ArticlePloS one2021
The role of internal transcribed spacer 2 secondary structures in classifying mycoparasitic Ampelomyces.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Solving genomic puzzles: computational methods for metagenomic binning.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many fungi require specific growth conditions before they can be identified. Direct environmental DNA sequencing is advantageous, although for some taxa, specific primers need to be used for successful amplification of molecular markers. The internal transcribed spacer region is the preferred DNA barcode for fungi. However, inter- and intra-specific distances in ITS sequences highly vary among some fungal groups; consequently, it is not a solely reliable tool for species delineation. Ampelomyces, mycoparasites of the fungal phytopathogen order Erysiphales, can have ITS genetic differences up to 15%; this may lead to misidentification with other closely related unknown fungi. Indeed, Ampelomyces were initially misidentified as other pycnidial mycoparasites, but subsequent research showed that they differ in pycnidia morphology and culture characteristics. We investigated whether the ITS2 nucleotide content and secondary structure was different between Ampelomyces ITS2 sequences and those unrelated to this genus. To this end, we retrieved all ITS sequences referred to as Ampelomyces from the GenBank database. This analysis revealed that fungal ITS environmental DNA sequences are still being deposited in the database under the name Ampelomyces, but they do not belong to this genus. We also detected variations in the conserved hybridization model of the ITS2 proximal 5.8S and 28S stem from two Ampelomyces strains. Moreover, we suggested for the first time that pseudogenes form in the ITS region of this mycoparasite. A phylogenetic analysis based on ITS2 sequences-structures grouped the environmental sequences of putative Ampelomyces into a different clade from the Ampelomyces-containing clades. Indeed, when conducting ITS2 analysis, resolution of genetic distances between Ampelomyces and those putative Ampelomyces improved. Each clade represented a distinct consensus ITS2 S2, which suggested that different pre-ribosomal RNA (pre-rRNA) processes occur across different lineages. This study recommends the use of ITS2 S2s as an important tool to analyse environmental sequencing and unveiling the underlying evolutionary processes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.