Plate Nº 17 · recorded November 12, 2026

Biology & EvolutionReported finding

Study finds a parasite of powdery mildew in about 7% of samples

A 2026 North Carolina State study found Ampelomyces in about 7% of powdery mildew specimens, while roughly 15% of GenBank samples labeled as the fungus were misidentified.

By Priya Raman4 min read705 words

In brief

  1. About 7% of all analyzed powdery mildew specimens carried Ampelomyces.
  2. More than 600 dried herbarium specimens came from 28 countries over about 150 years.
  3. Around 15% of GenBank samples labeled Ampelomyces were misidentified.
  4. The 2026 study called for broader geographic sampling and more diverse host types.
Even parasites have parasites: Fungus infects powdery mildew
Plate Nº 17Even parasites have parasites: Fungus infects powdery mildew — ulleo / pixabay

By Priya Raman

About 7% of specimens of powdery mildew, a disease caused by fungi, examined in a 2026 North Carolina State University study carried Ampelomyces, an intracellular fungus (one that lives inside the cells of another fungus). About 15% of GenBank samples labeled as Ampelomyces were misidentified, showing both an overlooked infection and a weakness in shared genetic records.

At the North Carolina State University herbarium, a collection of preserved plant and fungal samples, researchers screened more than 600 dried powdery mildew specimens. The material came from 28 countries and reached back about 150 years. They compared those observations with DNA records available through GenBank, a public database where scientists share genetic sequences for study.

That archive supplied evidence for two conclusions:

  • The parasite of powdery mildew was more prevalent than earlier records suggested.
  • Labels attached to some genetic entries did not reliably identify the organism.

Bradshaw explained why the second problem can spread: “These parasites are hard to identify, so what happens is someone misidentifies them and enters incorrect data. Then someone else sees that wrong data and uses it to classify their own samples, which leads to more wrong data, and it amplifies that way.”

GenBank functions much like a shared catalog: one mistaken label can be copied into later classifications, and the error can compound.

How did the researchers estimate prevalence?

Because powdery mildew fungi cannot be cultured, the team could not grow them for laboratory testing. Instead, it used preserved specimens to look for evidence of infection. The specimens spanned broad geography and time, while GenBank entries added DNA sequences to the comparison.

The screening found Ampelomyces in about 7% of all powdery mildew specimens analyzed. Ampelomyces acts as a hyperparasite, a parasite of a parasite: it infects the fungi that cause powdery mildew. The finding suggests that a less visible ecological interaction has remained partly hidden in preserved collections and reference records.

The researchers did more than count infections. They also checked the names attached to GenBank entries. Among samples labeled as Ampelomyces, they classified around 15% incorrectly. Bradshaw called the error a risk of relying on large data sets that anyone can contribute to.

Could Ampelomyces help control powdery mildew?

Michael Bradshaw, the study’s corresponding author (the researcher to whom outside questions about the paper are directed), is an assistant professor of entomology (insect biology) and plant pathology (plant-disease science) at North Carolina State University. He said that understanding hyperparasite diversity could help researchers identify strains better suited to controlling the fungus. He put the prospect cautiously:

“By understanding hyperparasite diversity and how many different strains are out there, it might give us insights on if some are better at controlling the fungus than others. There is a degree of host specificity to these hyperparasites, and if we are able to delve deeper they may be very useful in containing this plant disease.”

Host specificity, which describes how narrowly a parasite is associated with the organism it infects, could make strain differences matter. Bradshaw’s comments describe a possible route to disease control, not a treatment already demonstrated by the study. The reported screening measured prevalence and identification accuracy, while the potential control value remains a hypothesis for further study.

What can herbaria show next?

These findings show that herbaria can serve as powerful tools for studying hyperparasites and their interactions with plants and fungi. Infected preserved specimens offered a historical, geographically broad record that the team could compare with DNA sequence data. The study treats these collections as archives of ecological relationships that may remain difficult to observe directly.

The researchers identified two directions for expansion:

  • Sampling across broader geographic regions.
  • Studies spanning more diverse host types.

Both would extend a collection already spanning 28 countries and 150 years, although the reported percentages apply to the screened materials rather than every specimen worldwide.

The paper, “Parasites of parasites: Herbaria as archives of hidden ecological interactions,” appeared in 2026 in Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences (Proceedings B). Jacklyn Thomas and colleagues listed it under DOI 10.1098/rspb.2026.1772.

Taken together, the results show that the fungal parasite was more common than previously recognized, while shared genetic records still require biological checks.

via phys.org/rss-feed/ (Source)

Filed under

  • powdery-mildew
  • ampelomyces
  • fungal-hyperparasites
  • herbarium-specimens
  • genbank
Share this article:

More from Priya Raman

Priya Raman

Show full bio

Senior reporter covering people, launches and day-to-day practice in general science news at SciBeat.

342 articles

Nearby plates

« Previous articleNext article »