Morphological comparison of genetically differentiated Polymorphus cf. minutus types
Language English Country Germany Media print-electronic
Document type Comparative Study, Journal Article
PubMed
31786696
DOI
10.1007/s00436-019-06525-1
PII: 10.1007/s00436-019-06525-1
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- Keywords
- Acanthocephala, Cryptic species, Cystacanth, Host specificity, Laboratory infection, Morphology,
- MeSH
- Acanthocephala anatomy & histology classification isolation & purification MeSH
- Amphipoda parasitology MeSH
- Cell Differentiation MeSH
- Helminthiasis, Animal parasitology pathology MeSH
- Host-Parasite Interactions MeSH
- Ducks parasitology MeSH
- Birds MeSH
- Animals MeSH
- Check Tag
- Male MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Animals MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Comparative Study MeSH
- Geographicals
- Europe MeSH
In the present study, we analyzed the morphology of three genetic types of the bird-infecting acanthocephalan Polymorphus cf. minutus (PspT1, PspT2, PspT3), mainly based on the cystacanth-stage obtained from amphipods (Gammarus fossarum, Gammarus pulex, Gammarus roeselii, Echinogammarus spp.). Males and females were pooled as there was no considerable difference between the sexes concerning the hook measurements. Additionally, we conducted a laboratory infection of one domestic duck for each Polymorphus type, to compare their performance and localization in this host species, and to obtain adult specimens for morphological comparison. The recovery rate from the ducks 4 weeks after infection was 16% for PspT1, 23.8% for PspT2, and 25% for PspT3. The adult worms were gravid, and the females contained mature eggs. Hook size did not differ considerably between cystacanths and adults of the respective type. The three Polymorphus types could be distinguished based on the cystacanth stage by a linear discriminant analysis that included hook measurements, proboscis length, proboscis width, and number of longitudinal hook rows and hooks per row. Furthermore, PspT3 was more different from PspT1 and PspT2 than the latter types from each other. Mainly the number of longitudinal hook rows differed in PspT3 from the existing descriptions of P. minutus (mainly 14 vs. mainly 16 rows). Potentially, PspT3 could be a non-indigenous parasite that was introduced with G. roeselii and that adapted to use the indigenous G. pulex as a host, while PspT2 might have been introduced to central Europe together with Echinogammarus spp.
See more in PubMed
Infect Genet Evol. 2011 Jul;11(5):1083-90 PubMed
Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 1958 Mar;52(1):36-47 PubMed
Int J Parasitol. 2007 Feb;37(2):191-8 PubMed
J Parasitol. 2010 Apr;96(2):453-64 PubMed
Parasitology. 2018 Sep;145(11):1421-1429 PubMed
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2018 Oct;127:30-45 PubMed
Int J Parasitol Parasites Wildl. 2019 Feb 01;8:135-144 PubMed
Parasitology. 2012 Jun;139(7):945-55 PubMed
Int J Parasitol. 2019 May;49(6):429-435 PubMed
Int J Parasitol Parasites Wildl. 2018 Jan 04;7(1):34-43 PubMed
Parasit Vectors. 2015 Jun 03;8:300 PubMed
J Helminthol. 2018 Mar;92(2):197-202 PubMed
Int J Parasitol Parasites Wildl. 2019 Feb 02;8:145-155 PubMed
Parasitology. 1968 Feb;58(1):231-46 PubMed
Syst Parasitol. 2004 Oct;59(2):147-57 PubMed