| Literature DB >> 33581141 |
Nicola J Beesley1, Elizabeth Attree2, Severo Vázquez-Prieto3, Román Vilas4, Esperanza Paniagua5, Florencio M Ubeira5, Oscar Jensen6, Cesar Pruzzo7, José D Álvarez8, Jorge Bruno Malandrini9, Hugo Solana10, Jane E Hodgkinson2.
Abstract
Fasciola hepatica, the liver fluke, is a trematode parasite that causes disease of economic importance in livestock. As a zoonosis this parasite also poses a risk to human health in areas where it is endemic. Population genetic studies can reveal the mechanisms responsible for genetic structuring (non-panmixia) within parasite populations and provide valuable insights into population dynamics, which in turn enables theoretical predictions of evolutionary dynamics such as the evolution of drug resistance. Here we genotyped 320 F. hepatica collected from 14 definitive hosts from four provinces in Argentina. STRUCTURE analysis indicated three population clusters, and principal coordinate analysis confirmed this, showing population clustering across provinces. Similarly, pairwise FST values amongst all four provinces were significant, with standardised pairwise FST (F'ST) ranging from 0.0754 to 0.6327. Therefore, population genetic structure was evident across these four provinces in Argentina. However, there was no evidence of deviation from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, so it appears that within these sub-populations there is largely random mating. We identified 263 unique genotypes, which gave a clonal diversity of 82%. Parasites with identical genotypes, clones, accounted for 26.6% of the parasites studied and were found in 12 of the 14 hosts studied, suggesting some clonemate transmission.Entities:
Keywords: Argentina; Clones; Fasciola hepatica; Population genetics; Population structure
Year: 2021 PMID: 33581141 PMCID: PMC8113023 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2020.11.007
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Parasitol ISSN: 0020-7519 Impact factor: 3.981
Fig. 1Provincial map of Argentina detailing the locations of sampling sites. Labels match those listed in Table 1.
Fasciola hepatica populations collected from sheep, cattle and a horse in Argentina.
| Animal ID | Host | No. of parasitesa | Farm No. | Locality | Province |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANC | Cow | 14 (14) | 1 | Ancasti, Departamento Ancasti | Catamarca |
| TLR | Cow | 13 (13) | 2 | Telaritos, Departamento Capayán | Catamarca |
| ARSOV | Sheep | 24 (24) | 3 | Alto Río Senguer, Departamento Río Senguer | Chubut |
| DOP | Cow | 14 (13) | 4 | Dorama Oporto, Departamento de Sarmiento | Chubut |
| GL1 | Cow | 12 (6) | 5 | Granja Lloyd, Departamento de Sarmiento | Chubut |
| GL2 | Cow | 20 (20) | 5 | Granja Lloyd, Departamento de Sarmiento | Chubut |
| GLOV | Sheep | 25 (23) | 5 | Granja Lloyd, Departamento de Sarmiento | Chubut |
| SPCH | Cow | 20 (18) | 6 | Colhué Huapi, Departamento de Sarmiento | Chubut |
| SVCH | Foal | 31 (31) | 7 | Colhué Huapi, Departamento de Sarmiento | Chubut |
| BA1 | Cow | 28 (27) | 8 | Berón de Astrada | Corrientes |
| BA2 | Cow | 37 (35) | 8 | Berón de Astrada | Corrientes |
| RT1 | Cow | 12 (12) | 9/10b | Rosario del Tala | Entre Ríos |
| RT2 | Cow | 48 (45) | 9/10b | Rosario del Tala | Entre Ríos |
| RT3 | Cow | 40 (39) | 9/10b | Rosario del Tala | Entre Ríos |
aNumber of parasites successfully genotyped at Fh_2, Fh_5, Fh_6, Fh_10, Fh_11, Fh_12, Fh_13 and Fh_15, and used in subsequent analyses, is shown in parentheses
bParasites from Rosario del Tala were collected from two farms from the same locality; information on which animals originated from which farm was not available
Fig. 2Results from Structure 2.3.4 (Pritchard et al., 2000), the admixture model (alternative prior, ALPHA allowed to vary for each population and an initial value of ALPHA of 0.0714) with the correlated allele frequency model was run 20 times for K = 1 to 14. Burn-in length was 500,000 followed by 100,000 Markov Chain Monte Carlo repeats. (A) The mean ± standard deviation of the estimated Ln probability is plotted for each value of K. The peak is at K = 3. (B) Bar plot from Structure 2.3.4 for K = 3. Results are grouped by province. There is strong clustering by region: parasites from Corrientes, parasites from Entre Ríos, and parasites from Catamarca and Chubut.
Fig. 3Result of principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) based on a pairwise genetic distance matrix between each individual parasite and the standardised covariance method was performed in Genalex v6.51b2 (Peakall and Smouse, 2006, Peakall and Smouse, 2012). PCoA analysis also shows population structure; this is particularly evident in parasites from Corrientes (triangles), however parasites from Chubut (squares) and Entre Ríos (circles) also show separation on axis 2.
Pairwise FST results and corresponding P values between Fasciola hepatica parasites from each province studied in Argentina.
| Province | Catamarca | Chubut | Corrientes | Entre Rios |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Catamarca | 0 | 0.0030 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 |
| Chubut | 0.0200 a | 0 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 |
| Corrientes | 0.3471 a | 0.2666 a | 0 | 0.0000 |
| Entre Rios | 0.0350 a | 0.0339 a | 0.2897 a | 0 |
FST values are below the diagonal and P values are above the diagonal.
aSignificant differences based on the sequential Bonferroni method (Holm, 1979).
Standardised pairwise FST (F′ST) results between Fasciola hepatica parasites from each province studied in Argentina.
| Province | Catamarca | Chubut | Corrientes | Entre Rios |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Catamarca | 0 | |||
| Chubut | 0.0754 | 0 | ||
| Corrientes | 0.6327 | 0.5890 | 0 | |
| Entre Rios | 0.1309 | 0.1289 | 0.6301 | 0 |
F′ST were calculated by dividing the initial FST by the maximum value of FST given the present within-population variance (Meirmans and Hedrick, 2011).
Summary statistics following population genetic analyses of Fasciola hepatica across four regions of Argentina.
| Parameter | Province | All locations | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Catamarca | Chubut | Corrientes | Entre Ríos | |||
| No. of parasites successfully genotyped | 27 | 135 | 62 | 96 | 320 | |
| No. of alleles | Fh_2 | 11 | 19 | 6 | 19 | 23 |
| Fh_5 | 10 | 22 | 4 | 13 | 25 | |
| Fh_6 | 14 | 24 | 4 | 23 | 29 | |
| Fh_10 | 9 | 10 | 2 | 10 | 11 | |
| Fh_11 | 9 | 11 | 2 | 9 | 11 | |
| Fh_12 | 5 | 11 | 6 | 8 | 12 | |
| Fh_13 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 7 | |
| Fh_15 | 5 | 9 | 1 | 7 | 9 | |
| No. of genotypes | Fh_2 | 15 | 49 | 11 | 52 | 94 |
| Fh_5 | 13 | 50 | 4 | 35 | 74 | |
| Fh_6 | 13 | 62 | 5 | 64 | 116 | |
| Fh_10 | 10 | 24 | 3 | 39 | 46 | |
| Fh_11 | 14 | 27 | 3 | 25 | 38 | |
| Fh_12 | 7 | 23 | 13 | 16 | 32 | |
| Fh_13 | 8 | 11 | 3 | 6 | 12 | |
| Fh_15 | 5 | 16 | 1 | 9 | 17 | |
| No. of distinct MLGs | 17 | 98 | 61 | 87 | 263 | |
| No. of multicopy MLGs a | 6 | 15 | 1 | 6 | 28 | |
| No. of clones a | 16 | 52 | 2 | 15 | 85 | |
| Genotypic richness b, c | 0.615 | 0.726 | 0.984 | 0.905 | ND | |
| Gene diversity b, d | 0.728 | 0.739 | 0.310 | 0.735 | ND | |
| FIS ( | 0.010 (0.4734) | 0.009 (0.2859) | 0.041 (0.2063) | 0.027 (0.0797) | ND | |
| No. of loci pairs showing LD ( | 2 | 3 | 0 | 2 | ND | |
aOnly multicopy multilocus genotypes (MLGs) with Psex values < 0.05 at n = 2 (i.e. clonemates) are included in these counts.
bMulticopy MLGs with Psex values < 0.05 at n = 2 (i.e. clonemates) were reduced to one instance for these analyses (263 parasites).
cGenotypic richness was calculated using the formula (G – 1)/(N – 1) [where G = the number of unique MLGs and N = the number of individuals] (Dorken and Eckert, 2001).
dGene diversity was averaged across loci.
eLinkage disequilibrium (LD) was assessed by performing pairwise tests for all 28 pairs of loci. If four or more of these were significant (P < 0.05) this would be a sign that there was some level of linkage disequilibrium (cumulative binomial probability = 0.049; Waples, 2015).
Distribution of clonemates (multicopy multilocus genotypes (MLGs) of Fasciola hepatica amongst the individual definitive hosts studied in Argentina.
| Animal ID | No. of parasites successfully genotyped | No. of clonal parasites | No. of clonemates (parasites identified with each repeated MLG)a | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 9 | 12 | 18 | 39 | 40 | 42 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 66 | 81 | 88 | 96 | 97 | 99 | 101 | 103 | 150 | 178 | 180 | 181 | 206 | 212 | 216 | |||
| ANC | 14 | 10 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| TLR | 13 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ARSOV | 24 | 4 | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| DOP | 13 | 7 | 2 | 3 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GL1 | 6 | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GL2 | 20 | 15 | 6 | 3 | 6 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GLOV | 23 | 6 | 6 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| SPCH | 18 | 5 | 3 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| SVCH | 31 | 15 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| BA1 | 27 | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| BA2 | 35 | 2 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| RT1 | 12 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| RT2 | 45 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| RT3 | 39 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
aOnly multicopy MLGs with Psex values < 0.05 at n = 2 (i.e. clonemates) are included in these counts and the number assigned to each MLG matches the ID codes given in Supplementary Table S1.