These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Basal position of two new complete mitochondrial genomes of parasitic Cymothoida (Crustacea: Isopoda) challenges the monophyly of the suborder and phylogeny of the entire order.
    Author: Hua CJ, Li WX, Zhang D, Zou H, Li M, Jakovlić I, Wu SG, Wang GT.
    Journal: Parasit Vectors; 2018 Dec 10; 11(1):628. PubMed ID: 30526651.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Isopoda is a highly diverse order of crustaceans with more than 10,300 species, many of which are parasitic. Taxonomy and phylogeny within the order, especially those of the suborder Cymothoida Wägele, 1989, are still debated. Mitochondrial (mt) genomes are a useful tool for phylogenetic studies, but their availability for isopods is very limited. To explore these phylogenetic controversies on the mt genomic level and study the mt genome evolution in Isopoda, we sequenced mt genomes of two parasitic isopods, Tachaea chinensis Thielemann, 1910 and Ichthyoxenos japonensis Richardson, 1913, belonging to the suborder Cymothoida, and conducted comparative and phylogenetic mt genomic analyses across Isopoda. RESULTS: The complete mt genomes of T. chinensis and I. japonensis were 14,616 bp and 15,440 bp in size, respectively, with the A+T content higher than in other isopods (72.7 and 72.8%, respectively). Both genomes code for 13 protein-coding genes, 21 transfer RNA genes (tRNAs), 2 ribosomal RNA genes (rRNAs), and possess a control region (CR). Both are missing a gene from the complete tRNA set: T. chinensis lacks trnS1 and I. japonensis lacks trnI. Both possess unique gene orders among isopods. Within the CR of I. japonensis (284 bp), we identified a repetitive region with four tandem repeats. Phylogenetic analysis based on concatenated nucleotide sequences of 13 protein-coding genes showed that the two parasitic cymothoids clustered together and formed a basal clade within Isopoda. However, another parasitic cymothoid, Gyge ovalis Shiino, 1939, formed a sister group with the suborder Limnoriidea Brandt & Poore in Poore, 2002, whereas two free-living cymothoid species were located in the derived part of the phylogram: Bathynomus sp. formed a sister group with the suborder Sphaeromatidea Wägele, 1989, and Eurydice pulchra Leach, 1815 with a clade including Bathynomus sp., Sphaeromatidea and Valvifera G. O. Sars, 1883. CONCLUSIONS: Our results did not recover the suborders Cymothoida and Oniscidea Latreille, 1802 as monophyletic, with parasitic and free-living cymothoidans forming separate clades. Furthermore, two parasitic cymothoidans formed the sister-clade to all other isopods, separated from Epicaridea Latreille, 1825, which challenges currently prevalent isopod phylogeny. Additional mt genomes of parasitic and free-living isopods might confer a sufficient phylogenetic resolution to enable us to resolve their relationships, and ultimately allow us to better understand the evolutionary history of the entire isopod order.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]