Limits...
Phylogenetic relationships of some species of the family Echinostomatidae Odner, 1910 (Trematoda), inferred from nuclear rDNA sequences and karyological analysis.

Stanevičiūtė G, Stunžėnas V, Petkevičiūtė R - Comp Cytogenet (2015)

Bottom Line: The family Echinostomatidae Looss, 1899 exhibits a substantial taxonomic diversity, morphological criteria adopted by different authors have resulted in its subdivision into an impressive number of subfamilies.These results supported close phylogenetic relationships between Echinochasmus Dietz, 1909 and Stephanoprora Odhner, 1902.According to the data based on rDNA phylogeny, it was supposed that evolution of parasitic flukes linked with first intermediate hosts.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Institute of Ecology of Nature Research Centre, Akademijos str. 2, LT-08412 Vilnius, Lithuania.

ABSTRACT
The family Echinostomatidae Looss, 1899 exhibits a substantial taxonomic diversity, morphological criteria adopted by different authors have resulted in its subdivision into an impressive number of subfamilies. The status of the subfamily Echinochasminae Odhner, 1910 was changed in various classifications. Genetic characteristics and phylogenetic analysis of four Echinostomatidae species - Echinochasmus sp., Echinochasmuscoaxatus Dietz, 1909, Stephanoprorapseudoechinata (Olsson, 1876) and Echinoparyphiummordwilkoi Skrjabin, 1915 were obtained to understand well enough the homogeneity of the Echinochasminae and phylogenetic relationships within the Echinostomatidae. Chromosome set and nuclear rDNA (ITS2 and 28S) sequences of parthenites of Echinochasmus sp. were studied. The karyotype of this species (2n=20, one pair of large bi-armed chromosomes and others are smaller-sized, mainly one-armed, chromosomes) differed from that previously described for two other representatives of the Echinochasminae, Echinochasmusbeleocephalus (von Linstow, 1893), 2n=14, and Episthmiumbursicola (Creplin, 1937), 2n=18. In phylogenetic trees based on ITS2 and 28S datasets, a well-supported subclade with Echinochasmus sp. and Stephanoprorapseudoechinata clustered with one well-supported clade together with Echinochasmusjaponicus Tanabe, 1926 (data only for 28S) and Echinochasmuscoaxatus. These results supported close phylogenetic relationships between Echinochasmus Dietz, 1909 and Stephanoprora Odhner, 1902. Phylogenetic analysis revealed a clear separation of related species of Echinostomatoidea restricted to prosobranch snails as first intermediate hosts, from other species of Echinostomatidae and Psilostomidae, developing in Lymnaeoidea snails as first intermediate hosts. According to the data based on rDNA phylogeny, it was supposed that evolution of parasitic flukes linked with first intermediate hosts. Digeneans parasitizing prosobranch snails showed higher dynamic of karyotype evolution provided by different chromosomal rearrangements including Robertsonian translocations and pericentric inversions than more stable karyotype of digenean worms parasitizing lymnaeoid pulmonate snails.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Mitotic metaphase and karyotype of Echinochasmus sp. Bar = 10 µm.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons-attribution
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4488972&req=5

Figure 1: Mitotic metaphase and karyotype of Echinochasmus sp. Bar = 10 µm.

Mentions: Chromosomes of 113 mitotic metaphase spreads from three molluscs revealed that karyotype of Echinochasmus sp. is 2n=20; it consists of one pair of large chromosomes and nine pairs of smaller-size chromosomes. Also, the percentage of aneuploid cells (2n=18–19) was 10.62%. Twelve spreads displaying values lower than modal, represent aneuploidies or (more likely) loss of chromosomes during processing, a technical artefact commonly encountered with the slide preparation method used. The measurements of mitotic chromosomes showed ten chromosome pairs ranging in size from 2.11 to 7.64 μm (Fig. 1, Table 1). The mean total length of the haploid complement is 40.07 μm. The homologues of the 1st pair are significantly large than the remaining chromosomes and comprise about 19% of the total chromosome complement length. According to the centomeric index value they are of submeta-or metacentrics. The remaining chromosomes decrease in size fairly gradually. Three pairs (2nd, 4th and 5th) fall into an intermediate position between acrocentric and subtelocentric; pair 3rd is subtelocentric - submetacentric; pair 6th is submetacentric and four last chromosome pairs (7th – 10th) are subtelocentric.


Phylogenetic relationships of some species of the family Echinostomatidae Odner, 1910 (Trematoda), inferred from nuclear rDNA sequences and karyological analysis.

Stanevičiūtė G, Stunžėnas V, Petkevičiūtė R - Comp Cytogenet (2015)

Mitotic metaphase and karyotype of Echinochasmus sp. Bar = 10 µm.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons-attribution
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4488972&req=5

Figure 1: Mitotic metaphase and karyotype of Echinochasmus sp. Bar = 10 µm.
Mentions: Chromosomes of 113 mitotic metaphase spreads from three molluscs revealed that karyotype of Echinochasmus sp. is 2n=20; it consists of one pair of large chromosomes and nine pairs of smaller-size chromosomes. Also, the percentage of aneuploid cells (2n=18–19) was 10.62%. Twelve spreads displaying values lower than modal, represent aneuploidies or (more likely) loss of chromosomes during processing, a technical artefact commonly encountered with the slide preparation method used. The measurements of mitotic chromosomes showed ten chromosome pairs ranging in size from 2.11 to 7.64 μm (Fig. 1, Table 1). The mean total length of the haploid complement is 40.07 μm. The homologues of the 1st pair are significantly large than the remaining chromosomes and comprise about 19% of the total chromosome complement length. According to the centomeric index value they are of submeta-or metacentrics. The remaining chromosomes decrease in size fairly gradually. Three pairs (2nd, 4th and 5th) fall into an intermediate position between acrocentric and subtelocentric; pair 3rd is subtelocentric - submetacentric; pair 6th is submetacentric and four last chromosome pairs (7th – 10th) are subtelocentric.

Bottom Line: The family Echinostomatidae Looss, 1899 exhibits a substantial taxonomic diversity, morphological criteria adopted by different authors have resulted in its subdivision into an impressive number of subfamilies.These results supported close phylogenetic relationships between Echinochasmus Dietz, 1909 and Stephanoprora Odhner, 1902.According to the data based on rDNA phylogeny, it was supposed that evolution of parasitic flukes linked with first intermediate hosts.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Institute of Ecology of Nature Research Centre, Akademijos str. 2, LT-08412 Vilnius, Lithuania.

ABSTRACT
The family Echinostomatidae Looss, 1899 exhibits a substantial taxonomic diversity, morphological criteria adopted by different authors have resulted in its subdivision into an impressive number of subfamilies. The status of the subfamily Echinochasminae Odhner, 1910 was changed in various classifications. Genetic characteristics and phylogenetic analysis of four Echinostomatidae species - Echinochasmus sp., Echinochasmuscoaxatus Dietz, 1909, Stephanoprorapseudoechinata (Olsson, 1876) and Echinoparyphiummordwilkoi Skrjabin, 1915 were obtained to understand well enough the homogeneity of the Echinochasminae and phylogenetic relationships within the Echinostomatidae. Chromosome set and nuclear rDNA (ITS2 and 28S) sequences of parthenites of Echinochasmus sp. were studied. The karyotype of this species (2n=20, one pair of large bi-armed chromosomes and others are smaller-sized, mainly one-armed, chromosomes) differed from that previously described for two other representatives of the Echinochasminae, Echinochasmusbeleocephalus (von Linstow, 1893), 2n=14, and Episthmiumbursicola (Creplin, 1937), 2n=18. In phylogenetic trees based on ITS2 and 28S datasets, a well-supported subclade with Echinochasmus sp. and Stephanoprorapseudoechinata clustered with one well-supported clade together with Echinochasmusjaponicus Tanabe, 1926 (data only for 28S) and Echinochasmuscoaxatus. These results supported close phylogenetic relationships between Echinochasmus Dietz, 1909 and Stephanoprora Odhner, 1902. Phylogenetic analysis revealed a clear separation of related species of Echinostomatoidea restricted to prosobranch snails as first intermediate hosts, from other species of Echinostomatidae and Psilostomidae, developing in Lymnaeoidea snails as first intermediate hosts. According to the data based on rDNA phylogeny, it was supposed that evolution of parasitic flukes linked with first intermediate hosts. Digeneans parasitizing prosobranch snails showed higher dynamic of karyotype evolution provided by different chromosomal rearrangements including Robertsonian translocations and pericentric inversions than more stable karyotype of digenean worms parasitizing lymnaeoid pulmonate snails.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus