Abstract
Defined as fungi that grow better at 25 °C than at 45 °C, thermophilic fungi were discovered more than a century ago. Nevertheless, little is known about the natural roles and distribution of these organisms. Although common in “sun-heated soils” and other natural substrates they have most often been recovered from manmade composts, and one hypothesis suggests that they evolved as decomposers in natural compost. This hypothesis suggests that propagules found outside compost have been dispersed by wind, an idea that seems nearly impossible to reconcile with their high frequency and broad distribution. In this chapter we briefly review the biology, history, and evolution of thermophilic fungi. We also present new results from ongoing efforts to map the range of habitats from which thermophilic fungi can be obtained. We have isolated thermophilic fungi over small and large spatial scales. Our surveys have focused on soil, litter, and herbivore droppings sampled from diverse ecosystems (deserts, grasslands, and forests) across eight western states, Mexico and Canada—from southern deserts to alpine ecosystems in Colorado and Montana. Our results show that thermophiles can be isolated readily from all of these substrates at nearly every latitude and elevation. We observed that the success of recovering thermophilic fungi from soil decreases with increasing latitude. During this survey, we also discovered that several species of thermophilic fungi can survive storage in soil samples for several years at −80 °C.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
1 Introduction
The goal of this chapter is twofold. First, we briefly review the history, basic biology, evolution, and industrial relevance of thermophilic fungi. Second, we address ongoing questions concerning the ecology of these organisms. In the past two decades, several excellent reviews have considered one or more of these topics (Oliveira and Rodrigues, this volume; Maheshwari et al. 2000; Mouchacca 2000a, b; Salar and Aneja 2007; Salar 2018). Here, we give particular attention to topics for which there has been some difference of opinion. These include a discussion of the definition of thermophily as it pertains to fungi and an evaluation of the types of microhabitats that are most relevant to the growth and distribution of these organisms. We argue that the microenvironments capable of supporting the growth of thermophilic fungi are widespread and often transient. In the latter context, we present the results of a recent previously unpublished survey of thermophilic fungi in diverse ecosystems of the western United States, Mexico, and Canada.
Definition. While thermophilic fungi do not grow at the extreme temperatures that are optimal for many thermophilic bacteria and archaea, they are the only eukaryotes demonstrated to grow at temperatures up to 60 °C (Tansey and Brock 1972). In practice, the term thermophilic, when applied to fungi, has sometimes been used quite loosely, and there is no universally accepted definition. Cooney and Emerson (1964), who wrote the first monograph for thermophilic fungi, considered such fungi to be those that have “a maximum temperature for growth at or above 50 °C and a minimum temperature for growth at or above 20 °C.” We have adopted a simpler working definition (Powell et al. 2012; Hutchinson et al. 2016). Namely, we consider a thermophilic fungus to be one that grows better at 45 °C than at 25 °C. One practical advantage of this latter definition is that it permits easy evaluation of fungal isolates.
Less consistent in the literature is the distinction between thermotolerance and thermophily. Cooney and Emerson considered thermotolerant fungi to be those with a maximum growth temperature near 50 °C while having a minimum growth temperature “well below” 20 °C. This definition is quite restrictive on the high end. Although it permits inclusion of the ubiquitous Aspergillus fumigatus, it excludes many fungi, for example, the model organism Neurospora crassa, that can grow at temperatures near or above 45 °C while having temperature optima below 50 °C. From a practical point of view, 45 °C is a temperature that is lethal or stress-inducing for most organisms, and we consider fungi that can grow at 45 °C to be thermotolerant.
History. The first reported thermophilic fungus, Rhizomucor pusillus, was isolated from bread by Lindt in the 1880s (Lindt 1886). Later, Tsiklinsky (1899) identified another thermophile, Thermomyces lanuginosus, growing on potatoes. In the early 1900s, Hugo Miehe (1907a, b; 1930a, b) published a series of papers derived from his investigations regarding the role of living organisms in the self-heating of stored hay. One result was the description of two new thermophiles, Thermoidium sulfureum (Malbranchea cinnamomea) and Thermoascus aurantiacus.
The study of these organisms languished for several decades before they were discovered to be part of the composting process associated with the production of rubber from the desert shrub Guayule (Parthenium argentatum). During World War II, the United States and allies lost access to rubber-plant plantations in the Pacific, which hindered the manufacture of rubber badly needed for the war effort. The US Department of Agriculture had a large-scale program aimed at developing Guayule latex as an alternative source of rubber. One of the experimental approaches involved chopping the shrub into pieces and composting it in piles. These “rets” were strongly thermogenic as a result of microbial activity, and the characterization of the organisms involved led to the identification of new and previously recognized thermophilic fungi (Cooney and Emerson 1964). The single publication by Allen and Emerson (1949) that resulted from the study of the effects of microbial activity on rubber quality did not detail the organisms involved in the process. The importance of the Guayule project in the “rediscovery” of thermophilic fungi as the basis for the studies that led to the Cooney and Emerson (1964) monograph of thermophilic fungi was recounted in the latter.
Industry. In recent decades, much of the attention given to thermophilic fungi has been in industry. This interest stems in large part from the ability of these fungi to yield thermostable enzymes, especially those that are cellulose-active. These enzymes function at temperatures high enough to exclude contaminants, and they accelerate reactions that convert cellulose into fermentable sugars for bioethanol (Beckner et al. 2011; Rubin 2008; van den Brink et al. 2013). To understand the genetic mechanisms of thermophily and thermostability, the genomes of several fungal thermophiles have been sequenced (Berka et al. 2011).
2 Evolution
Of the more than 100 thousand described species of fungi, only approximately 50 species are thermophilic, representing a small fraction of the 2.2–3.8 million estimated fungal species (Salar and Aneja 2007; Hawksworth and Lücking 2017). Thermophilic fungi are known from two phyla, the Ascomycota and the Mucoromycota. In the Ascomycota, thermophiles are restricted to the orders Sordariales, Eurotiales, and Onygenales. Thermophiles in the Mucoromycota occur in the Mucorales (Salar 2018) and a recently created order, the Calcarisporiellales (Hirose et al. 2012; Morgenstern et al. 2012; Tedersoo et al. 2018). The order Mucorales contains two families with thermophiles, the Rhizopodaceae and the Lichtheimiaceae (Hoffmann et al. 2013). The Calcarisporiellales contains the thermophilic species Calcarisporiella thermophile. In the Sordariales, all known thermophilic species belong to the family Chaetomiaceae, which contains the greatest diversity of thermophilic fungi (Morgenstern et al. 2012). Among the Eurotiales, two families are considered to possess thermophilic members, the Trichocomaceae and the Thermoascaceae (Houbraken et al. 2014, 2016). A sole species of thermophilic fungus, Malbranchea cinnamomea, is found in the Onygenales (Morgenstern et al. 2012). Thermophilic Basidiomycota have been described by Straatsma et al. (1994) and Fergus (1971) but these species have either not been confirmed to be thermophilic or, as in the case of Myriococcum thermophilum, have been found to belong in the Ascomycota instead (Morgenstern et al. 2012; Koukol 2016).
Taxonomy for thermophilic fungi is in a state of considerable flux (Mouchacca 2000b; Oliveira et al. 2015; Natvig et al. 2015). This results in part from the fact that under the “One Fungus = One Name” convention recently adopted by the International Code of Nomenclature for Algae, Fungi, and Plants, the names for many thermophiles in the fungal kingdom need to be revised (Oliveira et al. 2015). This convention requires that the asexual and sexual nomenclature be unified and that a single name be assigned to a single species. In addition to name changes that have been required by changes in nomenclatural codes, in many cases, thermophilic fungi have simply been misclassified because of the failure to identify correct taxonomic affinities. The genus Myceliophthora provides examples of name changes required by new nomenclatural rules and by molecular phylogenetic studies that reveal true relationships (van den Brink et al. 2012). For example, the species recently recognized as Myceliophthora heterothallica was previously known under the teleomorphic names Theilavia heterothallica and Corynascus heterothallicus. To add to the confusion, as T. heterothallica, this species was once thought to be the teleomorph of Chrysosporium thermophilum, now recognized as M. thermophila (von Klopotek 1976; Hutchinson et al. 2016; van den Brink et al. 2012). A similar case exists for Rasamsonia, a genus erected to accommodate teleomorphs of Geosmithia and Talaromyces species, which were improperly identified (Houbraken et al. 2012). As a final example, the genus Mycothermus was recently erected to accommodate fungal strains previously known as Scytalidium thermophilum, placed in a genus (Scytalidium) that is appropriate for organisms in a different fungal class (Natvig et al. 2015).
3 Ecology
Despite advances in industry and genetics , comparatively little is known about the natural role and distribution of thermophilic fungi. Although commonly isolated from compost, these fungi are known to exhibit a variety of lifestyles, including as animal and plant associates and as saprotrophs (Salar 2018). For example, the thermophilic species Myceliophthora thermophila was identified as an endophyte of foliar tissue from a desert tree, Parkinsonia microphylla (Massimo et al. 2015). Another thermophile, Rhizomucor pusillus, has been reported to cause human infections, especially in immune-compromised individuals (St-Germain et al. 1993; Andrey et al. 2017). Cooney and Emerson (1964) noted that thermophilic fungi often remain unrecognized in culture when moderate incubation temperatures are used. As such, it may be that many thermophilic fungi remain undescribed.
A debate exists regarding how broadly distributed are the habitats in which thermophilic fungi can thrive. One hypothesis suggests that most thermophilic fungi are specialists of insulated compost-like substrates and that the presence of these fungi in soil and other non-compost substrates represents dispersal of aerial propagules (Maheshwari et al. 2000). Support for this idea has been presented for Thermomyces lanuginosus , which though common in soil was not competitive with mesophilic and thermotolerant fungi in soil microcosm experiments performed under fluctuating temperature regimes, unless temperatures were maintained above 40 °C. In addition, spores of T. lanuginosus failed to germinate in soil under conditions favorable for growth (Rajasekaran and Maheshwari 1993).
On the other hand, it is possible to wonder if understanding the role of thermophilic fungi in soil requires consideration of specific microhabitats and substrates suitable for growth. The proportion of physiologically active microorganisms in soil can be small compared to the total microbial biomass, and the level of activity for a microorganism or microbial group is dependent on substrate availability (Blagodatskaya and Kuzyakov 2013). Moreover, microcosm experiments performed with only mesophilic “soil” fungi demonstrate that the performance of one species relative to another is substrate dependent (e.g., Deacon et al. 2006). Therefore, while previous studies have reported thermophiles from diverse compost or pseudo-compost materials such as animal nests, manure compost, mushroom compost, and self-heating hay bales (Fergus and Sinden 1969; Tansey 1971, 1973, 1975, 1977; Tiquia 2005), it is likely that even a small 5-cm mass of leaf litter can be sufficiently insulated, moist and solar-heated to encourage growth of thermophilic fungi (Subrahmanyam 1999). Indeed, recent studies of arid ecosystems (where sizeable composts are rare, if not absent), including the Sevilleta Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) site in New Mexico, have demonstrated that thermophilic fungi are common in certain microhabitats (Powell et al. 2012). We recovered isolates from a variety of substrates including soil, biological soil crusts, leaf litter, and herbivore droppings. While these and other previous studies have shed light on microhabitats and distributions, the extent to which thermophilic fungi exhibit habitat specificity is unclear, as is the prevalence of thermophilic fungi on a regional scale.
Microhabitats Suitable for the Growth of Thermophilic Fungi Are Common in Diverse Ecosystems. Although the early studies of thermophilic fungi examined substrates that were self-heating as a result of microbial activity (Miehe 1907a, b; Cooney and Emerson 1964), soil and other substrates can achieve temperature and moisture conditions suitable for thermophiles as a result of solar gain (Tansey and Jack 1976; Powell et al. 2012). In reality, soil, litter, and herbivore droppings in temperate ecosystems often reach temperatures at or above those suitable for thermophilic fungi. In an experiment designed to follow the succession of thermophiles in a natural setting, we monitored temperatures in the droppings of three herbivores (elk, oryx, and rabbit) over a period of approximately 1 year (Fig. 4.1) at the Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge. Even during winter months, daytime temperatures were often near or above 40 °C. In warmer months, daytime temperatures often reached 60–75 °C, temperatures at which fungal growth has ceased. In a single 24-h period, temperatures could swing from 15 °C to above 60 °C (Fig. 4.1). Droppings in this environment therefore represent an extreme microhabitat with dramatic and rapid changes in temperature and moisture. Thermophilic fungi are common in this microenvironment, and they participate in decomposition along with a complex community of bacteria, non-thermophilic fungi, and microfauna.
4 A Survey of Thermophilic Fungi from Across the Western United States
In a previously unpublished study, we surveyed thermophilic fungi in soils, plant litter, and herbivore droppings from a wide range of latitudes, elevations, and distinct climatic regions across sites from central Mexico to southern Canada. One goal was to evaluate the extent to which these fungi are common in locations where the opportunities for natural compost are rare. A second goal was to evaluate whether there exist geographical, latitudinal, or substrate differences in the distributions of major thermophile groups. Our sampling focused on soil, litter, and herbivore droppings. In addition, deep-frozen (−80 °C) rhizosphere soil samples collected from under blue grama grass (Bouteloua gracilis) were tested for the presence of thermophilic fungi.
Experimental Approach. Samples were collected in two phases. From May through June of 2008, 10 samples of rhizosphere soil were collected from each of five stands of Bouteloua gracilis in western North America as part of a separate study of root-associated fungi (Herrera et al. 2010). Soils were transported from the field on ice within 48 h and ultimately stored at −80 °C. These samples were plated in January of 2013. In a second effort, soil, herbivore droppings, and leaf litter samples were collected from each of 10 locations in the western United States between March 2012 and May 2013 (Fig. 4.2, Table 4.1). These samples were stored at 4–5 °C for no more than 4 days before plating.
All samples were plated onto malt extract agar (MEA) with 50 μg/mL ampicillin (to exclude bacteria) and incubated up to 10 days at 50 °C (see Bustamante 2006). Approximately 0.5–1.0 g of substrate was used for each plate. Rhizosphere soils from the Herrera et al. (2010) study were plated in replicates of 3. Resulting colonies from all cultures were then sub-cultured to obtain axenic isolates.
A cetyl trimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) DNA extraction procedure modified from Winnepenninckx et al. (1993) was used to isolate DNA from cultures, using methods previously described (Hutchinson et al. 2016). DNA was amplified by PCR of the ribosomal internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region using the fungal-specific primers ITS4 and ITS1F (White et al. 1990; Gardes and Bruns 1993). Each reaction consisted of 6.5 μL ExTaq polymerase (Takara, Mountain View, CA), 1 μL of each (5 μM) primers, 2 μL of 2% bovine serum albumin (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO), 2 μL milliQ purified water, and 1 μL of template DNA, for a total of 13.5 μL. The following thermocycler settings were used: 95 °C for 5 min, 30 cycles at 94 °C for 30 s, annealing at 50 °C for 30 s, and extension at 72 °C for 45 s, followed by a final extension of 72 °C for 7 min. After PCR, reactions were purified by an enzyme procedure using the ExoSAP-IT kit (Affymetrix, Santa Clara, CA) and manufacturer’s specifications.
Amplicons were Sanger sequenced with a BigDye Terminator v3.1 Cycle Sequencing kit (Applied Biosystems) in 10 μL reactions containing 0.5 μL BigDye Terminator v3.1, 2 μL of 5X Sequencing Buffer (Life Technologies/Applied Biosystems, Carlsbad, CA) 1 μL of 3 μM primer, and 5.5 μL of milliQ water. A BigDye STeP protocol was used with the following parameters: 96 °C for 60 s followed by 15 cycles of 96 °C for 10 s, 50 °C for 5 s, and 60 °C for 1 min 15 s; then 5 cycles of 96 °C for 10 s, 50 °C for 5 s, and 60 °C for 1 min30 s; and a final 5 cycles of 96 °C for 10 s, 50 °C for 5 s, 60 °C for 2 min/s (Platt et al. 2007).
Chromatogram files for the forward and reverse reads were edited and assembled into contigs using Sequencher v5.1 (Gene Codes, Ann Arbor MI). To determine the overall species richness among the isolates, ITS sequences were assembled into Operational Taxonomic Units (OTUs) using UPARSE 9.0 (Edgar 2013). OTU cutoffs were set to 97% identity. To obtain taxonomic information, the resulting OTUs were then queried at National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) GenBank with Basic Local Alignment Search Tool Nucleotide (BLASTN) searches using the option to exclude uncultured and environmental samples.
Phylogenetic Analyses. ITS sequences were aligned in MUSCLE implemented through the European Bioinformatics Institute web interface (Edgar 2004; Li et al. 2015). Alignments were then visualized and trimmed in AliView v1.2.1 (Larsson 2014). Reference sequences from GenBank were included as a comparison to the newly acquired sequences, and type strains were selected as references when possible (Tables 4.2 and 4.3). Trees were constructed with the Randomized Axelerated Maximum Likelihood (RaxML) program v7.3.2 using 1000 bootstrap replicates (Stamatakis 2006). Because ITS sequences align poorly across distant phylogenetic groups, we built separate trees for each of the three orders to which the sequences were classified. Trees were visualized and edited with Mesquite v2.75 (Maddison and Maddison 2010).
Results. Thermophilic and thermotolerant fungi were recovered from every substrate type and nearly every location. Notably, propagules of thermophilic fungi from the rhizosphere soil were also able to survive storage at −80 °C for nearly 5 years. Sixty-two total isolates were recovered. After excluding duplicates from the same sample, 55 isolates were characterized at the sequence level, resulting in 14 putative OTUs , 10 genera, and 13 known species. The identity of each of the OTUs is summarized in Table 4.2, and relationships among the isolates are shown in Fig. 4.3. Most isolates fell into the fungal orders Eurotiales (34 isolates) and Sordariales (17 isolates). Only 4 isolates belonged to the Mucorales, and no isolates from the Onygenales were identified. The lack of isolates from the Onygenales may owe to the types of substrates and media used, as this group of fungi is known to be keratinophilic (Sharpton et al. 2009). The most common species was Thermomyces lanuginosis, represented by 16 isolates, followed by Aspergillus fumigatus, represented by 8 isolates, and Chaetomium thermophilum var. dissitum, represented by 6 isolates.
Several of the isolates were from species viewed as thermotolerant rather than thermophilic. Mouchacca (2000a) suggests that A. fumigatus, A. nidulans, and C. jodhpurense have been erroneously reported as thermophiles when they actually possess lower temperature optima than true thermophiles. Additionally, Thielavia gigaspora is a thermotolerant species previously isolated in Egypt (Moustafa and Abdel-Azeem 2008). Mouchacca (2000a) also reported Rhizopus microsporus as a misattributed thermophile, but (Peixoto-Nogueira et al. 2008) demonstrated that isolates grow optimally at 45 °C. Overall, thermotolerant species represented 29% of all of our isolates. Excluding the thermotolerant species, there were 25 isolates from the Eurotiales and 14 from the Sordariales.
Independent-samples Welch’s t-tests were employed to compare elevation and latitude specificity for thermophilic isolates in the Eurotiales and Sordariales. Because the Mucorales were comparatively rare, they were not included in statistical analyses. For elevation, there was no significant difference between the distributions of Eurotiales and Sordariales (MEUROTIALES = 2038.28 m, SD = 900.51; MSORDARIALES = 1765 m, SD = 823.66; t(29) = 0.96, p = 0.05). For latitude, again, there was no significant difference between the distributions of Eurotiales and Sordariales (MEUROTIALES = 38.79°, SD = 16.35; MSORDARIALES = 41.44°, SD = 28.92; t(18) = −0.32, p = 0.05).
In terms of substrate preference, thermophilic samples in Eurotiales were most frequently isolated from litter (44%), while for samples in the Sordariales, the top sources were droppings (35.71%) and top soil (35.71%). Overall, the most thermophilic isolates originated from litter substrates (35.9%), followed by droppings (30.7%), soil (20%), and finally rhizosphere, which represented 12.8% of the samples.
For the soils collected in 2008 and stored at −80 °C, there appeared to be a latitudinal gradient in terms of the success of platings. Just over half (62.5%) of soils collected in Saskatchewan, Canada, were positive for thermophiles, compared to 80% of soils from Custer, South Dakota; 86.7% from Socorro, New Mexico; 93.9% from Janos (Chihuahua), Mexico; and 89.7% from Ojuelos (Jalisco), Mexico. With the exception of the soils from Janos (which showed a higher percentage than Ojuelos to the south), plating success declined with increasing latitude. In pairwise comparisons, plating success for Saskatchewan was an outlier, and significantly different from all other locations except South Dakota according to a Pearson’s N-1 chi-square test [χ2SOUTHDAKOTA(1,N = 54) = 2.00, p = 0.16; χ2NEWMEXICO(1,N = 54) = 4.20, p = 0.04; χ 2JALISCO(1,N = 63) = 6.60, p = 0.003; χ2CHIHUAHUA (1,N = 57) = 8.63, p = 0.01]. No other pairwise comparisons were significantly different.
Discussion. Our results indicate that thermophilic fungi are readily isolated from various substrates, from elevations as low as 40 m above sea level to as high as 3951 m and from a great range of latitudes between Mexico and Canada. We observed no correlation between phylogeny and environment. Specifically, isolates from the Eurotiales and Sordariales did not differ significantly for substrate preference, elevation, or latitude. Even within a single OTU cluster, constituent sequences were derived from diverse locations and substrates. For example, OTU1 (Thermomyces lanuginosus) represents isolates from as far south as Ojuelos, Jalisco, to as far north as the Beartooth Highway in Wyoming. This cluster also consisted of multiple isolates from every substrate type and of elevations from 315 m to above timberline at 3951 m. Indeed, at the resolution of OTUs at the 97% level, there appears to be no specificity of thermophilic fungi to a particular habitat. It is possible, however, that the 97% cutoff is too generous and blurs the finer distinctions among the isolates. To develop a better sense of the phylogenetic relationships between the isolates, one might also collect data for functional DNA regions that are less variable and more reliable at predicting deeper levels of taxonomy.
Studies show that members of the Chaetomiaceae (Sordariales) are proficient in decomposing cellulosic biomass, so they are thought to associate with plant-based substrates in nature (Ames 1963; Mehrotra and Aneja 1990). They have been previously isolated from herbivore droppings, leaf litter, and even from live plants (Kerekes et al. 2013; Richardson 2001; Abou Alhamed and Shebany 2012). Chaetomiaceae are also prevalent in composts (Cooney and Emerson 1964; Kane and Mullins 1973; Straatsma et al. 1994). For example, using an ITS barcoding approach, Neher et al. (2013) showed Chaetomium species to be dominant members of the fungal OTUs across all of the compost recipes they tested, especially in the earlier stages of composting. As discussed previously, composts have been proposed as the primary habitats for thermophilic fungi, with the suggestion that specimens found on other substrates are likely inactive propagules dispersed from compost (Rajasekaran and Maheshwari 1993). However, soil is also sufficiently rich in cellulose as it is one of the top sources of complex carbon polymers (Kögel-Knabner 2002; López-Mondéjar et al. 2016). Thus, it is perhaps unsurprising that many thermophilic species in the Chaetomiaceae have been identified from soil (Tansey and Jack 1976; Pan et al. 2010; Powell et al. 2012). Mesophilic Cheatomiaceae have been demonstrated to be both present and active in the soil. Using Stable Isotope Probing with 13C cellulose substrate, Eichorst and Kuske (2012) showed that species of Chaetomium actively decay cellulose added to soil. It is reasonable to believe that thermophilic members of the Chaetomiaceae do the same.
Species in the order Eurotiales are also commonly associated with decaying plant material. For example, the well-known fungus Aspergillus fumigatus is cited as one of the most frequent species recovered from composts and other plant debris (Taylor et al. 2015). A. fumigatus also shows a pan-global distribution, which Pringle et al. (2005) have suggested may be due to the role of humans in expanding composting processes. Another member of the Eurotiales, the thermophilic fungus Thermomyces lanuginosus also shows seemingly ubiquitous distribution. In our present study, it was the most frequently isolated taxon and derived from a variety of substrates and locations. Langarica-Fuentes et al. (2014) also found that along with Talaromyces thermophilus (another species in the Eurotiales), T. lanuginosus accounted for 65% of sequences obtained via 454′ barcoding of the fungal community in the middle and center of an in-vessel compost system. Similarly, it was the top isolate in studies of thermophilic fungi from soils in India (Maheshwari et al. 1987; Rajasekaran and Maheshwari 1993). Still, Rajasekaran and Maheshwari (1993) were unable to detect actively growing T. lanuginosus in soil with immunofluorescence assays. However, Hedger and Hudson (1974) reported that T. lanuginosus shows commensal interactions with cellulolytic fungal thermophiles (Chaetomium thermophile and Humicola insolens) and subsists on the sugar byproducts from cellulose decomposition. Thus, it may be that this species performs best in a consortium with cellulolytic thermophiles and requires other fungal partners to grow. If there is adequate cellulose in a given substrate, cellulose degrading fungi can likely support commensal fungi, thus providing a niche in soil for species such as T. lanuginosus.
Soils undergo diurnal temperature fluctuations to upwards of 70 °C, so soil is a suitably hot substrate for thermophilic fungi (Powell et al. 2012). Leaf litter and herbivore droppings also experience similar swings in temperature (Fig. 4.1). In addition, thermophilic fungi are more readily isolated from soil after precipitation events, indicating that they are responsive to changes in the soil environment (Powell et al. 2012). Taken together, these factors suggest that thermophilic fungi can inhabit many microhabitats, including soil, provided that they have access to moisture and appropriate temperatures.
5 Conclusions
Much remains to be learned about the ecology of thermophilic fungi. Although it has long been known that these fungi can be isolated from soil, herbivore droppings, and other substrates, most studies have focused on composted plant materials in either natural or anthropogenic settings. In contrast, our surveys have shown that nearly all ecosystems provide thermophilic fungi with at least transient access to decomposing plant material, and sufficiently high temperature and moisture (see Fig. 4.1). Our results suggest that such transient microenvironments might be the primary habitats. At the level of resolution provided by ribosomal ITS sequences, there is little evidence for habitat specialization or geographical restrictions among thermophiles. Thermophiles in the Ascomycota are distributed across three orders, with several phylogenetic lineages within each order. We found members of most lineages across wide latitudes, elevations, substrate, and ecosystem types, ranging from desert shrublands and grasslands to montane forests to northern grasslands .
6 Future Perspectives
Thermophilic fungi have provided many contributions to science, both in their utility to industry and in the advancement of basic understanding in biology. Information on the distribution of thermophilic fungi, and a better grasp on their natural diversity and roles in the environment, will help further the field of microbial ecology and will aid in bioprospecting new, potentially useful organisms for biotechnology. Although next-generation sequencing methods can detect thermophilic fungi in environmental samples, many thermophiles have close mesophilic relatives, and as a result, the assessment of thermophily often requires evaluation based on growth in the laboratory rather than on sequence analysis alone. Accordingly, it is likely that fungal thermophiles are overlooked in environmental sequencing data. Similarly, culture-based methods of community analysis often employ only temperatures suitable for mesophiles, and temperatures optimal for the growth of thermophiles or psychrophiles are not considered. Moreover, it is possible that certain fungal thermophiles are unculturable and are only detected as DNA in environmental surveys. These circumstances thereby result in a need for a unified, comprehensive approach to appraising and understanding not only the biology of thermophilic fungi, but also the ecology of non-thermophilic microbes that share environments with thermophiles.
References
Abou Alhamed MF, Shebany YM (2012) Endophytic Chaetomium globosum enhances maize seedling copper stress tolerance. Plant Biol 14:859–863
Allen PJ, Emerson R (1949) Guayule rubber: microbiological improvement by shrub retting. Ind Eng Chem 41:346–365
Ames LM (1963) A monograph of the Chaetomiaceae. US Army Res Dev Ser No. 2, Washington, DC, pp 9–125
Andrey DO, Kaiser L, Emonet S, Erard V, Chalandon Y, Van Delden C (2017) Cerebral rhizomucor infection treated by posaconazole delayed-release tablets in an allogeneic stem cell transplant recipient. Int J Infect Dis 55:24–26
Beckner M, Ivey ML, Phister TG (2011) Microbial contamination of fuel ethanol fermentations. Lett Appl Microbiol 53:387–394
Berka RM, Grigoriev IV, Otillar R, Salamov A, Grimwood J, Reid I, Ishmael N, John T, Darmond C, Moisan MC, Henrissat B, Coutinho PM, Lombard V, Natvig DO, Lindquist E, Schmutz J, Lucas S, Harris P, Powlowski J, Bellemare A, Taylor D, Butler G, de Vries RP, Allijn IE, van den Brink J, Ushinsky S, Storms R, Powell AJ, Paulsen IT, Elbourne LD, Baker SE, Magnuson J, Laboissiere S, Clutterbuck AJ, Martinez D, Wogulis M, de Leon AL, Rey MW, Tsang A (2011) Comparative genomic analysis of the thermophilic biomass-degrading fungi Myceliophthora thermophila and Thielavia terrestris. Nat Biotechnol 29:922–929
Blagodatskaya E, Kuzyakov Y (2013) Active microorganisms in soil: critical review of estimation criteria and approaches. Soil Biol Biochem 67:192–211
Bustamante J (2006) Thermophilic fungi on the Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge. PhD diss., University of New Mexico
Cooney DG, Emerson R (1964) Thermophilic fungi: an account of their biology, activities and classification. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, CA, p 188
Deacon LJ, Pryce-Miller EJ, Frankland JC, Bainbridge BW, Moore PD, Robinson CH (2006) Diversity and function of decomposer fungi from a grassland soil. Soil Biol Biochem 38:7–20
Edgar RC (2004) MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res 32:1792–1797
Edgar RC (2013) UPARSE: highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads. Nat Methods 10:996
Eichorst SA, Kuske CR (2012) Cellulose-responsive bacterial and fungal communities in geographically and edaphically different soils identified using stable isotope probing. Appl Environ Microbiol 78:2316–2327
Fergus CL (1971) The temperature relationships and thermal resistance of a new thermophilic Papulaspora from mushroom compost. Mycologia 63:426–431
Fergus CL, Sinden JW (1969) A new thermophilic fungus from mushroom compost: Thielavia thermophila spec. nov. Can J Bot 47:1635–1637
Gardes M, Bruns TD (1993) ITS primers with enhanced specificity for basidiomycetes-application to the identification of mycorrhizae and rusts. Mol Ecol 2:113–118
Hawksworth D, Lücking R (2017) Fungal diversity revisited: 2.2 to 3.8 million species. Microbiol Spectr 5:1–17
Hedger JN, Hudson HJ (1974) Nutritional studies of Thermomyces lanuginosus from wheat straw compost. Trans Br Mycol Soc 62:129–143
Herrera J, Khidir HH, Eudy DM, Porras-Alfaro A, Natvig DO, Sinsabaugh RL (2010) Shifting fungal endophyte communities colonize Bouteloua gracilis: effect of host tissue and geographical distribution. Mycologia 102:1012–1026
Hirose D, Degawa Y, Inaba S, Tokumasu S (2012) The anamorphic genus Calcarisporiella is a new member of the Mucoromycotina. Mycoscience 53:256–260
Hoffmann K, Pawłowska J, Walther G, Wrzosek M, De Hoog GS, Benny GL, Kirk PM, Voigt K (2013) The family structure of the Mucorales: a synoptic revision based on comprehensive multigene-genealogies. Persoonia 30:57–76
Houbraken J, Spierenburg H, Frisvad JC (2012) Rasamsonia, a new genus comprising thermotolerant and thermophilic Talaromyces and Geosmithia species. A Van Leeuw J Microb 101:403c421
Houbraken J, de Vries RP, Samson RA (2014) Modern taxonomy of biotechnologically important Aspergillus and Penicillium species. Adv Appl Microbiol 86:199–249
Houbraken J, Samson RA, Yilmaz N (2016) Taxonomy of Aspergillus, Penicillium and Talaromyces and its significance for biotechnology.Aspergillus and Penicillium in the Post-Genomic Era. Caister Academic Press, Norfolk, pp 1–15
Hutchinson MI, Powell AJ, Tsang A, O’Toole N, Berka RM, Barry K, Grigoriev IV, Natvig DO (2016) Genetics of mating in members of the Chaetomiaceae as revealed by experimental and genomic characterization of reproduction in Myceliophthora heterothallica. Fungal Genet Biol 86:9–19
Kane BE, Mullins JT (1973) Thermophilic fungi in a municipal waste compost system. Mycologia 65:1087–1100
Kerekes J, Kaspari M, Stevenson B, Nilsson RH, Hartmann M, Amend A, Bruns TD (2013) Nutrient enrichment increased species richness of leaf litter fungal assemblages in a tropical forest. Mol Ecol 22:2827–2838
Kögel-Knabner I (2002) The macromolecular organic composition of plant and microbial residues as inputs to soil organic matter. Soil Biol Biochem 34:139–162
Koukol O (2016) Myriococcum revisited: a revision of an overlooked fungal genus. Plant Syst Evol 302:957–969
Langarica-Fuentes A, Zafar U, Heyworth A, Brown T, Fox G, Robson GD (2014) Fungal succession in an in-vessel composting system characterized using 454 pyrosequencing. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 88:296–308
Larsson A (2014) AliView: a fast and lightweight alignment viewer and editor for large datasets. Bioinformatics 30:3276–3278
Li W, Cowley A, Uludag M, Gur T, McWilliam H, Squizzato S, Park YM, Buso N, Lopez R (2015) The EMBL-EBI bioinformatics web and programmatic tools framework. Nucleic Acids Res 43:580–W584
Lindt W (1886) Mitteilungen über einige neue pathogene Shimmelpilze. Arch Exp Pathol Pharmakol 21:269–298
López-Mondéjar R, Zühlke D, Becher D, Riedel K, Baldrian P (2016) Cellulose and hemicellulose decomposition by forest soil bacteria proceeds by the action of structurally variable enzymatic systems. Sci Rep 6:25279
Maddison WP, Maddison DR (2010) Mesquite: a modular system for evolutionary analysis. 2011; Version 2.75. http://mesquiteproject.org
Maheshwari R, Kamalam PT, Balasubramanyam PV (1987) The biogeography of thermophilic fungi. Curr Sci 56:151–155
Maheshwari R, Bharadwaj G, Bhat MK (2000) Thermophilic fungi: their physiology and enzymes. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 64:461–488
Massimo NC, Devan MN, Arendt KR, Wilch MH, Riddle JM, Furr SH, Steen C, U’Ren JM, Sandberg DC, Arnold AE (2015) Fungal endophytes in aboveground tissues of desert plants: infrequent in culture, but highly diverse and distinctive symbionts. Microb Ecol 70:61–76
Mehrotra RS, Aneja KR (1990) An introduction to mycology. New Age International, New Delhi, pp 1–737
Miehe H (1907a) Die selbsterhitzung des Heus. Eine biologische studie. Gustav Fischer, Jena, pp 1–127
Miehe H (1907b) Thermoidium sulfureum n.g. n.sp., etin neuer Wärmepilz. Berichte der Deutsch Bot Ges 25:510–515
Miehe H (1930a) Die Wärmebildung von Reinkulturen im Hinblick auf die ätiologie der Selbsterhitzung pflanzlicher Stoffe. Arch Mikrobiol 1:78–118
Miehe H (1930b) Über die Selbsterhitzung des Heues. Arb Dtsch Landwirtsch Gesellsch Berlin 111:76–91
Morgenstern I, Powlowski J, Ishmael N, Darmond C, Marqueteau S, Moisan M, Quenneville G, Tsang A (2012) A molecular phylogeny of thermophilic fungi. Fungal Biol 116:489–502
Mouchacca J (2000a) Thermotolerant fungi erroneously reported in applied research work as possessing thermophilic attributes. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 16:869–880
Mouchacca J (2000b) Thermophilic fungi and applied research: a synopsis of name changes and synonymies. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 16:881–888
Moustafa A-WF, Abdel-Azeem AM (2008) Thielavia gigaspora, a new thermotolerant ascomycete from Egypt. Microbiol Res 163:441–444
Natvig DO, Taylor JW, Tsang A, Hutchinson MI, Powell AJ (2015) Mycothermus thermophilus gen. et comb. nov., a new home for the itinerant thermophile Scytalidium thermophilum (Torula thermophila). Mycologia 107:319–327
Neher DA, Weicht TR, Bates ST, Leff JW, Fierer N, Brayton KA (2013) Changes in bacterial and fungal communities across compost recipes, preparation methods, and composting times. PLoS One 8(11):e79512
Oliveira TB, Gomes E, Rodrigues A (2015) Thermophilic fungi in the new age of fungal taxonomy. Extremophiles 19:31–37
Pan WZ, Huang XW, Wei KB, Zhang CM, Yang DM, Ding JM, Zhang KG (2010) Diversity of thermophilic fungi in Tengchong Rehai National Park revealed by ITS nucleotide sequence analyses. J Microbiol 48:146–152
Peixoto-Nogueira SC, Sandrim VC, Guimarães LHS, Jorge JA, Terenzi HF, Polizeli MLTM (2008) Evidence of thermostable amylolytic activity from Rhizopus microsporus var. rhizopodiformis using wheat bran and corncob as alternative carbon source. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 31:329–334
Platt AR, Woodhall RW, George AL Jr (2007) Improved DNA sequencing quality and efficiency using an optimized fast cycle sequencing protocol. Biotechniques 43:58–62
Powell AJ, Parchert KJ, Bustamante JM, Ricken JB, Hutchinson MI, Natvig DO (2012) Thermophilic fungi in an aridland ecosystem. Mycologia 104:813–825
Pringle A, Baker DM, Platt JL, Wares JP, Latge JP, Taylor JW (2005) Cryptic speciation in the cosmopolitan and clonal human pathogenic fungus Aspergillus fumigatus. Evolution 59:1886–1899
Rajasekaran AK, Maheshwari R (1993) Thermophilic fungi: an assessment of their potential for growth in soil. J Biosci 18:345–354
Richardson MJ (2001) Diversity and occurrence of coprophilous fungi. Mycol Res 105:387–402
Rubin EM (2008) Genomics of cellulosic biofuels. Nature 454:841–845
Salar RK (2018) Thermophilic fungi: basic concepts and biotechnological applications. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 1–334
Salar RK, Aneja KR (2007) Thermophilic fungi: taxonomy and biogeography. J Agric Techonol 3:77–107
Sharpton TJ, Stajich JE, Rounsley SD, Gardner MJ, Wortman JR, Jordar VS, Maiti R, Kodira CD, Neafsey DE, Zeng Q, Hung CY (2009) Comparative genomic analyses of the human fungal pathogens Coccidioides and their relatives. Genome Res 19:1722–1731
Stamatakis A (2006) RAxML-VI-HPC: maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic analyses with thousands of taxa and mixed models. Bioinformatics 22:2688–2690
St-Germain G, Robert A, Ishak M, Tremblay C, Claveau S (1993) Infection due to Rhizomucor pusillus: report of four cases in patients with leukemia and review. Clin Infect Dis 16:640–645
Straatsma G, Samson RA, Olijnsma TW, Den Camp HJO, Gerrits JP, Van Griensven LJ (1994) Ecology of thermophilic fungi in mushroom compost, with emphasis on Scytalidium thermophilum and growth stimulation of Agaricus bisporus mycelium. Appl Environ Microbiol 60:454–458
Subrahmanyam A (1999) Ecology and distribution. In: Thermophilic moulds in biotechnology. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 13–42
Tansey MR (1971) Isolation of thermophilic fungi from self-heated, industrial wood chip piles. Mycologia 63:537–547
Tansey MR (1973) Isolation of thermophilic fungi from alligator nesting material. Mycologia 65:594–601
Tansey MR (1975) Fungi associated with growing stalagtites. Mycologia 67:171–172
Tansey MR (1977) Enrichment, isolation and assay of growth of thermophilic and thermotolerant fungi in lignin-containing media. Mycologia 69:463–476
Tansey MR, Brock TD (1972) The upper temperature limit for eukaryotic organisms. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 69:2426–2428
Tansey MR, Jack MA (1976) Thermophilic fungi in sun-heated soils. Mycologia 68:1061–1075
Taylor JW, Hann-Soden C, Branco S, Sylvain I, Ellison CE (2015) Clonal reproduction in fungi. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 112:8901–8908
Tedersoo L, Sánchez-Ramírez S, Kõljalg U, Bahram M, Döring M, Schigel D, May T, Ryberg M, Abarenkov K (2018) High-level classification of the Fungi and a tool for evolutionary ecological analyses. Fungal Divers 90:135–159
Tiquia SM (2005) Microbial community dynamics in manure composts based on 16S and 18S rDNA T-RFLP profiles. Environ Technol 26(10):1104–1114
Tsiklinsky P (1899) Sur les mucédinées thermophiles. Ann Inst Pasteur 13:500–505
van den Brink J, Samson RA, Hagen F, Boekhout T, de Vries RP (2012) Phylogeny of the industrial relevant, thermophilic genera Myceliophthora and Corynascus. Fungal Divers 52:197–207
van den Brink J, van Muiswinkel GCJ, Theelen B, Hinz SWA, de Vries RP (2013) Efficient plant biomass degradation by thermophilic fungus Myceliophthora heterothallica. Appl Environ Microbiol 79:1316–1324
von Klopotek A (1976) Thielavia heterothallica spec. nov., die perfekte Form von Chrysosporium thermophilum. Arch Microbiol 107:223–224
White TJ, Bruns T, Lee SJ, Taylor JW (1990) Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics. PCR Protoc 18:315–322
Winnepenninckx B, Backeljau T, Wachter R (1993) Complete small ribosomal subunit RNA sequence of the chiton (Lischke, 1873) (Mollusca, Polyplacophora). Nucleic Acids Res 21:1670–1670
Acknowledgements
This research was supported in part by a National Science Foundation award to the University of New Mexico (UNM) for the Sevilleta Long-Term Ecological Research program. We acknowledge support for DNA sequencing from the UNM Department of Biology’s Molecular Biology Facility. Data analysis was aided by computing resources of the UNM Center for Evolutionary & Theoretical Immunology (CETI) under National Institutes of Health grant P30GM110907, and the UNM Center for Advanced Research Computing, supported in part by the National Science Foundation.
Funding statement Sandia National Laboratories is a multimission laboratory managed and operated by National Technology and Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Honeywell International, Inc., for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-NA0003525.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hutchinson, M.I., Powell, A.J., Herrera, J., Natvig, D.O. (2019). New Perspectives on the Distribution and Roles of Thermophilic Fungi. In: Tiquia-Arashiro, S., Grube, M. (eds) Fungi in Extreme Environments: Ecological Role and Biotechnological Significance. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19030-9_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19030-9_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-19029-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-19030-9
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)