what is a species and why should we care? New Phytologist 220:963–967. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.14913
Article Google Scholar
Buesching WJ, Kurek K, Roberts GD (1979) Evaluation of the modified API 20C system for identification of clinically important yeasts. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 9:565–569
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Burki F, Roger AJ, Brown MW, Simpson AG (2019) The new tree of eukaryotes. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 35:43–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2019.08.008
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Buyck B, Hofstetter V (2011) The contribution of tef-1 sequences to species delimitation in the Cantharellus cibarius complex in the southeastern USA. Fungal Diversity 49:35–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-011-0095-z
Article Google Scholar
Buzzini P, Lachance MA, Yurkov AM (eds) (2017) Yeasts in Natural Ecosystems: Diversity. Springer, Cham
Google Scholar
Cai L, Giraud T, Zhang N, Begerow D, Cai G, Shivas RG (2011) The evolution of species concepts and species recognition criteria in plant pathogenic fungi. Fungal Diversity 50:121–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-011-0127-8
Article Google Scholar
Callahan BJ, McMurdie PJ, Holmes SP (2017) Exact sequence variants should replace operational taxonomic units in marker-gene data analysis. The ISME Journal 11:2639-2643. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2017.119
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Camacho C, Coulouris G, Avagyan V, Ma N, Papadopoulos J, Bealer K, Madden TL (2009) BLAST+: architecture and applications. BMC Bioinformatics 10:421. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-10-421
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Caporaso JG, Kuczynski J, Stombaugh J, Bittinger K, Bushman FD, Costello EK, Fierer N, Pena AG, Goodrich JK, Gordon JI, Huttley GA (2010) QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nature Methods 7:335–336. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.f.303
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Carbone I, White JB, Miadlikowska J, Arnold AE, Miller MA, Magain N, U'Ren JMm Lutzoni F (2019) T-BAS version 2.1: Tree-Based Alignment Selector toolkit for evolutionary placement of DNA sequences and viewing alignments and specimen metadata on curated and custom trees. Microbiol Resource Announcements 8(29):e00328–e00319. https://doi.org/10.1128/MRA.00328-19
Article Google Scholar
Carriconde F, Gardes M, Jargeat P, Heilmann-Clausen J, Mouhamadou B, Gryta H (2008) Population evidence of cryptic species and geographical structure in the cosmopolitan ectomycorrhizal fungus, Tricholoma scalpturatum. Microbial Ecology 56:513–524. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-008-9370-2
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Chatterjee S, Alampalli SV, Nageshan RK, Chettiar ST, Joshi S, Tatu US (2015) Draft genome of a commonly misdiagnosed multidrug resistant pathogen Candida auris. BMC Genomics 16:686. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-015-1863-z
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Chen J, Sahota A, Stambrook PJ, Tischfield JA (1991) Polymerase chain reaction amplification and sequence analysis of human mutant adenine phosphoribosyltransferase genes: the nature and frequency of errors caused by Taq DNA polymerase. Mutation Research 249:169–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/0027-5107(91)90143-C
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Choi YJ, Beakes G, Glockling S, Kruse J, Nam B, Nigrelli L, Ploch S, Shin HD, Shivas RG, Telle S, Voglmayr H (2015) Towards a universal barcode of oomycetes – a comparison of the cox1 and cox2 loci. Molecular Ecology Resources 15:1275–1288. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12398
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Ciufo S, Kannan S, Sharma S, Badretdin A, Clark K, Turner S, Brover S, Schoch CL, Kimchi A, DiCuccio M (2018) Using average nucleotide identity to improve taxonomic assignments in prokaryotic genomes at the NCBI. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology 68:2386–2392. https://doi.org/10.1099/ijsem.0.002809
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Cline LC, Song Z, Al-Ghalith GA, Knights D, Kennedy PG (2017) Moving beyond de novo clustering in fungal community ecology. New Phytologist 216:629–634. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.14752
Article Google Scholar
Cobo-Díaz JF, Baroncelli R, Le Floch G, Picot A (2019) Combined metabarcoding and co-occurrence network analysis to profile the bacterial, fungal and Fusarium communities and their interactions in maize stalks. Frontiers in Microbiology 10:261. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.00261
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Colabella C, Corte L, Roscini L, Bassetti M, Tascini C, Mellor JC, Meyer W, Robert V, Vu D, Cardinali G (2018) NGS barcode sequencing in taxonomy and diagnostics, an application in “Candida” pathogenic yeasts. IMA Fungus 9:91–105. https://doi.org/10.5598/imafungus.2018.09.01.07
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Coleman CO, Lowry JK, Macfarlane T (2010) DELTA for beginners: an introduction into the taxonomy software package DELTA. ZooKeys 45:1–75. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.45.263
Article Google Scholar
Covert SF, Aoki T, O'Donnell K, Starkey D, Holliday A, Geiser DM, Cheung F, Town C, Strom A, Juba J, Scandiani M, Yang XB (2007) Sexual reproduction in the soybean sudden death syndrome pathogen Fusarium tucumaniae. Fungal Genetics and Biology 44:799–807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fgb.2006.12.009
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Crawford SD (2019) Lichens used in traditional medicine. In: Ranković B (ed) Lichen Secondary Metabolites. 2nd Ed. Springer, Cham, pp 31–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16814-8_2
Crespo A, Lumbsch HT (2010) Cryptic species in lichen-forming fungi. IMA Fungus 1:167–170. https://doi.org/10.5598/imafungus.2010.01.02.09
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Crespo A, Pérez-Ortega S (2009) Cryptic species and species pairs in lichens: a discussion on the relationship between molecular phylogenies and morphological characters. Anales del Jardín Botánico de Madrid 66:71–81
Article Google Scholar
Criseo G, Scordino F, Romeo O (2015) Current methods for identifying clinically important cryptic Candida species. Journal of Microbiologcal Methods 111:50–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mimet.2015.02.004
Article CAS Google Scholar
Crous PW, Gams W, Stalpers JA, Robert V, Stegehuis G (2004) MycoBank: an online initiative to launch mycology into the 21st century. Studies in Mycology 50:19–22
Google Scholar
Crous PW, Groenewald JZ, Slippers B, Wingfield MJ (2016) Global food and fibre security threatened by current inefficiencies in fungal identification. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 371:20160024. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0024
Article Google Scholar
Crous PW, Hawksworth DL, Wingfield MJ (2015) Identifying and naming plant-pathogenic fungi: past, present, and future. Annual Review of Phytopathology 53:247–267. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-phyto-080614-120245
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Cunnington JH, Lawrie AC, Pascoe IG (2005) Genetic variation within Podosphaera tridactyla reveals a paraphyletic species complex with biological specialization towards specific Prunus subgenera. Mycological Research 109:357–362. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0953756204002072
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Czech L, Barbera P, Stamatakis A (2018) Methods for automatic reference trees and multilevel phylogenetic placement. Bioinformatics 35:1151–1158. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bty767
Article CAS PubMed Central Google Scholar
Czech L, Barbera P, Stamatakis A (2019) Genesis and Gappa: processing, analyzing and visualizing phylogenetic (placement) data. Bioinformatics 36:btaa070. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa070
Article CAS Google Scholar
Dahlberg A, Mueller GM (2011) Applying IUCN red-listing criteria for assessing and reporting on the conservation status of fungal species. Fungal Ecology 4:147–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.funeco.2010.11.001
Article Google Scholar
Dallwitz MJ (1993) DELTA and Intkey. In: Fortuner R (ed) Advances in Computer Methods for Systematic Biology: Artificial Intelligence, Databases, Computer Vision. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, pp 287–296
Google Scholar
Dallwitz MJ, Paine TA, Zurcher EJ (2020) User's Guide to the DELTA System: A General System for Processing Taxonomic Descriptions. https://www.delta-intkey.com/www/uguide.pdf
Google Scholar
Damm U, Cannon PF, Woudenberg JHC, Crous PW (2012) The Colletotrichum acutatum species complex. Studies in Mycology 73:37–113. https://doi.org/10.3114/sim0010
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Davison J, de León DG, Zobel M, Moora M, Bueno CG, Barceló M, Gerz M, León D, Meng Y, Pillar VD, Davison J, García de León D, Zobel M, Moora M, Bueno CGm Barceló M, Gerz M, León D, Meng Y, Pillar VD, Sepp SK, Soudzilovaskaia NA, Tedersoo L, Vaessen S, Vahter T, Winck B, Öpik M (2020) Plant functional groups associate with distinct arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal communities. New Phytologist. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.16423
Davison J, Moora M, Öpik M, Ainsaar L, Ducousso M, Hiiesalu I, Jairus T, Johnson N, Jourand P, Kalamees R, Koorem K, Meyer JY, Püssa K, Reier Ü, Pärtel M, Semchenko M, Traveset A, Vasar M, Zobel M (2018) Microbial island biogeography: isolation shapes the life history characteristics but not diversity of root-symbiotic fungal communities. The ISME Journal 12:2211–2224. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-018-0196-8
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
De Coster W, Strazisar M, De Rijk P (2020) Critical length in long-read resequencing. NAR Genomics and. Bioinformatics 2(1):lqz027. https://doi.org/10.1093/nargab/lqz027
Article CAS Google Scholar
de Hoog GS, Guarro J, Gené J, Ahmed S, Al-Hatmi AMS, Figueras MJ, Vitale RG (2020) Atlas of Clinical Fungi. http://www.clinicalfungi.org
Google Scholar
Deshpande V, Wang Q, Greenfield P, Charleston M, Porras-Alfaro A, Kuske CR, Cole JR, Midgley DJ, Tran-Dinh N (2016) Fungal identification using a Bayesian classifier and the Warcup training set of internal transcribed spacer sequences. Mycologia 108:1–5. https://doi.org/10.3852/14-293
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Dettman JR, Jacobson DJ, Taylor JW (2003a) A multilocus genealogical approach to phylogenetic species recognition in the model eukaryote Neurospora. Evolution 57:2703–2720. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2003.tb01514.x
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Dettman JR, Jacobson DJ, Turner E, Pringle A, Taylor JW (2003b) Reproductive isolation and phylogenetic divergence in Neurospora: comparing methods of species recognition in a model eukaryote. Evolution 57:2721–2741. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2003.tb01515.x
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Diaz-Valderrama JR, Aime MC (2016) The cacao pathogen Moniliophthora roreri (Marasmiaceae) possesses a tetrapolar mating system but reproduces clonally. Heredity 116:491–501. https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.2016.5
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Dix NJ, Webster J (1995) Fungal Ecology. Chapman & Hall, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0693-1
Druzhinina IS, Komoń-Zelazowska M, Atanasova L, Seidl V, Kubicek CP (2010) Evolution and ecophysiology of the industrial producer Hypocrea jecorina (anamorph Trichoderma reesei) and a new sympatric agamospecies related to it. PLoS One 5(2):e9191. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0009191
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Druzhinina IS, Kopchinskiy AG, Komoń M, Bissett J, Szakacs G, Kubicek CP (2005) An oligonucleotide barcode for species identification in Trichoderma and Hypocrea. Fungal Genetics and Biology 42:813–828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fgb.2005.06.007
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Dufayard JF, Duret L, Penel S, Gouy M, Rechenmann F, Perrière G (2005) Tree pattern matching in phylogenetic trees: automatic search for orthologs or paralogs in homologous gene sequence databases. Bioinformatics 21:2596–2603. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bti325
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Dupuis JR, Roe AD, Sperling FA (2012) Multi-locus species delimitation in closely related animals and fungi: one marker is not enough. Molecular Ecology 21:4422–4436. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2012.05642.x
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Edgar RC (2010) Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics 26:2460–2461. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btq461
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Edgar RC (2013) UPARSE: highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads. Nature Methods 10:996–998. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2604
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Edgar RC (2018) Accuracy of taxonomy prediction for 16S rRNA and fungal ITS sequences. PeerJ 6:e4652. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4652
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Eldredge N, Cracraft J (1980) Phylogenetic Patterns and the Evolutionary Process: Method and Theory in Comparative Biology. Columbia University Press, New York
Google Scholar
Ence DD, Carstens BC (2011) SpedeSTEM: a rapid and accurate method for species delimitation. Molecular Ecology Resources 11:473–480. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2010.02947.x
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Epp LS, Boessenkool S, Bellemain EP, Haile J, Esposito A, Riaz T, Erseus C, Gusarov VI, Edwards ME, Johnsen A, Stenøien HK, Hassel K, Kauserud H, Yoccoz NG, Bråthen KA, Willerslev E, Taberlet P, Coissac E, Brochmann C (2012) New environmental metabarcodes for analysing soil DNA: potential for studying past and present ecosystems. Molecular Ecology 21:1821–1833. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2012.05537.x
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Esteve-Zarzoso B, Belloch C, Uruburu F, Querol A (1999) Identification of yeasts by RFLP analysis of the 5.8 S rRNA gene and the two ribosomal internal transcribed spacers. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology 49:329–337. https://doi.org/10.1099/00207713-49-1-329
Article CAS Google Scholar
Evans HC (2016) Frosty pod rot (Moniliophthora roreri). In: Bailey BA, Meinhardt LW (eds) Cacao Diseases. Springer, Cham, pp 63–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24789-2_3
Chapter Google Scholar
Evans HC, Holmes KA, Phillips W, Wilkinson MJ (2002) What's in a name: Crinipellis, the final resting place for the frosty pod rot pathogen of cocoa? Mycologist 16:148–152. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269915X02004093
Article Google Scholar
Eyualem A, Blaxter M (2003) Comparison of biological, molecular, and morphological methods of species identification in a set of cultured Panagrolaimus isolates. Journal of Nematology 35:119–128
CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Farr DF, Rossman AY (2020) Fungal Databases. U.S. National Fungus Collections, ARS, USDA https://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases
Google Scholar
Federhen S (2015) Type material in the NCBI Taxonomy Database. Nucleic Acids Research 43(D1):D1086–D1098. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gku1127
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Fenn JP, Segal H, Barland B, Denton D, Whisenant J, Chun H, Christofferson K, Hamilton L, Carroll K (1994) Comparison of updated Vitek Yeast Biochemical Card and API 20c Yeast Identification Systems. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 32:1184–1187
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Fidler G, Kocsube S, Leiter E, Biro S, Paholcsek M (2017) DNA barcoding coupled with high resolution melting analysis enables rapid and accurate distinction of Aspergillus species. Medical Mycology 55:642–659. https://doi.org/10.1093/mmy/myw127
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Foltz MJ, Perez KE, Volk TJ (2013) Molecular phylogeny and morphology reveal three new species of Cantharellus within 20 m of one another in western Wisconsin, USA. Mycologia 105:447–461. https://doi.org/10.3852/12-181
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Ford M, Blanchon DJ, Veale A, Doyle EJ, Rolfe JR, De Lange PJ (2019) Hidden in plain sight – a new Strigula species segregated from Strigula novae-zelandiae (lichenized Ascomycota: Strigulaceae). Phytotaxa 424:267–281. https://doi.org/10.3767/003158514X684744
Article Google Scholar
Frøslev TG, Kjøller R, Bruun HH, Ejrnæs R, Brunbjerg AK, Pietroni C, Hansen AJ (2017) Algorithm for post-clustering curation of DNA amplicon data yields reliable biodiversity estimates. Nature Communications 8(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-01312-x
Article CAS Google Scholar
Frøslev TG, Kjøller R, Bruun HH, Ejrnæs R, Hansen AJ, Laesoe T, Heilmann-Clausen J (2019) Man against machine: Do fungal fruitbodies and eDNA give similar biodiversity assessments across broad environmental gradients? Biological Conservation 233:201–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.02.038
Article Google Scholar
Fujita MK, Leaché AD, Burbrink FT, McGuire JA, Moritz C (2012) Coalescent-based species delimitation in an integrative taxonomy. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 27:480–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.04.012
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Fujisawa T, Aswad A, Barraclough TG (2016) A rapid and scalable method for multilocus species delimitation using Bayesian model comparison and rooted triplets. Systematic Biology 65:759-771. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syw028
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Ganley AR, Kobayashi T (2007) Highly efficient concerted evolution in the ribosomal DNA repeats: total rDNA repeat variation revealed by whole-genome shotgun sequence data. Genome Research 17:184–191. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.5457707
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Garnica S, Schön ME, Abarenkov K, Riess K, Liimatainen K, Niskanen T, Dima B, Soop K, Frøslev TG, Jeppesen TS, Peintner U (2016) Determining threshold values for barcoding fungi: lessons from Cortinarius (Basidiomycota), a highly diverse and widespread ectomycorrhizal genus. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 92(4):fiw045. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiw045
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Gazis R, Rehner S, Chaverri P (2011) Species delimitation in fungal endophyte diversity studies and its implications in ecological and biogeographic inferences. Molecular Ecology 20:3001–3013. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05110.x
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Geiser DM, Aoki T, Bacon CW, Baker SE, Bhattacharyya MK, Brandt ME, Brown DW, Burgess LW, Chulze S, Coleman JJ, Correll JC, Covert SF, Crous PW, Cuomo CA, De Hoog GS, Di Pietro A, Elmer WH, Epstein L, Frandsen RJ, Freeman S, Gagkaeva T, Glenn AE, Gordon TR, Gregory NF, Hammond-Kosack KE, Hanson LE, Jímenez-Gasco Mdel M, Kang S, Kistler HC, Kuldau GA, Leslie JF, Logrieco A, Lu G, Lysøe E, Ma LJ, McCormick SP, Migheli Q, Moretti A, Munaut F, O'Donnell K, Pfenning L, Ploetz RC, Proctor RH, Rehner SA, Robert VA, Rooney AP, Bin Salleh B, Scandiani MM, Scauflaire J, Short DP, Steenkamp E, Suga H, Summerell BA, Sutton DA, Thrane U, Trail F, Van Diepeningen A, Vanetten HD, Viljoen A, Waalwijk C, Ward TJ, Wingfield MJ, Xu JR, Yang XB, Yli-Mattila T, Zhang N (2013) One fungus, one name: defining the genus Fusarium in a scientifically robust way that preserves longstanding use. Phytopathology 103:400–408. https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-07-12-0150-LE
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Geiser DM, Klich MA, Frisvad JC, Peterson SW, Varga J, Samson RA (2007) The current status of species recognition and identification in Aspergillus. Studies in Mycology 59:1–10. https://doi.org/10.3114/sim.2007.59.01
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Geiser DM, Pitt JI, Taylor JW (1998) Cryptic speciation and recombination in the aflatoxin-producing fungus Aspergillus flavus. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States 95:388–393. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.95.1.388
Article CAS Google Scholar
Geml J, Laursen GA, O'Neill K, Nusbaum HC, Taylor DL (2006) Beringian origins and cryptic speciation events in the fly agaric (Amanita muscaria). Molecular Ecology 15:225–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2005.02799.x
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Giachini AJ, Oliveira VL, Castellano MA, Trappe JM (2000) Ectomycorrhizal fungi in Eucalyptus and Pinus plantations in southern Brazil. Mycologia 92:1166–1177. https://doi.org/10.1080/00275514.2000.12061264
Article Google Scholar
Gilmore SR, Graefenhan T, Louis-Seize G, Seifert KA (2009) Multiple copies of cytochrome oxidase 1 in species of the fungal genus Fusarium. Molecular Ecology Resources 9:90–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2009.02636.x
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Gladieux P, Wilson BA, Perraudeau F, Montoya LA, Kowbel D, Hann-Soden C, Fischer M, Sylvain I, Jacobson DJ, Taylor JW (2015) Genomic sequencing reveals historical, demographic and selective factors associated with the diversification of the fire-associated fungus Neurospora discreta. Molecular Ecology 24:5657–5675. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13417
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Glime JM (2019) Slime molds: biology and diversity. In: Glime JM (ed) Bryophyte Ecology, vol Vol 2 Bryological Interaction. Ebook sponsored by Michigan Technological University and the International Association of Bryologists. https://digitalcommons.mtu.edu/bryophyte-ecology
Google Scholar
González Y, Aragón G, Burgaz AR, Prieto M (2017) Records of terricolous lichens from páramos of southern Ecuador. Mycotaxon 132:153–175. https://doi.org/10.5248/132.153
Article Google Scholar
Goodman SM, Maminirina CP, Bradman HM, Christidis L, Appleton B (2009) The use of molecular phylogenetic and morphological tools to identify cryptic and paraphyletic species: Examples from the diminutive long-fingered bats (Chiroptera: Miniopteridae: Miniopterus) on Madagascar. American Museum Novitates 2009:1–34. https://doi.org/10.1206/652.1
Article Google Scholar
Goulding TC, Dayrat B (2016) Integrative taxonomy: ten years of practice and looking into the future. Archives of Zoological Museum of Lomonosov Moscow State University 54:116–133
Google Scholar
Gressel J, Ehrlich G (2002) Universal inheritable barcodes for identifying organisms. Trends in Plant Science 7:542–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1360-1385(02)02364-6
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Grewe F, Huang JP, Leavitt SD, Lumbsch HT (2017) Reference-based RADseq resolves robust relationships among closely related species of lichen-forming fungi using metagenomic DNA. Scientific Reports 7:9884. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-09906-7
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Grewe F, Lagostina E, Wu H, Printzen C, Lumbsch HT (2018) Population genomic analyses of RAD sequences resolves the phylogenetic relationship of the lichen-forming fungal species Usnea antarctica and Usnea aurantiacoatra. MycoKeys 43:91–113. https://doi.org/10.3897/mycokeys.43.29093
Article Google Scholar
Grube M, Gaya E, Kauserud H, Smith AM, Avery SV, Fernstad SJ, Muggia L, Martin MD, Eivindsen T, Koljalg U, Bendiksby M (2017) The next generation fungal diversity researcher. Fungal Biology Reviews 31:124-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbr.2017.02.001
Article Google Scholar
Grünig CR, Brunner PC, Duò A, Sieber TN (2007) Suitability of methods for species recognition in the Phialocephala fortinii-Acephala applanata species complex using DNA analysis. Fungal Genetics and Biology 44:773–788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fgb.2006.12.008
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Guarnaccia V, Groenewald JZ, Li H, Glienke C, Carstens E, Hattingh V, Fourie PH, Crous PW (2017) First report of Phyllosticta citricarpa and description of two new species, P. paracapitalensis and P. paracitricarpa, from citrus in Europe. Studies in Mycology 87:161–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simyco.2017.05.003
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Güntsch A, Hyam R, Hagedorn G, Chagnoux S, Röpert D, Casino A, Droege G, Glöckler F, Gödderz K, Groom Q, Hoffmann J, Holleman A, Kempa M, Koivula H, Marhold K, Nicolson N, Smith VS, Triebel D (2017) Actionable, long-term stable and semantic web compatible identifiers for access to biological collection objects. Database 2017:bax003. https://doi.org/10.1093/database/bax003
Article PubMed Central Google Scholar
Gweon HS, Oliver A, Taylor J, Booth T, Gibbs M, Read DS, Griffiths RI, Schonrogge K (2015) PIPITS: an automated pipeline for analyses of fungal internal transcribed spacer sequences from the I llumina sequencing platform. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 6:973–980. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12399
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Haelewaters D, De Kesel A, Pfister DH (2018) Integrative taxonomy reveals hidden species within a common fungal parasite of ladybirds. Scientific Reports 8:15966. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-34319-5
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Han Y, Liang J, Liang Z, Zou X, Dong X (2010) Two new Taifanglania species identified through DELTA-assisted phenetic analysis. Mycotaxon 112:325–333. https://doi.org/10.5248/112.325
Article Google Scholar
Haridas S, Albert R, Binder M, Bloem J, LaButti K, Salamov A, Andreopoulos B, Baker SE, Barry K, Bills G, Bluhm BH, Cannon C, Castanera R, Culley DE, Daum C, Ezra D, González JB, Henrissat B, Kuo A, Liang C, Lipzen A, Lutzoni F, Magnuson J, Mondo SJ, Nolan M, Ohm RA, Pangilinan J, Park H-J, Ramírez L, Alfaro M, Sun H, Tritt A, Yoshinaga Y, Zwiers L-H, Turgeon BG, Goodwin SB, Spatafora JW, Crous PW, Grigoriev IV (2020) 101 Dothideomycetes genomes: a test case for predicting lifestyles and emergence of pathogens. Studies in Mycology 96:141–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simyco.2020.01.003
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Harrington TC, Kazmi MR, Al-Sadi AM, Ismail SI (2014) Intraspecific and intragenomic variability of ITS rDNA sequences reveals taxonomic problems in Ceratocystis fimbriata sensu stricto. Mycologia 106:224–242. https://doi.org/10.3852/13-189
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Harrington TC, Rizzo DM (1999) Defining species in the fungi. In: Worrall JJ (ed) Structure and Dynamics of Fungal Populations. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 43–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4423-0_3
Chapter Google Scholar
Hart MM, Aleklett K, Chagnon PL, Egan C, Ghignone S, Helgason T, Lekberg Y, Öpik M, Pickles BJ, Waller L (2015) Navigating the labyrinth: A guide to sequence-based, community ecology of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. New Phytologist 207:235–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13340
Article Google Scholar
Hawksworth DL (1996) Microbial collections as a tool in biodiversity and biosystematic research. In: Samson RA, Stalpers JA, van der Mei D, Stouthamer AH (eds) Culture Collections to Improve the Quality of Life. Centraalbureau voor Schimmelcultures, Baarn, pp 26–35
Google Scholar
Hawksworth DL (2011) Naming Aspergillus species: progress towards one name for each species. Medical Mycology 49(Suppl. 1):S70–S76. https://doi.org/10.3109/13693786.2010.504753
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Hawksworth DL (2016) Sense and sensibility in naming. IMA Fungus 7:(1)-(2)
Hawksworth DL, Lücking R (2018) Fungal diversity revisited: 2.2 to 3.8 million species. In: Heitman J, Howlett BJ, Crous PW, Stukenbrock EH, James TY, Gow NAR (eds) The Fungal Kingdom. ASM Press, Washington, DC, pp. 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1128/9781555819583.ch4
Hebert PD, Cywinska A, Ball SL, Dewaard JR (2003) Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 270:313–321. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2002.2218
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Heeger F, Bourne EC, Baschien C, Yurkov A, Bunk B, Spröer C, Overmann J, Mazzoni CJ, Monaghan MT (2018) Long-read DNA metabarcoding of ribosomal RNA in the analysis of fungi from aquatic environments. Molecular Ecology Resources 18:1500–1514. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12937
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Heim RHJ, Wright IJ, Chang HC, Carnegie AJ, Pegg GS, Lancaster EK, Falster DS, Oldeland J (2018) Detecting myrtle rust (Austropuccinia psidii) on lemon myrtle trees using spectral signatures and machine learning. Plant Pathology 67:1114–1121. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppa.12830
Article CAS Google Scholar
Hernández-Serna A, Jiménez-Segura LF (2014) Automatic identification of species with neural networks. PeerJ 2:e563. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.563
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Hibbett D, Abarenkov K, Kõljalg U, Öpik M, Chai B, Cole JR, Wang Q, Crous PW, Robert VARG, Helgason T, Herr JR, Kirk PM, Lueschow S, O’Donnell K, Nilsson RH, Oono R, Schoch CL, Smyth C, Walker DM, Porras-Alfaro A, Taylor JW, Geiser DM (2016) Sequence-based classification and identification of Fungi. Mycologia 108:1049–1068. https://doi.org/10.3852/16-130
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Hibbett DS, Binder M, Bischoff JF, Blackwell M, Cannon PF, Eriksson OE, Huhndorf S, James T, Kirk PM, Lücking R, Lumbsch HT, Lutzoni F, Matheny PB, McLaughlin DJ, Powell MJ, Redhead S, Schoch CL, Spatafora JW, Stalpers JA, Vilgalys R, Aime MC, Aptroot A, Bauer R, Begerow D, Benny GL, Castlebury LA, Crous PW, Dai YC, Gams W, Geiser DM, Griffith GW, Gueidan C, Hawksworth DL, Hestmark G, Hosaka K, Humber RA, Hyde K, Ironside JE, Kõljalg U, Kurtzman CP, Larsson KH, Lichtwardt R, Longcore J, Miadlikowska J, Miller A, Moncalvo JM, Mozley-Standridge S, Oberwinkler F, Parmasto E, Reeb V, Rogers JD, Roux C, Ryvarden L, Sampaio JP, Schüssler A, Sugiyama J, Thorn RG, Tibell L, Untereiner WA, Walker C, Wang Z, Weir A, Weiss M, White MM, Winka K, Yao YJ, Zhang N (2007) A higher-level phylogenetic classification of the Fungi. Mycological Research 111:509–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mycres.2007.03.004
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Hildebrand F, Tadeo R, Voigt AY, Bork P, Raes J (2014) LotuS: an efficient and user-friendly OTU processing pipeline. Microbiome 2:30. https://doi.org/10.1186/2049-2618-2-30
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Hoang MTV, Irinyi L, Chen SCA, Sorrell TC, the ISHAM Barcoding of Medical Fungi Working Group, Meyer W (2019) Dual DNA barcoding for the molecular idemtification of the agents of invasive fungal infections. Frontiers in Microbiology 10:1647. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.01647
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Högnabba F, Stenroos S, Thell A (2009) Phylogenetic relationships and evolution of photobiont associations in the Lobariaceae (Peltigerales, Lecanoromycetes, Ascomycota). Bibliotheca Lichenologica 100:157–187
Google Scholar
Honegger R (2012) The symbiotic phenotype of lichen-forming ascomycetes and their endo- and epibionts. In: Hock B (ed) The Mycota IX. Fungal Associations. 2nd Ed. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 287–339. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30826-0_15
Hudler GW, Jensen-Tracy S, Banik MT (1998) Rhytisma americanum sp. nov.: a previously undescribed species of Rhytisma on maples (Acer spp.). Mycotaxon 68:405–416
Google Scholar
Hughes KW, Tulloss RH, Petersen RH (2018) Intragenomic nuclear RNA variation in a cryptic Amanita taxon. Mycologia 110:93–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/00275514.2018.1427402
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Huse SM, Welch DM, Morrison HG, Sogin ML (2010) Ironing out the wrinkles in the rare biosphere through improved OTU clustering. Environmental Microbiology 12:1889–1898. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2010.02193.x
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Huson DH, Mitra S, Ruscheweyh HJ, Weber N, Schuster SC (2011) Integrative analysis of environmental sequences using MEGAN4. Genome Research 21:1552–1560. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.120618.111
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Hyde KD, de Silva NI, Jeewon R, Bhat DJ, Liu NG, Chaiwan N, Tennakoon DS, Boonmee S, Maharachchikumbura SSN, Samarakoon MC, Norphanphoun C, Jayasiri SC, Jayawardena RS, Lin CG, Phookamsak R, Jiang HB, Karunarathna A, Manawasinghe IS, Pem D, Zeng XY, Li J, Luo ZL, Doilom M, Abeywickrama PD, Wijesinghe SN, Bandarupalli D, Brahamanage RS, Yang EF, Wanasinghe DN, Senanayake IC, Goonasekara ID, Wei DP, Aluthmuhandiram JVS, Dayarathne MC, Marasinghe DS, Li WJ, Huanraluek N, Sysouphanthong P, Dissanayake LS, Dong W, Lumyong S, Karunarathna SC, Jones EBG, Al-Sadi AM, Harishchandra D, Sarma VV, Bulgakov TS (2020) AJOM new records and collections of fungi: 1–100. Asian Journal of Mycology 3:22–294. https://doi.org/10.5943/ajom/3/1/3
Article Google Scholar
Hyde KD, Jones EBG, Liu JK, Ariyawansha H, Boehm E, Boonmee S, Braun U, Chomnunti P, Crous PW, Dai D, Diederich P, Dissanayake A, Doilom M, Doveri F, Hongsanan S, Jayawardena R, Lawrey JD, Li JM, Liu YX, Lücking R, Monkai J, Nelsen MP, Phookamsak R, Muggia L, Pang KL, Senanayake I, Shearer CA, Wijayawardene N, Wu HX, Thambugala KM, Suetrong S, Tanaka K, Wikee S, Zhang Y, Aguirre-Hudson B, Alias SA, Aptroot A, Bahkali AH, Bezerra JL, Bhat JD, Binder M, Camporesi E, Chukeatirote E, De Hoog S, Gueidan C, Hawksworth DL, Hirayama K, Kang JC, Knudsen K, Li WJ, Liu ZY, McKenzie EHC, Miller AN, Nadeeshan D, Phillips AJL, Mapook A, Raja HA, Tian Q, Scheuer C, Schumm F, Taylor J, Yacharoen S, Tibpromma S, Wang Y, Yan J, Zhang M (2013) Families of Dothideomycetes. Fungal Diversity 63:1–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-013-0263-4
Article Google Scholar
Hyde KD, McKenzie EHC, KoKo TW (2011) Towards incorporating anamorphic fungi in a natural classification – checklist and notes for 2010. Mycosphere 2:1–88
Google Scholar
Hyde KD, Xu JC, Lumyong S, Rapior S, Jeewon R, Lumyong S, Niego AGT, Abeywickrama PD, Aluthmuhandiram JVS, Brahamanage RS, Brooks S, Chaiyasen A, Chethana KWT, Chomnunti P, Chepkirui C, Chuankid B, de Silva NI, Doilom M, Faulds C, Gentekaki E, Gopalan V, Kakumyan P, Harishchandra D, Hemachandran H, Hongsanan S, Karunarathna A, Karunarathna SC, Khan S, Kumla J, Jayawardena RS, Liu JK, Liu N, Luangharn T, Macabeo APG, Marasinghe DS, Meeks D, Mortimer PE, Mueller P, Nadir S, Nataraja KN, Nontachaiyapoom S, O'Brien M, Penkhrue W, Phukhamsakda C, Ramanan US, Rathnayaka AR, Sadaba RB, Sandargo B, Samarakoon BC, Tennakoon DS, Siva R, Sriprom W, Suryanarayanan TS, Sujarit K, Suwannarach N, Suwunwong T, Thongbai B, Thongklang N, Wei D, Wijesinghe SN, Winiski J, Yan J, Yasanthika E, Stadler M (2019) The amazing potential of fungi, 50 ways we can exploit fungi industrially. Fungal Diversity 97:1–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-019-00430-9
Article Google Scholar
Inderbitzin P, Robbertse B, Schoch CL (2020) Species identification in plant-associated prokaryotes and fungi using DNA. Phytobiomes Journal. https://doi.org/10.1094/PBIOMES-12-19-0067-RVW
Ioana OB, Johannesson H, Tibell L (2018) Thamnolia tundrae sp. nov., a cryptic species and putative glacial relict. The Lichenologist 50:59–75. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0024282917000615
Article Google Scholar
Irinyi L, Lackner M, De Hoog GS, Meyer W (2016) DNA barcoding of fungi causing infections in humans and animals. Fungal Biology 120:125–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.funbio.2015.04.007
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Irinyi L, Serena C, Garcia-Hermoso D, Arabatzis M, Desnos-Ollivier M, Vu D, Cardinali G, Arthur I, Normand AC, Giraldo A, da Cunha CK, Sandoval-Denis M, Hendrickx M, Nishikaku SA, de Azevedo Melo AS, Merseguel KB, Khan A, Rocha JAP, Sampaio P, da Silva Briones MR, Carmona e Ferreira R, de Medeiros Muniz M, Castañón LR, Estrada-Barcenas D, Cassagne C, Mary C, Duan SY, Kong F, Sun AY, Zeng X, Zhao Z, Gantois N, Botterel F, Robbertse B, Schoch C, Gams W, Ellis D, Halliday C, Chen S, Sorrell TC, Piarroux R, Colombo AL, Pais C, de Hoog S, Zancopé-Oliveira RM, Taylor ML, Toriello C, de Almeida Soares CM, Delhaes L, Stubbe D, Dromer F, Ranque S, Guarro J, Cano-Lira JF, Robert V, Velegraki A, Meyer W (2015) International Society of Human and Animal Mycology (ISHAM) – ITS reference DNA barcoding database - the quality controlled standard tool for routine identification of human and animal pathogenic fungi. Medical Mycology 53:313–337. https://doi.org/10.1093/mmy/myv008
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Jain M, Olsen HE, Paten B, Akeson M (2016) The Oxford Nanopore MinION: delivery of nanopore sequencing to the genomics community. Genome Biology 17:239. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-016-1103-0
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
James TY, Kauff F, Schoch CL, Matheny PB, Hofstetter V, Cox CJ, Celio G, Gueidan C, Fraker E, Miadlikowska J, Lumbsch HT, Rauhut A, Reeb V, Arnold AE, Amtoft A, Stajich JE, Hosaka K, Sung GH, Johnson D, O'Rourke B, Crockett M, Binder M, Curtis JM, Slot JC, Wang Z, Wilson AW, Schüssler A, Longcore JE, O'Donnell K, Mozley-Standridge S, Porter D, Letcher PM, Powell MJ, Taylor JW, White MM, Griffith GW, Davies DR, Humber RA, Morton JB, Sugiyama J, Rossman AY, Rogers JD, Pfister DH, Hewitt D, Hansen K, Hambleton S, Shoemaker RA, Kohlmeyer J, Volkmann-Kohlmeyer B, Spotts RA, Serdani M, Crous PW, Hughes KW, Matsuura K, Langer E, Langer G, Untereiner WA, Lücking R, Büdel B, Geiser DM, Aptroot A, Diederich P, Schmitt I, Schultz M, Yahr R, Hibbett DS, Lutzoni F, McLaughlin DJ, Spatafora JW, Vilgalys R (2006) Reconstructing the early evolution of Fungi using a six-gene phylogeny. Nature 443:818–822. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05110
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
James TY, Moncalvo JM, Li S, Vilgalys R (2001) Polymorphism at the ribosomal DNA spacers and its relation to breeding structure of the widespread mushroom Schizophyllum commune. Genetics 157:149–161
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Jayasiri SC, Hyde KD, Ariyawansa HA, Bhat J, Buyck B, Cai L, Dai YC, Abd-Elsalam KA, Ertz D, Hidayat I, Jeewon R, Gareth Jones EB, Bahkali AH, Karunarathna SC, Liu JK, Luangsa-ard JJ, Lumbsch HT, Maharachchikumbura SSN, McKenzie EHC, Moncalvo JM, Ghobad-Nejhad M, Nilsson RH, Pang KL, Pereira OL, Phillips AJL, Raspé O, Rollins AW, Romero AI, Etayo J, Selçuk F, Stephenson SL, Suetrong S, Taylor JE, Tsui CKM, Vizzini A, Abdel-Wahab MA, Wen TC, Boonmee S, Dai DQ, Daranagama DA, Dissanayake AJ, Ekanayaka AH, Fryar SC, Hongsanan S, Jayawardena RS, Li WJ, Perera RH, Phookamsak R, de Silva NI, Thambugala KM, Tian Q, Wijayawardene NN, Zhao RL, Zhao Q, Kang JC, Promputtha I (2015) The Faces of Fungi database: fungal names linked with morphology, phylogeny and human impacts. Fungal Diversity 74:3–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-015-0351-8
Article Google Scholar
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 7:1192–1260. https://doi.org/10.5943/mycosphere/si/2c/9
Article Google Scholar
Jayawardena RS, McKenzie EHC, Chen YJ, Phillips AJL, Hongsanan S, Norphanphoun C, Abeywikrama PD, Maharachchikumbura SSN, Manawasinghe IS, McTaggart AR, Shivas RG, Gentekaki E, Hyde KD (2019) https://onestopshopfungi.org/, a database to enhance identification of phytopathogenic genera. Asian Journal of Mycology 2:281–286. https://doi.org/10.5943/ajom/2/1/18
Article Google Scholar
Jeewon R, Hyde KD (2016) Establishing species boundaries and new taxa among fungi: recommendations to resolve taxonomic ambiguities. Mycosphere 7:1669–1677. https://doi.org/10.5943/mycosphere/7/11/4
Article Google Scholar
Jiang SH, Hawksworth DL, Lücking R, Wei JC (2020) A new genus and species of foliicolous lichen in a new family of Strigulales (Ascomycota: Dothideomycetes) reveals remarkable class-level homoplasy. IMA Fungus 11:1 https://doi.org/10.1186/s43008-019-0026-2
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Jiang SH, Wei XL, Wei JC (2016) Strigula sinoaustralis sp. nov. and three Strigula spp. new for China. Mycotaxon 131:795–803. https://doi.org/10.5248/131.795
Article Google Scholar
Jiang SH, Wei XL, Wei JC (2017a) Two new species of Strigula (lichenised Dothideomycetes, Ascomycota) from China, with a key to the Chinese foliicolous species. MycoKeys 19:31–42. https://doi.org/10.3897/mycokeys.19.11174
Article Google Scholar
Jiang SH, Wei XL, Wei JC (2017b) A new species and two new records of Strigula (lichenized Ascomycota) from China. Mycoscience 58:391–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.myc.2017.05.003
Article Google Scholar
Johnston PR, Park D, Ho WWH, Alexander BJR (2017) Genetic validation of historical plant pathology records – a case study based on the fungal genus Phoma from the ICMP culture collection. Plant Pathology 66:1424–1431. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppa.12728
Article Google Scholar
Jones EBG, Pang KL, Abdel-Wahab MA, Scholz B, Hyde KD, Boekhout T, Ebel R, Rateb ME, Henderson L, Sakayaroj J, Suetrong S, Dayarathne MC, Kumar V, Raghukumar S, Sridhar KR, Bahkali AHA, Gleason FH, Norphanphoun C (2019) An online resource for marine fungi. Fungal Diversity 96:347–433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-019-00426-5
Article Google Scholar
Jørgensen PM (2019) The troublesome genus Thamnolia (lichenized Ascomycota). The Lichenologist 51:221–226. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0024282919000203
Article Google Scholar
Kahlke T, Ralph PJ (2019) BASTA – Taxonomic classification of sequences and sequence bins using last common ancestor estimations. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 10:100–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13095
Article Google Scholar
Katoh K, Frith MC (2012) Adding unaligned sequences into an existing alignment using MAFFT and LAST. Bioinformatics 28:3144–3146. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bts578
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Kemler M, Witfeld F, Begerow D, Yurkov AM (2017) Phylloplane yeasts in temperate climates. In: Buzzini P, Lachance MA, Yurkov AM (eds) Yeasts in Natural Ecosystems: Diversity. Springer, Cham, pp 171–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62683-3_6
Chapter Google Scholar
Kendrick B (ed) (1979) The Whole Fungus. The Sexual Asexual Synthesis. 2 Vols. National Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa
Kerekes J, Desjardin DE (2009) A monograph of the genera Crinipellis and Moniliophthora from Southeast Asia including a molecular phylogeny of the nrITS region. Fungal Diversity 37:101–152
Google Scholar
Kijpornyongpan T, Aime MC (2016) Rare or rarely detected? Ceraceosorus guamensis sp. nov.: a second described species of Ceraceosorales and the potential for underdetection of rare lineages with common sampling techniques. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 109:1127–1139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10482-016-0715-4
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Kilian N, Henning T, Plitzner P, Müller A, Güntsch A, Stöver BC, Müller KF, Berendsohn WG, Borsch T (2015) Sample data processing in an additive and reproducible taxonomic workflow by using character data persistently linked to preserved individual specimens. Database 2015: bav094. https://doi.org/10.1093/database/bav094
Kiss L (2012) Limits of nuclear ribosomal DNA internal transcribed spacer (ITS) sequences as species barcodes for Fungi. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States 109:E1811–E1811. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1207143109
Article Google Scholar
Kobmoo N, Mongkolsamrit S, Arnamnart N, Luangsa-ard JJ, Giraud T (2019) Population genomics revealed cryptic species within host-specific zombie-ant fungi (Ophiocordyceps unilateralis). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 140:106580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2019.106580
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Koch RA, Lodge DJ, Sourell S, Nakasone K, McCoy AG, Aime MC (2018) Tying up loose threads: revised taxonomy and phylogeny of an avian-dispersed Neotropical rhizomorph-forming fungus. Mycological Progress 17:989–998. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11557-018-1411-8
Article Google Scholar
Koch RA, Wilson AW, Sene O, Henkel TW, Aime MC (2017) Resolved phylogeny and biogeography of the root pathogen Armillaria and its gasteroid relative, Guyanagaster. BMC Evolutionary Biology 17:33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-017-0877-3
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Kõljalg U, Abarenkov K, Nilsson RH, Larsson KH, Taylor AF (2019) The UNITE database for molecular identification and for communicating fungal species. Biodiversity Information Science and Standards 3:e37402. https://doi.org/10.3897/biss.3.37402
Article Google Scholar
Kõljalg U, Nilsson RH, Abarenkov K, Tedersoo L, Taylor AF, Bahram M, Bates ST, Bruns TD, Bengtsson-Palme J, Callaghan TM, Douglas B, Drenkhan T, Eberhardt U, Dueñas M, Grebenc T, Griffith GW, Hartmann M, Kirk PM, Kohout P, Larsson E, Lindahl BD, Lücking R, Martín MP, Matheny PB, Nguyen NH, Niskanen T, Oja J, Peay KG, Peintner U, Peterson M, Põldmaa K, Saag L, Saar I, Schüßler A, Scott JA, Senés C, Smith ME, Suija A, Taylor DL, Telleria MT, Weiss M, Larsson KH (2013) Towards a unified paradigm for sequence-based identification of fungi. Molecular Ecology 22:5271–5277. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.12481
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Kolmer JA, Ordoñez ME, Groth JV (2018) The Rust Fungi. eLS:a0021264. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470015902.a0021264.pub2
Konstantinidis KT, Tiedje JM (2005) Genomic insights that advance the species definition for prokaryotes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States 102:2567–2572. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0409727102
Article CAS Google Scholar
Koufopanou V, Burt A, Taylor JW (1997) Concordance of gene genealogies reveals reproductive isolation in the pathogenic fungus Coccidioides immitis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States 94:5478–5482. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.94.10.5478
Article CAS Google Scholar
Krah FS, Bates ST, Miller AN (2019) rMyCoPortal-an R package to interface with the Mycology Collections Portal. Biodiversity Data Journal 7:e31511. https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.7.e31511
Article Google Scholar
Kress WJ, Garcia-Robledo C, Soares JV, Jacobs D, Wilson K, Lopez IC, Belhumeur PN (2018) Citizen science and climate change: mapping the range expansions of native and exotic plants with the mobile app Leafsnap. BioScience 68:348–358. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biy019
Article Google Scholar
Kroken S, Taylor JW (2001) A gene genealogical approach to recognize phylogenetic species boundaries in the lichenized fungus Letharia. Mycologia 93:38–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/00275514.2001.12061278
Article CAS Google Scholar
Krüger C, Walker C, Stockinger H, Schüssler A (2012) Phylogenetic reference data for systematics and phylotaxonomy of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi from phylum to species level. New Phytologist 193:970–984. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2011.03962.x
Article Google Scholar
Kruse J, Dietrich W, Zimmermann H, Klenke F, Richter U, Richter H, Thines M (2018b) Ustilago species causing leaf-stripe smut revisited. IMA Fungus 9:49–73. https://doi.org/10.5598/imafungus.2018.09.01.05
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Kruse J, Piątek M, Lutz M, Thines M (2018a) Broad host range species in specialised pathogen groups should be treated with suspicion – a case study on Entyloma infecting Ranunculus. Persoonia 41:175–201. https://doi.org/10.3767/persoonia.2018.41.09
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Kück U, Pöggeler S (2009) Cryptic sex in fungi. Fungal Biology Reviews 23:86–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbr.2009.10.004
Article Google Scholar
Kumar N, Belhumeur PN, Biswas A, Jacobs DW, Kress WJ, Lopez IC, Soares JV (2012) Leafsnap: a computer vision system for automatic plant species identification. In: Fitzgibbon A, Lazebnik S, Perona P, Sato Y, Schmid C (eds) Computer Vision – ECCV 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7573. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 502–516. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33709-3_36
Chapter Google Scholar
Kurtzman CP (2006) Yeast species recognition from gene sequence analyses and other molecular methods. Mycoscience 47:65–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10267-006-0280-1
Article CAS Google Scholar
Kurtzman CP, Fell JW, Boekhout T, Robert V (2011) Methods for isolation, phenotypic characterization and maintenance of yeasts. In: Kurtzman CP, Fell JW, Boekhout T (eds) The Yeasts (5th Edition). Elsevier, Burlington, MA, pp 87–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-52149-1.00007-0
Chapter Google Scholar
Lachance MA (2016) Paraphyly and (yeast) classification. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology 66:4924–4929. https://doi.org/10.1099/ijsem.0.001474
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Lado C, Eliasson U (2017) Taxonomy and systematics: current knowledge and approaches on the taxonomic treatment of Myxomycetes. In: Stephenson SL, Rojas C (eds) Myxomycetes. Biology, Systematics, Biogeography, and Ecology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 205–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-805089-7.00007-X
Chapter Google Scholar
Leacock PR, Riddell J, Wilson AW, Zhang R, Ning C, Mueller GM (2016) Cantharellus chicagoensis sp. nov. is supported by molecular and morphological analysis as a new yellow chanterelle in midwestern United States. Mycologia 108:765–772. https://doi.org/10.3852/15-230
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Leavitt S, Fernández-Mendoza F, Pérez-Ortega S, Sohrabi M, Divakar P, Lumbsch HT, St. Clair L (2013) DNA barcode identification of lichen-forming fungal species in the Rhizoplaca melanophthalma species-complex (Lecanorales, Lecanoraceae), including five new species. MycoKeys 7:1–22. https://doi.org/10.3897/mycokeys.7.4508
Article Google Scholar
Leavitt SD, Divakar PK, Crespo A, Lumbsch HT (2016) A matter of time – understanding the limits of the power of molecular data for delimiting species boundaries. Herzogia 29:479–493. https://doi.org/10.13158/heia.29.2.2016.479
Article Google Scholar
Lekberg Y, Gibbons SM, Rosendahl S (2014) Will different OTU delineation methods change interpretation of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal community patterns? New Phytologist 202:1101–1104. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12758
Article Google Scholar
Lekberg Y, Vasar M, Bullington LS, Sepp SK, Antunes PM, Bunn R, Larkin BG, Öpik M (2018) More bang for the buck? Can arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal communities be characterized adequately alongside other fungi using general fungal primers? New Phytologist 220:971–976. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15035
Article Google Scholar
Li JQ, Wingfield BD, Wingfield MJ, Barnes I, Fourie A, Crous PW, Chen SF (2020a) Mating genes in Calonectria and evidence for a heterothallic ancestral state. Persoonia 45:163–176. https://doi.org/10.3767/persoonia.2020.45.06
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Li W, McKenzie EHC, Liu JK, Bhat DJ, Dai DQ, Camporesi E, Tian Q, Maharachchikumbura SSN, Luo ZL, Shang QJ, Zhang JF, Tangthirasunun N, Karunarathna SC, Xu JC, Hyde KD (2020b) Taxonomy and phylogeny of hyaline-spored coelomycetes. Fungal Diversity 100:279–801. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-020-00440-y
Article CAS Google Scholar
Li Y, Jiao L, Yao YJ (2013) Non-concerted ITS evolution in fungi, as revealed from the important medicinal fungus Ophiocordyceps sinensis. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 68:373–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2013.04.010
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Li Y, Yang RH, Jiang L, Hu XD, Wu ZJ, Yao YJ (2017) rRNA pseudogenes in filamentous ascomycetes as revealed by genome data. Genes, Gemomes, Genetics 7(8):2695–2703. https://doi.org/10.1534/g3.117.044016
Article CAS Google Scholar
Lim GS, Balke M, Meier R (2011) Determining species boundaries in a world full of rarity: singletons, species delimitation methods. Systematic Biology 61:165–169. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syr030
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Lindahl BD, Nilsson RH, Tedersoo L, Abarenkov K, Carlsen T, Kjoller R, Kõljalg U, Pennanen T, Rosendahl S, Stenlid J, Kauserud H (2013) Fungal community analysis by high-throughput sequencing of amplified markers – a user’s guide. New Phytologist 199:288–299. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12243
Article CAS Google Scholar
Lindner DL, Banik MT (2011) Intragenomic variation in the ITS rDNA region obscures phylogenetic relationships and inflates estimates of operational taxonomic units in genus Laetiporus. Mycologia 103:731–740. https://doi.org/10.3852/10-331
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Liu F, Hou L, Raza M, Cai L (2017) Pestalotiopsis and allied genera from Camellia, with description of 11 new species from China. Scientific Reports 7:866. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-00972-5
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Liu XY, Udayanga D, Luo ZL, Chen LJ, Zhou DQ, Su HY, Hyde KD (2015) Backbone tree for Chaetothyriales with four new species of Minimelanolocus from aquatic habitats. Fungal Biology 119:1046–1062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.funbio.2015.08.005
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Lockhart SR, Etienne KA, Vallabhaneni S, Farooqi J, Chowdhary A, Govender NP, Colombo AL, Calvo B, Cuomo CA, Desjardins CA, Berkow EL (2017) Simultaneous emergence of multidrug-resistant Candida auris on 3 continents confirmed by whole-genome sequencing and epidemiological analyses. Clinical Infectious Diseases 64:134–140. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciw691
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Lofgren LA, Uehling JK, Branco S, Bruns TD, Martin F, Kennedy PG (2019) Genome-based estimates of fungal rDNA copy number variation across phylogenetic scales and ecological lifestyles. Molecular Ecology 28:721–730. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.14995
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Loit K, Adamson K, Bahram M, Puusepp R, Anslan S, Kiiker R, Drenkhan R, Tedersoo L (2019) Relative performance of MinION (Oxford Nanopore Technologies) versus Sequel (Pacific Biosciences) third-generation sequencing instruments in identification of agricultural and forest fungal pathogens. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 85:e01368–e01319. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01368-19
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
López-Quintero CA, Atanasova L, Franco-Molano AE, Gams W, Komon-Zelazowska M, Theelen B, Müller WH, Boekhout T, Druzhinina I (2013) DNA barcoding survey of Trichoderma diversity in soil and litter of the Colombian lowland Amazonian rainforest reveals Trichoderma strigosellum sp. nov. and other species. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 104:657–674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10482-013-9975-4
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
López-Villavicencio M, Aguileta G, Giraud T, de Vienne DM, Lacoste S, Couloux A, Dupont J (2010) Sex in Penicillium: combined phylogenetic and experimental approaches. Fungal Genetics and Biology 47:693–706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fgb.2010.05.002
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Lorch JM, Palmer JM, Vanderwolf KJ, Schmidt KZ, Verant ML, Weller TJ, Blehert DS (2018) Malassezia vespertilionis sp. nov.: a new cold-tolerant species of yeast isolated from bats. Persoonia 41:56–70. https://doi.org/10.3767/persoonia.2018.41.04
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Lücking R (2019) Stop the abuse of time! Strict temporal banding is not the future of rank-based classifications in fungi (including lichens) and other organisms. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 38:199–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352689.2019.1650517
Article Google Scholar
Lücking R (2020) Three challenges to contemporaneous taxonomy from a licheno-mycological perspective. Megataxa 1:78–103. https://doi.org/10.11646/megataxa.1.1.16
Article Google Scholar
Lücking R, Dal Forno M, Moncada B, Coca LF, Vargas-Mendoza IY, Aptroot A, Arias LJ, Besal B, Bungartz F, Cabrera-Amaya DM, MES C, Chaves JL, Eliasaro S, Gutiérrez MC, Hernández-M JE, Herrera-Campos MA, Holgado-Rojas ME, Jonitz H, Kukwa M, Lucheta F, Madriñán S, Marcelli MP, Martins SMA, Mercado-Díaz JA, Molina JA, Morales EA, Nelson PR, Nugra F, Ortega F, Paredes T, Patiño AL, Peláez-Pulido RN, Pérez-Pérez RE, Perlmutter GB, Rivas-Plata ME, Robayo J, Rodríguez C, Simijaca DF, Soto-Medina E, Spielmann AA, Suárez-Corredor A, Torres JM, Vargas CA, Yánez-Ayabaca A, Weerakoon G, Wilk K, Celis-Pacheco M, Diazgranados M, Brokamp G, Borsch T, Gillevet PM, Sikaroodi M, Lawrey JD (2017) Turbo-taxonomy to assemble a megadiverse lichen genus: seventy new species of Cora (Basidiomycota: Agaricales: Hygrophoraceae), honouring David Leslie Hawksworth's seventieth birthday. Fungal Diversity 84:139–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-016-0374-9
Article Google Scholar
Lücking R, Dal Forno M, Sikaroodi M, Gillevet PM, Bungartz F, Moncada B, Yánez-Ayabaca A, Chaves JL, Coca LF, Lawrey JD (2014) A single macrolichen constitutes hundreds of unrecognized species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States 111:11091–11096. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1403517111
Article CAS Google Scholar
Lücking R, Hawksworth DL (2018) Formal description of sequence-based voucherless Fungi: promises and pitfalls, and how to resolve them. IMA Fungus 9:143–165. https://doi.org/10.5598/imafungus.2018.09.01.09
Lücking R, Moncada B, Dal Forno M (2016) PhyloKey: A novel method to rapidly and reliably identify species in complex, species-rich genera. The 8th IAL Symposium "Lichens in Deep Time", August 1–5, 2016 Helsinki, Finland. Abstracts: 149. https://tuhat.helsinki.fi/ws/portalfiles/portal/78548361/IAL8_abstracts3007.pdf
Lücking R, Pickering J (2020) Graphis. DiscoverLife ID nature guides. https://www.discoverlife.org/mp/20q?guide=Graphis
Lücking R, Truong BV, Huong DTT, Le NH, Nguyen QD, Nguyen VD, Von Raab-Straube E, Bollendorff S, Govers K, Di Vincenzo V (2020) The caveats of fungal barcoding: a case study in the genus Trametes s.lat. (Basidiomycota: Polyporales) in Vietnam reveals multiple issues with mislabeled reference sequences and calls for the implementation of third-party annotations. Willdenowia (in press)
Lumbsch HT, Leavitt SD (2011) Goodbye morphology? A paradigm shift in the delimitation of species in lichenized fungi. Fungal Diversity 50:59–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-011-0123-z
Article Google Scholar
Luo ZL, Hyde KD, Liu JK, Maharachchikumbura SSN, Jeewon R, Bao DF, Bhat DJ, Lin CG, Li WL, Yang J, Liu NG, Lu YZ, Jayawardena RS, Li JF, Su HY (2019) Freshwater Sordariomycetes. Fungal Diversity 99:451–660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-019-00438-1
Article Google Scholar
Madden TL, Busby B, Ye J (2019) Reply to the paper: Misunderstood parameters of NCBI BLAST impacts the correctness of bioinformatics workflows. Bioinformatics 35:2699-2700. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bty1026
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Magain N, Miadlikowska J, Mueller O, Gajdeczka M, Truong C, Salamov AA, Dubchak I, Grigoriev IV, Goffinet B, Sérusiaux E, Lutzoni F (2017) Conserved genomic collinearity as a source of broadly applicable, fast evolving, markers to resolve species complexes: a case study using the lichen-forming genus Peltigera section Polydactylon. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 117:10–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2017.08.013
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Magain N, Sérusiaux E (2015) Dismantling the treasured flagship lichen Sticta fuliginosa (Peltigerales) into four species in Western Europe. Mycological Progress 14:97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11557-015-1109-0
Article Google Scholar
Maharachchikumbura SSN, Guo LD, Cai L, Chukeatirote E, Wu WP, Sun X, Crous PW, Bhat DJ, McKenzie EHC, Bahkali AH, Hyde KD (2012) A multi-locus backbone tree for Pestalotiopsis, with a polyphasic characterization of 14 new species. Fungal Diversity 56:95–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-012-0198-1
Article Google Scholar
Maharachchikumbura SSN, Hyde KD, Groenewald JZ, Xu J, Crous P (2014) Pestalotiopsis revisited. Studies in Mycology 79:121–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simyco.2014.09.005
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Mahé F, Rognes T, Quince C, de Vargas C, Dunthorn M (2014) Swarm: robust and fast clustering method for amplicon-based studies. PeerJ 2:e593. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.593
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Mahé F, Rognes T, Quince C, de Vargas C, Dunthorn M (2015) Swarm v2: highly-scalable and high-resolution amplicon clustering. PeerJ 3:e1420. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1420
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Majaneva M, Hyytiäinen K, Varvio SL, Nagai S, Blomster J (2015) Bioinformatic amplicon read processing strategies strongly affect eukaryotic diversity and the taxonomic composition of communities. PLoS One 10(6):e0130035. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130035
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Manamgoda DS, Rossman AY, Castlebury LA, Crous PW, Madrid H, Chukeatirote E, Hyde KD (2014) The genus Bipolaris. Studies in Mycology 79:221–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simyco.2014.10.002
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Marin-Felix Y, Hernández-Restrepo M, Iturrieta-González I, García D, Gené J, Groenewald JZ, Cai L, Chen Q, Quaedvlieg W, Schumacher RK, Taylor PWJ, Ambers C, Bonthond G, Edwards J, Krueger-Hadfield SA, Luangsa-ard JJ, Morton L, Moslemi A, Sandoval-Denis M, Tan YP, Thangavel R, Vaghefi N, Cheewangkoon R, Crous PW (2019) Genera of phytopathogenic fungi: GOPHY 3. Studies in Mycology 94:1–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simyco.2017.04.002
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Martinez-Romero E, Ormeño-Orrillo E (2019) A genomotaxonomy view of the Bradyrhizobium genus. Frontiers in Microbiology 10:1334. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.01334
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Matheny PB (2005) Improving phylogenetic inference of mushrooms with RPB1 and RPB2 nucleotide sequences (Inocybe; Agaricales). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 35:1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2004.11.014
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Matsen FA, Hoffman NG, Gallagher A, Stamatakis A (2012) A format for phylogenetic placements. PLoS One 7(2):e31009. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0031009
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Matsen FA, Kodner RB, Armbrust EV (2010) pplacer: linear time maximum-likelihood and Bayesian phylogenetic placement of sequences onto a fixed reference tree. BMC Bioinformatics 11:538. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-11-538
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Mattsson JE, Lumbsch HT (1989) The use of the species pair concept in lichen taxonomy. Taxon 38:238–241 https://www.jstor.org/stable/1220840
Article Google Scholar
May GS, Adams TH (1997) The importance of fungi to man. Genome Research 7:1041–1044
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Mayden RL (1997) A hierarchy of species concepts: the denoument in the saga of the species problem. In: Claridge MF, Dawah HA, Wilson MR (eds) Species: The Units of Diversity. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 381–423
Google Scholar
Mayr E (1942) Systematics and the Origin of Species. Columbia University Press, New York
Google Scholar
McInerney P, Adams P, Hadi MZ (2014) Error rate comparison during polymerase chain reaction by DNA polymerase. Molecular Biology International 2014:287430. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/287430
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
McTaggart AR, Aime MC (2018) The species of Coleosporium (Pucciniales) on Solidago in North America. Fungal Biology 122:800–809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.funbio.2018.04.007
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Meher PK, Sahu TK, Gahoi S, Tomar R, Rao AR (2019) funbarRF: DNA barcode-based fungal species prediction using multiclass Random Forest supervised learning model. BMC Genetics 20:2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12863-018-0710-z
Menkis A, Urbina H, James TY, Rosling A (2014) Archaeorhizomyces borealis sp. nov. and a sequence-based classification of related soil fungal species. Fungal Biology 118:943–955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.funbio.2014.08.005
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Merényi Z, Varga T, Hubai AG, Pitlik P, Erős Á, Trappe JM, Bratek Z (2017) Challenges in the delimitation of morphologically similar species: a case study of Tuber brumale agg. (Ascomycota, Pezizales). Mycological Progress 16:613–624. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11557-017-1296-y
Article Google Scholar
Messuti MI, Passo A, Scervino JM, Vidal-Russell R (2016) The species pair Pseudocyphellaria pilosella-piloselloides (lichenized Ascomycota: Lobariaceae) is a single species. The Lichenologist 48:141–146. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0024282915000511
Article Google Scholar
Meusnier I, Singer GA, Landry JF, Hickey DA, Hebert PD, Hajibabaei M (2008) A universal DNA mini-barcode for biodiversity analysis. BMC Genomics 9(1):214. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-9-214
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Meyer W, Irinyi L, Hoang MTV, Robert V, Garcia-Hermoso D, Desnos-Ollivier M, Yurayart C, Tsang CC, Lee CY, Woo PCY, Pchelin IM, Uhrlaß S, Nenoff P, Chindamporn A, Chen S, Hebert PDN, Sorrell TC, ISHAM barcoding of pathogenic fungi working group (2019) Database establishment for the secondary fungal DNA barcode translational elongation factor 1 alpha (TEF1 alpha). Genome 62:160–169. https://doi.org/10.1139/gen-2018-0083
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Millanes AM, Diederich P, Ekman S, Wedin M (2011) Phylogeny and character evolution in the jelly fungi (Tremellomycetes, Basidiomycota, Fungi). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 61:12–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2011.05.014
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Miller AN, Bates ST (2017) The mycology collections portal (Mycoportal). IMA Fungus 8:(65)-(66). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03449464
Miller AN, Methven AS (2000) Biological species concepts in eastern North American populations of Lentinellus. Mycologia 92:792–800. https://doi.org/10.1080/00275514.2000.12061220
Article Google Scholar
Miller AN, Promputtha I (2020a) Hysteriaceae. DiscoverLife ID nature guides. https://www.discoverlife.org/mp/20q?guide=Hysteriaceae
Google Scholar
Miller AN, Promputtha I (2020b) Tubeufiaceae. DiscoverLife ID nature guides. https://www.discoverlife.org/mp/20q?guide=Tubeufiaceae
Google Scholar
Miller AN, Promputtha I, Huhndorf SM (2020a) Chaetosphaeriaceae. DiscoverLife ID nature guides. https://www.discoverlife.org/mp/20q?guide=Chaetosphaeriaceae
Google Scholar
Miller AN, Promputtha I, Rogers JD (2020b) Xylariaceae. DiscoverLife ID nature guides. https://www.discoverlife.org/mp/20q?guide=Xylariaceae
Google Scholar
Miller KE, Hopkins K, Inward DJ, Vogler AP (2016) Metabarcoding of fungal communities associated with bark beetles. Ecology and Evolution 6:1590–1600. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1925
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Mirarab S, Nguyen N, Warnow T. (2012) SEPP: SATé-enabled phylogenetic placement. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing 2012. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814366496_0024
Moncada B, Lücking R, Betancourt-Macuase L (2013) Phylogeny of the Lobariaceae (lichenized Ascomycota: Peltigerales), with a reappraisal of the genus Lobariella. The Lichenologist 45:203–263. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0024282912000825
Article Google Scholar
Moncada B, Lücking R, Lumbsch HT (2020) Rewriting the evolutionary history of the lichen genus Sticta (Ascomycota: Peltigeraceae subfam. Lobarioideae) in the Hawaiian islands. Plant and Fungal Systematics (in press)
Moncada B, Lücking R, Suárez A (2014) Molecular phylogeny of the genus Sticta (lichenized Ascomycota: Lobariaceae) in Colombia. Fungal Diversity 64:205–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-013-0230-0
Article Google Scholar
Morin E, Miyauchi S, San Clemente H, Chen ECH, Pelin A, de la Providencia I, Ndikumana S, Beaudet D, Hainaut M, Drula E, Kuo A, Tang N, Roy S, Viala J, Henrissat B, Grigoriev IV, Corradi N, Roux C, Martin FM (2019) Comparative genomics of Rhizophagus irregularis, R. cerebriforme, R. diaphanus and Gigaspora rosea highlights specific genetic features in Glomeromycotina. New Phytologist 222:1584–1598. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15687
Article CAS Google Scholar
Moritz C (1994) Defining ‘evolutionarily significant units’ for conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9:373–375
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Mueller G, Foster M, Bill G (eds) (2004) Biodiversity of Fungi. Inventory and Monitoring Methods. Academic Press (Elsevier), Amsterdam
Munch K, Boomsma W, Huelsenbeck JP, Willerslev E, Nielsen R (2008) Statistical assignment of DNA sequences using Bayesian phylogenetics. Systematic Biology 57:750–757. https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150802422316
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Nagel JH, Wingfield MJ, Slippers B (2018) Evolution of the mating types and mating strategies in prominent genera in the Botryosphaeriaceae. Fungal Genetics and Biology 114:24–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fgb.2018.03.003
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Nagy L, Tóth R, Kiss E, Slot J, Gácser A (2017) Six key traits of fungi: their evolutionary origins and genetic bases. Microbiology Spectrum 5(4):1–22. https://doi.org/10.1128/9781555819583.ch2
Article CAS Google Scholar
Nagy LG, Kocsubé S, Csanádi Z, Kovács GM, Petkovits T, Vágvölgyi C, Papp T (2012) Re-mind the gap! Insertion-deletion data reveal neglected phylogenetic potential of the nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacer (ITS) of fungi. PloS One 7(11):e49794. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0049794
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Nelson GJ, Platnick NI (1981) Systematics and Biogeography: Cladistics and Vicariance. Columbia University Press, New York
Google Scholar
Nenoff P, Erhard M, Simon JC, Herrmann J, Muylowa GK, Rataj W, Gräser Y (2013) MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry: a rapid method for the identification of dermatophyte species. Medical Mycology 51:17–24. https://doi.org/10.3109/13693786.2012.685186
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Nguyen VS, Wiemers M, Settele J (2017) Proposal for an index to evaluate dichotomous keys. Zookeys 685:83–89. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.685.13625
Article Google Scholar
Ni M, Feretzaki M, Sun S, Wang X, Heitman J (2011) Sex in fungi. Annual Review of Genetics 45:405–430. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genet-110410-132536
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Nilsson RH, Kristiansson E, Ryberg M, Hallenberg N, Larsson KH (2008) Intraspecific ITS variability in the kingdom Fungi as expressed in the international sequence databases and its implications for molecular species identification. Evolutionary Bioinformatics 4:EBO–S653. https://doi.org/10.4137/EBO.S653
Article Google Scholar
Nilsson RH, Larsson KH, Taylor AFS, Bengtsson-Palme J, Jeppesen TS, Schigel D, Kennedy P, Picard K, Glöckner FO, Tedersoo L, Saar I, Kõljalg U, Abarenkov K (2019) The UNITE database for molecular identification of fungi: handling dark taxa and parallel taxonomic classifications. Nucleic Acids Research 47(D1):D259–D264. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gky1022
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Nilsson RH, Ryberg M, Kristiansson E, Abarenkov K, Larsson KH, Kõljalg U (2006) Taxonomic reliability of DNA sequences in public sequence databases: a fungal perspective. PloS One 1(1):e59. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000059
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Nilsson RH, Sánchez-García M, Ryberg M, Abarenkov K, Wurzbacher C, Kristiansson E (2017) Read quality-based trimming of the distal ends of public fungal DNA sequences is nowhere near satisfactory. MycoKeys 26:13–24. https://doi.org/10.3897/mycokeys.26.14591
Article Google Scholar
Nilsson RH, Tedersoo L, Ryberg M, Kristiansson E, Hartmann M, Unterseher M, Porter TM, Bengtsson-Palme J, Walker DM, de Sousa F, Gamper HA, Larsson E, Larsson KH, Kõljalg U, Edgar RC, Abarenkov K (2015) A comprehensive, automatically updated fungal ITS sequence dataset for reference-based chimera control in environmental sequencing efforts. Microbes and Environment 30:145–150. https://doi.org/10.1264/jsme2.ME14121
Article Google Scholar
Nilsson RH, Veldre V, Hartmann M, Unterseher M, Amend A, Bergsten J, Kristiansson E, Ryberg M, Jumpponen A, Abarenkov K (2010) An open source software package for automated extraction of ITS1 and ITS2 from fungal ITS sequences for use in high-throughput community assays and molecular ecology. Fungal Ecology 3:284–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.funeco.2010.05.002
Article Google Scholar
Nimis PL, Riccamboni R, Martellos S (2012) Identification keys on mobile devices: The Dryades experience. Plant Biosystems 146:783–788. https://doi.org/10.1080/11263504.2012.740089
Article Google Scholar
Nimis PL, Scheidegger C, Wolseley PA (2002) Monitoring with Lichens – Monitoring Lichens. Springer, Dordrecht
Book Google Scholar
Niveiro N, Ramírez NA, Michlig A, Lodge DJ, Aime MC (2020) Studies of Neotropical tree pathogens in Moniliophthora: a new species, M. mayarum, and new combinations for Crinipellis ticoi and C. brasiliensis. MycoKeys 66:39–54. https://doi.org/10.3897/mycokeys.66.48711
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Nobles MK (1965) Identification of cultures of wood-inhabiting Hymenomycetes. Canadian Journal of Botany 43:1097–1139. https://doi.org/10.1139/b65-126
Article Google Scholar
O'Brien HE, Parrent JL, Jackson JA, Moncalvo JM, Vilgalys R (2005) Fungal community analysis by large-scale sequencing of environmental samples. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 71:5544–5550. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.71.9.5544-5550.2005
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
O'Donnell K, Kistler HC, Tacke BK, Casper HH (2000) Gene genealogies reveal global phylogeographic structure and reproductive isolation among lineages of Fusarium graminearum, the fungus causing wheat scab. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States 97:7905–7910. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.130193297
Article CAS Google Scholar
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 7:103–116. https://doi.org/10.1006/mpev.1996.0376
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
O'Donnell K, Ward TJ, Geiser DM, Kistler HC, Aoki T (2004) Genealogical concordance between the mating type locus and seven other nuclear genes supports formal recognition of nine phylogenetically distinct species within the Fusarium graminearum clade. Fungal Genetics and Biology 41:600–623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fgb.2004.03.003
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
O'Donnell K, Ward TJ, Robert VA, Crous PW, Geiser DM, Kang S (2015) DNA sequence-based identification of Fusarium: current status and future directions. Phytoparasitica 43:583–595. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12600-015-0484-z
Article Google Scholar
O'Gorman CM, Fuller HT, Dyer PS (2009) Discovery of a sexual cycle in the opportunistic fungal pathogen Aspergillus fumigatus. Nature 457:471–474. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07528
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Ohsowski BM, Zaitsoff PD, Öpik M, Hart MM (2014) Where the wild things are: looking for uncultured Glomeromycota. New Phytologist 204:171–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12894
Article Google Scholar
O'Leary NA, Wright MW, Brister JR, Ciufo S, Haddad D, McVeigh R, Rajput B, Robbertse B, Smith-White B, Ako-Adjei D, Astashyn A (2016) Reference sequence (RefSeq) database at NCBI: current status, taxonomic expansion, and functional annotation. Nucleic Acids Research 44(D1):D733–D745. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkv1189
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Onuţ-Brännström I, Tibell L, Johannesson H (2017) A worldwide phylogeography of the whiteworm lichens Thamnolia reveals three lineages with distinct habitats and evolutionary histories. Ecology and Evolution 7:3602–3615. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2917
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Öpik M, Davison J (2016) Uniting species- and community-oriented approaches to understand arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal diversity. Fungal Ecology 24(B):106–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.funeco.2016.07.005
Öpik M, Davison J, Moora M, Zobel M (2014) DNA-based detection and identification of Glomeromycota: the virtual taxonomy of environmental sequences. Botany 92:135–147. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjb-2013-0110
Article CAS Google Scholar
Öpik M, Vanatoa A, Vanatoa E, Moora M, Davison J, Kalwij JM, Reier Ü, Zobel M (2010) The online database MaarjAM reveals global and ecosystemic distribution patterns in arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (Glomeromycota). New Phytologist 188:223–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03334.x
Article CAS Google Scholar
Osmundson TW, Vincent RA, Schoch CL, Baker LJ, Smith A, Robich G, Mizzan L, Garbelotto MM (2013) Filling gaps in biodiversity knowledge for macrofungi: contributions and assessment of an herbarium collection DNA barcode sequencing project. PLoS One 8(4):e62419. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062419
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Padial JM, Miralles A, De la Riva I, Vences M (2010) The integrative future of taxonomy. Frontiers in Zoology 7:16. https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-9994-7-16
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Park S, Choi HS, Lee B, Chun J, Won JH, Yoon S (2016) hc-OTU: A fast and accurate method for clustering operational taxonomic units based on homopolymer compaction. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics 15:441–451. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCBB.2016.2535326
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Parks DH, Chuvochina M, Waite DW, Rinke C, Skarshewski A, Chaumeil PA, Hugenholtz P (2018) A standardized bacterial taxonomy based on genome phylogeny substantially revises the tree of life. Nature Biotechnology 36:996–1004. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4229
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Parks MM, Kurylo CM, Batchelder JE, Vincent CT, Blanchard SC (2019) Implications of sequence variation on the evolution of rRNA. Chromosome Research 27:89–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10577-018-09602-w
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Passer AR, Coelho MA, Billmyre RB, Nowrousian M, Mittelbach M, Yurkov AM, Averette AF, Cuomo CA, Sun S, Heitman J (2019) Genetic and genomic analyses reveal boundaries between species closely related to Cryptococcus pathogens. mBio 10(3):e00764–e00719. https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00764-19
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Patel R (2019) A moldy application of MALDI-Tof Mass Spectrometry for fungal identification. Journal of Fungi 5(1):4. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof5010004
Article CAS PubMed Central Google Scholar
Paul SS, Bu D, Xu J, Hyde KD, Yu Z (2018) A phylogenetic census of global diversity of gut anaerobic fungi and a new taxonomic framework. Fungal Diversity 89:253–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-018-0396-6
Article Google Scholar
Payne A, Holmes N, Rakyan V, Loose M (2019) BulkVis: a graphical viewer for Oxford nanopore bulk FAST5 files. Bioinformatics 35:2193–2198. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bty841
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Pazouki M, Panda T (2000) Understanding the morphology of fungi. Bioprocess Engineering 22:127–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004490050022
Article CAS Google Scholar
Pegg KG, Coates LM, O’Neill WT, Turner DW (2019) The epidemiology of Fusarium wilt of banana. Frontiers in Plant Science 10:1395. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.01395
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Peix Á, Chan KG, See-Too WS, Chua KO, Mau Goh K, Hong KW, Yin WF, Lee LS (2019) Aquella oligotrophica gen. nov. sp. nov.: a new member of the family Neisseriaceae isolated from laboratory tap water. Microbiology Open 8(7):e00793. https://doi.org/10.1002/mbo3.793
Article CAS PubMed Central Google Scholar
Pem D, Hongsanan S, Doilom M, Tibpromma S, Wanasinghe DN, Dong W, Ningguo L, Phookamsak R, Phillips AJL, Jeewon R, Hyde KD (2019) https://www.dothideomycetes.org: An online taxonomic resource for the classification, identification, and nomenclature of Dothideomycetes. Asian Journal of Mycology 2:287–297. https://doi.org/10.5943/ajom/2/1/19
Article Google Scholar
Phillips R (1991) Mushrooms of North America. Little, Brown and Co., Boston, MA
Google Scholar
Pino-Bodas R, Martin MP, Burgaz AR, Lumbsch HT (2013) Species delimitation in Cladonia (Ascomycota): a challenge to the DNA barcoding philosophy. Molecular Ecology Resources 13:1058–1068. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12086
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Plitzner P, Henning T, Müller A, Güntsch A, Kilian N (2019) The Additivity Project: Achieving additivity of structured taxonomic character data by persistently linking them to individual specimens. Biodiversity Informatics Science and Standards 3:e37178. https://doi.org/10.3897/biss.3.37178
Article Google Scholar
Porter TM, Golding GB (2011) Are similarity-or phylogeny-based methods more appropriate for classifying internal transcribed spacer (ITS) metagenomic amplicons? New Phytologist 192:775–782. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2011.03838.x
Article CAS Google Scholar
Potapov V, Ong JL (2017) Examining sources of error in PCR by single-molecule sequencing. PloS One 12(1):e0169774. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169774
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Powell JR, Monaghan MT, Öpik M, Rillig MC (2011) Evolutionary criteria outperform operational approaches in producing ecologically relevant fungal species inventories. Molecular Ecology 20:655–666. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2010.04964.x
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Przyboś E, Tarcz S, Rautian M, Sawka N (2015) Delimiting species boundaries within a paraphyletic species complex: insights from morphological, genetic, and molecular data on Paramecium sonneborni (Paramecium aurelia species complex, Ciliophora, Protozoa). Protist 166:438–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protis.2015.07.001
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Puillandre N, Modica MV, Zhang Y, Sirovich L, Boisselier MC, Cruaud C, Holford M, Samadi S (2012) Large-scale species delimitation method for hyperdiverse groups. Molecular Ecology 21:2671–2691. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2012.05559.x
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Pujari JD, Yakkundimath R, Byadgi AS (2015) Image processing based detection of fungal diseases in plants. Procedia Computer Science 46:1802–1808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.02.137
Article Google Scholar
Qin QL, Xie BB, Zhang XY, Chen XL, Zhou BC, Zhou J, Oren A, Zhang YZ (2014) A proposed genus boundary for the prokaryotes based on genomic insights. Journal of Bacteriology 196:2210–2215. https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.01688-14
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Quaedvlieg W, Binder M, Groenewald JZ, Summerell BA, Carnegie AJ, Burgess TI, Crous PW (2014) Introducing the Consolidated Species Concept to resolve species in the Teratosphaeriaceae. Persoonia 33:1–40. https://doi.org/10.3767/003158514X681981
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Raja HA, Baker TR, Little JG, Oberlies NH (2017b) DNA barcoding for identification of consumer-relevant mushrooms: A partial solution for product certification? Food Chemistry 214:383–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.07.052
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Raja HA, Miller AN, Pearce CJ, Oberlies NH (2017a) Fungal identification using molecular tools: a primer for the natural products research community. Journal of Natural Products 80:756–770. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jnatprod.6b01085
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Rambold G (1997) LIAS – the concept of an identification system for lichenized and lichenicolous Ascomycetes. Bibliotheca Lichenologica 68:67–72
Google Scholar
Reginato M (2016) monographaR: an R package to facilitate the production of plant taxonomic monographs. Brittonia 68:212–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12228-015-9407-z
Article Google Scholar
Rensink S, Wiegand S, Kallscheuer N, Rast P, Peeters SH, Heuer A, Boedeker C, Jetten MS, Rohde M, Jogler M, Jogler C (2020) Description of the novel planctomycetal genus Bremerella, containing Bremerella volcania sp. nov., isolated from an active volcanic site, and reclassification of Blastopirellula cremea as Bremerella cremea comb. nov. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10482-019-01378-1
Rhoads A, Au KF (2015) PacBio sequencing and its applications. Genomics Proteomics Bioinformatics 13:278–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gpb.2015.08.002
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Rideout JR, He Y, Navas-Molina JA, Walters WA, Ursell LK, Gibbons SM, Chase J, McDonald D, Gonzalez A, Robbins-Pianka A, Clemente JC, Gilbert JA, Huse SM, Zhou HW, Knight R, Caporaso JG (2014) Subsampled open-reference clustering creates consistent, comprehensive OTU definitions and scales to billions of sequences. PeerJ 2:e545. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.545
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Robbertse B, Strope PK, Chaverri P, Gazis R, Ciufo S, Domrachev M, Schoch CL (2017) Improving taxonomic accuracy for fungi in public sequence databases: applying ‘one name one species’ in well-defined genera with Trichoderma/Hypocrea as a test case. Database 2017:bax072. https://doi.org/10.1093/database/bax072
Article CAS PubMed Central Google Scholar
Robert V, Szoke S, Eberhardt U, Cardinali G, Meyer W, Seifert KA, Lévesque CA, Lewis CT (2011) The quest for a general and reliable fungal DNA barcode. The Open Applied Informatics Journal 5:45–61. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874136301005010045
Article CAS Google Scholar
Robert V, Vu D, Amor ABH, Nathalie van de Wiele N, Brouwer C, Jabas B, Szoke S, Dridi A, Triki M, ben Daoud S, Chouchen O, Vaas L, de Cock A, Stalpers JA, Stalpers D, GJM V, Groenewald M, dos Santos FB, Stegehuis G, Li W, Wu L, Zhang R, Ma J, Zhou M, Pérez Gorjón S, Eurwilaichitr L, Ingsriswang S, Hansen K, Schoch CL, Robbertse B, Irinyi L, Meyer M, Cardinali G, Hawksworth DL, Taylor JW, Crous PW (2013) MycoBank gearing up for new horizons. IMA Fungus 4:371–379. https://doi.org/10.5598/imafungus.2013.04.02.16
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Rodriguez RJ, White JF Jr, Arnold AE, Redman ARA (2009) Fungal endophytes: diversity and functional roles. New Phytologist 182:314–330. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.02773.x
Article CAS Google Scholar
Rognes T, Flouri T, Nichols B, Quince C, Mahé F (2016) VSEARCH: a versatile open source tool for metagenomics. PeerJ 4:e2584. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2584
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Ropars J, Toro KS, Noel J, Pelin A, Charron P, Farinelli L, Marton T, Krüger M, Fuchs J, Brachmann A, Corradi N (2016) Evidence for the sexual origin of heterokaryosis in arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Nature Microbiology 2016:16033. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmicrobiol.2016.33
Article CAS Google Scholar
Rosselló JA, Cosín R, Boscaiu M, Vicente O, Martínez I, Soriano P (2006) Intragenomic diversity and phylogenetic systematics of wild rosemaries (Rosmarinus officinalis L. sl, Lamiaceae) assessed by nuclear ribosomal DNA sequences (ITS). Plant Systematics and Evolution 262:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00606-006-0454-5
Article CAS Google Scholar
Rossman AY, Allen WC, Braun U, Castlebury LA, Chaverri P, Crous PW, Hawksworth DL, Hyde KD, Johnston P, Lombard L, Romberg M, Samson RA, Seifert KA, Stone JK, Udayanga D, White JF (2016) Overlooked competing asexual and sexually typified generic names of Ascomycota with recommendations for their use or protection. IMA Fungus 7:289–308. https://doi.org/10.5598/imafungus.2016.07.02.09
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Ruppert KM, Kline RJ, Rahman MS (2019) Past, present, and future perspectives of environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding: A systematic review in methods, monitoring, and applications of global eDNA. Global Ecology and Conservation 17:e00547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00547
Ryan D (2013) The Global Plants Initiative celebrates its achievements and plans for the future. Taxon 62:417–418
Article Google Scholar
Ryan D (2018) Global Plants: A Model of International Collaboration. Biodiversity Informatics Science and Standards 2:e28233. https://doi.org/10.3897/biss.2.28233
Article Google Scholar
Salas-Lizana R, Oono R (2018) Double-digest RAD seq loci using standard Illumina indexes improve deep and shallow phylogenetic resolution of Lophodermium, a widespread fungal endophyte of pine needles. Ecology and Evolution 8:6638–6651. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4147
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Samson RA, Houbraken J, Thrane U, Frisvad JC, Andersen B (2019) Food and Indoor Fungi. Westerdijk Fungal Biodiversity Institute, Utrecht
Google Scholar
Sánchez-Ramírez S, Tulloss RE, Amalfi M, Moncalvo JM (2015) Palaeotropical origins, boreotropical distribution and increased rates of diversification in a clade of edible ectomycorrhizal mushrooms (Amanita section Caesareae). Journal of Biogeography 42:351–363. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.12402
Article Google Scholar
Sandoval-Denis M, Lombard L, Crous PW (2019) Back to the roots: a reappraisal of Neocosmospora. Persoonia 43:90–185. https://doi.org/10.3767/persoonia.2019.43.04
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Schmit JP, Mueller GM (2007) An estimate of the lower limit of global fungal diversity. Biodiversity and Conservation 16:99–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-006-9129-3
Article Google Scholar
Schnittler M, Shchepin ON, Dagamac NHA, Borg Dahl M, Novozhilov YK (2017) Barcoding myxomycetes with molecular markers: challenges and opportunities. Nova Hedwigia 104:323–341. https://doi.org/10.1127/nova_hedwigia/2017/0397
Article Google Scholar
Schoch CL, Aime MC, de Beer W, Crous PW, Hyde KD, Penev L, Seifert KA, Stadler M, Zhang N, Miller AN (2017) Using standard keywords in publications to facilitate updates of new fungal taxonomic names. IMA Fungus 8:70–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03449466
Article Google Scholar
Schoch CL, Robbertse B, Robert V, Vu D, Cardinali G, Irinyi L, Meyer W, Nilsson RH, Hughes K, Miller AN, Kirk PM, Abarenkov K, Aime MC, Ariyawansa HA, Bidartondo M, Boekhout T, Buyck B, Cai Q, Chen J, Crespo A, Crous PW, Damm U, De Beer ZW, Dentinger BT, Divakar PK, Dueñas M, Feau N, Fliegerova K, García MA, Ge ZW, Griffith GW, Groenewald JZ, Groenewald M, Grube M, Gryzenhout M, Gueidan C, Guo L, Hambleton S, Hamelin R, Hansen K, Hofstetter V, Hong SB, Houbraken J, Hyde KD, Inderbitzin P, Johnston PR, Karunarathna SC, Kõljalg U, Kovács GM, Kraichak E, Krizsan K, Kurtzman CP, Larsson KH, Leavitt S, Letcher PM, Liimatainen K, Liu JK, Lodge DJ, Luangsa-ard JJ, Lumbsch HT, Maharachchikumbura SS, Manamgoda D, Martín MP, Minnis AM, Moncalvo JM, Mulè G, Nakasone KK, Niskanen T, Olariaga I, Papp T, Petkovits T, Pino-Bodas R, Powell MJ, Raja HA, Redecker D, Sarmiento-Ramirez JM, Seifert KA, Shrestha B, Stenroos S, Stielow B, Suh SO, Tanaka K, Tedersoo L, Telleria MT, Udayanga D, Untereiner WA, Diéguez Uribeondo J, Subbarao KV, Vágvölgyi C, Visagie C, Voigt K, Walker DM, Weir BS, Weiß M, Wijayawardene NN, Wingfield MJ, Xu JP, Yang ZL, Zhang N, Zhuang WY, Federhen S (2014) Finding needles in haystacks: linking scientific names, reference specimens and molecular data for Fungi. Database 2014:bau061. https://doi.org/10.1093/database/bau061
Schoch CL, Seifert KA, Huhndorf S, Robert V, Spouge JL, Levesque CA, Chen W, Fungal Barcoding Consortium Bolchacova E, Voigt K, Crous PW, Miller AN, Wingfield MJ, Aime MC, An KD, Bai FY, Barreto RW, Begerow D, Bergeron MJ, Blackwell M, Boekhout T, Bogale M, Boonyuen N, Burgaz AR, Buyck B, Cai L, Cai Q, Cardinali G, Chaverri P, Coppins BJ, Crespo A, Cubas P, Cummings C, Damm U, de Beer ZW, de Hoog GS, Del-Prado R, Dentinger B, Diéguez-Uribeondo J, Divakar PK, Douglas B, Dueñas M, Duong TA, Eberhardt U, Edwards JE, Elshahed MS, Fliegerova K, Furtado M, García MA, Ge ZW, Griffith GW, Griffiths K, Groenewald JZ, Groenewald M, Grube M, Gryzenhout M, Guo LD, Hagen F, Hambleton S, Hamelin RC, Hansen K, Harrold P, Heller G, Herrera C, Hirayama K, Hirooka Y, Ho HM, Hoffmann K, Hofstetter V, Högnabba F, Hollingsworth PM, Hong SB, Hosaka K, Houbraken J, Hughes K, Huhtinen S, Hyde KD, James T, Johnson EM, Johnson JE, Johnston PR, Jones EB, Kelly LJ, Kirk PM, Knapp DG, Kõljalg U, Kovács GM, Kurtzman CP, Landvik S, Leavitt SD, Liggenstoffer AS, Liimatainen K, Lombard L, Luangsa-Ard JJ, Lumbsch HT, Maganti H, Maharachchikumbura SS, Martin MP, May TW, McTaggart AR, Methven AS, Meyer W, Moncalvo JM, Mongkolsamrit S, Nagy LG, Nilsson RH, Niskanen T, Nyilasi I, Okada G, Okane I, Olariaga I, Otte J, Papp T, Park D, Petkovits T, Pino-Bodas R, Quaedvlieg W, Raja HA, Redecker D, Rintoul TL, Ruibal C, Sarmiento-Ramírez JM, Schmitt I, Schüßler A, Shearer C, Sotome K, Stefani FO, Stenroos S, Stielow B, Stockinger H, Suetrong S, Suh SO, Sung GH, Suzuki M, Tanaka K, Tedersoo L, Telleria MT, Tretter E, Untereiner WA, Urbina H, Vágvölgyi C, Vialle A, Vu TD, Walther G, Wang QM, Wang Y, Weir BS, Weiß M, White MM, Xu J, Yahr R, Yang ZL, Yurkov AM, Zamora JC, Zhang N, Zhuang WY, Schindel D (2012) Nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region as a universal DNA barcode marker for Fungi. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States 109.6241–6246. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1117018109
Schoch CL, Sung GH, López-Giráldez F, Townsend JP, Miadlikowska J, Hofstetter V, Robbertse B, Matheny PB, Kauff F, Wang Z, Gueidan C, Andrie RM, Trippe K, Ciufetti LM, Wynns A, Fraker E, Hodkinson BP, Bonito G, Groenewald JZ, Arzanlou M, de Hoog GS, Crous PW, Hewitt D, Pfister DH, Peterson K, Gryzenhout M, Wingfield MJ, Aptroot A, Suh SO, Blackwell M, Hillis DM, Griffith GW, Castlebury LA, Rossman AY, Lumbsch HT, Lücking R, Büdel B, Rauhut A, Diederich P, Ertz D, Geiser DM, Hosaka K, Inderbitzin P, Kohlmeyer J, Volkmann-Kohlmeyer B, Mostert L, O'Donnell K, Sipman H, Rogers JD, Shoemaker RA, Sugiyama J, Summerbell RC, Untereiner W, Johnston PR, Stenroos S, Zuccaro A, Dyer PS, Crittenden PD, Cole MS, Hansen K, Trappe JM, Yahr R, Lutzoni F, Spatafora JW (2009) The Ascomycota tree of life: a phylum-wide phylogeny clarifies the origin and evolution of fundamental reproductive and ecological traits. Systematic Biology 58:224–239. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syp020
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Seifert KA, Crous PW, Frisvad JC (2008) Correcting the impact factors of taxonomic journals by appropriate citation of taxonomy (ACT). Persoonia 20:105
Google Scholar
Seifert KA, Gams W (2001) The taxonomy of anamorphic fungi. In: McLaughlin DJ, McLaughlin EG, Lemke PA (eds) The Mycota VII. Systematics and Evolution Part A. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 307–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-10376-0_14
Chapter Google Scholar
Seifert KA, Samson RA, deWaard JR, Houbraken J, Lévesque CA, Moncalvo JM, Louis-Seize G, Hebert PD (2007) Prospects for fungus identification using CO1 DNA barcodes, with Penicillium as a test case. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States 104:3901–3906. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0611691104
Article CAS Google Scholar
Sever R, Roeder T, Hindle S, Sussman L, Black KJ, Argentine J, Manos W, Inglis JR (2019) bioRxiv: the preprint server for biology. BioRxiv:833400. https://doi.org/10.1101/833400
Sharma S, Ciufo S, Starchenko E, Darji D, Chlumsky L, Karsch-Mizrachi I, Schoch CL (2018) The NCBI BioCollections Database. Database 2018:bay006. https://doi.org/10.1093/database/bay006
Article PubMed Central Google Scholar
Shear CL, Dodge BO (1927) Life histories and heterothallism of the red bread-mold fungi of the Monilia sitophila group. Journal of Agricultural Research 34:1019–1042
Google Scholar
Shenoy BD, Jeewon R, Hyde KD (2007) Impact of DNA sequence-data on the taxonomy of anamorphic fungi. Fungal Diversity 26:1–54
Google Scholar
Sieber TN, Petrini O, Greenacre MJ (1998) Correspondence analysis as a tool in fungal taxonomy. Systematic and Applied Microbiology 21:433-441. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0723-2020(98)80053-2
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Simon UK, Weiß M (2008) Intragenomic variation of fungal ribosomal genes is higher than previously thought. Molecular Biology and Evolution 25:2251–2254. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msn188
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Singh U, Bhatt RP, Stephenson SL, Uniyal P, Mehmood T (2017) Wild edible mushrooms from high elevations in the Garhwal Himalaya – II. Current Research in Environmental & Applied Mycology 7:208–226. https://doi.org/10.5943/cream/7/3/8
Article Google Scholar
Sinha R, Abu-Ali G, Vogtmann E, Fodor AA, Ren B, Amir A, Schwager E, Crabtree J, Ma S, Abnet CC, Knight R, White O, Huttenhower C (2017) Assessment of variation in microbial community amplicon sequencing by the Microbiome Quality Control (MBQC) project consortium. Nature Biotechnology 35:1077. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3981
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Sipiczki M, Horvath E, Pfliegler WP (2018) Birth-and-death evolution and reticulation of ITS segments of Metschnikowia andauensis and Metschnikowia fructicola rDNA repeats. Frontiers in Microbiology 9:1193. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.01193
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Sirohi SK, Choudhury PK, Puniya AK, Singh D, Dagar DS, Singh N (2013) Ribosomal ITS1 sequence-based diversity analysis of anaerobic rumen fungi in cattle fed on high fiber diet. Annals of Microbiology 63:1571–1577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13213-013-0620-2
Article CAS Google Scholar
Smith JP Jr (2017) Dichotomous Keys – Their Structure and Use. Botanical Studies. 58 http://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/botany_jps/58
Smith ME, Douhan GW, Rizzo DM (2007) Intra-specific and intra-sporocarp ITS variation of ectomycorrhizal fungi as assessed by rDNA sequencing of sporocarps and pooled ectomycorrhizal roots from a Quercus woodland. Mycorrhiza 18:15–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00572-007-0148-z
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Somervuo P, Harma A, Fagerlund S (2006) Parametric representations of bird sounds for automatic species recognition. IEEE Trans Audio Speech Language Processing 14:2252–2263. https://doi.org/10.1109/TASL.2006.872624
Article Google Scholar
Soto-Medina E, Lücking R (2017) A new species of Rhytidhysteron (Ascomycota: Patellariaceae) from Colombia, with a provisional working key to known species in the world. Revista de la Academía Colombiana de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales 41:59–63. https://doi.org/10.18257/raccefyn.423
Article Google Scholar
Spatafora JW, Chang Y, Benny GL, Lazarus K, Smith ME, Berbee ML, Bonito G, Corradi N, Grigoriev I, Gryganskyi A, James TY (2016) A phylum-level phylogenetic classification of zygomycete fungi based on genome-scale data. Mycologia 108:1028–1046. https://doi.org/10.3852/16-042
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Stadler M, Lambert C, Wibberg D, Kalinowski J, Cox RJ, Kolařík M, Kuhnert E (2020) Intragenomic polymorphisms in the ITS region of high-quality genomes of the Hypoxylaceae (Xylariales, Ascomycota). Mycological Progress 19:235–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11557-019-01552-9
Article Google Scholar
Stalpers JA (1978) Identification of cultures of wood-inhabiting fungi in pure culture. Studies in Mycology 16:1–248
Google Scholar
Stamatakis A, Komornik Z, Berger SA (2010) Evolutionary placement of short sequence reads on multi-core architectures. In: ACS/IEEE International Conference on Computer Systems and Applications – AICCSA 2010. IEEE, pp. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/AICCSA.2010.5586973
Stark M, Berger SA, Stamatakis A, von Mering C (2010) MLTreeMap-accurate Maximum Likelihood placement of environmental DNA sequences into taxonomic and functional reference phylogenies. BMC Genomics 11:461. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-11-461
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Steenkamp ET, Wingfield MJ, McTaggart AR, Wingfield BD (2018) Fungal species and their boundaries matter – Definitions, mechanisms and practical implications. Fungal Biology Reviews 32:104–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbr.2017.11.002
Article Google Scholar
Stephenson SL, Schnittler M, Novozhilov YK (2008) Myxomycete diversity and distribution from the fossil record to the present. Biodiversity and Conservation 17:285–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-007-9252-9
Article Google Scholar
Stewart FJ, Cavanaugh CM (2007) Intragenomic variation and evolution of the internal transcribed spacer of the rRNA operon in bacteria. Journal of Molecular Evolution 65:44–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00239-006-0235-3
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Stielow JB, Levesque CA, Seifert KA, Meyer W, Iriny L, Smits D, Renfurm R, Verkley GJM, Groenewald M, Chaduli D, Lomascolo A, Welti S, Lesage-Meessen L, Favel A, Al-Hatmi AMS, Damm U, Yilmaz N, Houbraken J, Lombard L, Quaedvlieg W, Binder M, Vaas LAI, Vu D, Yurkov AM, Begerow D, Roehl O, Guerreiro M, Fonseca A, Samerpitak K, van Diepeningen AD, Dolatabadi S, Moreno LF, Casaregola S, Mallet S, Jacques N, Roscini L, Egidi E, Bizet C, Garcia-Hermoso D, Martín MP, Deng S, Groenewald JZ, Boekhout T, de Beer ZW, Barnes I, Duong TA, Wingfield MJ, de Hoog GS, Crous PW, Lewis CT, Hambleton S, Moussa TAA, Al-Zahrani HS, Almaghrabi OA, Louis-Seize G, Assabgui R, McCormick W, Omer G, Dukik K, Cardinali G, Eberhardt U, de Vries M, Robert V (2015) One fungus, which genes? Development and assessment of universal primers for potential secondary fungal DNA barcodes. Persoonia 35:242–263. https://doi.org/10.3767/003158515X689135
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Sukumaran J, Knowles LL (2017) Multispecies coalescent delimits structure, not species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States 114:1607–1612. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1607921114
Article CAS Google Scholar
Summerell BA (2019) Resolving Fusarium: current status of the genus. Annual Review of Phytopathology 57:323–339. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-phyto-082718-100204
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Sun S, Billmyre RB, Mieczkowski PA, Heitman J (2014) Unisexual reproduction drives meiotic recombination and phenotypic and karyotypic plasticity in Cryptococcus neoformans. PLoS Genetics 10:e1004849. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1004849
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Sun S, Priest SJ, Heitman J (2019) Cryptococcus neoformans mating and genetic crosses. Current Protocols in Microbiology 53:e75. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpmc.75
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Tanaka E, Honda Y (2017) Teleomorph-anamorph connection of Macalpinomyces spermophorus with Pseudozyma tsukubaensis and corresponding erythritol production. Mycoscience 58:445–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.myc.2017.06.006
Article Google Scholar
Tanney J, Miller AN (2017) Asexual-sexual morph connection in the type species of Berkleasmium. IMA Fungus 8(1):99–105. https://doi.org/10.5598/imafungus.2017.08.01.07
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Taylor JW (2011) One fungus = one name: DNA and fungal nomenclature twenty years after PCR. IMA Fungus 2:113–120. https://doi.org/10.5598/imafungus.2011.02.02.01
Taylor JW, Jacobson DJ, Kroken S, Kasuga T, Geiser DM, Hibbett DS, Fisher MC (2000) Phylogenetic species recognition and species concepts in fungi. Fungal Genetics and Biology 31:21–32. https://doi.org/10.1006/fgbi.2000.1228
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Taylor JW, Turner E, Townsend JP, Dettman JR, Jacobson D (2006) Eukaryotic microbes, species recognition and the geographic limits of species: examples from the kingdom Fungi. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 361:1947–1963. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2006.1923
Article Google Scholar
Tedersoo L, Anslan S, Bahram M, Põlme S, Riit T, Liiv I, Kõljalg U, Kisand V, Nilsson RH, Hildebrand F, Bork P, Abarenkov K (2015) Shotgun metagenomes and multiple primer pair-barcode combinations of amplicons reveal biases in metabarcoding analyses of fungi. MycoKeys 10:1–43. https://doi.org/10.3897/mycokeys.10.4852
Article Google Scholar
Tedersoo L, Bahram M, Põlme S, Kõljalg U, Yorou NS, Wijesundera R, Ruiz LV, Vasco-Palacios AM, Thu PQ, Suija A, Smith ME, Sharp C, Saluveer E, Saitta A, Rosas M, Riit T, Ratkowsky D, Pritsch K, Põldmaa K, Piepenbring M, Phosri C, Peterson M, Parts K, Pärtel K, Otsing E, Nouhra E, Njouonkou AL, Nilsson RH, Morgado LN, Mayor J, May TW, Majuakim L, Lodge DJ, Lee SS, Larsson KH, Kohout P, Hosaka K, Hiiesalu I, Henkel TW, Harend H, Guo LD, Greslebin A, Grelet G, Geml J, Gates G, Dunstan W, Dunk C, Drenkhan R, Dearnaley J, De Kesel A, Dang T, Chen X, Buegger F, Brearley FQ, Bonito G, Anslan S, Abell S, Abarenkov K (2014) Global diversity and geography of soil fungi. Science 346:1256688. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1256688
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Tedersoo L, Sánchez-Ramírez S, Kõljalg U, Bahram M, Döring M, Schigel D, May T, Ryberg M, Abarenkov K (2018a) High-level classification of the Fungi and a tool for evolutionary ecological analyses. Fungal Diversity 90:135–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-018-0401-0
Article Google Scholar
Tedersoo L, Tooming-Klunderud A, Anslan S (2018b) PacBio metabarcoding of Fungi and other eukaryotes: errors, biases and perspectives. New Phytologist 217:1370–1385. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.14776
Article CAS Google Scholar
Tekpinar AD, Kalmer A (2019) Utility of various molecular markers in fungal identification and phylogeny. Nova Hedwigia 109:187–224. https://doi.org/10.1127/nova_hedwigia/2019/0528
Article Google Scholar
Temina M, Nevo E, Wasser SP (2005) The lichen genus Acarospora in Israel and its vicinity. Nova Hedwigia 80:433–452. https://doi.org/10.1127/0029-5035/2005/0080-0433
Article Google Scholar
Thiers BM (2018) The World's Herbaria 2017: A Summary Report Based on Data from Index Herbariorum. William and Lynda Steere Herbarium, The New York Botanical Garden
Google Scholar
Thiery O, Vasar M, Jairus T, Davison J, Roux C, Kivistik PA, Metspalu A, Milani L, Saks Ü, Moora M, Zobel M, Öpik M (2016) Sequence variation in nuclear ribosomal small subunit, internal transcribed spacer and large subunit regions of Rhizophagus irregularis and Gigaspora margarita is high and isolate-dependent. Molecular Ecology 25:2816–2832. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13655
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Thines M (2014) Phylogeny and evolution of plant pathogenic oomycetes – a global overview. European Journal of Plant Pathology 138:431–447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10658-013-0366-5
Article Google Scholar
Thines M, Crous PW, Aime MC, Aoki T, Cai L, Hyde KD, Miller AN, Zang N, Stadler M (2018) Ten reasons why a sequence-based nomenclature is not useful for fungi anytime soon. IMA Fungus 8:177–183. https://doi.org/10.5598/imafungus.2018.09.01.11
Article Google Scholar
Tofilski A (2018) DKey software for editing and browsing dichotomous keys. ZooKeys 735:131–140. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.735.21412
Article Google Scholar
Toju H, Tanabe AS, Yamamoto S, Sato H (2012) High-coverage ITS primers for the DNA-based identification of ascomycetes and basidiomycetes in environmental samples. PloS One 7(7):e40863. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0040863
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Tremble K, Suz LM, Dentinger BT (2019) Lost in translation: population genomics of porcini (Boletus edulis) challenges use of ITS for DNA barcoding in Fungi. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2020.106804
Triebel D, Peršoh D, Nash TH III, Zedda L, Rambold G (2016) LIAS – An interactive database system for structured descriptive data of ascomycetes. In: Curry GB (ed) Biodiversity Databases: Techniques, Politics, and Applications (Systematics Association Special Volumes 73). CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 99–110
Chapter Google Scholar
Trifa VM, Kirschel AN, Taylor CE, Vallejo EE (2008) Automated species recognition of antbirds in a Mexican rainforest using hidden Markov models. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 123:2424–2431. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2839017
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Udayanga D, Castlebury LA, Rossman AY, Chukeatirote E, Hyde KD (2014) Insights into the genus Diaporthe: phylogenetic species delimitation in the D. eres species complex. Fungal Diversity 67:203–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-014-0297-2
Article Google Scholar
Urbina H, Aime MC (2018) A closer look at Sporidiobolales: Ubiquitous microbial community members of plant and food biospheres. Mycologia 110:79–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/00275514.2018.1438020
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Van Sinh N, Wiemers M, Settele J (2017) Proposal for an index to evaluate dichotomous keys. ZooKeys 685:83–89. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.685.13625
Article Google Scholar
Vandamme P, Pot B, Gillis M, De Vos P, Kersters K, Swings J (1996) Polyphasic taxonomy, a consensus approach to bacterial systematics. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 60:407–438
CAS Google Scholar
Vannette RL, Fukami T (2017) Dispersal enhances beta diversity in nectar microbes. Ecological Letters 20:901–910. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12787
Article Google Scholar
Veresoglou SD, Caruso T, Rillig MC (2013) Modelling the environmental and soil factors that shape the niches of two common arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal families. Plant and Soil 368:507–518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-012-1531-x
Article CAS Google Scholar
Větrovský T, Kolařík M, Žifčáková L, Zelenka T, Baldrian P (2016) The rpb2 gene represents a viable alternative molecular marker for the analysis of environmental fungal communities. Molecular Ecology Resources 16:388–401. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12456
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Větrovský T, Morais D, Kohout P, Lepinay C, Gallardo CA, Holla SA, Bahnmann BD, Bilohneda K, Brabcova V, D'Alo F, Human ZR, Jomura M, Kolařík M, Kvasničková J, Lladó S, López-Mondéjar R, Martinović T, Mašínová T, Meszárošová L, Michalčíková L, Michalová T, Mundra S, Navrátilová D, Odriozola I, Piché-Choquette S, Štursová M, Švec K, Tláskal V, Urbanová M, Vlk L, Voříšková J, Žifčáková L, Baldrian P (2020) GlobalFungi: Global database of fungal records from high-throughput-sequencing metabarcoding studies. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.24.060384
Vilgalys R, Sun BL (1994) Ancient and recent patterns of geographic speciation in the oyster mushroom Pleurotus revealed by phylogenetic analysis of ribosomal DNA sequences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States 91:4599–4603. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.91.10.4599
Article CAS Google Scholar
Vinarski MV (2019) The roots of the taxonomic impediment: Is the ‘integrativeness’ a remedy? Integrative Zoology 15:2–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/1749-4877.12393
Article Google Scholar
Vu D, Groenewald M, de Vries M, Gehrmann T, Stielow B, Eberhardt U, Al-Hatmi A, Groenewald JZ, Cardinali G, Houbraken J, Boekhout T, Crous PW, Robert V, Verkley GJM (2019) Large-scale generation and analysis of filamentous fungal DNA barcodes boosts coverage for kingdom fungi and reveals thresholds for fungal species and higher taxon delimitation. Studies in Mycology 92:135–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simyco.2018.05.001
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Vu D, Groenewald M, Szöke S, Cardinali G, Eberhardt U, Stielow B, de Vries M, Verkleij GJM, Crous PW, Boekhout T, Robert V (2016) DNA barcoding analysis of more than 9000 yeast isolates contributes to quantitative thresholds for yeast species and genera delimitation. Studies in Mycology 85:91–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simyco.2016.11.007
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Vu D, Szöke S, Wiwie C, Baumbach J, Cardinali G, Röttger R, Robert V (2014) Massive fungal biodiversity data re-annotation with multi-level clustering. Scientific Reports 4:6837. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep06837
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Vydryakova GA, Van DT, Shoukouhi P, Psurtseva NV, Bissett J (2012) Intergenomic and intragenomic ITS sequence heterogeneity in Neonothopanus nambi (Agaricales) from Vietnam. Mycology 3:89–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/21501203.2011.637085
Article CAS Google Scholar
Wegmann J (2019) Technical and Algorithmic Optimization of PaPaRa. Master Thesis, Institute of Theoretical Informatics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
Wibberg D, Stadler M, Lambert C, Bunk B, Spröer C, Rückert C, Kalinowski J, Cox RJ, Kuhnert E (2020) High quality genome sequences of thirteen Hypoxylaceae (Ascomycota) strengthen the phylogenetic family backbone and enable the discovery of new taxa. Fungal Diversity. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-020-00447-5
Wijayawardene NN, Hyde KD, Al-Ani LKT, Tedersoo L, Haelewaters D, Rajeshkumar KC, Zhao RL, Aptroot A, Leontyev D, Saxena RK, Tokarev YS, Dai DQ, Letcher PM, Stephenson SL, Ertz D, Lumbsch HT, Kukwa M, Issi IV, Madrid H, Phillips AJL, Selbmann L, Pfliegler WP, Horváth E, Bensch K, Kirk PM, Kolaříková K, Raja HA, Radek R, Papp V, Dima V, Ma J, Malosso E, Takamatsu S, Rambold G, Gannibal PB, Triebel D, Gautam AK, Avasthi S, Suetrong S, Timdal E, Fryar SC, Delgado G, Réblová M, Doilom M, Dolatabadi S, Pawłowska J, Humber R, Kodsueb R, Sánchez-Castro I, Goto BT, Silva DKA, de Souza FA, Oehl F, da Silva GA, Silva IR, Błaszkowski J, Jobim K, Maia L, Barbosa F, Fiuza P, Divakar P, Shenoy B, Castañeda-Ruiz RF, Somrithipol S, Lateef AA, Karunarathna SC, Tibpromma S, Mortimer PE, Wanasinghe DN, Phookamsak R, Xu J, Wang Y, Tian F, Alvarado P, Li DW, Kušan I, Matočec N, Mešić A, Tkalčec Z, Maharachchikumbura S, Papizadeh M, Heredia G, Wartchow F, Bakhshi M, Boehm E, Youssef N, Hustad V, Lawrey J, Santiago A, Bezerra J, Souza-Motta C, Firmino A, Tian Q, Houbraken J, Hongsanan S, Tanaka K, Dissanayake A, Monteiro J, Grossart H, Suija A, Weerakoon G, Etayo J, Tsurykau A, Vázquez V, Mungai P, Damm U, Li QR, Zhang H, Boonmee S, Lu YZ, Becerra AG, Kendrick B, Brearley FQ, Motiejūnaitė J, Sharma B, Khare R, Gaikwad S, Wijesundara D, Tang L, He M, Flakus A, Rodriguez-Flakus P, Zhurbenko M, McKenzie E, Stadler M, Bhat D, Liu J, Raza M, Jeewon R, Nassonova E, Prieto M, Jayalal R, Erdoğdu M, Yurkov A, Schnittler M, Shchepin O, Novozhilov Y, Silva-Filho A, Gentekaki E, Liu P, Cavender J, Kang Y, Mohammad S, Zhang L, Xu R, Li Y, Dayarathne M, Ekanayaka A, Wen T, Deng C, Pereira O, Navathe S, Hawksworth D, Fan X, Dissanayake L, Kuhnert E, Grossart H, Thines M (2020) Outline of Fungi and fungus-like taxa. Mycosphere 11:1060-1456. https://doi.org/10.5943/mycosphere/11/1/8
Article Google Scholar
Wilkins JS (2018) Species: The Evolution of the Idea. CRC Press, Bota Raton, FL
Book Google Scholar
Will KW, Mishler BD, Wheeler QD (2005) The perils of DNA barcoding and the need for integrative taxonomy. Systematic Biology 54:844–851. https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150500354878
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Willis KJ (ed) (2018) State of the World's Fungi 2018 Report. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
Google Scholar
Wilson AW, Aime MC, Dierks J, Mueller GM, Henkel TW (2012) Cantharellaceae of Guyana I: new species, combinations and distribution records of Craterellus and a synopsis of known taxa. Mycologia 104:1466–1477. https://doi.org/10.3852/11-412
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Wingfield MJ, De Beer ZW, Slippers B, Wingfield BD, Groenewald JZ, Lombard L, Crous PW (2012) One fungus, one name promotes progressive plant pathology. Molecular Plant Pathology 13:604–613. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1364-3703.2011.00768.x
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Wittouck S, Wuyts S, Lebeer S (2019) Towards a genome-based reclassification of the genus Lactobacillus. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 85:e02155–e02118. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02155-18
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Woo JJ, Lücking R, Oh SY, Jeun JC, Hurm JS (2020) Two new foliicolous species of Strigula (Strigulaceae, Strigulales) in Korea offer insight in phorophyte-dependent variation of thallus morphology. Phytotaxa 443:1–12. https://doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.443.1.1
Article Google Scholar
Wörheide G, Nichols SA, Goldberg J (2004) Intragenomic variation of the rDNA internal transcribed spacers in sponges (Phylum Porifera): implications for phylogenetic studies. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 33:816–830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2004.07.005
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Woudenberg JHC, Hanse B, Van Leeuwen GCM, Groenewald JZ, Crous PW (2017) Stemphylium revisited. Studies in Mycology 87:77–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simyco.2017.06.001
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Wurzbacher C, Larsson E, Bengtsson-Palme J, Van den Wyngaert S, Svantesson S, Kristiansson E, Kagami M, Nilsson RH (2019) Introducing ribosomal tandem repeat barcoding for fungi. Molecular Ecology Resources 19:118–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12944
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Xia JW, Sandoval-Denis M, Crous PW, Zhang XG, Lombard L (2019) Numbers to names – restyling the Fusarium incarnatum-equiseti species complex. Persoonia 43:186–221. https://doi.org/10.3767/persoonia.2019.43.05
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Xu B, Zeng XM, Gao XF, Jin DP, Zhang LB (2017) ITS non-concerted evolution and rampant hybridization in the legume genus Lespedeza (Fabaceae). Scientific Reports 7:40057. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep40057
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Xu JP (2016) Fungal DNA barcoding. Genome 59:913–932. https://doi.org/10.1139/gen-2016-0046
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Yahr R, Schoch CL, Dentinger BT (2016) Scaling up discovery of hidden diversity in fungi: impacts of barcoding approaches. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 371:20150336. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0336
Article Google Scholar
Yang Z, Rannala B (2010) Bayesian species delimitation using multilocus sequence data. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States 107:9264–9269. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0913022107
Article Google Scholar
Yarden O (2016) Model fungi: engines of scientific insight. Fungal Biology Rev 30:33–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbr.2016.05.002
Article Google Scholar
Yeates DK, Seago A, Nelson L, Cameron SL, Joseph L, Trueman JW (2011) Integrative taxonomy, or iterative taxonomy? Systematic Entomology 36:209–217. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3113.2010.00558.x
Article Google Scholar
Yurkov AM, Guerreiro MA, Sharma L, Carvalho C, Fonseca A (2015b) Multigene assessment of the species boundaries and sexual status of the basidiomycetous yeasts Cryptococcus flavescens and C. terrestris (Tremellales). PLoS One 10(3):e0120400. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120400
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Yurkov AM, Inácio J, Chernov IY, Fonseca A (2015a) Yeast biogeography and the effects of species recognition approaches: the case study of widespread basidiomycetous species from birch forests in Russia. Current Microbiology 70:587–601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00284-014-0755-9
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Yurkov AM, Sannino C, Turchetti B (2020) Mrakia fibulata sp. nov., a psychrotolerant yeast from temperate and cold habitats. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 113:499–510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10482-019-01359-4
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Zachos FE (2016) Species Concepts in Biology. Historical Development, Theoretical Foundations and Practical Relevance. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44966-1
Book Google Scholar
Zambonelli A, Rivetti C, Percudani R, Ottonello S (2000) TuberKey: a delta-based tool for the description and interactive identification of truffles. Mycotaxon 74:57–76
Google Scholar
Zhang J, Kapli P, Pavlidis P, Stamatakis A (2013) A general species delimitation method with applications to phylogenetic placements. Bioinformatics 29:2869–2876. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btt499
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Zhao Z, Liu H, Luo Y, Zhou S, An L, Wang C, Jin Q, Zhou M, Xu JR (2014) Molecular evolution and functional divergence of tubulin superfamily in the fungal tree of life. Scientific Reports 4:6746. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep06746
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Zheng X, Cai D, Yao L, Teng Y (2008) Non-concerted ITS evolution, early origin and phylogenetic utility of ITS pseudogenes in Pyrus. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 48:892–903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2008.05.039
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Keith Seifert and Johannes (Ewald) Groenewald for comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. Jiwen Xia is thanked for providing the image of Fusarium duofalcatisporum and Marcelo Sandoval-Denis for the image of Neocosmospora vasinfecta.

Funding

This work was partially supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Library of Medicine at the NIH in Bethesda, Maryland, USA. DMG received support through NSF grant DEB-1655980 and Project 4655 of the Pennsylvania State Agricultural Experiment Station. EM acknowledges CAPES (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior, Brazil) and FACEPE (Fundação de Amparo à Ciência e Tecnologia de Pernambuco, Brazil). KDH would like to thank the Thailand Research Fund, grant RDG6130001, entitled “Impact of Climate Change on Fungal Diversity and Biogeography in the Greater Mekong Subregion”. The USDA Hatch project 1010662 is acknowledged for support to MCA. MÖ was supported by the European Regional Development Fund (Centre of Excellence EcolChange). MT acknowledges LOEWE for funding in the framework of the Centre for Translational Biodiversity Genomics (TBG) and the German Science Foundation. NZ acknowledges the National Science Foundation of the United States (DEB-1452971). PRJ was supported through the Manaaki Whenua Biota Portfolio with funding from the Science and Innovation Group of the New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. RJ thanks the University of Mauritius for research support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Botanischer Garten und Botanisches Museum, Freie Universität Berlin, Königin-Luise-Straße 6–8, 14195, Berlin, Germany
Robert Lücking
International Commission on the Taxonomy of Fungi, Champaign, IL, USA
Robert Lücking, M. Catherine Aime, Andrew N. Miller, Hiran A. Ariyawansa, Takayuki Aoki, Pedro W. Crous, Irina S. Druzhinina, David L. Hawksworth, Kevin D. Hyde, Peter R. Johnston, Elaine Malosso, Tom W. May, Maarja Öpik, Marc Stadler, Marco Thines, Andrey M. Yurkov, Ning Zhang & Conrad L. Schoch
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA
M. Catherine Aime
National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, 45 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA
Barbara Robbertse & Conrad L. Schoch
Illinois Natural History Survey, University of Illinois, 1816 South Oak Street, Champaign, IL, 61820-6970, USA
Andrew N. Miller
Department of Plant Pathology and Microbiology, College of Bio-Resources and Agriculture, National Taiwan University, Taipe City, Taiwan
Hiran A. Ariyawansa
National Agriculture and Food Research Organization, Genetic Resources Center, 2-1-2 Kannondai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8602, Japan
Takayuki Aoki
Department Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Perugia, Via Borgo 20 Giugno, 74, Perugia, Italy
Gianluigi Cardinali & Vincent Robert
Westerdijk Fungal Biodiversity Institute, Uppsalalaan 8, 3584 CT, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Pedro W. Crous, Vincent Robert & Duong Vu
Wageningen University and Research Centre (WUR), Laboratory of Phytopathology, Droevendaalsesteeg 1, 6708 PB, Wageningen, The Netherlands
Pedro W. Crous
Microbiology and Applied Genomics Group, Research Area Biochemical Technology, Institute of Chemical, Environmental & Bioscience Engineering (ICEBE), TU Wien, Vienna, Austria
Irina S. Druzhinina
Jiangsu Provincial Key Lab of Organic Solid Waste Utilization, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, China
Irina S. Druzhinina
Department of Plant Pathology & Environmental Microbiology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16802, USA
David M. Geiser
Department of Life Sciences, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, UK
David L. Hawksworth
Comparative Plant and Fungal Biology, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Surrey, TW9 3DS, UK
David L. Hawksworth
Geography and Environment, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK
David L. Hawksworth
Jilin Agricultural University, Changchun, 130118, Jilin Province, China
David L. Hawksworth
Key Laboratory for Plant Diversity and Biogeography of East Asia, Kunming Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Science, Kunming, 650201, Yunnan, China
Kevin D. Hyde
Center of Excellence in Fungal Research, Mae Fah Luang University, Chiang Rai, 57100, Thailand
Kevin D. Hyde
World Agroforestry Centre, East and Central Asia, Kunming, 650201, Yunnan, China
Kevin D. Hyde
Mushroom Research Foundation, 128 M.3 Ban Pa Deng T. Pa Pae, A. Mae Taeng, Chiang Rai, 50150, Thailand
Kevin D. Hyde
Molecular Mycology Research Laboratory, Centre for Infectious Diseases and Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney Medical School, Westmead Clinical School, Marie Bashir Institute for Infectious Diseases and Biosecurity, The University of Sydney, Westmead Hospital (Research and Education Network), Westmead Institute for Medical Research, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Laszlo Irinyi & Wieland Meyer
Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Mauritius, Reduit, Mauritius
Rajesh Jeewon
Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research, Private Bag 92170, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand
Peter R. Johnston
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Surrey, TW9 3DS, UK
Paul M. Kirk
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Centro de Biociências, Departamento de Micologia, Laboratório de Hifomicetos de Folhedo, Avenida da Engenharia, s/n Cidade Universitária, Recife, PE, 50.740-600, Brazil
Elaine Malosso
Royal Botanic Gardens Victoria, Birdwood Avenue, Melbourne, Victoria, 3004, Australia
Tom W. May
University of Tartu, 40 Lai Street, 51 005, Tartu, Estonia
Maarja Öpik
Department Microbial Drugs, Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research, and German Centre for Infection Research (DZIF), partner site Hannover-Braunschweig, Inhoffenstrasse 7, 38124, Braunschweig, Germany
Marc Stadler
Institute of Ecology, Evolution and Diversity, Goethe University, Max-von-Laue-Straße 9, 60439 Frankfurt (Main); Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre, Senckenberganlage 25, 60325, Frankfurt (Main), Germany
Marco Thines
Leibniz Institute DSMZ-German Collection of Microorganisms and Cell Cultures, Braunschweig, Germany
Andrey M. Yurkov
Department of Plant Biology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, 08901, USA
Ning Zhang

Authors

Robert Lücking
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
M. Catherine Aime
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Barbara Robbertse
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Andrew N. Miller
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Hiran A. Ariyawansa
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Takayuki Aoki
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Gianluigi Cardinali
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Pedro W. Crous
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Irina S. Druzhinina
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
David M. Geiser
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
David L. Hawksworth
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Kevin D. Hyde
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Laszlo Irinyi
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Rajesh Jeewon
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Peter R. Johnston
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Paul M. Kirk
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Elaine Malosso
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Tom W. May
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Wieland Meyer
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Maarja Öpik
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Vincent Robert
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Marc Stadler
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Marco Thines
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Duong Vu
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Andrey M. Yurkov
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Ning Zhang
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Conrad L. Schoch
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All co-authoring members of the ICTF participated in the discussion leading up to the first manuscript draft. The manuscript was initially drafted from these discussions by RL, CLS, MCA, BR, and ANM. All authors commented on the draft in several rounds and provided substantial modifications. The final draft was read and approved by all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert Lücking.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interets..

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lücking, R., Aime, M.C., Robbertse, B. et al. Unambiguous identification of fungi: where do we stand and how accurate and precise is fungal DNA barcoding?. IMA Fungus 11, 14 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43008-020-00033-z

Download citation

Published: 10 July 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43008-020-00033-z

Unambiguous identification of fungi: where do we stand and how accurate and precise is fungal DNA barcoding?

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION