Next Article in Journal
Occurrence and Characteristics of Carbapenem-Resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae Strains Isolated from Hospitalized Patients in Poland—A Single Centre Study
Previous Article in Journal
HPV-Related Skin Phenotypes in Patients with Inborn Errors of Immunity
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Pathogens
Volume 11
Issue 8
10.3390/pathogens11080858
pathogens-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Characterization of Host-Specific Genes from Pine- and Grass-Associated Species of the Fusarium fujikuroi Species Complex

by
Claudette Dewing
1,
Magrieta A. Van der Nest
1,2,
Quentin C. Santana
1,
Robert H. Proctor
3,
Brenda D. Wingfield
1,
Emma T. Steenkamp
1 and
Lieschen De Vos
1,*
1
Department of Biochemistry, Genetics and Microbiology, Forestry and Agricultural Biotechnology Institute (FABI), University of Pretoria, Private Bag X20, Pretoria 0028, South Africa
2
Biotechnology Platform, Agricultural Research Council, Onderstepoort, Pretoria 0110, South Africa
3
Mycotoxin Prevention and Applied Microbiology Unit, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Agriculture Research Service, National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research, 1815 N. University St., Peoria, IL 61604, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Pathogens 2022, 11(8), 858; https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens11080858
Submission received: 29 June 2022 / Revised: 20 July 2022 / Accepted: 25 July 2022 / Published: 29 July 2022
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The Fusarium fujikuroi species complex (FFSC) includes socioeconomically important pathogens that cause disease for numerous crops and synthesize a variety of secondary metabolites that can contaminate feedstocks and food. Here, we used comparative genomics to elucidate processes underlying the ability of pine-associated and grass-associated FFSC species to colonize tissues of their respective plant hosts. We characterized the identity, possible functions, evolutionary origins, and chromosomal positions of the host-range-associated genes encoded by the two groups of fungi. The 72 and 47 genes identified as unique to the respective genome groups were potentially involved in diverse processes, ranging from transcription, regulation, and substrate transport through to virulence/pathogenicity. Most genes arose early during the evolution of Fusarium/FFSC and were only subsequently retained in some lineages, while some had origins outside Fusarium. Although differences in the densities of these genes were especially noticeable on the conditionally dispensable chromosome of F. temperatum (representing the grass-associates) and F. circinatum (representing the pine-associates), the host-range-associated genes tended to be located towards the subtelomeric regions of chromosomes. Taken together, these results demonstrate that multiple mechanisms drive the emergence of genes in the grass- and pine-associated FFSC taxa examined. It also highlighted the diversity of the molecular processes potentially underlying niche-specificity in these and other Fusarium species.

1. Introduction

The genus Fusarium represents a diverse group of Ascomycetes that are important in industry, agriculture, and medicine [1,2]. While known species in the genus include pathogens of humans [3,4,5], animals [6] and insects [7,8], the majority are destructive plant pathogens [9,10,11,12,13,14]. Additionally, Fusarium species generate a variety of toxic secondary metabolites that can contaminate feedstocks and food, affecting the quality and quantity of most agriculturally important crops [15]. Due to their importance in forestry, agriculture and medicine, the genomes of many Fusarium species have been determined [16].
Fusarium species associate with diverse plant species, ranging from gymnosperms to angiosperms, including many monocots in the grass family, Poaceae [17,18,19]. Examples of these species are included in the phylogenetically defined lineage of Fusarium, known as the Fusarium fujikuroi species complex (FFSC) [1,2]. FFSC taxa that associate with gymnosperms (e.g., those in the pine family Pinaceae) include Fusarium circinatum, an economically important pathogen of Pinus species, as well as Fusarium fracticaudum and Fusarium pininemorale that colonize the tissue of these plants without any apparent disease symptoms [11,13]. Examples of grass-host-associated species include the prairie grass endophyte Fusarium konzum [20] and the maize pathogens Fusarium subglutinans and Fusarium temperatum [10,21]. However, these associations are not always strict, as in the case of F. circinatum, which can also colonize maize and grasses (from Poaceae) [22,23,24,25], various herbaceous dicots (besides Poaceae) [26], as well as certain other non-pine conifers [27,28]. Despite their diverse host associations, these six species are closely related [13]. Their genomes are characterized by high levels of synteny [29,30], and some species can hybridize [30,31]. The ability of F. circinatum and F. temperatum to hybridize suggests that since they diverged from a recent common ancestor, they have co-evolved with their respective plant hosts (Pinus spp. and maize) in overlapping geographic ranges [10,18].
Advances in genomics have enhanced the discovery and analysis of the mechanisms of host-specificity and processes underlying plant–fungus interactions [32]. These data showed that fungal genomes, including those of Fusarium, are divided into core and accessory compartments [33,34]. Core genes typically play an integral part in primary metabolism, reproductive strategies, and development. Accessory genes, on the other hand, are typically non-essential for growth and development but encode for adaptive and niche-associated traits, such as pathogenicity and virulence factors [34]. Among closely related Fusarium species, the core compartment is usually conserved, syntenous and gene rich [14], whereas the accessory compartment is gene-poor and often also includes subtelomeric regions and supernumerary/accessory chromosomes [35]. Both the latter are typically associated with loss of synteny and have been linked to genes promoting the adaptation and survival of pathogens [36].
Previous comparative genomics studies have enhanced our knowledge of how genome evolution affects host-specificity and pathogenicity [37,38,39]. Various evolutionary processes are now known to shape the outcome of the plant–fungus interaction [40,41,42,43]. Additionally, genes or genomic regions that are not under selection can be lost or accumulate mutations, which can influence the adaptation of fungi to different host environments [44]. However, little information regarding such processes is available for the FFSC, especially those determining their ability to colonize certain plant tissues.
In the current study, we exploited the publicly available whole genome sequences for FFSC species (NCBI; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ (accessed on 1 December 2021)) to study the molecular processes that may underly the association of these fungi with their plant hosts. For this purpose, we employed a comparative genomics approach using the data available for six closely related FFSC species associated with pine (i.e., F. circinatum, F. fracticaudum and F. pininemorale) and grass (i.e., F. konzum, F. subglutinans and F. temperatum). Our specific aims were to identify the genes that are unique to each group of species, and then characterize the genes in terms of ontology, predicted pathways and mechanisms, chromosomal location, and potential ancestral origin. Our findings will contribute to the current understanding of the diversity and evolution of these species.

2. Results

2.1. Genome Sequences, Assembly Completeness and Gene Prediction

The three genomes for pine-host-associated species were from F. circinatum FSP34, F. fracticaudum CMW 25245 and F. pininemorale CMW 25243. Genomes for grass-host-associated species were from F. konzum NRRL 11616, F. subglutinans NRRL 66333 and F. temperatum CMW 40964.
Analysis with the Benchmarking Universal Single-Copy Orthologs (BUSCO) tool v. 3.0.2 [45] using the “Sordariomyceta” database, showed that all six genomes were from 97.3% to 99.1% complete (Supplementary Table S1). These genomes were also similar in size, gene density, and G + C content (Table 1). Comparison of the four genomes assembled into pseudochromosomes (F. circinatum, F. fracticaudum, F. pininemorale and F. temperatum) further showed that chromosome size seemed to be conserved throughout Chromosomes 1–11, as they did not differ by more than a factor of 1.00–1.10 (Supplementary Table S2). However, Chromosome 12 showed extreme chromosome length polymorphism (CLP) and differed by as much as a factor of 2.08, ranging from 0.5 Mb in F. circinatum to 1.1 Mb in F. fracticaudum (Supplementary Table S2).
For further analysis, we used the F. circinatum genome as a reference for pine-host-associated species and the F. temperatum genome as a reference for grass-host-associated species. Analysis of the telomere-associated repeat sequence (TTAGGG/CCCTAA) [47,48] in the reference genomes indicated that most of the chromosomes had a telomeric cap (Supplementary Table S3). In the F. circinatum assembly, seven chromosomes had two telomeric caps and five had only one telomeric cap. In the F. temperatum assembly, nine chromosomes had two telomeric caps, two chromosomes had one telomeric cap and one chromosome had no telomeric cap.

2.2. Genes Unique to Pine- and Grass-Host-Associated Species

Analysis with OrthoFinder v. 2.3.1 [49] facilitated the identification of 72 and 47 genes that were unique to pine- or grass-host-associated Fusarium species, respectively (Supplementary Tables S4 and S5). Multiple paralogs of a few of these genes occurred in some genomes: one paralog of one gene in F. circinatum and F. pininemorale, two paralogs of two genes in F. fracticaudum and F. subglutinans and three paralogs of one gene in F. konzum. Interestingly, the paralogs of a particular gene were present together on the same chromosome, except in F. fracticaudum, where two of these genes were located on different chromosomes. No inferences could be made regarding the chromosomal location of the multiple-copy genes of F. konzum and F. subglutinans due to the fragmented nature of these assemblies. The phylogenetic relationship between the paralogous genes and the unique gene could be determined for both F. fracticaudum paralogs, the one F. pininemorale paralog and only one of the two F. subglutinans paralogs. The phylogenetic relationship for the remaining F. subglutinans paralog, along with the three F. konzum paralogs, could not be determined, as the ancestral origins of these genes were unknown and/or had no significant BLAST hit in the NCBI database (Supplementary Figure S1). All paralogs shared the same ancestral origins as the unique gene, except for F. fracticaudum. The paralog of the unique gene was located on a different chromosome and grouped within the ancestral origin group FFSC and FOSC, whereas the unique gene shared an ancestral origin outside Fusarium but in the Ascomycetes.
Most of the host-range-associated genes had a gene ontology (GO) description available from Blast2GO [50]. Of the 72 unique F. circinatum genes, no GO terms were available for 11 of the genes. Apart from these 11 genes, 26 genes were either hypothetical or predicted to encode uncharacterized proteins. The remaining 35 could be organized into four broad groups based on the proteins they encode, i.e., those involved in virulence, transcriptional regulators, substrate transporters and permeases, proteins potentially involved the metabolism of carbohydrates, fatty acids, and steroids (Supplementary Table S4). Of the 47 unique F. temperatum genes, five did not have a hit in BLAST analysis. A further 17 unique F. temperatum genes were either hypothetical or predicted to encode uncharacterized proteins. The remaining 25 genes could be organized into five broad groups based on the likely functions of their protein products, i.e., those involved in virulence, substrate transporters and permeases, proteins potentially involved the metabolism of carbohydrates, fatty acids, amino acids, and steroids, and an HET-domain protein (Supplementary Table S5).
To determine whether certain GO terms in the respective unique sets were significantly enriched relative to the rest of each respective genome, we employed Fisher’s Exact test implemented in Blast2GO [50]. In the pine-host-associated set, five GO terms were significantly (p < 0.05) enriched in comparison to the whole genome (Supplementary Table S6A), whereas 21 GO terms were significantly (p < 0.05) enriched in the grass-host-associated set (Supplementary Table S6B). Of the genes associated with these enriched GO terms, one gene was classified as having a “biologically relevant” role (i.e., glutamate metabolism), and four as having “essential molecular functions”, such as coding for a gene product involved in glutamate decarboxylase activity, steroid dehydrogenase activity and RNA-DNA hybrid ribonuclease activity. Furthermore, one gene was coded for a gene product involved in cellular components, such as the microtubule and kinesin complex.
We also used previous expression data for F. circinatum [51,52] to search for evidence of expression of the pine-host-associated genes (Supplementary Table S7). The combined results indicated that 62 of the 72 pine-host-associated genes were transcribed under the conditions used to generate the expression data [51,52,53]. No expression data are currently available for any of the grass-host-associated Fusarium species.

2.3. Phylogenetic Origins of the Host-Range-Associated Genes

Ancestry of genes in the pine- and grass-host-associated sets were inferred using their protein sequences in BLAST searches against NCBI’s non-redundant protein database analyses (performed on 04 October 2021), which were supplemented in some cases by several rounds of alignment of the retrieved sequences followed by phylogenetic analyses. Based on these data, we assigned the 119 genes from the two sets into eight groups (Table 2 and Table S8, Supplementary Figures S2–S8). Genes included in the first seven groups had evolutionary origins within the FFSC, the broader Fusarium genus, or lineages outside Fusarium but within the Ascomycetes. The last group contained those genes lacking significant BLAST hits in the NCBI database, as well as those that did not comply with the cut-off values stated in Section 4.3.
The results of these analyses indicated that the ancestral origin for most of the genes was in members of the FFSC or other lineages of Fusarium. Indeed, based on their phylogenies, the genes included in groups 1–4 (i.e., 39 genes in the pine-associated set and 25 in the grass-associated set) likely emerged early during the evolution of Fusarium and/or the FFSC, after which they were retained in only some lineages. By contrast, 12 pine-host-associated and seven grass-host-associated genes lacked homologs in Fusarium and were more closely related to homologs in other Ascomycetes (groups 5 and 6) or outside of the kingdom Fungi (group 7). A considerable proportion of the genes had no detectable homologs in GenBank.

2.4. Genomic Distribution of the Host-Range-Associated Genes

All F. circinatum chromosomes included at least one pine-host-associated gene, while all but two F. temperatum chromosomes included at least one grass-host-associated genes (Figure 1, Figure 2, Figures S9 and S10). Chi-squared tests indicated that significantly (p < 0.05) more of these genes were located in subtelomeric regions than outside of them (Table 2). That is, about half of the host-associated genes in each species were restricted to subtelomeric regions, which constitute approximately one quarter of each genome (Supplementary Tables S9 and S10). Of the 38 host-range-associated genes in subtelomeric regions of F. circinatum, 25 yielded significant hits in BLAST analysis (and evidence of expression; see Supplementary Table S7). By contrast, 16 of the 30 host-range-associated genes in subtelomeric regions in F. temperatum had BLAST hits. Phylogenetic analyses of these genes indicated that most had evolutionary origins within fungi (see Table 2). However, the origins of a substantial number of subtelomeric genes remained unknown, as there were no homologs for them in GenBank, while one gene in both sets apparently has origins outside of fungi (see groups 7 and 8, respectively, in Table 2).
The density of host-range-associated genes differed among chromosomes in both F. circinatum and F. temperatum (Supplementary Table S11). Most chromosomes, except for Chromosome 5, 10 and 12, had higher unique gene densities for F. temperatum when the assemblies for F. circinatum and F. temperatum were compared. Homologous chromosomes of F. circinatum and F. temperatum had similar densities of host-range-associated genes, ranging from 1.04× (Chromosome 4) to 1.97× (Chromosome 7). Moderate differences appeared in the host-range-associated gene density (more than two-fold) of Chromosome 9 and 12, where F. circinatum contained more than F. temperatum, and vice versa, for these two chromosomes. Lastly, a major difference (more than seven-fold) occurred on Chromosome 3 and 6, where F. circinatum had more host-range-associated genes compared to the same chromosomes in F. temperatum. The sequence of F. circinatum Chromosome 6 did not include a telomeric cap. It is also worth noting that Chromosome 12 in F. temperatum contained more host-range-associated genes compared to the same chromosome in F. circinatum.
Our data showed that some of the host-range-associated genes occurred in clusters or were located in close proximity to one another, and that such genes could have the same or different ancestral origins (Figure 3; Supplementary Table S12). For example, F. circinatum genes FCIR_6_gene_2.26 and FCIR_6_gene_2.131 were adjacent to one another on Chromosome 6 and were in the same ancestral origin group (Group 5) (Figure 3A; Table 2), whereas genes FCIR_6_gene_2.2 and FCIR_6_gene_2.142 were near one another on Chromosome 6 but were in different ancestral origin groups (Groups 8 and 7, respectively) (Figure 3A,B; Table 2).
Using SynChro [54], we investigated whether gene areas flanking clustered host-range-associated genes exhibited synteny in F. circinatum and F. temperatum (Supplementary Figures S11 and S12). For this analysis, we included 10 genes flanking host-range-associated genes, five genes upstream and five downstream. We used the analysis to determine the frequency with which 1–10 genes flanking host-range-associated genes were syntenic in F. circinatum and F. temperatum These analyses indicated that the genomic locations around host-range-associated genes in F. circinatum were normally distributed (Shapiro–Wilk’s test for departure from normality; p > 0.05; W = 0.95) [55], but not in F. temperatum (p < 0.05; W = 0.86) (Figure 4).
The difference in distribution pattern was particularly evident when comparing clusters in the two genomes that had five and six of the 10 syntenic genes. In F. temperatum, the clusters with five out of 10 syntenous genes appeared to be severely depleted, indicating minimal synteny when compared to the F. circinatum genome. However, the clusters with six out of 10 syntenous genes in F. temperatum were expanded compared to F. circinatum. The general trend was that genes flanking host-range-associated genes in F. circinatum were frequently syntenic with genes in F. temperatum, whereas genes flanking host-range-associated genes in F. temperatum were less frequently syntenic with genes in F. circinatum. This trend likely suggests higher conservation of the genes and/or genomic regions neigbouring or flanking the position of host-range-associated genes in F. circinatum compared to F. temperatum.

3. Discussion

In the current study, we used a comparative genomics approach to explore the molecular basis of plant–fungus interactions by making use of two groups of Fusarium species in the FFSC, i.e., one associated with pine and the other with grass. This allowed for the identification of sets of genes that are unique to each of the two groups of Fusarium species, and that markedly differed in terms of their identity and the function of the proteins they encode. The two sets of genes also showed large differences in their ancestral origins, and they tended to occur in subtelomeric regions of chromosomes. Overall, these genes highlighted the different evolutionary origins and molecular processes that underpin the capacity of these fungi to colonize their respective plant hosts.
To conduct this study, we used two high-quality reference genome assemblies. The one was for the pine pathogen F. circinatum, while the other was for the maize pathogen F. temperatum. Within these assemblies, most chromosomes had telomere-to-telomere coverage, which allowed us to compare the localization and clustering of the identified host-range-associated genes. This also allowed for comparisons of chromosomal architecture among four of the six studied Fusarium species.
The host-range-associated genes identified in the genomes of the pine-host-associates (F. circinatum, F. fracticaudum and F. pininemorale) and in those of the grass-host-associates (F. konzum, F. subglutinans and F. temperatum) were preferentially localized in subtelomeric regions, possibly due to the greater genomic instability occurring in these regions compared to elsewhere on the chromosome [56]. It has been speculated that the preferred subtelomeric location facilitates gene-switching and expression, and the generation of new gene variants [57,58]. The subtelomeric location of genes has been studied in several organisms, which include Homo sapiens [59], Drosophila melanogaster [60], Plasmodium falciparum [61], Trypanosoma brucei [62], Saccharomyces cerevisiae [63], and the fungal parasite Encephalitozoon cuniculi [64]. Upon genome analyses of S. cerevisiae, Louis [63] uncovered that subtelomeric genes belong to several gene families encoding proteins involved in carbon source utilization. In humans, for example, genes encoding for olfactory receptors (i.e., proteins capable of binding odor molecules) are the most studied and largest gene family located in the subtelomeric regions of the human genome [65,66].
The presence of subtelomeric regions provide an evolutionary advantage and have potential importance in replication and chromosome stability, but also seem to play important roles in the reversible silencing of genes mediated by proteins binding to the telomere, and engagement in ectopic recombination with other subtelomeres, likely resulting in gene diversification [58,67,68]. The subtelomeric regions are also thought to have higher genomic instability than elsewhere on the chromosome, which possibly allows for the tight regulation, and occasional switching of expression between different gene copies, allowing for organisms to evade the immune system of their respective hosts [67,68]. In addition, the literature suggests that genes located in subtelomeres play important evolutionary roles towards adaptation, such as contributing to niche- or host-specificity and virulence in pathogens [69,70,71,72]. For example, the fungus Pneumocystis jiroveci has large and highly variable gene families located in its subtelomeric regions that encode for surface proteins with tightly regulated, yet switchable, expression patterns [73]. Fusarium subtelomeres have been reported to contain virulence genes involved in host-specificity, e.g., in F. graminearum [36,74,75] and F. fujikuroi [29]. In F. circinatum, a locus determining growth-rate region was also characterized from a subtelomeric region [71]. In the case of the Fusarium species examined in this study, a large proportion of the genes inferring potential host-specificity were positioned on subtelomeres, pointing to their possible roles in fungal development, adaptation, and survival for these Fusarium species.
The presence/absence of host-range-associated genes in the two sets of genomes, as well as their placement in subtelomeric regions, is consistent with what is expected for genes belonging to the accessory genomic compartment, since these regions are considered to be components of the accessory genome. In other words, they represent accessory genes likely involved in niche-associated traits, which are typically enriched for functions related to cell–cell interactions, secondary metabolism, and stress responses, all potential contributors to pathogenicity and virulence [34,76]. The dynamic evolutionary processes associated with the accessory genome [34,41,42,77,78] likely allowed for the preferential loss and/or gain of genes with new functions. This ultimately led to the pine- and grass-host-associates examined here being able to colonize and survive on the tissue of their respective hosts.
Our findings are consistent with the notion that horizontal gene transfer (HGT) plays a major role in the evolution of accessory genomes [34,41,42,77,78,79,80,81]. As such, HGT is increasingly recognized as a significant driver of adaptive evolution in fungi and the pathogenic traits of pathogens [82,83,84]. For example, the ability of Valsa mali to grow on its host and be pathogenic to it was acquired via HGT from diverse sources [84]. HGT can even cause basic lifestyle changes, e.g., facilitating the transition of the plant-associated ancestor of Metarhizium into the entomopathogenic taxon known today [85]. Among FFSC species, multiple independent HGT events were reported to cause the development of the growth-determining locus in F. circinatum [71]. The polyphyletic origins of many of the host-range-associated genes identified in the current study were likely also acquired from such diverse external sources (see groups 5–8 in Table 2), while most of the remainder likely originated within Fusarium or the FFSC and were retained only in certain lineages (groups 1–4 in Table 2). More research is needed to determine the possible role of internal genomic mutations (due to duplication, displacement, and translocation events) [30,86,87] in determining the host associations of the examined fungi.
Despite the existence of genes unique to the respective pine- and grass-host-associated fungi, their genomes were remarkably syntenic [29,30]. Variability was most evident when comparisons of inversions were investigated. Inversions closer to the ends of chromosomes were previously reported in fungi [36,88,89]. Inversions were most noticeable for Chromosome 8, especially when considering the host-range-associated genes on this chromosome. All host-range-associated genes from Chromosome 8 were located in regions prone to inversion. The variability of chromosome 8 is likely due to the sizable reciprocal translocation with Chromosome 11 within some FFSC taxa, including all species investigated in this study [30,90,91,92,93]. Chromosome 11 from F. circinatum had only one unique gene located outside of the inversed regions, whereas the same chromosome in F. temperatum lacked any host-range-associated genes. This suggests that Chromosome 8 is more predisposed to chromosomal structural changes. Current advances in sequencing technologies highlighted the importance of chromosome rearrangements events in cellular processes by providing longer reads and telomere-to-telomere coverage [94]. Translocation events have been reported to drive the evolution of secondary metabolite biosynthetic gene clusters, whereas chromosome rearrangements may result in gene loss and/or gain, genetic diversity, and changes in pathogenicity [95,96,97,98]. For example, effector genes located in rearranged chromosomal regions are more prone to evolution and are more likely to contribute to adaptation and speciation [99,100].
The importance of Chromosome 12 in possessing host-range-associated genes poses an interesting question. This chromosome is a dispensable chromosome within the FFSC [42,101,102,103] and can be strain-specific [29,102]. Chromosome 12 is not essential for pathogenicity [29,102,104] and its role in niche-specificity is unknown. However, the larger Chromosome 12 of F. temperatum contained more host-range-associated genes that were potentially involved in niche-specificity among Fusarium species that are associated with Poaceae. This occurrence may imply that some elements of the chromosome length polymorphism between F. circinatum and F. temperatum accounts for the addition of host-range-associated genes and that this chromosome is rapidly evolving. Chromosome 12 requires further investigation and would, therefore, be an important target for future studies.
Based on their inferred products, the host-range-associated genes could mostly be grouped as being involved in virulence, substrate transport, and metabolism of carbohydrates, and in the case of F. temperatum, also as a heterokaryon incompatibility (HET)-domain protein. It also highlights the evolutionary changes that Poaceae-associated Fusarium species had to undergo for these genes to be successful colonizers of members of Poaceae. The presence of these groups of genes is indicative of their role in the survival and adaptation of these Fusarium species, likely providing a competitive advantage as well as a protective advantage against the host defense responses.
In conclusion, this study used near-complete and high-quality genome data to identify a set of genes that potentially underpin the association of six Fusarium species with their pine and grass hosts. These genes are involved in diverse processes that could potentially provide the fungi with ecological advantages in their respective niches [105,106,107,108,109,110]. Furthermore, these genes preferentially form part of the accessory genome of the examined fungi, where diverse processes likely determined their evolution and development. This work thus forms a strong foundation from which future studies could explore the functional relevance of the identified genes, as well as their expression, especially given their chromosomal locations. Such studies are needed if we are to understand the ecology and biology of the fungi that threaten the health of socioeconomically important plants and crops.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Genome Sequences, Assembly Completeness and Gene Prediction

The completeness of each genome assembly was evaluated through the Benchmarking Universal Single-Copy Orthologs (BUSCO) tool v. 3.0.2 [45] using the “Sordariomyceta” database. Using the significant synteny found within the FFSC [29,30], scaffolds from the genomes of F. pininemorale (isolated from diseased P. tecunumanii tissue [13,91]) and F. fracticaudum (isolated from diseased Pinus maximinoi tissue [13,92]) were compared against the genomes of F. circinatum [93] (isolated from diseased Pinus radiata tissue [11,111]), F. fujikuroi [29] and F. temperatum [90] (isolated from diseased teosinte tissue [10,90]), as these have been assembled into chromosomes. The scaffolds were ordered and orientated into 12 contiguous pseudochromosomes (representing the core chromosomes (1–11) and the accessory chromosome (12)) [30]. The genomes of F. subglutinans (733 contigs; isolated from diseased maize tissue [21,112]) and F. konzum (2262 contigs; isolated from prairie grass [20,112]) were considered too fragmented to be assembled into pseudochromosomes.
A reference genome was selected to represent either the pine- or grass-host-associates. The purpose of this was to achieve a detailed comparison with two well-assembled genomes between Fusarium species colonizing different plant hosts. Fusarium circinatum was chosen to represent the pine-host-associates and F. temperatum represented grass-host-associates. The abundance of the telomere-associated repeat sequence (TTAGGG/CCCTAA) [47,48] was evaluated using a motif search performed in CLC Genomics Workbench v. 11 (CLC bio, Aarhus, Denmark) to further investigate the completeness of the two reference genomes (F. circinatum and F. temperatum). For the motif search, a window size of 10,000 bp with 5000 bp increments was used. Only repeats with ≥80% similarity to the telomere repeat were considered in this analysis.
The MAKER2 pipeline [113] was utilized for structural annotations of all six genomes in order to identify protein-coding genes. Gene prediction was performed in MAKER using SNAP [114], GeneMark ES [115] and AUGUSTUS [116]. As additional evidence, gene model data from F. circinatum [93], F. fujikuroi [29], F. verticillioides and F. graminearum [42], as well as F. mangiferae and F. proliferatum [19], were included. These isolates were selected due to the availability of their genomic information on the NCBI public database (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/; (accessed on 1 December 2021).

4.2. Genes Unique to Pine- and Grass-Host-Associated Species

The gene content of all six Fusarium genomes was evaluated to determine which genes are unique to the species associated with the two groups of plant hosts. For this purpose, OrthoFinder v. 2.3.1 (https://github.com/davidemms/OrthoFinder (accessed on 1 December 2021)) was implemented [49]. The genes occurring only in the genomes of the pine- and grass-host-associates were labeled as “unique” genes.
Functional annotation was performed using the Blast2GO v. 6 [50] plugin (Valencia, Spain) for CLC Genomics Workbench. A two-tailed Fisher exact test was implemented (p < 0.05) in Blast2GO [50] to detect the GO terms that were overrepresented in the host-range-associated genes set of both Fusarium representatives, using the whole genome of each as reference.

4.3. Phylogenetic Origins of the Host-Range-Associated Genes

The two unique gene sets were uploaded onto NCBI to perform BLASTp searches against the non-redundant database using the online position-specific iterative (PSI) BLAST tool (https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi (accessed on 1 December 2021)) [117]. All highly divergent protein sequences were excluded by considering only those sequences with at least 40% amino acid identity over 70% of the query sequence length and that had E-values ≤ 1 × 10−5 [71]. All the sequences were aligned using the constraint-based alignment tool (COBALT) [118] and phylogenetic trees were viewed to determine the ancestral origins of the host-range-associated genes. The host-range-associated genes with unclear ancestral origin were selected to construct phylogenetic trees. To infer phylogenies, all sequences were aligned with Multiple sequence Alignment based on Fast Fourier Transform (MAFFT) v. 7.0 with default settings [119]. These alignments included the relevant Fusarium sequences, together with those from other Ascomycota. MEGA v. 7.0.26 (https://www.megasoftware.net/ (accessed on 1 December 2021)) [120] was used to draw initial tree(s) for the heuristic search by applying Neighbor-Join and BioNJ algorithms to a matrix of pairwise distances to estimate the best substitution model to use. The Maximum Likelihood branch support was estimated using bootstrap analyses based on 100 pseudoreplicates.

4.4. Genomic Distribution of the Host-Range-Associated Genes

The location and distribution of the host-range-associated genes were plotted across the 12 chromosomes in each of the two reference genomes using KaryoploteR v. 3.9 (http://bioconductor.org/packages/karyoploteR (accessed on 1 December 2021)) [121]. The difference in the distribution of genes in the different genomic regions was evaluated using Chi-squared tests (p < 0.05), by comparing those within and outside subtelomeric regions, with the null hypothesis that they are characterized by similar frequencies. Here, we regarded the first and last 500 kb from chromosome ends as subtelomeres [71,122,123,124]. Furthermore, the synteny and conservation of the location of the different host-range-associated genes were studied with SynChro which revealed the synteny breakpoints between the reference and query genomes [54]. Lastly, the Shapiro–Wilks test was performed to test for normality by detecting all departures from normality for genes belonging to F. circinatum and F. temperatum.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/pathogens11080858/s1, Figure S1. Phylogenetic relationship of paralogs with regards to the respective host-range-associated gene. FCIR = Fusarium circinatum; FFRAC = Fusarium fracticaudum; FPIN = Fusarium pininemorale; FSUB = Fusarium subglutinans; Figure S2. Host-range-associated genes with ancestral origins that emerged within the FFSC. The investigated host-range-associated genes are highlighted in yellow; FCIR = Fusarium circinatum and FTEMP = Fusarium temperatum; Figure S3. Host-range-associated genes with ancestral origins that emerged within the FFSC and FOSC. The investigated host-range-associated genes are highlighted in yellow; FCIR = Fusarium circinatum and FTEMP = Fusarium temperatum; Figure S4. Host-range-associated genes with ancestral origins that emerged within the broader Fusarium outside the FFSC and FOSC. The investigated host-range-associated genes are highlighted in yellow; FCIR = Fusarium circinatum and FTEMP = Fusarium temperatum; Figure S5. Host-range-associated genes with less than 10 ancestral origin hits and mostly Fusarium. The investigated host-range-associated genes are highlighted in yellow; FCIR = Fusarium circinatum and FTEMP = Fusarium temperatum; Figure S6. Host-range-associated genes with ancestral origins hits and mostly not Fusarium. The investigated host-range-associated genes are highlighted in yellow; FCIR = Fusarium circinatum and FTEMP = Fusarium temperatum; Figure S7. Host-range-associated genes with ancestral origins outside Fusarium but in the Ascomycetes. The investigated host-range-associated genes are highlighted in yellow; FCIR = Fusarium circinatum and FTEMP = Fusarium temperatum; Figure S8. Host-range-associated genes with ancestral origins outside Fungi. The investigated host-range-associated genes are highlighted in yellow; FCIR = Fusarium circinatum and FTEMP = Fusarium temperatum; Figure S9. The distribution of host-range-associated genes from pine-host-associated Fusarium species and conservation of synteny across and between chromosomes and genomes. Pine-host-associated genes distribution across each of the chromosomes as indicated by the blue lines. The conservation of synteny and inversion between the relevant genomes are indicated in the brown blocks and red lines. FCIR = F. circinatum; chromosome size is given in kbp; Figure S10. The distribution of host-range-associated genes from Poaceae-host-associated Fusarium species and conservation of synteny across and between chromosomes and genomes. Poaceae-host-associated gene distribution across each of the chromosomes as indicated by the blue lines. The conservation of synteny and inversion between the relevant genomes are indicated in the brown blocks and red lines. FTEMP = F. temperatum; chromosome size is given in kbp; Figure S11. The syntenous relationship between genes from F. circinatum versus F. temperatum; Figure S12. The syntenous relationship between genes from F. temperatum and F. circinatum; Table S1. BUSCO results for the relevant Fusarium genomes; Table S2. The size difference between the chromosomes of four of the six Fusarium species; Table S3. Presence of telomeres at chromosomal ends for the two representative Fusarium species examined; Table S4. The Blast2GO data for the 72 unique pine-host-associated genes specifically for (A) Fusarium circinatum, (B) F. fracticaudum and (C) F. pininemorale; Table S5. The Blast2GO data for the 47 unique Poaceae-host-associated genes, specifically for (A) Fusarium konzum, (B) F. subglutinans and (C) F. temperatum; Table S6. The Fischer exact test data for (A) the 72 unique pine-host-associated genes and (B) the 47 unique Poaceae-host-associated genes; Table S7. The EST and RNA-seq data for F. circinatum, obtained from Wingfield et al. [52] and Phasha et al. [53], respectively; Table S8. The placement of host-range-associated genes in groups that infer their evolutionary origins; Table S9. The gene information for the unique F. circinatum genes, in terms of chromosome location, subtelomeric placement, ancestral origin and BLAST description; Table S10. The gene information for the unique F. temperatum genes, in terms of chromosome location, subtelomeric placement, ancestral origin and BLAST description; Table S11. The host-range-associated gene density for both F. circinatum and F. temperatum; Table S12. The SynChro data for genes downstream and upstream of the host-range-associated genes of both the pine- and Poaceae-host-associated Fusarium species; FCIR = Fusarium circinatum and FTEMP = Fusarium temperatum.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.D., L.D.V., E.T.S., M.A.V.d.N. and B.D.W.; methodology, C.D., L.D.V., E.T.S., M.A.V.d.N. and B.D.W.; software, C.D., L.D.V., E.T.S., M.A.V.d.N., B.D.W. and Q.C.S.; validation, C.D., L.D.V. and E.T.S.; formal analysis, C.D., L.D.V. and M.A.V.d.N.; investigation, C.D., L.D.V. and M.A.V.d.N.; resources, L.D.V., E.T.S., R.H.P. and B.D.W.; data curation, C.D., L.D.V., E.T.S., M.A.V.d.N. and B.D.W.; writing—original draft preparation, C.D. and L.D.V.; writing—review and editing, C.D., L.D.V., E.T.S., M.A.V.d.N., Q.C.S., R.H.P. and B.D.W.; visualization, C.D., L.D.V. and M.A.V.d.N.; supervision, L.D.V., E.T.S., M.A.V.d.N. and B.D.W.; project administration, L.D.V.; funding acquisition, L.D.V., B.D.W. and E.T.S.; critical revisions and writing, C.D., L.D.V. and E.T.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the South African Department of Science and Innovation’s South African Research Chair Initiative (SARChI grant number 98353), through the research chair of Prof. BD Wingfield. We would like to acknowledge the DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence in Plant Health Biotechnology (CPHB grant number 40945), at the Forestry and Agricultural Biotechnology Institute (FABI), University of Pretoria. RHP was supported by the Food Safety National Program (Project Number 5010-42000-053-00D) at the United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this article is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the USDA. The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the excellent technical assistance of Amy E. McGovern and Crystal E. Probyn.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Geiser, D.M.; Aoki, T.; Bacon, C.W.; Baker, S.E.; Bhattacharyya, M.K.; Brandt, M.E.; Brown, D.W.; Burgess, L.W.; Chulze, S.; Coleman, J.J.; et al. One fungus, one name: Defining the genus Fusarium in a scientifically robust way that preserves longstanding use. Phytopathology 2013, 103, 400–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Geiser, D.M.; Al-Hatmi, A.M.; Aoki, T.; Arie, T.; Balmas, V.; Barnes, I.; Bergstrom, G.C.; Bhattacharyya, M.K.; Blomquist, C.L.; Bowden, R.L. Phylogenomic analysis of a 55.1-kb 19-gene dataset resolves a monophyletic Fusarium that includes the Fusarium solani species complex. Phytopathology 2021, 111, 1064–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Chang, D.C.; Grant, G.B.; O’Donnell, K.; Wannemuehler, K.A.; Noble-Wang, J.; Rao, C.Y.; Jacobson, L.M.; Crowell, C.S.; Sneed, R.S.; Lewil, F.M.T.; et al. Multistate outbreak of Fusarium keratitis associated with use of a contact lens solution. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2006, 142, 896–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Sutton, D.A.; Brandt, M.E. Fusarium and Other Opportunistic Hyaline Fungi, 10th ed.; Versalovic, J., Carroll, K.C., Funke, G., Jorgenson, J.H., Landry, M.L., Warnock, D.W., Eds.; ASM Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  5. O’Donnell, K.; Sutton, D.A.; Rinaldi, M.G.; Magnon, K.C.; Cox, P.A.; Revankar, S.G.; Sanche, S.; Geiser, D.M.; Juba, J.H.; Van Burik, J.-A.H. Genetic diversity of human pathogenic members of the Fusarium oxysporum complex inferred from multilocus DNA sequence data and amplified fragment length polymorphism analyses: Evidence for the recent dispersion of a geographically widespread clonal lineage and nosocomial origin. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2004, 42, 5109–5120. [Google Scholar]
  6. Ortoneda, M.; Guarro, J.; Madrid, M.P.; Caracuel, Z.; Roncero, M.I.G.; Mayayo, E.; Di Pietro, A. Fusarium oxysporum as a multihost model for the genetic dissection of fungal virulence in plants and mammals. Infect. Immun. 2004, 72, 1760–1766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Navarro-Velasco, G.Y.; Prados-Rosales, R.C.; Ortíz-Urquiza, A.; Quesada-Moraga, E.; Di Pietro, A. Galleria mellonella as model host for the trans-kingdom pathogen Fusarium oxysporum. Fungal Genet. Biol. 2011, 48, 1124–1129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Pelizza, S.; Stenglein, S.; Cabello, M.; Dinolfo, M.; Lange, C. First record of Fusarium verticillioides as an entomopathogenic fungus of grasshoppers. J. Insect Sci. 2011, 11, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Parry, D.; Jenkinson, P.; McLeod, L. Fusarium ear blight (scab) in small grain cereals—A review. Plant Pathol. 1995, 44, 207–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Desjardins, A.E.; Plattner, R.D.; Gordon, T.R. Gibberella fujikuroi mating population A and Fusarium subglutinans from teosinte species and maize from Mexico and Central America. Mycol. Res. 2000, 104, 865–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Gordon, T.R.; Storer, A.J.; Okamoto, D. Population structure of the pitch canker pathogen, Fusarium subglutinans f. sp. pini, in California. Mycol. Res. 1996, 100, 850–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bottalico, A.; Perrone, G. Toxigenic Fusarium species and mycotoxins associated with head blight in small-grain cereals in Europe. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2002, 108, 611–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Herron, D.A.; Wingfield, M.J.; Wingfield, B.D.; Rodas, C.A.; Marincowitz, S.; Steenkamp, E.T. Novel taxa in the Fusarium fujikuroi species complex from Pinus spp. Stud. Mycol. 2015, 80, 131–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Armitage, A.D.; Taylor, A.; Sobczyk, M.K.; Baxter, L.; Greenfield, B.P.J.; Bates, H.J.; Wilson, F.; Jackson, A.C.; Ott, S.; Harrison, R.J.; et al. Characterisation of pathogen-specific regions and novel effector candidates in Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cepae. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 13530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. O’Donnell, K.; McCormick, S.P.; Busman, M.; Proctor, R.H.; Ward, T.J.; Doehring, G.; Geiser, D.M.; Alberts, J.F.; Rheeder, J.P. Marasas et al. 1984 “Toxigenic Fusarium Species: Identity and Mycotoxicology” revisited. Mycologia 2018, 110, 1058–1080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Waalwijk, C.; Vanheule, A.; Audenaert, K.; Zhang, H.; Warris, S.; Van de Geest, H.; Van der Lee, T. Fusarium in the age of genomics. Trop. Plant Pathol. 2017, 42, 184–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. O’Donnell, K.; Cigelnik, E.; Nirenberg, H.I. Molecular systematics and phylogeography of the Gibberella fujikuroi species complex. Mycologia 1998, 90, 465–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Steenkamp, E.T.; Wingfield, B.D.; Desjardins, A.E.; Marasas, W.F.; Wingfield, M.J. Cryptic speciation in Fusarium subglutinans. Mycologia 2002, 94, 1032–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Niehaus, E.-M.; Kim, H.-K.; Münsterkötter, M.; Janevska, S.; Arndt, B.; Kalinina, S.A.; Houterman, P.M.; Ahn, I.-P.; Alberti, I.; Tonti, S.; et al. Comparative genomics of geographically distant Fusarium fujikuroi isolates revealed two distinct pathotypes correlating with secondary metabolite profiles. PLoS Pathog. 2017, 13, e1006670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Zeller, K.A.; Summerell, B.A.; Bullock, S.; Leslie, J.F. Gibberella konza (Fusarium konzum) sp. nov. from prairie grasses, a new species in the Gibberella fujikuroi species complex. Mycologia 2003, 95, 943–954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Desjardins, A.E.; Maragos, C.M.; Proctor, R.H. Maize ear rot and moniliformin contamination by cryptic species of Fusarium subglutinans. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2006, 54, 7383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Swett, C.L.; Gordon, T.R. Endophytic association of the pine pathogen Fusarium circinatum with corn (Zea mays). Fungal Ecol. 2015, 13, 120–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Swett, C.L.; Gordon, T.R. First report of grass species (Poaceae) as naturally occurring hosts of the pine pathogen Gibberella circinata. Plant Dis. 2012, 96, 908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Carter, J.W.; Gordon, T.R. Infection of the native California grass, Bromus carinatus, by Fusarium circinatum, the cause of pitch canker in pines. Plant Dis. 2020, 104, 194–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Herron, D.A.; Wingfield, M.J.; Fru, F.; Wingfield, B.D.; Steenkamp, E.T. Grasses as a refuge for Fusarium circinatum L.—Evidence from South Africa. South. For. 2020, 82, 253–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hernandez-Escribano, L.; Iturritxa, E.; Elvira-Recuenco, M.; Berbegal, M.; Campos, J.A.; Renobales, G.; García, I.; Raposo, R. Herbaceous plants in the understory of a pitch canker-affected Pinus radiata plantation are endophytically infected with Fusarium circinatum. Fungal Ecol. 2018, 32, 65–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Martín-García, J.; Lukačevičová, A.; Flores-Pacheco, J.A.; Diez, J.J.; Dvořák, M. Evaluation of the susceptibility of several Czech conifer provenances to Fusarium circinatum. Forests 2018, 9, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Drenkhan, R.; Ganley, B.; Martín-García, J.; Vahalík, P.; Adamson, K.; Adamčíková, K.; Ahumada, R.; Blank, L.; Bragança, H.; Capretti, P.; et al. Global geographic distribution and host range of Fusarium circinatum, the causal agent of pine pitch canker. Forests 2020, 11, 724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wiemann, P.; Sieber, C.M.K.; von Bargen, K.W.; Studt, L.; Niehaus, E.-M.; Espino, J.J.; Huss, K.; Michielse, C.B.; Albermann, S.; Wagner, D.; et al. Deciphering the cryptic genome: Genome-wide analyses of the rice pathogen Fusarium fujikuroi reveal complex regulation of secondary metabolism and novel metabolites. PLoS Pathog. 2013, 9, e1003475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. De Vos, L.; Steenkamp, E.T.; Martin, S.H.; Santana, Q.C.; Fourie, G.; van der Merwe, N.A.; Wingfield, M.J.; Wingfield, B.D. Genome-wide macrosynteny among Fusarium species in the Gibberella fujikuroi complex revealed by amplified fragment length polymorphisms. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e114682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. De Vos, L.; Myburg, A.A.; Wingfield, M.J.; Desjardins, A.E.; Gordon, T.R.; Wingfield, B.D. Complete genetic linkage maps from an interspecific cross between Fusarium circinatum and Fusarium subglutinans. Fungal Genet. Biol. 2007, 44, 701–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Nirmala, J.; Dahl, S.; Steffenson, B.J.; Kannangara, C.G.; Von Wettstein, D.; Chen, X.; Kleinhofs, A. Proteolysis of the barley receptor-like protein kinase RPG1 by a proteasome pathway is correlated with Rpg1-mediated stem rust resistance. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 10276–10281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Covert, S.F. Supernumerary chromosomes in filamentous fungi. Curr. Genet. 1998, 33, 311–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Croll, D.; McDonald, B.A. The accessory genome as a cradle for adaptive evolution in pathogens. PLoS Pathog. 2012, 8, e1002608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Raffaele, S.; Kamoun, S. Genome evolution in filamentous plant pathogens: Why bigger can be better. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2012, 10, 417–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Zhao, C.; Waalwijk, C.; de Wit, P.J.G.M.; Tang, D.; van der Lee, T. Relocation of genes generates non-conserved chromosomal segments in Fusarium graminearum that show distinct and co-regulated gene expression patterns. BMC Genom. 2014, 15, 191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. Hardison, R.C. Comparative genomics. PLoS Biol. 2003, 1, e58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Wittenberg, A.H.J.; Van der Lee, T.A.J.; M’Barek, S.B.; Ware, S.B.; Goodwin, S.B.; Kilian, A.; Visser, R.G.F.; Kema, G.H.J.; Schouten, H.J. Meiosis drives extraordinary genome plasticity in the haploid fungal plant pathogen Mycosphaerella graminicola. PLoS ONE 2009, 4, e5863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Goodwin, S.B.; Ben M’Barek, S.; Dhillon, B.; Wittenberg, A.H.J.; Crane, C.F.; Hane, J.K.; Foster, A.J.; Van der Lee, T.A.J.; Grimwood, J.; Aerts, A.; et al. Finished genome of the fungal wheat pathogen Mycosphaerella graminicola reveals dispensome structure, chromosome plasticity, and stealth pathogenesis. PLoS Genet. 2011, 7, e1002070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Chain, P.S.; Carniel, E.; Larimer, F.W.; Lamerdin, J.; Stoutland, P.O.; Regala, W.M.; Georgescu, A.M.; Vergez, L.M.; Land, M.L.; Motin, V.L.; et al. Insights into the evolution of Yersinia pestis through whole-genome comparison with Yersinia pseudotuberculosis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2004, 101, 13826–13831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Akagi, Y.; Akamatsu, H.; Otani, H.; Kodama, M. Horizontal chromosome transfer, a mechanism for the evolution and differentiation of a plant-pathogenic fungus. Eukaryot. Cell 2009, 8, 1732–1738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Ma, L.; Van der Does, H.C.; Borkovich, K.A.; Coleman, J.J.; Daboussi, M.J.; Di Pietro, A.; Dufresne, M.; Freitag, M.; Grabherr, M.; Henrissat, B.; et al. Comparative genomics reveals mobile pathogenicity chromosomes in Fusarium. Nature 2010, 464, 367–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Bäumler, A.; Fang, F.C. Host specificity of bacterial pathogens. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Med. 2013, 3, a010041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Kisiela, D.I.; Chattopadhyay, S.; Libby, S.J.; Karlinsey, J.E.; Fang, F.C.; Tchesnokova, V.; Kramer, J.J.; Beskhlebnaya, V.; Samadpour, M.; Grzymajlo, K.; et al. Evolution of Salmonella enterica virulence via point mutations in the fimbrial adhesin. PLoS Pathog. 2012, 8, e1002733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Waterhouse, R.M.; Seppey, M.; Simao, F.A.; Manni, M.; Ioannidis, P.; Klioutchnikov, G.; Kriventseva, E.V.; Zdobnov, E.M. BUSCO applications from quality assessments to gene prediction and phylogenomics. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2018, 35, 543–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Holt, C.; Yandell, M. MAKER2: An annotation pipeline and genome-database management tool for second-generation genome projects. BMC Bioinform. 2011, 12, 491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Garcia-Pedrajas, M.D.; Roncero, M.I. A homologous and self-replicating system for efficient transformation of Fusarium oxysporum. Curr. Genet. 1996, 29, 191–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Fulnecková, J.; Sevcíková, T.; Fajkus, J.; Lukesová, A.; Lukes, M.; Vlcek, C.; Lang, B.F.; Kim, E.; Eliás, M.; Sykorová, E. A broad phylogenetic survey unveils the diversity and evolution of telomeres in eukaryotes. Genome Biol. Evol. 2013, 5, 468–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Emms, D.M.; Kelly, S. OrthoFinder: Solving fundamental biases in whole genome comparisons dramatically improves orthogroup inference accuracy. Genome Biol. 2015, 16, 157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Conesa, A.; Gotz, S. Blast2GO: A comprehensive suite for functional analysis in plant genomics. Int. J. Plant Genom. 2008, 2008, 619832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Phasha, M.M.; Wingfield, B.D.; Wingfield, M.J.; Coetzee, M.P.A.; Hammerbacher, A.; Steenkamp, E.T. Deciphering the effect of FUB1 disruption on fusaric acid production and pathogenicity in Fusarium circinatum. Fung. Biol. 2021, 125, 1036–1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Wingfield, B.D.; Steenkamp, E.T.; Santana, Q.; Coetzee, M.; Bam, S. First fungal genome sequence from Africa: A preliminary analysis. S. Afr. J. Sci. 2012, 108, 104–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Van Wyk, S.; Wingfield, B.D.; De Vos, L.; Van der Merwe, N.A.; Santana, Q.C.; Steenkamp, E.T. Repeat-induced point mutations drive divergence between Fusarium circinatum and its close relatives. Pathogens 2019, 8, E298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Drillon, G.; Carbone, A.; Fischer, G. SynChro: A fast and easy tool to reconstruct and visualize synteny blocks along eukaryotic chromosomes. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e92621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Shapiro, S.S.; Wilk, M.B. Analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 1965, 52, 591–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Nierman, W.C.; Pain, A.; Anderson, M.J.; Wortman, J.R.; Kim, H.S.; Arroyo, J.; Berriman, M.; Abe, K.; Archer, D.B.; Bermejo, C. Genomic sequence of the pathogenic and allergenic filamentous fungus Aspergillus fumigatus. Nature 2005, 438, 1151–1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Cano, M.I. Telomere biology of trypanosomatids: More questions than answers. Trends Parasitol. 2001, 17, 425–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Barry, J.D.; Ginger, M.L.; Burton, P.; McCulloch, R. Why are parasite contingency genes often associated with telomeres? Int. J. Parasitol. 2003, 33, 29–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Mefford, H.C.; Trask, B.J. The complex structure and dynamic evolution of human subtelomeres. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2002, 3, 91–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Mason, J.M.; Biessmann, H. The unusual telomeres of Drosophila. Trends Genet. 1995, 11, 58–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Scherf, A.; Figueiredo, L.M.; Freitas-Junior, L.H. Plasmodium telomeres: A pathogen’s perspective. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2001, 4, 409–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Bringaud, F.; Biteau, N.; Melville, S.E.; Hez, S.; El-Sayed, N.M.; Leech, V.; Berriman, M.; Hall, N.; Donelson, J.E.; Baltz, T. A new, expressed multigene family containing a hot spot for insertion of retroelements is associated with polymorphic subtelomeric regions of Trypanosoma brucei. Eukaryot. Cell 2002, 1, 137–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  63. Louis, E.J. The chromosome ends of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Yeast 1995, 11, 1553–1573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Peyret, P.; Katinka, M.D.; Duprat, S.; Duffieux, F.; Barbe, V.; Barbazanges, M.; Weissenbach, J.; Saurin, W.; Vivarès, C.P. Sequence and analysis of chromosome I of the amitochondriate intracellular parasite Encephalitozoon cuniculi (Microspora). Genome Res. 2001, 11, 198–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Trask, B.J.; Friedman, C.; Martin-Gallardo, A.; Rowen, L.; Akinbami, C.; Blankenship, J.; Collins, C.; Giorgi, D.; Iadonato, S.; Johnson, F. Members of the olfactory receptor gene family are contained in large blocks of DNA duplicated polymorphically near the ends of human chromosomes. Hum. Mol. Genet. 1998, 7, 13–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Glusman, G.; Yanai, I.; Rubin, I.; Lancet, D. The complete human olfactory subgenome. Genome Res. 2001, 11, 685–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Figueiredo, L.M.; Janzen, C.J.; Cross, G.A. A histone methyltransferase modulates antigenic variation in African trypanosomes. PLoS Biol. 2008, 6, e161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  68. Freitas-Junior, L.H.; Hernandez-Rivas, R.; Ralph, S.A.; Montiel-Condado, D.; Ruvalcaba-Salazar, O.K.; Rojas-Meza, A.P.; Mâncio-Silva, L.; Leal-Silvestre, R.J.; Gontijo, A.M.; Shorte, S. Telomeric heterochromatin propagation and histone acetylation control mutually exclusive expression of antigenic variation genes in malaria parasites. Cell 2005, 121, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Rahnama, M.; Wang, B.; Dostart, J.; Novikova, O.; Yackzan, D.; Yackzan, A.; Bruss, H.; Baker, M.; Jacob, H.; Zhang, X.; et al. Telomere roles in fungal genome evolution and adaptation. Front. Genet. 2021, 12, 676751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Huang, X. Host-specific subtelomere: Genomic architecture of pathogen emergence in asexual filamentous fungi. bioRxiv 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Van Wyk, S.; Wingfield, B.D.; De Vos, L.; Santana, Q.C.; Van der Merwe, N.A.; Steenkamp, E.T. Multiple independent origins for a subtelomeric locus associated with growth rate in Fusarium circinatum. IMA Fungus 2018, 9, 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Juárez-Reyes, A.; Castaño, I. Chromatin architecture and virulence-related gene expression in eukaryotic microbial pathogens. Curr. Genet. 2019, 65, 435–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Keely, S.P.; Renauld, H.; Wakefield, A.E.; Cushion, M.T.; Smulian, A.G.; Fosker, N.; Fraser, A.; Harris, D.; Murphy, L.; Price, C. Gene arrays at Pneumocystis carinii telomeres. Genetics 2005, 170, 1589–1600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  74. Galagan, J.E.; Calvo, S.E.; Cuomo, C.; Ma, L.; Wortman, J.R.; Batzoglou, S.; Lee, S.; Baştürkmen, M.; Spevak, C.C.; Clutterbuck, J. Sequencing of Aspergillus nidulans and comparative analysis with A. fumigatus and A. oryzae. Nature 2005, 438, 1105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Perrin, R.M.; Fedorova, N.D.; Bok, J.W.; Cramer Jr, R.A.; Wortman, J.R.; Kim, H.S.; Nierman, W.C.; Keller, N.P. Transcriptional regulation of chemical diversity in Aspergillus fumigatus by LaeA. PLoS Pathog. 2007, 3, e50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  76. Peter, J.; De Chiara, M.; Friedrich, A.; Yue, J.-X.; Pflieger, D.; Bergström, A.; Sigwalt, A.; Barre, B.; Freel, K.; Llored, A. Genome evolution across 1,011 Saccharomyces cerevisiae isolates. Nature 2018, 556, 339–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  77. Ma, L.J.; Geiser, D.M.; Proctor, R.H.; Rooney, A.P.; O’Donnell, K.; Trail, F.; Gardiner, D.M.; Manners, J.M.; Kazan, K. Fusarium pathogenomics. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 2013, 67, 399–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  78. Coleman, J.J.; Rounsley, S.D.; Rodriguez-Carres, M.; Kuo, A.; Wasmann, C.C.; Grimwood, J.; Schmutz, J.; Taga, M.; White, G.J.; Zhou, S.; et al. The genome of Nectria haematococca: Contribution of supernumerary chromosomes to gene expansion. PLoS Genet. 2009, 5, e1000618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Donald, M.G.; Megan, C.M.; Lorenzo, C.; Peter, S.S.; Anca, G.R.; Mhairi, M.; Kemal, K.; Sukumar, C.; Bruce, A.M.; John, M.M. Comparative pathogenomics reveals horizontally acquired novel virulence genes in fungi infecting cereal hosts. PLoS Pathog. 2012, 8, 1002952. [Google Scholar]
  80. Schönknecht, G.; Weber, A.P.; Lercher, M.J. Horizontal gene acquisitions by eukaryotes as drivers of adaptive evolution. Bioessays 2014, 36, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Sieber, C.M.; Lee, W.; Wong, P.; Münsterkötter, M.; Mewes, H.W.; Schmeitzl, C.; Varga, E.; Berthiller, F.; Adam, G.; Guldener, U. The Fusarium graminearum genome reveals more secondary metabolite gene clusters and hints of horizontal gene transfer. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e110311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Richards, T.A.; Leonard, G.; Soanes, D.M.; Talbot, N.J. Gene transfer into fungi. Fungal Biol. Rev. 2011, 25, 98–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Soanes, D.; Richards, T.A. Horizontal gene transfer in eukaryotic plant pathogens. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2014, 52, 583–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Yin, Z.; Zhu, B.; Feng, H.; Huang, L. Horizontal gene transfer drives adaptive colonization of apple trees by the fungal pathogen Valsa mali. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 33129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  85. Zhang, Q.; Chen, X.; Xu, C.; Zhao, H.; Zhang, X.; Zeng, G.; Qian, Y.; Liu, R.; Guo, N.; Mi, W.; et al. Horizontal gene transfer allowed the emergence of broad host range entomopathogens. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 7982–7989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  86. Le Gac, M.; Giraud, T. Existence of a pattern of reproductive character displacement in Homobasidiomycota but not in Ascomycota. J. Evol. Biol. 2008, 21, 761–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Proctor, R.H.; McCormick, S.P.; Alexander, N.J.; Desjardins, A.E. Evidence that a secondary metabolic biosynthetic gene cluster has grown by gene relocation during evolution of the filamentous fungus Fusarium. Mol. Microbiol. 2009, 74, 1128–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Van Dam, P.; Fokkens, L.; Ayukawa, Y.; Van der Gragt, M.; Horst, A.; Brankovics, B.; Houterman, P.; Arie, T.; Rep, M. A mobile pathogenicity chromosome in Fusarium oxysporum for infection of multiple cucurbit species. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 9042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. King, R.; Brown, N.A.; Urban, M.; Hammond-Kosack, K.E. Inter-genome comparison of the Quorn fungus Fusarium venenatum and the closely related plant infecting pathogen Fusarium graminearum. BMC Genom. 2018, 19, 269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Wingfield, B.D.; Barnes, I.; De Beer, Z.W.; De Vos, L.; Duong, T.A.; Kanzi, A.M.; Naidoo, K.; Nguyen, H.D.; Santana, Q.C.; Sayari, M.; et al. Draft genome sequences of Ceratocystis eucalypticola, Chrysoporthe cubensis, C. deuterocubensis, Davidsoniella virescens, Fusarium temperatum, Graphilbum fragrans, Penicillium nordicum, and Thielaviopsis musarum. IMA Fungus 2015, 6, 493–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Wingfield, B.D.; Berger, D.K.; Steenkamp, E.T.; Lim, H.J.; Duong, T.A.; Bluhm, B.H.; de Beer, Z.W.; De Vos, L.; Fourie, G.; Naidoo, K.; et al. Draft genome of Cercospora zeina, Fusarium pininemorale, Hawksworthiomyces lignivorus, Huntiella decipiens and Ophiostoma ips. IMA Fungus 2017, 8, 385–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Wingfield, B.D.; Bills, G.F.; Dong, Y.; Huang, W.; Nel, W.J.; Swalarsk-Parry, B.S.; Vaghefi, N.; Wilken, P.M.; An, Z.; de Beer, Z.W.; et al. Draft genome sequence of Annulohypoxylon stygium, Aspergillus mulundensis, Berkeleyomyces basicola (syn. Thielaviopsis basicola), Ceratocystis smalleyi, two Cercospora beticola strains, Coleophoma cylindrospora, Fusarium fracticaudum, Phialophora cf. hyalina, and Morchella septimelata. IMA Fungus 2018, 9, 199–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Wingfield, B.D.; Liu, M.; Nguyen, H.D.T.; Lane, F.A.; Morgan, S.W.; De Vos, L.; Wilken, P.M.; Duong, T.A.; Aylward, J.; Coetzee, M.P.A.; et al. Nine draft genome sequences of Claviceps purpurea s.lat., including C. arundinis, C. humidiphila, and C. cf. spartinae, pseudomolecules for the pitch canker pathogen Fusarium circinatum, draft genome of Davidsoniella eucalypti, Grosmannia galeiformis, Quambalaria eucalypti, and Teratosphaeria destructans. IMA Fungus 2018, 9, 401–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Priest, S.J.; Yadav, V.; Heitman, J. Advances in understanding the evolution of fungal genome architecture. F1000Research 2020, 9, 776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Olarte, R.A.; Menke, J.; Zhang, Y.; Sullivan, S.; Slot, J.C.; Huang, Y.; Badalamenti, J.P.; Quandt, A.C.; Spatafora, J.W.; Bushley, K.E. Chromosome rearrangements shape the diversification of secondary metabolism in the cyclosporin producing fungus Tolypocladium inflatum. BMC Genom. 2019, 20, 120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Tralamazza, S.M.; Rocha, L.O.; Oggenfuss, U.; Corrêa, B.; Croll, D. Complex evolutionary origins of specialized metabolite gene cluster diversity among the plant pathogenic fungi of the Fusarium graminearum species complex. Genome Biol. Evol. 2019, 11, 3106–3122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Shi-Kunne, X.; Faino, L.; van den Berg, G.C.; Thomma, B.P.; Seidl, M.F. Evolution within the fungal genus Verticillium is characterized by chromosomal rearrangement and gene loss. Environ. Microbiol. 2018, 20, 1362–1373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  98. Moolhuijzen, P.; See, P.T.; Hane, J.K.; Shi, G.; Liu, Z.; Oliver, R.P.; Moffat, C.S. Comparative genomics of the wheat fungal pathogen Pyrenophora tritici-repentis reveals chromosomal variations and genome plasticity. BMC Genom. 2018, 19, 279. [Google Scholar]
  99. Wang, Q.; Sun, M.; Zhang, Y.; Song, Z.; Zhang, S.; Zhang, Q.; Xu, J.R.; Liu, H. Extensive chromosomal rearrangements and rapid evolution of novel effector superfamilies contribute to host adaptation and speciation in the basal ascomycetous fungi. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2020, 21, 330–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  100. Rajeh, A.; Lv, J.; Lin, Z. Heterogeneous rates of genome rearrangement contributed to the disparity of species richness in Ascomycota. BMC Genom. 2018, 19, 282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Xu, J.; Yan, K.; Dickman, M.B.; Leslie, F. Electrophoretic karyotypes distinguish the biological species of Gibberella fujikuroi (Fusarium section Liseola). Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. 1995, 8, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Van der Nest, M.A.; Beirn, L.A.; Crouch, J.A.; Demers, J.E.; De Beer, Z.W.; De Vos, L.; Gordon, T.R.; Moncalvo, J.-M.; Naidoo, K.; Sanchez-Ramirez, S.; et al. Draft genomes of Amanita jacksonii, Ceratocystis albifundus, Fusarium circinatum, Huntiella omanensis, Leptographium procerum, Rutstroemia sydowiana, and Sclerotinia echinophila. IMA Fungus 2014, 5, 473–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  103. Jurgenson, J.E.; Zeller, K.A.; Leslie, J.F. Expanded genetic map of Gibberella moniliformis (Fusarium verticillioides). Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2002, 68, 1972–1979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  104. Slinski, S.L.; Kirkpatrick, S.C.; Gordon, T.R. Inheritance of virulence in Fusarium circinatum, the cause of pitch canker in pines. Plant Pathol. 2016, 65, 1292–1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  105. Shin, J.Y.; Bui, D.C.; Lee, Y.; Nam, H.; Jung, S.; Fang, M.; Kim, J.C.; Lee, T.; Kim, H.; Choi, G.J.; et al. Functional characterization of cytochrome P450 monooxygenases in the cereal head blight fungus Fusarium graminearum. Environ. Microbiol. 2017, 19, 2053–2067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Brunke, S.; Mogavero, S.; Kasper, L.; Hube, B. Virulence factors in fungal pathogens of man. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2016, 32, 89–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Soyer, J.L.; Hamiot, A.; Ollivier, B.; Balesdent, M.H.; Rouxel, T.; Fudal, I. The APSES transcription factor LmStuA is required for sporulation, pathogenic development and effector gene expression in Leptosphaeria maculans. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2015, 16, 1000–1005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Cain, C.W.; Lohse, M.B.; Homann, O.R.; Sil, A.; Johnson, A.D. A conserved transcriptional regulator governs fungal morphology in widely diverged species. Genetics 2012, 190, 511–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Coleman, J.J.; Mylonakis, E. Efflux in fungi: La piece de resistance. PLoS Pathog. 2009, 5, e1000486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  110. Hückelhoven, R. Cell wall–associated mechanisms of disease resistance and susceptibility. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2007, 45, 101–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Maphosa, M.N.; Steenkamp, E.T.; Kanzi, A.M.; van Wyk, S.; De Vos, L.; Santana, Q.C.; Duong, T.A.; Wingfield, B.D. Intra-species genomic variation in the pine pathogen Fusarium circinatum. J. Fungi 2022, 8, 657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Kim, H.; Lohmar, J.M.; Busman, M.; Brown, D.W.; Naumann, T.A.; Divon, H.H.; Lysøe, E.; Uhlig, S.; Proctor, R.H. Identification and distribution of gene clusters required for synthesis of sphingolipid metabolism inhibitors in diverse species of the filamentous fungus Fusarium. BMC Genom. 2020, 21, 510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Capek, P.; Alfoldi, J.; Liskova, D. An acetylated galactoglucomannan from Picea abies L. Karst. Carb. Res. 2002, 337, 1033–1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Korf, I. Gene finding in novel genomes. BMC Bioinform. 2004, 5, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  115. Ter-Hovhannisyan, V.; Lomsadze, A.; Chernoff, Y.O.; Borodovsky, M. Gene prediction in novel fungal genomes using an ab initio algorithm with unsupervised training. Genome Res. 2008, 18, 1979–1990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  116. Hoff, K.J.; Lomsadze, A.; Borodovsky, M.; Stanke, M. Whole-genome annotation with BRAKER. Methods Mol. Biol. 2019, 1962, 65–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Altschul, S.F.; Madden, T.L.; Schaffer, A.A.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, Z.; Miller, W.; Lipman, D.J. Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: A new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res. 1997, 25, 3389–3402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  118. Papadopoulos, J.S.; Agarwala, R. COBALT: Constraint-based alignment tool for multiple protein sequences. Bioinformatics 2007, 23, 1073–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  119. Katoh, K.; Rozewicki, J.; Yamada, K.D. MAFFT online service: Multiple sequence alignment, interactive sequence choice and visualization. Brief. Bioinform. 2017, 20, 1160–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  120. Kumar, S.; Stecher, G.; Tamura, K. MEGA7: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis version 7.0 for bigger datasets. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2016, 33, 1870–1874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  121. Gel, B.; Serra, E. karyoploteR: An R/Bioconductor package to plot customizable genomes displaying arbitrary data. Bioinformatics 2017, 33, 3088–3090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Ridenour, J.B.; Möller, M.; Freitag, M. Polycomb repression without bristles: Facultative heterochromatin and genome stability in fungi. Genes 2020, 11, 638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Gacek, A.; Strauss, J. The chromatin code of fungal secondary metabolite gene clusters. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2012, 95, 1389–1404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  124. Louis, E.J. Subtelomeres; Louis, E.J., Becker, M.M., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014. [Google Scholar]
Pathogens 11 00858 g001 550
Figure 1. The distribution of host-range-associated genes from pine-host-associated Fusarium species and conservation of synteny across and among chromosomes and genomes. Distribution of pine-associated genes across each of the chromosomes are indicated by vertical blue lines. The conservation of synteny and inversion between the relevant genomes are indicated in the brown blocks and red lines. FCIR = F. circinatum; chromosome size is given in Kb.
Figure 1. The distribution of host-range-associated genes from pine-host-associated Fusarium species and conservation of synteny across and among chromosomes and genomes. Distribution of pine-associated genes across each of the chromosomes are indicated by vertical blue lines. The conservation of synteny and inversion between the relevant genomes are indicated in the brown blocks and red lines. FCIR = F. circinatum; chromosome size is given in Kb.
Pathogens 11 00858 g001
Pathogens 11 00858 g002 550
Figure 2. The distribution of host-range-associated genes from Poaceae-host-associated Fusarium species and conservation of synteny across and between chromosomes and genomes. Poaceae-associated genes distribution across each of the chromosomes as indicated by the blue lines. The conservation of synteny and inversion between the relevant genomes is indicated in the brown blocks and red lines. FTEMP = F. temperatum; chromosome size is given in Kb.
Figure 2. The distribution of host-range-associated genes from Poaceae-host-associated Fusarium species and conservation of synteny across and between chromosomes and genomes. Poaceae-associated genes distribution across each of the chromosomes as indicated by the blue lines. The conservation of synteny and inversion between the relevant genomes is indicated in the brown blocks and red lines. FTEMP = F. temperatum; chromosome size is given in Kb.
Pathogens 11 00858 g002
Pathogens 11 00858 g003 550
Figure 3. Examples of clusters of host-range-associated genes on Chromosome 6 of F. circinatum (A) and Chromosome 10 of F. temperatum (B). Numbers within the block arrows indicate gene identities. Bold letters above the green and orange genes indicate ancestral origin group as described in Table 2.
Figure 3. Examples of clusters of host-range-associated genes on Chromosome 6 of F. circinatum (A) and Chromosome 10 of F. temperatum (B). Numbers within the block arrows indicate gene identities. Bold letters above the green and orange genes indicate ancestral origin group as described in Table 2.
Pathogens 11 00858 g003
Pathogens 11 00858 g004 550
Figure 4. Data retrieved from the Shapiro–Wilk’s test for departure from normality for host-range-associated genes in F. circinatum and F. temperatum. Grey blocks represent the host-range-associated gene, whereas the blue blocks represent the genes downstream and upstream of the host-range-associated gene.
Figure 4. Data retrieved from the Shapiro–Wilk’s test for departure from normality for host-range-associated genes in F. circinatum and F. temperatum. Grey blocks represent the host-range-associated gene, whereas the blue blocks represent the genes downstream and upstream of the host-range-associated gene.
Pathogens 11 00858 g004
Table
Table 1. Genome statistics for the Fusarium genomes examined in this study.
Table 1. Genome statistics for the Fusarium genomes examined in this study.
Fusarium SpeciesGenome Size (bp)Number of ScaffoldsNumber of ChromosomesGene Density (ORFs/Mb 1)Genes with Coding Sequences 2GC Content (%)
F. circinatum45,018,6434912344.5015,50947.0
F. fracticaudum46,252,7635012352.2816,29447.6
F. pininemorale47,778,48515312332.3515,87946.0
F. konzum43,487,9592262N/A374.4916,28648.8
F. subglutinans44,190,517733N/A356.2315,74248.1
F. temperatum45,458,7814312341.6715,53247.0
1 ORFs/Mb = number of open reading frames per million base pairs. 2 As determined using MAKER2 [46].
Table
Table 2. Numbers of genes, and their inferred evolutionary origins, included in the pine- and grass-host-associated sets of host-range-associated genes.
Table 2. Numbers of genes, and their inferred evolutionary origins, included in the pine- and grass-host-associated sets of host-range-associated genes.
Ancestral Origin Group 1Number of Genes 2
F. circinatumF. temperatum
1. FFSC21 (10; 9)13 (9)
2. FFSC and FOSC6 (4; 4)3 (1)
3. Fusarium but outside FFSC and FOSC2 (0; 0)2 (2)
4. Less than 10 NCBI BLAST hits and mostly Fusarium10 (7; 5)7 (5)
5. Less than 10 NCBI BLAST hits and mostly not Fusarium2 (2; 2)1 (1)
6. Outside Fusarium, but in the Ascomycetes9 (7; 7)5 (2)
7. Outside Fungi1 (1; 1)1 (1)
8. Unknown; no significant BLAST hit in the NCBI database21 (7; 6)15 (9)
1 Ancestral origin information from the phylogenetic trees in Supplementary Figures S2–S8. FFSC = Fusarium fujikuroi species complex and FOSC = Fusarium oxysporum species complex. 2 Number of host-range-associated genes with each type of phylogenetic origin. Pine-host-associated genes are from F. circinatum, and grass-host-associated genes are from F. temperatum. Values within parentheses indicate numbers of genes located in subtelomeric regions. For F. circinatum the value after the semicolons are numbers of genes for which RNAseq data are available from F. circinatum grown on media [51,52].
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Dewing, C.; Van der Nest, M.A.; Santana, Q.C.; Proctor, R.H.; Wingfield, B.D.; Steenkamp, E.T.; De Vos, L. Characterization of Host-Specific Genes from Pine- and Grass-Associated Species of the Fusarium fujikuroi Species Complex. Pathogens 2022, 11, 858. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens11080858

AMA Style

Dewing C, Van der Nest MA, Santana QC, Proctor RH, Wingfield BD, Steenkamp ET, De Vos L. Characterization of Host-Specific Genes from Pine- and Grass-Associated Species of the Fusarium fujikuroi Species Complex. Pathogens. 2022; 11(8):858. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens11080858

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dewing, Claudette, Magrieta A. Van der Nest, Quentin C. Santana, Robert H. Proctor, Brenda D. Wingfield, Emma T. Steenkamp, and Lieschen De Vos. 2022. "Characterization of Host-Specific Genes from Pine- and Grass-Associated Species of the Fusarium fujikuroi Species Complex" Pathogens 11, no. 8: 858. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens11080858

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop