Digenean parasites in prosobranch snail &lt;i&gt;Lithoglyphus naticoides&lt;/i&gt; population with the morphological description of &lt;i&gt;Echinochasmus&lt;/i&gt; sp. cercaria

Stanevičiūtė, Gražina; Petkevičiūtė, Romualda; Kiselienė, V.

doi:10.2478/v10055-008-0037-6

Cited by 13 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Echinochasmus sp. Stanevičiūtė et al 2008 clustered together with Stephanoprora pseudoechinata in a 94–100% supported subclade in the ITS2 phylogenetic tree (Fig. 2) and a 100% supported clade in the 28S phylogenetic tree (Fig.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the other hand, Stephanoprora pseudoechinata is a marine species, while Echinochasmus sp. Stanevičiūtė et al 2008 is a parasite of freshwater organisms, a finding that shows a considerable ecological plasticity in this group. Sudarikov and Karmanova (1977) stated that the ontogenetic character state of Echinochasminae species concerning the absence of well-developed collar with collar spines in the morphology of cercaria, indicates that echinochasmids is a more ancient group than other echinostomatids.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The phylogenetic relationships estimated by ITS2 and 28S sequences partly support this hypothesis, because Echinochasmus sp. Stanevičiūtė et al 2008 and Stephanoprora pseudoechinata were clustered in one clade with Sphaeridiotrema globulus (Psilostomidae) in the 28S tree. Cribb et al (2001) stated that from 144 known life cycles of Echinostomatidae species about two-thirds of the first intermediate hosts are lymnaeoid pulmonates but there are also significant numbers of species developing in prosobranchs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Surprisingly, the other two known karyotypes of species of Echinochasminae are very different from that of Echinochasmus sp. Stanevičiūtė et al 2008. The chromosome number of Echinochasmus beleocephalus is 2n=14 and the karyotype consists of three pairs of large biarmed chromosomes and four pairs of smaller homologues.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Morphology of the Echinochasmus sp. cercaria from the same population of Lithoglyphus naticoides was previously described by Stanevičiūtė et al (2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Phylogenetic relationships of some species of the family Echinostomatidae Odner, 1910 (Trematoda), inferred from nuclear rDNA sequences and karyological analysis

Stanevičiūtė¹,

Stunžėnas²,

Petkevičiūtė³

2015

CCG

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The family Echinostomatidae Looss, 1899 exhibits a substantial taxonomic diversity, morphological criteria adopted by different authors have resulted in its subdivision into an impressive number of subfamilies. The status of the subfamily Echinochasminae Odhner, 1910 was changed in various classifications. Genetic characteristics and phylogenetic analysis of four Echinostomatidae species – Echinochasmus sp., Echinochasmus coaxatus Dietz, 1909, Stephanoprora pseudoechinata (Olsson, 1876) and Echinoparyphium mordwilkoi Skrjabin, 1915 were obtained to understand well enough the homogeneity of the Echinochasminae and phylogenetic relationships within the Echinostomatidae. Chromosome set and nuclear rDNA (ITS2 and 28S) sequences of parthenites of Echinochasmus sp. were studied. The karyotype of this species (2n=20, one pair of large bi-armed chromosomes and others are smaller-sized, mainly one-armed, chromosomes) differed from that previously described for two other representatives of the Echinochasminae, Echinochasmus beleocephalus (von Linstow, 1893), 2n=14, and Episthmium bursicola (Creplin, 1937), 2n=18. In phylogenetic trees based on ITS2 and 28S datasets, a well-supported subclade with Echinochasmus sp. and Stephanoprora pseudoechinata clustered with one well-supported clade together with Echinochasmus japonicus Tanabe, 1926 (data only for 28S) and Echinochasmus coaxatus. These results supported close phylogenetic relationships between Echinochasmus Dietz, 1909 and Stephanoprora Odhner, 1902. Phylogenetic analysis revealed a clear separation of related species of Echinostomatoidea restricted to prosobranch snails as first intermediate hosts, from other species of Echinostomatidae and Psilostomidae, developing in Lymnaeoidea snails as first intermediate hosts. According to the data based on rDNA phylogeny, it was supposed that evolution of parasitic flukes linked with first intermediate hosts. Digeneans parasitizing prosobranch snails showed higher dynamic of karyotype evolution provided by different chromosomal rearrangements including Robertsonian translocations and pericentric inversions than more stable karyotype of digenean worms parasitizing lymnaeoid pulmonate snails.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Morphology of the Echinochasmus sp. cercaria from the same population of Lithoglyphus naticoides was previously described by Stanevičiūtė et al (2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations