| Literature DB >> 25829840 |
Matthew T Wayland1, Jouni K Vainio2, David I Gibson3, Elisabeth A Herniou4, D Timothy J Littlewood3, Risto Väinölä5.
Abstract
The acanthocephalan genus Echinorhynchus Zoega in Müller, 1776 (sensuYamaguti 1963) is a large and widespread group of parasites of teleost fish and malacostracan crustaceans, distributed from the Arctic to the Antarctic in habitats ranging from freshwaters to the deep-sea. A total of 52 species are currently recognised based on the conventional morphological species concept; however, the true diversity in the genus is masked by cryptic speciation. The considerable diversity within Echinorhynchus is an argument for subdividing the genus if monophyletic groups with supporting morphological characters can be identified. With this objective in mind, partial sequences of two genes with different rates of evolution and patterns of inheritance (nuclear 28S rRNA and mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I) were used to infer the phylogenetic relationships among eight taxa of Echinorhynchus. These included representatives of each of three genus group taxa proposed in a controversial revision of the genus based on cement gland pattern, namely Echinorhynchus (sensu stricto), Metechinorhynchus Petrochenko, 1956 and Pseudoechinorhynchus Petrochenko, 1956. These groupings have previously been rejected by some authorities, because the diagnostic character is poorly defined; this study shows that Echinorhynchus (sensu stricto) and Metechinorhynchus are not natural, monophyletic groups. A revision of Echinorhynchus will require tandem molecular phylogenetic and morphological analyses of a larger sample of taxa, but this study has identified two morhological characters that might potentially be used to define new genera. The estimated phylogeny also provides insight into the zoogeographical history of Echinorhynchus spp. We postulate that the ancestral Echinorhynchus had a freshwater origin and the genus subsequently invaded the sea, probably several times. The freshwater taxa of the Echinorhynchusbothniensis Zdzitowiecki & Valtonen, 1987 clade may represent a reinvasion of freshwater by one or more ancestral marine species.Entities:
Keywords: Acanthocephala; Acanthocephaluslucii; Echinorhynchusbothniensis; Echinorhynchusbrayi; Echinorhynchuscinctulus; Echinorhynchusgadi; Echinorhynchussalmonis; Echinorhynchustruttae; molecular phylogeny; parasite; phylogeny; systematics; taxonomy; zoogeography
Year: 2015 PMID: 25829840 PMCID: PMC4361782 DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.484.9132
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Zookeys ISSN: 1313-2970 Impact factor: 1.546
Figure 1.Historical record of species discovery in . Recognised diversity, as measured by the cumulative number of described taxa, plotted against time. Only species recognised by Amin (2013) are included.
Figure 2.Cement gland arrangements of the genera recognised by Petrochenko (1956). E. . M. . P. .
Sample information.
| Species | Host | Locality | Date collected | Genus | Environment | GenBank # | Voucher specimens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lake, Bleasby, Nottinghamshire, UK | 4/06/1997 | Freshwater | BM(NH) 2002.2.4.284–292 | ||||
| Lake Keitele, central Finland | 10/10/1996 | Freshwater | BM(NH) 2002.2.4.102–122 | ||||
| Lake Pulmankijärvi, northern Finland | 11/06/1990 | Freshwater | NA | ||||
| Porcupine Seabight, | 13/08/1997 | Marine, deep-sea | BM(NH) 1997.12.8.3 (holotype); BM(NH) 1997.12.8.4–28 | ||||
| Kuopio, Finland | 15/10/1996 | Freshwater | BM(NH) 2002.2.4.123–131 | ||||
| Baltic Sea, off Tvärminne, Hanko | 21/10/1992 | Marine | BM(NH) 2002.2.4.90–101 | ||||
| Mys Kartesh, Gulf of Kandalaksha, White Sea | 31/08/1994–2/09/1994 | Marine | NA | ||||
| Mys Kartesh, Gulf of Kandalaksha, White Sea | 31/08/1994–2/09/1994 | Marine | NA | ||||
| Bothnian Bay, Baltic Sea | 27/08/1996 | Freshwater | BM(NH) 2002.2.4.132–226 | ||||
| Loch Walton Burn, River Carron catchment, central Scotland (National Grid Reference NS 668 865) | 24/06/1996 | Freshwater | BM(NH) 2002.2.4.264–275 |
Acanthocephalans from and were the source of the 28S rDNA and COI sequences, respectively.
Cement gland arrangement in male spp. Notation for cement gland pattern from Shostak et al. (1986): A, clumped, three even pairs; B, clumped, three staggered pairs; C, chain-like, two pairs and two singles; D, chain-like, one pair and four singles; E, chain-like, six singles. Only specimens with six cement glands were used. Data sources: , and (Wayland 2013); , and (Wayland 2002); (Grabda-Kazubska and Ejsymont 1969).
| Species | A | B | C | D | E |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 (5.3%) | 4 (21.1%) | 10 (52.6%) | 4 (21.1%) | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 (44.4%) | 5 (55.6%) | |
| 1 (8%) | 7 (54%) | 3 (23%) | 2 (15%) | 0 | |
| 218 (100%) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 (8%) | 34 (92%) | |
| 0 | 1 (3%) | 16 (53%) | 13 (43%) | 0 | |
| 6 (37.5%) | 10 (62.5%) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Observed sequence divergence (%) between pairs of echinorhynchid species for the 28S rDNA (below the diagonal) and COI sequence data (above the diagonal).
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| — | 36.1 | 33.3 | 34.5 | 32.8 | 34.2 | 34.4 | 34.0 | 34.0 | 34.7 | |
| 18.5 | — | 29.7 | 27.7 | 28.7 | 29.7 | 29.7 | 29.4 | 28.7 | 28.9 | |
| 31.1 | 23.1 | — | 21.7 | 22.2 | 21.5 | 21.7 | 22.9 | 22.9 | 23.1 | |
| 19.1 | 15.5 | 6.6 | — | 16.8 | 17.4 | 17.3 | 19.0 | 17.1 | 18.0 | |
| 19.3 | 15.3 | 7.5 | 0.8 | — | 8.2 | 8.4 | 9.1 | 8.9 | 8.9 | |
| 19.2 | 15.4 | 7.1 | 0.5 | 0.3 | — | 0.2 | 7.2 | 6.5 | 6.3 | |
| 19.2 | 15.4 | 7.1 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.0 | — | 7.4 | 6.5 | 6.3 | |
| 19.2 | 15.4 | 7.1 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | 3.3 | 3.1 | |
| 19.2 | 15.4 | 7.1 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | 1.5 | |
| 19.2 | 15.4 | 7.1 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — |
sequences are identical
Figure 3.Phylogram estimated using Bayesian inference analysis of 28S rDNA sequence data. Numbers at nodes are clade support values (%) for each method of phylogeny reconstruction (BI/ML/MP). Tree is rooted on the outgroup .
Figure 4.Phylogram estimated using Bayesian inference analysis of COI sequence data. Numbers at nodes are clade credibility values (%) for each method of phylogeny reconstruction (BI/ML/MP). Tree is rooted on the outgroup .
Figure 5.Phylogenetic relationships of spp. inferred from maximum parsimony analysis of COI data-set. Trees are rooted on the outgroup . A Phylogram estimated using maximum parsimony analysis of COI sequence data. Numbers at nodes indicate bootstrap support (n = 10,000) B Consensus cladogram from maximum parsimony analysis of COI sequence data excluding third codon positions. Numbers at nodes indicate bootstrap support (n = 10,000).
Figure 6.Phylogram estimated using Bayesian inference analysis of concatenated 28S rDNA and COI sequence data. Numbers at nodes are clade support values (%) for each method of phylogeny reconstruction (BI/ML/MP). Tree is rooted on the outgroup .
Figure 7.Aquatic environment (freshwater/marine) mapped on to the fully resolved phylogeny inferred from the concatenated 28S and COI sequences. Bold letter indicates genus according to Petrochenko’s (1956) scheme: E, ; M, ; P, . The bar chart shows the mean number of paired cement glands in each taxon. Data for spp. are from Table 2. Since the particular cement gland pattern exhibited by each of the species of the group is not known, data from a collection of worms determined as have been used for spp. I & III (the bars for these species are shaded grey rather than black, to indicate a lower level of confidence in the data). Since typically displays paired cement glands (Petrochenko 1956), the mean number of paired cement glands in this taxon was assumed to be approximately three (bar shaded grey to indicate approximation).
Figure 8.Structure of the vagina in spp. A , a species with a single vaginal sphincter B , a species with two vaginal sphincters.