Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-7g5wt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-15T13:09:04.164Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The importance of integrative approaches in nematode taxonomy: the validity of Parapharyngodon and Thelandros as distinct genera

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 September 2018

A. De Sousa
Affiliation:
CIBIO/ InBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, Universidade do Porto, Campus de Vairão, 4485-661 Vairão, Portugal
F. Jorge
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Otago, 340 Great King Street, PO Box 56, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand
M.A. Carretero
Affiliation:
CIBIO/ InBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, Universidade do Porto, Campus de Vairão, 4485-661 Vairão, Portugal
D.J. Harris
Affiliation:
CIBIO/ InBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, Universidade do Porto, Campus de Vairão, 4485-661 Vairão, Portugal Departamento de Biologia, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade do Porto, Rua Campo Alegre, 4169-007, Porto, Portugal
V. Roca
Affiliation:
Departament de Zoologia, Facultat de Ciències Biològiques, Universitat de València. Dr. Moliner, 50, 46100 Burjassot, Spain
A. Perera*
Affiliation:
CIBIO/ InBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, Universidade do Porto, Campus de Vairão, 4485-661 Vairão, Portugal
*
Author for correspondence: A. Perera, E-mail: perera@cibio.up.pt
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite the advances of molecular tools, new nematode species are still described mainly based on morphological characters. Parapharyngodon and Thelandros are two genera of oxyurids with unclear related taxonomic histories. Here we use morphological characters (linear measurements and categorical variables) and genetic information (18S rRNA, 28S rRNA and COI partial gene sequences) to confirm the relationships between representatives of these two genera and to determine whether they can be discriminated morphologically. Genetic results confirm the existence of two main clades, mostly congruent with Parapharyngodon and Thelandros genera but with several discordances. Thelandros is polyphyletic, with two of the species analysed (T. filiformis and T. tinerfensis) being part of the Thelandros clade, but with a third one (T. galloti) falling within the Parapharyngodon clade. Regarding the Parapharyngodon clade, P. cubensis, P. scleratus and Parapharyngodon sp. from Mexico form congruent lineages, while most P. echinatus samples cluster in another group, with one exception. Interestingly, P. micipsae samples are scattered across the Parapharyngodon clade, suggesting that they were misidentified or rather represent alternative morphotypes of other species. Morphological analysis identified the length of the tail, number of caudal papillae, position of the nerve ring, presence of caudal alae and length of the lateral alae as reliable characters to distinguish between Parapharyngodon and Thelandros genetic clades. Our study highlights the current taxonomic inconsistency in these groups, mainly derived from the exclusive use of morphological data. As such, we advocate for the routine implementation of molecular data in nematode taxonomic studies.

Type
Research Paper
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Introduction

Nematodes are among the most successful group of organisms on Earth, in terms of both abundance and diversity (Dorris et al., Reference Dorris, De Ley and Blaxter1999), although an accurate estimate of the number of species is still lacking (Dobson et al., Reference Dobson2008). One of the reasons for this underestimation is the small body size, which together with imaging resolution limitations and the scarcity of taxonomic specialists restricts the choice and identification of appropriate morphological characters (De Ley et al., Reference De Ley2005). The implementation of molecular techniques has increased the number of new species described, frequently revealing the existence of cryptic species, undetected by traditional morphological approaches (Derycke et al., Reference Derycke2010; Nadler and Pérez-Ponce de León, Reference Nadler and Pérez-Ponce de León2011; Jorge et al., Reference Jorge2013; Ristau et al., Reference Ristau, Steinfartz and Traunspurger2013). When dealing with small organisms such as nematodes, molecular tools are not only useful but are now imperative to overcome taxonomic challenges.

The genus Parapharyngodon has been revised multiple times since its description by Chatterji in Reference Chatterji1933. This genus of oxyurid nematodes includes over 50 species distributed worldwide (Bursey and Goldberg, Reference Bursey and Goldberg2015; Pereira et al., Reference Pereira2017), many described very recently (e.g. Garduño-Montes de Oca et al., Reference Garduño-Montes de Oca, Mata-López and León-Règagnon2016; Pereira et al., Reference Pereira2017; Rizvi et al., Reference Rizvi, Maiti and Bursey2017). Still, the validity of the genus has been questioned repeatedly (Teixeira de Freitas, Reference Teixeira de Freitas1957). While many authors claim its generic status (e.g. Adamson, Reference Adamson1981; Roca, Reference Roca1985; Castaño-Fernández et al., Reference Castaño-Fernández, Zapatero-Ramos and Puertas1987; Hering-Hagenbeck et al., Reference Hering-Hagenbeck, Petter and Boomker2002), others consider it to be a subgenus of Thelandros Wedl, 1862 (e.g. Yamaguti, Reference Yamaguti1961) or a synonym (e.g. Baylis, Reference Baylis1936; Petter and Quentin, Reference Petter, Quentin, Anderson, Chabaud and Willmott2009; Dung et al., Reference Dung, Bursey and Goldberg2009 and references within). As currently considered, both genera exhibit distinct host preferences, with Parapharyngodon being typically found in insectivorous reptiles and amphibians, and Thelandros in herbivorous or omnivorous reptiles (Adamson, Reference Adamson1981). However, in several geographical regions both genera are found cohabiting the same host (e.g. Martin and Roca, Reference Martin and Roca2004, Reference Martin and Roca2005; Roca et al., Reference Roca2005; Carretero et al., Reference Carretero2006; Hassan, Reference Hassan2016). Morphologically, both genera exhibit differences in the posterior end of the body and egg shape upon egg deposition (Adamson, Reference Adamson1981; Bursey and Goldberg, Reference Bursey and Goldberg2005). Specifically, Parapharyngodon and Thelandros males differ in the shape and position of the lateral alae (generally absent or short in Thelandros and longer and wider in Parapharyngodon), presence of genital cone (absent in Parapharyngodon), presence and shape of the genital outgrowths (pedunculated in Thelandros, mammiliform in Parapharyngodon), number of caudal papillae (generally one in Thelandros, and two in Parapharyngodon), tail position and orientation (terminal and posteriorly directed in Thelandros; subterminal and dorsally oriented in Parapharyngodon), and presence/absence of caudal alae (Adamson and Nasher, Reference Adamson and Nasher1984, Astasio-Arbiza et al., Reference Astasio-Arbiza1988, Reference Astasio-Arbiza1989; Solera-Puertas et al., Reference Solera-Puertas1988; Dung et al., Reference Dung, Bursey and Goldberg2009). For females, together with egg development during posture, differences include traits such as the position of the mouth, location of the vulva, and size and shape of eggs (Adamson and Nasher, Reference Adamson and Nasher1984; Astasio-Arbiza et al., Reference Astasio-Arbiza1988, Reference Astasio-Arbiza1989; Solera-Puertas et al., Reference Solera-Puertas1988).

Regarding molecular relationships, only four of the > 90 Parapharyngodon and Thelandros have been sequenced, representing < 5% of the described species. Genetic information, however, is inconclusive regarding the validity of the genera, since the two Thelandros species available (T. tinerfensis and T. scleratus, the latter formerly assigned to Parapharyngodon scleratus) are part of a clade including Parapharyngodon sequences (Chaudhary et al., Reference Chaudhary2015, Reference Chaudhary2017; Goswami et al., Reference Goswami2016). Therefore, there is a need for inclusion of other representatives to assess the evolutionary relationships and taxonomic validity of these two genera.

In the present study we combine available sequences and new genetic data from three markers (partial 18S rRNA, 28S rRNA and COI gene DNA sequences) from eight described species to investigate the relationships between Parapharyngodon and Thelandros genera. We use morphological data of two Parapharyngodon (P. echinatus and P. micipsae) and three Thelandros (T. filiformis, T. tinerfensis and T. galloti) species to identify distinctive morphological characters between genetic clades. Specifically, we aim to (1) determine the genetic distinctiveness of the two genera and, if distinct, (2) validate and identify those morphological characters that support discrimination of the main genetic clades.

Materials and methods

Nematode identification and DNA extraction

For this study a total of 34 pinworm specimens (25 males and 9 females) belonging to two Parapharyngodon (P. echinatus and P. micipsae) and three Thelandros species (T. filiformis, T. tinerfensis and T. galloti) were retrieved from 14 lizard hosts from Spain and Morocco (table 1). Nematodes were obtained from faecal pellets or intestines, stored in 96% ethanol, and then isolated, identified and counted using an Olympus SZX2-ILLT stereo-microscope (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan).

Table 1. List of the individuals included in the study. For each sample, species (identified by morphology), host, locality, country, genetic (clade, GenBank accession numbers) and morphological information (used in the morphological assessment, sex), and the reference are given.

Detailed morphological examination of the specimens was conducted by mounting semi-permanent slides prepared using a glycerol–water solution (1:1) as described by Borges et al. (Reference Borges2012), and observed under a light microscope (Olympus CX41, Olympus Australia Pty Ltd). Species identification was based on previously published traits (Roca, Reference Roca1985; Moravec et al., Reference Moravec, Barus and Rysavy1987; Astasio-Arbiza et al., Reference Astasio-Arbiza1988, Reference Astasio-Arbiza1989; Solera-Puertas et al., Reference Solera-Puertas1988; Mašová et al., Reference Mašová2008, Reference Mašová2009; see table 2). For all individuals, the following body measurements were taken: body length (BL) and width at mid-body region (BW), tail length (TL), distance from nerve ring to mouth (NR), oesophageal bulb length (OBL) and width (OBW), and oesophagus length (OL) and width (OW). In addition, in males we also measured lateral alae length (LAL) and width (LAW), tail width above the tail papillae pair (TW1) and below the tail papillae pair (TW2), spicule length (SL) and spicule width (SW). In females, vagina length (VL), vulva position (Vu), and average egg length (ELA) and width (EWA, both calculated from three eggs) were also measured. Details of the characters measured are in supplementary fig. S1. We also recorded the following categorical variables for males: spicule shape (SS, blunt, semi-sharp or sharp), number of cloacal papillae (GP, either four or six), number of caudal papillae (CP, one or two), and presence of caudal alae (CA, present or absent). These characters were chosen given their importance in the diagnosis of these two genera. Photographs were taken using an Olympus DP25 digital camera (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan), and saved and edited using Cell^B v.3.4 (Olympus Soft Imaging Solutions). Linear measurements were taken using ImageJ software version 1.48 (Wayne Rasband, National Institute of Health, USA) and were recorded by the same person (AS).

Table 2. Description of the main characters used to identify morphologically the species of Parapharyngodon and Thelandros included in the study.

After morphological identification, DNA extractions were performed on individual specimens using DNeasy® Blood & Tissue Kit (QIAGEN) according to the manufacturer's protocol. Two partial nuclear genes – 28S ribosomal RNA (28S rRNA) and 18S ribosomal RNA (18S rRNA) – and the mitochondrial gene cytochrome oxidase c subunit 1 (COI) were amplified using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method. As currently available COI markers failed to amplify most of the samples, three new sets of primers were designed, targeting Thelandros and Parapharyngodon (table 3). Amplified 28S rRNA products were sequenced for both strands, whereas in most cases for 18S rRNA and COI products only the forward strand was sequenced. PCR product purification and sequencing was performed by a commercial facility (Beckman Coulter Genomics, UK).

Table 3. Primers and PCR conditions used to amplify the gene fragments targeted in this study.

An initial denaturation step at 95°C for 3 minutes and a final elongation step at 72°C for 10 minutes were performed.

Phylogenetic analysis

Sequences obtained were compared against GenBank using BLAST to confirm the identity of the amplified products, and imported into Geneious Pro version 4.8.5 (http://www.geneious.com, Kearse et al., Reference Kearse2012) for analysis. In addition, other sequences of Parapharyngodon (seven sequences for 18S rRNA, four for 28S rRNA and six for COI) and Thelandros (two sequences for 18S rRNA and two for 28S rRNA) available from GenBank were also included (table 1). Spauligodon atlanticus and Spauligodon auziensis (Jorge et al., Reference Jorge2011) were used as outgroups. Alignments were performed in the online version of MAFFT v.7 (Katoh et al., Reference Katoh2002, Reference Katoh, Rozewicki and Yamada2017; Katoh and Standley, Reference Katoh and Standley2013; available at http://mafft.cbrc.jp/alignment/server/) using the “auto” strategy for the COI dataset, and the “Q-INS-I” strategy, which considers secondary RNA structure, for the 18S and 28S rRNA datasets. Gblocks software was used to eliminate poorly aligned positions using default parameters (Castresana, Reference Castresana2000; Talavera and Castresana, Reference Talavera and Castresana2007). COI sequences were translated into amino acids using the invertebrate mitochondrial DNA genetic code to confirm the absence of stop codons and assess the reading frame. Substitution saturation in the third codon position was assessed by plotting the uncorrected pairwise genetic distances against model corrected genetic distances (K81) in R (Ape package; Paradis et al., Reference Paradis, Claude and Strimmer2004). As the relationship between distances was approximately linear, the third positions were considered to be unsaturated and were kept in the analysis.

Phylogenetic relationships were investigated using Bayesian inference (BI) approaches for each single gene and for the concatenated dataset. Most appropriate evolutionary models and partition schemes for the COI and concatenated datasets were inferred following the Bayesian information criterion (BIC) using PartitionFinder2 (Lanfear et al., Reference Lanfear2012) and implemented in the phylogenetic analyses. Bayesian (BI) analyses were performed using MrBayes version 3.2.6 (Ronquist et al., Reference Ronquist2012), run on XSEDE in the CIPRES Science Gateway v. 3.3. The analysis was run for 100 million generations, with random starting trees, employing a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) approach for sampling the joint posterior probability distribution saved every 1000 generations. Four chains and two independent runs were performed to ensure consistent results. Convergence of the runs was monitored using the average standard deviation of split frequencies (< 0.01), potential scale reduction factor (PSRF, close to 1.0; Gelman and Rubin, Reference Gelman and Rubin1992) and estimated sample size (ESS, values above 100), all provided in MrBayes output. Considering this, the first 2500 trees (25%) were discarded as burn-in. Resulting trees were summarized in a 50% majority-rule consensus tree with clade credibility support values (Bayesian posterior probability, BPP) and branch length information. BI outputs were imported to FigTree v. 1.4.2 (Rambaut, Reference Rambaut2014) for graphical visualization and editing.

Average uncorrected genetic distances (p-distance) between and within main genetic groups were calculated in MEGA v. 6 (Tamura et al., Reference Tamura2013) using the pairwise-deletion option.

Morphological analysis

We performed morphological analyses to identify putative phenotypic differences between the two main groups retrieved in the phylogenetic analysis (Parapharyngodon vs Thelandros genetic clades). Given sexual dimorphism, analyses were performed separately for each sex. In cases in which some linear measurements could not be properly recorded, missing data were substituted by the average of the group (species and sex). Before analysis, linear measurements were log-transformed and checked for homoscedasticity and normality. As some of the variables did not meet the assumptions, correlation between body length (BL) and other linear measurements was tested using a Spearman test (function rcorr, R package Hmisc, Harrel et al., Reference Harrell2017). When variables were correlated to BL, body length was included as covariate in the corresponding variance analysis.

To assess the general pattern of morphological variation of the nematodes analysed and to identify morphological similarities without a priori information on genetic assignation, we performed a principal component analysis (PCA) on the linear measurements (R function prcomp; R Core Team, 2016). As only a single individual of Thelandros was available in the female dataset, univariate analyses were performed only in the male dataset. Differences in male linear measurements between Parapharyngodon and Thelandros genetic clades were tested using permutational analyses of variance (permANOVA, Geomorph R package; Adams and Otárola-Castillo, Reference Adams and Otárola-Castillo2013). In body length correlated variables, BL was included as covariate in the model. Differences in categorical variables between Thelandros and Parapharyngodon male genetic clades were analysed using the Fisher exact test (fisher.test; R Core Team, 2016).

All statistical analyses were performed in Rstudio v. 0.98.1103 (R Core Team, 2016; RStudio Team, 2015).

Results

Phylogenetic relationships

Single-gene aligned datasets included 45 sequences for 18S rRNA (706 bp), 38 sequences for 28S rRNA (830 bp) and 43 sequences for COI (503 bp), including outgroups. Following PartitionFinder, the most appropriate substitution models were K80 + I for the 18S dataset and HKY + G for 28S. For COI, PartitionFinder chose three partitions corresponding to the first (with HKY + I+G as best model), second (F81 + I) and third (GTR + G) codon positions. For the concatenated dataset (2039 bp), the best-fit partitioning schemes included all the separate gene fragments and gene codon positions (for COI) evaluated separately implementing the same models of evolution as described above.

Phylogenetic analyses identified two main clades (fig. 1 & supplementary fig. S2a,b,c) well supported in all single-gene and concatenated datasets (in all cases BPP = 1; fig. 1 & supplementary fig. S2). Uncorrected p-distances among main lineages for each individual gene are detailed in supplementary table S1. The first one, hereafter called Parapharyngodon clade, includes all individuals morphologically identified as Parapharyngodon spp., plus all T. galloti males and several Thelandros sp. females. The second clade, referred to as Thelandros clade, comprises individuals morphologically identified as T. tinerfensis, T. filiformis and several Thelandros spp.

Fig. 1. Phylogenetic tree depicting the relationships between Parapharyngodon and Thelandros samples using the 18S + 28S + COI concatenated dataset. The topology of the tree corresponds to a Bayesian inference (BI) 50% majority-rule consensus tree, and support values for the main lineages represent Bayesian posterior probabilities above 0.70. Sequences generated in this study are highlighted in bold. Additional information regarding sample codes is in table 1.

Within the Parapharyngodon clade, five lineages arise (fig. 1 & supplementary fig. S2). The first group (P. cubensis lineage) includes P. cubensis infecting reptiles from the Caribbean region, and the second (Parapharyngodon sp. lineage) clusters two sequences of Parapharyngodon sp. from Mexico. A third lineage includes published sequences of P. scleratus from India plus a sequence identified as P. echinatus from Senegal (AM943009). All the other P. echinatus samples clustered into a fourth group, named P. echinatus lineage. Individuals morphologically identified as T. galloti are found in a fifth group (hereafter T. galloti lineage), sister to P. echinatus lineage. Interestingly, individuals morphologically identified as P. micipsae are scattered throughout the T. galloti and P. echinatus lineages. Lineages within the Parapharyngodon clade are, in general, congruent across datasets, although relationships between current species can only be partially inferred due to the incomplete data (i.e. sequences missing in single gene inferred trees). All three genes support the clustering of all T. galloti individuals into a distinct lineage, sister group to P. echinatus lineage. However, relationships within P. echinatus are not clear, as the phylogram estimated from 18S does not support the monophyly of the P. echinatus lineage as inferred in the other analyses. The phylogram estimated from the COI sequences shows P. scleratus as sister group to T. galloti/P. echinatus, and P. cubensis as the most basal lineage within Parapharyngodon clade. This pattern, however, is not supported in the inference tree derived from 18S (supplementary fig. S2). Unfortunately, no sequences of any of these species are available for 28S.

Regarding the Thelandros clade, relationships between T. filiformis and T. tinerfensis samples are not resolved. Although the estimate of relationships from 28S supports the genetic differentiation between T. filiformis and T. tinerfensis, phylogenetic trees derived from 18S and COI do not indicate the same genetic clusters (supplementary fig. S2).

Morphological analysis

To identify consistent morphological differences between Thelandros and Parapharyngodon genetic clades, individuals were grouped according to the clades retrieved in the phylogenetic analysis (fig. 1). Therefore, T. tinerfensis and T. filiformis were assigned to the Thelandros clade (TH), and P. echinatus, P. micipsae and T. galloti were considered part of the Parapharyngodon clade (PA) (see table 1 for details on individual morphological and genetic assignation).

Principal component analysis based on linear measurements showed that variation across the first three axes is lower in males than in females (fig. 2; supplementary table S2). In males, the first three axes explained only 62.8% of total variation, whereas in females the same axes explained 96.0%. In males, the main contributors (individual loading values higher than 0.65) to the variation across PC1 (34% variation) were BL, BW, OBL and OBW; LAL and TL explained variation across PC2 (16% variation), and NR across PC3 (12%; supplementary table S2). In females, the main source of variation was body length (all variables had high loadings), which accounts for 86.6% of the variation across PC1. Variation across PC2 (5.2%) was explained mainly by NR and OBL, and by NR across PC3 (4.1%; supplementary table S2). For females, PCA plot dots highlighted by genetic lineage showed that the single Thelandros female analysed was morphologically distinct from the Parapharyngodon females (fig. 2). However, in males, morphological differentiation was not so evident (fig. 2). Interestingly, T. galloti individuals exhibited higher morphological diversity, and many showed morphological characteristics intermediate between Thelandros and Parapharyngodon (fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Principal component analysis (PCA) plots for the morphological variation in Parapharyngodon and Thelandros males (left) and females (right). Values in parentheses in the axis labels correspond to the eigenvalues and to the amount of variation (%) explained for each principal component. Individuals are colour-coded by genetic clade (Parapharyngodon clade in grey, Thelandros clade in black), and different lineages are shape-coded: P. echinatus (grey square), T. galloti (grey circle), T. filiformis (black square) and T. tinerfensis (black circle). Given that P. micipsae individuals were scattered across both P. echinatus and T. galloti lineages, they are also highlighted in a different shape (grey triangle).

Permutational ANOVA/ANCOVA analyses showed that males of the Thelandros and Parapharyngodon clades have similar body length (BL), but differ in NR, LAL and TL (table 4). Males of the Thelandros clade have longer tails, their nerve ring is located further away from the mouth structure, and they have shorter lateral alae than males of the Parapharyngodon clade (table 4; supplementary fig. S1). Given that only a single female was available for the Thelandros clade, this analysis was not performed on the female dataset.

Table 4. Results of the permANOVA/permANCOVA analyses on male body measurements. Significant p-values are in bold. Asterisk indicates the variables correlated to body length and for which ANCOVA analyses were performed. BL, body length; BW, width at mid-body region; LAL, lateral alae length; LAW, lateral alae width; NR, nerve ring distance to the mouth; OBL, oesophageal bulb length; OBW, oesophageal bulb width; OL, oesophagus length; OW, oesophagus width; SPI, spicule length; SW, spicule width; TL, tail length; TW1, tail width above the tail papillae pair; TW2, tail width below the tail papillae pair.

Regarding categorical variables, males of the two clades showed differences in the shape of the spicule, number of caudal papillae and presence of caudal alae (Fisher exact test, spicule shape: P = 0.009; number of caudal papillae P < 0.001; caudal alae P = 0.014; fig. 3), but not in the number of cloacal papillae (P = 0.231). However, after excluding P. micipsae from the analyses, differences in spicule shape between clades disappeared (P = 0.118). The only diagnostic character that was found to discriminate between the Parapharyngodon and Thelandros genetic clades was the number of caudal papillae. All the individuals from the Parapharyngodon clade had two papillae, whereas all individuals belonging to the Thelandros clade had only one (fig. 3 & supplementary fig. S1). Regarding the presence of caudal alae, all Parapharyngodon individuals lacked them, whereas they were present in all Thelandros, with one exception (fig. 3 & supplementary fig. S1).

Fig. 3. Frequency plots (number of individuals) of male categorical variables between the main lineages of Parapharyngodon and Thelandros.

Discussion

Nematode identification has traditionally relied on morphological characters, but molecular approaches are crucial to detect cryptic and sibling species and to clarify taxonomic relationships (Nadler and Pérez-Ponce de León, Reference Nadler and Pérez-Ponce de León2011; Jorge et al., Reference Jorge2014; Ott et al., Reference Ott, Leisch and Gruber-Vodicka2014). Despite this, the use of genetic tools in oxyurids is still not routinely implemented in most current taxonomic descriptions. Until this study, from over 50 species of Parapharyngodon (Bursey and Goldberg Reference Bursey and Goldberg2015; Pereira et al., Reference Pereira2017) and over 40 of Thelandros (Rizvi et al., Reference Rizvi, Maiti and Bursey2017) described, only four (P. cubensis, P. echinatus, P. scleratus and T. tinerfensis) have been sequenced.

Our genetic results confirm the presence of two main clades, mostly congruent with Parapharyngodon and Thelandros genera (e.g. Adamson, Reference Adamson1981; Roca, Reference Roca1985; Castaño-Fernández et al., Reference Castaño-Fernández, Zapatero-Ramos and Puertas1987), but reveal several incongruences regarding currently described species. Whereas all the Parapharyngodon species included in the analysis are part of the Parapharyngodon clade, Thelandros seems to be polyphyletic. Two of the three Thelandros species analysed (T. tinerfensis and T. filiformis) are placed in the Thelandros clade, but the third one (T. galloti) falls within the Parapharyngodon clade. When described, T. galloti was assigned to the genus Thelandros based on the existence of a prominent genital cone with a V-shape sclerotized structure supporting the posterior cloacal lip (Astasio-Arbiza et al., Reference Astasio-Arbiza1988). However, contrary to what is common in other Thelandros, this species lacks caudal alae and exhibits long and wide lateral alae, both characteristics usually associated with Parapharyngodon (Astasio-Arbiza et al., Reference Astasio-Arbiza1988). Such intermediate morphological traits were corroborated by our results. Univariate preliminary analysis with our dataset (results not shown) confirmed that T. galloti males have wider alae and longer oesophagus than Parapharyngodon representatives. Despite these intermediate morphological characteristics, genetic data support T. galloti as part of the Parapharyngodon clade, and as such the taxonomic status should be reviewed and the species reassigned as Parapharyngodon galloti. Regarding Parapharyngodon, three of the species analysed (P. echinatus, P. scleratus and P. cubensis) appear as distinct groups (with the exception of a single sequence of P. echinatus from a gecko from Senegal, which clusters with P. scleratus), supporting their taxonomic validity. However, individuals morphologically identified as P. micipsae are scattered across the P. echinatus and T. galloti lineages. This suggests that P. micipsae may represent an alternative morphotype. Existence of alternative male morphotypes in oxyurid nematodes has been confirmed genetically in Spauligodon and Skrjabinodon (Ainsworth, Reference Ainsworth1990; Jorge et al., Reference Jorge2014) and may arise in response to alternative reproductive tactics (Jorge et al., Reference Jorge2014). Alternatively, P. micipsae could be a morphological misidentification due to poor conservation of the specimens (Chabaud and Golvan, Reference Chabaud and Golvan1957). These two cases of incongruence between molecular and morphological evidence indicate that at least some of the diagnostic characters currently in use may not be appropriate to identify species of these two genera.

Our morphological analysis identified some discriminatory characteristics between Thelandros and Parapharyngodon genetic samples (Chatterji, Reference Chatterji1933; Yamaguti, Reference Yamaguti1961; Adamson, Reference Adamson1981; Roca, Reference Roca1985; Castaño-Fernández et al., Reference Castaño-Fernández, Zapatero-Ramos and Puertas1987), at least in males. Individuals identified genetically as part of the Thelandros clade have longer tails, the nerve ring is located further away from the anterior end and they have shorter lateral alae than the ones ascribed to Parapharyngodon. Also, all individuals from the Thelandros clade analysed have a single caudal papilla and all but one exhibit caudal alae. Although some of the variables detected here (lateral alae shape, tail length, number of caudal papillae and presence or not of caudal alae) were already reported to discriminate between Parapharyngodon and Thelandros in previous literature (Solera-Puertas et al., Reference Solera-Puertas1988; Astasio-Arbiza et al., Reference Astasio-Arbiza1989), we confirm that the location of the nerve ring is also a useful trait to distinguish between Parapharyngodon and Thelandros genetic clades. On the other hand, the spicule shape and the number of cloacal papillae were not reliable to discriminate between both clades, according to our data. Although the presence of genital cone, presence and shape of outgrowths and position of excretory pore have been described as useful characters to distinguish between both Parapharyngodon and Thelandros genera, we were not able to collect enough data to perform well-supported analyses. Concerning females, the only Thelandros individual analysed seemed to have a distinctive morphology. A broader molecular and morphological assessment including a larger number of taxa and additional characters (such as cephalic structures, egg development during posture and position of the operculum in the egg) are needed to confirm reliable diagnostic characters and to describe the diversity and evolutionary relationships within these groups. Unfortunately, neither of the type species of the two genera (Thelandros alatus Wedl, 1862 and Parapharyngodon maplestoni Chatterji, 1933) have been sequenced to date, preventing us from making further decisions regarding the taxonomy of the two genera. Further studies including representatives of these and other species are also needed to assess the evolutionary and morphological relationships within this group.

In conclusion, this study highlights the urgent need for incorporating genetic information in taxonomic studies of nematodes. Only with molecular data will it be possible to detect polyphyly, alternative morphotypes and cryptic diversity, as well as identifying those morphological characters with more phylogenetic signal and less homoplasy, all of which are fundamental to understand the evolutionary and taxonomic relationships within this group.

Supplementary material

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022149X1800069X

Acknowledgements

We thank the local Environmental Authorities from the Canary Islands (Cabildos Insulares), Spain (Junta de Andalucia) and Morocco (Haut Commisariat aux Eaux et Fôrets et à la Lutte Contre la Désertification) for the lizard collecting permits. We thank C. Rato, A. Kaliontzopoulou, J.A. Mateo, M. López-Darias and B. Fariña for their help in the field.

Financial support

This work was supported by the Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (AP, contract number IF/01257/2012; DJH, contract number IF/01627/2014) under the Programa Operacional Potencial Humano – Quadro de Referência Estratégico Nacional from the European Social Fund and Portuguese Ministério da Educação e Ciência, and by the Norte Portugal Regional Operational Programme (NORTE2020), under the PORTUGAL 2020 Partnership Agreement, through the European Regional Development Fund (MAC, project AGRIGEN: NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000007). This study was funded by the Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia and Compete program (project number IF/01257/2012/CP0159/CT0005 to AP and PTDC/BIA-BDE/67678/2006, FCOMP-01-0124-FEDER-007062 to MAC).

Conflict of interest

None.

References

Adams, DC and Otárola-Castillo, E (2013) Geomorph: an R package for the collection and analysis of geometric morphometric shape data. Methods in Ecology & Evolution 4, 393399.Google Scholar
Adamson, ML (1981) Parapharyngodon osteopili n. sp. (Pharyngodonidae: Oxyuroidea) and a revision of Parapharyngodon and Thelandros. Systematic Parasitology 3, 105117.Google Scholar
Adamson, ML and Nasher, AK (1984) Pharyngodonids (Oxyuroidea; Nematoda) of Agama adramitana in Saudi Arabia with notes on Parapharyngodon. Canadian Journal of Zoology 62, 26002609.Google Scholar
Ainsworth, R (1990) Male dimorphism in two new species of nematodes (Pharyngodonidae: Oxyurida) from New Zealand lizards. Journal of Parasitology 76, 812822.Google Scholar
Astasio-Arbiza, P et al. (1988) Thelandros galloti n. sp. (Nematoda, Pharyngodonidae) sobre Gallotia galloti galloti Duméril y Bibron, 1839, lacértido endémico de Tenerife (Islas Canarias). Revista Ibérica de Parasitología 48, 283288.Google Scholar
Astasio-Arbiza, P et al. (1989) Descripción de Thelandros filiformis n. sp. (Nematoda: Pharyngodonidae) sobre Gallotia galloti galloti Duméril y Bibron, 1839 de la isla de Tenerife (Islas Canarias). Revista Ibérica de Parasitología 49, 4550.Google Scholar
Baylis, HA (1936) The Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Nematoda. Vol. I. Ascaridoidea and Strongyloidea. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Borges, JN et al. (2012) Morphological and molecular diagnosis of anisakid nematode larvae from cutlassfish (Trichiurus lepturus) off the coast of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. PLoS ONE 7, e40447.Google Scholar
Bursey, CR and Goldberg, SR (2005) Two new species of Pharyngodonidae (Nematoda: Oxyuroidea) and other nematodes in Agama caudospina (Squamata: Agamidae) from Kenya, Africa. Journal of Parasitology 91, 591599.Google Scholar
Bursey, CR and Goldberg, SR (2015) Description of a new species of Parapharyngodon (Nematoda: Pharyngodonidae) from Mexico, with a list of current species and key to the species from the Panamanian Region. Journal of Parasitology 101, 374381.Google Scholar
Carretero, MA et al. (2006) Diet and helminth parasites in the Gran Canaria giant lizard Gallotia stehlini. Revista Española de Herpetología 20, 105117.Google Scholar
Castaño-Fernández, C, Zapatero-Ramos, LM and Puertas, S (1987) Revision of genera Parapharyngodon Chatterji, 1933 and Thelandros Wedl, 1862 (Oxyuroidea, Pharyngodonidae). Revista Ibérica de Parasitología 47, 271274.Google Scholar
Castresana, J (2000) Selection of conserved blocks from multiple alignments for their use in phylogenetic analysis. Molecular Biology and Evolution 17, 540552.Google Scholar
Chabaud, AG and Golvan, YJ (1957) Miscellanea helminthologica maroccana XXIV. Nématodes parasites de lézards de la foret de Nefifik. Archives de l'Institut Pasteur de Maroc 7, 447469.Google Scholar
Chatterji, RC (1933) On a new nematode, Parapharyngodon maplestoni gen. nov., sp. nov., from a Burmese lizard. Annals of Tropical Medicine and Parasitology 27, 131134.Google Scholar
Chaudhary, A et al. (2015) New molecular data for parasites Hammerschmidtiella indicus and Thelandros scleratus (Nematoda: Oxyurida) to infer phylogenetic position. Turkish Journal of Zoology 39, 251255.Google Scholar
Chaudhary, A et al. (2017) Molecular identification of Thelandros scleratus and Thelastoma icemi (Nematoda: Oxyurida) using mitochondrial cox 1 sequences. Acta Parasitologica 62, 382385.Google Scholar
De Ley, P et al. (2005) An integrated approach to fast and informative morphological vouchering of nematodes for applications in molecular barcoding. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B 272, 19451958.Google Scholar
De Sousa, A et al. (2017) First record of Thelandros sp. Wedl, 1862 pinworms (Nematoda: Oxyurida: Pharyngodonidae) on São Vicente Island, Cabo Verde. Zoologia Caboverdiana 6, 1518.Google Scholar
Derycke, S et al. (2010) Linking DNA sequences to morphology: cryptic diversity and population genetic structure in the marine nematode Thoracostoma trachygaster (Nematoda, Leptosomatidae). Zoologica Scripta 39, 276289.Google Scholar
Dobson, A et al. (2008) Homage to Linnaeus: how many parasites? How many hosts? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 105, S11482S11489.Google Scholar
Dorris, M, De Ley, P and Blaxter, ML (1999) Molecular analysis of nematode diversity and the evolution of parasitism. Parasitology Today 15, 188193.Google Scholar
Dung, BT, Bursey, C and Goldberg, SR (2009) A new species of Thelandros (Nematoda, Oxyuroidea, Pharyngodonidae) in Leiolepis reevesi (Sauria, Agamidae) from Vietnam. Acta Parasitologica 54, 151153.Google Scholar
Falk, BG and Perkins, SL (2013) Host specificity shapes population structure of pinworm parasites in Caribbean reptiles. Molecular Ecology 22, 45764590.Google Scholar
Floyd, RM et al. (2005) Nematode-specific PCR primers for the 18S small subunit rRNA gene. Molecular Ecology Notes 5, 611612.Google Scholar
Garduño-Montes de Oca, EU, Mata-López, R and León-Règagnon, V (2016) Two new species of Parapharyngodon parasites of Sceloporus pyrocephalus, with a key to the species found in Mexico (Nematoda, Pharyngodonidae). Zookeys 559, 116.Google Scholar
Gelman, A and Rubin, DB (1992) Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Statistical Science 7, 457511.Google Scholar
Goswami, U et al. (2016) Molecular and ultrastructure characterization of two nematodes (Thelandros scleratus and Physalopteroides dactyluris) based on ribosomal and mitochondrial DNA sequences. Helminthologia 53, 165171.Google Scholar
Harrell, FE Jr et al. (2017) Hmisc: Harrell Miscellaneous. R package version 4.0-3. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=HmiscGoogle Scholar
Hassan, EA (2016) Nematode community infecting Chalcides ocellatus lizard and their relation to some environmental and biological factors. Journal of the Egyptian Society of Parasitology 46, 399406.Google Scholar
Hering-Hagenbeck, SFBN, Petter, AJ and Boomker, J (2002) Redescription of some Spauligodon spp. and Parapharyngodon spp., and of Skrjabinodon mabuyae (Sandground, 1936) Inglis, 1968 (Pharyngodonidae: Oxyuroidea) from insectivorous South African lizards. Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research 68, 729.Google Scholar
Jorge, F et al. (2011) A phylogenetic assessment of the colonisation patterns in Spauligodon atlanticus Astasio-Arbiza et al., 1987 (Nematoda: Oxyurida: Pharyngodonidae), a parasite of lizards of the genus Gallotia Boulenger: no simple answers. Systematic Parasitology 80, 5366.Google Scholar
Jorge, F et al. (2013) Cryptic species unveiled: the case of the nematode Spauligodon atlanticus. Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 51, 187202.Google Scholar
Jorge, F et al. (2014) Evolution of alternative male morphotypes in oxyurid nematodes: a case of convergence? Journal of Evolutionary Biology 27, 16311643.Google Scholar
Katoh, K and Standley, DM (2013) MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usability. Molecular Biology and Evolution 30, 772780.Google Scholar
Katoh, K, Rozewicki, J and Yamada, KD (2017) MAFFT online service: multiple sequence alignment, interactive sequence choice and visualization. Briefings in Bioinformatics, bbx108. doi: 10.1093/bib/bbx108Google Scholar
Katoh, K et al. (2002) MAFFT: a novel method for rapid multiple sequence alignment based on fast Fourier transform. Nucleic Acids Research 30, 30593066.Google Scholar
Kearse, M et al. (2012) Geneious Basic: an integrated and extendable desktop software platform for the organization and analysis of sequence data. Bioinformatics 28, 16471649.Google Scholar
Lanfear, R et al. (2012) PartitionFinder: combined selection of partitioning schemes and substitution models for phylogenetic analyses. Molecular Biology and Evolution 29, 16951701.Google Scholar
Martin, JE and Roca, V (2004) Helminth infracommunities of Gallotia caesaris caesaris and Gallotia caesaris gomerae (Sauria: Lacertidae) from the Canary Islands (Eastern Atlantic). Journal of Parasitology 90, 266270.Google Scholar
Martin, JE and Roca, V (2005) Helminths of the Atlantic lizard, Gallotia atlantica (Reptilia: Lacertidae), in the Canary Islands (Eastern Atlantic): composition and structure of component communities. Acta Parasitologica 50, 8589.Google Scholar
Mašová, Š et al. (2008) Morphometric and molecular characterization of Parapharyngodon echinatus (Nematoda, Pharyngodonidae) from the Senegal gecko (Tarentola parvicarinata). Acta Parasitologica 53, 274283.Google Scholar
Mašová, Š et al. (2009) Redescription of Parapharyngodon micipsae (Seurat 1917) (Nematoda Pharyngodonidae) from the new host Tarentola parvicarinata Joger 1980 (Squamata Gekkonidae). Tropical Zoology 22, 243255.Google Scholar
Moravec, F, Barus, V and Rysavy, B (1987) On parasitic nematodes of the families Heterakidae and Pharyngodonidae from reptiles in Egypt. Folia Parasitologica 34, 269280.Google Scholar
Nadler, SA and Pérez-Ponce de León, G (2011) Integrating molecular and morphological approaches for characterizing parasite cryptic species: implications for parasitology. Parasitology 138, 16881709.Google Scholar
Ott, JA, Leisch, N and Gruber-Vodicka, HR (2014) Eubostrichus fertilis sp. n., a new marine nematode (Desmodoridae: Stilbonematinae) with an extraordinary reproductive potential from Belize, Central America. Nematology 16, 777787.Google Scholar
Paradis, E, Claude, J and Strimmer, K (2004) APE: analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics 20, 289290.Google Scholar
Pereira, FB et al. (2017) Parapharyngodon hugoi n. sp., a new nematode (Oxyuroidea: Pharyngodonidae) of the tree frog Trachycephalus typhonius (Linnaeus) from the Brazilian Pantanal, including a key to the congeners from amphibians of the American continent. Systematic Parasitology 94, 599607.Google Scholar
Petter, AJ and Quentin, JC (2009) Oxyurida: Oxyuroidea. In Anderson, RC, Chabaud, AG and Willmott, S (eds), Keys to the Nematode Parasites of Vertebrates: Archival Volume. London: CAB International, pp. 218247.Google Scholar
Prosser, SW et al. (2013) Advancing nematode barcoding: a primer cocktail for the cytochrome c oxidase subunit I gene from vertebrate parasitic nematodes. Molecular Ecology Resources 13, 11081115.Google Scholar
R Core Team (2016) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Rambaut, A (2014) FigTree. Version 1.4.2. University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. Available at: Tree.bio.ed.ac.uk/software/figtree/.Google Scholar
Ristau, K, Steinfartz, S and Traunspurger, W (2013) First evidence of cryptic species diversity and significant population structure in a widespread freshwater nematode morphospecies (Tobrilus gracilis). Molecular Ecology 22, 45624575.Google Scholar
Rizvi, AN, Maiti, P and Bursey, CR (2017) Three new species of Pharyngodonidae (Nematoda: Oxyuridea) in Laudakia tuberculata (Squamata: Agamidae) from Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India. Acta Parasitologica 62, 273289.Google Scholar
Roca, V (1985) Contribución al conocimiento de la helmintofauna de los lacértidos y gekónidos del piso termomediterráneo del levante ibérico (PhD thesis). Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas, Universidad de Valencia. Valencia.Google Scholar
Roca, V et al. (2005) Helminth communities of two lizard populations (Lacertidae) from Canary Islands (Spain): host diet–parasite relationships. Amphibia-Reptilia 26, 535542.Google Scholar
Ronquist, F et al. (2012) MrBayes 3.2: efficient Bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across a large model space. Systematic Biology 61, 539542.Google Scholar
RStudio Team (2015) RStudio: Integrated Development for R. RStudio, Inc., Boston, MA, USA. Available at http://www.rstudio.com/.Google Scholar
Ruiz Sanchez, SL (1996) Estudio de nematodos parásitos de lacértidos de la provincia de Tenerife (PhD thesis). Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.Google Scholar
Seurat, LG (1917) Sur les Oxyures des Sauriens du Nord-Africain. Archives de Zoologie Expérimentale et Générale 56, 401404.Google Scholar
Solera-Puertas, MA et al. (1988) Descripción de Thelandros tinerfensis n. sp. (Nematoda, Pharyngodonidae) sobre Chalcides viridanus Boulenger, 1887 y Gallotia galloti galloti Duméril y Bibron, 1839, de la isla de Tenerife (Islas Canarias). Revista Ibérica de Parasitología 48, 3339.Google Scholar
Talavera, G and Castresana, J (2007) Improvement of phylogenies after removing divergent and ambiguously aligned blocks from protein sequence alignments. Systematic Biology 56, 564577.Google Scholar
Tamura, K et al. (2013) MEGA6: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 6.0. Molecular Biology and Evolution 30, 27252729.Google Scholar
Teixeira de Freitas, JF (1957) Sôbre os gêneros Thelandros Wedl, 1862 e Parapharyngodon Chatterji, 1933, com descrição de Parapharyngodon alvarengai sp. n. (Nematoda, Oxyuroidea). Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 55, 2145.Google Scholar
Whiting, MF (2002) Mecoptera is paraphyletic: multiple genes and phylogeny of Mecoptera and Siphonaptera. Zoologica Scripta 31, 93104.Google Scholar
Yamaguti, S (1961) Systema Helminthum. Vol. 3. The Nematodes of Vertebrates. New York, NY: Wiley Interscience.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. List of the individuals included in the study. For each sample, species (identified by morphology), host, locality, country, genetic (clade, GenBank accession numbers) and morphological information (used in the morphological assessment, sex), and the reference are given.

Figure 1

Table 2. Description of the main characters used to identify morphologically the species of Parapharyngodon and Thelandros included in the study.

Figure 2

Table 3. Primers and PCR conditions used to amplify the gene fragments targeted in this study.

Figure 3

Fig. 1. Phylogenetic tree depicting the relationships between Parapharyngodon and Thelandros samples using the 18S + 28S + COI concatenated dataset. The topology of the tree corresponds to a Bayesian inference (BI) 50% majority-rule consensus tree, and support values for the main lineages represent Bayesian posterior probabilities above 0.70. Sequences generated in this study are highlighted in bold. Additional information regarding sample codes is in table 1.

Figure 4

Fig. 2. Principal component analysis (PCA) plots for the morphological variation in Parapharyngodon and Thelandros males (left) and females (right). Values in parentheses in the axis labels correspond to the eigenvalues and to the amount of variation (%) explained for each principal component. Individuals are colour-coded by genetic clade (Parapharyngodon clade in grey, Thelandros clade in black), and different lineages are shape-coded: P. echinatus (grey square), T. galloti (grey circle), T. filiformis (black square) and T. tinerfensis (black circle). Given that P. micipsae individuals were scattered across both P. echinatus and T. galloti lineages, they are also highlighted in a different shape (grey triangle).

Figure 5

Table 4. Results of the permANOVA/permANCOVA analyses on male body measurements. Significant p-values are in bold. Asterisk indicates the variables correlated to body length and for which ANCOVA analyses were performed. BL, body length; BW, width at mid-body region; LAL, lateral alae length; LAW, lateral alae width; NR, nerve ring distance to the mouth; OBL, oesophageal bulb length; OBW, oesophageal bulb width; OL, oesophagus length; OW, oesophagus width; SPI, spicule length; SW, spicule width; TL, tail length; TW1, tail width above the tail papillae pair; TW2, tail width below the tail papillae pair.

Figure 6

Fig. 3. Frequency plots (number of individuals) of male categorical variables between the main lineages of Parapharyngodon and Thelandros.

Supplementary material: PDF

De Sousa et al. supplementary material

De Sousa et al. supplementary material 1

Download De Sousa et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 2.3 MB