Phylogenetic analysis reveals species of Fusarium associated with branch canker in citrus orchards, indicating plant disease risk.
Fig. S1. Phylogenetic tree generated by Bayesian inference analyses based on the individual CaM, rpb1, rpb2 and tef1 (A–D) for species in Fusarium fujikuroi species complex (FFSC). Bayesian posterior probability (PP ≥ 0.9) and IQ-TREE bootstrap support values (ML ≥ 70 %) presented above branches as follows: PP/ ML. PP < 0.9 and ML < 70 % of branches marked with *. Newly generated sequences are in blue. Ex-type and ex-epitype strains are indicated with T and ET, respectively. The tree is rooted to F. nirenbergiae (CBS 840.88). Fig. S2. Phylogenetic tree generated by Bayesian inference analyses based on the individual CaM, rpb2 and tef1 (A–C) for species in Fusarium incarnatum-equiseti species complex (FIESC). Bayesian posterior probability (PP ≥ 0.9) and IQ-TREE bootstrap support values (ML ≥ 70 %) presented above branches as follows: PP/ML. PP < 0.9 and ML < 70 % of branches marked with *. Newly generated sequences are in blue. Ex-type, exepitype and ex-neotype strains are indicated with T, ET and NT respectively. The tree is rooted to F. nodosum (CBS 201.63). Fig. S3. Phylogenetic tree generated by Bayesian inference analyses based on the individual rpb2, tef1 and tub2 (A–C) for species in Fusarium lateritium species complex (FLSC). Bayesian posterior probability (PP ≥ 0.9) and IQ-TREE bootstrap support values (ML ≥ 70 %) presented above branches as follows: PP/ML. PP < 0.9 and ML < 70 % of branches marked with *. Newly generated sequences are in blue. Ex-type, ex-epitype and ex-neotype strains are indicated with T, ET and NT respectively. The tree is rooted to F. acuminatum (LC5227). Fig. S4. Phylogenetic tree generated by Bayesian inference analyses based on the individual CaM, rpb1, rpb2 and tef1 (A–D) for species in Fusarium oxysporum species complex (FOSC). Bayesian posterior probability (PP ≥ 0.9) and IQ-TREE bootstrap support values (ML ≥ 70 %) presented above branches as follows: PP/ML. PP < 0.9 and ML < 70 % of branches marked with *. Newly generated sequences are in blue. Ex-type and exepitype strains are indicated with T and ET, respectively. The tree is rooted to F. campestre (KG158). Fig. S5. Phylogenetic tree generated by Bayesian inference analyses based on the individual rpb1, rpb2 and tef1 (A–C) for species in Fusarium sambucinum species complex (FSAMSC). Bayesian posterior probability (PP ≥ 0.9) and IQ-TREE bootstrap support values (ML ≥ 70 %) presented above branches as follows: PP/ ML. PP < 0.9 and ML < 70 % of branches marked with *. Newly generated sequences are in blue and ex-type and ex-epitype strains are indicated with T and ET, respectively. The tree is rooted to F. kotabaruense (Indo172). Fig. S6. Phylogenetic tree generated by Bayesian inference analyses based on the individual rpb1, rpb2 and tef1 (A–C) for species in Fusarium tricinctum species complex (FTSC). Bayesian posterior probability (PP ≥ 0.9) and IQ-TREE bootstrap support values (ML ≥ 70 %) presented above branches as follows: PP/ ML. PP < 0.9 and ML < 70 % of branches marked with *. Newly generated sequences are in blue. Ex-type, ex-epitype and exneotype strains are indicated with T, ET and NT respectively. The tree is rooted to F. foetens (CBS 110286). Fig. S7. Phylogenetic tree generated by Bayesian inference analyses based on the individual ITS, LSU, rpb2 and tef1 (A–D) for species in Neocosmospora. Bayesian posterior probability (PP ≥ 0.9) and IQ-TREE bootstrap support values (ML ≥ 70 %) presented above branches as follows: PP/ML. PP < 0.9 and ML < 70 % of branches marked with *. Newly generated sequences are in blue. Ex-type and ex-epitype strains are indicated with T and ET, respectively. The tree is rooted to Setofusarium setosum (CBS 635.92). Table S1. Details of all fusarioid isolates obtained in this study. Table S2. Fusarioid species isolated from citrus with branch canker in different orchards across different provinces.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A 2025 study studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: