Introduction
Lepista (Fr.) W.G. Sm., a genus in the family Tricholomataeae, was erected by Smith in 1870 and contains about 50 species (Kirk et al., 2008). A total of 12 Lepista species have been reported in China where they are widely distributed (Mao, 2000; Li et al., 2011). Some Lepista species are popular edible mushrooms in China, and these include Lepista nuda (Bull.) Cooke, L. sordida (Schumach.) Singer, and L. irina (Fr.) H.E. Bigelow (Dai et al., 2010).
The genus Lepista can be distinguished from other genera by the coarse surface of its spores, a white to pale-pink spore print, and clamped hyphae (Singer, 1986; Bon, 1987). Within the genus, however, the limited morphological characteristics make it difficult to distinguish among the species. As a result, misidentification is common both between and within species of Lepista. For example, L. irina and L. panaeola have a similar whitish pileus. According to Alvarado et al. (2015), the two species differ in spore size and spore wall structure but the assessment of these characters varies among observers. In addition, other morphological characteristics including the color of the pileus often vary with environmental factors. The pileus of L. nuda, for example, was described as gray brown or russet brown in some studies but as purple brown in others (Bon, 1987; Hansen & Knudsen, 1992).
Accurate identification of species is important for conserving the genetic resources of Lepista, and rapid and reliable species identification is now possible via DNA barcoding. DNA barcoding, which uses short DNA sequences of standard genomic regions, has become increasingly important in identifying species (Badotti et al., 2017; Li et al., 2017) and discovering new species (Zhao et al., 2011; Al-Hatmi et al., 2016). DNA barcoding also could provide the primary information for species delimitation in poorly known groups (Vogler & Monaghan, 2007) and help identify candidate exemplar taxa for a comprehensive phylogenetic study (Hajibabaei et al., 2007). Based on the requirements for standardized DNA barcoding, the sequences of all candidate markers should be short and should have high rates of successful amplification and high rates of successful sequencing. DNA barcoding also requires that candidate markers have substantial inter-specific variation but not intra-specific variation. The internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region of the nuclear ribosomal RNA gene has been used as a general barcode marker for some groups in the Basidiomycota (Dentinger, Didukh & Moncalvo, 2011; Cai, Tang & Yang, 2012; Buyck et al., 2014; Badotti et al., 2017). Other candidate segments that have been used as barcoding markers for mushrooms previously, including the mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase I gene (cox1) (Vialle et al., 2009), the second subunit of RNA polymerase II (RPB2) (Li et al., 2017), and the β-tubulin and elongation factor 1-α (tef1) (Guo et al., 2016).
The goal of the present study was to test the utility of DNA barcodes to the identification of the Lepista species as edible species to address the question, that is, due to the limited morphological characteristics within the genus Lepista, misidentification often happened. To address the question, we evaluated the following five markers as DNA barcodes for identification of eight Lepista species: ITS region, the intergenic spacer (IGS), the large nuclear ribosomal RNA subunit (nLSU), the mitochondrial small subunit rDNA (mtSSU), and tef1.
Materials and Methods Ethics statement
Lepista species are neither protected nor endangered in the sampled areas, and all samples were collected by researchers following current Chinese regulations. None of the sampled locations are privately owned or protected by law.
Sampling
In a previous study (Alvarado et al., 2015), the genus Lepista was divided into three clades. The current study included two species from each of the three clades plus two unidentified Lepista species. A total of 34 samples of the eight Lepista species were collected from September 2012 to August 2017 (Table 1). Tissue blocks were removed from the inner part of the fresh basidiomata for DNA analyses. The specimens were dried with an electric air ventilation drier and deposited in the Fungal Herbarium of Shenyang Agricultural University (SYAU-FUNGI).
| Taxon | Specimen vouchera | ITSb | IGSb | nLSUb | mtSSUb | tef1b |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lepista densifolia | SYAU-FUNGI-022 | MK116588 | MK389519 | – | MK389570 | – |
| Lepista irina | SYAU-FUNGI-023 | MK116589 | MK389520 | MK389546 | MK389571 | MK551215 |
| Lepista irina | SYAU-FUNGI-024 | MK116590 | MK389521 | MK389547 | MK389572 | MK551216 |
| Lepista irina | SYAU-FUNGI-025 | MK116591 | – | MK389548 | MK389573 | – |
| Lepista nuda | SYAU-FUNGI-021 | MH428843 | MK389523 | MK389549 | MK389575 | MK440311 |
| Lepista nuda | SYAU-FUNGI-026 | MK116594 | – | – | – | MK440315 |
| Lepista nuda | SYAU-FUNGI-017 | MH428839 | MK389524 | MK389550 | MK389576 | MK440312 |
| Lepista nuda | SYAU-FUNGI-019 | MH428841 | – | MK389551 | MK389577 | MK440313 |
| Lepista nuda | SYAU-FUNGI-027 | MK116593 | MK389525 | MK389552 | MK389578 | MK440314 |
| Lepista nuda | SYAU-FUNGI-014 | MH428836 | MK389526 | MK389553 | MK389579 | MK440315 |
| Lepista nuda | SYAU-FUNGI-028 | MK116595 | – | MK389554 | MK389580 | MK440317 |
| Lepista nuda | SYAU-FUNGI-029 | MK116592 | MK389522 | – | MK389574 | MK440310 |
| Lepista panaeola | SYAU-FUNGI-030 | MK116597 | MK389527 | – | MK389581 | – |
| Lepista panaeola | SYAU-FUNGI-031 | MK116598 | – | – | – | – |
| Lepista panaeola | SYAU-FUNGI-032 | MK116599 | MK389529 | – | MK389583 | MK551218 |
| Lepista panaeola | SYAU-FUNGI-033 | MK116600 | MK389530 | MK389555 | MK389584 | – |
| Lepista panaeola | SYAU-FUNGI-034 | MK116601 | MK389531 | MK389556 | MK389585 | – |
| Lepista panaeola | SYAU-FUNGI-035 | MK116596 | MK389528 | MK389557 | MK389582 | MK551217 |
| Lepista saeva | SYAU-FUNGI-036 | MK116602 | MK389532 | MK389558 | MK389586 | – |
| Lepista saeva | SYAU-FUNGI-037 | MK116603 | MK389533 | MK389559 | MK389587 | – |
| Lepista saeva | SYAU-FUNGI-038 | MK116604 | MK389534 | MK389560 | MK389588 | – |
| Lepista sordida | SYAU-FUNGI-039 | MK116605 | MK389535 | MK389561 | MK389589 | MK551219 |
| Lepista sordida | SYAU-FUNGI-040 | MK116606 | MK389536 | – | MK389590 | – |
| Lepista sordida | SYAU-FUNGI-041 | MK116607 | MK389537 | MK389563 | MK389591 | – |
| Lepista sordida | SYAU-FUNGI-042 | MK116609 | MK389539 | MK389564 | MK389594 | MK551221 |
| Lepista sordida | SYAU-FUNGI-043 | MK116610 | MK389540 | MK389565 | MK389593 | MK551222 |
| Lepista sordida | SYAU-FUNGI-044 | MK116608 | MK389538 | MK389562 | MK389592 | MK551220 |
| Lepista sp 1 | SYAU-FUNGI-045 | MK116611 | – | – | – | MK440305 |
| Lepista sp 1 | SYAU-FUNGI-046 | MK116612 | – | MK389567 | – | MK440306 |
| Lepista sp 1 | SYAU-FUNGI-047 | MK116613 | MK389541 | MK389568 | MK389597 | MK440307 |
| Lepista sp 1 | SYAU-FUNGI-048 | MK116614 | MK389542 | MK389566 | MK389595 | MK440308 |
| Lepista sp 1 | SYAU-FUNGI-049 | MK116615 | MK389543 | – | MK389596 | MK440309 |
| Lepista sp 2 | SYAU-FUNGI-050 | MK116617 | MK389544 | – | – | – |
| Lepista sp 2 | SYAU-FUNGI-051 | MK116616 | MK389545 | MK389569 | – | – |
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7307/table-1
Notes:
aSYAU-FUNGI: Fungal Herbarium of Shenyang Agricultural University, Shenyang, China;
bGenBank accession numbers in bold indicate the sequences generated in this study.
Morphological observations
Morphological identification was based on previous studies (Singer, 1986; Bon, 1987; Li et al., 2015). Microscopic characteristics of the basidiomata were assessed by examining dried specimens that had been treated with 5% KOH solution and Melzer’s reagent with a light microscope.
DNA extraction, amplification, and sequencing
Genomic DNA was extracted from fresh blocks of tissue with a plant DNA extraction kit (Sunbiotech, Beijing, China). Crude DNA extracts were used as templates for PCR, and a total of five primers were used for amplification (Table 2). Reaction mixtures were as described by Yu et al. (2014). For the amplification of ITS, IGS, nLSU, and mtSSU, the PCR conditions consisted of an initial denaturation at 94 °C for 2 min; followed by 30 cycles of denaturation at 94 °C for 35 s, annealing at 45 °C for 35 s, and extension at 72 °C for 1 min; and a final extension at 72 °C for 10 min. For tef1, the PCR protocol consisted of initial denaturation at 94 °C for 2 min; followed by 10 cycles at 94 °C for 35 s, 57 °C for 35 s (decreasing 0.3 °C per cycle), and 72 °C for 1 min; followed by 29 cycles at 94 °C for 35 s, 54 °C for 35 s, and 72 °C for 1 min; and a final extension at 72 °C for 10 min. PCR products were checked on a 1.0% agarose gel and visualized by staining with ethidium bromide. Sequencing was performed on an ABI Prism 3730 genetic analyzer (PE Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA). The sequences generated from this study are listed in Table 1.
| Regions | Primer | Sequence (5′-3′) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| ITS | ITS5 | GGA AGT AAA AGT CGT AAC AAG G | White et al. (1990) |
| ITS4 | TCC TCC GCT TAT TGA TAT GC | White et al. (1990) | |
| IGS | CNL12 | CTG AAC GCC TCT AAG TCA G | White et al. (1990) |
| 5SA | CAG AGT CCT ATG GCC GTG AT | White et al. (1990) | |
| nLSU | LROR | ACC CGC TGA ACT TAA GC | Rehner & Samuels (1994) |
| LR7 | TAC TAC CAC CAA GAT CT | Vilgalys & Hester (1990) | |
| mtSSU | MS1 | CAG CAG TCA AGA ATA TTA GTC AAT G | White et al. (1990) |
| MS2 | GCG GAT TAT CGA ATT AAA TAA C | White et al. (1990) | |
| tef1 | tefF | TAC AAR TGY GGT GGT ATY GAC A | Morehouse et al. (2003) |
| tefR | ACN GAC TTG ACY TCA GTR GT | Morehouse et al. (2003) |
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7307/table-2
Data analyses
Sequences of each region were aligned with Clustal X (Thompson et al., 1997) and then manually edited with BioEdit 5.0.6 (Hall et al., 2003). The aligned sequences of each region were analyzed using DNAstar 7.1.0 (Lasergene, WI, USA) to calculate the similarity matrices. The intra- and inter-specific variations of the candidate barcode loci for each species were then assessed using TaxonGap 2.4.1 (Slabbinck et al., 2008). Finally, the results were processed and showed by GSview 4.9.
Genetic pairwise distances for evaluating the sequence variations within and between species of the potential barcode regions were computed using MEGA 7.0 (Kumar, Stecher & Tamura, 2016) based on the Kimura 2-Parameter (K2P) model (Kimura, 1980). Barcoding gaps comparing the distributions of the pairwise intra- and inter-specific distances for each candidate barcode with distance intervals of 0.004 (ITS, nLSU, and mtSSU) or 0.008 (IGS and tef1) were estimated in Microsoft Excel 2016.
Neighbor-joining tree reconstruction
To show the relationships among the eight Lepista species, a neighbor-joining tree was constructed based on the ITS region using MEGA with the K2P substitution model. Branch support was calculated by a bootstrap analysis with 1,000 replicates, and Tricholoma matsutake (AB699640) was used as the outgroup. For comparison, the combined dataset of five regions was used to construct a neighbor-joining tree. Alignments have been deposited in TreeBASE (http://purl.org/phylo/treebase/phylows/study/TB2:S24378).
Results PCR amplification and sequencing
A total of 134 sequences of the five candidate DNA barcode regions were obtained from the eight Lepista species (Table 1). The five regions were then evaluated for their potential as barcoding markers (Table 3). Sequence lengths ranged from 400 bp for IGS to 1,000 bp for nLSU, that is, all five regions were sufficiently short to be used as barcode markers. The amplification success rate exceeded 90% for all regions except tef1, and the sequencing success rate was highest (100%) for ITS.
| Region | Region length (bp) | Total number of samples | No. of PCR successes | PCR success rate (%) | No. of sequencing successes | Sequencing success rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ITS | 605–615 | 34 | 34 | 100 | 34 | 100 |
| IGS | 415–440 | 34 | 34 | 100 | 27 | 79 |
| nLSU | 934–939 | 34 | 33 | 97 | 24 | 71 |
| mtSSU | 662–740 | 34 | 32 | 94 | 28 | 82 |
| tef1 | 861–920 | 34 | 23 | 68 | 21 | 62 |
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7307/table-3
Intra- and inter-specific variation
According to TaxonGap analyses of the intra- and inter-specific variations of the candidate DNA barcode regions, ITS, IGS, tef1, and mtSSU provided a somewhat better resolution of the eight species than nLSU. Except for nLSU, the other four regions showed significant inter- and intra-specific variation (Fig. 1).
Figure 1: Intra- and inter-specific variations among the candidate barcode regions (ITS, IGS, nLSU, mtSSU, and tef1) from eight Lepista species. Graphs were generated by TaxonGap software. The black and gray bars represent the level of inter- and intra-specific variations, respectively. The thin black lines indicate the lowest inter-specific variation for each candidate barcode. Taxon names next to the dark bars indicate the most closely related species among the species listed on the left. Four regions, that is, ITS, IGS, tef1, and mtSSU, showed significant inter- and intra-specific variation. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7307/fig-1
Barcoding gaps
Three regions, that is, ITS (Fig. 2A), IGS (Fig. 2B), and tef1 (Fig. 2E), had relatively clear barcoding gaps. The two remaining candidate barcodes (mtSSU and nLSU) had overlaps between their intra- and inter-specific distances (Figs. 2C and 2D).
Figure 2: Frequency distributions of intra- and inter-specific Kimura-2-Parameter pairwise distances among ITS, IGS, nLSU, mtSSU, and tef1 datasets from eight Lepista spp. The black and gray bars represent the level of intra- and inter-specific variations, respectively. Three regions, that is, ITS, IGS, and tef1, had relatively clear barcoding gaps. (A) ITS. (B) IGS. (C) nLSU. (D) mtSSU. (E) tef1. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7307/fig-2
Neighbor-joining analysis
In a tree generated by a neighbor-joining analysis of the ITS region, the eight species were well-separated from each other and formed independent terminal branches (Fig. 3). Sequences from different samples of the same species showed high bootstrap values. Two clades, named Lepista sp 1 and L. sp 2, were supported by high bootstrap values and were inferred to represent new species of Lepista. The topology of the combined dataset tree was similar to that produced by ITS region (Fig. S1).
Figure 3: A neighbor-joining tree generated by analysis of ITS from eight Lepista spp. Bootstrap values ≥70% are shown above the relevant branches. The eight Lepista spp. are highlighted in bold. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7307/fig-3
Discussion
There are two important factors for evaluating candidate DNA barcodes: a high success rate of PCR amplification and sequencing, and substantially greater inter-specific than intra-specific variation. In the current study, the ITS region had high success rates of amplification and sequencing, substantially greater inter-specific than intra-specific variation, as well as clear barcoding gaps among the Lepista species. Based on the criteria, we therefore conclude that the ITS region would be useful for the identification of Lepista species and determine that the ITS is a suitable DNA barcode for the genus Lepista.
The ITS region has been proposed as a universal barcode for fungi (Schoch et al., 2012). The region is present in several chromosomes and is arranged in tandem repeats that are thousands of copies long (Ajmal Ali et al., 2014). Because of the high copy number, the ITS region is easy to amplify and sequence, even with samples from very old specimens (Larsson & Jacobsson, 2004). ITS has been found to be a suitable barcode for some groups in the Agaricales, including the genus Cortinarius (Liimatainen et al., 2014; Stefani, Jones & May, 2014) and the family Lyophyllaceae (Bellanger et al., 2015).
Although IGS had a high PCR success rate (100%) and suitable inter- and intra-specific variation, its sequencing success rate was relatively low (82%), which made it the second best marker after ITS for identification of Lepista species. IGS has been previously used to differentiate among species and even among strains within the same species in yeasts (Fell et al., 2000; Scorzetti et al., 2002). In the current study, the regions of nLSU and mtSSU lacked barcoding gaps in the analysis of intra- and inter-specific distance. tef1 showed clear barcoding gaps, but its amplification and sequencing success rates were low.
In preliminary studies, we also assessed the largest subunit of RNA polymerase II (RPB1) and RPB2, but we obtained only six sequences of RPB2 and one sequence of RPB1. These numbers of RPB1 and RPB2 sequences were too small for analysis of barcoding, and the two regions were therefore not included in this study.
According to the phylogenetic analysis based on the ITS region, the eight Lepista species received high support (≥98%), which demonstrates that ITS could be used for the identification of Lepista species. The two new clades identified in the present study may represent two new species. Identification of cryptic species by DNA barcoding has been reported in the other groups, such as Amillariella (Guo et al., 2016) and Pleurotus (Li et al., 2017). In future research, the morphological characteristics of Lepista sp 1 and L. sp 2 should be described, and the utility of ITS as a barcode for identification of additional Lepista species should be evaluated.
Conclusions
In this study, we assessed five regions for identifying a DNA barcode for eight Lepista species. Only the ITS region had the highest success rates of amplification and sequencing, substantially greater inter-specific than intra-specific variation. Therefore, we propose that the ITS region could be used as a suitable DNA barcode for the genus Lepista. And the ITS region also could separate all the tested Lepista species in the phylogenetic analyses. Overall, the ITS region was proved as a reference marker for the other species.
Supplemental Information
A neighbor-joining tree generated by analysis of five regions from eight Lepista spp.
Figure S1. A neighbor-joining tree generated by analysis of five regions from eight Lepista spp. Bootstrap values ≥70% are shown above the relevant branches. The eight Lepista spp. are highlighted in bold.
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7307/supp-1
Download
The 30 ITS sequences used in this study.
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7307/supp-2
Download
The 27 IGS sequences used in this study.
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7307/supp-3
Download
The 24 nLSU sequences used in this study.
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7307/supp-4
Download
The 28 mtSSU sequences used in this study.
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7307/supp-5
Download
The 21 tef1 sequences used in this study.
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7307/supp-6
Download
ITS tree.
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7307/supp-7
Download
Combined regions tree.
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7307/supp-8
Download
Additional Information and Declarations
Competing Interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Author Contributions
Siyu Wang performed the experiments, approved the final draft.
Hongbo Guo analyzed the data, approved the final draft.
JiaJia Li contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, approved the final draft.
Wei Li contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, approved the final draft.
Qin Wang prepared figures and/or tables, approved the final draft.
Xiaodan Yu conceived and designed the experiments, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.
Data Availability
The following information was supplied regarding data availability:
Raw data are available at NCBI Genbank via accession numbers MK116588– MK116617, MK389519–MK389597, MK440305–MK440317, and MK551215–MK551222. Alignments are available in TreeBASE (http://purl.org/phylo/treebase/phylows/study/TB2:S24378).
Funding
This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 31200011, 31770014) and the Natural Science Foundation of Liaoning Province Science and Technology Department (201602668). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Ajmal Ali M, Gyulai G, Hidvégi N, Kerti B, Al Hemaid FMA, Pandey AK, Lee J. 2014. The changing epitome of species identification—DNA barcoding. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences 21(3):204-231
Al-Hatmi AM, Mirabolfathy M, Hagen F, Normand AC, Stielow JB, Karami-Osbo R, Van Diepeningen AD, Meis JF, De Hoog GS. 2016. DNA barcoding, MALDI-TOF, and AFLP data support Fusarium ficicrescens as a distinct species within the Fusarium fujikuroi species complex. Fungal Biology 120(2):265-278
Alvarado P, Moreno G, Vizzini A, Consiglio G, Manjón JL, Setti L. 2015. Atractosporocybe, Leucocybe and Rhizocybe: three new clitocyboid genera in the Tricholomatoid clade (Agaricales) with notes on Clitocybe and Lepista. Mycologia 107(1):123-136
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(1):1-12
Bellanger J-M, Moreau P-A, Corriol G, Bidaud A, Chalange R, Dudova Z, Richard F. 2015. Plunging hands into the mushroom jar: a phylogenetic framework for Lyophyllaceae (Agaricales, Basidiomycota) Genetica 143(2):169-194
Bon M. 1987. The mushrooms and toadstools of Britain and North-western Europe. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Buyck B, Kauff F, Eyssartier G, Couloux A, Hofstetter V. 2014. A multilocus phylogeny for worldwide Cantharellus (Cantharellales, Agaricomycetidae) Fungal Diversity 64(1):101-121
Cai Q, Tang L-P, Yang Z-L. 2012. DNA barcoding of eco-nomically important mushrooms: a case study on lethal Amanitas from China. Plant Diversity and Resources 34(6):614-622
Dai YC, Zhou LW, Yang ZL, Wen HA, Bau T, Li TH. 2010. A revised checklist of edible fungi in China. Mycosystema 29:1-21 [in Chinese]
Dentinger BTM, Didukh MY, Moncalvo J-M. 2011. Comparing COI and ITS as DNA barcode markers for mushrooms and allies (Agaricomycotina) PLOS ONE 6(9):e25081
Fell JW, Boekhout T, Fonseca A, Scorzetti G, Statzell-Tallman A. 2000. Biodiversity and systematics of basidiomycetous yeasts as determined by large-subunit rDNA D1/D2 domain sequence analysis. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology 50(3):1351-1371
Guo T, Wang HC, Xue WQ, Zhao J, Yang ZL. 2016. Phylogenetic analyses of Armillaria reveal at least 15 phylogenetic lineages in China, seven of which are associated with cultivated gastrodia elata. PLOS ONE 11(5):e0154794
Hajibabaei M, Singer GAC, Hebert PDN, Hickey DA. 2007. DNA barcoding: how it complements taxonomy, molecular phylogenetics and population genetics. Trends in Genetics 23(4):167-172
Hall IR, Stephenson SL, Buchanan PK, Wang Y, Cole ALJ. 2003. Edible and poisonous mushrooms of the world. Oregon: Timber Press.
Hansen L, Knudsen H. 1992. Nordic macromycetes. Copenhagen: Nordsvamp. 2
Kimura M. 1980. A simple method for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. Journal of Molecular Evolution 16(2):111-120
Kirk PM, Cannon PF, Minter DW, Stalpers JA. 2008. Ainsworth & Bisby’s dictionary of the fungi (Tenth Edition). Wallingford: CAB International.
Kumar S, Stecher G, Tamura K. 2016. MEGA7: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 7.0 for bigger datasets. Molecular Biology and Evolution 33(7):1870-1874
Larsson E, Jacobsson S. 2004. Controversy over Hygrophorus cossus settled using ITS sequence data from 200 year-old type material. Mycological Research 108(7):781-786
Li J, He X, Liu X-B, Yang ZL, Zhao Z-W. 2017. Species clarification of oyster mushrooms in China and their DNA barcoding. Mycological Progress 16(3):191-203
Li Y, Li TH, Yang ZL, Dai YC, Tolgor B. 2015. Atlas of Chinese macrofungal resources. Zhengzhou: Central Plains Farmers Press.
Li T, Song B, Lin QY, Shen YH, Lin M. 2011. Research on advances of Lepista epiphyte in China. Journal of Anhui Agricultural Sciences 39(13):7579-7581 7770
Liimatainen K, Niskanen T, Dima B, Kytövuori I, Ammirati JF, Frøslev TG. 2014. The largest type study of Agaricales species to date: Bringing identification and nomenclature of Phlegmacium (Cortinarius) into the DNA era. Persoonia—Molecular Phylogeny and Evolution of Fungi 33(1):98-140
Mao XL. 2000. The macrofungi in China. Zhengzhou: Henan Science Technology Press. [in Chinese]
Morehouse EA, James TY, Ganley ARD, Vilgalys R, Berger L, Murphy PJ, Longcore JE. 2003. Multilocus sequence typing suggests the chytrid pathogen of amphibians is a recently emerged clone. Molecular Ecology 12(2):395-403
Rehner SA, Samuels GJ. 1994. Taxonomy and phylogeny of Gliocladium analysed from nuclear large subunit ribosomal DNA sequences. Mycological Research 98(6):625-634
Schoch CL, Seifert KA, Huhndorf S, Robert V, Spouge JL, Levesque CA, Chen W, Fungal Barcoding Consortium; Fungal Barcoding Consortium Author List. 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 of America 109:6241-6246
Scorzetti G, Fell JW, Fonseca A, Statzell-Tallman A. 2002. Systematics of basidiomycetous yeasts: a comparison of large subunit D1/D2 and internal transcribed spacer rDNA regions. FEMS Yeast Research 2(4):495-517
Singer R. 1986. The Agaricales in modern taxonomy (Fourth Edition). Koenigstein: Koeltz Scientific Books.
Slabbinck B, Dawyndt P, Martens M, De Vos P, De Baets B. 2008. TaxonGap: a visualization tool for intra- and inter-species variation among individual biomarkers. Bioinformatics 24(6):866-867
Stefani FOP, Jones RH, May TW. 2014. Concordance of seven gene genealogies compared to phenotypic data reveals multiple cryptic species in Australian dermocyboid Cortinarius (Agaricales) Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 71(1):249-260
Thompson JD, Gibson TJ, Plewniak F, Jeanmougin F, Higgins DG. 1997. The CLUSTAL_X windows interface: flexible strategies for multiple sequence alignment aided by quality analysis tools. Nucleic Acids Research 25(24):4876-4882
Vialle A, Feau N, Allaire M, Didukh M, Martin F, Moncalvo JM, Hamelin RC. 2009. Evaluation of mitochondrial genes as DNA barcode for Basidiomycota. Molecular Ecology Resources 9(suppl. 1):99-113
Vilgalys R, Hester M. 1990. Rapid genetic identification and mapping of enzymatically amplified ribosomal DNA from several Cryptococcus species. Journal of Bacteriology 172(8):4238-4246
Vogler AP, Monaghan MT. 2007. Recent advances in DNA taxonomy. Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 45(1):1-10
White TJ, Bruns T, Lee S, Taylor J. 1990. Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes from phylogenetics. In: Innes MA, Gelfand DH, Sninsky JS, White TJ, eds. PCR Protocols: Methods and Applications. London: Academic Press.
Yu XD, Lv SX, Ma D, Li FF, Lin Y, Zhang L. 2014. Two new species of Melanoleuca (Agaricales, Basidiomycota) from northeastern China, supported by morphological and molecular data. Mycoscience 55(6):456-461
Zhao P, Luo J, Zhuang W, Liu X, Wu B. 2011. DNA barcoding of the fungal genus Neonectria and the discovery of two new species. Science China Life Sciences 54(7):664-674
Siyu Wang1, Hongbo Guo2, JiaJia Li1, Wei Li1, Qin Wang3, Xiaodan Yu1 1 College of Biological Science and Technology, Shenyang Agricultural University, Shenyang, China 2 College of Life Engineering, Shenyang Institute of Technology, Fushun, China 3 Liaoning Academy of Forestry, Shenyang, China
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
© 2019 Wang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Abstract
Background
Distinguishing among species in the genus Lepista is difficult because of their similar morphologies.
Methods
To identify a suitable DNA barcode for identification of Lepista species, we assessed the following five regions: internal transcribed spacer (ITS), the intergenic spacer (IGS), nuclear ribosomal RNA subunit, mitochondrial small subunit rDNA, and tef1. A total of 134 sequences from 34 samples belong to eight Lepista species were analyzed. The utility of each region as a DNA barcode was assessed based on the success rates of its PCR amplification and sequencing, and on its intra- and inter-specific variations.
Results
The results indicated that the ITS region could distinguish all species tested. We therefore propose that the ITS region can be used as a DNA barcode for the genus Lepista. In addition, a phylogenetic tree based on the ITS region showed that the tested eight Lepista species, including two unrecognized species, formed eight separate and well-supported clades.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer




