Preprint
Article

This version is not peer-reviewed.

Diversity and pathogenicity of Fusarium species associated with stalk and crown rot on maize in Northern Italy.

A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.

Submitted:

06 October 2023

Posted:

09 October 2023

You are already at the latest version

Abstract
The genus Fusarium includes several agronomically important and toxin-producing species, that are worldwide distributed and can cause a wide range of diseases. Crown and stalk rots and grain infections are among the most severe symptoms that Fusarium spp. can cause on maize. The disease development usually occurs during germination, but it may also affect the later phases of plant growth. The purpose of this study was to investigate the diversity and the patho-genicity of 41 isolates recovered from symptomatic seedlings collected in Northern Italy, and from seeds with five different geographical origins during 2019 and 2020. The pathogenicity was tested and confirmed on 23 isolates causing rotting on maize seedlings. A multi-locus phylogeny analysis, based on four genomic loci (tef1-α, rpb2, calm and tub2), was performed for 23 repre-sentative isolates. Representative isolates were identified as species belonging to three species complexes (SC). Fusarium verticillioides and F. annulatum in the F. fujikuroi SC. Fusarium commune was identified in the F. nisikadoi SC, and three different lineages were found in the Fusarium ox-ysporum SC. This study reports F. annulatum, and two lineages of the Fusarium oxysporum SC as maize pathogens for the first time in Italy.
Keywords: 
;  ;  ;  ;  

1. Introduction

Maize (Zea mays L.) is the first staple food in the world [1], and it represents the fifth most produced commodity in the European Union (EU), supplying food, feed and fuel [2]. Italy represents the tenth maize producer in EU, with 52,169,088 tons yielded in 2023 [3]. The Italian production is concentrated in the Northern regions, thus representing an economically relevant sector of agriculture for that area. Several pathogens can affect maize infecting seeds and seedlings and causing important plant diseases that lead to biosafety and phytosanitary problems and important yield and economic losses [4]. Stalk, crown and root rot are among the most severe diseases on maize [4]. Fungal species belonging to the Fusarium genus are one of the main causes of this disease on maize as well as on other cereals. Fusarium spp. are worldwide distributed and include a wide range of agronomically important and toxin-producing plant pathogens, causal agents of wilt, blight, tissues rot, and cankers of many horticultural, ornamental, and forest crops [5,6]. The infection occurs during seed germination, also affecting the plant in later growth phases, causing severe diseases, like root and stalk rot [7,8]. The disease can lead to a premature senescence and lodging of the plants, with different levels of severity depending on the pathogenic species involved, the phenological stage of the plant and the environmental conditions that occur during the cropping cycle. Fusarium species are also able to produce a wide range of mycotoxins, that accumulate in the plant tissues during the infection process, posing an important risk for human and animal health [6,8,9].
In Europe, the main species involved with maize diseases are F. graminearum, F. culmorum, and F. proliferatum [6]. Cases of root rot in maize are related to species of the Fusarium fujikuroi species complex (FFSC), especially to F. verticillioides [10]. Species belonging to the Fusarium oxysporum species complex (FOSC) and the Fusarium nisikadoi species complex (FNSC) were frequently recorded in maize seeds and seedlings [11]. Fusarium mycelium can survive in maize residues and seeds, and it may colonize seedlings and plants through systemic infection [12]. Previous research reported the ability of Fusarium species to infect seeds, transmit the pathogen through the plant and become a source of infection of the roots and stalk, up to the kernels [12,13,14]. The diagnosis of these diseases is often difficult due to the concurrent presence and the multiple isolation of Fusarium pathogens from the same symptomatic portion of the plant [15].
Currently more than 60 species belong to the FFSC, about 144 formae specialis are part of the FOSC, 6 species are included in FNSC, and several species are not officially assigned to a species complex [16,17,18]. Difficulties in Fusarium spp. identification lay on their morphological features, that are usually strongly influenced by environmental conditions, and on their molecular profile, because of wrong classifications of the sequences present in the public database and the nomenclature changes in the taxonomic system [19]. The molecular identification of fungi is usually obtained through sequencing of internal transcribed spacer (ITS), however, in the case of the genus Fusarium, ITS is exclusively able to discriminate the species complex, while the translation elongation factor (tef1-α) and the RNA polymerase second largest subunit (rpb2) genomic regions are highly informative [20,21]. Also, the beta-tubulin (tub2) and the calmodulin (calm) loci are used for Fusarium species identification [22]. Recently, the phylogenomic approach provided high resolution to distinguish species within the Fusarium genus [19]. Thus, the multi-locus phylogenetic analyses, combined with the traditional identification based on morphological methods can deepen the knowledge on this genus.
The purposes of this work, considering the economic importance of maize and the impact of Fusarium species on this crop, are to: (i) determine the pathogenicity of Fusarium spp. isolates obtained from maize seeds and seedlings, and (ii) combine phylogenetic analysis with morphological characterization of the isolates to identify and understand the diversity of the Fusarium species affecting maize, causing stalk and crown rot, in Northern Italy.

2. Results

2.1. Fungal isolates

The observed symptoms on maize plants consisted of browning, wilting and collapse of the seedlings, due to the decaying tissues of the stem. Disease incidence in the field was established considering the percentage of affected plants and ranged from 5 to 20%, depending on geographical location of the field. The symptoms were observed on seedlings of different maize hybrids, already at the V1 stage. Rotting kernels covered by mycelium were observed in the incubation test. The recorded percentage of seeds infected with Fusarium spp. in the incubation test ranged between 5 and 56%. Forty-one isolates, obtained from affected root, stem and crown tissue of the seedlings collected in the field and from the incubation test on seeds, were identified as belonging to Fusarium spp. (Table 1).

2.2. Pathogenicity test

A total of 36 out of 41 isolates tested caused root and crown rot like those observed in the field during spring 2019 and 2020 (Figure 1).
Different severity indexes, depending on the isolate tested, were observed. A total of 19 isolates showed disease indexes ranging from 13.3% to 46.7%, and only 17 of them showed a disease index higher than 50% (Table 2).
The identity of the re-isolated fungi was proved by sequencing the tef-1α locus, confirming the Koch’s postulates. No symptoms were observed on healthy control plants. A total of 23 out of 36 pathogenic isolates were selected as representative isolates, based on their cultural features, to proceed with molecular analyses and their characterization.

2.3. Phylogenetic analyses

The preliminary analysis conducted on the obtained sequences showed that the 23 selected isolates belong to three Fusarium species complexes, Fusarium fujikuroi SC, Fusarium nisikadoi SC and Fusarium oxysporum SC. The combined phylogeny analyses of tef-1α, rpb2, calm and tub2 performed for FFSC isolates consisted of 101 sequences, including the outgroup sequence of Fusarium foetens (CBS 120665). A total of 2210 characters (tef-1α: 1-621, rpb2: 628-1185, calm: 1192-1726, tub2: 1733-2210) were included in the analysis: 563 characters resulted as parsimony-informative, 604 as variable and parsimony uninformative, and 1025 were constant. A maximum number of 1000 equally most parsimonious trees were saved (Tree length = 2973, CI = 0.602, RI = 0.812 and RC = 0.488). Bootstrap support values obtained with the parsimony analysis are showed on the Bayesian phylogenies in Figure 2. Bayesian analyses, the dirichlet state frequency distributions were suggested by MrModeltest for analysing all the partitions. The following models, recommended by MrModeltest, were used: GTR+G for tef-1α, SYM+I+G for rpb2, SYM+G for calm, and HKY+G for tub2. In the Bayesian analysis, the tef1-α partition had 370 unique site patterns, the rpb2 partition had 191 unique site patterns, the calm partition had 233 unique site patterns, the tub2 partition had 269 unique site patterns and the analysis ran for 405000 generations, resulting in 812 trees of which 305 trees were used to calculate the posterior probabilities. In the combined analyses eight isolates clustered with seven reference isolates of F. verticillioides, while six isolates were grouped with 3 isolates known as reference of F. annulatum [19].
The combined phylogeny analysis of the three loci (tef-1α, rpb2 and calm) performed for FOSC isolates consisted of 47 sequences, including the outgroup sequence of Fusarium udum (NRRL22949). A total of 1762 characters (tef-1α: 1-589, rpb2: 596-1231, calm: 1238-1762) were included in the analysis: 77 characters resulted as parsimony-informative, 171 as variable and parsimony uninformative, and 1502 were constant. A maximum number of 1000 equally most parsimonious trees were saved (Tree length = 297, CI = 0.882, RI = 0.892 and RC = 0.787). Bootstrap support values obtained with the parsimony analysis are showed on the Bayesian phylogenies in Figure 3. For the Bayesian analyses, the dirichlet state frequency distributions were suggested by MrModeltest for analysing all the partitions. The following models, recommended by MrModeltest, were used: HKY for tef-1α, K80 for rpb2, and calm. In the Bayesian analysis, the tef1-α partition had 109 unique site patterns, the rpb2 partition had 71 unique site patterns, the calm partition had 57 unique site patterns and the analysis ran for 300000 generations, resulting in 602 trees of which 226 trees were used to calculate the posterior probabilities. In the combined analyses one isolate clustered with four reference isolates and the ex-type of F. nirenbergiae, one isolate was identified as F. cugenangense, while five isolates were identified as F. oxysporum sensu lato, cause they not cluster with anyone of reference sequences, according with the recent taxoxonomy revision of this SC reported by Lombard et al. [17].
The combined phylogeny analysis of the four loci (tef-1α, rpb2, calm and tub2) performed for FNSC isolates consisted of 15 sequences, including the outgroup sequence of Fusarium udum (NRRL22949). A total of 2024 characters (tef-1α: 1-585, rpb2: 592-1362, calm: 1369-1594, tub2: 1601-2024) were included in the analysis, 186 characters resulted as parsimony-informative, 333 as variable and parsimony uninformative, and 1487 were constant. A maximum number of 1000 equally most parsimonious trees were saved (Tree length = 616, CI = 0.959, RI = 0.922 and RC = 0.884). Bootstrap support values obtained with the parsimony analysis are showed on the Bayesian phylogenies in Figure 4. For the Bayesian analyses, the dirichlet state frequency distributions were suggested by MrModeltest for analysing all the partitions. The following models, recommended by MrModeltest, were used: HKY for tef-1α, HKY+G for rpb2, JC for calm, and SYM+G for tub2. In the Bayesian analysis, the tef1-α partition had 106 unique site patterns, the rpb2 partition had 47 unique site patterns, the calm partition had 19 unique site patterns, the tub2 partition had 57 unique site patterns and the analysis ran for 400000 generations, resulting in 802 trees of which 301 trees were used to calculate the posterior probabilities. In the combined analyses two isolates clustered with seven reference isolates of F. commune.

2.4. Morphology

Morphological features, supported by phylogenetic analysis, were assessed, and used to characterize 6 species, belonging to three species complexes, found in this study. (Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7).
Seven-day-old colonies of F. verticillioides showed white abundant aerial mycelium that developed violet pigments with age. Colony radius was 55–70 mm. Monophialides were produced and appeared in V-shaped pairs, similar to “rabbit ears”. Microconidia were hyaline, oval to club shaped, aseptate, (6-)7-12(-13) x 2.5-3.5 μm (mean 7 x 3.0 μm), abundant in aerial mycelium and disposed in long chains. Macroconidia were straight and slender, with the apical cell foot-shaped, 4-6 septate, hyaline, (28-)32-49(-52) x 2.5-3 μm (mean 38.5 x 3.0 μm). Chlamydospores were absent.
F. annulatum colonies, after 7 days at 25°C on PDA reached 50-60 mm diameter. The surface was characterized by white aerial mycelium that became darker with age, while the reverse showed intense pink to purple pigments at the center of the colony. Conidiophores produce mono and polyphialides, which generates a large number of microconidia that could be grouped in long chains, on CLA. Microconidia are formed on aerial conidiophores, hyaline, oval to elliptical, aseptate, (2-)5-12(-15) x 1.5-3.5 μm (mean 8.8 x 2 μm). Macroconidia are hyaline, slender, straight to curve, with foot-shaped apical cell, 4-5 septate, (30-)35-42(-54) x 2-4 μm (mean 37 x 3 μm). Chlamydospores are absent.
F. commune colonies morphology was characterized by white to pink, abundant, floccose to fluffy mycelium on the surface and by violet pigmentation on the reverse colony. After 7 days of incubation at 25°C colony radial growth reach 45-50 mm, on PDA. F. commune produced both, mono and polyphialides. On CLA the isolates produced slightly curved 3-4 septate macroconidia (23-)28-56(-66) x 2.5-6 μm (mean 38.5 x 4 μm) and aseptate, cylindrical, and straight microconidia (3.5-)5-7(8.2) x 2-3 μm (mean 6 x 2.5 μm). Chlamydospores were produced, single or in pairs.
F. nirenbergiae colony radial growth measure 55-60 mm, after 7 days on PDA. The colony surface was characterized by an abundant pink and floccose mycelium, and by greyish pink pigments on the reverse. Conidiophores carried on the aerial mycelium produced monophialides that bears oval, aseptate microconidia (8-)9-15(-16.2) x 2-3.5 μm (mean 11.2 x 3.2 μm), and 3-4 septate, slender, straight, with a papillate apical cell and a foot shaped basal cell (26.5-)28-30(-32.2) x 2.5-4.8 μm (mean 28.5 x 3.4 μm) macroconidia. Globose chlamydospores were produced.
Figure 7. Morphological features of the species belonging to FOSC identified in this study, (A, B, C, D, E, F) F. cugenangense, (G, H, I, J, K, L) F. nirenbergiae, and (M, N, O, P, Q, R) F. oxysporum sensu lato. a-b-g-h-m-n. Colonies on PDA above and below; c–d-i-j-o-p. conidia; e-k-q. conidiogenous cells; f-l-r. chlamydospores.— Scale bars = 10 μm.
Figure 7. Morphological features of the species belonging to FOSC identified in this study, (A, B, C, D, E, F) F. cugenangense, (G, H, I, J, K, L) F. nirenbergiae, and (M, N, O, P, Q, R) F. oxysporum sensu lato. a-b-g-h-m-n. Colonies on PDA above and below; c–d-i-j-o-p. conidia; e-k-q. conidiogenous cells; f-l-r. chlamydospores.— Scale bars = 10 μm.
Preprints 87108 g007
One isolate was identified as F. cugenangense, which colony morphology on PDA was characterized by white to pink, abundant, and cottony mycelium on the surface and pink at center to pale grey on colony reverse. Colony radius, after 7 days at 25°C under 12-h photoperiod on PDA, was 40–56 mm. It was characterized by monophialidic conidiogenous cells that produced 3-6 septate macroconidia (42.5-)46-55(-56.2) x 5.5-6.5 μm (mean 50.2 x 6 μm), with papillate apical cells and foot-shaped basal cells. Microconidia were abundant, oval to elliptical, 0-3 septate (7-)8.3-10.5(-13) x 4-7.5 μm (mean 9 x 5.6 μm). Chlamydospores are globose and formed single or in pairs.
The isolates classified as F. oxysporum sensu lato were characterized by an abundant pink to purple and floccose mycelium, and by purple to red pigments on the reverse. Colony radius was 50–60 mm after 7 days at 25°C under 12-h photoperiod on PDA. The isolates were characterized by conidiophores that produced monophialides, that bears slender, straight, 3-5 septate, with foot shaped basal cells and papillate apical cells macroconidia (29-)30-37(-44) x 3-4.5 μm (mean 35 x 3.8 μm). Microconidia were abundant, oval, aseptate (5.5-)6-11(-15) x 2-3 μm (mean 9.2 x 2.5 μm). Single chlamydospores were formed.

3. Discussion

Several species of Fusarium represent a severe problem for cereals cultivation and production worldwide causing relevant yield and economic losses and posing a serious threat to human and animal health due to their ability to produce mycotoxins [4].
In the present study, Fusarium spp. were isolated from maize seedlings with symptoms of root and crown rot in Northern Italy, and from rotted kernels collected in 5 different countries with the aim to investigate their diversity and pathogenicity. Isolates from seed were included, due to the ability of Fusarium species to be seed borne and seed transmitted [12,23], causing stalk, crown and root rot that can be observed in the field under favorable soil moisture and temperature conditions. A polyphasic approach was used to study the fungal isolates obtained from the affected plants including the analysis of multiple characters, since the morphological features alone, which represent the traditional identification method used for Fusarium spp. identification, are not enough to discriminate among species [16]. The combination of multi-locus sequence analysis, pathogenicity data and morphological characteristics, represent the best way to characterize fungi at species level. According to O’Donnell et al. [24], ITS region is not able to distinguish Fusarium species boundaries and for this reason was not considered in this study. The tef1-α, rpb2, tub2 and calm loci were used for Fusarium spp. identification, according to the previous phylogenetic analysis of the genus reported in literature [16,17,19]. Six different species were identified in association with infection of crown, root and seeds of maize: F. verticillioides and F. annulatum belonging to the FFSC, F. commune belonging to the FNSC, and three different lineages in the FOSC. The FFSC contains 84 described species, including a large number of cryptic species identifiable only based on phylogenetic inference [16,18,19]. The complex includes important plant pathogens and toxin-producers [16], and species belonging to FFSC can be discriminated from other complexes due to the production of macroconidia, a large amount of microconidia and sporadically of chlamydospore [19]. The results obtained in this study allowed the classification of 14 isolates in this complex, identified as F. verticillioides and F. annulatum.
Fusarium verticillioides is one of the most important species that affects maize, it is worldwide distributed and it can cause important yield and grain quality losses [25]. It is primarily reported as the causal agent of the ear rot on maize, however studies also reported the pathogen as responsible of symptoms of seedlings decay, and stalk, crown, and root rot on maize [19,26,27]. F. annulatum, firstly described by Bugnicourt et al. [28], is a species associated with symptoms of rot on different crops, such as cantaloupe melons in Spain or saffron in China [29,30]. The name F. annulatum is often confused with F. proliferatum, a well-known maize pathogen, associated with crown and root rot [15,31]. A phylogenetic analysis based on LSU, SSU, and tub2 genomic loci showed that the reference sequence of F. annulatum (CBS 258.54) introduced by Bagnicourt [28], clustered with representative strains of F. proliferatum (CBS 217.76, NRRL 25089) [32]. These results led to the wide report of F. proliferatum, instead of F. annulatum, as maize pathogen. However, a recent multi-locus phylogenetic analyses based on calm, rpb1, rpb2, and tef1-α loci, including the epitype of F. proliferatum (CBS 480.96), established that this species clustered distant from F. annulatum [19]. The same study demonstrated that several cereals pathogenic isolates, identified as F. proliferatum in previous researches [15,31,33], should be identified as F. annulatum. The present research, based on the taxonomic characterization of Yilmaz et al. [16], demonstrated the characterization of the pathogenic isolates as the species F. verticillioides and F. annulatum, which belong to the same species complex and represent the highest proportion of the pathogenic isolates infecting maize samples considered in this study. To our knowledge this is the first report of F. annulatum as causal agent of stalk, crown and root rot on maize, in Italy. Fusarium commune belongs to FNSC and it is principally known as a pathogen of rice and maize [34]. Its behavior as pathogen is similar to those of some species belonging to FOSC, causing rot and wilt of the plants [19]. Recent studies reported F. commune as causal agent of stalk, crown and root rot on maize in Italy [35], and in Liaoning province in China [36]. The phylogenetic analysis conducted by Skovgaard et al. [37] identified the species as a sister group to FOSC, a result supported by the high morphological similarity between these taxa. Species of FNSC could be distinguished from those of FOSC only because of the presence of long and thin monophialides and the occasional production of polyphialides [34,37]. To discriminate and identify the species the tef1-α genomic region was used, due to its high phylogenetic signal [34]. Fusarium oxysporum is an economically important soilborne and ubiquitous plant pathogen, that covers the fifth place in the top ten rank of the most important phytopathogens [38], and it is mainly known as causal agent of plant wilts. The challenge in identification of the species belonging to this complex is due to the inability to discriminate them on the basis of morphological features, the affected wide host range and their geographical distribution [39,40]. The tef1-α and rpb2 genomic loci provided the best resolution in distinguishing the species, as seen by Lombard et al. [17]. The calmodulin provided a little support, while the β-tubulin was excluded. Considering the current literature [17,19], the multi-locus phylogenetic analysis performed in this study allowed to identify seven isolates within three lineages of FOSC. The first lineage includes one isolate which formed a well-supported clade with the reference isolate and the ex-type of F. nirenbergiae. The second lineage includes one isolate which clustered with reference of F. cugenangense. Whilst the third lineage includes five isolates that did not cluster with any of the reference species used for the phylogenetic analyses and that were defined as F. oxysporum sensu lato. Fusarium nirenbergiae belongs to FOSC and it is reported as pathogen on saffron in China [30], and on passion fruit in Italy [41]. It was recently described as pathogen on maize in China [19], and our study represents the first finding of this species as maize pathogen in Italy. It is closely related to F. curvatum, and it can be morphologically distinguished from this species by the production of monophialidic conidiogenous cells and the production of chlamydospores, that are absent in F. curvatum [17]. For the species identification, morphological features must be supported by phylogenetic inference. The tef-1α and the rpb2 gene regions provided the best resolution to distinguish the species [17]. Fusarium cugenangense was previously included in the species F. oxysporum f. sp. cubense, the causal agent of banana wilt, however phylogenetic analyses distinguished this lineage as a new independent species [42]. This pathogen has a wide host range, such as Acer palmatum, Crocus sp., Gossypium barbadense, Hordeum vulgare, Solanum tuberosum, Smilax sp., Tulipa gesneriana, Musa nana, Musa sp., Vicia faba and Zea mays [18,19,42]. To our knowledge, this is the first report of F. cugenangense as pathogen of Zea mays in Italy. This species is closely related to F. callisthephi, F. elaeidis, and to other formae speciales, however it can be discriminated from the other species under the morphological point of view, due the septation of the macroconidia, and the only production of monophialides [17,42]. Molecular identification and discrimination were supported by the amplification of tef-1α and rpb2 loci [17]. The identification of species belonging to FOSC represents a great challenge due to the complexity and the endless evolution of the taxonomy of the genus Fusarium. During the last decades, a plethora of new species was described, increasing problems for Fusarium taxonomy users [43]. Therefore, there is an agreement on the need to stabilize the taxonomy of the complex while conducting further studies to clarify species concepts to allow the correct characterization of species within FOSC. [17,43,44]. The high species diversity, found in the present study from a molecular point of view, should be supported by analyses on the pathogenicity and host preference of these species.
The pathogenicity tests, hereby performed, confirmed that all the species were able to cause symptoms of crown and root rot in maize seedlings. This is in line with the results obtained by other scientists which contribute to increase the knowledge on the complexity of the maize microbiome and on the etiology of soilborne diseases [45,46,47]. The isolates that were confirmed as pathogenic, showed different levels of aggressiveness on maize seedlings. The F. verticillioides, F. annulatum, F. commune isolates always showed a disease index higher than 50%, except for one isolate of F. verticillioides (8.2) that showed a disease index of 20%. Regarding the isolates belonging to FOSC, one isolate of F. oxysporum sensu lato and the isolate of F. nirenbergiae showed a disease index higher than 50%, while the other isolates of F. oxysporum sensu lato and the isolate of F. cugenangense showed lower indexes, ranging from 20% to 45%. Considering the economic and agronomic relevance of maize, and the susceptibility of this crop to pathogenic Fusarium species, it is important to provide a correct diagnosis for a rapid and effective disease management. This study investigated the species involved in maize diseases associated with symptoms of stalk, crown, and root rot in Northern Italy as well as those associated with seeds from different countries. Moreover, it provides useful information on tools to analyze the target loci to identify Fusarium species laying the base for future studies on their detection to develop specific and sensitive diagnostic tools that speed up the diagnosis of these pathogens. The identification process usually requires long time and several steps, starting from the description of the symptoms, the environmental conditions in which the infection occurred, the isolation, purification and morphological and molecular identification of the causal agents of the disease observed [48]. The development of rapid, specific and accurate molecular diagnostic tools could allow the identification and quantification of multiple pathogens in symptomatic plants and seeds as well as in those not yet expressing symptoms. Further investigations should be addressed to evaluate the putative cross pathogenicity of these species and the seed-borne rate in causing the symptoms observed in the field and reproduced in this study, to provide a deeper insight on the pathogens and disease development, then to improve management sustainable control strategies.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Fungal isolates

During 2019 and 2020, different surveys were conducted in six maize fields in Northern Italy. The surveyed fields were in San Zenone degli Ezzelini (VI), Cigliano (VC) and Crescentino (VC). Root and crown rot symptoms were detected on seedlings of different hybrids of maize early in the season, between V1 (first leaf) and V3 (third leaf) phenological stage. Symptomatic samples were collected and washed under running tap water for 2 minutes to remove soil debris. Small sections (0.1-0.2 cm) were cut on the edge of the symptomatic portions, surface sterilized in 1% hypochlorite solution for one min, rinsed in sterile distilled water and placed on potato dextrose agar (PDA, Merck, USA) to isolate fungi. After an incubation of 72 hours at room temperature, the plates were observed and mycelial plugs from the developed fungal colonies were transferred on new PDA plates to obtain pure cultures.
In 2019, from 24 commercial lots , produced in 5 different countries (France, Italy, Romania, Turkey and USA), 500 g of seeds were sampled and analysed with an incubation test to evaluate their phytosanitary conditions [49]. A total of 400 seeds of each lot was disinfected with 100 ml of a water solution containing 55.9% of commercial chlorine (5.37%), 10.4% of absolute alcohol (96%) and 10 µl of Tween 20 for 15 min and then rinsed three times with sterile distilled water and dried on sterile paper. The disinfected seeds were placed in 12 × 12 plastic boxes over three layers of sterile filter paper soaked with a 0.05% sodium hypochlorite water solution. The boxes were placed in a growth chamber at 25 °C ± 2 °C, under a 12 h near-ultraviolet light (NUV)12 h dark cycle, for 48 h, then for 24 h at -20 °C and then incubated in the growth chamber for 11 days. Colonies were isolated from seeds and placed on PDA plates to obtain pure cultures.

4.2. Pathogenicity test

The pathogenicity of the 41 isolates was assessed following the protocol described by Okello et al. [15]. Pure cultures of the isolates were grown on PDA, amended with 25 mg/L of streptomycin sulphate, for 14 days at room temperature. After two weeks, mycelium plugs (15 mm) of each isolate were transferred into conical flasks (250 ml) containing a sterile sand/corn meal substrate, prepared with 54 g of sand, 6 g of corn meal and 10 ml of deionized water per flask. Five replicate flasks were used for each isolate. The inoculated flasks were then incubated at 23±2°C for 23 day, mixing them daily. A total of 300 maize seeds (P1565, Pioneer Hi-Bred, Italy) was incubated at 23±2°C for three days in Petri dishes filled with moisturized sterile filter paper to promote their germination and to obtain seedlings for inoculation. Once germinated, six seedlings per isolate were transplanted in inoculated pots (volume 2L) filled, following the protocol described by Bilgi et al. [50], with a first layer of 40 g of perlite, followed by a second layer of 20 g of inoculum and a final layer of 20 g of perlite. A total of 123 inoculated plastic pots were used considering 2 seedling per pot and 3 pots per fungal isolate. The pots were incubated in the greenhouse at 22±2°C for 14 days. The root rot severity was assessed with a scale that ranged from 1 to 5 at 14 days post-inoculation. The adopted scale was as follow: 1 = germinated seed and healthy seedling without symptoms of root rot; 2 = germinated seeds and 1-19% of symptomatic roots; 3 = germinated seed and 20-74% of symptomatic roots; 4 = germinated seed and> 75% symptomatic roots; 5 = complete colonization of the seed and undeveloped seedling [51]. The data were expressed as disease index (DI) 0–100, calculated with the following formula: DI= [∑ (i × ni)]⁄(4 × total of plants)]×100; where i = 0–4 and ni is the number of plants with rating i. The assay was performed in triplicate and the data obtained expressed as mean value of the three replications carried out.

4.3. Data analyses

The data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA), after testing that the resulting disease index data were normally distributed with a Levene's test, using SPSS Statistics v. 27.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, U.S.A.). The Duncan’s test was used to explore differences between multiple group means (p ≤ 0.05). Statistical analysis was performed with the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS, IBM, Chicago, IL, USA) version 27.0.

4.4. DNA extraction, PCR and sequencing

A total of 23 isolates was selected as representative based on their positive results in the pathogenicity test and used for the following analyses. Genomic DNA was extracted from each isolate, transferring 100 mg of mycelium in a 2 mL microcentrifuge tube and following the manufacturers’ instructions of the Omega E.Z.N.A.® Fungal DNA mini kit (Omega Bio-Tek, Norcross, GA, USA), after a 15-min cycle, at 25 Hz, in Tissuelyser (Qiagen®). Partial translation elongation factor-1α (tef-1α), RNA polymerase second largest subunit (rpb2), calmodulin (calm), and beta-tubulin (tub2) genomic regions were amplified using EF1 and EF2 [52], rpb2-7cr and rpb2-5f [53], CAL-228f and CAL-737r [54], CL1 and CL2A [24] and T1 [55] and Bt2b [56] primers, respectively. The PCR mixtures and the cycling conditions for the amplification of tef-1α, calm and tub2 followed the protocols described by Guarnaccia et al. [57] and Weir et al. [58]. For the rpb2 the PCR protocol by Yilmaz et al. [16] was optimized as follows: 94 °C 90 s; 40 cycles of 94 °C 30 s, 55 °C 90 s, 68 °C 2 min; 68 °C 5 min. PCR amplification was checked by electrophoresis on 1% agarose (VWR Life Science AMRESCO® biochemicals) gels stained with GelRedTM. PCR products were sequenced by BMR Genomics (Padova, Italy) and the obtained sequences were analyzed and assembled with the program Geneious v. 11.1.5 (Auckland, New Zealand).

4.5. Phylogenetic analyses

The sequences generated in this research were analysed with the NCBIs GenBank database through the BLAST-N program to determine the closest species and the species complexes to which they belong and then compared with reference sequences reported in literature [16,17,18,19,24,39,44,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66] and downloaded from GenBank, to establish the identity of the explored isolates. All the different regions of the sequences of this study and those downloaded from GenBank were aligned with the MAFFT v. 7 online server (http://mafft.cbrc.jp/alignment/server/index.html) [67], and then manually adjusted in MEGA v. 7 [68]. A preliminary analysis was conducted on the tef1-α region (data not shown) to determine which species complex the representative isolates belonged to. Phylogeny was processed through different analyses conducted as multilocus sequence analyses using different datasets in accordance with previous studies [16,17,19]. The analysis for the FFSC and the FNSC were performed combining tef-1α, rpb2, calm and tub2 datasets, rooted with F. foetens (CBS 120665) and F. udum (NRRL 22949), respectively. The combined tef-1α, rpb2 and calm datasets were used to perform the analyses for the FOSC, rooted with F. udum (NRRL 22949). The phylogenies were based on Maximum-Parsimony (MP) and Bayesian Inference (BI) methods. The MP analysis were performed with PAUP [69], while the Bayesian analyses were carried out with MrBayes v. 3.2.5 [70], including the best evolutionary model for each partition as defined by MrModelTest v. 2.3 [71]. BI analyses were processed using four Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) chains with a sampling frequency of 1000 generations. The heating condition was set to 0.2 and the analyses end when the standard deviation of split frequencies was less than 0.01. For the MP analyses, phylogenetic relationships were estimated by heuristic searches with 100 random addition sequences. Tree bisection-reconnection was used, with the branch swapping option set on ‘best trees’ only with all characters weighted equally and alignment gaps treated as fifth state. Tree length (TL), consistency index (CI), retention index (RI) and rescaled consistence index (RC) were calculated for parsimony and the bootstrap analyses were based on 1000 replications. The clade is supported when the Bootstrap support value is ≥ 70 %, and the Bayesian PP value is ≥ 0.9. Sequences generated and used in this study were deposited in GenBank (Table 3).

4.6. Morphology

The characterization and the description of Fusarium isolates was conducted using macro and micromorphological features as described by Leslie et al. [25]. Single conidia colonies of the 23 representative isolates were grown on PDA for 10 days. Colony growth and macromorphological features were determined by placing agar plugs (5 mm), taken from the edge of actively growing cultures, on PDA plates incubated at 25±1°C, under a 12/12 h near UV light, for 7 days [66]. All the isolates were transferred on carnation leaf agar (CLA) plates [72], and incubated at 25±1°C under a 12/12h near UV light for 14 days to induce sporulation. Micromorphological features were observed and 50 random measurements of macroconidia, microconidia, conidiogenous cells and chlamydospores were done for each isolate at 40X magnification with a Leica DM2500 microscope. The observations were made by placing the plates directly under the microscope. Measurements were reported as mean value, standard deviation, minimum, and maximum values.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.M and M.S.; methodology, M.S.; formal analysis, M.S. V.G. I.M.; resources, M.M.; data curation, M.S. I.M.; writing—original draft preparation, M.S.; writing—review and editing, M.S. M.M. I.M. V.G..; supervision, M.M., V.G.; funding acquisition, M.M.

Funding

This research was funded by AGROINNOVA DIAGNOSTICS Laboratory. www.agroinnova.unito.it

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

Authors thank CAPAC Soc. Coop. Agricola, Torino, Italy for providing the seed samples and dr. Marco Troisi, CORTEVA Agriscience, Italy, for providing the maize seedlings.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Erenstein, O.; Jaleta, M.; Sonder, K.; Mottaleb, K.; Prasanna, B. Global maize production, consumption and trade: trends and R&D implications. Food Secur. 2022, 14, 1295–1319, . [CrossRef]
  2. FAOSTAT. https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/%3F%23data#data/QCL/visualize (accessed 2023-07-21).
  3. Coltivazioni : Cereali, legumi, radici bulbi e tuberi. http://dati.istat.it/Index.aspx?QueryId=33702 (accessed 2023-07-21).
  4. Munkvold, G.; White, D. Compendium of Corn Diseases.; AACC International, 2016.
  5. 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.
  6. Oldenburg, E.; Höppner, F.; Ellner, F.; Weinert, J. Fusarium diseases of maize associated with mycotoxin contamination of agricultural products intended to be used for food and feed. Mycotoxin Res. 2017, 33, 167–182, . [CrossRef]
  7. Logrieco, A.; Bottalico, A.; Mule, G.; Moretti, A.; Perrone, G. Epidemiology of toxigenic fungi and their associated mycotoxins for some Mediterranean crops. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2003, 109, 645–667. [CrossRef]
  8. Zargaryan, N.; Kekalo, A.; Nemchenko, V. Infection of grain crops with fungi of the genus Fusarium. BIO Web Conf. 2021, 36, 04008, . [CrossRef]
  9. Desjardins, A. E. Fusarium Mycotoxins: Chemistry, Genetics, and Biology.; American Phytopathological Society (APS Press), 2006.
  10. Leyva-Madrigal, K.Y.; Larralde-Corona, C.P.; Apodaca-Sánchez, M.A.; Quiroz-Figueroa, F.R.; Mexia-Bolaños, P.A.; Portillo-Valenzuela, S.; Ordaz-Ochoa, J.; Maldonado-Mendoza, I.E. Fusarium Species from the Fusarium fujikuroi Species Complex Involved in Mixed Infections of Maize in Northern Sinaloa, Mexico. J. Phytopathol. 2014, 163, 486–497, . [CrossRef]
  11. Duan, C.; Qin, Z.; Yang, Z.; Li, W.; Sun, S.; Zhu, Z.; Wang, X. Identification of Pathogenic Fusarium spp. Causing Maize Ear Rot and Potential Mycotoxin Production in China. Toxins 2016, 8, 186, . [CrossRef]
  12. Wilke, A.L.; Bronson, C.R.; Tomas, A.; Munkvold, G.P. Seed Transmission of Fusarium verticillioides in Maize Plants Grown Under Three Different Temperature Regimes. Plant Dis. 2007, 91, 1109–1115, . [CrossRef]
  13. Kedera, C. J.; Leslie, J. F.; Claflin, L. E. Systemic Infection of Corn by Fusarium Moniliforme. Phytopathology 1992, 82, 1138.
  14. McGee, D.C.; Carlton, W.M.; Opoku, J.; Kleczewski, N.M.; Hamby, K.A.; Herbert, D.A.; Malone, S.; Mehl, H.L.; Morales, L.; Marino, T.P.; et al. Importance of Different Pathways for Maize Kernel Infection by Fusarium moniliforme. Phytopathology® 1997, 87, 209–217, . [CrossRef]
  15. Okello, P. N.; Petrović, K.; Kontz, B.; Mathew, F. M. Eight Species of Fusarium Cause Root Rot of Corn (Zea Mays) in South Dakota. Plant Health Prog. 2019, 20 (1), 38–43.
  16. Yilmaz, N.; Sandoval-Denis, M.; Lombard, L.; Visagie, C.; Wingfield, B.; Crous, P. Redefining species limits in the Fusarium fujikuroi species complex. Persoonia - Mol. Phylogeny Evol. Fungi 2021, 46, 129–162, . [CrossRef]
  17. Lombard, L.; Sandoval-Denis, M.; Lamprecht, S. C.; Crous, P. W. Epitypification of Fusarium Oxysporum–Clearing the Taxonomic Chaos. Persoonia-Mol. Phylogeny Evol. Fungi 2019, 43 (1), 1–47.
  18. Wang, M.; Crous, P.; Sandoval-Denis, M.; Han, S.; Liu, F.; Liang, J.; Duan, W.; Cai, L. Fusarium and allied genera from China: species diversity and distribution. Persoonia - Mol. Phylogeny Evol. Fungi 2022, 48, 1–53, . [CrossRef]
  19. Han, S.; Wang, M.; Ma, Z.; Raza, M.; Zhao, P.; Liang, J.; Gao, M.; Li, Y.; Wang, J.; Hu, D.; et al. Fusarium diversity associated with diseased cereals in China, with an updated phylogenomic assessment of the genus. Stud. Mycol. 2023, 104, 87–148, . [CrossRef]
  20. Geiser, D.M.; Jiménez-Gasco, M.d.M.; Kang, S.; Makalowska, I.; Veeraraghavan, N.; Ward, T.J.; Zhang, N.; Kuldau, G.A.; O'Donnell, K. FUSARIUM-ID v. 1.0: A DNA Sequence Database for Identifying Fusarium. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2004, 110, 473–479, . [CrossRef]
  21. O’donnell, K.; Ward, T.J.; Robert, V.A.R.G.; Crous, P.W.; Geiser, D.M.; Kang, S. DNA sequence-based identification of Fusarium: Current status and future directions. Phytoparasitica 2015, 43, 583–595, . [CrossRef]
  22. O’donnell, K.; Whitaker, B.K.; Laraba, I.; Proctor, R.H.; Brown, D.W.; Broders, K.; Kim, H.-S.; McCormick, S.P.; Busman, M.; Aoki, T.; et al. DNA Sequence-Based Identification ofFusarium: A Work in Progress. Plant Dis. 2022, 106, 1597–1609, . [CrossRef]
  23. Leslie, J. F. Introductory Biology of Fusarium Moniliforme. In Fumonisins in Food; Jackson, L. S., DeVries, J. W., Bullerman, L. B., Eds.; Advances in Experimental medicine and Biology; Springer US: Boston, MA, 1996; pp 153–164. [CrossRef]
  24. O’donnell, K.; Nirenberg, H.I.; Aoki, T.; Cigelnik, E. A Multigene phylogeny of the Gibberella fujikuroi species complex: Detection of additional phylogenetically distinct species. Mycoscience 2000, 41, 61–78, . [CrossRef]
  25. Leslie, J. F.; Summerell, B. A. The Fusarium Laboratory Manual; John Wiley & Sons, 2008.
  26. Murillo-Williams, A.; Munkvold, G.P. Systemic Infection by Fusarium verticillioides in Maize Plants Grown Under Three Temperature Regimes. Plant Dis. 2008, 92, 1695–1700, . [CrossRef]
  27. Nezhad, A. S.; Nourollahi, K. Population Genetic Structure of Fusarium Verticillioides the Causal Agent of Corn Crown and Root Rot in Ilam Province Using Microsatellite Markers. J. Crop Prot. 2020, 9 (1), 157–170.
  28. Bugnicourt, F. Une Espèce Fusarienne Nouvelle, Parasite Du Riz. Rev. Génerale Bot. 1952, 59, 13–18.
  29. Parra, M..; Gómez, J.; Aguilar, F.W.; Martinez, J.A. Fusarium annulatum causes Fusarium rot of cantaloupe melons in Spain. Phytopathol. Mediterr. 2022, 16, 269–277, . [CrossRef]
  30. Mirghasempour, S.A.; Studholme, D.J.; Chen, W.; Cui, D.; Mao, B. Identification and Characterization of Fusarium nirenbergiae Associated with Saffron Corm Rot Disease. Plant Dis. 2022, 106, 486–495, . [CrossRef]
  31. Özer, G.; Paulitz, T.C.; Imren, M.; Alkan, M.; Muminjanov, H.; Dababat, A.A. Identity and Pathogenicity of Fungi Associated with Crown and Root Rot of Dryland Winter Wheat in Azerbaijan. Plant Dis. 2020, 104, 2149–2157, . [CrossRef]
  32. O'Donnell, K.; Cigelnik, E.; Nirenberg, H.I. Molecular systematics and phylogeography of theGibberella fujikuroispecies complex. Mycologia 1998, 90, 465–493, . [CrossRef]
  33. Wulff, E.G.; Sørensen, J.L.; Lübeck, M.; Nielsen, K.F.; Thrane, U.; Torp, J. Fusarium spp. associated with rice Bakanae: ecology, genetic diversity, pathogenicity and toxigenicity. Environ. Microbiol. 2010, 12, 649–657, . [CrossRef]
  34. Husna, A.; Zakaria, L.; Nor, N.M.I.M. Fusarium commune associated with wilt and root rot disease in rice. Plant Pathol. 2020, 70, 123–132, . [CrossRef]
  35. Mezzalama, M.; Guarnaccia, V.; Martino, I.; Tabone, G.; Gullino, M.L. First Report of Fusarium commune Causing Root and Crown Rot on Maize in Italy. Plant Dis. 2021, 105, 4156–4156, . [CrossRef]
  36. Xi, K.; Haseeb, H.A.; Shan, L.; Guo, W.; Dai, X. First Report of Fusarium commune Causing Stalk Rot on Maize in Liaoning Province, China. Plant Dis. 2019, 103, 773–773, . [CrossRef]
  37. Skovgaard, K.; Rosendahl, S.; O'Donnell, K.; Nirenberg, H.I. Fusarium commune Is a New Species Identified by Morphological and Molecular Phylogenetic Data. Mycologia 2003, 95, 630–636, . [CrossRef]
  38. Dean, R.; Van Kan, J. A.; Pretorius, Z. A.; Hammond-Kosack, K. E.; Di Pietro, A.; Spanu, P. D.; Rudd, J. J.; Dickman, M.; Kahmann, R.; Ellis, J. The Top 10 Fungal Pathogens in Molecular Plant Pathology. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2012, 13 (4), 414–430.
  39. Laurence, M.H.; Walsh, J.L.; Shuttleworth, L.A.; Robinson, D.M.; Johansen, R.M.; Petrovic, T.; Vu, T.T.H.; Burgess, L.W.; Summerell, B.A.; Liew, E.C.Y. Six novel species of Fusarium from natural ecosystems in Australia. Fungal Divers. 2015, 77, 349–366, . [CrossRef]
  40. Maymon, M.; Sharma, G.; Hazanovsky, M.; Erlich, O.; Pessach, S.; Freeman, S.; (Lahkim), L.T. Characterization of Fusarium population associated with wilt of jojoba in Israel. Plant Pathol. 2021, 70, 793–803, . [CrossRef]
  41. Aiello, D.; Fiorenza, A.; Leonardi, G.R.; Vitale, A.; Polizzi, G. Fusarium nirenbergiae (Fusarium oxysporum Species Complex) Causing the Wilting of Passion Fruit in Italy. Plants 2021, 10, 2011, . [CrossRef]
  42. Maryani, N.; Lombard, L.; Poerba, Y.S.; Subandiyah, S.; Crous, P.W.; Kema, G.H.J. Phylogeny and genetic diversity of the banana Fusarium wilt pathogen Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense in the Indonesian centre of origin. Stud. Mycol. 2018, 92, 155–194, . [CrossRef]
  43. Summerell, B.A. Resolving Fusarium: Current Status of the Genus. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2019, 57, 323–339, . [CrossRef]
  44. Crous, P.; Lombard, L.; Sandoval-Denis, M.; Seifert, K.; Schroers, H.-J.; Chaverri, P.; Gené, J.; Guarro, J.; Hirooka, Y.; Bensch, K.; et al. Fusarium: more than a node or a foot-shaped basal cell. Stud. Mycol. 2021, 98, 100116, . [CrossRef]
  45. Moparthi, S.; Burrows, M.E.; Mgbechi-Ezeri, J.; Agindotan, B. Fusarium spp. Associated With Root Rot of Pulse Crops and Their Cross-Pathogenicity to Cereal Crops in Montana. Plant Dis. 2021, 105, 548–557, . [CrossRef]
  46. Gaige, A.R.; Todd, T.; Stack, J.P. Interspecific Competition for Colonization of Maize Plants Between Fusarium proliferatum and Fusarium verticillioides. Plant Dis. 2020, 104, 2102–2110, . [CrossRef]
  47. Xi, K.; Shan, L.; Yang, Y.; Zhang, G.; Zhang, J.; Guo, W. Species Diversity and Chemotypes of Fusarium Species Associated With Maize Stalk Rot in Yunnan Province of Southwest China. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, . [CrossRef]
  48. Summerell, B.A.; Salleh, B.; Leslie, J.F.; Felix, S.V.; Valenzuela, V.; Ortega, P.; Fierros, G.; Rojas, P.; Orona, C.A.L.; Manjarrez, J.E.R.; et al. A Utilitarian Approach to Fusarium Identification. Plant Dis. 2003, 87, 117–128, . [CrossRef]
  49. Warham, E. J.; Butler, L. D.; Sutton, B. C. Seed Testing of Maize and Wheat: A Laboratory Guide; CIMMYT, 1996.
  50. Bilgi, V.N.; Bradley, C.A.; Khot, S.D.; Grafton, K.F.; Rasmussen, J.B. Response of Dry Bean Genotypes to Fusarium Root Rot, Caused byFusarium solanif. sp.phaseoli, Under Field and Controlled Conditions. Plant Dis. 2008, 92, 1197–1200, . [CrossRef]
  51. Acharya, B.; Lee, S.; Mian, M.A.R.; Jun, T.-H.; McHale, L.K.; Michel, A.P.; Dorrance, A.E. Identification and mapping of quantitative trait loci (QTL) conferring resistance to Fusarium graminearum from soybean PI 567301B. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2015, 128, 827–838, . [CrossRef]
  52. O’Donnell, K.; Kistler, H.C.; Cigelnik, E.; Ploetz, R.C. Multiple evolutionary origins of the fungus causing Panama disease of banana: Concordant evidence from nuclear and mitochondrial gene genealogies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1998, 9, 2044–2049, . [CrossRef]
  53. Liu, Y.J.; Whelen, S.; Hall, B.D. Phylogenetic relationships among ascomycetes: evidence from an RNA polymerse II subunit. Mol. Biol. Evol. 1999, 16, 1799–1808, . [CrossRef]
  54. Carbone, I.; Kohn, L. M. A Method for Designing Primer Sets for Speciation Studies in Filamentous Ascomycetes. Mycologia 1999, 91 (3), 553–556.
  55. Glass, N.L.; Donaldson, G.C. Development of primer sets designed for use with the PCR to amplify conserved genes from filamentous ascomycetes. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1995, 61, 1323–1330, . [CrossRef]
  56. O'Donnell, K.; Cigelnik, E. Two Divergent Intragenomic rDNA ITS2 Types within a Monophyletic Lineage of the FungusFusariumAre Nonorthologous. Mol. Phylogenetics Evol. 1997, 7, 103–116, . [CrossRef]
  57. Guarnaccia, V.; Aiello, D.; Polizzi, G.; Crous, P. W.; Sandoval-Denis, M. Soilborne Diseases Caused by Fusarium and Neocosmospora Spp. on Ornamental Plants in Italy. Phytopathol. Mediterr. 2019, 58 (1), 127–137. [CrossRef]
  58. Weir, B.S.; Johnston, P.R.; Damm, U. The Colletotrichum gloeosporioides species complex. Stud. Mycol. 2012, 73, 115–180, . [CrossRef]
  59. O’donnell, K.; Rooney, A.P.; Proctor, R.H.; Brown, D.W.; McCormick, S.P.; Ward, T.J.; Frandsen, R.J.; Lysøe, E.; Rehner, S.A.; Aoki, T.; et al. Phylogenetic analyses of RPB1 and RPB2 support a middle Cretaceous origin for a clade comprising all agriculturally and medically important fusaria. Fungal Genet. Biol. 2013, 52, 20–31, . [CrossRef]
  60. Zhang, Y.; Chen, C.; Mai, Z.; Lin, J.; Nie, L.; Maharachchikumbura, S.S.N.; You, C.; Xiang, M.; Hyde, K.D.; Manawasinghe, I.S. Co-infection of Fusarium aglaonematis sp. nov. and Fusarium elaeidis Causing Stem Rot in Aglaonema modestum in China. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 930790, . [CrossRef]
  61. Costa, M.M.; Melo, M.P.; Carmo, F.S.; Moreira, G.M.; Guimarães, E.A.; Rocha, F.S.; Costa, S.S.; Abreu, L.M.; Pfenning, L.H. Fusarium species from tropical grasses in Brazil and description of two new taxa. Mycol. Prog. 2021, 20, 61–72, . [CrossRef]
  62. Lombard, L.; van Doorn, R.; Groenewald, J.; Tessema, T.; Kuramae, E.; Etolo, D.; Raaijmakers, J.; Crous, P. Fusarium diversity associated with the Sorghum-Striga interaction in Ethiopia. Fungal Syst. Evol. 2022, 10, 177–215, . [CrossRef]
  63. Vermeulen, M.; Rothmann, L.A.; Swart, W.J.; Gryzenhout, M. Fusarium casha sp. nov. and F. curculicola sp. nov. in the Fusarium fujikuroi Species Complex Isolated from Amaranthuscruentus and Three Weevil Species in South Africa. Diversity 2021, 13, 472, . [CrossRef]
  64. Laraba, I.; Kim, H.-S.; Proctor, R.H.; Busman, M.; O’donnell, K.; Felker, F.C.; Aime, M.C.; Koch, R.A.; Wurdack, K.J. Fusarium xyrophilum, sp. nov., a member of the Fusarium fujikuroi species complex recovered from pseudoflowers on yellow-eyed grass (Xyris spp.) from Guyana. Mycologia 2019, 112, 39–51, . [CrossRef]
  65. Proctor, R.H.; Van Hove, F.; Susca, A.; Stea, G.; Busman, M.; van der Lee, T.; Waalwijk, C.; Moretti, A.; Ward, T.J. Birth, death and horizontal transfer of the fumonisin biosynthetic gene cluster during the evolutionary diversification of Fusarium. Mol. Microbiol. 2013, 90, 290–306, . [CrossRef]
  66. Sandoval-Denis, M.; Guarnaccia, V.; Polizzi, G.; Crous, P. Symptomatic Citrus trees reveal a new pathogenic lineage in Fusarium and two new Neocosmospora species. Persoonia - Mol. Phylogeny Evol. Fungi 2018, 40, 1–25, . [CrossRef]
  67. Katoh, K.; Standley, D.M. MAFFT Multiple Sequence Alignment Software Version 7: Improvements in Performance and Usability. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2013, 30, 772–780, . [CrossRef]
  68. Kumar, S.; Stecher, G.; Tamura, K. MEGA7: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis Version 7.0 for Bigger Datasets. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2016, 33, 1870–1874, . [CrossRef]
  69. Swofford, D.; Sullivan, J. Phylogeny Inference Based on Parsimony and Other Methods with PAUP. Phylogenetic Handb. Pract. Approach Phylogenetic Anal. Hypothesis Test. 2009, 267–312.
  70. Ronquist, F.; Teslenko, M.; van der Mark, P.; Ayres, D.L.; Darling, A.; Höhna, S.; Larget, B.; Liu, L.; Suchard, M.A.; Huelsenbeck, J.P. MrBayes 3.2: Efficient Bayesian Phylogenetic Inference and Model Choice across a Large Model Space. Syst. Biol. 2012, 61, 539–542, . [CrossRef]
  71. Nylander, J.A.A.; Ronquist, F.; Huelsenbeck, J.P.; Nieves-Aldrey, J. Bayesian Phylogenetic Analysis of Combined Data. Syst. Biol. 2004, 53, 47–67, . [CrossRef]
  72. Fisher, N. L.; Burgess, L. W.; Toussoun, T. A.; Nelson, P. E. Carnation Leaves as a Substrate and for Preserving Cultures of Fusarium Species. Phytopathology 1982, 72 (1), 151–153.
Figure 1. Symptoms caused by Fusarium spp. (A, B) observed in the field and (C, D) after pathogenicity trials on leaves, roots and crowns maize seedlings.
Figure 1. Symptoms caused by Fusarium spp. (A, B) observed in the field and (C, D) after pathogenicity trials on leaves, roots and crowns maize seedlings.
Preprints 87108 g001
Figure 2. Consensus phylogram of 305 trees resulting from a Bayesian analysis of the combined tef1-α, rpb2, calm and tub2 sequences of Fusarium spp. belonging to FFSC. Bayesian posterior probability values and Bootstrap support values are indicated at the nodes. The isolates collected and species found in this study are in red. The tree was rooted to Fusarium foetens (CBS 120665).
Figure 2. Consensus phylogram of 305 trees resulting from a Bayesian analysis of the combined tef1-α, rpb2, calm and tub2 sequences of Fusarium spp. belonging to FFSC. Bayesian posterior probability values and Bootstrap support values are indicated at the nodes. The isolates collected and species found in this study are in red. The tree was rooted to Fusarium foetens (CBS 120665).
Preprints 87108 g002
Figure 3. Consensus phylogram of 226 trees resulting from a Bayesian analysis of the combined tef1-α, rpb2 and calm sequences of Fusarium spp. belonging to FOSC. Bayesian posterior probability values and Bootstrap support values are indicated at the nodes. The isolates collected and species found in this study are in red. The tree was rooted to Fusarium udum (NRRL22949).
Figure 3. Consensus phylogram of 226 trees resulting from a Bayesian analysis of the combined tef1-α, rpb2 and calm sequences of Fusarium spp. belonging to FOSC. Bayesian posterior probability values and Bootstrap support values are indicated at the nodes. The isolates collected and species found in this study are in red. The tree was rooted to Fusarium udum (NRRL22949).
Preprints 87108 g003
Figure 4. Consensus phylogram of 301 trees resulting from a Bayesian analysis of the combined tef1-α, rpb2, calm and tub2 sequences of Fusarium spp. belonging to FNSC. Bayesian posterior probability values and Bootstrap support values are indicated at the nodes. The isolates collected and species found in this study are in red. The tree was rooted to Fusarium udum (NRRL22949).
Figure 4. Consensus phylogram of 301 trees resulting from a Bayesian analysis of the combined tef1-α, rpb2, calm and tub2 sequences of Fusarium spp. belonging to FNSC. Bayesian posterior probability values and Bootstrap support values are indicated at the nodes. The isolates collected and species found in this study are in red. The tree was rooted to Fusarium udum (NRRL22949).
Preprints 87108 g004
Figure 5. Morphological features of the species belonging to FFSC identified in this study. (A, B, C, D, E, F) F. verticillioides and (G, H, I, J, K, L) F. annulatum. a-b-g-h. Colonies on PDA above and below; c–d-e-i-j-k. conidia; f-l. conidiogenous cells.— Scale bars = 10 μm.
Figure 5. Morphological features of the species belonging to FFSC identified in this study. (A, B, C, D, E, F) F. verticillioides and (G, H, I, J, K, L) F. annulatum. a-b-g-h. Colonies on PDA above and below; c–d-e-i-j-k. conidia; f-l. conidiogenous cells.— Scale bars = 10 μm.
Preprints 87108 g005
Figure 6. Morphological features of F. commune, the species belonging to FNSC identified in this study. a-b. Colonies on PDA above and below; c–d. conidia; e. conidiogenous cells; f. chlamydospores.— Scale bars = 10 μm.
Figure 6. Morphological features of F. commune, the species belonging to FNSC identified in this study. a-b. Colonies on PDA above and below; c–d. conidia; e. conidiogenous cells; f. chlamydospores.— Scale bars = 10 μm.
Preprints 87108 g006
Table 1. Fusarium spp. isolates used in this study (isolate code, origin of the sample, hybrid, FAO class, symptomatic portion isolated and year of isolation).
Table 1. Fusarium spp. isolates used in this study (isolate code, origin of the sample, hybrid, FAO class, symptomatic portion isolated and year of isolation).
Isolate code Origin Hybrid Fao Class Symptomatic portion Year of
isolation
DB19LUG07 San Zenone degli Ezzelini (VI)-Italy unknown unknown Root 2019
DB19LUG16 San Zenone degli Ezzelini (VI)-Italy unknown unknown Root 2019
DB19LUG20 San Zenone degli Ezzelini (VI)-Italy unknown unknown Root 2019
DB19LUG25 San Zenone degli Ezzelini (VI)-Italy unknown unknown Root 2019
2.1 Livorno Ferraris (VC)-Italy P1547 600-130 days Root 2019
2.2 Livorno Ferraris (VC)-Italy P1547 600-130 days Root 2019
8.1 Cigliano (VC)-Italy - - Root 2019
8.2 Cigliano (VC)-Italy - - Root 2019
9 USA PR32B10 600-132 days Seed 2019
10.1 France P0423 400-116 days Seed 2019
10.2 France P0423 400-116 days Seed 2019
11 Italy unknown unknown Seed 2019
12 Italy SY ANTEX 600-130 days Seed 2019
18 Turkey DKC6752 600-128 days Seed 2019
19 Romania DKC5830 500-x days Seed 2019
21 Crescentino (VC)-Italy P1547 600-130 days Stem 2019
23 Crescentino (VC)-Italy P1547 600-130 days Root 2019
24 Crescentino (VC)-Italy P1916 600-130 days Root 2019
26 Crescentino (VC)-Italy P1916 600-130 days Stem 2019
28 Crescentino (VC)-Italy P1916 600-130 days Root 2019
29 Cigliano (VC)-Italy P1517W 600-128 days Root 2019
30 Cigliano (VC)-Italy P1517W 600-128 days Root 2019
31 Cigliano (VC)-Italy P1517W 600-128 days Stem 2019
32 Cigliano (VC)-Italy P1517W 600-128 days Stem 2019
35.1.4 Cigliano (VC)-Italy P1517W 600-128 days Root 2019
36 Cigliano (VC)-Italy P1517W 600-128 days Stem 2019
40 Cigliano (VC)-Italy P1517W 600-128 days Root 2019
41 Cigliano (VC)-Italy P1547 600-130 days Root 2019
44 Cigliano (VC)-Italy P1547 600-130 days Root 2019
50 Cigliano (VC)-Italy P1547 600-130 days Root 2019
51 Cigliano (VC)-Italy unknown unknown Stem 2019
55.2.1 Cigliano (VC)-Italy unknown unknown Crown 2019
56.1.2 Cigliano (VC)-Italy unknown unknown Root 2019
56.2.2 Cigliano (VC)-Italy unknown unknown Root 2019
56.2.3 Cigliano (VC)-Italy unknown unknown Root 2019
56.2.4 Cigliano (VC)-Italy unknown unknown Root 2019
56.2.5 Cigliano (VC)-Italy unknown unknown Root 2019
57.2.1 Cigliano (VC)-Italy unknown unknown Root 2019
1.RI (Pta 1.1) San Zenone degli Ezzelini (VI)-Italy unknown unknown Crown 2020
1.RI (Pta 1.2) San Zenone degli Ezzelini (VI)-Italy unknown unknown Crown 2020
1.RII (Pta 3.2) San Zenone degli Ezzelini (VI)-Italy unknown unknown Crown 2020
Table 2. Results of pathogenicity test performed on the 41 Fusarium isolates isolated, at 14 days. Number of plants recorded for each index and disease index (0–100) of each isolate (ANOVA and Duncan p < 0.05%).
Table 2. Results of pathogenicity test performed on the 41 Fusarium isolates isolated, at 14 days. Number of plants recorded for each index and disease index (0–100) of each isolate (ANOVA and Duncan p < 0.05%).
ID Sample Severity index of root and crown rot (number of plant) Disease index
1 2 3 4 5 (DI) 0-100
DB19LUG07 0 3 3 0 0 50.0 abcde
DB19LUG16 0 6 0 0 0 40.0 cdefg
DB19LUG20 4 2 0 0 0 13.3 gh
DB19LUG25 3 3 0 0 0 20.0 gh
2.1 0 0 0 4 2 86.7 a
2.2 0 0 0 3 3 90.0 a
8.1 6 0 0 0 0 0.0 h
8.2 3 3 0 0 0 20.0 fgh
9 0 0 0 6 0 80.0 ab
10.1 0 0 2 0 4 86.7 a
10.2 0 0 1 2 3 86.7 a
11 3 3 0 0 0 20.0 efgh
12 0 3 0 0 3 70.0 abc
18 2 3 0 0 1 36.7 efgh
19 6 0 0 0 0 0.0 h
21 2 4 0 0 0 26.7 efgh
23 2 4 0 0 0 26.7 efgh
24 0 3 0 0 3 70.0 abc
26 0 4 2 0 0 46.7 bcdef
28 3 3 0 0 0 20.0 efgh
29 0 6 0 0 0 40.0 cdefg
30 3 3 0 0 0 20.0 efgh
31 2 4 0 0 0 26.7 efgh
32 4 2 0 0 0 13.3 gh
35.1.4 0 1 1 2 2 76.7 abc
36 3 3 0 0 0 20.0 efgh
40 0 4 2 0 0 46.7 bcdef
41 6 0 0 0 0 0.0 h
44 6 0 0 0 0 0.0 h
50 6 0 0 0 0 0.0 h
51 2 2 2 0 0 33.3 defgh
55.2.1 0 1 1 2 2 76.7 abc
56.1.2 0 0 0 4 2 86.7 a
56.2.2 0 0 2 2 2 80.0 ab
56.2.3 0 0 0 3 3 90.0 a
56.2.4 0 0 2 2 2 80.0 ab
56.2.5 0 0 2 4 0 73.3 abc
57.2.1 0 0 0 4 2 86.7 a
1.RI (Pta 1.1) 2 2 0 0 2 46.7 cdefg
1.RI (Pta 1.2) 0 2 2 0 2 66.7 abcd
1.RII (Pta 3.2) 3 3 0 0 0 20.0 efgh
Healthy control 6 0 0 0 0 0.0 h
Table 3. Origin, host, culture and sequence GenBank accession number of Fusarium isolates used and generated in this study. Newly generated accession numbers are in bold.
Table 3. Origin, host, culture and sequence GenBank accession number of Fusarium isolates used and generated in this study. Newly generated accession numbers are in bold.
Species Complex Collection Host Origin tef1-α rpb2 calm tub2 Reference
F. acutatum FFSC CBS 401.97 Cajanus cajan India MW402124 MW402813 MW402458 MW402322 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. agapanthi FFSC CBS 100193 Agapanthus praecox New Zealand MW401959 MW402727 MW402363 MW402160 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. aglaonematis FFSC ZHKUCC 22-0079 Aglaonema modestum China ON330439 ON330445 ON330436 ON330442 Zhang et al. (2022)
F. ananatum FFSC CBS 118516 Ananas comosus South Africa LT996091 LT996137 MW402376 MN534089 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. andiyazi FFSC CBS 119856 Sorghum grain Ethiopia MN533989 MN534286 MN534174 MN534081 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. annulatum FFSC CBS 115.97 Dianthus caryophyllus Italy MW401973 MW402785 MW402373 MW402173 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. annulatum FFSC CBS 133.95 Dianthus caryophyllus The Netherlands MW402040 MW402743 MW402407 MW402239 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. annulatum FFSC CBS 135.95 Dianthus caryophyllus The Netherlands MW402043 MW402745 MW402408 MW402242 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. annulatum FFSC 2.1 Zea mays Italy OR565982 OR566043 OR566020 OR566004 This study
F. annulatum FFSC 2.2 Zea mays Italy OR565983 OR566044 OR566021 OR566005 This study
F. annulatum FFSC 9 Zea mays Italy OR565984 OR566045 OR566022 OR566006 This study
F. annulatum FFSC 10.1 Zea mays Italy OR565985 OR566046 OR566023 OR566007 This study
F. annulatum FFSC 10.2 Zea mays Italy OR565986 OR566047 OR566024 OR566008 This study
F. annulatum FFSC 55 Zea mays Italy OR565987 OR566048 OR566025 OR566009 This study
F. anthophilum FFSC CBS 108.92 Hippeastrum leaf The Netherlands MW401965 MW402783 MW402368 MW402166 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. aquaticum FFSC LC7502 Water China MW580448 MW474394 MW566275 MW533730 Wang (2022)
F. awaxy FFSC CBS 119831 Environmental New Guinea MN534056 MN534237 MN534167 MN534108 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. babinda FFSC NRRL 25539 Unknown Unknown KU171718 KU171698 KU171418 KU171778 O' Donnell et al. (2013)
F. bactridioides FFSC CBS 100057 Cronartium conigenum on Pinus leiophylla USA MN533993 MN534235 MN534173 MN534112 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. begoniae FFSC CBS 452.97 Begonia elatior hybrid Germany MN533994 MN534243 MN534163 MN534101 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. braichiariae FFSC CML 3163 Brachiaria decumbens Brazil MT901349 MT901315 - MT901322 Moreira Costa et al. (2021)
F. brevicatenulatum FFSC CBS 404.97 Striga asiatica Madagascar MN533995 MN534295 MT010979 MN534063 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. bulbicola FFSC NRRL13618 Nerine bowdenii bulb The Netherlands KF466415 MW402767 MW402450 KF466437 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. caapi FFSC LLC3556 Sorghum Ethiopia OP486950 OP486519 OP485837 - Lombard et al. (2022)
F. callistephi FOSC CBS 187.53 Callistephus chinensis The Netherlands MH484966 MH484875 MH484693 MH485057 Lombard et al. (2019)
F. carminascens FOSC CPC 25792 Zea mays South Africa MH485025 MH484934 MH484752 MH485116 Lombard et al. (2019)
F. casha FFSC PPRI20462 Amaranthus cruentus South Africa MF787262 - - MF787256 Vermeulen et al. (2021)
F. chinhoyiense FFSC NRRL 25221 Zea mays Zimbabwe MN534050 MN534262 MN534196 MN534082 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. chuoi FFSC CPC 39664 Unknown Unknown OK626308 OK626302 OK626304 OK626310 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. circinatum FFSC CBS 405.97 Pinus radiata USA MN533997 MN534252 MN534199 MN534097 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. coicis FFSC RBG5368 Coix gasteenii Australia KP083251 KP083274 LT996178 LT996115 Laurence et al. (2015)
F. commune FNSC NRRL 28387 Dianthus caryophyllus The Netherlands HM057338 JX171638 KU171420 AY329043 Han et al. (2023)
F. commune FNSC LC18507 Zea mays China OQ125095 OQ125101 - - Han et al. (2023)
F. commune FNSC LC18486 Zea mays China OQ125094 OQ125100 - - Han et al. (2023)
F. commune FNSC LC18652 Zea mays China OQ125093 OQ125099 - - Han et al. (2023)
F. commune FNSC LC18609 Zea mays China OQ125092 OQ125098 - - Han et al. (2023)
F. commune FNSC LC18583 Zea mays China OQ125097 OQ125103 - - Han et al. (2023)
F. commune FNSC LC18568 Zea mays China OQ125096 OQ125102 - - Han et al. (2023)
F. commune FNSC DB19LUG07 Zea mays Italy MW419921 MW419923 OR566042 OR566011 Mezzalama et al. (2021), This study
F. commune FNSC 24 Zea mays Italy OR565988 OR566049 OR566026 OR566010 This study
F. concentricum FFSC CBS 450.97 Musa sapientum Costa Rica AF160282 JF741086 MW402467 MW402334 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. contaminatum FOSC CBS 111552 Pasteurized fruit juice The Netherlands MH484991 MH484900 MH484718 MH485082 Lombard et al. (2019)
F. cugenangense FOSC CBS 620.72 Crocus sp. Germany MH484970 MH484879 MH484697 MH485061 Lombard et al. (2019)
F. cugenangense FOSC CBS 130308 Human toe nail New Zealand MH485011 MH484920 MH484738 MH485102 Lombard et al. (2019)
F. cugenangense FOSC CBS 131393 Vicia faba Australia MH485019 MH484928 MH484746 MH485110 Lombard et al. (2019)
F. cugenangense FOSC CBS 130304 Gossypium barbadense China MH485012 MH484921 MH484739 MH485103 Lombard et al. (2019)
F. cugenangense FOSC 36 Zea mays Italy OR565989 OR566050 OR566027 - This study
F. curculicola FFSC PPRI20464 Amaranthus cruentus South Africa MF787267 MN605063 - MF787259 Vermeulen et al. (2021)
F. curvatum FOSC CBS 247.61 Matthiola incana Germany MH484967 MH484876 MH484694 MH485058 Lombard et al. (2019)
F. curvatum FOSC CBS 238.94 Beaucarnia sp. The Netherlands MH484984 MH484893 MH484711 MH485075 Lombard et al. (2019)
F. curvatum FOSC CBS 141.95 Hedera helix The Netherlands MH484985 MH484894 MH484712 MH485076 Lombard et al. (2019)
F. denticulatum FFSC CBS 406.97 Ipomoea batatas Cuba MN533999 MN534273 MN534185 MN534067 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. dhileepanii FFSC BRIP 71717 Unknown Unknown OK509072 OK533536 - - Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. dlaminii FFSC CBS 481.94 Unknown Unknown MN534003 MN534257 MN534151 MN534139 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. dlaminii FFSC CBS 671.94 Soil South Africa MN534004 MN534254 MN534152 MN534136 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. duoseptatum FOSC CBS 102026 Musa sapientum Malaysia MH484987 MH484896 MH484714 MH485078 Lombard et al. (2019)
F. echinatum FFSC CBS 146497 Unidentified tree South Africa MW834273 MW834004 MW834110 MW834301 Crous et al. (2021)
F. elaeagni FFSC LC13629 Elaeagnus pungens China MW580468 MW474414 MW566295 MW533750 Wang (2022)
F. elaeidis FOSC CBS 217.49 Elaeis sp. Zaire MH484961 MH484870 MH484688 MH485052 Lombard et al. (2019)
F. elaeidis FOSC CBS 255.52 Elaeis guineensis Unknown MH484965 MH484874 MH484692 MH485056 Lombard et al. (2019)
F. elaeidis FOSC CBS 218.49 Elaeis sp. Zaire MH484962 MH484871 MH484689 MH485053 Lombard et al. (2019)
F. fabacearum FOSC CPC 25801 Zea mays South Africa MH485029 MH484938 MH484756 MH485120 Lombard et al. (2019)
F. fabacearum FOSC CPC 25802 Glycine max South Africa MH485030 MH484939 MH484757 MH485121 Lombard et al. (2019)
F. fabacearum FOSC CPC 25803 Glycine max South Africa MH485031 MH484940 MH484758 MH485122 Lombard et al. (2019)
F. ficicrescens FFSC CBS 125177 Environmental Iran MN534006 MN534281 MN534176 MN534071 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. foetens FOSC CBS 120665 Nicotiana tabacum Iran MH485009 MH484918 MH484736 MH485100 Lombard et al. (2019)
F. fracticaudum FFSC CMW:25240 Pinus maximinoi Colombia MN534009 MN534231 MN534161 MN534103 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. fractiflexum FFSC NRRL 28852 Cymbidium sp. Japan AF160288 LT575064 AF158341 AF160315 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. fredkrugeri FFSC CBS 408.97 Soil Maryland MW402126 MW402814 MW402461 MW402324 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. fujikuroi FFSC CBS 186.56 Unknown Unknown MW402108 EF470116 MW402447 MW402306 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. gaditjirri FNSC NRRL 45417 Hetepogon triticeus Australia MN193881 MN193909 KU171424 KU171784 Sandoval-Denis et al. (2018)
F. globosum FFSC CBS 430.97 Zea mays seed South Africa MN534013 MN534265 MN534219 MN534125 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. glycines FOSC CBS 176.33 Linum usitatissium Unknown MH484959 MH484868 MH484686 MH485050 Lombard et al. (2019)
F. gossypinum FOSC CBS 116611 Gossypium hirsutum Ivory Coast MH484998 MH484907 MH484725 MH485089 Lombard et al. (2019)
F. gossypinum FOSC CBS 116613 Gossypium hirsutum Ivory Coast MH485000 MH484909 MH484727 MH485091 Lombard et al. (2019)
F. gossypinum FOSC CBS 116612 Gossypium hirsutum Ivory Coast MH484999 MH484908 MH484726 MH485090 Lombard et al. (2019)
F. guttiforme FFSC CBS 409.97 Ananas comosus Brazil MT010999 MT010967 MT010901 MT011048 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. hechiense FFSC LC13646 Musa nana China MW580496 MW474442 MW566323 MW533775 Wang (2022)
F. hoodiae FOSC CBS 132474 Hoodia gordonii South Africa MH485020 MH484929 MH484747 MH485111 Lombard et al. (2019)
F. inflexum FOSC NRRL 20433 Vicia faba Germany AF008479 JX171583 AF158366 O’Donnell et al. (2013)
F. konzum FFSC CBS 139382 Unknown Unknown MW402071 MW402804 MW402418 MW402270 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. lactis FFSC CBS 420.97 Ficus carica USA MN534015 - MN534181 MN534078 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. languescens FOSC CBS 645.78 Solanum lycopersicum Morocco MH484971 MH484880 MH484698 MH485062 Lombard et al. (2019)
F. libertatis FOSC CPC 25782 Asphalatus sp. South Africa MH485023 MH484932 MH484750 MH485114 Lombard et al. (2019)
F. lumajangense FFSC LC13652 Arenga caudata China MW580503 MW474449 MW566330 MW533782 Wang (2022)
F. lyarnte FNSC NRRL 54252 Sorghum interjectum Australia MN193880 MN193908 - - Sandoval-Denis et al. (2018)
F. madaense FFSC CBS 146648 Arachis hypogaea Nigeria MW402095 MW402761 MW402436 MW402294 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. mangiferae FFSC CBS 119853 Mangifera sp. South Africa MN534016 MN534270 MN534225 MN534140 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. marasasianum FFSC CMW:25512 Pinus tecunumanii Colombia MN534018 MN534249 MN534208 MN534113 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. mexicanum FFSC NRRL 47473 Mangifera indica Mexico GU737416 LR792615 GU737389 GU737308 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. mirum FFSC LLC929 Sorghum Ethiopia OP487012 OP486581 OP485896 - Lombard et al. (2022)
F. miscanthi FNSC NRRL 26231 Miscanthus sinensis Japan KU171725 KU171705 KU171425 KU171785 Han et al. (2023)
F. mundagurra FFSC RBG5717 Soil Australia KP083256 KP083276 MN534214 MN534146 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. napiforme FFSC NRRL25196 Pennisetum typhoides South Africa MN193863 MN534291 MN534192 MN534085 Laraba et al. (2020)
F. nirenbergiae FOSC CBS 129.24 Secale cereale Unknown MH484955 MH484864 MH484682 MH485046 Lombard et al. (2019)
F. nirenbergiae FOSC CBS 127.81 Chrysantemum sp. USA MH484974 MH484883 MH484701 MH485065 Lombard et al. (2019)
F. nirenbergiae FOSC CBS 840.88 Dianthus caryophyllus The Netherlands MH484978 MH484887 MH484705 MH485069 Lombard et al. (2019)
F. nirenbergiae FOSC CBS 744.79 Passiflora edulis Brazil MH484973 MH484882 MH484700 MH485064 Lombard et al. (2019)
F. nirenbergiae FOSC 1RI (Pta 1.2) Zea mays Italy OR565990 OR566051 OR566028 - This study
F. nisikadoi FNSC NRRL 25179 Phyllostachys nigra Japan MN193879 MN193907 - - Sandoval-Denis et al. (2018)
F. nygamai FFSC CBS 413.97 Oryza sativa Morocco MW402127 MW402815 MW402462 MW402325 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. odoratissimum FOSC CBS 794.70 Albizzia julibrissin Iran MH484969 MH484878 MH484696 MH485060 Lombard et al. (2019)
F. ophioides FFSC CBS 118510 Panicum maximum South Africa MN534020 MN534301 MN534201 MN534121 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. oxysporum FOSC CBS 144134 Solanum tuberosum Germany MH485044 MH484953 MH484771 MH485135 Lombard et al. (2019)
F. oxysporum FOSC CBS 144135 Solanum tuberosum Germany MH485045 MH484954 MH484772 MH485136 Lombard et al. (2019)
F. oxysporum FOSC CBS 221.49 Camellia sinensis South East Asia MH484963 MH484872 MH484690 MH485054 Lombard et al. (2019)
F. oxysporum FOSC CPC 25822 Protea sp. South Africa MH485034 MH484943 MH484761 MH485125 Lombard et al. (2019)
F. oxysporum sensu lato FOSC 11 Zea mays Italy OR565991 OR566052 OR566029 - This study
F. oxysporum sensu lato FOSC 12 Zea mays Italy OR565992 OR566053 OR566030 - This study
F. oxysporum sensu lato FOSC 18 Zea mays Italy OR565993 OR566054 OR566031 - This study
F. oxysporum sensu lato FOSC 26 Zea mays Italy OR565994 OR566055 OR566032 - This study
F. oxysporum sensu lato FOSC 51 Zea mays Italy OR565995 OR566056 OR566033 - This study
F. panlongense FFSC LC13656 Musa nana China MW580510 MW474456 MW566337 MW533789 Wang (2022)
F. paranisikadoi FNSC LC2824 Zea mays China MW594317 MW474550 - MW533921 Han et al. (2023)
F. parvisorum FFSC CMW:25267 Pinus patula Colombia KJ541060 - - KJ541055 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. pharetrum FOSC CPC 30822 Aliodendron dichotomum South Africa MH485042 MH484951 MH484769 MH485133 Lombard et al. (2019)
F. phyllophilum FFSC NRRL13617 Dracaena deremensis Italy MN193864 KF466410 KF466333 KF466443 Laraba et al. (2020)
F. pilosicola FFSC NRRL 29123 Bidens pilosa USA MN534054 MN534247 MN534165 MN534098 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. pininemorale FFSC CMW:25243 Pinus tecunumanii Colombia MN534026 MN534250 MN534211 MN534115 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. proliferatum FFSC CBS 480.96 Tropical rain forest soil Papua New Guinea MN534059 MN534272 MN534217 MN534129 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. pseudoanthophilum FFSC CBS 745.97 Zea mays Zimbabwe MW402148 MW402820 MW402476 MW402349 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. pseudocircinatum FFSC NRRL22946 Solanum sp. Ghana AF160271 MN534277 MN534190 MN534069 O' Donnell et al. (2000)
F. pseudonygamai FFSC CBS 416.97 Pennisetum typhoides Nigeria MN534030 MN534283 MN534194 MN534064 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. ramigenum FFSC NRRL25208 Ficus carica USA KF466423 KF466412 MN534187 MN534145 Proctor et al. (2013)
F. sacchari FFSC CBS 131370 Oryzae australiensis Australia MW402031 MW402793 MW402404 MW402230 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. secorum FFSC NRRL 62593 Beta vulgaris USA KJ189225 KJ189235 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. siculi FFSC CPC 27188 Citrus sinensis Italy LT746214 LT746327 LT746189 LT746346 Sandoval-Denis et al. (2018)
F. sororula FFSC CMW:25513 Pinus tecunumanii Colombia MN534035 MN534246 MN534210 MN534114 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. sterilihyposum FFSC NRRL 25623 Mangifera sp. South Africa MN193869 MN193897 AF158353 AF160316 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. subglutinans FFSC CBS 215.76 Zea mays Germany MN534061 MN534241 MN534171 MN534109 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. succisae FFSC CBS 187.34 Zostera marina UK MW402109 MW402810 MW402448 MW402307 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. sudanense FFSC CBS 454.97 Striga hermonthica Sudan MN534037 MN534278 MN534179 MN534073 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. tardichlamydosporum FOSC CBS 102028 Musa sapientum Malaysia MH484988 MH484897 MH484715 MH485079 Lombard et al. (2019)
F. temperatum FFSC CBS 135538 Pulmonary infection (human) Mexico MN534039 MN534239 MN534168 MN534111 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. terricola FFSC CBS 483.94 Soil Australia MN534042 LT996156 MN534189 MN534076 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. thapsinum FFSC CBS 539.79 Man, white grained mycetoma Italy MW402140 MW402818 MW402472 MW402340 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. tjaetaba FFSC RBG5361 Sorghum interjectum Australia KP083263 KP083275 LT996187 GU737296 Laurence et al. (2015)
F. triseptatum FOSC CBS 258.50 Ipomoea batatas USA MH484964 MH484873 MH484691 MH485055 Lombard et al. (2019)
F. tupiense FFSC NRRL 53984 Mangifera indica Brazil GU737404 LR792619 GU737377 GU737350 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. udum FFSC NRRL22949 Unknown Unknown AF160275 LT996172 MW402442 U34433 O' Donnell et al. (2000)
F. verticillioides FFSC CBS 116665 Solanum lycopersicum Unknown MW401976 MW402825 MW402375 MW402176 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. verticillioides FFSC CBS 125.73 Trichosanthes dioica India MW402012 MW402791 MW402392 MW402212 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. verticillioides FFSC CBS 167.87 Pinus seed USA MW402101 - MW402441 MW402300 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. verticillioides FFSC CBS 447.95 Asparagus Unknown MW402133 MW402770 MW402466 MW402332 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. verticillioides FFSC CBS 531.95 Zea mays Unknown MW402136 MW402771 MW402468 MW402336 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. verticillioides FFSC CBS 131389 Environmental Australia KU711695 KU604226 MN534193 KU603857 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. verticillioides FFSC CBS 734.97 Zea mays Germany MW402146 EF470122 AF158315 MW402346 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. verticillioides FFSC 8.2 Zea mays Italy OR565996 OR566057 OR566034 OR566012 This study
F. verticillioides FFSC 35.1.4 Zea mays Italy OR565997 OR566058 OR566035 OR566013 This study
F. verticillioides FFSC 56.1.2 Zea mays Italy OR565998 OR566059 OR566036 OR566014 This study
F. verticillioides FFSC 56.2.2 Zea mays Italy OR565999 OR566060 OR566037 OR566015 This study
F. verticillioides FFSC 56.2.3 Zea mays Italy OR566000 OR566061 OR566038 OR566016 This study
F. verticillioides FFSC 56.2.4 Zea mays Italy OR566001 OR566062 OR566039 OR566017 This study
F. verticillioides FFSC 56.2.5 Zea mays Italy OR566002 OR566063 OR566040 OR566018 This study
F. verticillioides FFSC 57.2.1 Zea mays Italy OR566003 OR566064 OR566041 OR566019 This study
F. veterinarium FOSC CBS 109898 Shark peritoneum The Netherlands MH484990 MH484899 MH484717 MH485081 Lombard et al. (2019)
F. volatile FFSC CBS 143874 Human bronchoalveolar lavage fluid French Guiana LR596007 LR596006 MK984595 LR596008 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. werrikimbe FFSC CBS 125535 Sorghum leiocladum Australia MW928846 MN534304 MN534203 MN534104 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
F. xylarioides FFSC NRRL25486 Coffea trunk Ivory Coast MN193874 HM068355 MW402455 AY707118 Laraba et al. (2020)
F. xyrophilum FFSC NRRL 62710 Xyris spp. Guyana MN193875 MN193903 Yilmaz et al. (2021)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

Privacy Settings

© 2025 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated