As mentioned before, we do not exclude the possibility that Bhp1 or Bhl1 are involved in sexual development. Hydrophobins are known to be important for the formation of fruiting bodies in basidiomycetous mushrooms such as Agaricus bisporus and Schizophyllum commune [2]. In the chestnut blight fungus Cryphonectria parasitica, the class II hydrophobin Niraparib ic50 cryparin has

been shown to cover the walls of fruiting bodies and to be required for normal fruiting body development [27]. Because several hydrophobins are encoded in the genomes of filamentous fungi, it is difficult to fully assess their roles and to exclude complimentary functions. In the tomato pathogen Cladosporium fulvum, six

hydrophobins have been identified. Using single mutations, one of them (Hcf1) was found to be required for spore surface hydrophobicity, another one (Hcf6) seems to be involved in adhesion of germinating spores to glass surfaces [28]. An attempt to assess the function of all hydrophobins simultaneously by multiple RNAi silencing failed to result in Selleck INCB028050 complete knock-down of the genes [29]. In Fusarium verticillioides, selleck compound five hydrophobin genes (hyd1 – hyd5) have been identified up to now in the genome. Phenotypical analysis of single mutants in these genes and of a hyd1/hyd2 double mutant revealed that hyd1 and hyd2 are required for normal microconidia formation, but did not provide evidence for a role of these hydrophobins in growth, infection behaviour, and mycelium hydrophobicity [16].

This indicates that in some fungi, including B. cinerea and F. verticillioides, hydrophobins Nutlin-3 order play only a minor – if any – role in generating cell wall surface hydrophobicity. However, they might serve other, as yet unknown functions. By far not all fungal spores contain superficial rodlet layers. For example, they are missing in the urediospores of rust fungi [30], and conidia of several powdery mildews [31]. Rust urediospores have been shown to be covered with a layer of lipids that can be extracted with organic solvents, leading to a significantly decreased hydrophobicity, and increased attachment to hydrophilic surfaces [32, 33]. Surface bound lipids, containing hydrocarbon and fatty acid constituents, have been described for spores of several but not all fungal species analysed. The lack of visible effects of hexane treatment on the surface structure of B. cinerea conidia indicates that simple lipids are not a major surface component of these spores. Alternatively, proteins other than hydrophobins could play a role in conferring surface hydrophobicity. In Stagonospora nodorum, preformed surface glycoproteins have been proposed to play a role in the attachment of conidia to hydrophobic surfaces [34]. In the yeasts S. cerevisiae and C.