KEY MESSAGE: We developed 'Golden SusPtrit', i.e., a barley line combining SusPtrit's high susceptibility to non-adapted rust fungi with the high amenability of Golden Promise for transformation. Nonhost and partial resistance to Puccinia rust fungi in barley are polygenically inherited. These types of resistance are principally prehaustorial, show high diversity between accessions of the plant species and are genetically associated. To study nonhost and partial resistance, as well as their association, candidate gene(s) for resistance must be cloned and tested in susceptible material where SusPtrit would be the line of choice. Unfortunately, SusPtrit is not amenable to Agrobacterium-mediated transformation. Therefore, a doubled haploid (DH) mapping population (n = 122) was created by crossing SusPtrit with Golden Promise to develop a 'Golden SusPtrit', i.e., a barley line combining SusPtrit's high susceptibility to non-adapted rust fungi with the high amenability of Golden Promise for transformation. We identified nine genomic regions occupied by resistance quantitative trait loci (QTLs) against four non-adapted rust fungi and P. hordei isolate 1.2.1 (Ph.1.2.1). Four DHs were selected for an Agrobacterium-mediated transformation efficiency test. They were among the 12 DH lines most susceptible to the tested non-adapted rust fungi. The most efficiently transformed DH line was SG062N (11-17 transformants per 100 immature embryos). The level of non-adapted rust infection on SG062N is either similar to or higher than the level of infection on SusPtrit. Against Ph.1.2.1, the latency period conferred by SG062N is as short as that conferred by SusPtrit. SG062N, designated 'Golden SusPtrit', will be a valuable experimental line that could replace SusPtrit in nonhost and partial resistance studies, especially for stable transformation using candidate genes that may be involved in rust-resistance mechanisms.
Novel species of fungi described in this study include those from various countries as follows: Australia, Chaetomella pseudocircinoseta and Coniella pseudodiospyri on Eucalyptus microcorys leaves, Cladophialophora eucalypti, Teratosphaeria dunnii and Vermiculariopsiella dunnii on Eucalyptus dunnii leaves, Cylindrium grande and Hypsotheca eucalyptorum on Eucalyptus grandis leaves, Elsinoe salignae on Eucalyptus saligna leaves, Marasmius lebeliae on litter of regenerating subtropical rainforest, Phialoseptomonium eucalypti (incl. Phialoseptomonium gen. nov.) on Eucalyptus grandis × camaldulensis leaves, Phlogicylindrium pawpawense on Eucalyptus tereticornis leaves, Phyllosticta longicauda as an endophyte from healthy Eustrephus latifolius leaves, Pseudosydowia eucalyptorum on Eucalyptus sp. leaves, Saitozyma wallum on Banksia aemula leaves, Teratosphaeria henryi on Corymbia henryi leaves. Brazil, Aspergillus bezerrae, Backusella azygospora, Mariannaea terricola and Talaromyces pernambucoensis from soil, Calonectria matogrossensis on Eucalyptus urophylla leaves, Calvatia brasiliensis on soil, Carcinomyces nordestinensis on Bromelia antiacantha leaves, Dendryphiella stromaticola on small branches of an unidentified plant, Nigrospora brasiliensis on Nopalea cochenillifera leaves, Penicillium alagoense as a leaf endophyte on a Miconia sp., Podosordaria nigrobrunnea on dung, Spegazzinia bromeliacearum as a leaf endophyte on Tilandsia catimbauensis, Xylobolus brasiliensis on decaying wood. Bulgaria, Kazachstania molopis from the gut of the beetle Molops piceus. Croatia, Mollisia endocrystallina from a fallen decorticated Picea abies tree trunk. Ecuador, Hygrocybe rodomaculata on soil. Hungary, Alfoldia vorosii (incl. Alfoldia gen. nov.) from Juniperus communis roots, Kiskunsagia ubrizsyi (incl. Kiskunsagia gen. nov.) from Fumana procumbens roots. India, Aureobasidium tremulum as laboratory contaminant, Leucosporidium himalayensis and Naganishia indica from windblown dust on glaciers. Italy, Neodevriesia cycadicola on Cycas sp. leaves, Pseudocercospora pseudomyrticola on Myrtus communis leaves, Ramularia pistaciae on Pistacia lentiscus leaves, Neognomoniopsis quercina (incl. Neognomoniopsis gen. nov.) on Quercus ilex leaves. Japan, Diaporthe fructicola on Passiflora edulis × P. edulis f. flavicarpa fruit, Entoloma nipponicum on leaf litter in a mixed Cryptomeria japonica and Acer spp. forest. Macedonia, Astraeus macedonicus on soil. Malaysia, Fusicladium eucalyptigenum on Eucalyptus sp. twigs, Neoacrodontiella eucalypti (incl. Neoacrodontiella gen. nov.) on Eucalyptus urophylla leaves. Mozambique, Meliola gorongosensis on dead Philenoptera violacea leaflets. Nepal, Coniochaeta dendrobiicola from Dendriobium lognicornu roots. New Zealand, Neodevriesia sexualis and Thozetella neonivea on Archontophoenix cunninghamiana leaves. Norway, Calophoma sandfjordenica from a piece of board on a rocky shoreline, Clavaria parvispora on soil, Didymella finnmarkica from a piece of Pinus sylvestris driftwood. Poland, Sugiyamaella trypani from soil. Portugal, Colletotrichum feijoicola from Acca sellowiana. Russia, Crepidotus tobolensis on Populus tremula debris, Entoloma ekaterinae, Entoloma erhardii and Suillus gastroflavus on soil, Nakazawaea ambrosiae from the galleries of Ips typographus under the bark of Picea abies. Slovenia, Pluteus ludwigii on twigs of broadleaved trees. South Africa, Anungitiomyces stellenboschiensis (incl. Anungitiomyces gen. nov.) and Niesslia stellenboschiana on Eucalyptus sp. leaves, Beltraniella pseudoportoricensis on Podocarpus falcatus leaf litter, Corynespora encephalarti on Encephalartos sp. leaves, Cytospora pavettae on Pavetta revoluta leaves, Helminthosporium erythrinicola on Erythrina humeana leaves, Helminthosporium syzygii on a Syzygium sp. bark canker, Libertasomyces aloeticus on Aloe sp. leaves, Penicillium lunae from Musa sp. fruit, Phyllosticta lauridiae on Lauridia tetragona leaves, Pseudotruncatella bolusanthi (incl. Pseudotruncatellaceae fam. nov.) and Dactylella bolusanthi on Bolusanthus speciosus leaves. Spain, Apenidiella foetida on submerged plant debris, Inocybe grammatoides on Quercus ilex subsp. ilex forest humus, Ossicaulis salomii on soil, Phialemonium guarroi from soil. Thailand, Pantospora chromolaenae on Chromolaena odorata leaves. Ukraine, Cadophora helianthi from Helianthus annuus stems. USA, Boletus pseudopinophilus on soil under slash pine, Botryotrichum foricae, Penicillium americanum and Penicillium minnesotense from air. Vietnam, Lycoperdon vietnamense on soil. Morphological and culture characteristics are supported by DNA barcodes.
In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.