When Do We Call Genetically Distinct Strains Different Species? - A Cautionary Case Study of the Colletotrichum gloesporioides Species ComplexJianping Xu1,2,3,4*, He Li1,2, Guo-Ying Zhou1,2, Jun-Ang Liu1,2
- *Corresponding Author:
- Jianping Xu
Department of Biology, McMaster University Hamilton
Ontario, L8S 4K1, Canada
Tel: (+1) 905 525 9140 x27934
Fax: (+1) 905 522 6066
E-mail: [email protected]
Received date: November 29, 2016; Accepted date: December 22, 2016; Published date: December 30, 2016
Citation: Xu J, Li H, Zhou GY, Liu JA (2016) When Do We Call Genetically Distinct Strains Different Species? - A Cautionary Case Study of the Colletotrichum gloesporioides Species Complex. Fungal Genom Biol 6:146. doi:10.4172/2165-8056.1000146
Copyright: © 2016 Xu J, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Different criteria have been used to define fungal species. Due to the increasing availability of DNA sequence information, the phylogenetic species concept (PSC) has become popular among fungal taxonomists. However, controversies remain about the criteria used to define the “phylogenetic distinctiveness” between closely related taxa and what other criteria are needed in order to derive more robust species. In a recent study, we reported the DNA sequences of four gene loci for each of 199 strains of the fungal pathogen Colletotrichum gloeosporioides species complex (CGSC) causing leaf anthracnose on the tea-oil tree Camellia oleifera in southern China. Our combined sequence analyses clustered 194 of the 199 isolates into four of the 22 previously described species within CGSC: Colletotrichum fructicola (167 isolates), Colletotrichum siamense (19 isolates), Colletotrichum gloeosporioides (6 isolates) and Colletotrichum camelliae (2 isolates). The remaining five isolates clustered distinctly from all 22 known species. Using the data, here we further investigate the extent of reproductive isolation among these species in our samples. Our analyses revealed extensive allele - sharing among three of the “phylogenetic species” and between them and the five unassigned isolates. Furthermore, there was extensive evidence for prevalent recombination among three of the four species. Our results suggest that caution should be taken in naming new species and highlight the importance of large-scale population genetic studies in helping define reproductive isolation and species boundaries.