male or female in fungi? - spermatia (Jun/20/2008 )
Hallo all,
I wanted to know your opinion on gametes in fungi.
Some higher ascomycetes have male gametes , and they have a role in the sexual reproduction.
I am talking about whats called spermatia...
How do you guys think on this:
"some microconidia might work as spermatia and when they land on complementary hyphea they can start a sexual cyclus..."
But why do they call those cells spermatia?
I cant remember that there are really male and female cells in fungi?
someone told me they simply call it spermatia because they defined those smaller cells that "visit" the bigger structure (hyphea, sclerotia) male.
SO simply said: bigger structure female, smaller one male.
Although there is no real reason why they would call a microconidia male.
what do you guys think of this?
Bull. Pure bullcrap. Where do you get this stuff?
Eum, could you tell me what is crap ?
The part of the sparmatia? Or the part of the male gametes? Or the part of that there are no male and female structure in fungi?
The bull about anthropomorphizing fungal sexuality. Mating types are not called male and female whatever the morphology of any sexual organ produced.
That some higher asco's express sexuality - sure and all groups of fungi express sexuality and it's assumed that all fungi are capable.
That conidia are sexual structures called spermatia - Conidia are ASEXUAL elements be definition, as are hypha and sclerotium. For ascos - conidia are typically diploid. Calling them a fanciful name means nothing. Search the literature and you'll find a couple of papers that bastardize the terms as you did here - think one by an aggie so it figures. They're not published in journals whose reviewers would be sensitive to misapplication of terms and are fairly rare.
Some fungi expresss a phenomenon referred to as "parasexuality" - a bit complicated to explain here.
But give us the ref so we can read the paper - might help understanding.
That some higher asco's express sexuality - sure and all groups of fungi express sexuality and it's assumed that all fungi are capable.
That conidia are sexual structures called spermatia - Conidia are ASEXUAL elements be definition, as are hypha and sclerotium. For ascos - conidia are typically diploid. Calling them a fanciful name means nothing. Search the literature and you'll find a couple of papers that bastardize the terms as you did here - think one by an aggie so it figures. They're not published in journals whose reviewers would be sensitive to misapplication of terms and are fairly rare.
Some fungi expresss a phenomenon referred to as "parasexuality" - a bit complicated to explain here.
But give us the ref so we can read the paper - might help understanding.
like I said : no male or female structures then.
But you have to admit that they often use the term spermatia...
why would they use that term then?
I think its like I said: because the microconidium is the small part that "flies" away and lands on another fungi part.
I know that conidia are asexual , but they still refer to microconidia as spermatia because they play a role in the sexual cyclus of fungi.
about the ref:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/h99gq5628rmxxqut/
http://www.php.wur.nl/UK/Research/Botrytis/
and this book : Botrytis: Biology, Pathology And Control
they all speak off spermatia etc..
That some higher asco's express sexuality - sure and all groups of fungi express sexuality and it's assumed that all fungi are capable.
That conidia are sexual structures called spermatia - Conidia are ASEXUAL elements be definition, as are hypha and sclerotium. For ascos - conidia are typically diploid. Calling them a fanciful name means nothing. Search the literature and you'll find a couple of papers that bastardize the terms as you did here - think one by an aggie so it figures. They're not published in journals whose reviewers would be sensitive to misapplication of terms and are fairly rare.
Some fungi expresss a phenomenon referred to as "parasexuality" - a bit complicated to explain here.
But give us the ref so we can read the paper - might help understanding.
like I said : no male or female structures then.
But you have to admit that they often use the term spermatia...
why would they use that term then?
I think its like I said: because the microconidium is the small part that "flies" away and lands on another fungi part.
I know that conidia are asexual , but they still refer to microconidia as spermatia because they play a role in the sexual cyclus of fungi.
about the ref:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/h99gq5628rmxxqut/
http://www.php.wur.nl/UK/Research/Botrytis/
and this book : Botrytis: Biology, Pathology And Control
they all speak off spermatia etc..
They do and the term is fanciful - and thats being kind. The "they" here is a few sites and even fewer citations - so there's not alot of "all" to the they.
I've also seen the term used in the context of Neurospora. The whole thing is flimsy - anticipating some kind of "protoperithecia" that is "fertilized" by the "flying" conidia. It's bull.
I don't care about the "why" - it may simply be career advancement.
I've also seen the term used in the context of Neurospora. The whole thing is flimsy - anticipating some kind of "protoperithecia" that is "fertilized" by the "flying" conidia. It's bull.
I don't care about the "why" - it may simply be career advancement.
I agree that there are no male and female structure.
However I also agree on the use of a term like spermatia.
I think they simply use the term to make a distinction between either sexual reproduction (then they call it a spermatia) and asexuel production (then they simply call it a micronidia or propagule)
So I simply think its a matter of "giving the thing a name".
But I am not sure about this, so thats why I asked.
The structures are conidia and not sexual structures whatever fanciful name they call it. I'm not aware they are the product of meiosis - have you seen this confirmed? That is pivotal.
Phenomena of fungal cells merging asexually is common and this is probably a variation on that. These guys offer merger of multiple asexual structures and claim the product is a sexual event.
Phenomena of fungal cells merging asexually is common and this is probably a variation on that. These guys offer merger of multiple asexual structures and claim the product is a sexual event.
Jorge1907,
what about adding microconida to sclerotia, and after this you are getting Ascomata (which are without this procedure very very rarely produced) ????? And I am sure you are aware that Ascomata contain ascospores, which are a product of sexual recombination in fungi????
Conidia are produced asexually, but this does not exclude that they could act in sexual reproduction. Do you have references that give proove, that asexually produced conidia can not play a role in the sexual reproduction of fungi (which are not "bull" like you would say), maybe you know things I don't, so please share!
@ pito: spermatia was probably adapted from the life cycle of rust fungi (Pucciniomycotina).....
If you are working with this stuff: maybe Jorge1907 is right and its just a variation of asexual reproduction, but as these terms seem to be quite established within Botrytis-research, I would use them!
Conidia directly developing a mycelium are just plain conidia. But if they are involved in sexual reproduction (seen buy the developement of fruiting bodies or ascospores) they can act as spermatia....and usually the bigger structure is given the "female" name and the smaller the "male" name like it is in mammals! But as Jorge1907 mentioned, fungal mating types are quite komplex and can not be reduced to our classical understanding of "male" and "female"!