Research Article |
Corresponding author: Jean Mariaux ( jean.mariaux@ville-ge.ch ) Academic editor: Boyko Georgiev
© 2015 Alain de Chambrier, Andrea Waeschenbach, Makda Fisseha, Tomas Scholz, Jean Mariaux.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
de Chambrier A, Waeschenbach A, Fisseha M, Scholz T and Mariaux J (2015) A large 28S rDNA-based phylogeny confirms the limitations of established morphological characters for classification of proteocephalidean tapeworms (Platyhelminthes, Cestoda). ZooKeys 500: 25-59. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.500.9360
|
Proteocephalidean tapeworms form a diverse group of parasites currently known from 315 valid species. Most of the diversity of adult proteocephalideans can be found in freshwater fishes (predominantly catfishes), a large proportion infects reptiles, but only a few infect amphibians, and a single species has been found to parasitize possums. Although they have a cosmopolitan distribution, a large proportion of taxa are exclusively found in South America. We analyzed the largest proteocephalidean cestode molecular dataset to date comprising more than 100 species (30 new), including representatives from 54 genera (80%) and all subfamilies, thus significantly improving upon previous works to develop a molecular phylogeny for the group. The Old World origin of proteocephalideans is confirmed, with their more recent expansion in South America. The earliest diverging lineages are composed of Acanthotaeniinae and Gangesiinae but most of the presently recognized subfamilies (and genera) appear not to be monophyletic; a deep systematic reorganization of the order is thus needed and the present subfamilial system should be abandoned. The main characters on which the classical systematics of the group has been built, such as scolex morphology or relative position of genital organs in relation to the longitudinal musculature, are of limited value, as demonstrated by the very weak support for morphologically-defined subfamilies. However, new characters, such as the pattern of uterus development, relative ovary size, and egg structure have been identified, which may be useful in defining phylogenetically well-supported subgroups. A strongly supported lineage infecting various snakes from a wide geographical distribution was found. Although several improvements over previous works regarding phylogenetic resolution and taxon coverage were achieved in this study, the major polytomy in our tree, composed largely of siluriform parasites from the Neotropics, remained unresolved and possibly reflects a rapid radiation. The genus Spasskyellina Freze, 1965 is resurrected for three species of Monticellia bearing spinitriches on the margins of their suckers.
Eucestoda , Proteocephalidae , systematics, molecular phylogeny, host-parasite associations, Spasskyellina
Proteocephalideans (Platyhelminthes: Cestoda) form a morphologically homogeneous group of tapeworms found worldwide in freshwater fishes, reptiles, and amphibians (a single species is known from marsupial mammals). To our knowledge 315 valid species are currently known (unpublished), a large proportion of them being parasites of South American siluriform fishes (
Proteocephalideans historically formed their own order (Proteocephalidea with only one family, Proteocephalidae), the monophyly of which is strongly supported, but recent molecular analyses have placed them within a paraphyletic assemblage of ‘hooked’ tetraphyllidean cestodes (formerly Onchobothriidae), parasites of sharks and rays, which has led to the erection of a new order, the Onchoproteocephalidea by
Previous attempts to study the interrelationships of proteocephalideans resulted in overall poorly resolved phylogenies. At the morphological level, the difficulty of defining reliable informative characters has prevented the construction of a stable taxonomic arrangement of the group (
Although these studies have allowed for a better understanding of relationships within and between several subgroups, the major nodes of the proteocephalidean tree remain poorly supported, especially when considering the South American lineages. In the present contribution, an unprecedented collection of proteocephalidean samples have been gathered that includes the majority of all valid genera (54 out of 67), thus significantly increasing the taxon sampling within the order and adding representatives from previously unrepresented subfamilies. 28S rDNA sequences homologous to those published in studies by
The present study is based on the evaluation of a dataset of proteocephalideans collected during long-term studies carried out by the present authors and their co-workers, especially as part of research activities linked to the NSF-PBI project “A Survey of the Tapeworms (Cestoda: Platyhelminthes) from Vertebrate Bowels of the Earth” (2008–2014), which was aimed at mapping the global diversity of tapeworms. Despite significant sampling effort covering all zoogeographical regions and the most important host groups, the number of studied proteocephalideans that parasitize amphibians remains relatively small due to the paucity of cestodes in these hosts. In addition, several newly described proteocephalideans from the southern part of the Neotropical Region (Argentina) were not available for molecular studies. Among the 13 proteocephalidean genera that are not represented in our sampling, none presently contains more than two species (see
All taxa considered in this study are listed in Table
Taxa used in the current study. Voucher numbers refer to the collections of the Natural History Museum of Geneva (MHNG-PLAT); Larry R Penner Parasitology Collection, Storrs, Connecticut, USA (LRP); Collección Nacional de Helminthos, México (CNHE); Collections of the Institute of Parasitology of the Czech Academy of Sciences (IPCAS). Out.: Outgroup. Type species are marked with a (T) and hologenophores with an *.
Species | Host species | Voucher number | Accession Number | Reference | Surface ovary % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Acanthotaenia shipleyi (T) | Varanus salvator | *MHNG-PLAT-32887 | AJ583453 |
|
6.8 |
Ageneiella brevifilis (T) | Ageneiosus inermis | *MHNG-PLAT-21841 | AJ388600 |
|
11.2 |
Amphoteromorphus ninoi | Brachyplatystoma filamentosum | *MHNG-PLAT-22239 | AJ388624 |
|
11.7 |
Amphoteromorphus peniculus (T) | Brachyplatystoma rousseauxii | *MHNG-PLAT-60052 | KP729410 | This paper | 12.3 |
Amphoteromorphus piraeeba | Brachyplatystoma filamentosum | MHNG-PLAT-22227 | KP729407 | This paper | 12.5 |
Amphoteromorphus piriformis | Brachyplatystoma roussseauxii | *MHNG-PLAT-22211 | AJ275231 |
|
12.5 |
Australotaenia bunthangi | Enhydris enhydris | *MHNG-PLAT-75447 | KP729409 | This paper | 5.0 |
Barsonella lafoni (T) | Clarias gariepinus | *MHNG-PLAT-49399 | FM955143 |
|
11.5 |
Brayela karuatayi (T) | Platynematichthys notatus | *MHNG-PLAT-63128 | KP729406 | This paper | 10.9 |
Brooksiella praeputialis (T) | Cetopsis coecutiens | *MHNG-PLAT-21996 | AJ275229 |
|
17.3 |
Cangatiella arandasi (T) | Trachelyopterus galeatus | *MHNG-PLAT-34736 | KP729411 | This paper | 8.0 |
Choanoscolex abcisus (T) | Pseudoplatystoma corruscans | *MHNG-PLAT-17905 | AJ388630 |
|
12.8 |
Choanoscolex sp. | Pseudoplatystoma fasciatum | *MHNG-PLAT-25102 | AJ275064 |
|
5.1 |
Corallobothrium solidum (T) | Malapterurus electricus | *MHNG -PLAT-31553 | AJ583450 |
|
7.2-7.4 |
Corallobothrium cf. solidum | Malapterurus gossei | *MHNG-PLAT-63117 | JN005780 |
|
11.0 |
Corallotaenia intermedia | Ictalurus punctatus | *MHNG-PLAT-25795 | AJ275232 |
|
11.3 |
Crepidobothrium gerrardii (T) | Boa constrictor | *MHNG-PLAT-66546 | KC786018 |
|
3.6 |
Electrotaenia malopteruri (T) | Malapterurus electricus | *MHNG-PLAT-33995 | JX477434 |
|
4.6-5.2 |
Endorchis piraeeba (T) | Brachyplatystoma filamentosum | *MHNG-PLAT-21738 | AJ388603 |
|
5.9 |
Ephedrocephalus microcephalus (T) | Phractocephalus hemioliopterus | *MHNG-PLAT-21910 | AJ388605 |
|
11.4 |
Essexiella fimbriata (T) | Ictalurus balsanus | CNHE 4217 | AY548162 |
|
15.1 |
Gangesia agraensis | Wallago attu | *MHNG-PLAT-75457 | JX477443 |
|
16.4 |
Gangesia parasiluri | Silurus asotus | *MHNG-PLAT-22436 | AF286935 |
|
15.0 |
Gibsoniela mandube (T) | Ageneiosus sp. | *MHNG-PLAT-63119 | KP729412 | This paper | 8.6 |
Gibsoniela meursaulti | Ageneiosus inermis | *MHNG-PLAT-21839 | AJ388631 |
|
12.3 |
Glanitaenia osculata (T) | Silurus glanis | N/A | AJ388619 |
|
11.1 |
Goezeella siluri (T) | Pinirampus pirinampu | *MHNG-PLAT-21877 | AJ388612 |
|
11.9 |
Harriscolex kaparari (T) | Pseudoplatystoma tigrinum | *MHNG-PLAT-22018 | AJ275227 |
|
13.7 |
Houssayela sudobim (T) | Sorubimichthys planiceps | *MHNG-PLAT-62586 | KP729404 | This paper | 9.7 |
Jauella glandicephalus (T) | Zungaro jahu | *MHNG-PLAT-31179 | KP729399 | This paper | 9.6 |
Kapsulotaenia sp. 1 | Varanus rosenbergi | *MHNG-PLAT-32842 | AJ583452 |
|
5.5 |
Kapsulotaenia sp. 2 | Varanus gouldii | *MHNG-PLAT-32839 | AJ583455 |
|
3.5 |
Kapsulotaenia sp. 4 | Varanus varius | *MHNG-PLAT-32838 | AJ583454 |
|
6.5 |
Macrobothriotaenia ficta (T) | Xenopeltis unicolor | *MHNG-PLAT-75454 | KC786020 |
|
4.1 |
Manaosia bracodemoca (T) | Sorubim lima | *MHNG-PLAT-34186 | KP729414 | This paper | 16.4 |
Marsypocephalus heterobranchus | Heterobranchus bidorsalis | *MHNG-PLAT-62973 | KP729408 | This paper | 7.3 |
Marsypocephalus rectangulus (T) | Clarias anguillaris | *MHNG-PLAT-49366 | KP729405 | This paper | 11.0 |
Megathylacoides giganteum (T) | Ictalurus dugesi | N/A | AY307117 |
|
15.1 |
Megathylacoides lamothei | Ictalurus furcatus | CNHE 4889 | AY548165 |
|
13.8 |
Megathylacoides sp. | Ictalurus punctatus | *MHNG-PLAT-35373 | FM956086 |
|
9.4 |
Megathylacus jandia (T) | Zungaro zungaro | *MHNG-PLAT-21874 | AJ388596 |
|
8.6 |
Monticellia coryphicephala (T) | Salminus brasiliensis | *MHNG-PLAT-17984 | AJ238832 |
|
18.5 |
Nomimoscolex admonticellia | Pinirampus pirinampu | *MHNG-PLAT-21870 | AJ388628 |
|
7.1 |
Nomimoscolex chubbi | Gymnotus carapo | *MHNG-PLAT-20351 | AJ388625 |
|
7.7-12.4 |
Nomimoscolex dorad | Brachyplatystoma rousseauxii | *MHNG-PLAT-22269 | AJ388613 |
|
7.5 |
Nomimoscolex lenha | Sorubimichthys planiceps | *MHNG-PLAT-21740 | AJ388611 |
|
9.8 |
Nomimoscolex lopesi | Pseudoplatystoma fasciatum | *MHNG-PLAT-21963 | AJ388618 |
|
8.8 |
Nomimoscolex matogrossensis | Hoplias malabaricus | *MHNG-PLAT-17913 | AJ388614 |
|
12.2-14.5 |
Nomimoscolex piraeeba (T) | Brachyplatystoma capapretum | *MHNG-PLAT-22284 | AJ388608 |
|
10.6-12.8 |
Nomimoscolex sudobim | Pseudoplatystoma fasciatum | *MHNG-PLAT-21969 | AJ388597 |
|
12.0 |
Nomimoscolex suspectus | Brachyplatystoma vaillanti | *MHNG-PLAT-22298 | AJ388602 |
|
6.2-10.2 |
Nupelia portoriquensis (T) | Sorubim lima | *MHNG-PLAT-34185 | KP729401 | This paper | 10.3 |
Ophiotaenia bungari | Bungarus fasciatus | *MHNG-PLAT-75442 | KC786022 |
|
3.1 |
Ophiotaenia europaea | Natrix maura | *MHNG-PLAT-18407 | AJ388598 |
|
12.7 |
Ophiotaenia filaroides | Ambystoma tigrinum | *MHNG-PLAT-63372 | KP729416 | This paper | 11.5 |
Ophiotaenia gallardi | Pseudechis porphyriacus | *MHNG-PLAT-36550 | KC786025 |
|
3.2 |
Ophiotaenia grandis | Agkistrodon piscivorus | N/A | AJ388632 |
|
2.1 |
Ophiotaenia jarara | Bothrops jararaca | *MHNG-PLAT-12393 | AJ388607 |
|
2.4 |
Ophiotaenia lapata | Madagascarophis colubrina | *MHNG-PLAT-79567 | KC786021 |
|
2.8 |
Ophiotaenia ophiodex | Causus maculatus | *MHNG-PLAT-25962 | AJ388620 |
|
4.2 |
Ophiotaenia paraguayensis | Hydrodynastes gigas | *MHNG-PLAT-16927 | AJ388629 |
|
3.3 |
Ophiotaenia cf. perspicua | Nerodia rhombifer | *MHNG-PLAT-35370 | KP729415 | This paper | 2.3 |
Ophiotaenia sanbernardinensis | Helicops leopardinus | *MHNG-PLAT-18251 | AJ388637 |
|
5.0 |
Ophiotaenia saphena | Lithobates pipiens | *MHNG-PLAT-32851 | KP729402 | This paper | 8.3-8.7 |
Pangasiocestus romani (T) | Pangasius larnaudii | *MHNG-PLAT-75449 | KP729397 | This paper | 10.6 |
Paraproteocephalus parasiluri (T) | Silurus asotus | *MHNG-PLAT-22438 | AJ388604 |
|
4.3 |
Peltidocotyle lenha | Zungaro zungaro | *MHNG-PLAT-22373 | AJ238837 |
|
14.7 |
Peltidocotyle rugosa (T) | Pseudoplatystoma reticulatum | *MHNG-PLAT-22374 | AJ238835 |
|
13.9-14.7 |
Postgangesia inarmata | Silurus glanis | *MHNG-PLAT-34212 | AM931032 |
|
12.5 |
Proteocephalidae gen. sp. | Amia calva | *MHNG-PLAT-35548 | FM956088 |
|
9.3 |
Proteocephalus filicollis | Gasterosteus aculeatus | *MHNG-PLAT-24081 | AJ388636 |
|
16.3 |
Proteocephalus fluviatilis | Micropterus dolomieu | IPCAS C-364 | KP729390 | This paper | 17.0 |
Proteocephalus glanduligerus | Clarias sp. | *MHNG-PLAT-50013 | KP729392 | This paper | 9.8 |
Proteocephalus gobiorum | Neogobius fluviatilis | IPCAS C-299 | KP729393 | This paper | 19.7 |
Proteocephalus hemioliopteri | Phractocephalus hemioliopterus | *MHNG-PLAT-21889 | AJ388622 |
|
11.8 |
Proteocephalus kuyukuyu | Pterodoras granulosus | *MHNG-PLAT-66572 | KP729388 | This paper | Immature |
Proteocephalus longicollis | Coregonus lavaretus | *MHNG-PLAT-21681 | AJ388626 |
|
13.3 |
Proteocephalus macrocephalus | Anguilla anguilla | N/A | AJ388609 |
|
18.3 |
Proteocephalus macrophallus | Cichla monoculus | MHNG-PLAT-36526 | KP729394 | This paper | 6.0-6.6 |
Proteocephalus midoriensis | Lefua echigonia | MHNG-PLAT-22431 | AJ388610 |
|
19.4 |
Proteocephalus percae | Perca fluviatilis | *MHNG-PLAT-36744 | AJ388594 |
|
13.8 |
Proteocephalus perplexus | Amia calva | *MHNG-PLAT-35366 | FM956089 |
|
12.0 |
Proteocephalus pinguis | Esox lucius | *IPCAS C-679 | KP729395 | This paper | 9.6 |
Proteocephalus plecoglossi | Plecoglossus altivelis | MHNG-PLAT-22434 | AJ388606 |
|
7.4 |
Proteocephalus renaudi | Platydoras costatus | *MHNG-PLAT-17894 | AJ388638 |
|
7.1 |
Proteocephalus sagittus | Barbatula barbatula | IPCAS C-33 | KP729391 | This paper | 13.4 |
Proteocephalus sulcatus | Clarotes laticeps | MHNG-PLAT-54150 | KP729396 | This paper | 10.6 |
Proteocephalus synodontis | Synodontis caudivittatus | *MHNG-PLAT-62931 | JN005778 |
|
9.2-13.0 |
Proteocephalus tetrastomus | Hypomesus nipponensis | MHNG-PLAT-22429 | AJ388635 |
|
7.0-11.4 |
Proteocephalus sp. | Ictalurus punctatus | *MHNG-PLAT-36278 | FM956085 |
|
11.0 |
Pseudocrepidobothrium eirasi (T) | Phractocephalus hemioliopterus | MHNG-PLAT-27431 | AJ388623 |
|
11.6 |
Pseudocrepidobothrium ludovici | Phractocephalus hemioliopterus | *MHNG-PLAT-22108 | AJ275063 |
|
9.7-10.3 |
Regoella brevis (T) | Pseudoplatystoma reticulatum | *MHNG-PLAT-79184 | KP729389 | This paper | 11.5 |
Ritacestus ritaii (T) | Rita rita | *MHNG-PLAT-63242 | JX477447 |
|
17.7 |
Rostellotaenia nilotica (T) | Varanus niloticus | *MHNG-PLAT-34195 | KP729398 | This paper | 7.0 |
Rostellotaenia sp. | Varanus exanthematicus | MHNG-PLAT-25026 | AJ388593 |
|
3.9 |
Rudolphiella piracatinga | Calophysus macropterus | *MHNG-PLAT-19868 | AJ388627 |
|
10.4 |
Rudolphiella szidati | Luciopimelodus pati | *MHNG-PLAT-24668 | AJ388617 |
|
14.4 |
Sandonella sandoni (T) | Heterotis niloticus | *MHNG-PLAT-49356 | AM931033 | Unpublished | 8.8 |
Scholzia emarginata (T) | Phractocephalus hemioliopterus | *MHNG-PLAT-22106 | KC786016 |
|
10.8-15.9 |
Sciadocephalus megalodiscus (T) | Cichla monoculus | MHNG-PLAT-37332 | KP729403 | This paper | N/A |
Silurotaenia siluri (T) | Silurus glanis | MHNG-PLAT-25027 | AJ388592 |
|
14.8 |
Spasskyellina lenha (T) | Sorubimichthys planiceps | *MHNG-PLAT-69600 | KP729413 | This paper | 9.8 |
Spasskyellina spinulifera | Pseudoplatystoma corruscans | *MHNG-PLAT-34216 | KP729417 | This paper | 10.1 |
Spatulifer maringaensis | Sorubim lima | *MHNG-PLAT-21986 | AJ388634 |
|
17.4 |
Testudotaenia testudo (T) | Apalone spinifera | *MHNG-PLAT-35320 | FM956082 |
|
6.2 |
Thaumasioscolex didelphidis (T) | Didelphis marsupialis | *MHNG-PLAT-28993 | AJ275065 |
|
8.4 |
Travassiella jandia (T) | Zungaro jahu | MHNG-PLAT-31175 | KP729400 | This paper | 8.6-10.7 |
Vermaia pseudotropii (T) | Clupisoma garua | *MHNG-PLAT-63247 | JX477453 |
|
3.3 |
Zygobothrium megacephalum (T) | Phractocephalus hemioliopterus | *MHNG-PLAT-21846 | AJ388621 |
|
20.8 |
[Out.] Acanthobothrium sp. | Dasyatis longus | LRP-2112 | AF286953 |
|
N/A |
[Out.] Phyllobothrium lactuca | Mustelus asterias | LRP_2115 | AF286960 |
|
N/A |
[Out.] Tetraphyllidea gen. sp. | Squalus acanthias | N/A | AJ388591 |
|
N/A |
Total genomic DNA extraction, PCR amplification, and sequencing were done as outlined in
Taxonomic identification was performed on specimens fixed and mounted on microscope slides according to
The data underpinning the analysis reported in this paper are deposited in the Dryad Data Repository at https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.dv44b.
The complete 28S rDNA dataset comprised 110 ingroup taxa (from 54 genera, representing all 13 currently recognized subfamilies) and three outgroup taxa. Importantly, 46 genera were represented by their type species (see Table
In an initial BI analysis, several nodes had posterior probabilities (pp) < 0.95, resulting in a tree with only 60 well-supported nodes (see Suppl. material
Bayesian inference of partial (domains 1–3) 28S rDNA sequences of a reduced taxon set of proteocephalideans (unstable taxa Sciadocephalus megalodiscus, Vermaia pseudotropii and Manaosia bracodemoca have been removed) performed using MrBayes version 3.2 using the GTR + I + G model of sequence evolution. Two parallel runs were performed for 10,000,000 generations; 4,000,000 generations were discarded as burnin. Branches with posterior probability (pp) support below 95% are collapsed; pp are indicated below branches. Asterisks mark new sequences. Red letters A to P refer to specific nodes discussed in the text. Red circles refer to the acquisition of “Type 2” uterus development; purple circles: acquisition of “intermediate type” uterus development; yellow circle: uterus development unknown (see Discussion). A mute phylogram of the same tree is inserted and the long branch leading to Sandonella sandoni is marked with an asterisk.
In a subsequent BI analysis, in which the above-mentioned three taxa had been excluded, three nodes had improved support (≥ 0.95 pp), resulting in 63 well-supported nodes in total (Fig.
The three earliest diverging lineages were formed of Pangasiocestus romani Scholz & de Chambrier, 2012 and the Acanthotaeniinae, where the Acanthotaeniinae were possibly non-monophyletic, split into a monophyletic Kapsulotaenia Freze, 1965, and a monophyletic assemblage of Acanthotaenia shipleyi + Australotaenia bunthangi + Rostellotaenia spp. (posterior probability = 0.88; not shown), but where all three lineages took an unresolved position at the base of the tree.
The Gangesiinae formed three paraphyletic lineages composed of Ritacestus ritaii, Postgangesia inarmata, and a clade composed of Electrotaenia malopteruri, Silurotaenia siluri and Gangesia spp. (Fig.
The remainder of the tree (Clade A) was structured as follows: The earliest diverging group consisted of Sandonella sandoni (Lynsdale, 1960) which parasitizes an ancient osteoglossiform fish in Africa and which formed the sister group to Clade E. The latter was composed of two monotypic sister taxa Glanitaenia de Chambrier, Zehnder, Vaucher & Mariaux, 2004 (Proteocephalinae) and Paraproteocephalus Chen in Dubinina, 1962 (Corallobothriinae), both of which parasitize silurid catfishes in the Palearctic Region. These, in turn, formed the sister group to Clade F, which was composed of the Proteocephalus aggregate (see
The next well-supported group structured of Clade G, which was exclusively composed of taxa from African siluriforms belonging to three subfamilies (Corallobothriinae, Marsypocephalinae and Proteocephalinae), and which formed the sister group to Clade H. The latter was composed of Scholzia emarginata, Proteocephalus hemioliopteri de Chambrier & Vaucher, 1997 and Zygobothrium megacephalum Diesing, 1850, all of which are anatomically similar parasites of the Neotropical catfish Phractocephalus hemioliopterus (Bloch & Schneider, 1801), but which are traditionally placed in different subfamilies, and of a monophyletic group of Nearctic proteocephalideans (Clade I), all parasitizing channel catfish (Ictaluridae); members of Clade I are placed in the Corallobothriinae because they possess a metascolex.
The most derived assemblage, Clade B, remained largely unresolved, with five early diverging lineages composed of (i) Ephedrocephalus microcephalus Diesing, 1850, (ii) Crepidobothrium gerrardii Monticelli, 1900, (iii) a clade of Pseudocrepidobothrium spp. + Proteocephalus macrophallus (Diesing, 1850), (iv) Clade J, composed of Rudolphiella spp. + Cangatiella arandasi Pavanelli & Machado dos Santos, 1991 + Brooksiella praeputialis (Rego, Santos & Silva, 1974), and (v) Clade K, composed of Ophiotaenia spp., Macrobothriotaenia ficta (Meggitt, 1931), all parasites of snakes from various zoogeographical regions, and Thaumasioscolex didelphidis Cañeda-Guzmán, de Chambrier & Scholz, 2001, the only proteocephalidean found in possums; (i)–(iv) were exclusively from the Neotropics.
The large polytomy found in Clade C was, to a large degree, composed of proteocephalideans parasitizing South American fishes (predominantly siluriforms of the families Pimelodidae, Auchenopteridae and Doradidae). Clade L formed the earliest diverging lineage of Clade C and was composed of Travassiella jandia (Woodland, 1934), Houssayela sudobim (Woodland, 1935) and Proteocephalus kuyukuyu Woodland, 1935 and P. renaudi de Chambrier & Vaucher, 1994. The sister group to the large polytomy in Clade C was formed of Clade M, which included Jauella glandicephalus Rego & Pavanelli, 1985, Nomimoscolex suspectus Zehnder, de Chambrier, Vaucher & Mariaux, 2000, N. dorad (Woodland, 1935) and N. piraeeba Woodland, 1934. The remainder of Clade C formed largely a comb which comprised, amongst others, Testudotaenia testudo (Magath, 1924), a parasite of North American soft-shelled turtles and bowfin (Amia calva), a clade of Proteocephalus sp. and Proteocephalus perlexus La Rue, 1911, parasitizing North American catfish and bowfins respectively, two distinct clades of Ophiotaenia La Rue, 1911, Clade N (parasites of South American snakes) and Clade O (parasites of European and Nearctic snakes), and two unresolved Ophiotaenia species, O. filaroides La Rue, 1909 and O. saphena Osler, 1931, parasitizing North American salamanders and frogs, respectively.
The possible monophyly of 17 proteocephalidean genera could be examined, at least preliminarily, because two or more species of these genera were included in our analyses (numerous proteocephalidean genera are monotypic or species-poor). According to the current taxon sampling, the following genera, listed alphabetically, appeared monophyletic (the numbers in parentheses indicate the total number of species sequenced and the number of distinct lineages in which species of a given genus appeared): Corallobothrium Fritsch, 1886 (2/1), Gangesia Woodland, 1924 (2/1), Gibsoniela Rego, 1984 (2/1), Kapsulotaenia Freze, 1965 (3/1), Marsypocephalus Wedl, 1861 (2/1), Megathylacoides Jones, Kerley & Sneed, 1956 (3/1), Peltidocotyle Diesing, 1850 (2/1), Proteocephalus aggregate (11/1), Rostellotaenia Freze, 1963 (2/1) and Spasskyellina Freze, 1965 (2/1) (see discussion below for the latter). The monophyly of Rudolphiella Fuhrmann, 1916 (2/1) was not rejected by these results. In contrast, Pseudocrepidobothrium Rego & Ivanov, 2001 (2/2) is paraphyletic and the genera Amphoteromorphus Diesing, 1850 (4/3), Choanoscolex La Rue, 1911 (2/2), Nomimoscolex Woodland, 1934 (9/7), Ophiotaenia (12/10) and Proteocephalus (20/7) appeared to be polyphyletic based on their current classification.
At the morphological level, the ovary to proglottid surface ratio ranged between 2.0% in Ophiotaenia grandis La Rue, 1911 to 20.8% in Zygobothrium megacephalum (Table
Schematic representation of proteocephalidean uterus development (a–c). The uterus observed in early immature, premature, mature, pregravid and gravid proglottids is represented from left to right. The major differences are observed in premature and mature proglottids (dotted line): a and c Development of Type 1 and 2, respectively (
Since the publications of
In both
It should also be noted that, together with Australotaenia de Chambrier & de Chambrier, 2010, Pangasiocestus has a particular, intermediate development of the uterus (see below), that contrasts that of all other Gangesiinae and Acanthotaeniinae, which have a Type 1 development of the uterus. P. romani was found in a catfish in Cambodia, and species of Australotaenia are distributed in Australia and Indomalaya, which would suggest an Old World origin for proteocephalideans. This scenario is consistent with the results of
The position of Sandonella Khalil, 1960 as a separate long-branching lineage, as already observed by
Sandonella sandoni was placed in a new genus and subfamily, Sandonellinae, mostly because of the characteristic posterior position of its vitellarium, which is unique among proteocephalideans and somewhat resembles that of the Cyclophyllidea in being formed by two compact, yet deeply lobulated postovarian masses near the posterior margin of the proglottids (
Sciadocephalus megalodiscus parasitizing Cichla monoculus Agassiz, 1831 (Perciformes) in the Neotropical region and described by
Our considerably enlarged dataset of fish proteocephalideans from Africa covers most of their diversity and includes all genera reported from the Afrotropical Region. It revealed that all but one species (the gangesiine Electrotaenia malopteruri – see above) from African siluriform fish form a well-supported, relatively basal Clade G. This is one of the most important novelties of the present study: species placed in three subfamilies are phylogenetically closely related despite important morphological differences. These are: i) the Corallobothriinae (two species of Corallobothrium including its type species from malapterurid electric catfish) characterized mainly by a well-developed metascolex and medullary testes; ii) the Marsypocephalinae (two species from clariids) with a simple scolex and cortical testes; and iii) the Proteocephalinae (three Proteocephalus species from clariid, claroteid and mochokid catfish, and Barsonella lafoni de Chambrier, Scholz, Beletew & Mariaux, 2009 from Clarias spp.), with a relatively simple scolex and medullary testes (
Neotropical catfish, in particular pimelodids, harbour the highest number of species (and genera) of proteocephalidean cestodes. However, these parasites do not form a monophyletic assemblage, even though most of them belong to our most derived clade with unresolved internal relationships (see also
As many as six species reported from P. hemioliopterus were included in our analyses. Three of them, namely Proteocephalus hemioliopteri, Scholzia emarginata (both Proteocephalinae) and Zygobothrium megacephalum (Zygobothriinae), differ markedly from each other in their scolex morphology (see
The remaining three taxa that parasitize P. hemioliopterus, i.e. two species of Pseudocrepidobothrium (Proteocephalinae) and Ephedrocephalus microcephalus Diesing, 1850 (Ephedrocephalinae) group in an unresolved position towards the base of the South American radiation. This suggests possible independent colonizations of this host. The basal position of these parasites is in accordance with the fact that P. hemioliopterus is one of the most ancient pimelodids, as suggested by fossil records dating from Middle to Late Miocene (
Our data do not enable any reliable assessment regarding a possible host-parasite coevolution, especially in the case of pimelodid catfishes and their Neotropical proteocephalideans. A comparison of the interrelationships of the Pimelodidae based on robust morphological and molecular evidence (
Nearctic species from channel catfish form a well-supported, monophyletic lineage (Clade I) composed of species of three genera, Essexiella Scholz, de Chambrier, Mariaux & Kuchta, 2011, Megathylacoides and Corallotaenia Freze, 1965. However, the Nearctic genera, conventionally placed in the Corallobothriinae because they possess a metascolex, are not closely related to the monotypic Corallobothrium from the electric catfish, Malapterurus electricus Gmelin, 1789, in Africa and their morphological resemblance is probably a result of convergent evolution (
As a consequence, a new taxon should be proposed to accommodate Nearctic channel catfish proteocephalideans, which are apparently unrelated either to the true corallobothriines (in fact now represented by C. solidum and a species to be described, both from Africa) or to the various other proteocephalideans from freshwater teleosts in North America that are distributed throughout the phylogenetic tree (Clades F and D – see Fig.
The distribution of proteocephalideans in snakes is particularly interesting. Multiple colonizations of reptiles, as already suggested by
Species of Ophiotaenia in colubrids from Holarctic (2 species – Clade O), Neotropical dipsadids (2 species – Clade N), and Nearctic amphibians are possibly unrelated and appear within a polytomy composed of numerous lineages of Neotropical fish proteocephalideans. They are morphologically uniform and do not differ significantly from the other species of Ophiotaenia in Clade K, as all of them have a similar scolex and strobilar morphology, including relative ovary size (see
In addition to the above-mentioned “reptilian” lineages, our derived Clade B is composed of a number of Neotropical parasites of catfishes and a few other teleosts, where the highest species richness can be found in the Pimelodidae (Siluriformes) (
Despite our enlarged sample size, the present study did not resolve the relationships of most Neotropical proteocephalideans from teleosts, and in this respect does not significantly improve the results of
Other molecular markers, possibly large mtDNA fragments, as used by
Catfishes (order Siluriformes) represent one of the key host groups for proteocephalidean cestodes, but there is no obvious coevolutionary pattern between them. This lack of closer host-associations at a higher taxonomic level is not surprising because catfishes form an extraordinarily diverse group of teleosts with over 3,000 valid recognized species (Eschmeyer et al. 2004). The interrelationships of large groups in the Siluroidei, which comprises almost all catfish hosts of proteocephalideans, including the Neotropical pimelodids and heptapterids (Pimelodoidea) and African taxa (“Big Africa” clade with cestode-hosting families Mochokidae, Malapteruridae, and Auchenoglanidae and phylogenetically distant Clariidae) are poorly resolved (
Even though 10 genera (see above) appeared to form monophyletic assemblages, all but one (Proteocephalus aggregate) were represented by a very low number of species (2–3), and the validity of some of them may still have to be reconsidered when a denser sampling is available. In contrast, all species-rich genera with at least nine species analyzed (Nomimoscolex, Ophiotaenia and Proteocephalus sensu lato), as well as Amphoteromorphus (4 species), appeared to be polyphyletic and are distributed across numerous lineages, even though their morphology and host-associations are quite similar.
A situation comparable to that of Proteocephalus (species of this genus belong to at least 7 distinct lineages – Fig.
This work also confirms the polyphyly of Monticellia La Rue, 1911 in its present form with M. spinulifera Woodland, 1935 and M. lenha Woodland, 1933 found in siluriforms forming well-supported Clade P, which is distantly related to the type species of the genus, M. coryphicephala (Monticelli, 1891) from characids. The two former species belong to Monticellia since
Regarding the evolution of morphological characters, the most obvious and evolutionarily important observation derived from Fig.
A–C Scoleces with rostellum-like organs and retractor muscles. A Without hooks. Ritacestus ritaii (Verma, 1926) (modified from
The development of the uterus seems to represent one of the key features that reflects the evolution of proteocephalideans and characterizes their major lineages. The evolution of uterine structure as described in
Two basal taxa belonging to Acanthotaeniinae and Gangesiinae show a different, as yet undescribed, form of uterus development that we call “intermediate type” (see purple circles on Fig.
New morphological characters that are potentially useful for proteocephalidean taxonomy are notoriously difficult to define. However,
In the present study, data on the relative size of the ovary are provided for all taxa analyzed (see Table
Characters related to eggs and their morphology have been shown to be important in the systematics of proteocephalidean cestodes (
Another kind of egg (in capsules) (Fig.
Unfortunately, most lineages revealed in the present study lack such obvious synapomorphies due to a high degree of homoplasy across numerous morphological characters previously used for distinguishing individual genera and subfamilies, such as scolex morphology and the position of reproductive organs in relation to the inner longitudinal musculature (
This study is based on the most representative molecular dataset of proteocephalidean taxa ever sampled (33% of all valid species, almost 80% of genera and all extant subfamilies). However, some groups are still under-represented, mainly because of the difficulties in obtaining fresh samples, either due to their low prevalence and the protection or rare occurrence of their hosts. Probably the most serious gap in our dataset is the small number (two species) of proteocephalideans parasitizing amphibians (frogs and salamanders). These are usually extremely rare, with less than 1% of host infected (
The evolutionary history of the order has been apparently much more complicated than one would expect, considering a relatively small number (about 315) of extant species. Although we did not formally examine the host-parasite coevolution of proteocephalideans here, our tree strongly suggests the occurrence of several colonization events of poikilothermic vertebrates as well as repeated colonization of the principal zoogeographical regions with the most recent, and probably explosive, radiation in Neotropical teleosts, especially pimelodid catfishes.
Based on 28S rDNA sequences, these results support several new insights into the evolution of proteocephalideans. Unfortunately, they also cast a number of doubts on our present understanding of the classifications within this group: most recognized subfamily-level taxa are, at best, only partially supported. A notable consequence is that scolex morphology and the position of internal organs (testes, uterus and vitelline follicles in relation to the inner longitudinal musculature) should be considered with caution when used for higher-level taxonomy, i.e. to distinguish genera and subfamilies. Clearly a complete taxonomical reorganization of the order is needed. This will likely include the designation of a number of well-supported families and the removal of the subfamilial terminology. Any formal reorganization of the order, however, would be premature as long as a more complete multigene analysis remains to be performed. At lower taxonomical levels, we nevertheless propose resurrecting the genus Spasskyellina for three species of Monticellia (see above) but, for now, we consider that further nomenclatural adaptations should be delayed until clearly supported groups, reinforced by well-defined morphological characters, can be named and adequately characterized.
Results reported herein make it obvious that a new classification should not be based on the characters traditionally used for circumscribing genera and families (
The authors acknowledge the support of NSF PBI awards Nos 0818696 and 0818823 granted to Janine Caira (University of Connecticut) and Kirsten Jensen (University of Kansas). T. S. was supported by the Institute of Parasitology, Biology Centre, CAS (RVO: 60077344) and the Czech Science Foundation (project No. P505/12/G112). A significant part of the material used and sequenced in this study was collected as part of these projects. We also thank the numerous people and institutions over the world who facilitated loans or the organization of collection trips, especially Anirban Ash and Pradip Kumar Kar (Kolkata); Martin Mortenthaler (Iquitos); late Ian Whittington and Leslie Chisholm (Adelaide); David I. Gibson and Eileen Harris (London); late Susan Lim Lee-Hong (Kuala Lumpur); Ian Beveridge (Melbourne); Lester Cannon (Brisbane); Hem Rady (Tonle Sap and Siem Reap); Touch Bunthang (Phnom Penh); Tran Thin Binh (Hanoi), Jeanne Rasamy and Achille Raselimanana (Antananarivo); Abebe Getahun Gubale, Eshete Dejen Dresilign and Moges Beletew (Addis Ababa); Zuheir N. Mahmoud, Ali Adam, Sayed Yousif and Osman Elsheikh (Khartoum), Jean-Paul Gonzalez and Mathieu Bourgarel (Franceville). We acknowledge the contributions of Janik Pralong, Alain Zosso and Gilles Roth (Geneva) for technical assistance, sequencing and for finalising the drawings, respectively. J. M. thanks Yasen Mutafchiev (Sofia) for his help with figures. We thank the staff of the NHM Sequencing Facility (London) for sample processing and sequencing. Thanks are due to Roman Kuchta (České Budějovice) and Rodney A. Bray (London) for their useful reviews of the text.
Figure 1
Data type: Phylogenetic tree
Explanation note: Bayesian inference of partial (domains 1–3) 28S rDNA sequences of the complete taxon set of proteocephalideans performed using MrBayes version 3.1 using the GTR + I + G model of sequence evolution. Two parallel runs were performed for 10,000,000 generations; 8,000,000 generations were discarded as burnin. Branches with posterior probability (pp) support below 95% are collapsed; pp are indicated below branches.
Table 1
Data type: Leaf stability test results
Explanation note: Leaf stability test results from the post-burnin posterior tree distribution from two MrBayes runs that included the full complement of taxa. Taxa are ranked based on their positional stability estimated from the Maximum, which is an average of all the highest percentages from all possible quartet sets for a particular taxon, Difference, which is the difference between the highest and the second highest percentages from all possible quartet sets for a particular taxon, and Entropy, which is calculated as the normalized sum of logs for each quartet percentages (except the unresolved polygamy).