Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T22:10:25.819Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phylogenetic relationships of the family Gryporhynchidae (Cestoda: Cyclophyllidea) inferred through SSU and LSU rDNA sequences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 September 2018

M.P. Ortega-Olivares Open the ORCID record for M.P. Ortega-Olivares [Opens in a new window]  and
M. García-Varela Open the ORCID record for M. García-Varela [Opens in a new window]
M.P. Ortega-Olivares*
Affiliation:
Departamento de Zoología, Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Avenida Universidad 3000, Ciudad Universitaria, C.P. 04510, Cuidad de México, Mexico
M. García-Varela
Affiliation:
Departamento de Zoología, Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Avenida Universidad 3000, Ciudad Universitaria, C.P. 04510, Cuidad de México, Mexico
*
Author for correspondence: M.P. Ortega-Olivares E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Tapeworms of the family Gryporhynchidae are endoparasites of fish-eating birds distributed worldwide. Currently the family contains 16 genera classified on the basis of the morphology of the rostellar apparatus, rostellar hooks and strobilar anatomy. However, the phylogenetic relationships among the genera are still unknown. In this study, sequences of the near complete 18S (SSU) and 28S (LSU) from rDNA of 13 species of gryporhynchids (adult specimens) representing eight genera (Cyclustera, Dendrouterina, Glossocercus, Gryporhynchidae gen. sp., Neovalipora, Paradilepis, Parvitaenia, Valipora) and one species of metacestode from fish (Neovalipora) were generated. Additionally, sequences of metacestodes of the genera Amirthalingamia, Neogryporhynchus, Paradilepis, Parvitaenia and Valipora from Africa recently added to the GenBank database were analysed. Phylogenetic relationships were inferred using maximum-likelihood (ML) and Bayesian inference of each (SSU and LSU) dataset. The phylogenetic analyses indicated that the family Gryporhynchidae is a well-supported monophyletic group within the Cyclophyllidea. The trees inferred with SSU and LSU datasets had similar topologies and suggested that the genera Glossocercus (two species sequenced) and Paradilepis (four spp.) are monophyletic. In contrast, Dendrouterina, Parvitaenia and Valipora are paraphyletic, suggesting that the species composition of these genera should be critically reviewed. Interestingly, species of the genera that use the same groups of definitive hosts such as herons (Ardeidae), cormorants (Phalacrocoracidae) and ibis (Threskiornithidae) are together in the phylogenetic tree, even though they differ markedly from each other in some morphological characters, especially shape and size of rostellar hooks.

Type
Research Paper
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 93 , Issue 6 , November 2019 , pp. 763 - 771
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baer, JG and Bona, F (1960) Revisión des cestodes Dilepididae Fuhrm., 1907 des Ardeiformes: note préliminaire. Bolletino di Istituto del Museo de Zoología 6, 91–143.Google Scholar
Bona, FV (1975) Etude critique et taxonomique des Dilepididae Fuhrmann, 1907 (Cestoda) parasites des Ciconiiformes: considérations sur la spécificité et la spéciation. Monitore Zoologico Italiano N. S. Monografia, 1. Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Bona, FV (1994) Family Dilepididae Railliet & Henry, 1909. In Khalil, LF, Jones, A and Bray, RA (eds), Key to the Cestode Parasites of Vertebrates. Wallingford: CAB International, pp. 443–554.Google Scholar
Brooks, DR, Hoberg, EP and Weekes, PJ (1991) Preliminary phylogenetic systematic analysis of the major lineages of the Eucestoda (Platyhelminthes: Cercomeria). Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 104, 651–668.Google Scholar
Brooks, DR and MacLennan, DA (1993) Parascript: Parasites and the Language of Evolution. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
Caira, JN and Jensen, K (2017) Planetary Biodiversity Inventory (2008–2017): Tapeworms from Vertebrate Bowels of the Earth. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Natural History Museum.Google Scholar
Hoberg, EP et al. (1997) Phylogeny of the orders of the Eucestoda (Cercomeromorphae) based on comparative morphology: historical perspectives and a new working hypothesis. Journal of Parasitology 83, 1128–1147.Google Scholar
Hoberg, EP, Gardner, SL and Campbell, RA (1999a) Systematics of the Eucestoda: advances toward a new phylogenetic paradigm, and observations on the early diversification of tapeworms and vertebrates. Systematic Parasitology 42, 1–12.Google Scholar
Hoberg, EP, Jones, A and Bray, RA (1999b) Phylogenetic analysis among the families of the Cyclophyllidea (Eucestoda) based on comparative morphology, with new hypotheses for co-evolution in vertebrates. Systematic Parasitology 42, 51–73.Google Scholar
Khalil, LF, Jones, A and Bray, RA (1994) Keys to the Cestode Parasites of Vertebrates. Wallingford: CAB International.Google Scholar
Linton, E (1927) Valipora parvispine: notes on cestode parasites of birds. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 70, 1–73.Google Scholar
Littlewood, DTJ (2006) The evolution of parasitism in flatworms. In Maule, AG and Marks, NJ (eds), Parasitic Flatworms: Molecular Biology, Biochemistry, Immunology and Physiology. Wallingford: CAB International.Google Scholar
Mariaux, J (1996) Cestode systematics: any progress? International Journal for Parasitology 26, 231–243.Google Scholar
Mariaux, J (1998) A molecular phylogeny of the Eucestoda. Journal of Parasitology 84, 114–124.Google Scholar
Mariaux, J and Olson, PD (2001) Cestode systematics in the molecular era. In Littlewood, DTJ and Bray, RA (eds), Interrelationships of the Platyhelminthes. London: Academic Press, pp. 127–134.Google Scholar
Mariaux, J et al. (2017) Cyclophyllidea van Beneden in Braun, 1900. In Caira, JN and Jensen, K (eds), Planetary Biodiversity Inventory (2008–2017): Tapeworms from Vertebrates Bowels of the Earth. Lawrence, KS: The University of Kansas Natural History Museum, pp. 77–148.Google Scholar
Ortega-Olivares, MP et al. (2008) Tapeworms (Cestoda: Gryporhynchidae) of fish-eating birds (Ciconiiformes) from Mexico: new host and geographical records. Comparative Parasitology 75, 182–195.Google Scholar
Ortega-Olivares, MP, García-Prieto, L and García-Varela, M (2014) Gryporhynchidae (Cestoda: Cyclophyllidea) in Mexico: species list, hosts, distribution and new records. Zootaxa 3795, 101–125.Google Scholar
Pleijel, F et al. (2008) Phylogenies without roots? A plea for the use of vouchers in molecular phylogenetic studies. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 48, 369–371.Google Scholar
Posada, D (2008) jModeltest: phylogenetic model averaging. Molecular Biology and Evolution 25, 1253–1256.Google Scholar
Presswell, B, Poulin, R and Randhawa, HS (2012) First report of a gryporhynchid tapeworm (Cestoda: Cyclophyllidea) from New Zealand and from an eleotrid fish, described from metacestodes and in vitro-grown worms. Journal of Helminthology 86, 453–464.Google Scholar
Ronquist, F et al. (2012) MrBayes 3.2: efficient Bayesian phylogenetics inference and model choice across a large model space. Systematic Biology 61, 539–542.Google Scholar
Schmidt, GD (1986) CRC Handbook of Tapeworm Identification. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Scholz, T (2001) Identity of Cysticercoides menidiae Chandler, 1935 (Cestoda: Dilepididae). Journal of Parasitology 87, 927–928.Google Scholar
Scholz, T and Salgado-Maldonado, G (2001) Metacestodes of the family Dilepididae (Cestoda: Cyclophyllidea) parasitising fishes in Mexico. Systematic Parasitology 49, 23–40.Google Scholar
Scholz, T, Kuchta, R and Salgado-Maldonado, G (2002) Cestodes of the family Dilepididae (Cestoda: Cyclophyllidea) from fish-eating birds in Mexico: a survey of species. Systematic Parasitology 52, 171–182.Google Scholar
Scholz, T et al. (2004) Larvae of gryporhynchid cestodes (Cyclophyllidea) from fish: a review. Folia Parasitologica 51, 131–152.Google Scholar
Scholz, T et al. (2018) An annotated list and molecular data on larvae of gryporhynchid tapeworms (Cestoda: Cyclophyllidea) from freshwater fishes in Africa. Systematic Parasitology 95, 567–590.Google Scholar
Spassky, AA and Spasskaya, LP (1973) [A new subfamily Gryporhynchinae subfam n. (Cestoda: Dilepididae)]. Izvestiya Akademii nauk Moldavskoi SSR. Seriia Biologicheskikh i Khimicheskikh 5, 56–58. (In Russian)Google Scholar
Stamatakis, A (2006) RAxML-VI-HPC: maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic analyses with thousand of taxa and mixed models. Bioinformatics 22, 2688–2690.Google Scholar
Tamura, K et al. (2013) MEGA 6: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 6.0. Molecular Biology and Evolution 30, 2725–2729.Google Scholar
Thompson, JD et al. (1997) The Clustal X windows interface: flexible strategies for multiple sequence alignment aided by quality analysis tools. Nucleic Acids Research 25, 4876–4882.Google Scholar