Open Access

Host specificity, molecular phylogeny and morphological differences of Phyllodistomum pseudofolium Nybelin, 1926 and Phyllodistomum angulatum Linstow, 1907 (Trematoda: Gorgoderidae) with notes on Eurasian ruffe as final host for Phyllodistomum spp.

Parasites & Vectors201710:286

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-017-2210-9

Received: 16 February 2017

Accepted: 18 May 2017

Published: 6 June 2017

Abstract

Background

Host-specificity patterns are not well-defined for trematodes of the genus Phyllodistomum Braun, 1899. The Eurasian ruffe, Gymnocephalus cernuus L., has been recorded as a definitive host for Phyllodistomum folium (Olfers, 1816), P. angulatum Linstow, 1907 and P. megalorchis Nybelin, 1926 and as the type-host for P. pseudofolium Nybelin (1926). A wide range of other host fishes have been recorded for these species as well. All present host records have been based on light microscopy and the life-cycles of P. pseudofolium, P. angulatum and P. megalorchis are unknown. The validity of P. pseudofolium and P. megalorchis require verification. In this study, rDNA sequences generated from adult Phyllodistomum spp., as well as from larval stages developing in Pisidium amnicum Müller, were analysed to establish the real number of Phyllodistomum species utilizing G. cernuus, and to associate larvae with the corresponding adult forms.

Results

Phylogenetic analyses of adult and larval stages of Phyllodistomum spp. based on ITS2 and partial 28S rDNA data allowed the confirmation of the validity of P. pseudofolium. A macrocercous cercaria, known as Phyllodistomum sp. from P. amnicum is genetically identical to adult P. pseudofolium. Phyllodistomum megalorchis obtained from its type-host, Lota lota L., showed no genetic differences from P. angulatum parasitizing Sander lucioperca L. In our analysis, P. pseudofolium, P. angulatum and P. macrocotyle formed a highly supported clade despite the fact that these species appear to be associated with distinct patterns of first intermediate host identity and cercarial morphology. Some morphological differences between gravid specimens of P. pseudofolium and P. angulatum were observed and their SEM tegumental surface topography is described.

Conclusions

The results lead us to the perception that macroevolutionary host switching in the genus Phyllodistomum is independent of host phylogeny. This study suggests strict host-specificity (oioxeny) for P. pseudofolium using one first intermediate host species (P. amnicum) and one definitive host species (G. cernuus). Phyllodistomum megalorchis is to be regarded as a synonym of P. angulatum. The close phylogenetic relatives, P. pseudofolium and P. angulatum, can be differentiated by morphological traits, the micromorphology and tegumental surface topography of these two species is intended to provide useful data for their identification and support the use of such features as a valuable taxonomic criterion. Molecular data showed that G. cernuus is a definitive host for two species: the oioxenous P. pseudofolium and the euryxenous P. folium.

Keywords

Phyllodistomum pseudofolium P. angulatum Eurasian ruffe Life-cycles ITS2 rDNA 28S Host specificity SEM Morphological variation

Background

Host specificity is arguably one of the most important properties of parasitic organisms. Several definitive and intermediate hosts can be involved in helminth life-cycles, thereby complicating the pattern of specificity. Molecular analysis has often shown that species of parasites once thought to be generalists (euryxenic or stenoxenic) were, in reality, complexes of specialist (oioxenic) species generally recognized as cryptic species (see [1, 2]). As a result, generalist species parasites are considered with suspicion.

The digenean genus Phyllodistomum Braun, 1899 (Gorgoderidae) contains around 120 species, which typically inhabit the urinary bladder and/or ureters of both marine and freshwater fishes, more rarely amphibians [310]. Taxonomic confusion in the genus Phyllodistomum is caused greatly by the absence of a well-defined host specificity pattern. Moreover considerable intraspecific variability has been found in most morphological and morphometric features of these digeneans [3, 1114].

According to literature, the Eurasian ruffe Gymnocephalus cernuus L. (Percidae) has been recorded as a definitive host for five species of the genus Phyllodistomum: P. pseudofolium Nybelin (1926), P. angulatum Linstow, 1907, P. megalorchis Nybelin, 1926, P. simile Nybelin, 1926 and P. folium (Olfers, 1816) [15, 16]. Based on these data, G. cernuus should be one of the fish host species harboring the greatest variety of Phyllodistomum spp. Each one of the Phyllodistomum species listed above has a long and complicated taxonomic history.

Nybelin [17] studied parasites from ureters of G. cernuus collected in Sweden and, on the basis of comparative analysis of his findings and the works of Looss [18], Lühe [19] and Odhner [20], erected a new species, P. pseudofolium. According to Bykhovskaya-Pavlovskaya & Kulakova [21], this parasite may infect other definitive hosts, mostly zander, Sander lucioperca L., and perch, Perca fluviatilis L. The validity of this species has been accepted by some helminthologists [21, 22] while rejected by others [3, 23] and is still questionable; its life-cycle is unknown. Pigulevsky [22] noted that the presumed intermediate hosts of P. pseudofolium are sphaeriid clams.

Phyllodistomum angulatum was described by Linstow in 1907 [24] based on material from S. lucioperca caught in the River Volga. Later it was found in other fish hosts of the families Percidae, Esocidae and Cyprinidae [Sander volgensis (Gmelin), P. fluviatilis, Esox lucius L., Leuciscus idus L., Alburnus alburnus L.], but rarely in G. cernuus (see [21, 22]). The species has yet to be reported in Lithuania [25].

Phyllodistomum megalorchis was recorded in G. cernuus in Latvia by Kirjušina & Vismanis [26]. Originally, the species was described from Lota lota L., Salmo trutta L., Thymallus thymallus L. and Phoxinus phoxinus L. Dawes [23] considered that P. megalorchis is synonymous with P. simile, and P. simile, in turn, “is likely to prove identical with P. folium”. Comparative molecular analysis proved the identity and, consequently, synonymy of P. simile and P. folium [27].

The type-species of the genus Phyllodistomum, P. folium was described by Olfers [28] based on specimens recovered in E. lucius. However, the description was deficient. Later, Looss [18] presented both a description and figure of the specimens of Phyllodistomum from Eurasian ruffe (G. cernuus L.; as Acerina cernua) identified as P. folium, which replaced Olfers’s [28] original and was later used as P. folium in many survey publications [19, 23, 29]. Pigulevsky [22] stated that P. folium is a specific parasite of E. lucius, an opinion supported by Moravec [30] who found P. folium exclusively in E. lucius. We confirmed the identity of P. folium using molecular markers; its host specificity appeared the lowest among the known Phyllodistomum spp.: adults of P. folium were detected in eight teleost species from five families and four orders, including E. lucius and G. cernuus [27]. Cystocercous cercariae of P. folium were recorded in sphaeriid bivalves of the genus Sphaerium Scopoli and Pisidium Pfeiffer [27].

Elucidation of life-cycles is critical to a complete understanding of gorgoderid trematodes, but the vast majority of gorgoderid life-cycles remain unknown. Cercariae produced in the life-cycles of Phyllodistomum spp. include different types, indicating a diversity not necessarily reflected by the morphology of adults [31, 32]. The most common type of life-cycle described is that characterized by cystocercous cercariae, but rhopalocercous and a microcercous cercaria are also known as larval stages of phyllodistomes [5]. Some yet unassociated gorgoderid cercariae, presumably attributable to the genus Phyllodistomum, have been described from freshwater bivalves in Europe. One of them, cercaria Phyllodistomum sp. sensu Ginetzinskaya, 1959 [33] was described from Pisidium amnicum (Müller, 1774) collected in the Rybinsk Water Reservoir (estuary of the River Volga, Russia) [33]. This cercaria has a long tail not enclosing the cercarial body and a short stylet embedded in the oral sucker. Ginetzinskaya [33] thought, based only on morphology, that this cercaria is the larva of P. angulatum. In previous studies, a match was not detected between cercaria Phyllodistomum sp. sensu Ginetzinskaya, 1959 and any adult Phyllodistomum, including P. angulatum [27].

While morphology may not be enough to establish robust species delimitation criteria, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) studies have revealed distinct patterns of the distribution of papillae on the body surfaces of species of the family Gorgoderidae [3437], including species of Phyllodistomum [810, 3843]. These studies have suggested that the arrangements of these tegumental papillae on adult gorgoderid species represent useful taxonomic characters.

This study is the first attempt to genetically characterize P. pseudofolium to test the species validity, as well as to study its phylogenetic affinities, host range and specificity. Ribosomal DNA sequences generated from adult stages of Phyllodistomum spp. collected from Eurasian ruffe G. cernuus and other fish species, as well as generated from larval stages developing in P. amnicum were compared and analyzed to establish the true number of Phyllodistomum species utilizing G. cernuus as a definitive host and to associate larvae with the corresponding adult form.

Methods

Larval and adult gorgoderids were collected from bivalves and from urinary bladders and ureters of freshwater fishes in different water bodies in Lithuania and Russia (Table 1). Total genomic DNA for molecular analysis was isolated according to protocols of Stunžėnas et al. [44] with a slight modification described in Petkevičiūtė et al. [45]. DNA fragments spanning the 3’ end of 5.8S rRNA gene, complete internal transcribed spacer 2 region (ITS2) and a small section at the 5' end of the 28S gene were amplified using the forward primer 3S (5'-CGG TGG ATC ACT CGG CTC GTG-3') [46] and the reverse primer ITS2.2 (5'-CCT GGT TAG TTT CTT TTC CTC CGC-3') [47] that anneal to the beginning of the large subunit (28S) near the ITS2. A fragment at the 5' end of the 28S rRNA gene was amplified using forward primer Digl2 (5'-AAG CAT ATC ACT AAG CGG-3') and reverse primer L0 (5'-GCT ATC CTG AG (AG) GAA ACT TCG-3') [48]. Amplification protocols are as described in Petkevičiūtė et al. [45]. PCR products were purified and sequenced in both directions at BaseClear B.V. (Leiden, the Netherlands) using PCR primers. Contiguous sequences were assembled using Sequencher 4.7 software (Gene Codes Corporation). New sequences of P. pseudofolium, P. angulatum, P. folium and Phyllodistomum sp. have been deposited in the GenBank (see accession numbers in Table 1).
Table 1

Species used in molecular phylogenetic analysis with information of their host, locality and GenBank accession numbers

Species

Host

Locality

GenBank ID [Reference]

28S

5.8S-ITS2-28S

Cercaria duplicata a

Anodonta anatina

Lake Saravesi, Finland

KJ729516 [27]

KJ740490 [27]

C. duplicata a

A. anatina

Kaunas Water Reservoir, Lithuania

KJ729515 [27]

KJ740492 [27]

C. duplicata a

A. anatina

River Chesnava, Russia

KJ729514 [27]

KJ740491 [27]

C. duplicata a

A. anatina

River Sluch, Ukraine

KJ729517 [27]

KJ740489 [27]

Phyllodistomum folium

Esox lucius

River Ild, Russia

KJ729542, KJ729545 [27]

KJ740499, KJ740500 [27]

P. folium

Rutilus rutilus

Rybinsk Water Reservoir on River Volga, Russia

KJ729536 [27]

KJ740501 [27]

P. folium

Aspius aspius

Rybinsk Water Reservoir on River Volga, Russia

KJ729548 [27]

KJ740503 [27]

P. folium

Abramis ballerus

Rybinsk Water Reservoir on River Volga, Russia

KJ729539 [27]

KJ740502 [27]

P. folium

Abramis brama

Rybinsk Water Reservoir on River Volga, Russia

KJ729537, KJ729547 [27]

KJ740505 [27]

P. folium

Gymnocephalus cernuus

River Shumorovka, Russia

KJ729552 [27]

KJ740506 [27]

P. folium b

G. cernuus

River Chesnava near Rybinsk Water Reservoir on River Volga, Russia

KX957727, KX957728

KY307880–KY307883

P. folium b

G. cernuus

Curonian Lagoon, Lithuania

KX957729

KY307884, KY307885

P. folium

Cottus gobio

River Nėris, Lithuania

KJ729550 [27]

KJ740507 [27]

P. folium

Gasterosteus aculeatus

River Vilnelė, Lithuania

AY277707 [62]

AY277705 [62]

P. folium a

Sphaerium corneum

River Shumorovka, Russia

KJ729546 [27]

KJ740498 [27]

P. folium a

S. corneum

River Hegga, Norway

KJ729549, KJ729551 [27]

KJ740494, KJ740495 [27]

P. folium a

Pisidium supinum

River Ūla, Lithuania

KJ729544 [27]

KJ740496 [27]

P. folium a

Pisidium amnicum

River Loo Jõgi, Estonia

KJ729541 [27]

 

P. folium a

P. amnicum

River Ild, Russia

KJ729535 [27]

KJ740497 [27]

P. folium a

P. amnicum

River Siilaisenpuro, Finland

KJ729533 [27]

 

Phyllodistomum umblae

Coregonus albula

Lake Syamozero, Karelia, Russia

KJ729528 [27]

KJ740508, KJ740509, KJ740510 [27]

Phyllodistomum angulatum

Sander lucioperca

River Chesnava, Russia

KJ729529, KJ729530, KJ729531 [27]

KJ740511, KJ740512 [27]

P. angulatum b

S. lucioperca

Rybinsk Water Reservoir on River Volga, Russia

KX957734, KX957735

 

P. angulatum b (= Phyllodistomum megalorchis)

Lota lota

Rybinsk Water Reservoir on River Volga, Russia

KX957733

KY307870, KY307871

Phyllodistomum pseudofolium b

G. cernuus

River Chesnava near Rybinsk Water Reservoir on River Volga, Russia

KX957727, KX957731, KX957732

KY307875, KY307876–KY307879

P. pseudofolium a (= Phyllodistomum sp. of Ginetzinskaya, 1959)

P. amnicum

River Chesnava, Russia

KJ729527 [27]

KJ740513 [27]

P. pseudofolium ab (= Phyllodistomum sp. of Ginetzinskaya, 1959)

P. amnicum

Pond near Rybinsk Water Reservoir on River Volga, Russia

KX957730

KY307874

Phyllodistomum sp.b (identified as

P. pseudofolium)

Perca fluviatilis

Rybinsk Water Reservoir on River Volga, Russia

KY307869

KY307886

Phyllodistomum macrocotyle a

Dreissena polymorpha

Lake Vilkokšnis, Lithuania

KJ729518, KJ729522, KJ729526 [27]

KJ740518, KJ740519 [27]

P. macrocotyle a

D. polymorpha

Elektrėnai Water Reservoir, Lithuania

KJ729525 [27]

KJ740516 [27]

P. macrocotyle a

D. polymorpha

Lake Wigry, Poland

KJ729520 [27]

KJ740520, KJ740521, KJ740522 [27]

P. macrocotyle a

D. polymorpha

River Shumorovka, Russia

KJ729521, KJ729524 [27]

KJ740523 [27]

P. macrocotyle a (= P. folium sensu Sinitsin, 1905)

D. polymorpha

Lake Lepelskoe, Belarus

AY288828 [63]

AY288831 [63]

P. macrocotyle a (= P. folium sensu Sinitsin, 1905)

D. polymorpha

Lake Lukomskoe, Belarus

AF533015 [63]

AF533015 [63]

P. magnificum

Tandanus tandanus

Moggill Creek, Queensland, Australia

KF013186, KF013189 [53]

KF013153, KF013156 [53]

P. inecoli

Heterandria bimaculata

Agua Bendita, Xico, Veracruz, Mexico

KC760199 [8]

 

P. inecoli

Profundulus sp.

Rio Templo, San Juan del Rio, Mexico

KM659389 [10]

 

P. spinopapillatum

Profundulus balsanus

Rio PuebloViejo, San Gabriel Mixtepec and Rio Santa Cruz, Santiago Jamiltepec, Mexico

KM659382, KM659388 [10]

 

P. centropomi

Centropomus parallelus

Tlacotalpan, Veracruz, Mexico

KM659384 [10]

 

P. kanae

Hynobius retardatus

Pippu, Hokkaido, Japan

AB979868 [7]

 

P. brevicecum

Umbra limi

Brokenhead, Manitoba, Canada

KC760204 [8]

 

P. cf. symmetrorchis

Clarias gariepinus

Lake Victoria, Kenya

KF013174 [53]

KF013162 [53]

P. vaili

Mulloidichthys flavolineatus

Lizard Island, Queensland, Australia

KF013173 [53]

KF013155 [53]

P. hoggettae

Plectropomus leopardus

Lizard Island, Queensland, Australia

KF013191 [53]

KF013148 [53]

Pseudophyllodistomum johnstoni a

Macrobrachium australiense

Warrill Creek, Queensland, Australia

KF013177 [53]

KF013166 [53]

Gorgodera cygnoides

Rana ridibunda

Switzerland

AF151938 [64]

 

G. cygnoides

R. ridibunda

Kokaljane, near Sofia, Bulgaria

AY222264 [65]

 

G. amplicava

R. catesbeiana

Nebraska, USA

 

FJ445743 [66]

Gorgoderina attenuata

R. clamitans

Nebraska, USA

 

FJ445741 [66]

G. simplex

R. clamitans

Nebraska, USA

 

FJ445742 [66]

Xystretrum solidum

Sphoeroides testudineus

Conch Key, Florida, USA

KF013188 [53]

KF013149 [53]

Xystretrum sp.

Sufflamen fraenatum

Ningaloo, Western Australia, Australia

 

KF013160 [53]

Nagmia floridensis

Rhinoptera bonasus

Gulf of Mexico, East Ship Island, Mississippi, USA

AY222262 [65]

 

Cercariaeum crassum a

P. amnicum

River Žeimena, Lithuania

GU462117 [67]

 

Maritrema arenaria a

Semibalanus balanoides

Belfast Lough, Northern Ireland

 

HM584171 [68]

aSequences generated from larval stages

bSequences generated in the present study

Additional rDNA sequences of gorgoderid species and outgroup taxa (Table 1) were downloaded from GenBank and included in pairwise sequence comparisons and phylogenetic analyses. For the phylogenetic analyses, both the ITS2 and 28S datasets were aligned using ClustalW [49] with an open gap penalty of 15 and gap extension penalty of 6.66. The best-fit model of sequence evolution for phylogenetic analysis was estimated using jModeltest v. 0.1.1 software [50]. Ambiguously aligned positions were excluded from phylogenetic analysis. Maximum Likelihood (ML) phylogenetic trees were obtained and analyzed using MEGA v6 [51]. Branch support was estimated by bootstrap analyses with 1,000 pseudoreplicates. The ML trees were obtained using the general time reversible model with a gamma distribution rate and a proportion of invariant sites (GTR + G + I) for both the ITS2 and the 28S gene datasets. Gamma shape and the number of invariant sites were estimated from the data. Parsimony analysis based on subtree pruning and regrafting (SPR) was used with default parsimony settings. If two or more sequences belong to one species, they were collapsed into one branch, except those of P. pseudofolium and P. angulatum. Estimates of mean evolutionary divergence over sequence pairs within and between groups were calculated using the MEGA v6 programme.

Seventeen specimens of P. pseudofolium from G. cernuus, seventeen specimens of P. angulatum from S. lucioperca and five specimens of P. angulatum from L. lota were used for light microscopy examination. All these specimens were adult and gravid. The flukes were placed in 6.5% saline, killed in hot 10% formalin-saline according to the protocol of Bakke [13], stored in 70% ethanol and stained with alum carmine, dehydrated in ascending concentrations of ethanol, cleared in dimethyl phthalate and mounted in Canada balsam. All measurements are in micrometers.

For scanning electron microscopy, live specimens of P. angulatum and P. pseudofolium were fixed in 3% glutaraldehyde in 0.1 M sodium cacodylate buffer (pH 7.2) for 20 days at 5 °C and then dehydrated in a graded ethanol series, with a final change to absolute acetone. The worms were critical point-dried with liquid CO2 and then mounted on stubs, sputter-coated with gold-palladium and examined using a JEOL JSM 6510LV scanning electron microscope operating at 30 kV.

Results

General results

Prevalence and intensity of infection with Phyllodistomum spp. were different in the studied fish species. Out of the 169 individuals of G. cernuus studied, 31% were infected with 1–9 trematodes per fish. The molecular studies identified that 19% of the studied G. cernuus were infected with P. pseudofolium and 12% with P. folium; no mixed infections were detected. All (100%) dissected S. lucioperca (17 fishes) were infected with P. angulatum with an intensity of 53–243 trematodes per fish. A total of 87 individuals of L. lota were dissected, but only 3 fishes (3.5%) were infected with 1–3 Phyllodistomum spp. specimens per fish. Perca fluviatilis infection with Phyllodistomum was rare in the studied water bodies and only one gravid specimen was recovered from P. fluviatilis.

Phylogenetic analysis

Sequence data of two different regions of rDNA (ITS2 region and partial 28S gene) of adult Phyllodistomum spp. from G. cernuus, S. lucioperca, L. lota and P. fluviatilis were compared. All adult Phyllodistomum specimens from G. cernuus, preliminary identified as P. angulatum, and partenitae of Phyllodistomum sp. sensu Ginetzinskaya, 1959 from P. amnicum, were genetically identical to P. pseudofolium from its type-host G. cernuus. All other adult Phyllodistomum spp. specimens from G. cernuus were genetically identical to P. folium. Comparison of the rDNA sequences confirmed the morphological identification of Phyllodistomum specimens from S. lucioperca as P. angulatum. However, P. megalorchis from L. lota appeared genetically identical to P. angulatum. 28S rDNA sequence for Phyllodistomum sp. from P. fluviatilis was different from those for P. pseudofolium and P. angulatum, and more similar to the sequences for P. folium and P. umblae.

Alignment of the ITS2 rDNA and 28S rDNA regions for gorgoderid taxa yielded 418 and 1,094 characters for phylogenetic analysis, respectively. Phylogenetic analyses of these two datasets produced similar groupings into several strongly supported clades (Figs. 1, 2). Sequences of adult specimens of P. pseudofolium together with partenitae of Phyllodistomum sp. sensu Ginetzinskaya, 1959 and adult P. angulatum clustered in two sister subclades. They formed a highly supported clade together with P. macrocotyle (Figs. 1, 2). Phyllodistomum sp. from perch, identified as P. pseudofolium, but molecularly different, clustered in the 28S tree between P. folium and P. umblae clades (Figs. 1, 2).
Fig. 1

Phylogenetic tree based on Maximum Likelihood analysis of the ITS2 nuclear rDNA region. Bootstrap support values lower than 70% are not shown. GenBank accession numbers of the collapsed clades are provided in Table 1

Fig. 2

Phylogenetic tree based on Maximum Likelihood analysis of partial sequences of the 28S nuclear rDNA gene. Bootstrap support values lower than 70% are not shown. GenBank accession numbers of the collapsed clades are provided in Table 1

Morphological differences based on light microscopy

Body shape was found to be influenced by the way the specimens are killed and fixed. The lateral margins of the hindbody of P. angulatum from S. lucioperca and L. lota remain smooth (without undulations and lateral flaps) after fixation in hot 10% formalin-saline (Fig. 3a, b). The mid-ventral lateral flaps, a typical diagnostic character for P. angulatum, are preserved only in cold fixation (room temperature). The hindbody of P. angulatum is oval, round or rhomboid in shape. The oral sucker is smaller than the ventral sucker (Table 2). Phyllodistomum pseudofolium has two to three undulations on each lateral side of the hindbody. The last contraction of the hindbody is always situated at the level of caecal terminations (Fig. 3c). The oral and ventral suckers are similar in size (Table 2). Gravid P. pseudofolium differs from P. angulatum in having smaller and more rounded eggs (Table 2). Additional significant morphological differences were not detected between these species.
Fig. 3

Morphological variability in species of Phyllodistomum. a P. angulatum Linstow, 1907 ex Sander lucioperca, b P. angulatum ex Lota lota, c P. pseudofolium Nybelin, 1926 ex Gymnocephalus cernuus, arrows show contractions of hindbodies at the level of caecal terminations. Scale-bars: 500 μm

Table 2

Measurements (in μm) for the main morphological features showing differences between gravid specimens of P. pseudofolium and P. angulatum

Parasite

P. pseudofolium

(n = 17)

P. angulatum

(n = 17)

P. angulatum

(n = 5)

Host

Gymnocephalus cernuus

Sander lucioperca

Lota lota

Body length

1,007–1,764 (1,290.6)

2,304–2,988 (2,560)

2,736–3,744 (3,168)

Body width

315–1,080 (567)

720–1,476 (1,127)

1,224–1,656 (1,462)

Oral sucker width

138–252 (175)

207–297 (253)

243–387 (310)

Ventral sucker width

126–216 (171)

306–450 (392)

360–513 (430)

Sucker ratio

0.85–1.27 (1.03)

0.56–0.74 (0.65)

0.68–0.77 (0.72)

Eggs (n = 20)

29–33 × 16–20

(30 × 19)

33–40 × 18–20

(35 × 20)

33–40 × 20–22

(37 × 21)

Tegumental topography of Phyllodistomum angulatum

Under SEM, shallow, transverse tegumental ridges are apparent on the ventral surface of both the forebody and hindbody of P. angulatum and also along the dorsal side of the body (Fig. 4b, c, e). The rims of the oral sucker exhibit radially oriented corrugations (Fig. 4b). A consistent pattern of sensory papillae occurs around the apertures of the both suckers (Fig. 4b, g). Additionally, a few similar papillae are scattered irregularly on the ventral, lateral and dorsal surfaces of the fore- and hindbody (Fig. 4f).
Fig. 4

SEM micrographs of the surface topography of Phyllodistomum angulatum. a, c Body of a mature worm, ventral view. b Oral sucker rim; note a constant pattern of 20 sensory papillae: four papillae localised on each side of the frontal pit; six papillae arranged in an outer ring; six papillae arranged in an inner ring and four papillae are situated within the sucker cavity (inset, papilla of oral sucker, scale-bar: 10 μm). d Four papillae within oral sucker cavity. e Evaginated cirrus; note smooth tegumental surface around and on evaginated cirrus. f Posterior notch, dorsal view. g Ventral sucker rim showing six large constant papillae and four small papillae; note negligible ‘acetabular fold’ (inset, papilla of the ventral sucker, scale-bar: 10 μm). Abbreviations: af, acetabular fold; ec, evaginated cirrus; fb, forebody; fp, frontal pit; gp, genital pore; hb, hindbody; ip, papilla of the inner ring; lp, lateral papilla surrounding frontal pit; op, papilla of the outer ring; os, oral sucker; p, papilla; pn, posterior notch; rc, radial corrugations of the sucker rim; sa, sucker aperture; sp, small papilla within sucker cavity; tr, transverse tegumental ridges; vlp, large papilla of the ventral sucker rim; vs, ventral sucker; vsp, small papilla of the ventral sucker rim

At the anterior extremity, dorsal to the oral sucker, a rather indistinct frontal pit is present (Fig. 4b). On each lateral side of the frontal pit two papillae are situated about 14 μm from each other; the distance between papillae on opposite sides of the pit is about 24 μm (Fig. 4b). In addition to these four papillae, a further 16 papillae are consistently associated with the oral sucker, 12 of which (6 and 6) are arranged in two rings (outer and inner) on the sucker rim; the distance (about 14 μm) between these rings is the same as between the lateral papillae associated with the frontal pit (Fig. 4b). The distance between the papillae in the inner ring is about 37 μm, and between those in the outer ring (in threes, symmetrically arranged on each side of the sucker) is about 31 μm. Papillae in the same ring have a similar size, but those in the inner ring are smaller than those in the outer ring (Fig. 4b). The remaining four papillae occur antero-dorsally within sucker cavity and are smaller in size to those in the inner ring (Fig. 4b, d).

The rim of the ventral sucker bears six large distinct dome-shaped papillae regularly distributed and arranged in a single ring (Fig. 4g). In addition, four irregularly scattered smaller papillae occur slightly external to this ring in the postero-lateral region of the sucker (Fig. 4g). All these papillae are hidden inside retracted ventral suckers (Fig. 4a, c). A negligible fold, the so-called ‘acetabular fold’ in digeneans (see [52]), is present around the ventral sucker primarily posteriorly (Fig. 4g).

The cirrus was observed projecting from the genital pore, which is situated medially on the ventral surface of the forebody between the two suckers (Fig. 4c, e). In contrast to the ventral surface, the surface of the genital atrium and the evaginated cirrus is smooth and lacks papillae, readily distinguishing it from the surrounding body tegument (Fig. 4f).

A notch at the posterior extremity of the body, within which the excretory pore is located, is equally visible in both dorsal and ventral views (Fig. 4f). Close to the excretory pore, papillae occur along the lateral surface of the posterior region of the body (Fig. 4f).

Tegumental topography of Phyllodistomum pseudofolium

Most of the dorsal and ventral surfaces of the adult worms are covered by transverse tegumental ridges (Fig. 5a-c). The rim of the subterminal oral sucker bears radially oriented corrugations (Fig. 5b). A posterior notch is visible in the middle of the postero-dorsal margin of the body, where the surrounding tegument is less irregular (Fig. 5h).
Fig. 5

SEM micrographs of the surface topography of Phyllodistomum pseudofolium. a Body of a mature worm, ventral view. b Oral sucker rim; note two papillae situated on each side of the frontal tubercle, six papillae arranged in an inner ring, two lateral pairs of papillae, and four papillae situated within the sucker cavity (inset, papilla and secretory pore close to the oral sucker). c Forebody, ventral view showing five pairs of papillae arranged symmetrically in two ventro-lateral rows. d Four symmetrically arranged papillae on the internal surface of the oral sucker. e Partly retracted ventral sucker showing four symmetrically arranged papillae within the sucker cavity; note rather negligible ‘acetabular fold’. f Part of the ventral surface of the forebody showing the presence on each side of both ventro-lateral and lateral rows of papillae. g Retracted ventral sucker showing the lack of papillae on the sucker rim and pronounced ‘acetabular fold’. h Posterior notch, dorsal view; note the irregular surface and lateral papillae. Abbreviations: af, acetabular fold; ft, frontal tubercle; gp, genital pore; hb, hindbody; ifr, inner papilla on the ventral surface of the forebody; ip, papilla of the inner ring of the oral sucker; lfr, papilla of the lateral row on the ventro-lateral margin of the forebody; lp, lateral papilla beside the frontal pit; op, papilla of the outer ring of oral sucker; os, oral sucker; p, papilla; pn, posterior notch; sa, sucker aperture; sp, secretory pore; tr, transverse tegumental ridges; vs, ventral sucker; vsr, ventral sucker rim

A frontal tubercle is situated dorsal to the anterior margin of the oral sucker as a small, prominent anterior elevation with a ventro-lateral papilla on each side (Fig. 5b). In addition to these two papillae, there is a consistent pattern of six other sensory papillae arranged along the rim of the oral sucker (Fig. 5b); these form the inner ring. Just external to the inner ring is an outer ring of four papillae formed by two symmetrical pairs, one on each side of the sucker (Fig. 5b). Within the oral sucker cavity there are a further four papillae arranged in two symmetrical pairs on the internal antero-lateral wall (Fig. 5b-d). Also surrounding the oral sucker are six secretory pores; these are arranged in three symmetrical pairs on either side of the sucker: one pair postero-lateral to the rim, one pair antero-lateral to the rim and the other pair lateral to the frontal tubercle (Fig. 5b, inset).

Four papillae are present just inside the cavity of the partly retracted ventral sucker (Fig. 5e); all these papillae are hidden inside the retracted ventral sucker (Fig. 5g). The primarily posteriorly ‘acetabular fold’ is more pronounced in the specimens with a retracted ventral sucker (Fig. 5g), around the partly retracted sucker this fold is negligible (Fig. 5e).

The genital pore is situated ventro-medially in the forebody between the two suckers, closer to the ventral sucker (Fig. 5a, c). On each side of the forebody there is a longitudinal, ventro-lateral row of five large papillae (Fig. 5c). In addition, symmetrically on each lateral side of the forebody, eight smallest papillae are arranged in a longitudinal row (lateral row) (Fig. 5f).

There is no distinct arrangement of papillae on the tegument of either the dorsal or ventral sides of the hindbody, although a few papillae are irregularly distributed (Fig. 5a). The posterior margin of the body, in the region of the posterior notch, is papillated (Fig. 5h).

Taxonomic summary based on new molecular and morphological data

Phyllodistomum angulatum Linstow, 1907 (syn. Phyllodistomum megalorchis Nybelin, 1926).

Type-host: Sander lucioperca L. (Percidae).

Other host: Lota lota L. (Lotidae).

Type-locality: River Volga.

Other localities: Sweden near Upsala.

Site in host: Urinary bladder, ureters.

Voucher material: No. 1/15 (1–10) are deposited in the Parasites Collection of the Institute for Biology of Inland Waters RAS, Russia.

Representative DNA sequences: KJ729529–KJ729531, KJ740511, KJ740512, KY307870, KY307871, KX957733–KX957735.

Phyllodistomum pseudofolium Nybelin, 1926

Type-host: Gymnocephalus cernuus L.

Type-locality: Sweden near Upsala.

Other localities: River Volga (Rybinsk Reservoir).

Site in host: Urinary bladder.

Voucher material: No. 1/14 (1–7) are deposited in the Parasites Collection of the Institute for Biology of Inland Waters RAS, Russia.

First intermediate host: Pisidium amnicum (Müller, 1774).

Representative DNA sequences: KY307875, KY307876–KY307879, KX957727, KX957731, KX957732.

Discussion

In recent years, there have been considerable advances in our understanding of the systematics and phylogeny of gorgoderid digeneans [8, 27, 53, 54]. Nevertheless, many unanswered questions on species diversity, validity and life-cycles are still waiting clarification. The taxonomy of P. pseudofolium, as well as many other species of the genus Phyllodistomum, is complicated. Cribb [32] discussed the difficulties of proper identification among Phyllodistomum spp. due to the great intraspecific morphological variation in many species and numerous inadequate morphological descriptions. Not only new species descriptions, but also delimitation criteria for known species, will urgently require the use of molecular markers to discriminate species. Nevertheless, preliminary identification and species delimitation inevitably involves morphological criteria. The present data, based on comparative analysis of ITS2 and 28S gene sequences, and on light and SEM microscopy examination, unequivocally support the species validity of P. pseudofolium. In all analyses, sequences of P. pseudofolium from G. cernuus formed a genetic lineage well separated from other Phyllodistomum species for which data are available. No match was found between sequences of Phyllodistomum sp. from P. fluviatilis, identified as P. pseudofolium on morphological traits, and other known Phyllodistomum spp. In the phylogenetic analysis, this Phyllodistomum sp. clustered in one clade with P. folium and P. umblae. Therefore, Phyllodistomum sp. from P. fluviatilis, identified as P. pseudofolium based on morphology, must be regarded as a new, as yet to be described species. Further studies on its morphology and identity are required. The results of this study suggest strict host specificity (oioxeny) for adult and larval stages of P. pseudofolium. Throughout our vast molecularly based studies of the target fishes infected with Phyllodistomum digeneans, the molecular identity of P. pseudofolium was confirmed only for specimens obtained from one fish species, G. cernuus. The larval stages of P. pseudofolium were detected only in P. amnicum. This trematode is genetically closest to P. angulatum, so Ginetzinskaya [33] was not far from the truth when, based only on the morphology of cercaria of Phyllodistomum sp. from P. amnicum, she presumed that it is a larval stage of P. angulatum.

Supposedly, the species richness within the genus Phyllodistomum is underestimated, as has been highlighted by the molecular studies by Rosas-Valdez et al. [54] and Peribáñez et al. [55] who demonstrated the likely existence of complexes of cryptic species of Phyllodistomum in North America and Europe, respectively. However, our study revealed the opposite, i.e. some European species (e.g. P. elongatum Nybelin, 1926 and P. simile) appeared to be conspecific with P. folium and must be synonymized [27]; consequently the number of valid species was reduced. The results of our study disprove the validity of P. megalorchis obtained from its type-host, L. lota. The morphology of P. angulatum parasitizing in L. lota closely resembles the description of P. megalorchis and differs from the description of the ‘typical’ P. angulatum, most likely due to the influence of the host, as it was presumed by Kudinova [3] who noted that the development of marita (maritogony) and resulting morphology of gravid Phyllodistomum specimens is determined by the anatomy of fish urinary system.

Recent molecular phylogenetic studies involving members of the Gorgoderidae have shown that the genus Phyllodistomum, which is the most species-rich genus in the family Gorgoderidae and also one of the largest genera in the Digenea, is paraphyletic [8, 27, 53]. Distinct phylogenetic units grouped under Phyllodistomum (sensu lato) may be characterised by different cercarial morphology. Cutmore et al. [53] suggested that their first intermediate host identity and some aspects of life-cycle biology may be important keys to these clades. Life-cycles of the some gorgoderines are known, particularly for some Phyllodistomum species that are parasitic in freshwater fishes in Europe. However, comparative molecular analysis of respective adult and larval forms disproved all life-cycles established by experimental infections or based on ecological evidence (see [27]). It was believed for a long time that P. folium utilizes the dreissenid bivalve Dreissena polymorpha (Pallas) as the first intermediate host and possesses microcercous cercariae as first reported by Sinitsin [56]. Ivantsiv & Kurandina [57] showed in their experimental study that the rhopalocercariae developing naturally in the clam Anodonta anatina L. (= Anodonta ponderosa C. Pfeiffer) are cercariae of P. angulatum. Experimental infection of Tinca tinca L. and Carassius auratus L. by Orecchia et al. [58] demonstrated that rhopalocercous Cercaria duplicata von Baer, 1827 from Anodonta cygnaea L. is the larval form of P. elongatum. However, Zhokhov [59] identified the cercaria of P. elongatum as a cystocercous cercaria developing in P. amnicum. Eventually, molecular and karyological data matched cystocercous cercariae from sphaeriid bivalves with adult P. folium; no match was revealed between C. duplicata and any species of Phyllodistomum, including adults found in experimental studies; molecular results support the conspecificity of P. elongatum and P. folium. At present, no first intermediate host is known for P. angulatum and the adult form of C. duplicata remains undiscovered.

Our comparative molecular analysis showed that P. amnicum, a freshwater bivalve of the family Sphaeriidae, harbors the parasitic asexual stages of P. pseudofolium. The cercaria is similar to other described gorgoderid cercariae. In not surrounding the cercarial body, the tail of this cercaria is similar to the gorgoderid cercariae described by Coil [31, 60] from North American unionid bivalves and to the cercaria of Pseudophyllodistomum johnstoni Cribb, 1987 developing in corbiculid bivalves from Australia [32]. In molecular phylogenies, a well-supported clade comprises P. folium, P. umblae and other gorgoderine species in which cystocercous cercariae develop in sphaeriid bivalves, and such clustering of species with similar life-cycles supports the presumption that distinct phylogenetic units grouped under Phyllodistomum (sensu lato) may be characterised by different aspects of life-cycle biology. However, in our analysis P. pseudofolium, P. angulatum and P. macrocotyle nested in a highly supported clade despite the fact that P. pseudofolium and P. macrocotyle appear to be associated with distinct patterns of first intermediate host identity and distinct cercarial morphology. The microcercous cercaria of P. macrocotyle uses the dreissenid bivalve D. polymorpha as intermediate host. It should be noted, that this cercaria in the general consensus [55] was mistakenly considered as a larva of P. folium since the publication of Sinitsin [56]. The recent genetic studies of P. folium and P. macrocotyle [27] have proven that only P. macrocotyle is a parasite of D. polymorpha among the phyllodistomes. The long-tailed macrocercous cercaria of P. pseudofolium infects the gills of the sphaeriid bivalve P. amnicum. Then, host specificity of larval and/or adult Phyllodistomum spp. appears not directly related to host phylogeny. Even phylogenetically closely related species or specimens of one species (for example, P. folium, P. angulatum) can infect hosts from different families or orders. According to Gibson [11] indications from European Phyllodistomum spp. suggest that some degree of host group specificity (stenoxeny) is involved. New species, such as P. inecoli Razo-Mendivil, Pérez-Ponce de León & Rubio-Godoy, 2013 described from Mexico [8] are usually described from a single fish species. However additional results incorporating molecular markers revealed more wide specificity, stenoxeny (fish hosts species from different families of the order Cyprinodontiformes) [10]. Euryxeny (fish hosts from three different orders) was revealed for P. magnificum Cribb, 1987 from freshwater fishes in Australia and New Zealand [32]. However these data require further molecular verification because molecular markers are available only for specimens from one host species [53]. Such wide host switching during the evolution within the genus Phyllodistomum could be determined by ecological factors, historical interactions between the definitive and intermediate hosts or multiple geographical isolations.

Gymnocephalus cernuus is native to most European countries and has been introduced to many European waters where it was not native, as well as to the North American Great Lakes. Ogle [61] listed 63 parasites of G. cernuus. Based on molecular evidence, two species, P. elongatum and P. megalorchis, should be regarded as synonyms of P. folium and P. angulatum, respectively.

Light microscopy and SEM observations provided additional sources of information for species discrimination. Thus, the gravid specimens of P. pseudofolium with two to three undulations in each lateral margin of hindbody distinctly differ from P. angulatum with oval, round or rhomboid hindbody. The two species also differ in the sucker ratio: the oral and ventral suckers of P. pseudofolium are similar in size, while the ventral sucker of P. angulatum is larger than the oral sucker.

The SEM observations of adult P. angulatum and P. pseudofolium revealed the presence of only aciliate sensory papillae. According to Bakke [39, 40], there are four types of sensory papillae on the surface of P. umblae [= P. conostomum (Olsson, 1876)], which are distinguished by their shape (button-shaped, ciliated, dome-shaped and rosette papillae) and partly by their location. In reality, we can assume, based on our SEM observations, that it is possible to identify only two types of papillae, ciliate and aciliate. The shape of ‘other types’ of papillae may depend on the level of surface invaginations in various Phyllodistomum spp., as sensory endings localized within the tegumental syncytial cytoplasm tend to look like surface outgrowths under SEM. The type of sensory papillae can be identified correctly using transmission electron microscopy, since, by using this technique, it is possible to determine the nature of the sensory endings and, hence, their classification. Nevertheless, as in the present SEM study of P. angulatum and P. pseudofolium, only one type of sensory papillae was reported for P. folium by Bakke & Zdarska [41].

The present SEM of the surface topography of P. angulatum and P. pseudofolium revealed different patterns in the regular arrangement of papillae. Thus, P. angulatum is characterized by 20 papillae around the oral sucker (4 on both sides of the frontal pit + 6 in the inner ring on the sucker rim + 6 in the outer ring on the sucker rim + 4 within sucker cavity); the size of the papillae decreases from outer to inner rings with their smaller size within sucker. Yet, in P. pseudofolium, 16 uniformly-sized papillae are associated with the oral sucker (2 on both sides of the frontal tubercle + 6 in the inner ring on the sucker rim + 4 in the outer ring on the sucker rim + 4 within sucker cavity). Additionally, 6 secretory pores surround the oral sucker of P. pseudofolium. The ventral sucker is a dynamic structure. The non-retracted ventral sucker of P. angulatum has six large characteristic papillae and four smaller irregular papillae. On the partly retracted ventral sucker of P. pseudofolium, four uniformly-sized papillae were observed, while all these papillae on the ventral sucker are hidden inside the retracted ventral sucker. How many papillae are hidden inside the partly retracted ventral sucker of P. pseudofolium could only be established from SEM of non-retracted ventral suckers. Unfortunately, there were no specimens of P. pseudofolium examined by SEM where the ventral sucker was not in a retracted position, so additional study is needed here. A few papillae are scattered irregularly on the ventral surface of the forebody of P. angulatum; this region of P. pseudofolium is characterized by the presence of four symmetrically longitudinal rows of papillae, two ventro-lateral rows of five large papillae and two lateral rows of eight smallest papillae. Finally, a notch at the posterior extremity of the body in P. angulatum is equally visible in both dorsal and ventral views, while in P. pseudofolium the notch is visible only in dorsal view.

Judging from the present SEM results, the specific arrangement of the papillae found in each of these two species can be used as a basis for the identification of specimens from the urinary system of S. lucioperca and G. cernuus. On the basis of a comparative analysis of the arrangement of papillae in other species belonging to the genus Phyllodistomum which have been studied using the SEM, i.e. P. umblae [3840], P. folium [41], P. funduli [43], P. inecoli [8], P. cribbi and P. wallacei [9] and P. spinopapillatum [10], it is apparent that a specific arrangement occurs on the body surface of each investigated species, which exhibit inter-specific differences in the number, arrangement and type of papillae.

Conclusions

Recent DNA studies provide a new approach to unravel the taxonomic status of nominal Phyllodistomum species with complicated taxonomic history and to clarify their life-cycles. However, it is necessary to collect many more samples from different hosts for molecular studies to evaluate host specificity patterns in Phyllodistomum spp. Comparative molecular studies accompanied by morphological analysis of Phyllodistomum spp. enable plausible recognizing and delimitation of species. For now, we can state that European Phyllodistomum spp. differ greatly in their degree of host specificity. Species comprising well-supported clades in molecular phylogeny do not necessarily follow the same life-history patterns. The new data on the validity, host specificity and life-cycles of phyllodistomes, as well as species-specific markers obtained in this study, will be valuable for phylogenetic revision of the genus Phyllodistomum. This study showed that G. cernuus is the definitive host for two Phyllodistomum species: the oioxenous P. pseudofolium and the euryxenous P. folium. All other Phyllodistomum spp. detected in G. cernuus could be the result of incorrect identification by light microscopy and should be revised considering molecular markers.

Abbreviations

ITS2: 

Internal transcribed spacer 2

ML: 

Maximum likelihood

SEM: 

Scanning electron microscopy

SPR: 

Subtree pruning and regrafting

Declarations

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Jonathan Robert Stratford (Vilnius, Lithuania) for grammar suggestions.

Funding

This research was funded by a grant (No. MIP-43/2015) from the Research Council of Lithuania.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets supporting the conclusions of this article are included within the article. Nucleotide sequences obtained in the present study have been deposited into the GenBank database under accession numbers listed in Table 1.

Authors’ contributions

VS designed the study. VS, RP and GS performed the field and laboratory research and analyzed data. AEZ conducted field collections and carried out morphological research. LGP performed micromorphological research. VS and GS extracted DNA for polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and sequencing. VS carried out molecular analyses. All authors actively contributed to the interpretation of the findings and development of the final manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Nature Research Centre
(2)
I.D. Papanin Institute for Biology of Inland Waters, Russian Academy of Sciences

References

  1. Combes C. Parasitism. The ecology and evolution of intimate interactions. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  2. Nadler SA, Pérez-Ponce de León G. Integrating molecular and morphological approaches for characterizing parasite cryptic species: implications for parasitology. Parasitology. 2011;138:1688–709.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Kudinova MA. [On the revision of system of the trematode genus Phyllodistomum Braun, 1899 (Gorgoderidae).] In: Shulman SS, editor. Ecological Parasitology. Petrozavodsk: Karelian Research Center RAS; 1994. p. 96-112. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  4. Cribb TH, Chisholm LA, Bray RA. Diversity in the Monogenea and Digenea: does lifestyle matter? Int J Parasitol. 2002;32:321–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Campbell RA. Family Gorgoderidae Looss, 1899. In: Bray RA, Gibson DI, Jones A, editors. Keys to the Trematoda, vol. 3. Wallingford: CABI Publishing and the Natural History Museum; 2008. p. 191–213.Google Scholar
  6. Ho HW, Bray RA, Cutmore SC, Ward S, Cribb TH. Two new species of Phyllodistomum Braun, 1899 (Trematoda: Gorgoderidae looss, 1899) from great barrier reef fishes. Zootaxa. 2014;3779(5):551–62.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Nakao M. Phyllodistomum kanae sp. nov. (Trematoda: Gorgoderidae), a bladder fluke from the Ezo salamander Hynobius retardatus. Parasitol Int. 2015;64:314–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Razo-Mendivil U, Pérez-Ponce de León G, Rubio-Godoy M. Integrative taxonomy identifies a new species of Phyllodistomum (Digenea: Gorgoderidae) from the twospot livebearer, Heterandria bimaculata (Teleostei: Poeciliidae), in central Veracruz, Mexico. Parasitol Res. 2013;112:4137–50.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Pérez-Ponce de León G, Martinez-Aquino A, Mendoza-Gareias B. Two new species of Phyllodistomum Braun, 1899 (Digenea: Gorgoderidae), from freshwater fishes (Cyprinodontiformes: Goodeidae: Goodeinae) in central Mexico: an integrative taxonomy approach using morphology, ultrastructure and molecular phylogenetics. Zootaxa. 2015;4013:87–99.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Pérez-Ponce de León G, Pinacho-Pinacho CD, Mendoza-Gareias B, Garcia-Varela M. Phyllodistomum spinopapillatum sp. nov. (Digenea: Gorgoderidae), from the Oaxaca killifish Profundulus balsanus (Osteichthyes: Profundulidae) in Mexico, with new host and locality records of P. inecoli: morphology, ultrastructure and molecular evidence. Acta Parasitol. 2015;60:298–307.Google Scholar
  11. Gibson DI, Trematoda. Guide to the parasites of fishes of Canada. Part IV. In: Margolis L, Kabata Z, editors. Canadian special publication of fisheries and aquatic sciences. 124. Ottawa: NRC Research Press; 1996. p. 1–373.Google Scholar
  12. Koval VP. [Trematodes of the genus Phyllodistomum Braun, 1899 from the fishes of the Ukraine. In: Ershov VS, editor. Scientific and applied problems of helminthology: the 100th anniversary of acad. KI Skryabin, 1878–1978.] Moscow: Nauka; 1978. p. 48–52. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  13. Bakke TA. Morphology of adult Phyllodistomum umblae (Fabricius) (Plathelminthes, Gorgoderidae): the effect of preparation, killing and fixation procedures. Zool Scripta. 1988;17:1–13.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Namuleno G, Scholz T. Biometrical and morphological variability of Phyllodistomum folium (Olfers, 1816) (Trematoda: Gorgoderidae), a parasite of pike (Esox lucius). Helminthologia. 1994;31:175–84.Google Scholar
  15. Zhokhov AE, Pugatcheva MN, Molodozhnikova NM, Mironovskii AN. Ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus L.) (Perciformes, Percidae) helminth fauna in Rybinsk reservoir: recovery following a depression in abundance of the host population. J Ichthyol. 2006;46:668–73.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Zhokhov AE. [A checklist of the protozoan and metazoan parasites of ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus).] J Siberian Federal Univ Biology. 2010;1:57–81. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  17. Nybelin O. Zur Helminthenfauna der Süsswasser Fische Schwedens I. Phyllodistomen. Göteborgs Kungl Vetensk Samhälles Handl. 1926;31:1–29.Google Scholar
  18. Looss A. Die Distomen unserer Fische un Frösche. Bibl Zool. 1894;16:1–293.Google Scholar
  19. Lühe M. Parasitische plattwürmer. I: Trematodes. Süsswasserfauna Deutschlands. 1909;17:1–217.Google Scholar
  20. Odhner T. Zum natürlichen system der digenean Trematoden IV. Zool Anz. 1911;38:513–31.Google Scholar
  21. Bykhovskaya-Pavlovskaya IE, Kulakova AP. [Trematoda. In: Bauer ON, editor. Key to parasites of freshwater fish of USSR. Vol 3.] Leningrad: Nauka; 1987. p. 77–198. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  22. Pigulevsky SW. Family Gorgoderidae Looss, 1901. In: Skryabin KI, editor. Trematodes of animals and man. Vol 8. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR; 1953. p. 253–615. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  23. Dawes B. The Trematoda. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press; 1946.Google Scholar
  24. Linstow OF. Zwei neue Distomen aus Lucioperca sander der Wolga. Ann Mus Zool St Petersburg. 1907;12:201–2.Google Scholar
  25. Rauckis E. [Fish parasites in Lithuanian waters. Vilnius: Mokslas; 1988.] (In Russian).Google Scholar
  26. Kirjušina M, Vismanis K. Checklist of the parasites of fishes of Latvia. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 369/3. Rome: FAO; 2007.Google Scholar
  27. Petkevičiūtė R, Stunžėnas V, Stanevičiūtė G, Zhokhov AE. European Phyllodistomum (Digenea, Gorgoderidae) and phylogenetic affinities of Cercaria duplicata based on rDNA and karyotypes. Zool Scripta. 2015;44:191–202.Google Scholar
  28. Olfers JFM. De vegetativis et animatis corporibus in corporibus animatis reperiundis commentarius. Berolini: Pars I; 1816.Google Scholar
  29. Yamaguti S. Synopsis of digenetic trematodes of vertebrates. Vols. I-II. Tokyo: Keigaku Publishing Co; 1971.Google Scholar
  30. Moravec F. Occurrence of endoparasitic helminths in pike (Esox lucius L.) from the Macha lake fishpond system. Vestn Cesk Spol Zool. 1979;43:174–93.Google Scholar
  31. Coil WH. Contributions to the life cycles of gorgoderid trematodes. Am Midl Nat. 1954;52:481–500.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Cribb TH. A new species of Phyllodistomum (Digenea: Gorgoderidae) from Australian and New Zealand freshwater fishes with notes on the taxonomy of Phyllodistomum Braun, 1899. J Nat Hist. 1987;21:1525–38.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Ginetzinskaya TA. On cercarian fauna of molluscs from Rybinsk water reservoir. In: Polianskij JI, editor. Ecological Parasitology. Leningrad: University Press; 1959. p. 96–149. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  34. Nadakavukaren MJ, Nollen PM. A scanning and transmission electron microscopy investigation of the outer surfaces of Gorgoderina attenuata. Int J Parasitol. 1975;5:591–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Hoole D, Mitchell JB. Ultrastructural observations on the sensory papillae of juvenile and adult Gorgoderina vitelliloba (Trematoda: Gorgoderidae). Int J Parasitol. 1981;11:411–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Bakke TA, Hoole D. The microtopography and papillar arrangement on adult Gorgoderina vitelliloba (Olsson) (Digenea, Gorgoderidae) from amphibians in relation to fish gorgoderids. Zool Scripta. 1988;17:223–30.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Mata-López R, León-Règagnon V. Comparative study of the tegumental surface of several species of Gorgoderina Looss, 1902 (Digenea: Gorgoderidae), as revealed by scanning electron microscopy. Comp Parasitol. 2006;73:24–34.Google Scholar
  38. Bakke TA, Lien L. The tegumental surface of Phyllodistomum conostomum (Olsson, 1876) (Digenea), revealed by scanning electron microscopy. Int J Parasitol. 1978;8:155–61.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Bakke TA. A redescription of adult Phyllodistomum umblae (Fabricius) (Digenea, Gorgoderidae) from Salvelinus alpinus (L.) in Norway. Zool Scripta. 1984;13:89–99.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Bakke TA. Phyllodistomum conostomum (Olsson, 1876) (Digenea, Gorgoderidae): a junior subjective synonym for P. umblae (Fabricius, 1780). Zool Scripta. 1985;14:161–8.Google Scholar
  41. Bakke TA, Zdarska Z. Tegumental microtopography and arrangement of papillae in adult Phyllodistomum folium (Olfers, 1816) (Digenea: Gorgoderidae) from pikes (Esox lucius L.). Folia Parasitol. 1985;32:43–9.Google Scholar
  42. Bakke TA, Bailey RE. Phyllodistomum umblae (Fabricius) (Digenea: Gorgoderidae): a description based on light and scanning electron microscopy. Can J Zool. 1987;64:1703–12.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Helt J, Janovy JJ, Uberlaker J. Phyllodistomum funduli n. sp. (Trematoda: Gorgoderidae) from Fundulus sciadicus cope from Cedar Creek in western Nebraska. J Parasitol. 2003;89:346–50.Google Scholar
  44. Stunžėnas V, Petkevičiūtė R, Stanevičiūtė G. Phylogeny of Sphaerium solidum (Bivalvia) based on karyotype and sequences of 16S and ITS1 rDNA. Cent Eur J Biol. 2011;6:105–17.Google Scholar
  45. Petkevičiūtė R, Stunžėnas V, Stanevičiūtė G. Differentiation of European freshwater bucephalids (Digenea: Bucephalidae) based on karyotypes and DNA sequences. Syst Parasitol. 2014;87:199–212.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Bowles J, Blair D, McManus DP. A molecular phylogeny of the human schistosomes. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 1995;4:103–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Cribb TH, Anderson GR, Adlard RD, Bray RA. A DNA-based demonstration of a three-host lifecycle for the Bivesiculidae (Platyhelminthes: Digenea). Int J Parasitol. 1998;28:1791–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Tkach V, Grabda-Kazubska B, Pawlowski J, Swiderski Z. Molecular and morphological evidences for close phylogenetic affinities of the genera Macrodera, Leptophallus, Metaleptophallus, and Paralepoderma (Digenea, Plagiorchioidea). Acta Parasitol. 1999;44:170–9.Google Scholar
  49. Thompson JD, Higgins DG, Gibson TJ. CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Res. 1994;22:4673–80.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  50. Posada D. JModelTest: phylogenetic modelling averaging. Mol Biol Evol. 2008;25:1253–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Tamura K, Peterson D, Peterson N, Stecher G, Nei M, Kumar S. MEGA5: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis using maximum likelihood, evolutionary distance, and maximum parsimony methods. Mol Biol Evol. 2011;24:2731–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Bartoli P, Gibson DI, Bray RA. The Opecoelidae (Digenea) of sparid fishes of the western Mediterranean. I. Pachycreadium Manter, 1954. Syst Parasitol. 1988;12:231–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Cutmore SC, Miller TL, Curran SS, Bennett MB, Cribb TH. Phylogenetic relationships of the Gorgoderidae (Platyhelminthes: Trematoda), including the proposal of a new subfamily (Degeneriinae n. subfam.). Parasitol Res. 2013;112:3063–74.Google Scholar
  54. Rosas-Valdez R, Choudhury A, Perez-Ponce de Leon G. Molecular prospecting for cryptic species in Phyllodistomum lacustri (Platyhelminthes, Gorgoderidae). Zool Scripta. 2011;40:296–305.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. Peribáñez MA, Ordovás L, Benito J, Benejam L, Gracia MJ, Rodellar C. Prevalence and sequence comparison of Phyllodistomum folium from zebra mussel and from freshwater fish in the Ebro River. Parasitol Int. 2011;60:59–63.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Sinitsin DT. [Data on the natural history of trematodes. Distomes of fishes and frogs in the vicinity of Warsaw.] Warsaw: Warsaw University; 1905. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  57. Ivantsiv VV, Kurandina DP. [Life cycle of Phyllodistomum angulatum (Trematoda, Phyllodistomidae).] Vestn Zool. 1985;1:73–5. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  58. Orecchia P, Paggi L, Castagnolo L, Della Seta G, Minervini R. Ricerche sperimentali sul ciclo biologico di Phyllodistomum elongatum Nybelin, 1926 (Digenea: Gorgoderidae Looss, 1901). Parassitologia. 1975;17:95–101.Google Scholar
  59. Zhokhov AE. [New data on the developmental cycle and biology of the trematode Phyllodistomum elongatum (Fasciolata, Gorgoderidae).] Parazitologiya. 1987;21:134–9. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  60. Coil WH. A new gorgoderid cercaria parasitic in Lampsilis ventricosa Barnes. J Parasitol. 1953;39:182–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  61. Ogle DH. A synopsis of the biology and life history of ruffe. J Great Lakes Res. 1998;24:170–85.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  62. Petkevičiūtė R, Stunžėnas V, Stanevičiūtė G. Cytogenetic and sequence comparison of adult Phyllodistomum (Digenea: Gorgoderidae) from the three-spined stickleback with larvae from two bivalves. Parasitology. 2004;129:771–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Stunžėnas V, Cryan JR, Molloy DP. Comparison of rDNA sequences from colchicine treated and untreated tissues. Parasitol Int. 2004;53:223–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Tkach V, Pawlowski J, Mariaux J. Phylogenetic analysis of the suborder Plagiorchiata (Platyhelminthes, Digenea) based on partial lsrDNA sequences. Int J Parasitol. 2000;30:83–93.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Olson PD, Cribb TH, Tkach VV, Bray RA, Littlewood DTJ. Phylogeny and classification of the Digenea (Platyhelminthes: Trematoda). Int J Parasitol. 2003;33:733–55.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Bolek MG, Snyder SD, Janovy JJ. Alternative life cycle strategies and colonization of young anurans by Gorgoderina attenuata in Nebraska. J Parasitol. 2009;9:604–16.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  67. Petkevičiūtė R, Stunžėnas V, Stanevičiūtė G. Clarification of the systematic position of Cercariaeum crassum Wesenberg-Lund, 1934 (Digenea), based on karyological analysis and DNA sequences. J Helminthol. 2012;86:293–301.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Galaktionov KV, Blasco-Costa I, Olson PD. Life cycles, molecular phylogeny and historical biogeography of the ‘pygmaeus’ microphallids (Digenea: Microphallidae): widespread parasites of marine and coastal birds in the Holarctic. Parasitology. 2012;139:1346–60.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Advertisement