Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31660859›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2019

Genomic characteristics and comparative genomics analysis of the endophytic fungus Sarocladium brachiariae.

Yang Yang, Xiaobao Liu, Jimiao Cai, Yipeng Chen, Boxun Li, Zhikai Guo, Guixiu Huang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. How genomics can help unravel the evolution of endophytic fungi.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Genomic Characteristics and Comparative Genomics Analysis ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Open biology · 2020
    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

7 authors.

Yang YangEnvironment and Plant Protection Institute, Chinese Academy of Tropical Agricultural Sciences, 4 Xueyuan Road, Haikou, 571101, China.
Xiaobao LiuEnvironment and Plant Protection Institute, Chinese Academy of Tropical Agricultural Sciences, 4 Xueyuan Road, Haikou, 571101, China.
Jimiao CaiEnvironment and Plant Protection Institute, Chinese Academy of Tropical Agricultural Sciences, 4 Xueyuan Road, Haikou, 571101, China.
Yipeng ChenEnvironment and Plant Protection Institute, Chinese Academy of Tropical Agricultural Sciences, 4 Xueyuan Road, Haikou, 571101, China.
Boxun LiEnvironment and Plant Protection Institute, Chinese Academy of Tropical Agricultural Sciences, 4 Xueyuan Road, Haikou, 571101, China.
Zhikai GuoInstitute of Tropical Bioscience and Biotechnology, Chinese Academy of Tropical Agricultural Sciences, 4 Xueyuan Road, Haikou, 571101, China.
Guixiu HuangEnvironment and Plant Protection Institute, Chinese Academy of Tropical Agricultural Sciences, 4 Xueyuan Road, Haikou, 571101, China. hgxiu@vip.163.com.

Funding

Central Public-interest Scientific Institution Basal Research Fund for Chinese Academy of Tropical Agricultural Sciences 1630042019006Hainan Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China 319QN268National Key R&D Program of China 2017YFD0202100
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSarocladium brachiariae is a newly identified endophytic fungus isolated from Brachiaria brizantha. A previous study indicated that S. brachiariae had antifungal activity; however, limited genomic information restrains further study. Therefore, we sequenced the genome of S. brachiariae and compared it with the genome of S. oryzae to identify differences between a Sarocladium plant pathogen and an endophyte.

resultsIn this study, we reported a gapless genome sequence of a newly identified endophytic fungus Sarocladium brachiariae isolated from Brachiaria brizantha. The genome of S. brachiariae is 31.86 Mb, with a contig N50 of 3.27 Mb and 9903 protein coding genes. Phylogenomic analysis based on single copy orthologous genes provided insights into the evolutionary relationships of S. brachiariae and its closest species was identified as S. oryzae. Comparative genomics analysis revealed that S. brachiaria has 14.9% more plant cell wall degradation related CAZymes to S. oryzae, and 33.3% more fungal cell wall degradation related CAZymes, which could explain the antifungal activity of S. brachiaria. Based on Antibiotics & Secondary Metabolite Analysis Shell (antiSMASH) analysis, we identified a contact helvolic acid biosynthetic gene cluster (BGC) for the first time in S. oryzae. However, S. brachiaria had seven fewer terpene gene clusters, including helvolic acid BGC, compared with S. oryzae and this may be associated with adaptation to an endophytic lifestyle. Synteny analysis of polyketide synthases (PKS), non-ribosomal peptide synthetases (NRPS), and hybrid (PKS-NRPS) gene clusters between S. brachiariae and S. oryzae revealed that just 37.5% of tested clusters have good synteny, while 63.5% have no or poor synteny. This indicated that the S. brachiariae could potentially synthesize a variety of unknown-function secondary metabolites, which may play an important role in adaptation to its endophytic lifestyle and antifungal activity.

conclusionsThe data provided a better understanding of the Sarocladium brachiariae genome. Further comparative genomic analysis provided insight into the genomic basis of its endophytic lifestyle and antifungal activity.

Indexed as

GenomicsEndophytesGenes, FungalHypocrealesMolecular Sequence AnnotationMultigene FamilyPhylogenySyntenyCAZymesComparative genomicsGene clusterSarocladium brachiariaeSecondary metabolism

Identifiers

PMID31660859
PMCPMC6819638

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.