# Metabarcoding targeting the EF1 alpha region to assess Fusarium diversity on cereals

Anne-Laure Boutigny, Angelique Gautier, Ryan Basler, Florian Dauthieux, Stephen Leite, Romain Valade, Jaime Aguayo, Renaud Ioos, Valerie Laval

► To cite this version:

Anne-Laure Boutigny, Angelique Gautier, Ryan Basler, Florian Dauthieux, Stephen Leite, et al. Metabarcoding targeting the EF1 alpha region to assess Fusarium diversity on cereals. PLoS ONE, 2019, 14 (1), 10.1371/journal.pone.0207988. [hal-02625914](https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02625914)

HAL Id: hal-02625914

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02625914

Submitted on 26 May 2020

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
RESEARCH ARTICLE

# Metabarcoding targeting the EF1 alpha region to assess *Fusarium* diversity on cereals

Anne-Laure Boutigny¹*, Angélique Gautier²*, Ryan Basler², Florian Dauthieux², Stephen Leite², Romain Valade³, Jaime Aguayo¹, Renaud loos¹, Valérie Laval¹*

1 ANSES Laboratoire de la santé des végétaux, Unité de Mycologie, Malzéville, France, 2 INRA, UMR1290 BIOGER CPP, Thiverval-Grignon, France, 3 ARVALIS Institut du végétal, Thiverval-Grignon, France

* These authors contributed equally to this work.

* valerie.laval@inra.fr

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

## Abstract

Fusarium head blight (FHB) is a major cereal disease caused by a complex of *Fusarium* species. These species vary in importance depending on climatic conditions, agronomic factors or host genotype. In addition, *Fusarium* species can release toxic secondary metabolites. These mycotoxins constitute a significant food safety concern as they have health implications in both humans and animals. The *Fusarium* species involved in FHB differ in their pathogenicity, ability to produce mycotoxins, and fungicide sensitivity. Accurate and exhaustive identification of *Fusarium* species in planta is therefore of great importance. In this study, using a new set of primers targeting the *EF1α* gene, the diversity of *Fusarium* species on cereals was evaluated using Illumina high-throughput sequencing. The PCR amplification parameters and bioinformatic pipeline were optimized with mock and artificially infected grain communities and further tested on 65 field samples. *Fusarium* species were retrieved from mock communities and good reproducibility between different runs or PCR cycle numbers was observed. The method enabled the detection of as few as one single *Fusarium*-infected grain in 10,000. Up to 17 different *Fusarium* species were detected in field samples of barley, durum and soft wheat harvested in France. This new set of primers enables the assessment of *Fusarium* diversity by high-throughput sequencing on cereal samples. It provides a more exhaustive picture of the *Fusarium* community than the currently used techniques based on isolation or species-specific PCR detection. This new experimental approach may be used to show changes in the composition of the *Fusarium* complex or to detect the emergence of new *Fusarium* species as far as the *EF1α* sequence of these species show a sufficient amount of polymorphism in the portion of sequence analyzed. Information on the distribution and prevalence of the different *Fusarium* species in a given geographical area, and in response to various environmental factors, is of great interest for managing the disease and predicting mycotoxin contamination risks.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

### OPEN ACCESS

**Citation:** Boutigny A-L, Gautier A, Basler R, Dauthieux F, Leite S, Valade R, et al. (2019) Metabarcoding targeting the EF1 alpha region to assess *Fusarium* diversity on cereals. PLoS ONE 14(1): e0207988. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207988

**Editor:** Ulrich Melcher, Oklahoma State University, UNITED STATES

**Received:** October 2, 2017

**Accepted:** November 9, 2018

**Published:** January 11, 2019

**Copyright:** © 2019 Boutigny et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

**Data Availability Statement:** All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information file. Sanger DNA sequences are deposited in R-syst::fungi database (http://138.102.89.206/new_rsysyst_chp/). Metabarcoding data are deposited in the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) (accession number: PRJEB27158). QPCR protocol is published in https://doi.org/10.1101/272534.

**Funding:** This work was supported by AAP PSPE 2012 (Appel à proposition Pour et Sur le Plan Ecophytro de Juin 2012) www.onema.fr.
**Competing interests:** The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

**Introduction**

Fusarium head blight (FHB) is a major cereal disease causing severe damage to crops world-
wide including Europe. In addition to reducing grain yield and quality, the harvested grains
are often contaminated with mycotoxins that are a major health and food safety concern due
to their toxicity to humans and other animals. Up to 17 fungal species have been associated
with FHB [1], belonging either to the toxinogenic genus *Fusarium* or to the non-toxinogenic
genus *Microdochium*. For example, in France, the most common species associated with FHB
on soft wheat, durum wheat and barley are *F. graminearum sensu lato*, *F. avenaceum*, *F. poae*
and *M. nivale*, but species such as *F. tricinctum* and *F. culmorum* have also been found fre-
quently, along with less frequent species such as *F. equiseti*, *F. acuminatum*, *F. sambucinum*, *F.
sporotrichioides*, *F. verticillioides*, *F. heterosporum*, *F. subglutinans* and *F. oxysporum* [2, 3].
These *Fusarium* species are frequently associated with one another in the infected grains and
constitute a disease complex [4]. A similar species profile was also found in other European
countries, with local and temporal specificities due to several factors such as climatic condi-
tions, agronomic factors or host genotype [5–12].

Most *Fusarium* species are able to produce one or more mycotoxins with varying degrees of toxicity [5]. *Fusarium* species involved in FHB differ in their epidemiology, pathogenicity, ability to produce mycotoxins, and fungicide sensitivity. However, in a context of strong political and public awareness on the issues of food, health and environmental safety, the current trend is to reduce the quantities of fungicides used on crops, while maintaining efficient and sustainable agriculture. Climate change and evolving cultural farming practices may also contribute to the modification of *Fusarium* species distribution and in turn, mycotoxin content. Information on the distribution and predominance of the different *Fusarium* species in a given geographical area, and in response to various environmental and cultural factors, is therefore of great importance for managing the disease and evaluating mycotoxin contamination risks.

The analysis of *Fusarium* species composition in field samples is mainly performed using morphological identification or species-specific PCR-based methods [2, 13–15]. Morphological identification of *Fusarium* species is based on the microscopic observation of various criteria (mycelia, growth, macroconidia, microconidia, etc.), and requires time and high taxonomic skills. In addition, competition between species during the isolation step can lead to an underestimation of the occurrence of slower-growing species and of morphologically indistinguishable (i.e. cryptic) species, like the *Fusarium graminearum* species complex (FGSC) occurring on cereal spikes and grains. Species-specific PCR-based methods are reliable methods to detect/quantify various *Fusarium* species in field samples [13–15], but constitute a *priori* approaches restricted to known and specific targets. Likewise, target-specific PCR tests cannot be used to search for emerging, i.e. ill-described or yet undescribed, *Fusarium* species.

Typically, identification of fungal species can be achieved by analysis of one or a combina-
tion of DNA sequences [16], but still requires preliminary isolation of the fungus in pure cul-
ture before amplification by PCR and sequencing of the sequence. The development of more
efficient and more affordable high-throughput sequencing techniques now enables the genera-
tion of thousands of DNA sequences from environmental samples, without any isolation and
culturing step required. Metabarcoding, i.e. the simultaneous amplification and sequencing of
barcode sequences directly from environmental samples, has become a very popular and pow-
erful technique to explore the diversity of microorganisms, including slow-competing or
uncultivable taxa. Numerous studies have recently described or re-assessed fungal diversity in
samples as diverse as soil, rhizosphere, phyllosphere or field samples using metabarcoding
[17–24]. High-throughput sequencing methods are evolving at a fast pace, and Illumina MiSeq
sequencing is currently the most successful and extensively used technology globally due to its
low error rate and the lowest cost per million bases, with a high number of reads generated. It
also has a major advantage over other technologies by generating the longer DNA sequences
required for barcoding.

For fungi, the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region of rDNA has been recognized as the official barcode [16]. ITS sequences are largely represented in international databases [16, 25] and have often been used in fungal diversity studies [17, 26]. However, this barcode does not always enable species discrimination for some genera, in particular within *Fusarium* [27]. The translation elongation factor 1-α (*EF1α*) gene, which is involved in the protein translation machinery of eukaryotic cells, has proven to be efficient to distinguish related *Fusarium* species [28, 29], and was selected as the barcode of choice for the FUSARIUM-ID online identification tool [27]. Owing to its phylogenetic utility and the fact that it is present as a single copy in *Fusarium*, this gene appears to be a good candidate for *Fusarium* metabarcoding approaches.

In this study, two PCR primers were designed to amplify an informative region of the *EF1α* gene in the genus *Fusarium* and a bioinformatic pipeline was developed to assess overall *Fusarium* diversity in field samples by metabarcoding. Various control samples were used to validate the precision, sensitivity and robustness of the technique. As a proof of principle, analyses were performed on field samples and the results were compared with real-time PCR species-specific detection tests.

**Materials and methods**

**Biological samples**

**Mock communities.** Five different fungal mock communities were prepared (Table 1) to test the efficacy of the analytical process (i.e. PCR primer specificity, PCR reaction, bioinformatic pipeline) in differentiating *Fusarium* species. Mock communities 1 to 4 included various *Fusarium* species and other fungal plant pathogens from diverse taxonomic groups from the Anses, ARVALIS-Institut du végétal and INRA laboratory collections. All of the strains used in this publication were single-spored. They were characterised by morphological identification when possible and by sequencing of at least two genes: *ITS* and *EF1α* (S1 Fig). The sequences of *ITS*, *EF1α* and some of *RNA polymerase II* second largest subunit (RPB2) are publicly available on R-Syst::fungi database (http://138.102.89.206/new_rsyst_chp/, https://github.com/r-syst/databases/tree/master/r-syst::fungi). To search for these sequences enter internal lab id (available S1 Table column 2) in ‘advance search’ ‘strain’ and then click to view the results. Using Phylogeny.fr [30] and the following set up: MUSCLE alignment, Gblock curation, Maximum Likelihood PhyML, a phylogenic tree was built with *EF1α* sequences of our strains and *EF1α* sequences from collection strains of the Fusarium ID database [27] (S2 Fig). To confirm the name, the same way an *RPB2* phylogenic tree was obtained of some of our strains (S3 Fig). Mock community 5 contained 10 species in the FGSC previously obtained from the ARS culture collection (USDA ARS, Peoria, Illinois, USA). To prepare each mock community, 100 ng of DNA of each species were mixed in sterile water, except for mock community 5 for which 10 ng of DNA of each species were mixed.

**Artificially infected grains.** Infected grain communities were prepared (Table 2) to (i) test the efficacy of the analytical process to differentiate *Fusarium* species in complex samples, (ii) verify consistency between replicates and DNA extractions, and (iii) evaluate the sensitivity of the technique. Healthy wheat grains were infected *in vitro* with *Fusarium* strains from the ANSES, ARVALIS and INRA laboratory collections. Each *Fusarium* strain was grown on potato dextrose agar (PDA) plates for 7 to 10 days. Wheat grains were sterilized by autoclaving, and plated on PDA. For each *Fusarium* strain, a series of plates containing 6 to 8 wheat grains was prepared. Three plugs taken from the edge of the fungal cultures on PDA were evenly
<table><caption>Table 1. DNA mock communities description.</caption><thead><tr><th>Mock 1</th><th>Species</th><th>Mock 2</th><th>Species</th><th>Mock 3</th><th>Species</th><th>Mock 4</th></tr><tr><th>Species</th><th>ID</th><th>Species</th><th>ID</th><th>Species</th><th>ID</th><th>Species</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Fusarium oxysporum</strong></td><td>FOR 4</td><td><strong>Fusarium equiseti (FIESC 14)</strong></td><td>C33</td><td><strong>Fusarium culmorum</strong></td><td>MTK0055</td><td><strong>Fusarium culmorum</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Fusarium sambucinum</strong></td><td>C39</td><td><strong>Fusarium graminearum</strong></td><td>MTK0019</td><td><strong>Fusarium poae</strong></td><td>MTK0005</td><td><strong>Fusarium sambucinum</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Fusarium sp. (FSSC 11)</strong></td><td>FJMO</td><td><strong>Fusarium sambucinum</strong></td><td>C39</td><td><strong>Fusarium pseudonygamai</strong></td><td>FoxFMO14</td><td><strong>Fusarium sp.</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Fusarium sp.</strong></td><td>22374</td><td>Cladosporium delicatulum</td><td>C58</td><td><strong>Fusarium sambucinum</strong></td><td>C39</td><td><strong>Fusarium staphyleae</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Fusarium sp.</strong></td><td>22316</td><td>Cladosporium sphaerospermum</td><td>96</td><td><strong>Fusarium sporotrichioides</strong></td><td>Fs23</td><td><strong>Fusarium staphyleae</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Alternaria alternata</td><td>C61</td><td>Colletotrichum orbiculare</td><td>C-orbiculare</td><td>Calonectria pseudonaviculata</td><td>93</td><td>Botrytis cinerea</td></tr><tr><td>Botrytis cinerea</td><td>C87</td><td>Eutypa lata</td><td>0002-11</td><td>Epicoccum nigrum</td><td>100</td><td>Helminthosporium tritici-repentis</td></tr><tr><td>Phaeoacremonium mortoniae</td><td>0002-12</td><td>Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici</td><td>MTK0077</td><td>Leptosphaeria maculans</td><td>102</td><td>Phaeoacremonium mortoniae</td></tr><tr><td>Puccinia triticina</td><td>B77Saba</td><td>Microdochium nivale</td><td>Mn08N58</td><td>Microdochium majus</td><td>MTK0025</td><td>Parastagonospora nodorum</td></tr><tr><td>Parastagonospora nodorum</td><td>MTK0081</td><td>Pseudocercosporella herpotrichoides</td><td>MTK0049</td><td>Mortierella elongata</td><td>95</td><td>Sclerotinia sclerotiorum</td></tr><tr><td>Sclerotinia sclerotiorum</td><td>C62</td><td></td><td></td><td>Pseudonectria buxi</td><td>94</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Mock 4</th><th>Species</th><th>Mock 5</th><th>Species</th><th>Mock 6</th><th>Species</th><th>Mock 7</th></tr><tr><td><strong>Fusarium culmorum</strong></td><td>MTK0009</td><td><strong>Fusarium cortaderiae</strong></td><td>NRRL31171</td><td><strong>Fusarium culmorum</strong></td><td>NRRL29010</td><td><strong>Fusarium culmorum</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Fusarium langsethiae</strong></td><td>Fl39</td><td><strong>Fusarium meridionale</strong></td><td>NRRL29010</td><td><strong>Fusarium langsethiae</strong></td><td>NRRL26755</td><td><strong>Fusarium langsethiae</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Fusarium sambucinum</strong></td><td>C39</td><td><strong>Fusarium acaciae-mearnsii</strong></td><td>NRRL26755</td><td><strong>Fusarium austroamericanum</strong></td><td>NRRL28718</td><td><strong>Fusarium sambucinum</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Fusarium subglutinans</strong></td><td>Fsub69</td><td><strong>Fusarium aethiopicum</strong></td><td>NRRL26755</td><td><strong>Fusarium subglutinans</strong></td><td>NRRL46722</td><td><strong>Fusarium temperatum</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Fusarium sp. (FTSC)</strong></td><td>Fpro32-2</td><td><strong>Fusarium brasilicum</strong></td><td>NRRL26755</td><td><strong>Fusarium sp.</strong></td><td>NRRL31238</td><td><strong>Fusarium sp.</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Fusarium avenaceum</strong></td><td>FT12</td><td><strong>Fusarium vorosii</strong></td><td>NRRL26755</td><td><strong>Fusarium avenaceum</strong></td><td>NRRL38208</td><td><strong>Fusarium verticillioides</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Fusarium verticillioides</strong></td><td>Fmoni62</td><td><strong>Fusarium gerlachii</strong></td><td>NRRL26755</td><td><strong>Fusarium verticillioides</strong></td><td>NRRL38380</td><td>Leptosphaeria biglobosa</td></tr><tr><td>Microdochium bolleyi</td><td>C68</td><td><strong>Fusarium mesoamericanum</strong></td><td>NRRL25797</td><td><strong>Fusarium verticillioides</strong></td><td>NRRL25797</td><td>Microdochium bolleyi</td></tr><tr><td>Zymoseptoria tritici</td><td>98</td><td><strong>Fusarium asiaticum</strong></td><td>NRRL13818</td><td><strong>Fusarium verticillioides</strong></td><td>NRRL13818</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>MTK0030</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

This table presents the species name and identification number (ID) of the strains used to prepare the 5 mock communities. DNA of these strains was extracted and mixed in equimolar quantity after Qubit quantification.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207988.t001

placed on each plate containing the grains, and incubated for 10 days to allow fungal colonization of the grains. After infection, grains were dried for 24 h at 50°C.

A first set of 100 grain samples containing 10 grains infected with *F. graminearum* (LSV M808) and 1 grain infected with *F. langsethiae* (LSV M846), *F. poae* (LSV M861) and *F. tricinctum* (LSV M860) in different proportions was prepared (Table 2). Each sample was prepared with durum wheat (cultivar CG09) and soft wheat (cultivar Galopain). The samples in their entirety were ground in a grinding jar using a TissueLyser (Qiagen, France). The resulting powder (particle size not determined) was collected in a 50 mL falcon tube and mixed manually before collecting 200mg for DNA extraction.

A second set of artificially infected samples was prepared by mixing 8 grains individually infected with *F. poae* (FP1), *F. langsethiae* (FL33), *F. sp. FTSC* (FT12), *F. culmorum* (C17), *F. avenaceum* (Fa), *F. graminearum* (FG20), *F. subglutinans* (FU12238) and *F. verticillioides* (FU09041), respectively, with a total of 100, 200, 500, 1000, 2000, 5000 and 10,000 healthy grains (Table 2). Each sample was prepared with durum wheat (cultivar Miradou). The samples in their entirety were ground using a PULVERISETTE 14 Variable-Speed Rotor Mill (Fritsch, Germany). The particle size of the flour was approximately 5µm.
<table><caption>Table 2. Description of artificially infected grain samples prepared in this study.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Sample name</th><th colspan="9">Number of artificially infected grains</th><th rowspan="2">Number of uninfected grains</th></tr><tr><th>F. graminearum</th><th>F. langsethiae</th><th>F. poae</th><th>F. sp. FTSC</th><th>F. culmorum</th><th>F. avenaceum</th><th>F. subglutinans</th><th>F. verticillioides</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>G10 P1 L1 T1</td><td>10</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>87</td></tr><tr><td>G10 L1 P1</td><td>10</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>88</td></tr><tr><td>G10 L1 T1</td><td>10</td><td>1</td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>88</td></tr><tr><td>G10 P1 T1</td><td>10</td><td></td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>88</td></tr><tr><td>F8 100</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>92</td></tr><tr><td>F8 200</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>192</td></tr><tr><td>F8 500</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>492</td></tr><tr><td>F8 1000</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>992</td></tr><tr><td>F8 2000</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1992</td></tr><tr><td>F8 5000</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>4992</td></tr><tr><td>F8 10000</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>9992</td></tr></tbody></table>

This table describe which *Fusarium* species were used to inoculate grain and the number of infected grains and uninfected grains per samples.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207988.t002

**Field samples.** In 2014 and 2015, 65 field samples of durum wheat, soft wheat and barley were collected in different locations in France. Samples were selected to represent a variety of cereal-growing regions with different climates and cultural farming practices, and following different chemical treatment strategies (S4 Fig). The samples were used to test the applicability of the protocol and analysis steps. No permits were required for the field samplings and the authors have permission to conduct the study. Each sample, corresponding to 3 kg of grains, was homogenised and ground using a hammer mill (TITAN 2000, fao). Then, 100 g of flour was ground again using an MM400 Retsch mixer mill (Retsch, Germany). The particle size of the flour was approximately 5µm.

## Methods

**DNA extraction.** For the mock communities, fungal DNA was obtained from aerial mycelium aseptically scraped from cultures grown on either PDA or malt agar. The mycelium was lyophilized for 24h in an Edwards Modulyo 4K Lyophilizer (Edwards, United Kingdom) and 100 mg of lyophilized mycelium was placed in a Fast-Prep tube (2 mL) containing 130 mg of glass beads (4.5 mm in diameter; Dutscher, France) and ground using FastPrep (MP Biome-dicals, France) for 30s at maximum shaking frequency. DNA was extracted using a DNeasy Plant Mini kit (Qiagen, France) according to the manufacturer's instructions, except that the incubation time was extended to 1 h at 65°C, and the volumes of AP1 and P3 buffers were doubled.

DNA was extracted in the same way from both artificially infected grains and field grain samples. Three independent extractions were performed per sample for artificially infected samples with four species (Table 2), whereas only a single extraction was carried out for artifi-cially infected samples with eight species (F8 100 to F8 10,000; Table 2) and field samples. 100 mg of the homogenized flour was re-suspended in 400 µL of AP1buffer (DNeasy Plant Mini kit, Qiagen, France) and sonicated for 30s. Then, 10 µL of proteinase K (10 mg/mL) and 10 µL of RNase A (Qiagen) were added to the suspension. After 20 minutes of incubation at 65°C, the protocol recommended by the manufacturer was followed. All DNA extracts were quanti-fied using a Qubit 2.0 Fluorometer (Invitrogen, USA).
**Primer design.** A local database of partial *EF1α* gene sequences from different *Fusarium* species was constructed, containing sequences downloaded from the Fusarium ID database [27]. In total, the database contained 162 sequences, covering 74 species. Using Phylogeny.fr [30], a phylogenic tree was built and 6 divergent sequences were selected and aligned using MultAlin [31] with *EF1α* sequences from other genera such as *Zymoseptoria*, *Puccinia*, *Microdochium*, *Parastagonospora*, and *Leptosphaeria* in order to find regions i) sufficiently conserved in *Fusarium* to design a genus-specific primer pair, and ii) flanking a DNA region showing a high level of interspecific polymorphism within the genus *Fusarium*. Several sets of candidate primers were designed and their specificity was first assessed *in silico* by BLAST with the NCBI database, then *in vitro* by PCR using DNA from a panel of 54 strains including 31 *Fusarium* species and 19 other genera of fungi (S5 Fig). The best primer pair was then selected: EF1-F2 (5' TCATC GGCCACGTCGACTCT3') and EF1-R3 (5' TACCAGCCTCGAAC TCACCA3') (S6 Fig).

**PCR and Illumina sequencing.** In order to obtain a PCR fragment suitable for Illumina MiSeq sequencing, primers EF1-F2 and EF1-R3 were tagged with specific sequences (PYROFUS-EF1-F2-MISEQ: 5' CTTTC CCTACACGACGCTCTTCCGATCTATTAACCCTCACTAAAGGATCATCGGCCACGTCGAC TCT3' and PYROFUS-EF1-R3-MISEQ 5' GGAGTTCAGACGTGTGCTCTTCCGATCT CCCTATAGTGAGTCGTATTA TACCAGCCTCGAACTCACC A3'). The PCR reaction contained 1 x mastermix for the Type-it Microsatellite PCR Kit (Qiagen, France), 5 µl Q-Solution and 0.25 µM of each primer in a total volume of 50 µL. PCR reactions were performed with either 60 ng (mock communities) or 125 ng (artificially infected grains and field samples) of DNA. PCR reactions were performed using an Applied Biosystems 9700 thermocycler. The amplification parameters consisted of an initial denaturation step at 95°C for 5 min; then either 31 or 35 cycles of denaturation at 95°C for 60 s, annealing at 65°C for 90 s, and elongation at 72°C for 60 s; and a final extension step at 72°C for 10 min. The size of the final PCR amplicon before sequencing was around 750 bp. For field samples, in order to obtain a sufficient amount of PCR product for Illumina MiSeq sequencing, 3 or 6 independent PCRs of the same sample where pooled before purification. The PCR products were purified by PEG-8000 precipitation and concentration (26.2% polyethylene glycol 8000, 6.6 mM MgCl₂ and 0.6 M NaOAc) and sent to the GenoToul platform (INRA Toulouse) for Illumina MiSeq (V3 2 x 250 bp) sequencing. Three independent sequencing runs were performed.

**Species detection by real-time PCR.** Total DNA from each of the 65 field samples was analyzed by species-specific real-time PCR targeting *F. avenaceum*, *F. culmorum*, *F. grami-nearum*, *F. langsethiae*, *F. poae*, *F. sporotrichioides* and *F. tricinctum* [32]. The artificially infected samples were also analyzed with these tests in order to verify the presence of the *Fusarium* species inoculated. The primers and probes used were custom-synthesized by Eurogentec (Seraing, Belgium) and are listed in Table 3.

Real-time PCR assays were performed using 2 x qPCR MasterMix with ROX and Uracil N Glycosylase (UNG) from Eurogentec (Angers, France). PCR reactions were performed in a total of 20 µL consisting of 12.5 µL of mastermix, with primers and probes at the concentrations described in Table 3, and 5 µL of DNA extract (100 ng for field samples) were added to the mix. Standard calibration curves were constructed with DNA from a pure culture of the target species with concentrations ranging from 1 ng/µL to 0.001 ng/µL and were included in each experiment. Real-time PCR reactions were performed on an ABI PRISM 7900 Sequence Detection System (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA) in Applied Biosystem 96-well plates. Cycling conditions included an initial denaturation step at 95°C for 10 min, followed by 40 cycles each at 95°C for 15 s then one minute in specific hybridization/polymerization conditions (Table 3). Each DNA template was analyzed in triplicate.
<table><caption>Table 3. Primer and probe sequences and real-time PCR amplification conditions for each *Fusarium* species (table extracted from [32]).</caption><thead><tr><th>Target species</th><th>Name</th><th>Sequence *</th><th>Final concentration</th><th>Annealing temperature</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3"><i>F. graminearum</i></td><td>EF1-FCFG_F</td><td>TCGATACGCGCCTGTTACC</td><td>300nM</td><td rowspan="3">62°C</td></tr><tr><td>EF1-FG_R</td><td>ATGAGCGCCCAGGGAATG</td><td>300nM</td></tr><tr><td>grami2-EF1_rev</td><td>AGCCCCACCGGGAAAAAAATTACGACA</td><td>100nM</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3"><i>F. culmorum</i></td><td>EF1-FC_F2</td><td>CGAATCGCCCTCACACG</td><td>300nM</td><td rowspan="3">62°C</td></tr><tr><td>EF1-FC-R2</td><td>GTGATGGTGCGCGCCTAG</td><td>300nM</td></tr><tr><td>culmo2-EF1-R2</td><td>ATGAGCCCCACCAGAAAAAATTACGACAA</td><td>100nM</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3"><i>F. poae</i></td><td>EF1-FP2_F</td><td>CTCGAGCGATTGCATTTCTTT</td><td>300nM</td><td rowspan="3">60°C</td></tr><tr><td>EF1-FP2_R</td><td>GGCTTCCTATTGACAGGTGGTT</td><td>300nM</td></tr><tr><td>EF1-FP</td><td>CGCGAATCGTCACGTGTCAATCAGTT</td><td>100nM</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3"><i>F. sporotrichioides</i></td><td>EF1-FS_F3</td><td>GGCTCATACCCCGCCG</td><td>300nM</td><td rowspan="3">60°C</td></tr><tr><td>EF1-FS_R2</td><td>GCGCCCATGTAAATGGATG</td><td>300nM</td></tr><tr><td>EF1 FS</td><td>TGGGAAGGGCAAAAGCGCCTGT</td><td>100nM</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3"><i>F. langsethiae</i></td><td>EF1 FL F3</td><td>GCCGTGTCGTAATTTTTTTTGTG</td><td>300nM</td><td rowspan="3">62°C</td></tr><tr><td>EF1 FL R3</td><td>AAATGGCTATGTGGGAAGGAAG</td><td>300nM</td></tr><tr><td>EF1 FL</td><td>GGGCTCATACCCCGCCACTCGA</td><td>300nM</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3"><i>F. avenaceum</i></td><td>EF1-FA_F2</td><td>CATCTTGCTAACTCTTGACAGACCG</td><td>300nM</td><td rowspan="3">64°C</td></tr><tr><td>EF1-FA_R3</td><td>GGGTAATGAATGCGTTTCGAA</td><td>300nM</td></tr><tr><td>EF1 FA</td><td>AGCGAGTCGTGGGAATCGATGGG</td><td>150nM</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3"><i>F. tricinctum</i></td><td>EF1-FT_F2</td><td>CCACGATTCGCTCCCTCAC</td><td>300nM</td><td rowspan="3">62°C</td></tr><tr><td>EF1-FT_R2</td><td>GGTAAGATACCCCACCAGAAAAA</td><td>300nM</td></tr><tr><td>EF1 FT</td><td>AGCGGGGTAATGGATGCGTTTCGAGT</td><td>150nM</td></tr></tbody></table>

**Filtering, processing and assigning a taxonomic classification to sequences.** A stringent pipeline taking as a basis for the MiSeq SOP [33] was used to filter and process raw sequences utilizing MOTHUR v.1.36 [34] (S7 Fig). After FastQC analysis [35], the reverse sequences were associated with poor quality files. Around 100 bp of each read received quality scores lower than 20. We eliminated these poor-quality reads from further analyses. By contrast, forward sequences met good quality standards and were processed. First, only the sequences showing the expected primer and barcode sequences were retained. Then, sequences with low quality (shorter than 100 bp or including low quality scores) were removed. After preprocessing the sequences, multiple sequence files were merged and unique sequences represented by singletons removed. Chimeric sequences were removed with the Uchime tool [36] available in MOTHUR, using self as the reference. Uncorrected pairwise distances were determined between the remaining sequences with the Needleman alignment method [37] with match 1.0, mismatch -1.0, gapopen -2.0 and gapextend 1.0 using 1000 iterations. The distance matrix was then clustered with the average neighbor algorithm to assign sequences to operational taxonomic units (OTUs).

A custom *EF1α* gene fungal reference database with 9,196 sequences was created by extracting Fungal *EF1α* sequences from GenBank using the query: (fungi[All Fields] OR fungi [Organism] OR fusarium[Title]) AND (translation elongation factor[Title] OR tef1[Title] OR translation elongation factor-1 alpha[Title] OR elongation[Title] OR EF1-a[Title] OR tef-1 [Title]) AND (CBS*[Title] OR NRRL*[Title] OR MUCL*[Title] OR voucher*[Title] OR DAOM*[Title] OR MAFF*[Title] OR MIAE*[Title] OR IPO*[Title] OR ATCC*[Title] OR LMSA*[Title]) AND (100[SLEN]: 3000[SLEN]) NOT Fusarium sp.[Title] NOT IonTorrent

<footnote>*All probes were labelled with FAM fluorophore and BHQ1 Quencher</footnote>
[All Fields] NOT (TEF3[Title] OR translation elongation factor 3[Title] OR tef-3[Title] OR elongation factor 3[Title] OR EF-3[Title]). An additional set of partial *EF1α* gene sequences was generated in-house by PCR, using the EF1-F2/EF1-R3 primers and DNA from the *Fusarium* strains available in the INRA and ANSES collections. The custom *EF1α* gene fungal reference database was called 'merge/reference.fasta' in the pipeline described in the S7 Fig. There were nine taxonomic levels associated with each fungal sequence in the following order: kingdom, phylum, subphylum, class, subclass, order, family, genus, and species, with undefined levels recorded as unclassified. The classification of taxonomic levels for sequences was manually curated from the Mycobank database [38]. The curated taxonomy file was called 'merge taxonomy.fasta' in the pipeline described in the S7 Fig. The consensus taxonomy for representative sequences for each OTU was performed using MOTHUR's classifier [39] to assign the taxonomy of sequences from the custom *EF1α* fungal reference database using 2% divergence. An excel database was created containing OTU number, read count per OTU per sample, representative sequence name, representative sequence, and OTU representative assignation. Then, the OTUs were carefully checked and assigned to the species taxonomic level for *Fusarium* OTUs and genus taxonomic level for non-*Fusarium* OTUs. OTUs with the same species or genus assignment were merged and were represented as a percentage of the total sequences in the sample, with a minimum acceptance confidence level. Errors in the sequence of mock communities were calculated using Sanger sequences as references (MOTHUR v.1.36; [34]). The calculated errors were then used to determine the minimum acceptance confidence level to retain OTUs (S7 Fig).

**Statistical analysis.** A linear regression model in R version 3.3 with Rcmdr [40] was used to evaluate the influence of PCR cycle number, run and PCR pooling on the percentage of final *Fusarium* OTUs.

To compare the diversity present in each wheat sample, only *Fusarium* species determined from OTUs as described above were considered, as the experiment was developed specifically for *Fusarium* analysis. Analyses were performed with R (R version 3.3.1 (2016-06-21)) using the 'Phyloseq' R package specifically designed for analysis of microbiological communities [41]. Using 'Phyloseq', a Heatmap of abundance of each species per sample was generated.

# Results

## Design of a *Fusarium*-specific PCR primer pair

The different PCR primers were evaluated on a panel of DNA extracts representing 30 *Fusarium* species and 23 non-*Fusarium* species. Primers EF1-F2 and EF1-R3 were selected due to their specificity for the *Fusarium* genus (S5 Fig), and their ability to generate a single sharp band after electrophoresis on an agarose gel (data not shown). The primers amplified a 640 bp region of the *EF1α* gene in the *Fusarium* species, displaying a high level of interspecific polymorphism. This region was successfully amplified with DNA from the 30 *Fusarium* species tested. No PCR amplification was observed with DNA from uninfected wheat. Weak amplification signals were observed for a few non-target taxa, such as *Alternaria alternata*, *Botrytis cinerea*, *Sclerotinia sclerotiorum*, *Zymoseptoria tritici*, *Leptosphaeria maculans*, *Pseudocercospora herpotrichoides*, *Phaeoacremonium mortoniae*, *Epicoccum nigrum*, *Eutypa lata*, *Cladosporium delicatulum* and *Colletotrichum orbiculare*. (S5 Fig).

## Analysis of the DNA mock communities

The five fungal mock communities were used as positive controls in three independent sequencing experiments. In these three runs, a total of 3,491,565 raw reads were generated for the mock communities. After filtering, 81,604 (2.3% of the raw sequences) were kept
for the analysis. Mock communities were used to determine error rates. As the *EF1α* Sanger sequence of each strain included in each mock community was available, a maximum error rate generated by Illumina MiSeq sequencing was calculated for each mock community using Mothur (S7 Fig). In our experiments, the maximum error rate obtained was 0.3%. In this respect, for each sample analyzed (artificially infected grain samples and field samples), OTUs representing less than 0.3% of the total reads were removed from the data.

For each OTU, results were expressed as a percentage of sequences out of the total number of sequences analyzed per sample. The expected *EF1α* sequences from all the *Fusarium* species added in mock 1, mock 2, mock 3 and mock 4 could be identified (Fig 1). The percentage of *Fusarium* OTUs did not differ significantly (*p* > 0.05) between the different PCR cycle conditions tested (31 or 35 cycles), and between runs (3 independent runs). Two independent PCRs were also performed with DNA from the same mock community and sequenced in one run, and no difference could be observed between the percentages of *Fusarium* OTUs retrieved. Sequences from a few non-*Fusarium* species that were included in the mock communities were identified: *Phaeoacremonium* (mean 1.0%, SEM 0.1%) for mock 1, *Cladosporium* (mean 7.3%, SEM 2.9%), *Colletotrichum* (mean 10.7%, SEM 2.8%), *Eutypa* (mean 0.4%, SEM 0.3%), and *Pseudocercosporella* (mean 0.4%, SEM 0.1%) for mock 2, and *Leptosphaeria* (mean 2.2%, SEM 0.2%) for mock 3, *Zymospetoria* (mean 0.2%, SEM 0.002%) for mock 4. No other species/genera were identified.

In mock community 5, which contained 10 species from the FGSC, only three species could be identified based on the sequence analyses: *F. acaciae-mearnsii* (mean 5.3%, SEM 0.1%), *F. cortaderiae* (mean 10.9%, SEM 0.1%), and *F. meridionale* (mean 5.6%, SEM 0.1%). All the other reads were assigned to *F. graminearum* (77.8%, SEM 0.1%). This correlates with the differences observed in the 200 bp sequence of the *EF1α* gene originating from Illumina MiSeq sequencing, as *F. cortaderiae*, *F. meridionale* and *F. acaciae-mearnsii* have 4, 3 and 3 base pair differences, respectively. The other species of the FGSC showed fewer than 3 base pair differences in the 200 bp sequence of the *EF1α* gene used for the analysis, and could not be differentiated using the 2% sequence divergence threshold.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 1.** Boxplots of relative abundance of reads per species for mock communities 1 to 4. For each species, each Boxplot includes 8 independent samples for each mock (two PCR cycle conditions and 2 replicates for sequencing run 1, one PCR cycle condition and 3 replicates for sequencing run 2, one PCR cycle condition and 1 replicate for sequencing run 3).</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207988.g001
Analysis of the artificially infected grain samples

A total of 6,995,829 raw sequences were generated for the infected grain communities, and after filtering, 172,894 unique sequences were kept (2.4% of the raw sequences).

In samples contaminated with 4 species, the results showed that all these species could be retrieved in the mixed samples, regardless of the level and type of artificial contamination, the wheat varieties or the DNA extraction replicate (Fig 2). The results obtained comparing these 24 DNA samples (4 types of artificial contamination, 2 varieties, 3 extractions), sequenced in one run, were reproducible: *F. graminearum* (mean 89.4%, SEM 4.5%), *F. langsethiae* (mean 7.2%, SEM 2.5%), *F. poae* (mean 5%, SEM 1.6%), and *F. tricinctum* (mean 1.6%, SEM 0.5%). *F. graminearum* represented the highest percentage of reads as 10 grains infected with *F. graminearum* were mixed with only one single grain infected with the other species. *EF1α* sequences of *F. poae*, *F. tricinctum* or *F. langsethiae* could be detected in samples with only one single grain infected, mixed with 100 healthy grains. Real-time PCR analysis confirmed the presence of the 4 different *Fusarium* species in the samples (data not shown).

As the results were reproducible regardless of the wheat variety, it was decided to use only one variety to assess the sensitivity of the technique (F8-100 to F8-10,000, Table 2). In addition, as no significant effect of extraction and PCR cycle number were observed during the preliminary tests, these samples were extracted once, and tested with PCR cycling condition described

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 2.** Percentage of sequences in Fusarium OTUs retrieved from artificially infected grain samples. G10 = 10 grains infected with *F. graminearum*; L1 = 1 grain infected with *F. langsethiae*; P1 = 1 grain infected with *F. poae*; T1 = 1 grain infected with *F. tricinctum*; CG09 and GAL = wheat varieties. The scale was adjusted as *F. graminearum* accounted for more than 75% of the reads for each sample.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207988.g002
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 3.** Percentage of sequences in *Fusarium* OTUs retrieved from artificially-infected grain samples. Eight grains infected with *F. poae*, *F. langsethiae*, *Fusarium* sp. (FTSC), *F. culmorum*, *F. avenaceum*, *F. graminearum*, *F. subglutinans* and *F. verticillioides* were added to increased the number of uninfected grains. The same lot of uninfected grains was used as the control sample.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207988.g003

in the materials and methods. The products of 6 independent PCRs were pooled per sample to improve sensitivity. *EF1α* sequences of *F. avenaceum*, *F. graminearum*, *F. langsethiae*, *F. poae*, *F. subglutinans*, *Fusarium* sp. (FTSC) and *F. verticillioides* were identified in all samples (99.3% ± 0.74% SEM all sequences) (Fig 3). No sequences of *F. culmorum* were observed. A two- to four-fold increase in non-*Fusarium* sequences was observed with higher levels of dilutions (F8-5000 and F8-10,000). In the control sample, 38,977 sequences were kept after filtering, of which 92.1% did not correspond to *Fusarium* OTUs. 4.6% of the reads were identified as *Fusarium thapsinum* and 1.9% as *F. verticillioides*. *F. thapsinum* was not identified in the other samples although the wheat seeds used all originated from the same sample.

## Analysis of field samples

In all, 65 field samples were analyzed using the protocol developed in this study. Samples were collected from 12 fields of durum wheat, 30 fields of soft wheat, and 23 fields of barley in 2014 and 2015 (S1 Fig). A total of 5,115,242 raw sequences were generated. A total of 141,103 unique sequences remained after filtering (2.8% of the raw sequences). In order to obtain a sufficient amount of PCR amplicons before Illumina sequencing, independent PCR amplifications of the same DNA template were pooled. A first test showed that the percentage of *Fusarium* OTUs or the total percentage of non-*Fusarium* OTUs did not differ significantly (*p* > 0.5) between pooling 3 versus 6 PCR reactions before sequencing. Thus, 6 independent PCRs were performed for all samples and pooled before sequencing as this increased the amount for detection. The Heatmap (Fig 4) shows the abundance of each species detected. The abundance corresponds to the percentage of the number of reads per species out of the total number of reads in a sample. Up to 11 *Fusarium* species could be detected in wheat and up to 16 in barley. *F. graminearum* and *F. poae* were present in the majority of the samples. *Fusarium* sp. (FTSC), *F. culmorum*, *F. langsethiae*, *F. verticillioides* and *F. avenaceum* were also detected in many samples, regardless of the type of cereal. Some *Fusarium* species were only detected in wheat, such as *F. proliferatum*, whereas by contrast, other *Fusarium* species, such as *F. thapsinum*, *F. torulosum*, *F. subglutinans*, *F. redolens*, *F. oxysporum*, and *F. mahasenii*, were only observed in barley.
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 4. Heatmap analysis of *Fusarium* species recovered from field samples.** The colour reflects the read abundance: from fewer reads in yellow to increased number of reads in red.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207988.g004

The DNA extracts from the 65 field samples were also analyzed by seven species-specific real-time PCR tests targeting *F. graminearum*, *F. culmorum*, *F. poae*, *F. tricinctum*, *F. langsethiae*, *F. sporotrichioides* and *F. avenaceum*, respectively (S1 Table). These real-time PCR tests were developed in 2009 using the *Fusarium* species taxonomy that was in force at that time. Since then, new cryptic species have been described, like *F. sibiricum* which is closely related to *F. sporotrichioides*, or taxa from the *F. graminearum* or *F. tricinctum* species complex. These cryptic species will therefore not be differentiated with the real-time PCR tests used here. Comparison of the real-time PCR results and the metabarcoding analyses is summarized in Table 4. Only a few discrepancies were observed. The level of discrepancy varied according to the *Fusarium* species. Similar results were obtained using the two techniques for *F. culmorum*, *F. poae* and *F. sporotrichioides* (< 8% of discrepant results), whereas a higher percentage of discrepant results was observed for *F. avenaceum*, *F. graminearum*, *F. langsethiae* and *F. tricinctum* (18.46% to 36.92%). Except for *F. tricinctum*, the metabarcoding always detected more positive samples than real-time PCR did.

This table summarised the number of samples in which *Fusarium* species were detected by qPCR or the metabarcoding techniques developed in this paper. For each species, the number of samples that were positively detected by both qPCR and the metabarcoding technique (+/+), the number samples negatively detected by both techniques (-/-) and the number of

<table><caption>**Table 4. Discrepancy analysis results for 65 field cereal samples by real-time PCR and PCR/Illumina sequencing.**</caption><thead><tr><th>Detection<br>qPCR / metabarcoding</th><th>F. avenaceum</th><th>F. culmorum</th><th>F. graminearum</th><th>F. langsethiae</th><th>F. poae</th><th>F. sporotrichioides</th><th>F. tricinctum</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>+/+</td><td>23</td><td>24</td><td>49</td><td>17</td><td>62</td><td>0</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>-/-</td><td>26</td><td>40</td><td>4</td><td>24</td><td>1</td><td>60</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>+/-</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>5</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>-/+</td><td>14</td><td>0</td><td>12</td><td>23</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Discrepancies (in % of samples of non-corresponding detection out of total samples)</td><td>24.62</td><td>1.54</td><td>18.46</td><td>36.92</td><td>3.08</td><td>7.69</td><td>21.54</td></tr></tbody></table>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207988.t004
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 5.** Percentage of *Fusarium* and non-*Fusarium* reads per sample after bioinformatic analyses. Percentage of *Fusarium* reads are presented in black and percentage of non *Fusarium* reads in hatched per field sample.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207988.g005

samples positively detected only by qPCR (+/-) or only by metabarcoding (-/+) are presented. A percentage of discrepancies in detection is calculated at the bottom of the columns for each species.

*EF1α* sequences from other genera were also identified. The percentage of reads for non-*Fusarium* species varied from 5% to 95% of total reads after filtering (Fig 5). The percentage of non-*Fusarium* reads increased when contamination by *Fusarium* species was low. For example, small amounts of *Fusarium* species were detected by real-time PCR in samples S_2742, S_2734 and S_2736, in which up to 95% of non-*Fusarium* species were identified by metabarcoding. The non-*Fusarium* taxa identified in durum wheat were *Alternaria*, *Cladosporium*, *Colletotrichum*, *Ilyonectria*, and *Lewia*; whereas *Alternaria*, *Campylocarpon*, *Chalastospora*, *Cladosporium*, *Colletotrichum*, *Diaporthe*, *Lewia*, *Trichoderma* and *Zymoseptoria* were detected in bread wheat and *Alternaria*, *Cladosporium*, *Colletotrichum*, *Gnomoniopsis*, *Lewia*, *Trichoderma* and *Zymoseptoria* were detected in barley.

Discussion

This study presents the development and validation of a metabarcoding-based protocol to assess *Fusarium* diversity on cereals. The protocol includes a method for extracting good quality DNA, followed by PCR amplification of a genus-specific, polymorphic region of the *EF1α* gene, followed by Illumina Miseq sequencing of the amplicons and analysis of the reads to identify *Fusarium* species. A new specific PCR primer pair was designed that targets the *EF1α* gene, allowing species-level discrimination, which confirms the potential of this gene previously reported [27]. In metabarcoding techniques, the initial PCR is an important step to correctly describe a community due to bias resulting from primer mismatches or PCR inhibitors [42]. As we selected conserved primers preferentially targeting the *EF1α* gene from species that belong to a single genus, *Fusarium*, primer mismatch should be avoided. An advantage of using the *EF1α* gene to study *Fusarium* communities is that it appears to be present as a single copy in this genus [27], thus circumventing problems caused by the occurrence of non-orthologous copies or a variable copy number among species, like in the case of the *ITS* gene, which is mainly used for metabarcoding [18]. Recently specific primers for the *EF1α* gene were used to assess *Fusarium* diversity in field samples from soil and wheat kernels in association with 454 pyrosequencing [24]. In a different study [22], the authors used another single-copy protein-coding locus (RPB2) to target the genus *Fusarium* associated with the rhizosphere of native grassland plants using 454 technology [22]. In our study, Illumina Miseq technology was used in order to deepen the sequencing compared to 454 technology. In addition, Illumina technology enabled the simultaneous processing of a larger number of samples. Indeed, in our
study, up to 154 field samples could be sequenced at the same time, with a mean number of 88,663 reads per sample before bioinformatic analysis.

DNA mock communities and artificially infected grain samples were used to validate our metabarcoding protocol. A sufficient number of reads could be retrieved and assigned to species in our DNA mock communities using the forward Illumina MiSeq sequences. Reverse Illumina MiSeq sequences could have given complementary information, but could not be used due to poor quality. One difficulty using high-throughput sequencing technologies is to validate OTUs with low numbers of reads, as they can be the result of PCR and/or sequencing errors [43]. DNA mock communities were used to determine an error rate, which was calculated by comparing the Sanger sequence of each strain included in each mock community with the sequence of the OTUs obtained. The maximum error rate for the 5 mock communities was estimated to be 0.3%. Thus, to ensure that correct OTUs were retained in all samples, all OTUs with a number of reads below 0.3% of the total reads per sample were removed. Rare OTUs were thus removed from all samples with a similar rule in order to avoid overestimation of the diversity present in the samples. *EF1α* sequences from all 20 *Fusarium* species used were successfully retrieved after analysis of the DNA mock communities. In addition, 3 species out of 10 in the FGSC (*F. cortaderiae*, *F. meridionale* and *F. acaciae-mearnsii*) could also be identified using our protocol. Interestingly, even though absolute quantification is not possible due to PCR bias, all *Fusarium* species in mock communities 2 and 4 yielded approximately identical percentages of total reads. This might be due to the fact that *EF1α* used for barcoding is a single copy gene. However, the amplification efficiency of the primers developed in this study might be different and may depend on the target species. In mock community 3, *F. culmorum* accounted for only 5% of the reads.

All *Fusarium* species, except *F. culmorum*, could be detected in the artificially infected grain samples. Several markers of the strain used for inoculation were sequenced and the sequences obtained were identical to the sequences of other *F. culmorum* strains. However, *F. culmorum* was detected in 24 field samples showing that our metabarcoding protocol is also able to specifically identify *F. culmorum* in complex samples. A close look at the results for artificially infected grain samples showed that the OTU assigned to *F. graminearum* had a score of 56. This score is a bootstrap value; the higher it is, the greater the probability that the correct name is given to an OTU. The other OTUs had a score of 75-100. After careful checking, some reads grouped in this OTU could be assigned to *F. culmorum*. The errors seemed to be linked to a PCR chimera between *F. graminearum* and *F. culmorum* not recognized by the bioinformatic pipeline. However, careful examination of the final identification scoring should prevent these errors.

The analysis of a sample using our metabarcoding approach will yield a large batch of barcode sequences. Assignation to a species name using a barcode sequence will first depend on the quality of the reference database used and second on the phylogenic resolution of the chosen barcode. The phylogenic resolution of the *EF1α* barcode used in this publication allowed us to identify species commonly present in FHB disease. However some closely related (or cryptic-) species might be difficult to differentiate due to barcode resolution. For example, to the *EF1α* region that was used here will not enable to discriminate some strains of the FGSC complex (*F. vorosii*, *F. brasilicum*, *F. gerlachii*) from *F. graminearum*. Another example are the closely related species *F. sibiricum* and *F. sporotrichioides* [44]. It is obvious that the quality of the overall assignation pipeline will depend on the quality of the reliability of the DNA sequence database used, and on the fact that the species names are regularly updated according to the state of the art regarding taxonomy in this intensively studied genus.

As the protocol proposed was aimed at assessing *Fusarium* diversity on field samples, it was important to test the reproducibility and the sensitivity of the technique. In this study,
metabarcoding proved to be reproducible using DNA mock community samples, independent of
the amplification or the sequencing run. Numbers of PCR cycles have been reported as an impor-
tant factor increasing contamination [45], but no such effects were observed in our experiments by
testing different cycle numbers. Analysis of artificially infected wheat samples showed the high sen-
sitivity of metabarcoding for *Fusarium*. One infected grain could be detected in a total of 10,000
grains.

As a proof of principle, further analyses were performed on 65 cereal samples harvested
across the major cereal-growing regions of France. Overall, 17 different *Fusarium* species were
detected in these samples of barley, durum and soft wheat. In wheat samples, *F. graminearum*
and *F. poae* were the dominant species, followed by *Fusarium* sp. (FTSC), *F. culmorum* and *F.
avenaceum*, which are common *Fusarium* species previously recovered from wheat in France
[2, 3]. In barley samples, *F. poae* and *Fusarium* sp. (FTSC) were the dominant species, followed
by *F. langsethiae*, *F. graminearum* and *F. avenaceum*. These species were previously reported
from barley samples collected in France, except *F. langsethiae* [2, 3]. As *F. langsethiae* was
described in 2004 [46] and it resembles *F. poae* morphologically, *F. langsethiae* was probably
present on barley sampled in France in 2004 but was likely assigned to *F. poae* in a previous
survey [2]. To our knowledge, this is the first time species such as *F. thapsinum*, *F. torulosum*,
*F. redolens* and *F. mahasenii* have been reported on barley, and *F. proliferatum* on wheat col-
lected in France. In a survey conducted on FGSC diversity in France in 2011, *F. graminearum*
*sensu stricto* was predominant on wheat, barley and maize, but three isolates of *F. cortaderiae*
and two isolates representing *F. graminearum* × *F. boothii* hybrids were also identified from
maize [47]. The tool developed in this study should recover the *F. cortaderiae* isolates in France
but not the hybrid. As the symptoms on cereal grains are not specific to the *Fusarium* species
causing the disease, real-time PCR tests have been developed for *Fusarium* species detection
and quantification in field samples [15]. Some of these tests are multiplexed in order to reduce
the costs of analysis [48, 49]. Using our metabarcoding protocol, up to 12 *Fusarium* species
could be detected in field samples and up to 150 samples could be processed at the same time.
Species like *F. torulosum*, *F. sambucinum* and 3 species of the FGSC were also detected. As far
as we know, no specific real-time PCR tests are available for these species. It is difficult to com-
pare real-time PCR tests with the metabarcoding technique to detect *Fusarium* species because
the efficiency of the species-specific primers used in real-time PCR tests and the length of the
amplified fragment vary depending on the species. We used the real-time PCR only to verify
that *Fusarium* species were present in our field samples. Discrepancies were observed between
the results of the two techniques, with up to 37% non-corresponding detection observed
(Table 4). In the majority of cases, discrepancies were due to detection of species by metabar-
coding but not by real-time PCR. It is difficult to conclude whether these correspond to true
or false positives. Due to PCR amplification biases, each technique may be favourable to the
detection of one species rather than another. A possible explanation for these discrepant results
may be that the limit of detection of each test (metagenomics and the different species-specific
qPCR test) may be variably affected by the presence of inhibiting compounds in the DNA
extracts. Since the level of contamination by some of the *Fusarium* species was sometimes very
low, it is likely that some of the analyses were at the limit of detection for some of the targets.

Some of the reads generated were not assigned to species of *Fusarium*. As the identification
of other genera was not included in the objectives of this study, the corresponding OTUs were
only assigned to the genus level even though a species name could be determined. Importantly,
when low *Fusarium* contamination was found in field samples, the amounts of non-*Fusarium*
species increased. It is also interesting to note that in artificially infected samples, when *Fusar-
ium* contamination decreased, an increase in non-*Fusarium* species was observed. This could
be due to the lack of target species that decrease competition for the primer, leading to less
specific amplification. However, it was shown that reagent and laboratory contamination increased in the results, especially when there was a low amount of starting material [50]. As a result, special care should be taken when performing metabarcoding experiments.

## Conclusion

Using mock communities and artificially infected samples, a protocol was developed to assess the composition of *Fusarium* species in field samples without a *priori* criteria. For the first time, the sensitivity and reproducibility of the technique proved to be suitable to detect most of the *Fusarium* species with low contamination levels (up to 1 seed in 10,000). Moreover, 3 species out of the 10 tested in the FGSC could be distinguished. The possibility of multiplexing samples makes this protocol suitable for large-scale *Fusarium* epidemiological surveys, such as those studying the impact of climate change, or of evolving cultural farming practices.

## Supporting information

**S1 Fig. Strain used in this study.**

(PDF)

**S2 Fig. Phylogenetic tree using EF1α sequences.**

(PDF)

**S3 Fig. Phylogenetic tree using RPB2 sequences.**

(PDF)

**S4 Fig. Description of field samples.** Sampling year, variety treatment, cultural practices and location are presented for each sample.

(PDF)

**S5 Fig. Test of primers' specificity.** This file summarizes the fungal species that were tested and detected by the PCR primer proposed in this publication. After PCR, the results were visualised on an agarose gel. D represents a faint band on the gel, + means detected and - means not detected.

(PDF)

**S6 Fig. Position of the primers on EF1α sequence.**

(PDF)

**S7 Fig. Description of the pipeline for Miseq Illumina reads analysis.**

(PDF)

**S1 Table. Real-time PCR results of field samples analysis.**

(XLSX)

## Acknowledgments

This work was part of the PSPE 2018 program (Pour et Sur le Plan Ecophyto 2018). We would like to thank the GeT Genotoul platform in Toulouse, Midi-Pyrénées for the MiSeq sequencing experiments. We are grateful to the Genotoul Bioinformatics platform in Toulouse, Midi-Pyrénées for providing help computing and data storage.

## Author Contributions

**Conceptualization:** Anne-Laure Boutigny, Angélique Gautier, Romain Valade, Renaud Ioos, Valérie Laval.
**Data curation:** Angélique Gautier, Ryan Basler.

**Formal analysis:** Angélique Gautier, Ryan Basler.

**Funding acquisition:** Anne-Laure Boutigny, Romain Valade, Renaud Ioos, Valérie Laval.

**Investigation:** Anne-Laure Boutigny, Angélique Gautier, Ryan Basler, Florian Dauthieux, Stephen Leite.

**Methodology:** Anne-Laure Boutigny, Angélique Gautier, Ryan Basler, Florian Dauthieux, Romain Valade, Jaime Aguayo, Renaud Ioos, Valérie Laval.

**Project administration:** Anne-Laure Boutigny.

**Resources:** Anne-Laure Boutigny, Angélique Gautier, Romain Valade, Renaud Ioos, Valérie Laval.

**Software:** Ryan Basler.

**Supervision:** Valérie Laval.

**Validation:** Anne-Laure Boutigny, Angélique Gautier, Florian Dauthieux, Stephen Leite, Romain Valade, Renaud Ioos, Valérie Laval.

**Visualization:** Anne-Laure Boutigny, Angélique Gautier, Ryan Basler, Valérie Laval.

**Writing – original draft:** Anne-Laure Boutigny, Romain Valade, Renaud Ioos, Valérie Laval.

**Writing – review & editing:** Anne-Laure Boutigny, Angélique Gautier, Ryan Basler, Romain Valade, Jaime Aguayo, Renaud Ioos, Valérie Laval.

## References

1. Parry DW, Jenkinson P, McLeod L. *Fusarium* ear blight (scab) in small grain cereals-a review. Plant Pathol. 1995; 44: 207-238.

2. Ioos R, Belhadj A, Menez M. Occurrence and distribution of *Microdochium nivale* and *Fusarium* species isolated from barley, durum and soft wheat grains in France from 2000 to 2002. Mycopathologia. 2004; 158: 351-362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11046-004-2228-3 PMID: 15645174

3. Ioos R, Belhadj A, Menez M, Faure A. The effects of fungicides on *Fusarium* spp. and *Microdochium nivale* and their associated trichothecene mycotoxins in French naturally-infected cereal grains. Crop Prot. 2005; 24: 894-902.

4. Bottalico A. *Fusarium* diseases of cereals: species complex and related mycotoxin profiles in Europe. J Plant Pathol. 1998; 80: 85-103.

5. Bottalico A, Perrone G. Toxigenic *Fusarium* species and mycotoxins associated with head blight in small-grain cereals in Europe. Eur J Plant Pathol. 2002; 108: 611-624.

6. Waalwijk C, Kastelein P, de Vries I, Kerényi Z, Van der Lee T, Hesselink T, et al. Major changes in *Fusarium* spp. in wheat in The Netherlands. Eur J Plant Pathol. 2003; 109: 743-754.

7. Xu XM, Parry DW, Nicholson P, Thomsett MA, Simpson D, Edwards SG, et al. Predominance and association of pathogenic fungi causing *Fusarium* ear blight in wheat in four European countries. Eur J Plant Pathol. 2005; 112: 143-154.

8. Xu XM, Nicholson P, Thomsett MA, Simpson D, Cooke BM, Doohan FM, et al. Relationship between the fungal complex causing Fusarium head blight of wheat and environmental conditions. Phytopathology. 2008; 98: 69-78. https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-98-1-0069 PMID: 18943240

9. Audenaert K, Van Broeck R, Bekaert B, De Witte F, Heremans B, Messens K, et al. *Fusarium* head blight (FHB) in Flanders: population diversity, inter-species associations and DON contamination in commercial winter wheat varieties. Eur J Plant Pathol. 2009; 125: 445-458.

10. Chandelier A, Nimal C, André F, Planchon V, Oger R. *Fusarium* species and DON contamination associated with head blight in winter wheat over a 7-year period (2003-2009) in Belgium. J Plant Pathol. 2011; 130: 403-414.
11. Nielsen LK, Jensen JD, Nielsen GC, Jensen JE, Spliid NH, Thomsen IK, et al. *Fusarium* head blight of cereals in Denmark: species complex and related mycotoxins. Phytopathology. 2011; 101: 960–969. https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-07-10-0188 PMID: 21323468

12. Hietaniemi V, Rämö S, Yli-Mattila T, Jestoi M, Peltonen S, Kartio M, et al. Updated survey of the *Fusarium* species and toxins in Finnish cereal grains. Food Addit Contam. 2016; 33: 831–848.

13. Doohan FM, Parry DW, Jenkinson P, Nicholson P. The use of species-specific PCR-based assays to analyse *Fusarium* ear blight of wheat. Plant Pathol. 1998; 47: 197–205.

14. Waalwijk C, Van der Heide R, de Vries I, Van der Lee T, Schoen C, Costrel-de-Corainville G, et al. Quantitative detection of *Fusarium* species in wheat using TaqMan. Eur J Plant Pathol. 2004; 110: 481–494.

15. Nicolaisen M, Suproniene S, Nielsen LK, Lazzaro I, Spliid NH, Justesen AF. Real-time PCR for quantification of eleven individual *Fusarium* species in cereals. J Microbiol Methods. 2009; 76: 234–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mimet.2008.10.016 PMID: 19047000

16. Schoch CL, Seifert KA, Huhndorf S, Robert V, Spouge JL, Levesque CA, et al. Nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region as a universal DNA barcode marker for Fungi. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012; 109: 6241–6246. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1117018109 PMID: 22454494

17. Buée M, Reich M, Murat C, Morin E, Nilsson RH, Uroz S, et al. 454 Pyrosequencing analyses of forest soils reveal an unexpectedly high fungal diversity. New Phytol. 2009; 184: 449–456. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.03003.x PMID: 19703112

18. Amend AS, Seifert KA Bruns TD. Quantifying microbial communities with 454 pyrosequencing: does read abundance count? Mol Ecol. 2010; 19: 5555–5565. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2010.04898.x PMID: 21050295

19. Jumpponen A, Jones KL. Seasonally dynamic fungal communities in the *Quercus macrocarpa* phyllosphere differ between urban and nonurban environments. New Phytol. 2010; 186: 496–513. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03197.x PMID: 20180911

20. Liu X, Zhang J, Gu T, Zhang W, Shen Q, Yin S, et al. Microbial community diversities and taxa abundances in soils along a seven-year gradient of potato monoculture using high throughput pyrosequencing approach. PLoS ONE. 2014; 9: e86610. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0086610 PMID: 24497959

21. Arfi Y, Buée M, Marchand C, Levasseur A, Record E. Multiple markers pyrosequencing reveals highly diverse and host-specific fungal communities on the mangrove trees *Avicennia marina* and *Rhizophora stylosa*. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2012; 79: 433–444. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6941.2011.01236.x PMID: 22092266

22. LeBlanc N, Kinkel LL, Kistler HC. Soil fungal communities respond to grassland plant community richness and soil edaphic. Microb Ecol. 2015; 70: 188–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-014-0531-1 PMID: 25399511

23. Sapkota R, Knorr K, Nistrup Jørgensen L, O'Hanlon KA Nicolaisen M. Host genotype is an important determinant of the cereal phyllosphere mycobiome. New Phytol. 2015; 207:1134–1144. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13418 PMID: 25898906

24. Karlsson I, Edel-Hermann V, Gautheron N, Durling MB, Kolseth A-K, Steinberg C, et al. Genus-specific primers for study of *Fusarium* communities in field samples. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2016; 82: 491–501. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02748-15 PMID: 26519387

25. Nilsson RH, Abarenkov K, Veldre V, Nylinder S, De Wit P, Brosché S, et al. An open source chimera checker for the fungal ITS region. Mol Ecol Resour. 2010; 10: 1076–1081. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2010.02850.x PMID: 21565119

26. Nilsson RH, Ryberg M, Abarenkov K, Sjökvist E, Kristiansson E. The ITS region as a target for characterization of fungal communities using emerging sequencing technologies. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2009; 296: 97–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6968.2009.01618.x PMID: 19459974

27. Geiser DM, Gasco J, Kang MM, Mkalowska S, Veeraraghavan I, Ward N, et al. FUSARIUM-IDv.1.0: a DNA sequence database for identifying. *Fusarium*. Eur J Plant Pathol. 2004; 110: 473–479.

28. O'Donnell K, Kistler HC, Tacke BK, Casper HH. Gene genealogies reveal global phylogeographic structure and reproductive isolation among lineages of *Fusarium graminearum*, the fungus causing wheat scab. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2000; 97: 7905–7910. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.130193297 PMID: 10869425

29. O'Donnell K, Ward TJ, Aberra D, Kistler HC, Aoki T, Orwig N, et al. Multilocus genotyping and molecular phylogenetics resolve a novel head blight pathogen within the *Fusarium graminearum* species complex from Ethiopia. Fungal Genet Biol. 2008; 45: 1514–1522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fgb.2008.09.002 PMID: 18824240
30. Dereeper A, Guignon V, Blanc G, Audic S, Buffet S, Chevenet F, et al. Phylogeny.fr: robust phylogenetic analysis for the non-specialist. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008; 36: 465–469.

31. Corpet F. Multiple sequence alignment with hierarchical clustering. Nucleic Acids Res. 1988; 16: 10881–10890. PMID: 2849754

32. Elbelt S, Siou D, Gelisse S, Cruaud C, Lannou C, Lebrun MH, et al. Optimized real-time qPCR assays for detecting and quantifying the Fusarium and Microdochium species responsible for wheat head blight, as defined by MIQE guidelines. BioRix: https://doi.org/10.1101/272534

33. Kozich JJ, Westcott SL, Baxter NT, Highland SK, Schloss PD. Development of a dual-index sequencing strategy and curation pipeline for analyzing amplicon sequence data on the MiSeq Illumina sequencing platform. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2013; 79: 5112–5120. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01043-13 PMID: 23793624

34. Schloss PD, Westcott SL, Ryabin T, Hall JR, Hartmann M, Hollister EB, et al. Introducing mothur: Open-source, platform-independent, community-supported software for describing and comparing microbial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2009; 75: 7537–7541. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01541-09 PMID: 19801464

35. Andrews S. FastQC: a quality control tool for high throughput sequence data. 2010. Available online at: http://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc

36. Edgar RC, Haas BJ, Clemente JC, Quince C, Knight R. UCHIME improves sensitivity and speed of chimera detection. Bioinformatics. 2011; 27: 2194–2200. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btr381 PMID: 21700674

37. Needleman SB, Wunsch CD. A general method applicable to the search for similarities in the amino acid sequence of two proteins. J Mol Biol. 1970; 48: 443–453. PMID: 5420325

38. Crous PW, Gams W, Stalpers JA, Robert V, Stegehuis G. MycoBank: an online initiative to launch mycology into the 21st century. Stud Mycol. 2004; 50: 19–22.

39. Wang Q, Garrity GM, Tiedje JM, Cole JR. Naive Bayesian classifier for rapid assignment of rRNA sequences into the new bacterial taxonomy. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007; 73: 5261–5267. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00062-07 PMID: 17586664

40. Fox J. The R Commander: A Basic Statistics Graphical User Interface to R. J Stat Softw. 2005; 14: 1–42.

41. McMurdie PJ, Holmes S. Phyloseq: An R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLoS ONE. 2013; 8: e61217. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0061217 PMID: 23630581

42. Tedersoo L, Anslan S, Bahram M, Pölme S, Riit T, Liiv I, et al. Shotgun metagenomes and multiple primer pair-barcode combinations of amplicons reveal biases in metabarcoding analyses of fungi. MycoKeys. 2015; 10: 1–43.

43. Taylor DL, Walters WA, Lennon NJ, Bochicchio, Krohn AJ, Caporaso JG, et al. Accurate estimation of fungal diversity and abundance through improved lineage-specific primers optimized for Illumina ampli-con sequencing. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2016; 82: 7217–7226. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02576-16 PMID: 27736792

44. Yli-Mattila T, Ward TJ, O'Donnell K, Proctor RH, Burkin AA, Kononenko GP, et al. *Fusarium sibiricum* sp. nov, a novel type A trichothecene-producing *Fusarium* from northern Asia closely related to *F. sporotrichioides* and *F. langsethiae* Int J Food Microbiol. 2011; 147: 58–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2011.03.007 PMID: 21459470

45. Polz MF, Cavanaugh CM. Bias in Template-to-Product Ratios in Multitemplate PCR. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1998; 64: 3724–3730. PMID: 9758791

46. Torp M, Nirenberg HI. *Fusarium langsethiae* sp. nov. on cereals in Europe. Int J Food Microb. 2004; 95: 247–256.

47. Boutigny AL, Ward TJ, Ballois N, Iancu G, Iloos R. Diversity of the *Fusarium graminearum* species complex on French cereals. Eur J Plant Pathol. 2014; 138: 133–148.

48. Yli-Mattila T, Paavanen-Huhtala S, Jestoi M, Parikka P, Hietaniemi V, Gagkaeva T, et al. Real-time PCR detection and quantification of *Fusarium poae*, *F. graminearum*, *F. sporotrichioides* and *F. langsethiae* in cereal grains in Finland and Russia. Arch Phytopathology Plant Protect. 2008; 41: 243–260.

49. Bluhm BH, Cousin MA, Woloshuk CP. Multiplex real-time PCR detection of fumonisin-producing and trichothecene-producing groups of *Fusarium* species. J Food Protect. 2004; 67: 536–543.

50. Salter SJ, Cox MJ, Turek EM, Calus ST, Cookson WO, Moffatt MF et al. Reagent and laboratory contamination can critically impact sequence-based microbiome analyses. BMC Biol. 2014; 12: 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12915-014-0087-z PMID: 25387460