Search
2024 Volume 9
Article Contents
ARTICLE   Open Access    

Molecular taxonomy reveals new records of Chromolaenicola (Didymosphaeriaceae, Pleosporales) and potential antibacterial properties

More Information
  • Received: 18 March 2024
    Revised: 22 April 2024
    Accepted: 02 May 2024
    Published online: 22 May 2024
    Studies in Fungi  9 Article number: e006 (2024)  |  Cite this article
  • In the present study, Chromolaenicola specimens were collected from the dead stems of Bidens pilosa in northern Thailand and compared with other Chromolaenicola species. Maximum-likelihood and Bayesian analyses were conducted on a combined LSU, SSU, ITS, tef-1, and rpb2 data set. Morphological and phylogenetic analyses revealed three species, Chromolaenicola chiangraiensis (new host record), C. siamensis (new host record), and C. thailandensis (new host and asexual morph record), respectively. A preliminary screening demonstrated the ability of Chromolaenicola chiangraiensis, C. thailandensis, and C. siamensis to partially inhibit the growth of gram-positive bacteria (Bacillus subtilis). Here, the detailed morphology, illustrations, and potential antibacterial properties of Chromolaenicola species are described. The present research will add to the body of knowledge on Chromolaenicola by revealing its possible antibacterial properties.
  • 加载中
  • [1]

    Hooper DU, Chapin FS III, Ewel JJ, Hector A, Inchausti P, et al. 2005. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecological Monographs 75(1):3−35

    doi: 10.1890/04-0922

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [2]

    Hejda M, Pyšek P, Jarošík V. 2009. Impact of invasive plants on the species richness, diversity and composition of invaded communities. Journal of Ecology 97(3):393−403

    doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2009.01480.x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [3]

    Pyšek P, Jarošík V, Hulme PE, Pergl J, Hejda M, et al. 2012. A global assessment of invasive plant impacts on resident species, communities and ecosystems: the interaction of impact measures, invading species' traits and environment. Global Change Biology 18(5):1725−37

    doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02636.x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [4]

    Blackburn TM, Essl F, Evans T, Hulme PE, Jeschke JM, et al. 2014. A unified classification of alien species based on the magnitude of their environmental impacts. PLoS Biology 12(5):e1001850

    doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001850

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [5]

    Jeschke JM, Bacher S, Blackburn TM, Dick JTA, Essl F, et al. 2014. Defining the impact of non-native species. Conservation Biology 28(5):1188−94

    doi: 10.1111/cobi.12299

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [6]

    Kumschick S, Bacher S, Evans T, Marková Z, Pergl J, et al. 2015. Comparing impacts of alien plants and animals in Europe using a standard scoring system. Journal of Applied Ecology 52(3):552−61

    doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12427

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [7]

    Weidlich EWA, Flórido FG, Sorrini TB, Brancalion PH. 2020. Controlling invasive plant species in ecological restoration: A global review. Journal of Applied Ecology 57(9):1806−17

    doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.13656

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [8]

    D'Antonio CM, August-Schmidt E, Fernandez-Going B. 2016. Invasive species and restoration challenges. In Foundations of restoration ecology, eds. Palmer MA, Zedler JB, Falk DA. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. pp. 216–44. https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-698-1_8

    [9]

    Arthur GD, Naidoo KK, Coopoosamy RM. 2012. Bidens pilosa L. : Agricultural and pharmaceutical importance. Journal of Medicinal Plants Research 6(17):3282−81

    doi: 10.5897/JMPR12.195

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [10]

    Zungsontiporn S. 2007. Some characteristics of Bidens pilosa L. var. radiata Scheff., a new invasive species in Thailand. Proceeding of the 21st Asian Pacific Weed Science Society (APWSS) Conference, 2-6 October 2007, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka: Asian Pacific Weed Science Society.

    [11]

    Guatimosim E, Pinto HJ, Pereira OL, Fuga CAG, Vieira BS, et al. 2015. Pathogenic mycobiota of the weeds Bidens pilosa and Bidens subalternans. Tropical Plant Pathology 40:298−317

    doi: 10.1007/s40858-015-0040-x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [12]

    Zhang F, Li Q, Yerger EH, Chen X, Shi Q, et al. 2018. AM fungi facilitate the competitive growth of two invasive plant species, Ambrosia artemisiifolia and Bidens pilosa. Mycorrhiza 28:703−15

    doi: 10.1007/s00572-018-0866-4

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [13]

    Li J, Jeewon R, Mortimer PE, Doilom M, Phookamsak R, et al. 2020. Multigene phylogeny and taxonomy of Dendryphion hydei and Torula hydei spp. nov. from herbaceous litter in northern Thailand. PloS One 15(2):e0228067

    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228067

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [14]

    Abdou R, Scherlach K, Dahse HM, Sattler I, Hertweck C. 2010. Botryorhodines A−D, antifungal and cytotoxic depsidones from Botryosphaeria rhodina, an endophyte of the medicinal plant Bidens pilosa. Phytochemistry 71:110−16

    doi: 10.1016/j.phytochem.2009.09.024

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [15]

    Munk A. 1953. The system of the Pyrenomycetes: A contribution to a natural classification of the group Sphaeriales sensu Lindau. Dansk Botanisk Arkiv 15:1−163

    Google Scholar

    [16]

    Wijayawardene NN, Hyde KD, Dai DQ, Sánchez-García M, Goto BT, et al. 2022. Outline of Fungi and fungus-like taxa–2021. Mycosphere 13(1):53−453

    doi: 10.5943/mycosphere/13/1/2

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [17]

    Mapook A, Hyde KD, McKenzie EHC, Jones EBG, Bhat DJ, et al. 2020. Taxonomic and phylogenetic contributions to fungi associated with the invasive weed Chromolaena odorata (Siam weed). Fungal Diversity 101:1−175

    doi: 10.1007/s13225-020-00444-8

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [18]

    Samarakoon BC, Wanasinghe DN, Samarakoon MC, Phookamsak R, McKenzie EHC, et al. 2020a. Multi-gene phylogenetic evidence suggests Dictyoarthrinium belongs in Didymosphaeriaceae (Pleosporales, Dothideomycetes) and Dictyoarthrinium musae sp. nov. on Musa from Thailand. MycoKeys 71:101−18

    doi: 10.3897/mycokeys.71.55493

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [19]

    Samarakoon BC, Phookamsak R, Wanasinghe DN, Chomnunti P, Hyde KD, et al. 2020b. Taxonomy and phylogenetic appraisal of Spegazzinia musae sp. nov. and S. deightonii (Didymosphaeriaceae, Pleosporales) on Musaceae from Thailand. MycoKeys 70:19−37

    doi: 10.3897/mycokeys.70.52043

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [20]

    Yuan Z, Druzhinina IS, Wang X, Zhang X, Peng L, et al. 2020. Insight into a highly polymorphic endophyte isolated from the roots of the halophytic seepweed Suaeda salsa: Laburnicola rhizohalophila sp. nov. (Didymosphaeriaceae, Pleosporales). Fungal Biology 124:327−37

    doi: 10.1016/j.funbio.2019.10.001

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [21]

    Dissanayake LS, Wijayawardene NN, Samarakoon MC, Hyde KD, Kang JC. 2021. The taxonomy and phylogeny of Austropleospora ochracea sp. nov. (Didymosphaeriaceae) from Guizhou, China. Phytotaxa 491:217−29

    doi: 10.11646/phytotaxa.491.3.2

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [22]

    Wong Chin JM, Puchooa D, Bahorun T, Jeewon R. 2021. Molecular characterization of marine fungi associated with Haliclona sp. (sponge) and Turbinaria conoides and Sargassum portierianum (brown algae). Proc. of the National Academy of Sciences, India Section B: Biological Sciences 91:643−56

    doi: 10.1007/s40011-021-01229-y

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [23]

    Suwannarach N, Kumla J, Lumyong S. 2021. Spegazzinia camelliae sp. nov. (Didymosphaeriaceae, Pleosprales), a new endophytic fungus from northern Thailand. Phytotaxa 483:117−28

    doi: 10.11646/phytotaxa.483.2.4

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [24]

    Sun YR, Zhang JY, Hyde KD, Wang Y, Jayawardena RS. 2023. Morphology and phylogeny reveal three Montagnula species from China and Thailand. Plants 12(4):738

    doi: 10.3390/plants12040738

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [25]

    Index Fungorum. www.indexfungorum.org (Accessed on December 2023).

    [26]

    Species Fungorum 2023. www.indexfungorum.org/names/Names.asp (Accessed on December 2023).

    [27]

    Ren G, Wanasinghe DN, de Farias ARG, Hyde KD, Yasanthika E, et al. 2022. Taxonomic novelties of woody litter fungi (Didymosphaeriaceae, Pleosporales) from the Greater Mekong Subregion. Biology 11(11):1660

    doi: 10.3390/biology11111660

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [28]

    Jayasiri SC, Hyde KD, Jones EBG, McKenzie EHC, Jeewon R, et al. 2019. Diversity, morphology and molecular phylogeny of Dothideomycetes on decaying wild seed pods and fruits. Mycosphere 10:1−186

    doi: 10.5943/mycosphere/10/1/1

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [29]

    Phukhamsakda C, McKenzie EHC, Phillips AJL, Gareth Jones EB, Jayarama Bhat D, et al. 2020. Microfungi associated with Clematis (Ranunculaceae) with an integrated approach to delimiting species boundaries. Fungal Diversity 102:1−203

    doi: 10.1007/s13225-020-00448-4

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [30]

    Tian XG, Bao DF, Karunarathna SC, Jayawardena RS, Hyde KD, Bhat DJ, et al. 2024. Taxonomy and phylogeny of ascomycetes associated with selected economically important monocotyledons in China and Thailand. Mycosphere 15:1−274

    doi: 10.5943/mycosphere/15/1/1

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [31]

    Senanayake IC, Rathnayaka AR, Marasinghe DS, Calabon MS, Gentekaki E, et al. 2020. Morphological approaches in studying fungi: Collection, examination, isolation, sporulation and preservation. Mycosphere 11:2678−754

    doi: 10.5943/mycosphere/11/1/20

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [32]

    Jayasiri SC, Hyde KD, Ariyawansa HA, Bhat J, Buyck B, et al. 2015. The Faces of Fungi database: fungal names linked with morphology, phylogeny and human impacts. Fungal Diversity 74:3−18

    doi: 10.1007/s13225-015-0351-8

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [33]

    Chaiwan N, Gomdola D, Wang S, Monkai J, Tibpromma S, et al. 2021. https://gmsmicrofungi.org: An online database providing updated information of microfungi in the Greater Mekong Subregion. Mycosphere 12:1513−26

    doi: 10.5943/mycosphere/12/1/19

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [34]

    Mapook A, Boonmee S, Ariyawansa HA, Tibpromma S, Campesori E, et al. 2016. Taxonomic and phylogenetic placement of Nodulosphaeria. Mycological Progress 15:34

    doi: 10.1007/s11557-016-1176-x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [35]

    Vilgalys R, Hester M. 1990. Rapid genetic identification and mapping of enzymatically amplified ribosomal DNA from several Cryptococcus species. Journal of Bacteriology 172:4238−46

    doi: 10.1128/jb.172.8.4238-4246.1990

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [36]

    White TJ, Bruns T, Lee S, Taylor J. 1990. Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics. In PCR protocols: a guide to methods and applications, eds. Innis MA, Gelfand DH, Sninsky JJ, White TJ. London, UK: Academic Press. pp. 315–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-372180-8.50042-1

    [37]

    Rehner S. 2001. Primers for Elongation Factor 1–alpha (EF1–alpha). Insect Biocontrol Laboratory: USDA, ARS, PSI.

    [38]

    Liu YJ, Whelen S, Hall BD. 1999. Phylogenetic relationships among ascomycetes: evidence from an RNA polymerse II subunit. Molecular Biology and Evolution 16:1799−808

    doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a026092

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [39]

    Wijesinghe SN, Wanasinghe DN, Maharachchikumbura SSN, Wang Y, Al-Sadi AM, et al. 2020. Bimuria omanensis sp. nov. (Didymosphaeriaceae, Pleosporales) from Oman. Phytotaxa 449(2):97−108

    doi: 10.11646/phytotaxa.449.2.1

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [40]

    Vu D, Groenewald M, De Vries M, Gehrmann T, Stielow B, et al. 2019. Large-scale generation and analysis of filamentous fungal DNA barcodes boosts coverage for kingdom fungi and reveals thresholds for fungal species and higher taxon delimitation. Studies in mycology 92(1):135−54

    doi: 10.1016/j.simyco.2018.05.001

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [41]

    Ariyawansa HA, Tanaka K, Thambugala KM, Phookamsak R, Tian Q, et al. 2014. A molecular phylogenetic reappraisal of the Didymosphaeriaceae (= Montagnulaceae). Fungal Diversity 68:69−104

    doi: 10.1007/s13225-014-0305-6

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [42]

    Alidadi A, Javan-Nikkhah M, Kowsari M, Karami S, Rastaghi ME. 2018. Some species of fungi associated with declined Persian oak trees in Ilam province with emphasis on new records to mycobiota of Iran. Rostaniha 19:75−91

    doi: 10.22092/botany.2019.122177.1105

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [43]

    Lumbsch HT, Lindemuth R. 2001. Major lineages of Dothideomycetes (Ascomycota) inferred from SSU and LSU rDNA sequences. Mycological Research 105(8):901−8

    doi: 10.1016/S0953-7562(08)61945-0

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [44]

    Tennakoon DS, Thambugala KM, de Silva NI, Suwannarach N, Lumyong S. 2022. A taxonomic assessment of novel and remarkable fungal species in Didymosphaeriaceae (Pleosporales, Dothideomycetes) from plant litter. Frontiers in Microbiology 13:1016285

    doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.1016285

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [45]

    Crous PW, Summerell BA, Shivas RG, Burgess TI, Decock CA. et al. 2012. Fungal Planet description sheets: 107–127. Persoonia - Molecular Phylogeny and Evolution of Fungi 28(1):138−82

    doi: 10.3767/003158512X652633

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [46]

    Tanaka K, Hirayama K, Yonezawa H, Sato G, Toriyabe A, et al. 2015. Revision of the Massarineae (Pleosporales, Dothideomycetes). Studies in Mycology 82:75−136

    doi: 10.1016/j.simyco.2015.10.002

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [47]

    Swindell SR, Plasterer TN. 1997. SEQMAN. In Sequence data analysis guidebook, ed. Swindell SR. Totowa, NJ: Springer. pp. 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1385/0-89603-358-9:75

    [48]

    Tamura K, Stecher G, Peterson D, Filipski A, Kumar S. 2013. MEGA6: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 6.0. Molecular Biology and Evolution 30(12):2725−29

    doi: 10.1093/molbev/mst197

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [49]

    Rannala B, Yang Z. 1996. Probability distribution of molecular evolutionary trees: a new method of phylogenetic inference. Journal of Molecular Evolution 43:304−11

    doi: 10.1007/BF02338839

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [50]

    Lemmon AR, Brown JM, Stanger-Hall K, Lemmon EM. 2009. The effect of ambiguous data on phylogenetic estimates obtained by maximum likelihood and Bayesian inference. Systematic Biology 58:130−45

    doi: 10.1093/sysbio/syp017

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [51]

    Miller MA, Pfeiffer W, Schwartz T. 2010. Creating the CIPRES Science Gateway for inference of large phylogenetic trees. 2010 Gateway Computing Environments Workshop (GCE), New Orleans, LA, USA, 14 November 2010. USA: IEEE. pp. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/GCE.2010.5676129.

    [52]

    Stamatakis A. 2014. RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics 30(9):1312−13

    doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu033

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [53]

    Ronquist F, Teslenko M, Van Der Mark P, Ayres DL, Darling A, et al. 2012. MrBayes 3.2: efficient Bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across a large model space. Systematic Biology 61:539−42

    doi: 10.1093/sysbio/sys029

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [54]

    Zhaxybayeva O, Gogarten JP. 2002. Bootstrap, Bayesian probability and maximum likelihood mapping: exploring new tools for comparative genome analyses. BMC Genomics 3:1−15

    doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-3-4

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [55]

    Rambaut A. 2012. FigTree v. 1.40. University of Oxford.

    [56]

    Alam ST, Le TAN, Park JS, Kwon HC, Kang K. 2019. Antimicrobial biophotonic treatment of ampicillin-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa with hypericin and ampicillin cotreatment followed by orange light. Pharmaceutics 11:641

    doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics11120641

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [57]

    Balouiri M, Sadiki M, Ibnsouda SK. 2016. Methods for in vitro evaluating antimicrobial activity: A review. Journal of Pharmaceutical Analysis 6:71−79

    doi: 10.1016/j.jpha.2015.11.005

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

  • Cite this article

    Htet ZH, Mapook A, Chethana KWT. 2024. Molecular taxonomy reveals new records of Chromolaenicola (Didymosphaeriaceae, Pleosporales) and potential antibacterial properties. Studies in Fungi 9: e006 doi: 10.48130/sif-0024-0006
    Htet ZH, Mapook A, Chethana KWT. 2024. Molecular taxonomy reveals new records of Chromolaenicola (Didymosphaeriaceae, Pleosporales) and potential antibacterial properties. Studies in Fungi 9: e006 doi: 10.48130/sif-0024-0006

Figures(5)  /  Tables(5)

Article Metrics

Article views(1876) PDF downloads(521)

Other Articles By Authors

ARTICLE   Open Access    

Molecular taxonomy reveals new records of Chromolaenicola (Didymosphaeriaceae, Pleosporales) and potential antibacterial properties

Studies in Fungi  9 Article number: e006  (2024)  |  Cite this article

Abstract: In the present study, Chromolaenicola specimens were collected from the dead stems of Bidens pilosa in northern Thailand and compared with other Chromolaenicola species. Maximum-likelihood and Bayesian analyses were conducted on a combined LSU, SSU, ITS, tef-1, and rpb2 data set. Morphological and phylogenetic analyses revealed three species, Chromolaenicola chiangraiensis (new host record), C. siamensis (new host record), and C. thailandensis (new host and asexual morph record), respectively. A preliminary screening demonstrated the ability of Chromolaenicola chiangraiensis, C. thailandensis, and C. siamensis to partially inhibit the growth of gram-positive bacteria (Bacillus subtilis). Here, the detailed morphology, illustrations, and potential antibacterial properties of Chromolaenicola species are described. The present research will add to the body of knowledge on Chromolaenicola by revealing its possible antibacterial properties.

    • As a major driver of biodiversity loss, invasive plant species threaten the natural environment and human health globally[17]. Invasive plant species not only disrupt natural community assembly but also act as one of the most significant impediments to restoring native ecosystems[7,8]. Bidens pilosa is a widespread weed in tropical, subtropical and warm temperate regions[9]. This weed is a diverse annual herb native to tropical and Central America[9] and is considered an invasive weed in Thailand[10]. Even though several studies have been conducted on fungi associated with Bidens pilosa[1113], the comprehensive fungal diversity of Bidens pilosa is still yet to be understood.

      Fungi associated with Bidens pilosa have been observed in some studies, and the reported species belong to the families Albuginaceae, Apiosporaceae, Botryosphaeriaceae, Ceratobasidiaceae, Cladosporiaceae, Diaporthaceae, Erysiphaceae, Glomerellaceae, Mycosphaerellaceae, Nectriaceae, Periconiaceae, Peronosporaceae, Phyllostictaceae, Sclerotiniaceae, Stachybotryaceae, Tetraplosphaeriaceae, and Torulaceae[1114]. However, species of Didymosphaeriaceae have not been reported from Bidens pilosa yet. Didymosphaeriaceae, as introduced by Munk[15], comprises 33 genera[16]. Members of this family can be found as endophytes, pathogens and saprobes in soil as well as various host plants from both aquatic and terrestrial habitats[1724]. Among them, Chromolaenicola, which was introduced by Mapook et al.[17], accommodated seven accepted species[16,25,26], including four asexual morph (Chromolaenicola chiangraiensis, C. clematidis, C. lampangensis, and C. siamensis) and three sexual morph taxa (C. nanensis, C. sapinda and C. thailandensis)[17,27]. Chromolaenicola species occur as saprobes in terrestrial habitats in China and Thailand[17,2729]. Members of Chromolaenicola were found from different plant families, viz., Asteraceae, Bromeliaceae, Fabaceae, Ranunculaceae, and Spindaceae[17,2730]. Some Chromolaenicola species, such as C. lampangensis and C. nanensis, showed potential antimicrobial properties[17]. The sexual morph of Chromolaenicola is characterized by its immersed to semi-immersed, solitary or scattered, coriaceous, globose to subglobose ascomata with an ostiole, 3–4 layers of textura angularis cells, cylindrical to filiform, septate, branching pseudoparaphyses, 6–8-spored, bitunicate, cylindrical, pedicellate asci with an ocular chamber, and hyaline to brown, uniseriate, ellipsoid to broadly fusiform, muriform spores without gelatinous sheath. The asexual morph is characterized by its immersed to semi-immersed, globose to obpyriform, pycnidia conidiomata with an ostiole, 2–4 layers of textura angularis cells, hyaline and unbranched, smooth, elongated, broadly filiform to ampulliform conidiogenous cells, and oblong or oval to ellipsoid, globose to subglobose, hyaline to pale brown, aseptate to 1-septate conidia. The linkage of sexual and asexual morph from Chromolaenicola has not been reported yet.

      In the current study, morphological descriptions and photo plates of Chromolaenicola species collected in northern Thailand are presented. Both multi-gene analyses and morphological comparisons were used to confirm the species identification. The preliminary antibacterial screening was also conducted and presented for all Chromolaenicola species.

    • Dead stems of Bidens Pilosa were collected in March from the roadsides in Doi Pui District, Chiang Rai Province, Thailand. All specimens were kept in plastic bags labeled with collection details and taken to the laboratory. Single spore isolation was carried out on malt extract agar (MEA), following the methods by Senanayake et al.[31] and kept for 24 h at room temperature. The spore germination was observed within 24 h using a Motic SMZ 168 Series microscope. Germinated spores were transferred to new MEA plates. All the micro-morphological characters were observed using a Nikon ECLIPSE 80i compound microscope (Nikon, Japan) fitted to a Canon 550D digital camera (Canon, Japan). Tarosoft Image Framework (v 0. 9.7) was used to measure photomicrograph structures. Adobe Photoshop CS6 Extended (v 10.0.) was used to edit and prepare photo plates (Adobe Systems, USA). Forty-day-old cultures were used for molecular studies. Specimens were deposited at the herbaria of Mae Fah Luang University (Herb. MFLU) while living cultures were maintained at Mae Fah Luang University culture collection (MFLUCC). Faces of fungi (FoF) numbers and Index Fungorum (IF) numbers were obtained as instructed by Jayasiri et al.[32] and Index fungorum[25]. Moreover, the species descriptions were submitted to GMS Microfungi[33].

    • Genomic DNA was extracted from forty-day-old mycelium using E.Z.N.A.® Tissue DNA Kit (Omega Biotek Inc.), following the manufacturer’s instructions. DNA amplifications were performed by polymerase chain reactions (PCR), following Mapook et al.[34]. The details of PCR primers and protocols are shown in Table 1. The quality of PCR products was confirmed on 1% gels. The PCR products were sent to a commercial sequencing provider (Solgent Co., Ltd, Thailand). The newly generated nucleotide sequences were deposited in GenBank, and accession numbers were obtained (Table 2).

      Table 1.  PCR conditions used in this study.

      GenePrimersPCR conditionsRef.
      ForwardReverse
      Large subunit (LSU)LR0RLR595 °C: 3 min, (94 °C: 30 s, 56 °C: 50 s, 72 °C: 1 min) × 40 cycles 72 °C: 7 min[35]
      Small subunit (SSU)NS1NS495 °C for 3 min, (94 °C: 30 s, 55 °C: 50 s, 72 °C :1 min) × 40 cycles 72 °C: 7 min[36]
      Internal transcribed spacer (ITS)ITS5ITS495 °C for 3 min, (94 °C: 30 s, 55 °C: 50 s, 72 °C :1 min) × 40 cycles 72 °C: 7 min[36]
      Elongation factor-1 alpha (tef1- α)EF-1 983FEF1-2218R95 °C: 3 min, (94 °C: 30 s, 55 °C: 50 s, 72 °C: 1 min) × 40 cycles 72 °C: 7 min[37]
      RNA polymerase II subunit (rpb2)fRPB2-5 FfRPB2-7cR95 °C: 5 min, (95 °C :1 min, 52 °C: 2 min, 72 °C: 90 s) × 40 cycles 72 °C: 10 min[38]

      Table 2.  List of taxa, specimens and sequences used in phylogenetic analyses.

      SpeciesStrain numbersGenBank accession numbersRef.
      LSUSSUITStef1-αrpb2
      Bimuria omanensisSQUCC 15280NG_071257N/ANR_173301MT279046N/A[39]
      B. novae-zelandiaeCBS 107.79MH872950NAMH861181NAN/A[40]
      Chromolaenicola ananasiMFLU 23-0167OR438811OR458332OR438340OR500305N/A[30]
      C. clematidisMFLUCC 17-2075TMT310601MT214554MT226671N/AN/A[29]
      C. chiangraiensisMFLUCC 17-1493MN325005MN325011MN325017MN335650MN335655[17]
      C. chiangraiensisMFLUCC 24-0058PP464125PP464129PP464138PP474193PP474190This study
      Chromolaenicola nanensisMFLUCC 17-1477MN325002MN325008MN325014MN335647MN335653[17]
      C. nanensisMFLUCC 17-1473MN325003MN325009MN325015MN335648MN335653[17]
      C. lampangensisMFLUCC 17-1462MN325004MN325010MN325016MN335649MN335654[17]
      C. siamensisMFLUCC 17-2527NG_066311N/ANR_163337N/AN/A[28]
      C. siamensisMFLUCC 24-0057 PP464124PP464128PP464137PP474192PP474189This study
      C. sapindiKUMCC 21-0564TOP059009OP059058OP058967OP135943N/A[27]
      C. sapindiKUMCC 21-0594OP059010OP059059OP058968OP135944N/A[27]
      C. thailandensisMFLUCC 17-1510MN325006MN325012MN325018MN335651N/A[17]
      C. thailandensisMFLUCC 17-1475MN325007MN325013MN325019MN335652MN335656[17]
      C. thailandensisMFLUCC 24-0056PP464123PP464127PP464136PP474191PP474188This study
      Deniquelata barringtoniaeMFLUCC 11−0422JX254655JX254656NR_111779N/AN/A[41]
      D. quercinaABRIICC 10068MH316157MH316155MH316153N/AN/A[42]
      Didymocrea leucaenaeMFLUCC 17−0896NG_066304MK347826NR_164298MK360052N/A[28]
      D. sadasivaniiCBS 438.65DQ384103DQ384066MH870299N/AN/A[40]
      Letendraea cordylinicolaMFLUCC 11−0148NG_059530NG_068362NR_154118N/AN/A[41]
      L. helminthicolaCBS 884.85AY016362AY016345MK404145MK404174N/A[43]
      Montagnula acaciaeMFLUCC 18−1636ON117298ON117267ON117280ON158093N/A[44]
      M. acaciaeNCYUCC 19−0087ON117299ON117268ON117281ON158094N/A[44]
      M. aloesCPC 19671JX069847N/AJX069863N/AN/A[45]
      M. aloesCBS 132531NG_042676N/ANR_111757N/AN/A[40]
      Periconia pseudodigitataKT1395AB807564AB797274LC014591AB808540N/A[46]
      P. pseudodigitataKT1195AAB807563AB797273LC014590AB808539N/A[46]
      T: Type strains; Abbreviations of culture collections: CBS: Centraalbureau voor Schimmelcultures, Utrecht, The Netherlands, CPC: Working collection of Pedro Crous housed at CBS, KT: K. Tanaka, MFLUCC: Mae Fah Luang University Culture Collection, Chiang Rai, Thailand, NCYUCC: National Chiayi University Culture Collection, Taiwan. SQUCC: Sultan Qaboos University Culture Collection, Sultanate of Oman. ABRIICC: Agricultural Biotechnology Research Institute of Iran Culture Collection, Iran. Sequences generated in the current study are in bold. N/A: Not available.
    • Newly generated forward and reverse sequences were assembled in the SeqMan[47]. The assembled sequences were used for BLAST searches at NCBI (https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi). Based on previously published data[17,27,30] and BLAST search results, taxa were selected, and phylogenetic analyses were conducted using the combined LSU, SSU, ITS, tef1-α, and rpb2 sequence data. Sequence alignments were made with the MAFFT v. 7 online tool (http://mafft.cbrc.jp/alignment/server; 2016). Using MEGA v. 6.0, alignments were improved where necessary, and composite sequence alignments were obtained[48].

      Maximum likelihood (ML) and Bayesian inference (BI) analyses were conducted using the combined dataset of LSU, SSU, ITS, tef1-α, and rpb2[49,50]. RA × ML and Bayesian analyses were carried out on the CIPRESS Science Gateway Portal (www.phylo.org) using the methods described by Miller et al.[51]. Maximum likelihood analysis was performed by RA × ML-HPC v.8[52] with rapid bootstrap analysis, followed by 1000 bootstrap replicates and the GTRGAMMA substitution model. MrBayes was used to perform BI analysis on XSEDE 3.2.7[53], with tree samples taken at every 100th generation during the 5M generation run of four concurrent Markov chains. The first 25% of the trees were removed as part of the burn-in phase, and calculations for the Posterior Probability were made for the remaining 75% of the trees (PP)[49,54]. The phylogenetic tree was displayed using Fig Tree v1.4.0[55] and was modified in Microsoft Office PowerPoint v. 2013.

    • Preliminary screening for antimicrobial activity was carried out following the methods of Mapook et al.[17]. Antibacterial discs of Ampicillin were used as a positive control for screening[56]. Preliminary antibacterial activities were tested against Bacillus subtilis (TISTR 1248), Escherichia coli (TISTR 527), and Staphylococcus aureus (TISTR Y4b) using the agar plug diffusion method[57]. Bacterial test organisms were grown on Nutrient Agar (NA) for 24 h. After 24 h of inoculation, 2–3 loops of the bacterial test organisms were transferred to the nutrient broth. Before adding microbial suspensions to the sterile Mueller-Hinton agar media, cell counts were performed on the suspensions (6.7 × 105 cells/mL), as detailed by Mapook et al.[17]. Fungal mycelium plugs from our isolates were transferred to a solid medium plate and allowed to grow at room temperature for 24–48 h. Inhibition zones were measured and compared to the positive control.

    • Phylogenetic analysis was conducted from the combined LSU, SSU, ITS, tef1-α, and rpb2 sequence data of twenty-eight strains, of which three were newly sequenced, while the other 23 strains were obtained from BLAST search (NCBI) and recent papers[17,27,29,30]. Periconia pseudodigitata strains KT1395 and KT1195A were selected as the outgroup. The best-scoring RA×ML tree with a final likelihood value of −9277.475085 is presented (Fig. 1). The matrix had 532 distinct alignment patterns, with 15.55% of undetermined characters or gaps. Estimated base frequencies were as follows: A = 0.235845, C = 0.255030, G = 0.269910, T = 0.239215; substitution rates: AC = 1.648158, AG = 2.210120, AT = 1.275667, CG = 1.033223, CT = 7.205216, GT = 1.000000; gamma distribution shape parameter α = 0.110629.

      Figure 1. 

      Phylogram generated from maximum likelihood analysis based on the combined dataset of LSU, SSU, ITS, tef1-α and rpb2 sequence data. Bootstrap support values for ML equal to or greater than 75% and BYPP equal to or greater than 0.95 are given at the nodes. Newly generated sequences are in blue and type species are in bold.

      Tree topologies of ML and BI criteria were comparable to and consistent with earlier investigations[17,27]. Chromolaenicola formed an independent topmost clade in the phylogenetic tree. Chromolaenicola species were divided into five clades (Clades A, B, C, D and E) in the phylogenetic tree. Our three strains, represented by three species, were grouped within the genus (Fig. 1). Chromolaenicola chiangraiensis (MFLUCC 24-0058) and C. siamensis (MFLUCC 24-0057) were placed in Clade A. Chromolaenicola chiangraiensis (MFLUCC 24-0058) formed a separate branch with 81% ML and 0.98 BYPP support. Our strain, Chromolaenicola siamensis (MFLUCC 24-0057) clustered with C. siamensis (MFLUCC 17-2527) with 55% ML and 0.81 BYPP. Three Chromolaenicola thailandensis strains (MFLUCC 17-1510, MFLUCC 17-1475, MFLUCC 24-0056) clustered together with 94% ML and 0.99 BYPP support and formed a distinct lineage in Clade C.

    • Didymosphaeriaceae Boonmee and K.D. Hyde, Fungal Diversity 80: 462 (2016).

      Chromolaenicola chiangraiensis Mapook & K.D. Hyde Fungal Diversity 101, 1–175 (2020). (Fig. 2).

      Index fungorum number: IF557280, Faces of fungi number: FOF 07784

      Figure 2. 

      Chromolaenicola chaingraiensis (MFLU 24-0030, new host record). (a), (b) Colonies on the substrate. (c)–(f) Conidia and conidiogenous cells. (g)–(j) Conidia. (k) Germinating conidia. (l) Culture on MEA. Scale bars: (a), (b) = 500 µm, (c) = 30 µm, (d)–(j) = 10 µm, (k) = 20 µm, (l) = 10 mm.

      Saprobic on dead stems of Bidens pilosa. Sexual morph: Undetermined. Asexual morph: appearing as Colonies on the host substrate, superficial, scattered, gregarious, black. Conidiophores reduced to conidiogenous cells. Conidiogenous cells 2–4 × 1–2 μm ($\overline x $ = 2.5 × 1.6 µm, n = 10), holoblastic, hyaline, smooth, ovoid to filiform. Conidia 9–13 × 6–10 μm ($\overline x $ =10.1 × 6.9 μm, n = 30), oval to slightly ellipsoidal, aseptate when immature, 1-septate when mature, thick-walled, reddish brown, verruculose.

      Culture characteristics: Conidia germinating on MEA within 24 h, reaching 20 mm after 10 d at room temperature, irregular, undulate, curled margin, yellow to pale brown on the surface and wrinkle and brown in reverse.

      Material examined: Thailand, Chiang Rai Province, Doi Pui, on dead stems of Bidens pilosa, 14 March 2023, Zin Hnin Htet (BP-DP-10, MFLU 24-0030, new host record); living culture MFLUCC 24-0058.

      Notes: Morphologically, our species, Chromolaenicola chiangraiensis (MFLUCC 24-0058) is similar to C. chiangraiensis (MFLUCC 17-1493) in having superficial, scattered, dark brown to black colonies, holoblastic, hyaline conidiogenous cells, oval to ellipsoidal, aseptate to 1-septate, reddish brown, verruculose conidia but differ in having shorter conidiogenous cells (2–4 vs 3.5–6.5 µm) (Table 3). A comparison of the tef1-α gene region of Chromolaenicola chiangraiensis (MFLUCC 24-0058) and C. chiangraiensis (MFLUCC 17-1493) reveals 13 base pair differences (1.48%) across 876 nucleotides. Therefore, our strain (MFLUCC 24-0058) is described as a new host record of Chromolaenicola chiangraiensis from Bidens pilosa (Asteraceae), which was previously recorded from Chromolaena odorata (Asteraceae) in Chiang Rai Province, Thailand[17].

      Table 3.  Synopsis of recorded asexual morph of Chromolaenicola species.

      SpeciesConidiomata
      (µm)
      Peridium
      (µm)
      Conidiogenous cells
      (µm)
      Conidia
      (µm)
      Host/substrateRef.
      C. ananasi (MFLU 23-0167)7–8 × 4–5Ananas comosus (Bromeliaceae)[30]
      C. chiangraiensis
      (MFLUCC 17-1493)
      3.5–6.5 × 1–29–14 × 6–9Chromolaena odorata (Asteraceae)[17]
      C. chaingraiensis
      (MFLUCC 24-0058)
      2–4 × 1–29–13 × 6–10Bidens pilosa (Asteraceae)This study
      C. clematidis
      (MFLUCC 17–2075)
      76–145 × 107–1285–102.6–4.5 × 4–77–10 × 4.5–7Clematis subumbellata (Ranunculaceae)[29]
      C. lampangensis
      (MFLUCC 17-1462)
      150–230 × 170–27010–2012–15 × 4–6.5Chromolaena odorata (Asteraceae)[17]
      C. siamensis
      (= Cylindroaseptospora siamensis, MFLUCC 17–2527)
      110–165 × 140–19015–386.5–7.4 × 3.2–4.77.2–9.4 × 5.4–6.5Leucaena sp. (Fabaceae)[28]
      C. siamensis
      (MFLUCC 24-0057)
      130–235 × 170–23015–201–2.5 × 2–47–15 × 5–10Bidens pilosa (Asteraceae)This study
      C. thailandensis
      (MFLUCC 24-0056)
      100–150 × 110–15013–201–2 × 3–45–11 × 4–10Bidens pilosa (Asteraceae)This study

      Chromolaenicola siamensis (Jayasiri, E.B.G. Jones & K.D. Hyde) Mapook & K.D. Hyde Fungal Diversity 101, 1–175 (2020). (Fig. 3).

      Index fungorum number: IF557283, Faces of fungi number: FOF 07787

      Figure 3. 

      Chromolaenicola siamensis (MFLU 24-0029, new host record). (a), (b) Conidiomata on the substrate. (c) Section through conidiomata. (d) Peridium. (e), (f) Conidiogenous cells. (g)–(l) Conidia. (m) Germinating conidia. (n) Culture on MEA. Scale bars: (a), (b) = 500 µm, (c) = 50 µm, (d) = 20 µm, (e)–(m) = 5 µm, (n) = 10 mm.

      Saprobic on dead stems of Bidens pilosa. Sexual morph: Undetermined. Asexual morph: Conidiomata 130–235 × 170–230 μm ($\overline x $ = 150.6 × 225.5 µm, n = 5), pycnidial, solitary, immersed to semi-immersed, uniloculate, globose, yellowish brown to brown, without ostiole. Peridium 15–20 µm wide, comprising 2–3 layers of brown cells of textura angularis. Conidiophores reduced to conidiogenous cells. Conidiogenous cells 1–2.5 × 2–4 μm ($\overline x $ =2 × 2.5 μm, n = 30), phialidic, hyaline. Conidia 7–15 × 5–10 μm ($\overline x $ =10.4 × 6.7 μm, n = 30), globose to subglobose, 1-septate, thick-walled, reddish brown to dark brown, verruculose.

      Culture characteristics: Conidia germinating on MEA after 24 h, 22 mm after 10 d at room temperature, irregular, entire, curled margin, yellow to pale brown on the surface, wrinkled and brown in reverse.

      Material examined: Thailand, Chiang Rai Province, Doi Pui, on dead stems of Bidens pilosa, 14 March 2023, Zin Hnin Htet (BP-DP-7, MFLU 24-0029, new host record); living culture MFLUCC 24-0057.

      Notes: In our phylogenetic study, our strain (MFLUCC 24-0057) is sistered to Chromolaenicola siamensis (MFLUCC 17-1527) with 51% ML and 0.82 BYPP. When we compared the morphology, our strain (MFLUCC 24-0057) is similar to Chromolaenicola siamensis (MFLUCC 17-1527) in having pycnidial, solitary, immersed, globose to obpyriform, unilocular conidiomata, phialidic, hyaline conidiogenous cells, and hyaline to dark brown, globose to subglobose, aseptate to 1-septate conidia with similar size (7–15 × 5–10 μm vs 7.2–9.4 × 5.4–6.5 μm). Our strain (MFLUCC 24-0057) differs from C. siamensis (MFLUCC 17-1527) in having thinner peridium (15–20 µm vs 15–38 μm) and shorter conidiogenous cells (1–2.5 × 2–4 μm vs 6.5–7.4 × 3.2–4.7 μm) (Table 3). However, the comparison of base pair differences revealed no or insignificant results LSU 0% (0/851), ITS 0.2% (1/459), tef1-α 0.3% (2/740), rpb2 0.1% (1/914), which indicates that they are conspecific. Therefore, we herein report C. siamensis as a new host record from Bidens Pilosa (Asteraceae), while this species was previously recorded on the decaying pods of Leucaena sp. (Fabaceae) in Lampang Province, Thailand[28].

      Chromolaenicola thailandensis Mapook & K.D. Hyde Fungal Diversity 101, 1–175 (2020). (Fig. 4).

      Index fungorum number: IF557284, Faces of fungi number: FOF 07788

      Figure 4. 

      Chromolaenicola thailandensis (MFLU 24-0028, new host record, first report of asexual morph). (a), (b) Colonies on substrate. (c) Section through conidiomata. (d) Peridium. (e) Conidiogenous cells. (f)–(h) Conidia. (i) Germinating conidia. (j) Culture on MEA. Scale bars: (a), (b) = 500 µm, (c) = 50 µm, (d)–(i) = 10 µm, (j) = 10 mm.

      Saprobic on the dead stems of Bidens pilosa. Sexual morph: Undetermined. Asexual morph: Conidiomata 100–150 × 110–150 µm ($\overline x $ = 111 × 130 µm, n = 5), pycnidial, solitary, immersed to semi-immersed, uniloculate, globose, yellowish brown to brown, ostiolate. Peridium 13–20 µm wide, comprising 1–2 layers of brown cells of textura angularis. Conidiophores reduced to conidiogenous cells. Conidiogenous cells 1–2 × 3–4 µm ($\overline x $ = 1.4 × 3.6 µm, n = 5) phialidic, hyaline. Conidia 5–11 × 4–10 µm ($\overline x $ =12.8 × 6.1 µm, n = 20), ovoid to obpyriform, yellowish brown to brown, aseptate when immature, becoming brown and 1-septate at maturity, thick-walled, verruculose.

      Culture characteristics: Conidia germinating on MEA within 24 h, 21 mm after 10 d at room temperature, irregular, entire margin, smooth, wrinkled, pale yellow on the surface, curled and brown in reverse (Fig. 5).

      Material examined: Thailand, Chiang Rai Province, Doi Pui, on dead stems of Bidens pilosa, 14 March 2023, Zin Hnin Htet (BP-DP-2, MFLU 24-0028, new asexual morph record); living culture MFLUCC 24-0056.

      Figure 5. 

      Culture characteristics on MEA. (a) Chromolaenicola thailandensis (MFLUCC 24-0056), (b) Chromolaenicola siamensis (MFLUCC 24-0057), (c) Chromolaenicola chiangraiensis (MFLUCC 24-0058).

      Notes: Chromolaenicola thailandensis (MFLUCC 17-1510, MFLUCC 17-1475) was found in its sexual morph in nature (Table 4)[17]. In the current study, we collected an asexual morph of C. thailandensis (MFLUCC 24-0056) on the dead stems of Bidens pilosa. However, we could not obtain its sexual morph in culture; hence failed to compare its morphology with C. thailandensis (MFLUCC 17-1510, MFLUCC 17-1475). Furthermore, there are no significant base pair differences in all five gene regions between our strain (MFLUCC 24-0056) and C. thailandensis (MFLUCC 17-1510). Therefore, we reported our strains as the new asexual morph of C. thailandensis and also the new host record from Bidens pilosa (Asteraceae) while previous strains of C. thailandensis was recorded on Chromolaena odorata (Asteraceae) in Chiang Rai Province, Thailand[17].

      Table 4.  Synopsis of recorded sexual morph of Chromolaenicola species.

      SpeciesAscomata
      (μm)
      Peridium
      (μm)
      Asci
      (μm)
      Ascospores
      (μm)
      Host/substrateRef.
      C. nanensis (MFLUCC 17-1473)210–230 × 200–22015–20110–145 × 10–12.516–20 × 7.5–9Chromolaena odorata (Asteraceae)[17]
      C. spindi (KUMCC 21-0564)420–530 × 270–35015–25125–155 × 12–1616–23 × 6.5–9.5Sapindus rarak (Spindaceae)[27]
      C. thailandensis (MFLUCC 17-1510)145–225 × 175–24010–2090–160 × 10–1416–24 × 9–11Chromolaena odorata (Asteraceae)[17]
    • In this study, we observed the antibacterial activity of our newly isolated Chromolaenicola species against Bacillus subtilis, Escherichia coli, and Staphylococcus aureus. Among the three isolates, MFLUCC 24-0056, MFLUCC 24-0057, and MFLUCC 24-0058 showed antibacterial activity against Bacillus subtilis (17, 18, and 10 mm, respectively) and considered partial inhibition compared to the positive control. However, they did not inhibit the growth of E. coli and Staphylococcus aureus. Moreover, we also re-confirmed the preliminary antimicrobial activity result of Chromolaenicola species previously studied (Table 5).

      Table 5.  Preliminary antimicrobial activity result of Chromolaenicola species.

      SpeciesZone of inhibition (mm); Ampicillin (+)Ref.
      Bacillus subtilisEscherichia coliStaphylococcus aureusMucor plumbeus
      Chromolaenicola ananasi (MFLU 23-0167)N/AN/AN/AN/A[30]
      C. chaingraiensis (MFLUCC 24-0058)10 mm inhibitionno inhibitionNo inhibitionN/AThis study
      C. chiangraiensis (MFLUCC 17-1493)No inhibitionNo inhibitionN/Ano inhibition[17]
      C. clematidis (MFLUCC 17-2075)N/AN/AN/AN/A[29]
      C. lampangensis (MFLUCC 17-1462)No inhibitionno inhibitionN/A14 mm inhibition[17]
      C. nanensis (MFLUCC 17-1473)No inhibitionNo inhibitionN/A12 mm inhibition[17]
      C. siamensis (MFLUCC 17-2527)N/AN/AN/AN/A[28]
      C. siamensis (MFLUCC 24-0057)18 mm inhibitionno inhibitionno inhibitionN/AThis study
      C. spindii (KUMCC 21-0564)N/AN/AN/AN/A[27]
      C. thailandensis (MFLUCC 17-1510)No inhibitionNo inhibitionN/ANo inhibition[17]
      C. thailandensis (MFLUCC 24-0056)17 mm inhibitionNo inhibitionNo inhibitionN/AThis study
      N/A: Not available; Positive control (+): Ampicillin.
    • Chromolaenicola species are found as saprobes in terrestrial on different plant hosts[17,2729]. In previous studies, seven Chromolaenicola species were reported from Thailand, and two from China[17,2730]. We also provided detailed information on all Chromolaenicola species (Tables 3 & 4). Based on the morphological and phylogenetic analyses, three new host records and one new asexual morph report is described in this paper. Although the conidial color and conidiogenous cell sizes of the Chromolaenicola chiangraiensis strains MFLUCC 24-0058 and MFLUCC 17-1493 are different, the base pair difference is not significant, and the latter was reported on Chromolaena odorata (Asteraceae). Therefore, we described our strain as a new host record on Bidens pilosa (Asteraceae). Furthermore, Chromolaenicola siamensis (MFLUCC 17-1527) was recorded on Leucaena sp. (Fabaceae) and herein we reported our strain (MFLUCC 24-0057) as a new host record on Bidens pilosa (Asteraceae). This record also marks the first occurrence of C. siamensis on Asteraceae species. Moreover, we found the asexual morph of Chromolaenicola thailandensis (MFLUCC 24-0056) for the first time in our study, and this is also the new host record on Bidens pilosa (Asteraceae).

      In this study, we provided the preliminary screening results of all Chromolaenicola species, including known previous studies. Three isolates of Chromolaenicola species from northern Thailand underwent preliminary screening for antibacterial activity, and all three isolates showed partial inhibition of the growth of Bacillus subtilis. (Table 5). Previously, four Chromolaenicola species, C. chaingraiensis (MFLUCC 17-1493), C. lampangensis (MFLUCC 17-1462), C. nanensis (MFLUCC 17-1473), and C. thailandensis (MFLUCC 17-1510) have been studied for their potential antimicrobial properties[17]. Among them, C. lampangensis (MFLUCC 17-1462), C. nanensis (MFLUCC 17-1473) can inhibit the growth of Mucor plumbeus. The rest of the species of this genus have not yet been explored for their potential biological properties[2730]. In our study, the agar plug diffusion method was used to diffuse an antimicrobial drug into the agar, inhibiting bacterial growth, and then assessing the inhibition zone[17,57]. Several benefits of the agar plug diffusion method include its inexpensive cost and ability to examine a large number of fungal cultures quickly[57]. However, because it is impossible to determine the amount of antimicrobial agent diffused into the agar medium, this method is not appropriate for determining the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC)[57]. Our study will contribute to the knowledge of the species diversity in Chromolaenicola and insight into their potential biological properties, which will be useful for further research.

    • The authors confirm contributions to the paper as follows: Fungal specimen collection and isolation, and manuscript writing: Htet ZH; fungal identification and contributed in the revision of the manuscript: Mapook A, Chethana KWT. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. All authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript.

    • The data generated and analyzed during this study are available in the article. DNA sequence data are available in the GenBank database, and the accession numbers are provided in Table 1.

      • We would like to express our gratitude to the Center of Excellence in Fungal Research, as well as the Basic Research Fund support from the National Science, Research and Innovation Fund (Grant No. 652A01001), entitled 'Studies of fungi associated with Asteraceae and the discovery of biological properties'. Zin Hnin Htet would like to thank Mae Fah Luang University for giving her a scholarship to pursue a PhD and the re-inventing grant provided by the university for the molecular work 'Mae Fah Luang University Grant - Reinventing University System' (Grant No. 652A16049). Ausana Mapook thanks Mae Fah Luang University for funding 'Taxonomy, Phylogeny, Risk Assessment, and Potential Impact of Fungi on Siam Weed in Northern Thailand' (Grant No. 651A16029).

      • The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

      • Copyright: © 2024 by the author(s). Published by Maximum Academic Press, Fayetteville, GA. This article is an open access article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
    Figure (5)  Table (5) References (57)
  • About this article
    Cite this article
    Htet ZH, Mapook A, Chethana KWT. 2024. Molecular taxonomy reveals new records of Chromolaenicola (Didymosphaeriaceae, Pleosporales) and potential antibacterial properties. Studies in Fungi 9: e006 doi: 10.48130/sif-0024-0006
    Htet ZH, Mapook A, Chethana KWT. 2024. Molecular taxonomy reveals new records of Chromolaenicola (Didymosphaeriaceae, Pleosporales) and potential antibacterial properties. Studies in Fungi 9: e006 doi: 10.48130/sif-0024-0006

Catalog

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return