Phylogeny of the Atlantic and Pacific species of Ligophorus (Monogenea: Dactylogyridae): Morphology vs. molecules

Sarabeev, Volodimir; Desdevises, Yves

doi:10.1016/j.parint.2013.10.001

Cited by 21 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless, according to BlascoCosta et al (2012), this number can augment greatly as new hosts and localities are studied and, thus, the development of a reliable taxonomic framework based on morphological and molecular grounds is becoming increasingly needed (this was partially done by Sarabeev et al 2013 andDesdevises 2014). In the present study, we observed that scrutiny of the published diagnostic features under phase contrast microscopy does not succeed in unambiguously discriminating between L. saladensis and L. uruguayense.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 51%

“…Blasco-Costa et al (2012) suggest that both within-host duplication and host-switching contributed to the diversification of Ligophorus, whereas Sarabeev and Desdevises (2014) stress the importance of host-switching. The observed limited divergence between two species of Ligophorus, that share the same host raises the question as to which parasite speciation modes have occurred in this genus.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The latter software was also used to calculate the genetic distances and for model selection and phylogenetic tree building. With this phylogeny reconstruction, we do not aim to redo or repeat the work by Blasco-Costa et al (2012) or Sarabeev and Desdevises (2014); it is intended merely to situate L. saladensis and L. uruguayense among their congeners that have been genetically characterised. Following Blasco-Costa et al (2012), both fragments are analysed separately.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Overlooking functional aspects of the structures used for morphological identification has also led to errors (Dmitrieva et al 2009b). Moreover, the relationship between morphology-based and molecular taxonomy is not yet clear, although congruence between the two approaches was reported to be high by Sarabeev and Desdevises (2014).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A comparative study of Ligophorus uruguayense and L. saladensis (Monogenea: Ancyrocephalidae) from Mugil liza (Teleostei: Mugilidae) in southern Brazil

Marchiori¹,

Pariselle²,

Pereira³

et al. 2015

Folia Parasitologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Representatives of Ligophorus Euzet et Suriano, 1977 were found on the gills of Mugil liza Valenciennes caught in southern Brazil. They were identified as Ligophorus uruguayense Failla Siquier et Ostrowski de Núñez, 2009 and Ligophorus saladensis Marcotegui et Martorelli, 2009, even though specific identification proved to be difficult due to inconsistencies in some diagnostic features reported for these two species. Therefore, a combined morphological and molecular approach was used to critically review the validity of these species, by means of phase contrast and confocal fluorescence microscopical examination of sclerotised hard parts, and assessing the genetic divergence between L. saladensis, L. uruguayense and their congeners using rDNA sequences. The main morphological differences between the two species relate to the shape of the accessory piece of the penis and the median process of the ventral bar. The accessory piece in L. uruguayense is shorter than in L. saladensis, has a cylindrical, convex upper lobe and straight lower lobe (vs with the distal tip of the lower lobe turning away from the upper lobe in the latter species). The ventral bar has a V-shaped anterior median part in L. uruguayense (vs U-shaped in L. saladensis). The two species are suggested to be part of a species complex together with L. mediterraneus Sarabeev, Balbuena et Euzet, 2005. We recommend to generalise such comparative assessment of species of Ligophorus for a reliable picture of the diversity and diversification mechanisms within the genus, and to make full use of its potential as an additional marker for mullet taxonomy and systematics.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 51%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A comparative study of Ligophorus uruguayense and L. saladensis (Monogenea: Ancyrocephalidae) from Mugil liza (Teleostei: Mugilidae) in southern Brazil

Marchiori¹,

Pariselle²,

Pereira³

et al. 2015

Folia Parasitologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…the ability to instantly colonize a new host when the occasion arises. In fact, straggling seems common in this genus due to the usual co-occurrence of several sympatric host populations that overlap in habitat and behaviour, and which, due to their phylogenetic relatedness, can provide a similar physiological environment for the parasites (Sarabeev et al, 2013;Sarabeev and Desdevises, 2014). Eventually straggling would make host switching and subsequent speciation in the newly colonized host possible, as postulated by Desdevises (2007).…”

Section: Ligophorus Llewellynimentioning

confidence: 99%

Phenotypic plasticity in haptoral structures of Ligophorus cephali (Monogenea: Dactylogyridae) on the flathead mullet (Mugil cephalus): a geometric morphometric approach

Rodríguez-González

Míguez-Lozano

Llopis‐Belenguer

et al. 2015

International Journal for Parasitology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluating phenotypic plasticity in attachment organs of parasites can provide information on the capacity to colonize new hosts and illuminate evolutionary processes driving host specificity.We analysed the variability in shape and size of the dorsal and ventral anchors of Ligophorus cephali from Mugil cephalus by means of geometric morphometrics and multivariate statistics. We also assessed the morphological integration between anchors and between the roots and points in order to gain insight into their functional morphology. Dorsal and ventral anchors showed a similar gradient of overall shape variation, but the amount of localized changes was much higher in the former. Statistical models describing variations in shape and size revealed clear differences between anchors. The dorsal anchor/bar complex seems more mobile than the ventral one in Ligophorus, and these differences may reflect different functional roles in attachment to the gills. The lower residual variation associated with the ventral anchor models suggests a tighter control of their shape and size, perhaps because these anchors seem to be responsible for firmer attachment and their size and shape would allow more effective responses to characteristics of the microenvironment within the individual host. Despite these putative functional differences, the high level of morphological integration indicates a concerted action between anchors. In addition, we found a slight, although significant, morphological integration between roots and points in both anchors, which suggests that a large fraction of the observed phenotypic variation does not compromise the functional role of anchors as levers. Given the low level of genetic variation in our sample, it is likely that much of the morphological variation reflects host-driven plastic responses. This supports the hypothesis of monogenean specificity through host-switching and rapid speciation. The present study demonstrates the potential of geometric morphometrics to provide new and previously unexplored insights into the functional morphology of attachment and evolutionary processes of host-parasite coevolution.4

show abstract

Evolutionary modularity and morphological integration in the haptoral anchor structures of Ligophorus spp. (Monogenea: Dactylogyridae)

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An important question in the study of phenotypic evolution is whether characters are independent of each other or behave and evolve as integrated modules. Morphological integration and modularity provide a powerful framework for the analysis of the evolution of morphological traits. We used geometric morphometrics and phylogenetically independent contrasts (PIC) to test four different modularity hypotheses in the haptoral anchors of 14 monogenean species of Ligophorus. Integration between the modular units identified was further evaluated with two-block partial least squares analysis. Roots and points represented two modules in the dorsal and ventral anchors, but modularity was not statistically supported when parasite phylogeny was accounted for, which may indicate convergent evolution related to host characteristics and gill morphology. In contrast, PIC revealed medial and lateral modules in ventral anchors only. Moreover, we found evidence for ventral and dorsal anchor pairs forming two modules, supporting the notion that they play different functional roles. Integration between all identified modules was strong. We conclude that there is modular structure in the anchors of Ligophorus spp., accounted by adaptive and phylogenetic factors acting at different levels, and ventral and dorsal anchors evolve as integrated modules with specific roles in attachment.

show abstract

Phylogeny of the Atlantic and Pacific species of Ligophorus (Monogenea: Dactylogyridae): Morphology vs. molecules

Cited by 21 publications

References 55 publications

A comparative study of Ligophorus uruguayense and L. saladensis (Monogenea: Ancyrocephalidae) from Mugil liza (Teleostei: Mugilidae) in southern Brazil

A comparative study of Ligophorus uruguayense and L. saladensis (Monogenea: Ancyrocephalidae) from Mugil liza (Teleostei: Mugilidae) in southern Brazil

Phenotypic plasticity in haptoral structures of Ligophorus cephali (Monogenea: Dactylogyridae) on the flathead mullet (Mugil cephalus): a geometric morphometric approach

Evolutionary modularity and morphological integration in the haptoral anchor structures of Ligophorus spp. (Monogenea: Dactylogyridae)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About