Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Acta Parasitologica

4 Issues per year

IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 1.039
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.121

CiteScore 2017: 1.17

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.641
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.738

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 61, Issue 2


Molecular characterization and phylogeny of some mazocraeidean monogeneans from carangid fish

Neeraja Tambireddy
  • Aquatic Environment and Health Management Division, ICAR-Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Panch Marg, Off Yari Road, Versova, Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400 061, India
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Tripathi Gayatri
  • Aquatic Environment and Health Management Division, ICAR-Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Panch Marg, Off Yari Road, Versova, Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400 061, India
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Pathakota Gireesh-Babu
  • Fish Genetics and Biotechnology Division, ICAR-Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Panch Marg, Off Yari Road, Versova, Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400 061, India
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Annam Pavan-Kumar
  • Corresponding author
  • Aquatic Environment and Health Management Division, ICAR-Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Panch Marg, Off Yari Road, Versova, Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400 061, India
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2016-03-30 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ap-2016-0047


Polyopisthocotylean monogenean parasites of fishes are highly host specific and have been used as an appropriate model to study the host-parasite co-evolution. In the present study, eight monogeneans of the order Mazocraeidea were characterized by nuclear 28S rDNA sequences and their phylogenetic relationship with other polyopisthocotylean species was investigated. Neighbour-joining, maximum parsimony, maximum likelihood and Bayesian Inference methods were used for phylogenetic reconstruction. The topology sustained by high bootstrap was: (((Hexabothriidae (Mazocraeidae (Discocotylidae (Diplozoidae (Diclidophoridae (Plectanocotylidae (Heteromicrocotylidae (Microcotylidae (Heteraxinidae), (Thoracocotylidae, Gotocotylidae (Gastrocoylidae (Allodiscocotylidae: Protomicrocotylidae))). In addition, we have also developed DNA barcodes (COI sequences) for six species and the barcodes clearly discriminated all the species. The polytomy within Protomicrocotylidae family is resolved in this study for the first time and it appears that within this family, Bilaterocotyloides species are basal compared to Neomicrocotyle and Lethacotyle species while the latter is the more derived.

Keywords: Monogeneans; Polyopisthocotylea; molecular phylogeny; 28S rDNA; DNA barcoding


  • Agrawal N., Tripathi A., Devak A. 2006. Monogeneans from the gills of glassfishes (Teleostei: Oerciformes: Ambassidae) in India, with the proposal of Chandacleidus n.g. (Monogenea: Dactylogyridae). Systematic Parasitology, 63, 221–228. Doi.org/ 10.1007/s11230-005-9014-6Google Scholar

  • Boeger W. A., Kritsky, D.C. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships of the Monogenoidea. In: (Eds. D. T. J. Littlewood and R. A. Bray) Interrelationships of the Platyhelminthes. Taylor & Francis, London, 92–102Google Scholar

  • Chisholm L. A., Whittington I.D., Morgan J.A.T., Adlard R.D. 2001b. The Calicotyle conundrum: do molecules reveal more than morphology? Systematic Parasitology, 49, 81–87. DOI: 10.1023/A:1010629022955CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Chisholm L.A., Morgan J.A.T., Adlard R.D., Whittington I.D. 2001a. Phylogenetic analysis of the Monocotylidae (Monogenea) inferred from28S rDNA sequences. International Journal for Parasitology, 31, 1253–1263. DOI: 10.1016/S0020-7519(01) 00313-7CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Collins R.A., Cruickshank, R.H. 2013. The seven deadly sins of DNA barcoding. Molecular Ecology Resources 13, 969–975. DOI: 10.1111/1755-0998.12046CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Cunningham C.O., McGillivray D.M., MacKenzie K. 1995. Phylogenetic analysis of Gyrodactylus salaris Malmberg, 1957 based on the small subunit (18S) ribosomal RNA gene. Molecular and Biochemical Parasitology, 71, 139–142. DOI: 10.1016 /0166-6851(95)00043-ZCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cunningham, C. O. 1997. Species variation within the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region of Gyrodactylus (Monogenea:Gyrodactylidae) ribosomal RNA genes. Journal of Parasitology, 83, 215–219Google Scholar

  • Desdevises Y., Morand S., Legendre P. 2002. Evolution and determinants of host specificity in the genus Lamellodiscus (Monogenea). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 77, 431–443. DOI: 10.1046/j.1095-8312.2002.00114.xCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Farris J.S. 1970. Methods for computing Wagner trees. Systematic Zoology, 19, 83–92. DOI: 10.2307/2412028 1CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hansen H., Bakke T.A., Bachmann, L. 2007. DNA taxonomy and barcoding of monogenean parasites: lessons from Gyro-dactylus. Trends in Parasitology, 23, 363–370. DOI:10.1016/ j.pt.2007.06.007CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Hansen H., Martinsen L., Bakke T.A., Bachmann, L. 2006. The incongruence of nuclear and mitochondrial DNA variation supports conspecificity of the monogenean parasites Gyrodactylus salaris and G. thymalli. Parasitology, 133, 639–650. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0031182006000655Google Scholar

  • Hassouna N., Michot B., Bachellerie J.P. 1984. The complete nucleotide sequence of mouse 28S rRNA gene: Implications for the process of size increase of the large subunit rRNA in higher eukaryotes. Nucleic Acids Research 12, 3563–3583. DOI: 10.1093/nar/12.8.3563CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hayward C. 2005. Monogenea Polyopisthocotylea (ectoparasitic flukes). In: (Eds. K. Rohde) Marine Parasitology. Australia, CSIRO press, 55–63Google Scholar

  • Hebert P. D. N., Ratnasingham S., deWaard JR. 2003. Barcoding animal life: cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 divergences among closely related species. Proceedings of the Royal Society, Section B: Biological Sciences, 270, S96–S99. DOI: 10.1098/ rsbl/ 2003 .0025Google Scholar

  • Huelsenbeck J.P., Ronquist F. 2003. MR BAYES 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics, 19, 1572–1574. DOI: 10.1093/bioinformaticss/btg18 0CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Jain S.L. 1958. Monogenea of Indian freshwater fishes. VII. Bifurcohaptor, a new genus of freshwater Tetraonchinae from the gill filament of two fishes from Lucknow. Journal of Parasitology, 44, 388–394. DOI: 10.2307/3274321CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Jovelin R., Justine J.L. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships within the polyopisthocotylean monogeneans (Platyhelminthes) inferred from partial 28S rDNA sequences. International journal for Parasitology, 31, 393–401. DOI: 10.1007/s00436-010-2008-6CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Justine J.L., Rahmouni C., Gey D., Schoelinck C., Hoberg E.P. 2013. The monogenean which lost its clamps. PLoS ONE, 8, e79155. DOI: 10.1371/ journal.pone.0079155CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Kearn G.C. 1998. Parasitism and the Platyhelminthes. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar

  • Littlewood D.T.J, Olson P.D. 2001. Small subunit rDNA and the Platyhelminthes:signal, noise, conflict and compromise. In: (Eds: D.T.J. Littlewood, R. A. Bray). Interrelationships of the Platyhelminthes, Taylor & Francis, London, 262–278Google Scholar

  • Littlewood D.T.J., Rohde K., Clough K. A. 1998. The phylogenetic position of Udonella (Platyhelminthes). International Journal for Parasitology, 28, 1241–1250. DOI: 10. 1016/S00207519(98)00108-8CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Littlewood D.T.J., Rohde K., Clough K.A. 1997. Parasite speciation within or between host species? Phylogenetic evidence from site-specific polystome monogeneans. International Journal for Parasitology, 27, 1289–1297. DOI: 10.1016/S0020-7519 (9) 00086-6CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Littlewood D.T.J., Rohde K., Clough K.A. 1999. The interrelationships of all major groups of Platyhelminthes: phylogenetic evidence from morphology and molecules. Biological Journal of the Linnean society, 66: 75–114. DOI:10.1006/bijl.1998.0276CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Meyer C.P., Paulay G. 2005. DNA barcoding: error rates based on comprehensive sampling. PLoS Biology, 3, 2229–2238. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030422CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mollaret I., Jamieson B.G.M., Justine J.L. 2000. Phylogeny of the Monopisthocotylea and Polyopisthocotylea (Platyhelminthes) inferred from 28S rDNA sequences. International Journal for Parasitology, 30, 171–185. DOI: 10.1016/S0020-7519(99) 00197-6Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mollaret I., Jamieson B.G.M., Adlard R.D., Hugall A., Lecointre G., Chombard C., Justine J.L. 1997. Phylogenetic analysis of the Monogenea and their relationships with Digenea and Eucestoda inferred from28S rDNA sequences. Molecular and Biochemical Parasitology, 90, 433–438. DOI:10.1016/S01666851(97)00176-XCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Olson P. D., Littlewood D.T.J. 2002. Phylogenetics of the Monogenea – evidence from a medley of molecules. International Journal for Parasitology, 32, 233–244. DOI:10.1016/S00207519(01)00328-9CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Pandey K.C., Agarwal N. 2008. An encyclopaedia of Indian monogenoidea. Vitasta Publishing, New Delhi, pp. 530Google Scholar

  • Posada D., Crandall K. A. 1998. Modeltest: testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics, 14, 817–818. DOI: 10. 1093/bioinformatics/14.9.817CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Poulin R. 1992. Determinants of host-specificity in parasites of freshwater fishes. International Journal for Parasitology, 22, 753–758. DOI: 10.1016/0020-7519(92) 90124-4CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ramalingam K. 1966. A rare record of Lethacotyle (Monogenea), its post oncomiracidial larva with observation on distribution. Current Science, 35, 101–102Google Scholar

  • Ramalingam K. 1968. A redescription of Lethacotyle (Monogenea) and its post oncomiracidial larva. Journal of the Madras University, 35, 107–114Google Scholar

  • Rohde K. 1979. Monogenean gill parasites of some marine fishes of Papua New Guinea. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 203, S.78–94Google Scholar

  • Scotland R.W., Olmstead R.G., Bennett J.R. 2003. Phylogeny reconstruction: The role of morphology. Systematic Biology, 52, 539–548Google Scholar

  • Šimková A., Kadlec D., Gelnar M., Morand S. 2002. Abundance-prevalence relationship of gill congeneric ectoparasites: testing the core satellite hypothesis and ecological specialization. Parasitology Research, 88, 682–686. DOI: 10.1007/s00436002-0650-3CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Šimková A., Verneau O., Gelnar M., Morand S. 2006. Specificity and specialization of congeneric monogeneans parasitizing cyprinid fish. Evolution, 60, 1023–1037. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1554/05-521.1Google Scholar

  • Swofford D.L. 2003. PAUP*. Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and Other Methods). Version 4. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar

  • Tamura K., Stecher G., Peterson D., Filipski A., Kumar S. 2013. MEGA6: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis Version 6.0. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 30, 2725–2729. DOI: 10.1093/molbev/mst197Google Scholar

  • Unnithan R.V. 1957. On the functional morphology of a new fauna of monogenea on fishes from Trivendrum and environs. Part I. Axinidae fam. nov. Bulletin of the Central Research Institute University of Kerala, 5, 27–122Google Scholar

  • Van Den Bussche R.A., Baker J.P., Huelsenbeck, Hillis D.M. 1998. Base compositional bias and phylogenetic analyses: A test of the “flying DNA” hypothesis. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 10:, 408–416. DOI: 10.1006/mpev.1998.0531CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Vanhove M.P., Tessens B., Schoelinck C., Jondelius U., Littlewood D.T., Artois T., Huyse T. 2013. Problematic barcoding in flatworms: A case-study on monogeneans and rhabdocoels (Platyhelminthes). Zookeys, 365, 355–79. DOI: 10.3897/zookeys. 365. 5776CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Whittington I.D., Crib, B.W., Hamwood, T.E., Halliday, J.A. 2000. Host-specificity of monogenean (platyhelminthes) parasites: a role for anterior adhesive areas? International Journal for Parasitology, 30, 305–320. DOI:10.1016/S00207519(00)00006-0CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Xia X., Xie Z. 2001. DAMBE: Data analysis in molecular biology and evolution. Journal of Heredity, 92, 371–373. DOI: 10.1093/jhered/92.4.371CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Zhang D.X., Hewitt G.M. 1996. Nuclear integrations: challenges for mitochondrial DNA markers. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 11, 247–251. DOI:10.1016/0169-5347(96)10031-8CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Received: 2015-06-09

Revised: 2015-10-23

Accepted: 2015-12-11

Published Online: 2016-03-30

Published in Print: 2016-06-01

Citation Information: Acta Parasitologica, Volume 61, Issue 2, Pages 360–368, ISSN (Online) 1896-1851, ISSN (Print) 1230-2821, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ap-2016-0047.

Export Citation

© W. Stefański Institute of Parasitology, PAS.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in