菌物学报
菌物學報
균물학보
MYCOSYSTEMA
2005年
2期
193-198
,共6页
分子分类%假丝酵母属%毕赤酵母属%染色体DNA带型
分子分類%假絲酵母屬%畢赤酵母屬%染色體DNA帶型
분자분류%가사효모속%필적효모속%염색체DNA대형
Molecular taxonomy%Candida%Pichia%chromosomal DNA banding profiles
下面每个组内的酵母菌:Ⅰ)Candida aaseri和Candida butyri;Ⅱ)Candida boleticola,Candida laureliae和Candida ralunensis;Ⅲ) Candida zeylanoides和Candida krissii以及Ⅳ)Pichia farinosa和Candida cacaoi因具有相同或只有一个碱基差异的大亚基(26S)rRNA基因D1/D2区序列,而被认为属于同一个种.本研究对其ITS序列和电泳核型进行了比较分析.结果表明前3个组内的种具有完全相同的ITS序列,第Ⅳ组的两个种只有1个碱基差异,但是各组内的核型并不完全一致.第Ⅳ组内的两个种具有完全相同的核型,证实他们属于同一个种.第Ⅱ组内的C. laureliae和C. ralunensis也具有完全相同的核型,可以肯定二者也属于同一个种,该组内的C. boleticola的核型与前二者不完全一样,但染色体分子量范围相似,也可能与前二者属于同一个种.第Ⅰ和Ⅲ组内各种的核型具有明显差异,对组内种间的同物异名关系未提供支持.
下麵每箇組內的酵母菌:Ⅰ)Candida aaseri和Candida butyri;Ⅱ)Candida boleticola,Candida laureliae和Candida ralunensis;Ⅲ) Candida zeylanoides和Candida krissii以及Ⅳ)Pichia farinosa和Candida cacaoi因具有相同或隻有一箇堿基差異的大亞基(26S)rRNA基因D1/D2區序列,而被認為屬于同一箇種.本研究對其ITS序列和電泳覈型進行瞭比較分析.結果錶明前3箇組內的種具有完全相同的ITS序列,第Ⅳ組的兩箇種隻有1箇堿基差異,但是各組內的覈型併不完全一緻.第Ⅳ組內的兩箇種具有完全相同的覈型,證實他們屬于同一箇種.第Ⅱ組內的C. laureliae和C. ralunensis也具有完全相同的覈型,可以肯定二者也屬于同一箇種,該組內的C. boleticola的覈型與前二者不完全一樣,但染色體分子量範圍相似,也可能與前二者屬于同一箇種.第Ⅰ和Ⅲ組內各種的覈型具有明顯差異,對組內種間的同物異名關繫未提供支持.
하면매개조내적효모균:Ⅰ)Candida aaseri화Candida butyri;Ⅱ)Candida boleticola,Candida laureliae화Candida ralunensis;Ⅲ) Candida zeylanoides화Candida krissii이급Ⅳ)Pichia farinosa화Candida cacaoi인구유상동혹지유일개감기차이적대아기(26S)rRNA기인D1/D2구서렬,이피인위속우동일개충.본연구대기ITS서렬화전영핵형진행료비교분석.결과표명전3개조내적충구유완전상동적ITS서렬,제Ⅳ조적량개충지유1개감기차이,단시각조내적핵형병불완전일치.제Ⅳ조내적량개충구유완전상동적핵형,증실타문속우동일개충.제Ⅱ조내적C. laureliae화C. ralunensis야구유완전상동적핵형,가이긍정이자야속우동일개충,해조내적C. boleticola적핵형여전이자불완전일양,단염색체분자량범위상사,야가능여전이자속우동일개충.제Ⅰ화Ⅲ조내각충적핵형구유명현차이,대조내충간적동물이명관계미제공지지.
The species in each of the following groups: Ⅰ) Candida aaseri and Candida butyri; Ⅱ) Candida boleticola, Candida laureliae and Candida ralunensis; Ⅲ) Candida zeylanoides and Candida krissii and Ⅳ)Pichiafarinosa and Candida cacaoi were considered to be conspecific because of their identical or similar (only 1 base difference) large subunit (26S) RNA gene D1/D2 domain sequences. The present study indicated that the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) sequences of the species in each of the groups were also identical or had only 1 base difference. The electrophorefic karyotyping showed that the chromosomal DNA banding profiles of the species in groups Ⅱ and Ⅳ were identical or similar. The conspecificity of the species in each of the two groups was thus confirmed. However, remarkably different electrophoretic karyotypes were found between the species in each of groups Ⅰ and Ⅲ. The taxonomic relationships of them remain to be clarified.