Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Introduction


Magnaporthe or Pyricularia?  (by Ning Zhang, 2 May 2012)

At the 2011 Melbourne International Botanical Congress, One Scientific Name for One Fungus was voted for.  According to the new Article 59, all legitimate fungal names are now treated equally for the purposes of establishing priority, regardless of the life history state of the type (The Melbourne Code should be out in the summer of 2012). 

The end of dual nomenclature for fungi will have major impact on pleomorphic species.  For Magnaporthaceae, an important question that has to be addressed is which genus name should be used for the rice blast fungus.  The rice blast fungus has Magnaporthe sexual state (teleomorph) and Pyricularia asexual state (anamorph).  

At the Amsterdam CBS “One Fungus, Which Name” symposium, the Sordariomycetes Taxonomy Discussion Group agreed that the following criteria should be considered when choosing between two generic name options:

·      Monophyly, phylogeny
·      Names in use in plant pathology, industry, etc.
·      Quarantine issues;
·      What morphology is most commonly encountered;
·      Stability;
·      Taxonomic clarity; genus name should be well defined;
·      Number of needed combinations/name changes
etc, etc.

A recently published 6-gene phylogeny (see figure attached) with selected taxa in the Magnaporthaceae indicates that the current concept of both Magnaporthe and Gaeumannomyces are polyphyletic.  Magnaporthe salvinii is the type species of Magnaporthe.  Pyricularia grisea and P. oryzae are older names than M. grisea and M. oryzae (please see the list for details on date and type information).  However, to minimize the name change for important pathogens and quarantine issues, we should consider conserving the Magnaporthe genus name for the rice blast fungus (Magnaporthe oryzae).

An option is to segregate Magnaporthe from Pyricularia and limit the usage of Magnaporthe only for the clade including M. oryzae and M. grisea. 

Alternatively, we will keep Magnaporthe for M. salvinii and use Pyricularia as the genus name for the rice blast fungus.

Other options?

Please feel free to post your comment/suggestion in this blog, which is created for Magnaporthaceae scientific community discussion purposes.  If you want to post your phylogeny or other information here, please send to me (zhang@aesop.rutgers.edu).

3 comments:

  1. COMMENT FROM Didier THARREAU ON JUNE 26, 2012:

    I agree with the idea that we should keep the genus name /Magnaporthe/
    for the different species from the /Magnaporthe/Pyricularia/ clade that
    includes /M. grisea/ and /M. oryzae/. This genus name has been adopted
    for more than 20 years by a large community. The sexual stage of species
    in this group has been produced at least /in vitro/. So, following
    previous Botanical code recommendations,, I would be in favor of the use
    of the name of the sexual form. In my opinion, coming back to
    /Pyricularia/ as genus mane has no major advantage and would rather be
    counter-productive. Then, we will have to discuss about species names
    within this clade. First, some species in this group do not yet have
    species name. As much as possible, if the species is pathogenic to one
    host plant, we should try to use a fungal species name derived from the
    host plant name. Second, I suggest that we change species names for
    /grisea/ and /oryzae/ because the names have introduced some confusion.
    The name “/grisea/” was used in the past for the species that is now
    called “/oryzae/”, and” /oryzae/” is confusing because it suggests that
    the species is pathogenic to rice only, which is not the case.

    /Magnaporthe salvinii/, which belongs to a different clade, should be
    renamed. /Sclerotium oryzae/ was already used but /Sclerotium/ is likely
    polyphyletic (to be verified). Other names exist: /Vakrabeeja sigmoidea/
    var. /irregularis/, /Nakataea sigmoidea/ (Cavara) Hara, (1939),
    /Phragmaporthe salvinii/ (Catt.) M. Monod, (1983) and may be others. But
    it seems that /M. salvinii/ is part of the Gaeumanomyces clade. So,
    renaming to /Gaeumanomyces salvinii/ is probably accurate.

    //

    /Magnaporthe poae/which belongs to another clade with/G. incrustans
    /would also require renaming. Why not using /Magnaporthiopsis/ as
    proposed by N Zhang?

    The Gaeumanomyces clade could stay /Gaeumanomyces./

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sept. 26, 2012 comments from Didier THARREAU:

    "I agree with the idea that we should keep the genus name /Magnaporthe/ for the different species from the /Magnaporthe/Pyricularia/ clade that includes /M. grisea/ and /M. oryzae/. This genus name has been adopted for more than 20 years by a large community. The sexual stage of species in this group has been produced at least /in vitro/. So, following previous Botanical code recommendations,, I would be in favor of the use of the name of the sexual form. In my opinion, coming back to /Pyricularia/ as genus mane has no major advantage and would rather be counter-productive. Then, we will have to discuss about species names within this clade. First, some species in this group do not yet have species name. As much as possible, if the species is pathogenic to one host plant, we should try to use a fungal species name derived from the host plant name. Second, I suggest that we change species names for /grisea/ and /oryzae/ because the names have introduced some confusion. The name “/grisea/” was used in the past for the species that is now called “/oryzae/”, and” /oryzae/” is confusing because it suggests that the species is pathogenic to rice only, which is not the case.

    /Magnaporthe salvinii/, which belongs to a different clade, should be renamed. /Sclerotium oryzae/ was already used but /Sclerotium/ is likely polyphyletic (to be verified). Other names exist: /Vakrabeeja sigmoidea/ var. /irregularis/, /Nakataea sigmoidea/ (Cavara) Hara, (1939), /Phragmaporthe salvinii/ (Catt.) M. Monod, (1983) and may be others. But it seems that /M. salvinii/ is part of the Gaeumanomyces clade. So, renaming to /Gaeumanomyces salvinii/ is probably accurate.

    //

    /Magnaporthe poae/which belongs to another clade with/G. incrustans /would also require renaming. Why not using /Magnaporthiopsis/ as proposed by N Zhang?

    The Gaeumanomyces clade could stay /Gaeumanomyces."

    /

    Sincerely
    Didier
    //

    ReplyDelete
  3. The following comments were from Dr. Jo Anne Crouch on 30 Sept. 2012:

    Dear Ning et al.,

    To extend Didier's discussion points about the rice blast pathogen name:

    As Didier states, the ICN might be petitioned to conserve the name M. oryzae to accommodate community preference and the last decade of tradition. But, in practice, doing so would trivialize the seminal contribution to mycology and plant pathology made by Fridiano Cavara with the original description of this organism, as he was the first to collect and describe the rice blast pathogen as P. oryzae Cavara in 1892. This is an enduring contribution by a prominent mycologist. How can anyone justify stripping this away, in favor of a name just ten years old? If we don't like the rules, should we be allowed to just set them aside for convenience sake? Do we just throw out names (and the authors) and apply new ones? Should this sort of precedent be established? Will we next replace Koch's Postulates with Monsanto's Postulates, in return for corporate sponsorship? 100 years from now, will our own contributions to science be similarly marginalized?

    A further point to consider: Conservation of the name M. oryzae over P. oryzae would be a complex undertaking, and would require extensive upheaval to related species of Magnaporthe, including several economically important plant pathogens. Of particular note are the recent findings of Zhang and colleagues, where phylogenetic trees generated from a large multilocus dataset showed that strains of P. oryzae from rice and turfgrass form a separate linage relative to all other Magnaporthe, including the Magnaporthe type species M. salvinii. This means that P. oryzae and P. grisea are not even true members of the genus Magnaporthe! Consequently, conservation of M. oryzae would require that every true Magnaporthe species – including the type species M. salvinii – would need to be renamed and placed into a new genus, and M. oryzae would need to replace M. salvinii as the new type species for Magnaporthe. The entire generic concept of Magnaporthe would need to be re-written – not based on scientific evidence, but to accommodate preference of a single research community, and to give the Magnaporthe name to an organism that is not even a member of that genus. Similarly, every true Pyricularia species would need to be renamed as a Magnaporthe!

    Confusion over the "correct" name for this organism has permeated the literature throughout the 20th century, and even in recent years it is not uncommon to see the rice blast or gray leaf spot pathogens referred to incorrectly as M./P. grisea. As someone outside of the Magnaporthe/Pyricularia research community, I don't have an investment in any name, so it is perhaps easier for me to maintain distance from the potential implications of a name change. Regardless of outcome, any transition is unlikely to please all parties. But the current data is clear -- Couch and Kohn showed that in 2002 that M. oryzae and M. grisea are diagnosable as distinct species and M./P. grisea are limited to Digitaria hosts, and Zhang et al showed in 2012 that Magnaporthe as typified by M. salvinii is diagnosable as distinct from Pyricularia. In the end, why choose to rewrite history in an elaborate, artificial manner when the rewrite would be inconsistent with the data?

    Jo Anne

    ---
    Jo Anne Crouch, Ph.D.
    Research Molecular Biologist
    Systematic Mycology & Microbiology Lab
    U.S. National Fungus Collections (BPI)
    USDA-ARS
    10300 Baltimore Avenue, Bldg 10A, Room 227
    Beltsville, MD 20705
    Cell: (609) 933-5496
    Phone: (301) 504-5331
    joanne.crouch@ars.usda.gov

    ReplyDelete