Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T20:09:53.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A molecular phylogeny of the genus Echinococcus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

J. Bowles ,
D. Blair  and
D. P. McManus
J. Bowles
Affiliation:
Molecular Parasitology Unit, Tropical Health Program, The Queensland Institute of Medical Research, The Bancroft Centre, 300 Herston Road, Brisbane, Queensland 4029, Australia
D. Blair
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland 4811, Australia
D. P. McManus
Affiliation:
Molecular Parasitology Unit, Tropical Health Program, The Queensland Institute of Medical Research, The Bancroft Centre, 300 Herston Road, Brisbane, Queensland 4029, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Three nucleotide data sets, two mitochondrial (COI and ND1) and one nuclear (ribosomal ITS1), have been investigated in order to resolve relationships among species and strains of the genus Echinococcus. The data have some unusual properties in that mitochondrial heteroplasmy was detected in one strain of E. granulosus, and more than one class of ITS1 sequence variant can occur in a single isolate. The data failed to support the hypothesis that E. granulosus, as it is currently viewed, is a single valid species. Rather, the strains of E. granulosus seem to comprise at least three evolutionarily diverse groups, the sheep strain group, bovine strain group and horse strain group. Molecular distances between them are comparable to, or greater than, molecular evolutionary distances observed between recognized species. The affinities of the cervid strain of E. granulosus are unclear because of ambiguous data, but this strain does not appear to be ancestral to others. E. multilocularis may not be distinct from E. granulosus. However, the remaining two species, E. vogeli and E. oligarthrus appear distinct and rather distant from the first two. Based on the results presented here, taxonomic revision of the genus is clearly warranted.

Keywords

Echinococcus spp.molecular phylogenytaxonomic revision.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 110 , Issue 3 , April 1995 , pp. 317 - 328
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Bessho, Y., Ohama, T. & Osawa, S. (1992). Planarian mitochondria I. Heterogeneity of cytochrome c oxidase subunit I gene sequences in the freshwater planarian, Dugesia japonica. Journal of Molecular Evolution 34, 324–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blair, D. & McManus, D. P. (1989). Restriction enzyme mapping of ribosomal DNA can distinguish between fasciolid (liver fluke) species. Molecular and Biochemical Parasitology 36, 201–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bowles, J., Blair, D. & McManus, D. P. (1992). Genetic variants within the genus Echinococcus identified by mitochondrial sequencing. Molecular and Biochemical Parasitology 54, 165–74.Google Scholar
Bowles, J., Blair, D. & McManus, D. P. (1994). Molecular genetic characterization of the cervid strain (‘northern form’) of Echinococcus granulosus. Parasitology 109, 215–21.Google Scholar
Bowles, J. & McManus, D. P. (1993 a). Molecular variation in Echinococcus. Acta Tropica 53, 291–305.Google Scholar
Bowles, J. & McManus, D. P. (1993 b). Rapid discrimination of Echinococcus species and strains using a PCR-based method. Molecular Biochemistry and Parasitology 57, 231–9.Google Scholar
Bowles, J. & Mcmanus, D P. (1993 c). NADH dehydrogenase 1 gene sequences compared for species and strains of the genus Echinococcus. International Journal for Parasitology 23, 969–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dams, E., Hendriks, L., Van De Peer, Y., Neefs, J.-M., Smits, G., Vandenbempt, I. & De Wachter, R. (1988). Compilation of small ribosomal subunit RNA sequences. Nucleic Acids Research (Suppl. 16), r87–r173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellis, R. E., Sulston, J. E. & Coulson, A. R. (1986). The rDNA of C. elegans: sequence and structure. Nucleic Acids Research 14, 2345–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erdmann, V. A. & Wolters, J. (1986). Collection of published 5S, 5·8S and 4·5S ribosomal RNA sequences. Nucleic Acids Research (Suppl. 14), rl–r59.Google ScholarPubMed
Felsenstein, J. (1985). Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39, 783–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Felsenstein, J. (1989). PHYLIP – Phytogeny Inference Package (Version 3.2). Cladistics 5, 164–6.Google Scholar
Higgins, D. G. & Sharp, P. M. (1989). Fast and sensitive multiple sequence alignments on a microcomputer. CABIOS 5, 151–3.Google Scholar
Higgins, D. G., Bleasby, A. J. & Fuchs, R. (1992). CLUSTAL V: improved software for multiple sequence alignment. CABIOS 8, 189–91.Google ScholarPubMed
Kimura, M. (1980). A simple method for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. Journal of Molecular Evolution 16, 111–20.Google Scholar
Kumaratilake, L. M. (1983). Aspects of speciation of Echinococcus granulosus in Australia. Ph.D. thesis, School of Veterinary Studies, Murdoch University, Australia.Google Scholar
Kumaratilake, L. M. & Thompson, R. C. A. (1982). A review of the taxonomy and speciation of the genus Echinococcus Rudolphi, 1801. Zeitschrift für Parasitenkunde 68, 121–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lymbery, A. J. (1992). Interbreeding, monophyly and the genetic yardstick: species concepts in parasites. Parasitology Today 8, 208–11.Google Scholar
Maniatis, T., Fritsch, E. F. & Sambrook, J. (1982). Molecular Cloning: a Laboratory Manual. Cold Spring Harbor, New York, USA: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1963). Animal Species and Evolution. Cambridge, USA: Belknap Press, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Neefs, J.-M., Van De Peer, Y., Hendiks, L. & Dewachter, R. (1990). Compilation of small ribosomal subunit RNA sequences. Nucleic Acids Research (Suppl. 18), 2237–318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rausch, R. L. (1986). Life-cycle patterns and geographic distribution of Echinococcus species. In The Biology of Echinococcus and Hydatid Disease (ed. Thompson, R. C. A.), pp. 44–80. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
Ritland, C. E., Ritland, K. & Straus, N. A. (1993). Variations in the ribosomal internal transcribed spacers (ITS1 and ITS2) among eight taxa of the Mimulus guttatus complex. Molecular Biology and Evolution 10, 1273–88.Google Scholar
Rollinson, D., Walker, T. K., Knowles, R. J. & Simpson, A. J. G. (1990). Identification of schistosome hybrids and larval parasites using rRNA probes. Systematic Parasitology 15, 65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swofford, D. L. (1991). PAUP: phylogenetic analysis using parsimony, version 3.0s. Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, Illinois.Google Scholar
Thompson, R. C. A. (1986). Biology and systematics of Echinococcus. In The Biology of Echinococcus and Hydatid Disease (ed. Thompson, R. C. A.), pp. 5–43. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
Thompson, R. C. A. & Lymbery, A. J. (1988). The nature, extent and significance of variation within the genus Echinococcus. Advances in Parasitology 27, 209–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed