Cuticle Structure in the Genus Heterodera

Shepherd, Audrey M.; Clark, Sybil A.; Dart, P. J.

doi:10.1163/187529272x00197

Cited by 29 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The female cuticle acquires an extra basal layer, the so-called D-layer (Shepherd et al, 1972;Baldwin, 1983) (Fig. 2).…”

Section: Phylogenymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2). The females further have a more complex ridge pattern on the cuticle (Green, 1975), fenestration around the anus, and a D-layer in the cuticle of the female that is much thinner than in the other genera (Shepherd et al, 1972); further justification for placing this genus at the apex of evolutionary line IV (Fig. 1).…”

Section: Phylogenymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Photomicrographs of the fenestration of the vulval area of cysts (Mulvey, 1972(Mulvey, , 1973(Mulvey, , 1974Mulvey & Ebsary, 1980) and electronmicrographs of face views of the second-stage juveniles (Stone, 1975a;Sher & Bell, 1975;Luc et al, 1978;Baldwin et al, 1983;Robbins, 1978) and of cross sections of the cuticle of the females (Shepherd et al, 1972;Baldwin, 1983) contributed to our knowledge of the general morphology of the group. However, it did not improve the understanding of the interrelationships between genera.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Phylogenetic classification of the family Heteroderidae (Nematoda: Tylenchida)

Wouts¹

1985

Syst Parasitol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The female cuticle acquires an extra basal layer, the so-called D-layer (Shepherd et al, 1972;Baldwin, 1983) (Fig. 2).…”

Section: Phylogenymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Phylogenymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Phylogenetic classification of the family Heteroderidae (Nematoda: Tylenchida)

Wouts¹

1985

Syst Parasitol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rogers et al (1974 ), ( 2 )Vincent et al ( 1975), (3 )Dick & Wright ( 1973 ), ( 4)Chitwood & Chitwood ( 1950 ), ( 5)Ko et al ( 1980),( 6)Mounport et al ( 1993b ), ( 7 ) Mounport et al ( 2000 ), ( 8 ) Johnson et al ( 1970 b ), ( 9 ) Watson ( 1965 ), ( 10) Van de Velde et al ( 1994 ), ( 11 ) Neuhaus et al ( 1996a ), (12 ) Valette et al ( 1997), ( 13 ) Kisiel et al ( 1972 ), ( 14) Mounport et al ( 1993 c), (15 ) De Grisse & Roman ( 1974), ( 16) Spiegel & Robertson ( 1988), ( 17) Samoiloff & Pasternak ( 1969 ), ( 18 ) De Grisse ( 1972), (19 )Lee ( 1977 ), ( 20)Bird ( 1958 ), ( 21)Grootaert & Jaques (1979 ), (22 )Baldwin & Hirschmann ( 1974), ( 23)Shepherd et al ( 1972 ), ( 24 )Cliff & Baldwin ( 1985 ), ( 25 )Natasasmita ( 1979), (26 )Baldwin & Eddleman ( 1992 ), ( 27 ), (28 )Mounport et al ( 1997a ), (29 )Edgar et al ( 1982 ), ( 30 )Reddigari et al (1986 ), (31 )Bird & Rogers ( 1965), (32 )Baldwin & Schouest ( 1990 ), ( 33 )Blaxter & Robertson ( 1998 ), ( 34 )Lee (1965 ), ( 35 )Araujo et al (1995 ), (36 )Deas et al ( 1974 ), ( 37) …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of the ultrastructure of the nematode body cuticle and its phylogenetic interpretation

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The phylogenetic interpretation of the nematode cuticle ultrastructure is reviewed within the framework of recent DNA-sequence data. In particular, the structure of the median and basal zones is discussed. Several structural elements of the cuticle seem to have arisen independently several times within the Nematoda and thus are highly homoplasious (e.g. the cortical or basal radial striae, spiral fibre layers and a fluid matrix with struts). Moreover, identifying the homology of the nematode cuticle ultrastructures is often very difficult at deep taxonomic levels. Hence, the cuticle appears to be unreliable regarding resolution of deep-level relationships in the Nematoda. However, at less inclusive taxonomic levels (e.g. families, genera, ...) the cuticle seems to be a more reliable phylogenetic marker.

show abstract

“…2A). In Heterodera a single additional layer, C, is added, whereas in Globodera both C and D occur (Shepherd et al, 1972). Character states in cuticle layering of females is species-specific in the 20 species of 17 genera examined (Baldwin, 1983;Cliff & Baldwin, 1985;Baldwin, unpublished).…”

Section: Female Cuticlementioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative detailed morphology of the Heteroderinae Filip'ev & Schuurmans Stekhoven, 1941, sensu Luc et al. (1988): phylogenetic systematics and revised classification

Baldwin

Schouest

1990

Syst Parasitol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Taxonomic schemes for the Heteroderinae Filip 'ev & Schuurmans Stekhoven, 1941, sensu Luc et al., (1988 have been unstable due to the large number of genera and the paucity of known reliable characters. Reliable characters are essential when using phylogenetic inference in developing a natural classification. Morphological and developniental studies using light, scanning and transmission electron microscopy have revealed the new characters of host response, en face patterns, phasmid structure and female cuticular layers. These techniques also gave us insight into the homoplasy and polarity of many characters, revealed previously undetected character states and clarified misinterpreted character states. A matrix with the 19 most reliable characters is proposed for 20 operational taxonomic units (OTUs) and we employ this matrix for comparing computer generated phylogenetic analyses of the PHYLIP and PAUP packages. PAUP was deemed the more reliable parsimony algorithm for phylogenetic analysis of the Heteroderinae (Fink, 1986;Platnick, 1987). Monophyly of Atalodera + Sherodera + Thecavermiculatus (tribe Ataloderini), and Cactodera + Heterodera + Afenestrata, as well as Punctodera + Globodera + Dolichodera is supported by both programs. Most importantly, analyses strongly support monophyly of all cyst-forming genera (tribe Heteroderini) contrary to previous hypotheses of repeated evolution of the cyst (Wouts, 1985). In addition, monophyly of the Heteroderini with the Ataloderini is demonstrated. PAUP indicates monophyly of Sarisodera + Rhizonema + Bellodera + Hylonema and Ekphymatodera (tribe Sarisoderini new rank). Monophyly of the Sarisoderini was at first only weakly supported, but, subsequently, the reduced width of the submedial lips of second stage juveniles and males was recognized as a synapomorphy which strengthened subsequent PAUP trees and monophyly of the tribe. The present study rejects as paraphyletic or polyphyletic several previously proposed combinations, including Thecavermiculatus sequoiae (versus Rhizonema sequoiae), Sarisodera africana (versus Afenestrata africana), Dolichodera andinus (versus Thecavermiculatus andinus). The question whether T. andinus is a distinct genus, was not resolved due to insufficient data. PAUP supports our previous observations that Cactodera betulae is intermediate in a transformation series between other Cactodera and Heterodera: it also indicates these species as bring monophyletic with Heterodera + Afenestrata, but not with other Cactodera. Although these phylogenetic analyses strongly support some relationships, they indicate unresolved alternative hypotheses for others. Meloidodera (tribe Meloidoderini) and Cryphodera (tribe Cryphoderini) must be investigated for consideration of a possible synapomorphy not included in the present data matrix. Future studies are proposed to more clearly define the monophyly of the Heteroderini, as well as the Sarisoderini. Tests are also proposed to clarify questions of the monophyly of Verutus (tribe Verutini new rank) with the ...

show abstract

Cuticle Structure in the Genus Heterodera

Cited by 29 publications

References 0 publications

Phylogenetic classification of the family Heteroderidae (Nematoda: Tylenchida)

Phylogenetic classification of the family Heteroderidae (Nematoda: Tylenchida)

Review of the ultrastructure of the nematode body cuticle and its phylogenetic interpretation

Comparative detailed morphology of the Heteroderinae Filip'ev & Schuurmans Stekhoven, 1941, sensu Luc et al. (1988): phylogenetic systematics and revised classification

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About