Taxonomic Implication of Hybridization of Penicillium Protoplasts

  • Jozef Anné
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NSSA, volume 102)


Protoplasts of distinct Penicillium species can be fused and their fusion products eventually give rise to interspecific heterokaryons and hybrids. The morphology, stability and segregation pattern of the heterokaryons and their nuclear fusion progenies varies depending on the species involved in the cross.

Fusions between related species resulted in heterokaryotic and diploid-like progeny resembling that of normal parasexual cycle. Heterokaryons produced between less related species were slowly growing or lethal and recombination rarely occurred. Such variation in viability and recombination ability of different interspecific fusion progeny imply gradations in somatic compatibility and genome homology between species and they suggest the applicability of interspecific protoplast fusion experiments in Penicillium taxonomy.


Interspecific Hybrid Somatic Hybridization Segregation Pattern Fusion Product Aspergillus Nidulans 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anné, J. 1977. Somatic hybridization between Penicillium species after induced fusion of their protoplasts. Agricultura 25: 1–117.Google Scholar
  2. Anné, J. 1982a. Genetic evidence for selective chromosome loss in interspecies hybrids from Penicillium chrysogenum +Google Scholar
  3. P. stoloniferum. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 14:191–196.Google Scholar
  4. ANNE, J. 1982b. Comparison of penicillins produced by inter- species hybrids from Penicillium chrysogenum. Eur. J. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 15: 41–46.Google Scholar
  5. Anné, J. 1983. Protoplasts of filamentous fungi in genetics and metabolite production. In “Protoplast 1983”, I. Potrykus, C.T. Harms, A. Hinnen, R. Hutter, P.J. King and R.D. Shillito, eds. Basel: Birkhauser Verlag. pp. 167–178.Google Scholar
  6. Anné, J. EYSSEN, H. 1978. Isolation of interspecies hybrids of Penicillium citrinum and P. cvaneo-fulvum following protoplast fusion. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 4: 87–90.Google Scholar
  7. ANNE, J., EYSSEN, H., DE SOMER, P. 1976. Somatic hybridization of Penicillium roqueforti with P. chrvsogenum after protoplast fusion. Nature, Londen 262: 719–721.Google Scholar
  8. ANNE, J. and PEBERDY, J.F. 1975. Conditions for induced fusion of fungal protoplasts in polyethylene glycol. Arch. Microbiol. 105: 201–205.Google Scholar
  9. Anné, J. and PEBERDY, J.F. 1976. Induced fusion of fungal protoplasts following treatment with polyethylene glycol. J. Gen. Microbiol. 92: 413–417.Google Scholar
  10. Anné, J. and PEBERDY, J.F. 1981. Characterisation of inter-species hybrids of Penicillium chrysogenum + P. roqueforti by iso-enzyme analysis. Trans. Br.Mycol. Soc. 77: 401408.Google Scholar
  11. CATEN, C.E. 1972. Vegetative incompatibility and cytoplasmic infection in fungi. J. Gen. Microbiol. 72: 221–229.Google Scholar
  12. CLAUSEN, J., KECK, D.D. and HIESEY, W.M. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy with examples from the Madiinae“. Publs. Carnegie Instn.No. 564.Google Scholar
  13. CROFT, J.H. 1985. Protoplast fusion and incompatibility in Aspergillus. In “Fungal Protoplasts: Their Uses in Biochemistry, Genetics and Physiology” J.F. Peberdy and L. Ferenczy eds. New York: Marcel Dekker, pp. 225–240.Google Scholar
  14. CROFT, J.H. and DALES. R.B.G. 1983. Interspecies somatic hybridization in Aspergillus. In “Protoplasts 1983” I. Potrykus, C.T. Harms. A. Hinnen, R. Hutter, P.J. King and R.D. Shillito eds. Basel: Birkhauser Verlag, pp. 179–186.Google Scholar
  15. CULLEN, D., SMALLEY, E.B. and DIMOND, R.L. 1983. Heterokaryosis in Fusarium tricinctum and F. sporotrichioides. J. Gen.Microbiol. 129: 3035–3041.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. DALES, R.B.G. and CROFT, J.H. 1977. Protoplast fusion and the isolation of heterokaryons and diploids from vegetatively incompatible strains of Aspergillus nidulans. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 1: 201–204.Google Scholar
  17. FERENCZY, L., KEVEI, F. and SZEGEDI, M. 1975. High-frequency fusion of fungal protoplasts. Experientia 31: 1028–1029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. HASTIE, A.C. 1970. Benlate-induced instability of Aspergillus diploids. Nature, London 226: 77.Google Scholar
  19. HASTIE, A.C. 1973. Hybridization of Verticillium albo-atrum and Verticillium dahliae. Trans. Br. mycol. Soc. 60: 511523.Google Scholar
  20. KEVEI, F. and PEBERDY, J.F. 1977. Interspecific hybridization between Aspergillus nidulans and Aspergillus rugulosus by fusion of somatic protoplasts. J. Gen. Microbiol. 102: 255Google Scholar
  21. KEVEI, F. and PEBERDY, J.F. 1984. Further studies on protoplast fusion and interspecific hybridization within the Aspergillus nidulans group. J.Gen. Microbiol. 130: 2229–2236.Google Scholar
  22. LEWIS, L.A. 1969. Genetic evidence for hybridization in an interspecific cross in the genus Sordaria. J.Gen. Microbiol. 59: 359–367.Google Scholar
  23. LHOAS, P. 1961. Mitotic recombination by treatment of Aspergillus niger with p-f luorophenylalanine. Nature, London 190: 744.Google Scholar
  24. LIANG, P. and LIU, H. 1982. Interspecific somatic hybridization between Penicillium patulum and Penicillium chrysogenum. I. Protoplast fusion hybrid development and induced segregation. Acta Microbiol. Sin. 22: 248–256.Google Scholar
  25. Peberdy, J.F., Eyssen, H. and Anne, J. 1977. Interspecific hybridization between Penicillium chrysogenum and P. cyaneo-fulvum following protoplast fusion. Mol. Gen.Genet. 157: 281–284.Google Scholar
  26. PITT, J.I. 1979. “The Genus Penicillium and its teleomorphic states Eupenicillium and Talaromyces. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  27. PONTECORVO, G. 1956. The parasexual cycle in fungi. Ann. Rev. Microbiol. 10: 393–400.Google Scholar
  28. RAPER, K.B. and THOM, C. 1949. “A Manual of the Penicillia” Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins.Google Scholar
  29. REYMOND, P. and FÈVRE, M. 1985. Recombination following protoplast fusion of Penicillium strains used in the dairy industry. Enzyme Microbiol. Technol. (in press).Google Scholar
  30. SAMSON, R.A., ECKARDT, C and ORTH, R. 1977a. The taxonomy of Penicillium species from fermented cheeses. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 43: 341–350.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. SAMSON, R.A., HADLOK, R. and STOLK, A.C. 1977b. A taxonomic study of the Penicillium chrysogenum series. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 43: 169–175.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. SAMSON, R.A., STOLK, A.C. and HADLOK, R. 1976. Revision of the subsection Fascículata of Penícillium and some allied species. Stud.Mycol., Baarn 11: 1–47.Google Scholar
  33. SERMONTI, G. 1969. “Genetics of antiobiotic producing microorganisms”. London: Wiley Interscience.Google Scholar
  34. TYPAS, M.A. and HEALE, J.B. 1976. Heterokaryosis and the role of cytoplasmic inheritance in dark resting structure formation in Verticillium spp. Molec. Gen. Genet. 146: 1726Google Scholar
  35. WHITTAKER, P.A. and LEACH, S.M. 1978. Interspecific hybrid production between the yeast Kluyveromvices lactis and K. fragilis by protoplast fusion. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 4: 31–34.Google Scholar
  36. ZIEGLER, M.L. and DAVIDSON, R.L. 1981. Elimination of mitochondrial elements and improved viability in hybrid cells. Somat. Cell Genet. 7: 73–88.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jozef Anné
    • 1
  1. 1.Rega InstituteKatholieke UniversiteitLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations