Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27616786›Full record

ArticlePersoonia2016

Redefining Microascus, Scopulariopsis and allied genera.

M Sandoval-Denis, J Gené, D A Sutton, J F Cano-Lira, G S de Hoog, C A Decock, N P Wiederhold, J Guarro

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Persoonia, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

43 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Name Changes for Fungi of Medical Importance, 2016-2017.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2019
    Pooled it
  2. Manogepix demonstrates potentAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Mycobiology · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. A New Genus of theJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  19. Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

M Sandoval-DenisUnitat de Micologia, Facultat de Medicina i Ciències de la Salut, IISPV, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Reus, Spain;
J GenéUnitat de Micologia, Facultat de Medicina i Ciències de la Salut, IISPV, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Reus, Spain;
D A SuttonFungus Testing Laboratory, Department of Pathology, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
J F Cano-LiraUnitat de Micologia, Facultat de Medicina i Ciències de la Salut, IISPV, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Reus, Spain;
G S de HoogCBS-KNAW Fungal Biodiversity Centre, Uppsalalaan 8, 3584 CT Utrecht, The Netherlands.
C A DecockMycothèque de l'Université Catholique de Louvain (MUCL, BCCMTM), Earth and Life Institute - Microbiology (ELIM), Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.
N P WiederholdFungus Testing Laboratory, Department of Pathology, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
J GuarroUnitat de Micologia, Facultat de Medicina i Ciències de la Salut, IISPV, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Reus, Spain;

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The genera Microascus and Scopulariopsis comprise species commonly isolated from soil, decaying plant material and indoor environments. A few species are also recognised as opportunistic pathogens of insects and animals, including humans. In the past, the taxonomy of these fungi has been based on morphology only. With the aim to clarify the taxonomy and phylogeny of these fungi, we studied a large set of clinical and environmental isolates, including the available ex-type strains of numerous species, by means of morphological, physiological and molecular analyses. Species delineation was assessed under the Genealogical Phylogenetic Species Recognition (GCPSR) criterion using DNA sequence data of four loci (ITS region, and fragments of rDNA LSU, translation elongation factor 1-α and β-tubulin). The genera Microascus and Scopulariopsis were found to be separated in two distinct lineages. The genus Pithoascus is reinstated and the new genus Pseudoscopulariopsis is erected, typified by P. schumacheri. Seven new species of Microascus and one of Scopulariopsis are described, namely M. alveolaris, M. brunneosporus, M. campaniformis, M. expansus, M. intricatus, M. restrictus, M. verrucosus and Scopulariopsis cordiae. Microascus trigonosporus var. macrosporus is accepted as a species distinct from M. trigonosporus. Nine new combinations are introduced. Microascus cinereus, M. longirostris, P. schumacheri and S. flava are neotypified. A table summarising the morphological features of the species treated and identification keys for each genus are provided.

Indexed as

AscomycotaMicroascaceaeMicroascalesmultigene phylogenytaxonomy

Identifiers

PMID27616786
PMCPMC4988368

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.