| Literature DB >> 25340824 |
Ryusei Tanaka1, Akina Hino1, Isheng J Tsai2, Juan Emilio Palomares-Rius1, Ayako Yoshida1, Yoshitoshi Ogura3, Tetsuya Hayashi3, Haruhiko Maruyama1, Taisei Kikuchi1.
Abstract
Parasite diversity has important implications in several research fields including ecology, evolutionary biology and epidemiology. Wide-ranging analysis has been restricted because of the difficult, highly specialised and time-consuming processes involved in parasite identification. In this study, we assessed parasite diversity in wild rats using 18S rDNA-based metagenomics. 18S rDNA PCR products were sequenced using an Illumina MiSeq sequencer and the analysis of the sequences using the QIIME software successfully classified them into several parasite groups. The comparison of the results with those obtained using standard methods including microscopic observation of helminth parasites in the rat intestines and PCR amplification/sequencing of 18S rDNA from isolated single worms suggests that this new technique is reliable and useful to investigate parasite diversity.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25340824 PMCID: PMC4207705 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0110769
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Wild rats used in this study.
| Rat ID | Species | Gender | Body length (cm) | Tail length (cm) | Body weight (g) | Location | Collection Date |
| TR2 |
| F | 18 | NA | NA | NishiTachibana St., MiyazakiCity | 6-Nov-13 |
| TR3 |
| F | 19 | NA | NA | NishiTachibana St., MiyazakiCity | 6-Nov-13 |
| TR4 |
| F | 19 | 16 | 151.6 | NishiTachibana St., MiyazakiCity | 8-Nov-13 |
| TR5 |
| M | 23 | 21 | 311.2 | NishiTachibana St., MiyazakiCity | 8-Nov-13 |
| TR6 |
| M | 16.5 | 14.5 | 97.5 | NishiTachibana St., MiyazakiCity | 8-Nov-13 |
| TR7 |
| F | 20.5 | 18 | 191.2 | NishiTachibana St., MiyazakiCity | 8-Nov-13 |
| TR8 |
| F | 18 | 17 | 159 | NishiTachibana St., MiyazakiCity | 9-Nov-13 |
| ZR1 |
| F | 14 | 18 | 100.8 | Phoenix zoo, Miyazaki City | 28-Jan-14 |
| ZR2 |
| M | 14 | 15 | 96.3 | Phoenix zoo, Miyazaki City | 28-Jan-14 |
*Rat IDs were assigned based on collection locations (TR or ZR).
**F: female, M: male.
Numbers of helminth parasites identified in rat intestines.
| Rat ID | Nematodes | Cestodes | |||||
| morphA | morphB | morphC | morphD | morphE | morphF | ||
| TR2 | 0 | 75 (35) | 1 (1) | 85 (40) | 11 (5) | 0 | 0 |
| TR3 | 2 (0) | 19 (19) | 6 (3) | 142 (84) | 7 (2) | 0 | 0 |
| TR4 | 0 | 134 (117) | 2 (0) | 42 (33) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| TR5 | 0 | 177 (177) | 0 | 128 (125) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| TR6 | 0 | 37 (37) | 2 (1) | 165 (160) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| TR7 | 0 | 344 (333) | 6 (4) | 273 (234) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| TR8 | 0 | 130 (117) | 0 | 94 (74) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| ZR1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| ZR2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 (0) | 3 |
Helminth parasites observed in the rat intestines were classified into 7 groups based on their morphological traits (Figure 1).
The total number of parasites is shown in each cell. Values in parentheses are the number of parasites identified in the first 20 cm from the pylorus ring.
Figure 1Seven morphological types identified in wild rat intestines.
(A–F) Nematoda, (G) Cestoda (bar = 200 µm).
Morphological characters of isolated helminths.
| MorphologyType | No. measured | Stage | Body length(mm) | Body width(µm) | Length ofesophagus(µm) | Descriptive characters |
| morph A | 1 | ND | 210 | 294 | ND | large body size, cylindrical shape,creamy-white colour |
| morph B | 4 | adult male | 2.26 (1.74–2.76) | 74.6(61.1–92.7) | 247 (192–294) | red spiralled body, a prominentunbrella-like bursa and twospicules at the posterior end |
| 4 | adult female | 2.81(2.37–3.26) | 68.71 (63.9–72.2) | 269 (241–330) | red spiralled body, ellipsoidaleggs inside of the body, vulvaopens at the posterior end | |
| morph C | 4 | larva | 0.83 (0.77–0.88) | 29.0(19.9–40.5) | 178 (140–226) | middle size (∼1.0 mm)rhabditiform |
| morph D | 3 | adult female | 1.98(1.83–2.10) | 30.0(28.7–31.0) | 147 (146–147) | thin body, long pharynx, onlyfemales found, ellipsoidal eggsand vulva in the middle of thebody |
| morph E | 3 | larva | 0.19 (0.17–0.20) | 14.4 (14.2–14.7) | 66.2 (53.6–72.6) | small size (∼0.20 mm)rhabditiform |
| morph F | 1 | adult male | 1.57 | 74.5 | 258 | braod cervical alae, ovalesophageal bulb, slightly hookedtail with no clear spiclues |
| 1 | unmatured female | 1.32 | 60.1 | 254 | braod cervical alae, ovalesophageal bulb, pharynx plainlyvisible, conical shaped tail | |
| morph G | 2 | adult | >200 | 1181 (1153–1231) | NA | flat segemented body, 4 suckers atthe scolex, proglottids with bothmale/female sexual organs |
mean; range of the size in parentheses.
probably 4th stage lavae.
ND; Not determined, NA; Not applicable.
Species identification of isolated helminths based on 18S rDNA sequencing.
| Morphology type | Number of sequences | Top hit in nematode 18S database | Sequencesimilarity (%) | Alignmentlength (bp) | sequence ID in |
| morph A | 1 |
| 98.2 | 895 | A1 |
| morph B | 26 |
| 99.2 | 906 | B1 |
| 12 | [AJ920356] or | 97.5 | 906 | B2 | |
| morph C | 6 |
| 99.2 | 906 | C1 |
| 3 | [AJ920356] or | 97.5 | 906 | C2 | |
| 1 |
| 98.1 | 906 | C3 | |
| morph D | 12 |
| 99.7 | 902 | D1 |
| 14 |
| 99.8 | 895 | D2 | |
| morph E | 8 |
| 99.8 | 895 | E1 |
| morph F | 2 |
| 100 | 135 | F1 |
| morph G | 2 |
| 99.9 | 2005 | G1 |
Figure 2QIIME phylum-level classification of the 18S rDNA Illumina sequencing data.
Figure 3Parasite sequences in the QIIME superfamily-level classification.
Nematode reads re-assigned with in-house nematode 18S database.
| Order; Family | TR2 | TR3 | TR4 | TR5 | TR6 | TR7 | TR8 | ZR1 | ZR2 | Possible nematode species |
| Rhabditida; Strongyloididae | 119998 | 500677 | 208730 | 1085734 | 862840 | 292994 | 477358 | 129 | 526 |
|
| Strongylida; Heligmonellidae | 12381 | 40979 | 474806 | 356714 | 31943 | 159843 | 148495 | 55 | 238 |
|
| Ascaridida; Ascaridiidae, Heterakidae | 87 | 134 | 78 | 5 | 0 | 41 | 208 | 0 | 0 |
|
| Oxyurida; Heteroxynematidae | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 137 |
|
| Rhabditida; Rhabditidae | 0 | 0 | 27 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
Minimum 4-read filter was applied.
Comparison of the detection results from the standard method and the 18S Illumina method.
| TR2 | TR3 | TR4 | TR5 | TR6 | TR7 | TR8 | ZR1 | ZR2 | |||||||||||
| Standard method species | Illumina best classification | Std | Ilm | Std | Ilm | Std | Ilm | Std | Ilm | Std | Ilm | Std | Ilm | Std | Ilm | Std | Ilm | Std | Ilm |
|
|
| + | + | ||||||||||||||||
|
|
| + | + | ||||||||||||||||
|
|
| + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||
|
|
| + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||
|
|
| + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||
|
| - | + | |||||||||||||||||
|
|
| + | + | + | + | ||||||||||||||
“+” indicates worm/sequence detected. Std; Standard method, Ilm; 18S Illumina method.
these samples can be divided into two groups based on the 18S sequences.