2017
DOI: 10.1007/s10526-017-9839-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Physiological and phylogenetic variability of Mexican Metarhizium strains

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
4
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
2
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Our results showed 2 major clusters: Group I that included all strains from Mexico isolated from Hemiptera in sugar cane fields, and Group II with all reference strains obtained from different hosts and geographic origins. Strains from Mexico formed a cluster with high support values from both RAPD data and ITS sequences analysis, suggesting that the existing populations of M. anisopliae are in a process of divergence and the resulting linages are undergoing a process of speciation, as shown in previous studies with the same strains identified as a subclade (Mani 2) within M. anisopliae (Brunner-Mendoza et al 2017) revealing a greater number of phylogenetic species. Besides, Fungaro et al (1996) demonstrated that M. anisopliae strains are extremely diverse but insect strains present a moderate degree of variation, suggesting the development of host specificity.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 63%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Our results showed 2 major clusters: Group I that included all strains from Mexico isolated from Hemiptera in sugar cane fields, and Group II with all reference strains obtained from different hosts and geographic origins. Strains from Mexico formed a cluster with high support values from both RAPD data and ITS sequences analysis, suggesting that the existing populations of M. anisopliae are in a process of divergence and the resulting linages are undergoing a process of speciation, as shown in previous studies with the same strains identified as a subclade (Mani 2) within M. anisopliae (Brunner-Mendoza et al 2017) revealing a greater number of phylogenetic species. Besides, Fungaro et al (1996) demonstrated that M. anisopliae strains are extremely diverse but insect strains present a moderate degree of variation, suggesting the development of host specificity.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 63%
“…In Mexico, M. anisopliae is the main agent used against spittlebugs (Hemiptera: Cercopidae) that affect sugarcane (one of Mexico's most profitable crops) and cattle pastures (Senasica, 2017). Brunner-Mendoza et al (2017) and Rezende et al (2015) have demonstrated the variability of the genus Metarhizium. The internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region of nuclear ribosomal DNA was adopted as the primary fungal barcode marker by the Consortium for the Barcode of Life (Schoch et al, 2012), due to its easy amplification and high yield, providing positive results in most phyla.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…used against different hosts (e.g. Brunner-Mendoza et al, 2017;Dotaona et al, 2015;Oreste et al, 2012;Resquín-Romero et al, 2020), and in our study, such variation was also detected when fungal treatments were applied through the spray tower, and for the bait technique. Ondiaka et al (2008) reported intraspecies variability for M. anisopliae and Beauveria bassiana tested against adults of the sweet potato weevil Cylas puncticollis (concentration: 10 7 conidia mL -1 ), and stated that strain selection is needed for biological control.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 74%
“…These include biological process associated to SMs, transport of amino and organic acid and carbohydrate active enzymes (CAzymes) that act on different substrates such as chitin, chitosan and trehalose, from arthropods, and cellulose, peptidoglycan, and xylan from plants. Indeed, M. humberi can explore different niches, such as free-living in soil ( Rezende et al 2015 ; Iwanicki et al 2019 ; Riguetti Zanardo Botelho et al 2019 ), infecting diverse orders of insects ( Lopes et al 2014 ; Rezende et al 2015 ; Brunner-Mendoza et al 2017 ) and establishing associations with plants ( Canassa et al 2019c ; Lira et al 2020 ; Siqueira et al 2020 ) and should be considered a broad host range species. On the other hand, narrow host range species associated only with specific insect orders are found at lower frequencies in soil and associated with plants.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%