A phylogenetic study of the subtribe Dicrepidiina (Elateridae, Elaterinae, Ampedini)

It is presented a cladistic analysis of the Dicrepidiina aiming to test the monophyletism of the subtribe and to establish the relationships among the genera. The subtribe is composed by 36 genera and all of them, except Asebis, Lamononia, Neopsephus, Semiotopsis and Spilomorphus were included in the analysis. Fifty two species, especially the type-species of each genus were studied: Achrestus flavocinctus (Candèze, 1859), A. venustus Champion, 1895, Adiaphorus gracilis Schwarz, 1901, A. ponticerianus Candèze, 1859, Anoplischiopsis bivittatus Champion, 1895, Anoplischius bicarinatus Candèze, 1859, A. conicus Candèze, 1900, A. haematopus Candèze, 1859, A. pyronotus Candèze, 1859, Atractosomus flavescens (Germar, 1839), Blauta cribraria (Germar, 1844), Calopsephus apicalis (Schwarz, 1903), Catalamprus angustus (Fleutiaux, 1902), Crepidius flabellifer (Erichson, 1847), C. resectus Candèze, 1859, Cyathodera auripilosus Costa, 1968, C. lanugicollis (Candèze, 1859), C. longicornis Blanchard, 1843, Dayakus angularis Candèze, 1893, Dicrepidius ramicornis (Palisot de Beauvois, 1805), Dipropus brasilianus (Germar, 1824), D. factuellus Candèze, 1859, D. laticollis (Eschscholtz, 1829), D. pinguis (Candèze, 1859), D. schwarzi (Becker, 1961), Elius birmanicus Candèze, 1893, E. dilatatus Candèze, 1878, Heterocrepidius gilvellus Candèze, 1859, H. ventralis Guérin-Méneville, 1838, Lampropsephus cyaneus (Candèze, 1878), Loboederus appendiculatus (Perty, 1830), Olophoeus gibbus Candèze, 1859, Ovipalpus pubescens Solier, 1851, Pantolamprus ligneus Candèze, 1896, P. mirabilis Candèze, 1896, P. perpulcher Westwood, 1842, Paraloboderus glaber Golbach, 1990, Proloboderus crassipes Fleutiaux, 1912, Propsephus beniensis (Candèze, 1859), P. cavifrons (Erichson, 1843), Pseudolophoeus guineensis (Candèze, 1881), Rhinopsephus apicalis (Schwarz, 1903), Sephilus formosanus Schwarz, 1912, S. frontalis Candèze, 1878, Singhalenus gibbus Candèze, 1892, S. taprobanicus Candèze, 1859, Sphenomerus antennalis Candèze, 1859, S. brunneus Candèze, 1865, Spilus atractomorphus Candèze, 1859, S. nitidus Candèze, 1859, Stenocrepidius simonii Fleutiaux, 1891 and Trielasmus varians Blanchard, 1846. Chalcolepidius zonatus (Hemirhipini, Agrypninae), Ctenicera silvatica (Prosternini, Prosterninae), and species of the other subtribes of Ampedini (Elaterinae): Ampedus sanguineus (Ampedina), Melanotus spernendus (Melanotina) and Anchastus digittatus and Physorhinus xanthocephalus (Physorhinina) were used as outgroups. The results of the phylogenetic analysis demonstrated that Dicrepidiina, as formerly defined, does not form a monophyletic group. One genus, represented by Ovipalpus pubescens, was removed from the subtribe. The subtribe is characterized by presence of lamella under 2nd and 3rd tarsomeres of all legs. Also, it was revealed that the genera Achrestus, Anoplischius, Dipropus and Propsephus are not monophyletic. Due to the scarcity of information, all the studied species are redescribed and illustrated.

Differential gene expression between the biotrophic-like and saprotrophic mycelia of the witches` broom pathogen Moniliophthora perniciosa

Moniliophthora perniciosa is a hemibiotrophic fungus that causes witches` broom disease (WBD) in cacao. Marked dimorphism characterizes this fungus, showing a monokaryotic or biotrophic phase that causes disease symptoms and a later dikaryotic or saprotrophic phase. A combined strategy of DNA microarray, expressed sequence tag, and real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction analyses was employed to analyze differences between these two fungal stages in vitro. In all, 1,131 putative genes were hybridized with cDNA from different phases, resulting in 189 differentially expressed genes, and 4,595 reads were clusterized, producing 1,534 unigenes. The analysis of these genes, which represent approximately 21% of the total genes, indicates that the biotrophic-like phase undergoes carbon and nitrogen catabollite repression that correlates to the expression of phytopathogenicity genes. Moreover, downregulation of mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation and the presence of a putative ngr1 of Saccharomyces cerevisiae could help explain its lower growth rate. In contrast, the saprotrophic mycelium expresses genes related to the metabolism of hexoses, ammonia, and oxidative phosphorylation, which could explain its faster growth. Antifungal toxins were upregulated and could prevent the colonization by competing fungi. This work significantly contributes to our understanding of the molecular mechanisms of WBD and, to our knowledge, is the first to analyze differential gene expression of the different phases of a hemibiotrophic fungus.