Skip to main content
  • ASM Journals
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Latest Articles
    • COVID-19 Research and News from ASM Journals
    • mSphere of Influence: Commentaries from Early Career Microbiologists
    • Archive
  • Topics
    • Applied and Environmental Science
    • Clinical Science and Epidemiology
    • Ecological and Evolutionary Science
    • Host-Microbe Biology
    • Molecular Biology and Physiology
    • Therapeutics and Prevention
  • For Authors
    • Getting Started
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About mSphere
    • Editor in Chief
    • Board of Editors
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • ASM Journals
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
mSphere
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Latest Articles
    • COVID-19 Research and News from ASM Journals
    • mSphere of Influence: Commentaries from Early Career Microbiologists
    • Archive
  • Topics
    • Applied and Environmental Science
    • Clinical Science and Epidemiology
    • Ecological and Evolutionary Science
    • Host-Microbe Biology
    • Molecular Biology and Physiology
    • Therapeutics and Prevention
  • For Authors
    • Getting Started
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About mSphere
    • Editor in Chief
    • Board of Editors
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
Perspective | Ecological and Evolutionary Science

No to Neocosmospora: Phylogenomic and Practical Reasons for Continued Inclusion of the Fusarium solani Species Complex in the Genus Fusarium

Kerry O’Donnell, Abdullah M. S. Al-Hatmi, Takayuki Aoki, Balázs Brankovics, José F. Cano-Lira, Jeffrey J. Coleman, G. Sybren de Hoog, Antonio Di Pietro, Rasmus J. N. Frandsen, David M. Geiser, Connie F. C. Gibas, Josep Guarro, Hye-Seon Kim, H. Corby Kistler, Imane Laraba, John F. Leslie, Manuel S. López-Berges, Erik Lysøe, Jacques F. Meis, Michel Monod, Robert H. Proctor, Martijn Rep, Carmen Ruiz-Roldán, Adnan Šišić, Jason E. Stajich, Emma T. Steenkamp, Brett A. Summerell, Theo A. J. van der Lee, Anne D. van Diepeningen, Paul E. Verweij, Cees Waalwijk, Todd J. Ward, Brian L. Wickes, Nathan P. Wiederhold, Michael J. Wingfield, Ning Zhang, Sean X. Zhang
Aaron P. Mitchell, Editor
Kerry O’Donnell
aMycotoxin Prevention and Applied Microbiology (MPM) Research Unit, ARS-USDA, Peoria, Illinois, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Kerry O’Donnell
Abdullah M. S. Al-Hatmi
bMinistry of Health, Directorate General of Health Services, Ibri, Oman
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Takayuki Aoki
cNational Agriculture and Food Research Organization, Genetic Resources Center, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Balázs Brankovics
dWageningen Plant Research, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
José F. Cano-Lira
eUniversitat Rovira i Virgili Medical School, Mycology Unit, Reus, Spain
fIISPV, Reus, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for José F. Cano-Lira
Jeffrey J. Coleman
gDepartment of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jeffrey J. Coleman
G. Sybren de Hoog
hDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
iCenter of Expertise in Mycology Radboudumc/CWZ, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Antonio Di Pietro
jDepartamento de Genetica, Universidad de Cordoba, Cordoba, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rasmus J. N. Frandsen
kDepartment of Biotechnology and Biomedicine, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David M. Geiser
lDepartment of Plant Pathology and Environmental Microbiology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Connie F. C. Gibas
mDepartment of Pathology, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Josep Guarro
nUnitat de Microbiologia, Departament de Ciències Mèdiques Bàsiques, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Reus, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hye-Seon Kim
aMycotoxin Prevention and Applied Microbiology (MPM) Research Unit, ARS-USDA, Peoria, Illinois, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
H. Corby Kistler
oUSDA ARS Cereal Disease Laboratory, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Imane Laraba
aMycotoxin Prevention and Applied Microbiology (MPM) Research Unit, ARS-USDA, Peoria, Illinois, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John F. Leslie
pDepartment of Plant Pathology, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for John F. Leslie
Manuel S. López-Berges
jDepartamento de Genetica, Universidad de Cordoba, Cordoba, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Erik Lysøe
qNorwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research, Division of Biotechnology and Plant Health, Ås, Norway
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jacques F. Meis
hDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
iCenter of Expertise in Mycology Radboudumc/CWZ, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jacques F. Meis
Michel Monod
rService de Dermatologie, Laboratoire de Mycologie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CHUV), Lausanne, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robert H. Proctor
aMycotoxin Prevention and Applied Microbiology (MPM) Research Unit, ARS-USDA, Peoria, Illinois, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Martijn Rep
sSwammerdam Institute for Life Science, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Carmen Ruiz-Roldán
jDepartamento de Genetica, Universidad de Cordoba, Cordoba, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Adnan Šišić
tDepartment of Ecological Plant Protection, University of Kassel, Witzenhausen, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jason E. Stajich
uDepartment of Microbiology and Plant Pathology, University of California–Riverside, Riverside, California, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jason E. Stajich
Emma T. Steenkamp
vDepartment of Biochemistry, Genetics and Microbiology, Forestry and Agricultural Biotechnology Institute (FABI), University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Brett A. Summerell
wAustralian Institute of Botanical Science, Royal Botanic Garden and Domain Trust, Sydney, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Theo A. J. van der Lee
dWageningen Plant Research, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anne D. van Diepeningen
dWageningen Plant Research, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paul E. Verweij
hDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
iCenter of Expertise in Mycology Radboudumc/CWZ, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Cees Waalwijk
dWageningen Plant Research, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Todd J. Ward
aMycotoxin Prevention and Applied Microbiology (MPM) Research Unit, ARS-USDA, Peoria, Illinois, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Brian L. Wickes
xDepartment of Microbiology, Immunology & Molecular Genetics, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nathan P. Wiederhold
mDepartment of Pathology, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Nathan P. Wiederhold
Michael J. Wingfield
vDepartment of Biochemistry, Genetics and Microbiology, Forestry and Agricultural Biotechnology Institute (FABI), University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ning Zhang
yDepartment of Plant Biology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sean X. Zhang
zDepartment of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Sean X. Zhang
Aaron P. Mitchell
University of Georgia
Roles: Editor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/mSphere.00810-20
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

This article is to alert medical mycologists and infectious disease specialists of recent name changes of medically important species of the filamentous mold Fusarium. Fusarium species can cause localized and life-threating infections in humans. Of the 70 Fusarium species that have been reported to cause infections, close to one-third are members of the Fusarium solani species complex (FSSC), and they collectively account for approximately two-thirds of all reported Fusarium infections. Many of these species were recently given scientific names for the first time by a research group in the Netherlands, but they were misplaced in the genus Neocosmospora. In this paper, we present genetic arguments that strongly support inclusion of the FSSC in Fusarium. There are potentially serious consequences associated with using the name Neocosmospora for Fusarium species because clinicians need to be aware that fusaria are broadly resistant to the spectrum of antifungals that are currently available.

PERSPECTIVE

Robust taxonomy facilitates communication and should be cogent and consider the scientific and practical ramifications. As presently circumscribed, the monophyletic genus Fusarium comprises over 300 phylogenetically distinct species (i.e., phylospecies) distributed among 23 evolutionary lineages referred to as species complexes (1; D. M. Geiser, A. M. S. Al-Hatmi, T. Aoki, T. Arie, et al., submitted for publication). Over 70 Fusarium species distributed among 12 of these complexes have been implicated in mycotic infections of humans and other animals (Fig. 1A) (2, 3). Of these, members of the Fusarium solani species complex (FSSC) account for approximately two-thirds of all reported fusarioses and at least 23 of the clinically relevant phylospecies (Fig. 1B). There has been a consensus for over a century that the FSSC is part of Fusarium, which was affirmed by molecular phylogenetic analyses (4) and codified in a proposal to recognize Fusarium as a monophyletic group that includes the FSSC (5). However, there has been a recent push to divide Fusarium into seven genera and specifically to move the FSSC, the most important group of fusarial human pathogens, into the genus Neocosmospora (6–8).

FIG 1
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 1

(A) Partitioned maximum likelihood bootstrapped (ML-BS) phylogeny of Fusarium inferred from exonic sequences of 19 housekeeping genes totaling 54.99 kb; 20.3 kb of characters were parsimony informative characters (PIC). The phylogram was rooted on sequences of two outgroup species, Beauveria bassiana and Trichoderma brevicompactum. Evolutionary relationships among the 12 species complexes that contain clinically relevant fusaria were completely resolved based on ML-BS values between 91 and 100%. The node identified by F1, which represents the generic limits of Fusarium, received 100% ML-BS support based on 5,000 pseudoreplicates of the data conducted with IQ-TREE (27). (B) ML-BS phylogeny of clade 3 of the Fusarium solani species complex (FSSC) inferred from portions of three loci (TEF1, RPB2, and the internal transcribed spacer [ITS] ribosomal DNA [rDNA]). All 23 species implicated in fusarioses of humans and other animals are nested in FSSC clade 3. Numbers on nodes represent ML-BS support based on 5,000 pseudoreplicates of the data. FSSC numbers in brackets represent the ad hoc nomenclature previously used to distinguish species (22). T, ex-type strains; IT, ex-isotype strain; NT, ex-neotype strain.

In this paper, we demonstrate that these nomenclatural changes were based on the incorrect interpretation of the phylogenetic data regarding the Geiser et al. (5) circumscription of Fusarium that includes the FSSC. In addition, these papers published an additional 31 FSSC species and 18 new combinations under the genus Neocosmospora (7, 8). A new 19-locus phylogeny, however, removes all doubt about inclusion of the FSSC in a taxonomically sound and historically consistent concept of Fusarium (Geiser et al., submitted). Thus, Aoki et al. (9) recombined these species in Fusarium, as the more robust phylogeny reaffirmed the Geiser et al. (5) circumscription of Fusarium. Here, we correct the record and argue that support for inclusion of the FSSC in Fusarium is more definitive than ever. We also cite concerns of medical mycologists if human-pathogenic fusaria are unnecessarily fragmented into multiple genera and urge continued use of the genus name Fusarium for human pathogens in the FSSC, along with the F. dimerum and F. ventricosum species complexes (10).

Fusarial infections most frequently encountered in healthy individuals include onychomycoses and keratitis; the latter often occurs after a traumatic introduction to the eye or is associated with soft contact lens wear (11). Fusarium keratitis outbreaks that occurred in 2005 and 2006 in the United States, Singapore, and Hong Kong were associated with the use of Bausch & Lomb’s ReNu with MoistureLoc contact lens solution (12, 13). The finding that most of these infections were caused by FSSC species/multilocus sequence types (MLSTs) that are common in and apparently adapted to plumbing systems (14) suggests that patients inadvertently contaminated their contact lenses through poor hygiene. Though relatively rare compared to invasive candidiasis and aspergillosis (15), fusaria can cause life-threatening disseminated opportunistic infections in persistently neutropenic immunocompromised and immunosuppressed patients (16). Mortality among this patient population is high because fusaria are resistant to the broad spectrum of antifungals currently available and dissemination frequently occurs (17). Successful treatment of these patients often requires antifungal drug combinations in addition to the patient recovering from neutropenia (18).

Prior to the introduction of MLST-based diagnoses and recognition of phylospecies based on genealogical exclusivity (19), mycoses caused by members of the FSSC were typically reported as F. solani (20), due to a lack of diagnostic micromorphological characters among FSSC species. The first robust MLST-based species-level studies on the FSSC, however, revealed two important facts: (i) the FSSC comprises at least 45 phylospecies distributed among three clades and (ii) all of the clinically relevant species were nested within clade 3, one of three major evolutionary subgroups that comprise the FSSC (21, 22). Because Latin binomials were not available for most of the species, Chang et al. (12) adopted an ad hoc species/multilocus haplotype nomenclature for the FSSC, in which species and multilocus haplotypes were distinguished, respectively, by Arabic numerals and a lowercase Roman letter. This informal nomenclature was subsequently extended to 35 species in FSSC clade 3 (e.g., FSSC 2-d denotes haplotype d of F. solani species complex undescribed species 2) to facilitate accurate communication within the clinical microbiological and phytopathological scientific communities (22).

Following the work of Short et al. (23), where names were assigned to two of the most important human-pathogenic FSSC species, F. petroliphilum (FSSC 1) and F. keratoplasticum (FSSC 2), Sandoval-Denis and Crous (7) and Sandoval-Denis et al. (8) provided names and types for almost all of the remaining phylogenetically diagnosable species. However, these species were described under the name Neocosmospora. These authors went to great lengths to promote the use of this genus name but with arguments that either fail to address or inaccurately represent the work of O’Donnell et al. (4) and Geiser et al. (5). In addition, they recombined species originally described in Fusarium in this teleomorphic genus, thus promoting a de facto dual nomenclature that obscures the fact that Neocosmospora is nested phylogenetically within a monophyletic Fusarium (5, 24; Geiser et al., submitted). There are potentially serious consequences associated with this because clinicians need to be aware that these fungi are broadly resistant to the spectrum of antifungals that are currently available (25). An identification as Neocosmospora would thus fail to connect a case to this crucial knowledge, thereby disregarding the valuable clinical information that distinguishes it from an identification as Fusarium. Therefore, we are strongly opposed to this taxonomy because it will confuse stakeholders and may have negative ramifications in clinical microbiology and medicine.

The present article and a companion submission to Phytopathology (Geiser et al., submitted) are nearly unanimously supported by the global Fusarium research community. Here, we set the record straight by pointing out that the justification of Sandoval-Denis and Crous (7) for describing members of the FSSC as Neocosmospora was based on four errant conclusions (i to iv below).

Errant conclusion i.The molecular phylogenetic circumscription of Fusarium in the work of Geiser et al. (5) and, by extension, of O’Donnell et al. (4) is polyphyletic.

Response.The claim that the Geiser et al. (5) delimitation of Fusarium is polyphyletic is not supported by published data. Indeed, we know of no published data that even suggests this conclusion. The monophyletic circumscription of Fusarium presented by Geiser et al. (5) was based on a two-locus phylogeny published by O’Donnell et al. (4); similar clades have been resolved in many other publications (e.g., the “Terminal Fusarium Clade” [26]), including that of Lombard et al. (6). In fact, Geiser et al. (5) conservatively and critically evaluated the phylogeny presented in the work of O'Donnell et al. (4), which was based on sequences of the largest (RPB1) and second-largest (RPB2) RNA polymerase II subunit genes, to ensure that the delimitation of Fusarium was robustly connected to a monophyletic group. Two nodes in the RPB1/RPB2 tree (named F1 and F2) were identified as potential taxonomic hypotheses for Fusarium, with F1 better representing longstanding use but receiving inferior statistical support compared to that of F2. It is important to note that both F1 and F2 included the FSSC, but F2 excluded the two most basal lineages (i.e., the F. dimerum and F. ventricosum species complexes). The Geiser et al. (5) hypothesis provisionally retained these species complexes in Fusarium (hypothesis F1 in Fig. 1A) until their inclusion or exclusion could be assessed by a more robust comparative phylogenomic data set.

The 19-gene phylogeny recently presented in the paper of Geiser et al. (submitted) and presented here in modified form (Fig. 1A) is such a data set. Both the F1 and F2 taxonomic hypotheses from Geiser et al. (5) received strong statistical support (i.e., 100% maximum likelihood [ML] bootstrap) in the 19-gene analysis. Details of the partitioned ML phylogenetic analysis of the 55.1-kb 19-gene data set conducted with IQ-TREE (27) are presented in the paper by Geiser et al. (submitted) and illustrate the power of comparative phylogenomics for discovering novel phylogenetically informative marker loci. In summary, the phylogenetic uncertainty openly considered by Geiser et al. (5) has been resolved in support of a taxonomic concept for Fusarium that includes the FSSC, consistent with longstanding use by medical mycologists and phytopathologists.

Errant conclusion ii.Segregation of the FSSC as Neocosmospora represents a “more natural classification.”

Response.The term “natural classification” means that all members of a taxon share an ancestor; in other words, they should be monophyletic. Based on our response to errant claim i, Fusarium, inclusive of Neocosmospora, is monophyletic. The claim that separation of Neocosmospora from Fusarium represents a more natural classification is without merit because the concept of Fusarium that includes the FSSC is defined based on its monophyly, and monophyly is the principal criterion for taxon recognition in modern taxonomy. Even prior to the demise of the dual nomenclature system on 1 January 2013, when teleomorph genera had taxonomic priority, the FSSC had a longstanding taxonomic place within Fusarium, with virtually no controversy among stakeholders, especially among medical mycologists and plant pathologists. Certainly, there is great value in continuing to recognize the >90 species in this clade as the “Fusarium solani species complex,” representing its status as a distinct clade within a monophyletic Fusarium, and maintaining continuity of use. In contrast, use of “Neocosmospora” creates an unnecessary communication barrier between the FSSC and over a century of Fusarium research. Also note that because Fusarium was typified close to a century before Neocosmospora (1809 versus 1899), the name Fusarium has nomenclatural priority (https://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/pages/main/art_11.html).

Fusarium is by far the most widely used name applied to the FSSC, as reflected by a simple Google search. “Fusarium solani” received 100 times more hits than “Neocosmospora” (∼3,190,000 to ∼31,600; search conducted 27 May 2020). The longstanding status of the FSSC in Fusarium has also been reinforced by annual Fusarium educational workshops offered around the world since the 1970s, in particular, the Fusarium Laboratory Workshop (28) and the Tropical Fusarium Workshops. Highlighting the natural connection between the FSSC and Fusarium, in both of these workshops, the FSSC and F. oxysporum species complex (FOSC, which Lombard et al. [6] retains in Fusarium) are presented in tandem due to the ecological, genomic, morphological, and clinical connections that exist between these two groups.

Errant conclusion iii.Substantial molecular evidence indicates Fusarium and Neocosmospora are not congeneric.

Response.Absolutely nothing has been published to date to suggest that “Neocosmospora” is not nested phylogenetically within Fusarium as we define it (4) (Fig. 1). This unassailable fact reflects the central logic of the Geiser et al. (5) taxonomic hypothesis. Lombard et al. (6) hypothesize that Fusarium and Neocosmospora are two equally ranked clades within a broader clade consisting of at least seven genera, all of which have an established taxonomic history as Fusarium species. These competing hypotheses are supportable by the same phylogenetic evidence but are readily distinguished based on their relative practical merits. In fact, the phylogeny can be used as the basis for any number of taxonomic hypotheses within node F1 (Fig. 1A), either as a single genus as it has been treated for over a century, as seven genera, or as potentially dozens of genera.

Errant conclusion iv.Support of the Fusarium research community for the Geiser et al. (5) conservation of Fusarium in a way that includes the FSSC, with its adherents referred to as “some researchers,” has been understated.

Response.To the contrary, 66 scientists from 16 different countries spanning 6 continents, representing virtually all of the world leaders in Fusarium research and the disciplines of medical mycology, plant pathology, molecular biology and genomics, mycotoxicology, and other fields, coauthored Geiser’s proposal to circumscribe a monophyletic Fusarium such that it preserves longstanding use (5) (Fig. 1). Now that there is overwhelming statistical support for hypothesis F1 (Fig. 1A), the Geiser et al. (5) circumscription of Fusarium will gain even more support from end users.

Just prior to the demise of dual nomenclature, two scholarly studies opened the door to dividing Fusarium along teleomorph lines (26, 29), using competing genus names that would require breaking Fusarium up into at least seven genera. However, both studies also referred to the clade associated with the F1 node as “The Terminal Fusarium Clade” (italics theirs), raising the question, “Why did they use that name if that clade represented something other than the ideal circumscription of Fusarium?” These papers also presented phylogenetics that provided a framework for a monophyletic Fusarium that includes the FSSC, as presented here. The FSSC is an integral part of FUSARIUM-ID (30; http://isolate.fusariumdb.org/blast.php) and Fusarium MLST (31; http://fusarium.mycobank.org/), two websites dedicated to identification of fusaria via the Internet. We urge the people who maintain these sites to respect the will of the Fusarium community and retain the FSSC in Fusarium and their databases. Formal recombinations of the newly proposed Neocosmospora names in Fusarium were registered in Index Fungorum, where they are now validly published (9; Geiser et al., submitted). In addition, we updated our nucleotide accessions in GenBank to reflect the current taxonomy.

End users will ultimately decide what names to use for these fungi (32), and we urge the clinical microbiological community to continue to refer to these etiological agents by their Fusarium binomials (see clade 3 in Fig. 1B for binomials of the 23 FSSC members of clinical relevance) or as a member of the FSSC when an identification is made only to the species complex level (33). Using the name “Neocosmospora” obscures rather than facilitates communication among basic and applied scientists and regulatory agencies in medicine and agriculture by promoting a taxonomy governed by de facto dual nomenclature. When infectious disease specialists need to access clinically relevant literature to manage fusarial infections, they will need to use “Fusarium” or “fusariosis,” not “Neocosmospora” or “neocosmosporosis,” as the search terms. With 191,000 Google hits (search conducted on 27 May 2020), fusariosis is well embedded in the medical/clinical literature, whereas “neocosmosporosis” failed to recover even a single clinically relevant record. Applying the work of Hawksworth (34) to this case, the name “Fusarium” is crucial for accessing the accumulated knowledge in clinical, medical, and other scientific literature.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This paper has been communicated to C. Schoch, A. N. Miller, and C. Aime of the International Commission on the Taxonomy of Fungi (ICTF; https://www.fungaltaxonomy.org/ictf-members/) and to S. A. Redhead (Chair), P. M. Kirk, and Z. Wilhelm de Beer of the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi (NCF; https://www.ima-mycology.org).

Special thanks are due to Amy McGovern and Crystal Probyn for expert technical assistance in generating and mining the whole-genome sequence data in the MPM Research Unit, Peoria, IL.

The USDA-ARS National Program for Food Safety, grant NSF DEB-1655980, and Pennsylvania State Agricultural Experiment Station Project 4655 provided funding for this study.

Mention of trade names or commercial products in this publication is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

FOOTNOTES

  • This is contribution no. 20-355-J from the Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station.

This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Foreign copyrights may apply.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Aoki T,
    2. O’Donnell K,
    3. Geiser DM
    . 2014. Systematics of key phytopathogenic Fusarium species: current status and future challenges. J Gen Plant Pathol 80:189–201. doi:10.1007/s10327-014-0509-3.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. 2.↵
    1. Al-Hatmi AMS,
    2. Meis JF,
    3. de Hoog GS
    . 2016. Fusarium: molecular diversity and intrinsic drug resistance. PLoS Pathog 12:e1005464. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1005464.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. O'Donnell K,
    2. Sutton DA,
    3. Wiederhold N,
    4. Robert VARG,
    5. Crous PW,
    6. Geiser DM
    . 2016. Veterinary fusarioses within the United States. J Clin Microbiol 54:2813–2819. doi:10.1128/JCM.01607-16.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. O'Donnell K,
    2. Rooney AP,
    3. Proctor RH,
    4. Brown DW,
    5. McCormick SP,
    6. Ward TJ,
    7. Frandsen RJN,
    8. Lysøe E,
    9. Rehner SA,
    10. Aoki T,
    11. Robert VARG,
    12. Crous PW,
    13. Groenewald JZ,
    14. Kang S,
    15. Geiser DM
    . 2013. RPB1 and RPB2 phylogeny support an early Cretaceous origin and a strongly supported clade comprising all agriculturally and medically important fusaria. Fungal Genet Biol 52:20–31. doi:10.1016/j.fgb.2012.12.004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Geiser DM,
    2. Aoki T,
    3. Bacon CW,
    4. Baker SE,
    5. Bhattacharyya MK,
    6. Brandt ME,
    7. Brown DW,
    8. Burgess LW,
    9. Chulze S,
    10. Coleman JJ,
    11. Correll JC,
    12. Covert SF,
    13. Crous PW,
    14. Cuomo CA,
    15. De Hoog GS,
    16. Di Pietro A,
    17. Elmer WH,
    18. Epstein L,
    19. Frandsen RJN,
    20. Freeman S,
    21. Gagkaeva T,
    22. Glenn AE,
    23. Gordon TR,
    24. Gregory NF,
    25. Hammond-Kosack KE,
    26. Hanson LE,
    27. Jímenez-Gasco MDM,
    28. Kang S,
    29. Kistler HC,
    30. Kuldau GA,
    31. Leslie JF,
    32. Logrieco A,
    33. Lu G,
    34. Lysøe E,
    35. Ma L-J,
    36. McCormick SP,
    37. Migheli Q,
    38. Moretti A,
    39. Munaut F,
    40. O'Donnell K,
    41. Pfenning L,
    42. Ploetz RC,
    43. Proctor RH,
    44. Rehner SA,
    45. Robert VARG,
    46. Rooney AP,
    47. Bin Salleh B,
    48. Scandiani MM,
    49. Scauflaire J,
    50. Short DPG, et al
    . 2013. One fungus, one name: defining the genus Fusarium in a scientifically robust way that preserves longstanding use. Phytopathology 103:400–408. doi:10.1094/PHYTO-07-12-0150-LE.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Lombard L,
    2. van der Merwe NA,
    3. Groenewald JZ,
    4. Crous PW
    . 2015. Generic concepts in Nectriaceae. Stud Mycol 80:189–245. doi:10.1016/j.simyco.2014.12.002.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Sandoval-Denis M,
    2. Crous PW
    . 2018. Removing chaos from confusion: assigning names to common human and animal pathogens in Neocosmospora. Persoonia 41:109–129. doi:10.3767/persoonia.2018.41.06.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. 8.↵
    1. Sandoval-Denis M,
    2. Lombard L,
    3. Crous PW
    . 2019. Back to the roots: a reappraisal of Neocosmospora. Persoonia 43:90–185. doi:10.3767/persoonia.2019.43.04.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. 9.↵
    1. Aoki T,
    2. Geiser DM,
    3. Kasson MT,
    4. O'Donnell K
    . 2020. Nomenclatural novelties. Index Fungorum 440:1–5.
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.↵
    1. Schroers H-J,
    2. O'Donnell K,
    3. Lamprecht SC,
    4. Kammeyer PL,
    5. Johnson S,
    6. Sutton DA,
    7. Rinaldi MG,
    8. Geiser DM,
    9. Summerbell RC
    . 2009. Taxonomy and phylogeny of the Fusarium dimerum species group. Mycologia 101:44–70. doi:10.3852/08-002.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. van Diepeningen AD,
    2. Al-Hatmi AMS,
    3. Brankovics B,
    4. de Hoog GS
    . 2014. Taxonomy and clinical spectra of Fusarium species: where do we stand in 2014? Curr Clin Micro Rep 1:10–18. doi:10.1007/s40588-014-0003-x.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  12. 12.↵
    1. Chang DC,
    2. Grant GB,
    3. O'Donnell K,
    4. Wannemuehler KA,
    5. Noble-Wang J,
    6. Rao CY,
    7. Jacobson LM,
    8. Crowell CS,
    9. Sneed RS,
    10. Lewis FMT,
    11. Schaffzin JK,
    12. Kainer MA,
    13. Genese CA,
    14. Alfonso EC,
    15. Jones DB,
    16. Srinivasan A,
    17. Fridkin SK,
    18. Park BJ
    , Fusarium Keratitis Investigation Team. 2006. Multistate outbreak of Fusarium keratitis associated with use of a contact lens solution. JAMA 296:953–963. doi:10.1001/jama.296.8.953.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. 13.↵
    1. Khor W-B,
    2. Aung T,
    3. Saw S-M,
    4. Wong T-Y,
    5. Tambyah PA,
    6. Tan A-L,
    7. Beuerman R,
    8. Lim LL,
    9. Chan W-K,
    10. Heng W-J,
    11. Lim J,
    12. Loh RSK,
    13. Lee S-B,
    14. Tan DTH
    . 2006. An outbreak of Fusarium keratitis associated with contact lens wear in Singapore. JAMA 295:2867–2873. doi:10.1001/jama.295.24.2867.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. 14.↵
    1. Short DPG,
    2. O'Donnell K,
    3. Zhang N,
    4. Juba JH,
    5. Geiser DM
    . 2011. Widespread occurrence of diverse human pathogenic types of the fungus Fusarium detected in plumbing drains. J Clin Microbiol 49:4264–4272. doi:10.1128/JCM.05468-11.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Zhang SX,
    2. O’Donnell K,
    3. Sutton DA
    . 2019. Fusarium and other opportunistic hyaline fungi, p 2132–2162. In Carroll KC, Pfaller MA, Landry ML, McAdam AJ, Patel R, Richter S, Warnock DW (ed), Manual of clinical microbiology, 12th ed ASM Press, Washington, DC.
  16. 16.↵
    1. Nucci M,
    2. Anaissie E
    . 2007. Fusarium infections in immunocompromised patients. Clin Microbiol Rev 20:695–704. doi:10.1128/CMR.00014-07.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Al-Hatmi AMS,
    2. Bonifaz A,
    3. Ranque S,
    4. Sybren de Hoog G,
    5. Verweij PE,
    6. Meis JF
    . 2018. Current antifungal treatment of fusariosis. Int J Antimicrob Agents 51:326–332. doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2017.06.017.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. 18.↵
    1. Guarro J
    . 2013. Fusariosis, a complex infection caused by a high diversity of fungal species refractory to treatment. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 32:1491–1500. doi:10.1007/s10096-013-1924-7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Taylor JW,
    2. Jacobson DJ,
    3. Kroken S,
    4. Kasuga T,
    5. Geiser DM,
    6. Hibbett DS,
    7. Fisher MC
    . 2000. Phylogenetic species recognition and species concepts in fungi. Fungal Genet Biol 31:21–32. doi:10.1006/fgbi.2000.1228.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  20. 20.↵
    1. Leslie JF,
    2. Summerell BA
    . 2006. The Fusarium laboratory manual. Blackwell Publishing, Ames, IA.
  21. 21.↵
    1. Zhang N,
    2. O'Donnell K,
    3. Sutton DA,
    4. Nalim FA,
    5. Summerbell RC,
    6. Padhye AA,
    7. Geiser DM
    . 2006. Members of the Fusarium solani species complex that cause infections in both humans and plants are common in the environment. J Clin Microbiol 44:2186–2190. doi:10.1128/JCM.00120-06.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. O'Donnell K,
    2. Sutton DA,
    3. Fothergill A,
    4. McCarthy D,
    5. Rinaldi MG,
    6. Brandt ME,
    7. Zhang N,
    8. Geiser DM
    . 2008. Molecular phylogenetic diversity, multilocus haplotype nomenclature, and in vitro antifungal resistance within the Fusarium solani species complex. J Clin Microbiol 46:2477–2490. doi:10.1128/JCM.02371-07.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Short DPG,
    2. O'Donnell K,
    3. Thrane U,
    4. Nielsen KF,
    5. Zhang N,
    6. Juba JH,
    7. Geiser DM
    . 2013. Phylogenetic relationships among members of the Fusarium solani species complex in human infections and the descriptions of F. keratoplasticum sp. nov. and F. petrophilum stat. nov. Fungal Genet Biol 53:59–70. doi:10.1016/j.fgb.2013.01.004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. O’Donnell K
    . 2000. Molecular phylogeny of the Nectria haematococca-Fusarium solani species complex. Mycologia 92:919–938. doi:10.1080/00275514.2000.12061237.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  25. 25.↵
    1. Al-Hatmi AM,
    2. de Hoog GS,
    3. Meis JF
    . 2019. Multiresistant Fusarium pathogens on plants and humans: solutions in (from) the antifungal pipeline? Infect Drug Resist 12:3727–3737. doi:10.2147/IDR.S180912.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  26. 26.↵
    1. Gräfenhan T,
    2. Schroers H-J,
    3. Nirenberg HI,
    4. Seifert KA
    . 2011. An overview of the taxonomy, phylogeny and typification of nectriaceous fungi in Cosmospora, Acremonium, Fusarium, Stilbella and Volutella. Stud Mycol 68:79–113. doi:10.3114/sim.2011.68.04.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Nguyen L-T,
    2. Schmidt HA,
    3. von Haeseler A,
    4. Minh BQ
    . 2015. IQ-TREE: a fast and effective stochastic algorithm for estimating maximum likelihood phylogenies. Mol Biol Evol 32:268–274. doi:10.1093/molbev/msu300.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Leslie JF,
    2. Summerell BA
    . 2006. Fusarium laboratory workshops—a recent history. Mycotoxin Res 22:73–74. doi:10.1007/BF02956766.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  29. 29.↵
    1. Schroers H-J,
    2. Gräfenhan T,
    3. Nirenberg HI,
    4. Seifert KA
    . 2011. A revision of Cyanonectria and Geejayessia gen nov, and related species with Fusarium-like anamorphs. Stud Mycol 68:115–138. doi:10.3114/sim.2011.68.05.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Geiser DM,
    2. del Mar Jiménez-Gasco M,
    3. Kang S,
    4. Makalowska I,
    5. Veeraraghavan N,
    6. Ward TJ,
    7. Zhang N,
    8. Kuldau GA,
    9. O'Donnell K
    . 2004. FUSARIUM-ID v 10: a DNA sequence database for identifying Fusarium. Eur J Plant Pathol 110:473–479. doi:10.1023/B:EJPP.0000032386.75915.a0.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  31. 31.↵
    1. O’Donnell K,
    2. Ward TJ,
    3. Robert VARG,
    4. Crous PW,
    5. Geiser DM,
    6. Kang S
    . 2015. DNA sequence-based identification of Fusarium: current status and future directions. Phytoparasitica 43:583–595. doi:10.1007/s12600-015-0484-z.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  32. 32.↵
    1. de Hoog GS,
    2. Chaturvedi V,
    3. Denning DW,
    4. Dyer PS,
    5. Frisvad JC,
    6. Geiser D,
    7. Gräser Y,
    8. Guarro J,
    9. Haase G,
    10. Kwon-Chung K-J,
    11. Meis JF,
    12. Meyer W,
    13. Pitt JI,
    14. Samson RA,
    15. Taylor JW,
    16. Tintelnot K,
    17. Vitale RG,
    18. Walsh TJ,
    19. Lackner M
    , the ISHAM Working Group on Nomenclature of Medical Fungi. 2015. Name changes in medically important fungi and their implications for clinical practice. J Clin Microbiol 53:1056–1062. doi:10.1128/JCM.02016-14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    1. Balajee SA,
    2. Borman AM,
    3. Brandt ME,
    4. Cano J,
    5. Cuenca-Estrella M,
    6. Dannaoui E,
    7. Guarro J,
    8. Haase G,
    9. Kibbler CC,
    10. Meyer W,
    11. O'Donnell K,
    12. Petti CA,
    13. Rodriguez-Tudela JL,
    14. Sutton D,
    15. Velegraki A,
    16. Wickes BL
    . 2009. Sequence-based identification of Aspergillus, Fusarium, and Mucorales species in the clinical mycology laboratory: where are we and where should we go from here? J Clin Microbiol 47:877–884. doi:10.1128/JCM.01685-08.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  34. 34.↵
    1. Hawksworth DL
    . 2011. Naming Aspergillus species: progress towards one name for each species. Med Mycol 49:S70–S76. doi:10.3109/13693786.2010.504753.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
No to Neocosmospora: Phylogenomic and Practical Reasons for Continued Inclusion of the Fusarium solani Species Complex in the Genus Fusarium
Kerry O’Donnell, Abdullah M. S. Al-Hatmi, Takayuki Aoki, Balázs Brankovics, José F. Cano-Lira, Jeffrey J. Coleman, G. Sybren de Hoog, Antonio Di Pietro, Rasmus J. N. Frandsen, David M. Geiser, Connie F. C. Gibas, Josep Guarro, Hye-Seon Kim, H. Corby Kistler, Imane Laraba, John F. Leslie, Manuel S. López-Berges, Erik Lysøe, Jacques F. Meis, Michel Monod, Robert H. Proctor, Martijn Rep, Carmen Ruiz-Roldán, Adnan Šišić, Jason E. Stajich, Emma T. Steenkamp, Brett A. Summerell, Theo A. J. van der Lee, Anne D. van Diepeningen, Paul E. Verweij, Cees Waalwijk, Todd J. Ward, Brian L. Wickes, Nathan P. Wiederhold, Michael J. Wingfield, Ning Zhang, Sean X. Zhang
mSphere Sep 2020, 5 (5) e00810-20; DOI: 10.1128/mSphere.00810-20

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print
Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this mSphere article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
No to Neocosmospora: Phylogenomic and Practical Reasons for Continued Inclusion of the Fusarium solani Species Complex in the Genus Fusarium
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from mSphere
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in mSphere.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
No to Neocosmospora: Phylogenomic and Practical Reasons for Continued Inclusion of the Fusarium solani Species Complex in the Genus Fusarium
Kerry O’Donnell, Abdullah M. S. Al-Hatmi, Takayuki Aoki, Balázs Brankovics, José F. Cano-Lira, Jeffrey J. Coleman, G. Sybren de Hoog, Antonio Di Pietro, Rasmus J. N. Frandsen, David M. Geiser, Connie F. C. Gibas, Josep Guarro, Hye-Seon Kim, H. Corby Kistler, Imane Laraba, John F. Leslie, Manuel S. López-Berges, Erik Lysøe, Jacques F. Meis, Michel Monod, Robert H. Proctor, Martijn Rep, Carmen Ruiz-Roldán, Adnan Šišić, Jason E. Stajich, Emma T. Steenkamp, Brett A. Summerell, Theo A. J. van der Lee, Anne D. van Diepeningen, Paul E. Verweij, Cees Waalwijk, Todd J. Ward, Brian L. Wickes, Nathan P. Wiederhold, Michael J. Wingfield, Ning Zhang, Sean X. Zhang
mSphere Sep 2020, 5 (5) e00810-20; DOI: 10.1128/mSphere.00810-20
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • PERSPECTIVE
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

clinical mycology
evolution
fungi
phylogenetics
taxonomy

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About mSphere
  • Board of Editors
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • Embargo Policy
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Author Warranty
  • Types of Articles
  • Getting Started
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #mSphereJ

@ASMicrobiology

       

 

Website feedback

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Online ISSN: 2379-5042