Fungal associations of basal vascular plants: reopening a closed book?
Fungal associations of basal vascular plants: reopening a closed book?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/nph.13221
复制
发表时间：
2015-03
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
William R. Rimington;S. Pressel;J. Duckett;M. Bidartondo
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
William R. Rimington;S. Pressel;J. Duckett;M. Bidartondo
广泛持有的假设，即球囊菌门真菌单独形成了祖先陆地植物-真菌共生（Pirozynski & Dalpé，1989; Selosse & Le Tacon，1998; Wang & Qiu，2006; Parniske，2008）最近受到来自分子，细胞学，功能和古生物学研究的新证据的挑战。首先，最早的分歧分支，单细藓纲的苔类与毛霉亚门的成员形成了一种互利共生的菌根样关系，由此存在植物碳（C）与真菌氮（N）和磷（P）的相互交换（Bidartondo et al.，2011; Field等人，2014），被认为是球囊菌门的基础或姐妹的真菌谱系（James et al.，2006; Lin等人，2014年）。第二，其他基底植物，包括复杂和简单的叶状苔和角苔，有时同时与毛霉亚门和球囊菌门真菌结合（Bidartondo et al.，2011; Desiro等人，2013年）。第三，在泥盆纪早期维管植物的化石中已经报道了涉及与球囊菌门和毛霉菌亚门有亲缘关系的真菌的双重伙伴关系（Strullu-Derrien et al.，2014).转向早期分歧维管植物谱系的现存代表的真菌协会，蕨类植物（念珠藻门）中真菌的球状菌身份从未受到质疑-细胞学和有限的DNA测序数据证实了共识（Wang & Qiu，2006; Ogura-Tsujita et al.，2013年）。相比之下，石松类（石松门）中真菌定殖的不寻常细胞学，高度地让人想起在单脉蕨属（Haplomitriopsida genus Treubia）中报道的细胞学（Duckett et al.，2006年），提出了独特的真菌伙伴关系或“石松状菌体相互作用”（Duckett & Ligrone，1992年; Schmid & Oberwinkler，1993年），直到一项分子研究在该组中检测到球囊菌门（Winther & Friedman，2008年），从而“奠定了围绕其身份的世纪的猜测和不确定性”（泄漏et al.，2008年）。然而，Winther和Friedman的研究以及最近提出担子菌作为石松科成员中的主要共生体的研究（Horn等人，2013;但参见Strullu-Derrien等人的反驳，2014年批评他们有限的分子和显微镜数据），使用了不检测毛霉亚门真菌的方法。因此，毛霉亚门的成员是否与已知的与基生苔形成共生关系的真菌有关还有待确定
The widely held hypothesis that Glomeromycota fungi alone formed the ancestral land plant–fungus symbiosis (Pirozynski & Dalpé, 1989; Selosse & Le Tacon, 1998; Wang & Qiu, 2006; Parniske, 2008) has recently been challenged by new lines of evidence from molecular, cytological, functional and palaeontological studies. First, liverworts of the earliest divergent clade, the Haplomitriopsida, form a mutualistic mycorrhiza-like relationship, whereby there is reciprocal exchange of plant carbon (C) for fungal nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P), with members of the Mucoromycotina (Bidartondo et al., 2011; Field et al., 2014), a fungal lineage considered basal or sister to the Glomeromycota (James et al., 2006; Lin et al., 2014). Second, other basal plants, including complex and simple thalloid liverworts and hornworts, enter into associations with both Mucoromycotina and Glomeromycota fungi, sometimes simultaneously (Bidartondo et al., 2011; Desiro et al., 2013). Third, dual partnerships involving fungi with affinities to Glomeromycota and Mucoromycotina have been reported in fossils of early vascular plants from the Devonian (Strullu-Derrien et al., 2014).Turning to the fungal associations of the extant representatives of the early diverging vascular plant lineages, the glomeromycete identity of fungi in ferns (Monilophyta) has never been questioned–a consensus borne out by cytology and limited DNA sequencing data (Wang & Qiu, 2006; Ogura-Tsujita et al., 2013). By contrast, the unusual cytology of fungal colonization in lycopods (Lycopodiophyta), highly reminiscent of the cytology reported in the Haplomitriopsida genus Treubia (Duckett et al., 2006), suggested unique fungal partnerships or ‘lycopodioid mycothallus interactions’(Duckett & Ligrone, 1992; Schmid & Oberwinkler, 1993) until a molecular study detected Glomeromycota in this group (Winther & Friedman, 2008), thus ‘laying to rest over a century of speculations and uncertainty’surrounding their identity (Leake et al., 2008). However, Winther & Friedman’s study, and a more recent investigation proposing a basidiomycete as the main symbiont in a member of the Lycopodiaceae (Horn et al., 2013; but see rebuttal in Strullu-Derrien et al., 2014 criticizing their limited molecular and microscopical data), used methods that do not detect Mucoromycotina fungi. Therefore, it remains to be determined whether members of the Mucoromycotina related to the fungi known to enter into mutualism with basal liverworts