Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-sk4tg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-16T05:22:35.083Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Molecular characterization of Urocleidoides cuiabai and U. malabaricusi (Monogenea: Dactylogyridae) from the trahira fish Hoplias aff. malabaricus in the Paraná River, Brazil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 November 2015

L.S. Gasques*
Affiliation:
Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Médicas e da Saúde, Universidade Paranaense, Praça Mascarenhas de Moraes 4282, Umuarama, PR, CEP 87502-210, Brazil Programa de pós graduação em Biologia Comparada, Centro de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Estadual de Maringá, Av. Colombo, 5790, Jardim Universitário, Maringá, PR, CEP 87020-900, Brazil
R.J. Graça
Affiliation:
Programa de pós graduação em Biologia Comparada, Centro de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Estadual de Maringá, Av. Colombo, 5790, Jardim Universitário, Maringá, PR, CEP 87020-900, Brazil
S.M.A.P. Prioli
Affiliation:
Núcleo de Pesquisas em Limnologia, Ictiologia e Aquicultura (Nupélia), Universidade Estadual de Maringá, Av. Colombo 5790, Bloco G-90, Maringá, PR, CEP 87020-900, Brazil Departamento de Biotecnologia, Genética e Biologia Celular, Universidade Estadual de Maringá, Av. Colombo 5790, Bloco H-67, Maringá, PR, CEP 87020-900, Brazil
R.M. Takemoto
Affiliation:
Núcleo de Pesquisas em Limnologia, Ictiologia e Aquicultura (Nupélia), Universidade Estadual de Maringá, Av. Colombo 5790, Bloco G-90, Maringá, PR, CEP 87020-900, Brazil
A.J. Prioli
Affiliation:
Núcleo de Pesquisas em Limnologia, Ictiologia e Aquicultura (Nupélia), Universidade Estadual de Maringá, Av. Colombo 5790, Bloco G-90, Maringá, PR, CEP 87020-900, Brazil
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Urocleidoides ectoparasites are mainly found on fish of the neotropical regions. Although molecular research on monogeneans is available, no genetic data exist characterizing species in the Urocleidoides genus. Some DNA sequences have been efficacious in systematic studies and in the reconstruction of phylogenies of fish parasites. Relevant roles have been given to the sequence of the mitochondrial gene of cytochrome c oxidase I (COI). This study characterized COI sequences of the parasites Urocleidoides malabaricusi and U. cuiabai in trahira fish Hoplias aff. malabaricus of the flood plain of the Upper River Paraná, Brazil. The two species under analysis were distinguished by sequencing and analysing a 420-bp fragment of the COI gene, which suggested the existence of the cryptic species U. malabaricusi.

Type
Research Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Introduction

There is a great diversity of monogenetic parasite species in vertebrates, including sea and freshwater fish (Thatcher, Reference Thatcher2006). Up to 300 monogenean species belonging to the Gyrodactylidae and Dactylogyridae have been described in Brazil, even though only a small percentage of species is known (Eiras et al., Reference Eiras, Takemoto and Pavanelli2010).

The genus Urocleidoides is one of the monogenetic genera found in freshwater fish in Brazil. Mizelle & Price (Reference Mizelle and Price1964) originally characterized this genus by the presence of a sinistral vaginal sclerite, overlapping gonads, clockwise cirral rings, simple anchors, hooks with enlarged shanks and the reduction of the first and fifth pair in infected fish (Kritsky et al., Reference Kritsky, Thatcher and Boeger1986). Based on the aforementioned features, the genus was reviewed by Kritsky et al. (Reference Kritsky, Thatcher and Boeger1986), and only 8 out of 30 species listed by Kritsky & Thatcher (Reference Kritsky and Thatcher1983) were considered to belong to the genus.

Sixteen species of Urocleidoides are known in Brazil (Takemoto et al., Reference Takemoto, Luque, Bellay, Longhini, Graça, Pavanelli, Takemoto and Eiras2013; Moreira et al., Reference Moreira, Scholz and Luque2015), of which five are hosted by Hoplias aff. malabaricus (Bloch, Reference Bloch and Bloch1794), namely Urocleidoides eremitus (Kritsky et al., Reference Kritsky, Thatcher and Boeger1986), U. malabaricusi, U. cuiabai, U. brasiliensis and U. naris (Rosim et al., Reference Rosim, Mendonza–Franco and Luque2011).

Morphological identification of Urocleidoides species is straightforward with well-established taxonomies. However, doubts exist with regard to the monophyletic origin of the genus because several species listed as Urocleidoides by Cohen et al. (Reference Cohen, Justo and Kohn2013) do not have the vaginal sclerite, which is an important criterion for the inclusion of the species within this genus (Kritsky et al., Reference Kritsky, Thatcher and Boeger1986). Genetic data may be a great help in testing the hypothesis of the monophyletic origin for the species of Urocleidoides.

Although monogeneans are the most studied group of fish parasites in Brazil (Karling et al., Reference Karling, Ueda, Takemoto and Pavanelli2014), few studies have employed genetic data to investigate the phylogeny of these parasites in taxonomic studies (Gasques et al., Reference Gasques, Souza, Graça, Pavanelli, Takemoto and Eiras2013). Recently, Mendoza-Palmero et al. (Reference Mendoza-Palmero, Blasco-Costa and Scholz2015) conducted a phylogenetic study with 28S rRNA sequences and reported that there was no taxonomical support for the two subfamilies of the monogeneans in the neotropical region, and allocated them to other groups. The aforementioned work highlights the importance of such tools for taxonomists who aim at achieving greater precision in their studies.

Nucleotide sequence analysis of the barcode region of the mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase gene (COI) has been very important in taxonomical studies. Sequence alignment of barcoded DNA of the gene, approximately 650 base pairs (bp) long, has been done to use the gene with a total size of 1590 bp in Benedenia seriola (Monogenea: Monopisthocotylea), a parasite whose mitochondrial genome has already been sequenced (Perkins et al., Reference Perkins, Donnellan, Bertozzi and Whittington2010).

The degree of conservation of the COI gene makes it a good marker for species differentiation (Solé-Cava, Reference Solé-Cava2008). Since it is a mitochondrial gene, it is haploid without any chance of genetic recombination, and may provide important information in the phylogenetic studies of closely related species (Perkins et al., Reference Perkins, Martinsen and Falk2011).

Our study investigated the COI sequences of U. malabaricusi and U. cuiabai from the trahira fish, H. aff. malabaricus, of the flood plain of the Upper River Paraná, to collect the genetic information to be used in further phylogenetic studies on the genus.

Materials and methods

Collection and examination of monogeneans

Sixteen specimens of the fish H. aff. malabaricus (trahiras) were caught in the River Paraná (Long Term Ecological Research – LTER) in April 2012, using nets of different mesh sizes, at locations near Porto Rico PR Brazil (22°43′S; 53°10′W) and the research centre Núcleo de Pesquisas em Limnologia, Ictiologia e Aquicultura (Nupélia) of the Universidade Estadual de Maringá.

Processing of the specimens comprised thawing, removal of gills and analysis by stereoscopic microscopy to separate the parasites. Parasites were later identified by morphological analysis using an optical microscope and slides with water, according to Rosim et al. (Reference Rosim, Mendonza–Franco and Luque2011). Each specimen was identified and stored individually in a microtube containing 50 μl of 96% ethanol. Urocleidoides cuiabai and U. malabaricusi were not found in all the fish analysed.

Molecular analysis

DNA was extracted following the simplified protocol by Beltran et al. (Reference Beltran, Galinier, Allienne and Boissier2008). Sequencing of the partial COI gene was conducted using the amplification product of COI sequences obtained with primers COI_Mono_5′: 5′-TAATWGGTGGKTTTGGTAA-3′, COI_Mono_3′: 5′-AATGCATMGGAAAAAAACA-3′ and COI_Mono_int3′: 5′-ACATAATGAAARTGAGC-3′ according to the protocol of Plaisance et al. (Reference Plaisance, Rousset, Morand and Littlewood2008). Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplicons were sequenced using the primer COI_Mono_int3′ in MegaBACE 1000 (Amersham Biosciences, Little Chalfont, Bucks, UK).

The sequences were edited with BioEdit (Hall, Reference Hall1999) and aligned using Clustal W (Thompson et al., Reference Thompson, Higgins and Gibson1994). The determination of p-distance, the test for the best substitution model (ModelTest) and phylogeny reconstruction built by the maximum likelihood algorithm were carried out with MEGA 6 (Tamura et al., Reference Tamura, Stecher, Peterson, Filipski and Kumar2013).

Results

The continuous alignment of 420 bp from the nine sequences could be performed after manual editing. The mean nucleotide frequency reached 30% for A, 20% for T, 20% for C and 30% for G. The best sequences derived from U. cuiabai (Uc) and U. malabaricusi (Um) sequencing were taken into account for analysis. They were deposited in GenBank with the following accession numbers: Uc1 (KT625591), Uc2 (KT625592), Uc3 (KT625593), Uc4 (KT625594), Uc5 (KT625595), Um1 (KT625587), Um2 (KT625588), Um3 (KT625589) and Um4 (KT625590).

The alignment of sequences used as the basis for the preparation of the divergence index while taking p-distances into consideration is provided in table 1.

Table 1 Divergence matrix with p-distances between specimens of Urocleidoides cuiabai (from Uc1 to Uc5) and Urocleidoides malabaricusi (from Um1 to Um4).

The mean p-distance between U. cuiabai and U. malabaricusi was 23.7% ( ± 0.4%), i.e. 12.5 times higher than the intra-species mean of U. cuiabai (1.9%) ( ± 0.73%). The mean intra-specific p-distance rate of U. malabaricusi was 14.4% ( ± 7.0%), i.e. 7.4 times higher than the rate found in U. cuiabai.

The reconstruction of phylogeny was performed with the best substitution model indicated by ModelTest, which was the Hasegawa–Kishino–Yano test (Hasegawa et al., Reference Hasegawa, Kishino and Yano1985) with gamma distribution by maximum likelihood algorithm with 10,000 bootstrap re-samplings. Figure 1 demonstrates that the grouping of specimens of the species U. cuiabai is more concise, with lower bootstrap rates than U. malabaricusi ramifications.

Fig. 1 Phylogenetic relationships of Urocleidoides cuiabai (Uc) and Urocleidoides malabaricusi (Um), with the maximum likelihood algorithm by the Hasegawa–Kishino–Yano method, with gamma distribution and 10,000 bootstrap re-sampling. The barcode sequence of Tetrancistrum nebulosi (KJ0001340) was used as the outgroup.

Discussion

Two sequences, namely the internal transcribed spacers (ITS1 and ITS2) of rDNA and the mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase I (COI), have been widely used in the molecular analysis of parasites of the phylum Platyhelminthes. The mutation rates were about 1% for ITS among the researched congener species in the phylum and were about 10% for the COI gene (Vilas et al., Reference Vilas, Criscione and Blouin2005). Locke et al. (Reference Locke, Mclaughlin, Dayanandan and Marcogliese2010) reported similar results in parasites of the genus Diplostomum of the subclass Digenea.

Although molecular analysis for the establishment of phylogenetic relationships of some monogenetic species, such as Gyrodactylus, was successful, others did not have similar success because of the high variability of the regions under analysis. This was the case for Lamellodiscus in the molecular analysis using COI and ITS. Poisot et al. (Reference Poisot, Verneau and Desdevises2011) registered high degrees of variability within the group, with a low co-relationship between morphological and molecular characteristics.

Vilas et al. (Reference Vilas, Criscione and Blouin2005) investigated variability rates in Platyhelminthes and reported distances of approximately 10% divergence for congener species (for gene COI). The authors recommended that rates above 5% divergence should be investigated. Ratnasingham & Hebert (Reference Ratnasingham and Hebert2007) suggested that species should be investigated when the COI nucleotide sequence divergence of a group is higher than 2%. In our study, the mean divergence rate among the four U. malabaricusi specimens is much higher than suggested.

Additionally, the inter-species p-distance rates were higher than those obtained for other Monopisthocotylea species (Poisot et al., Reference Poisot, Verneau and Desdevises2011). However, it must be noted that our study contained a small number of specimens; an increase in sampling size will probably decrease the inter-species p-distance rates. Despite the aforementioned statement, a diversity greater than expected in U. malabaricusi may be verified when the mean rate of intra-species p-distance (14.4 ± 7.0%) is compared with that of other monogenetic species, which varied between 0.32% in Euryhaliotrema grandis and 8.6% in Protopolystoma símplices (Poisot et al., Reference Poisot, Verneau and Desdevises2011).

Furthermore, the topology in the phylogeny of U. malabaricusi reinforces the hypothesis of cryptic species, due to the high bootstrap rates occurring in these branches. Conversely, U. cuiabai shows much lower rates in a more concise clade. The situation is repeated when the tree is elaborated with amino acid sequences from the analysed sequences, indicating a complex with three different species in U. malabaricusi.

Because the number of cryptic species is directly related to the number of individual sequences of parasites analysed (Poulin, Reference Poulin2011), the COI sequences are adequate for characterization of cryptic species (Criscione et al., Reference Criscione, Poulin and Blouin2005; Vilas et al., Reference Vilas, Criscione and Blouin2005; Nadler & De León, Reference Nadler and De León2011). Additionally, because only four U. malabaricusi specimens were investigated in this study, other cryptic species may occur in the complex.

Analysis of COI sequences seems to be promising for the differentiation of the species in this genus. The region's sequence analysis is thus an identification tool for new species by reducing the role of phenotypic plasticity as interference in the process. Molecular data will make the elaboration of clearer phylogenetic reconstructions among the species of Urocleidoides possible and enable clarification of their origin.

Finally, further investigations on the genus should be conducted, with more representative samples and associated with a specific region of the nuclear genome, for the better understanding of cryptic species.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Research Nucleus in Limnology, Ichthyology and Aquiculture (Nupélia/UEM), UNIPAR (Universidade Paranaense) and the Postgraduate Course in Comparative Biology of the Universidade Estadual de Maringá (UEM).

Financial support

The current work was funded by Nupélia/UEM through the project: The Flood Plain of the River Paraná: Structure and Environmental Processes (LTER/CNPq) and by UNIPAR. R.J.G. received a research fellowship from the Brazilian Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq).

Conflict of interest

None.

Ethical standards

The project 21944/2012 was approved by the Ethical Committee for Animal Research of UNIPAR on 22 September 2011.

References

Beltran, S., Galinier, R., Allienne, J.F. & Boissier, J. (2008) Cheap, rapid and efficient DNA extraction method to perform multilocus microsatelite genotyping on all Schistosoma mansoni stages. Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 103, 501503.Google Scholar
Bloch, M.E. (1794) Der malabarische hecht. pp. 149150 in Bloch, M.E. (Ed.) Naturgeschichte des Auslandische Fische. Berlin, Achter Theil. J. Moreno.Google Scholar
Cohen, S.C., Justo, M.C.N. & Kohn, A. (2013) South American Monogenoidea parasites of fishes, amphibians and reptiles. 663 pp. Rio de Janeiro, Oficina de Livros.Google Scholar
Criscione, C.D., Poulin, R. & Blouin, M.S. (2005) Molecular ecology of parasites: elucidating ecological and microevolutionary processes. Molecular Ecology 14, 22472257.Google Scholar
Eiras, J.C., Takemoto, R.M. & Pavanelli, G.C. (2010) Diversidade dos parasitos de peixes de água doce do Brasil. 333 pp. Maringá, Clichetec.Google Scholar
Gasques, L.S., Souza, G.T.R. & Graça, R.J. (2013) Das moléculas aos parasitos: a aplicação da biologia molecular nos estudos de Ictioparasitologia. pp. 149167 in Pavanelli, G.C., Takemoto, R.M. & Eiras, J.C. (Eds) Parasitologia, Peixes de água doce do Brasil. Maringá, Eduem.Google Scholar
Hall, T.A. (1999) BioEdit: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucleic Acids Symposium Series 41, 9598.Google Scholar
Hasegawa, M., Kishino, H. & Yano, T. (1985) Dating the human–ape split by a molecular clock of mitochondrial DNA. Journal of Molecular Evolution 22, 160174.Google Scholar
Karling, L.C., Ueda, B.H., Takemoto, R.M. & Pavanelli, G.C. (2014) Scientometric study on the parasitology of freshwater fish in Brazil. Neotropical Helminthology 8, 131140.Google Scholar
Kritsky, D.C. & Thatcher, V.E. (1983) Neotropical Monogenea. V: Five new species from the Aruana, Osteoglossum bicirrosum Vandelli, a freshwater teleost from Brazil, with the proposal of Gonocleithrum n. gen. (Dactylogyridae: Ancyrocephalinae). Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 96, 581597.Google Scholar
Kritsky, D.C., Thatcher, V.E. & Boeger, W.A. (1986) Neotropical Monogenea. Revision of Urocleidoides (Dactylogyridae, Ancyrocephalinae). Proceedings of the Helminthological Society of Washington 53, 137.Google Scholar
Locke, S.A., Mclaughlin, J.D., Dayanandan, S. & Marcogliese, D.J. (2010) Diversity and specificity in Diplostomum spp. metacercariae in freshwater fishes revealed by cytochrome c oxidase I and internal transcribed spacer sequences. International Journal for Parasitology 40, 333343.Google Scholar
Mendoza-Palmero, C.A., Blasco-Costa, I. & Scholz, T. (2015) Molecular phylogeny of neotropical monogeneans (Platyhelminthes: Monogenea) from catfishes (Siluriformes). Parasites & Vectors 8, 164.Google Scholar
Mizelle, J.D. & Price, C.E. (1964) Studies on monogenetic trematodes. XXVII. Dactylogyrid species with the proposal of Urocleidoides gen. n. Journal of Parasitology 50, 579584.Google Scholar
Moreira, J., Scholz, T. & Luque, J.L. (2015) First data on the parasites of Hoplias aimara (Characiformes): description of two new species of gill monogeneans (Dactylogyridae). Acta Parasitologica 60, 254260.Google Scholar
Nadler, S.A. & De León, G.P.P. (2011) Integrating molecular and morphological approaches for characterizing parasite cryptic species: implications for parasitology. Parasitology 138, 16881709.Google Scholar
Perkins, E.M., Donnellan, S.C., Bertozzi, T. & Whittington, I.D. (2010) Closing the mitochondrial circle on paraphyly of the Monogenea (Platyhelminthes) infers evolution in the diet of parasitic flatworms. International Journal for Parasitology 40, 12371245.Google Scholar
Perkins, S.L., Martinsen, E.S. & Falk, B.G. (2011) Do molecules matter more than morphology? Promises and pitfalls in parasites. Parasitology 138, 16641674.Google Scholar
Plaisance, L., Rousset, V., Morand, S. & Littlewood, T.D.J. (2008) Colonization of Pacific islands by parasites of low dispersal ability: phylogeography of two monogenean species parasitizing butterflyfishes in the South Pacific Ocean. Journal of Biogeography 35, 6587.Google Scholar
Poisot, T., Verneau, O. & Desdevises, Y. (2011) Morphological and molecular evolution are not linked in Lamellodiscus (Platyhelminthes Monogenea). PLOS One 6, e26252.Google Scholar
Poulin, R. (2011) Uneven distribution of cryptic diversity among higher taxa of parasitic worms. Biology Letters 7, 241244.Google Scholar
Ratnasingham, S. & Hebert, P.D.N. (2007) BOLD: The Barcode of Life Data System (www.barcodinglife.org). Molecular Ecology Notes 7, 355364.Google Scholar
Rosim, D.F., Mendonza–Franco, E.F. & Luque, J.L. (2011) New and previously described species of Urocleidoides (Monogenoidea: Dactylogyridae) infecting the gills of Hoplias malabaricus (Characiformes: Erythrinidae) from Brazil. Journal of Parasitology 97, 406417.Google Scholar
Solé-Cava, A.M. (2008) Código de barras de DNA: o rabo que abana o cachorro. Ciência Hoje 41, 6567.Google Scholar
Takemoto, R.T., Luque, J.L., Bellay, S., Longhini, C.E. & Graça, R.J. (2013) Monogenea. pp. 273279 in Pavanelli, G.C., Takemoto, R.M. & Eiras, J.C. (Eds) Parasitologia, Peixes de água doce do Brasil. Maringá, Eduem.Google Scholar
Tamura, K., Stecher, G., Peterson, D., Filipski, A. & Kumar, S. (2013) MEGA6: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis version 6.0. Molecular Biology and Evolution 30, 27252729.Google Scholar
Thatcher, V.E. (2006) Aquatic biodiversity in Latin America: Amazon fish parasites. 2nd edn. Bulgaria, Pensoft.Google Scholar
Thompson, J.D., Higgins, D.G. & Gibson, T.J. (1994) CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Research 22, 46734680.Google Scholar
Vilas, R., Criscione, C.D. & Blouin, M.S. (2005) A comparison between mitochondrial DNA and the ribosomal internal transcribed regions in prospecting for cryptic species of platyhelminth parasites. Parasitology 121, 839846.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1 Divergence matrix with p-distances between specimens of Urocleidoides cuiabai (from Uc1 to Uc5) and Urocleidoides malabaricusi (from Um1 to Um4).

Figure 1

Fig. 1 Phylogenetic relationships of Urocleidoides cuiabai (Uc) and Urocleidoides malabaricusi (Um), with the maximum likelihood algorithm by the Hasegawa–Kishino–Yano method, with gamma distribution and 10,000 bootstrap re-sampling. The barcode sequence of Tetrancistrum nebulosi (KJ0001340) was used as the outgroup.