Abstract
The phylogenetic relationships among the Ergasilidae genera are poorly understood. In this study, 14 species from four genera in the Ergasilidae including Sinergasilus, Ergasilus, Pseudergasilus, and Paraergasilus were collected in China, and their phylogenetic relationships were examined using neighbor-joining, maximum parsimony, maximum likelihood, and Bayesian inference methods based on partial sequences of 18S and 28S ribosomal deoxyribonucleic acid, respectively. All the analyses suggest that the Sinergasilus and Paraergasilus are both monophyletic, but the Ergasilus is polyphyletic rather than monophyletic. Considering the relationships among the four genera, the phylogenetic analyses and subsequent hypothesis tests all suggest that Pseudergasilus clustered with some Ergasilus species may have a closer relationship with Sinergasilus rather than with Paraergasilus. It is proposed that the Sinergasilus and the Pseudergasilus species might have evolved from Ergasilus species.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abdelhalim AI, Lewis JW, Boxshall GA (1993) The external morphology of adult female ergasilid copepods (Copepoda: Poecilostomatoida) a comparison between Ergasilus and Neoergasilus. Syst Parasitol 24:45–52
Amado MAP, Ho JS, da Rocha CEF (1995) Phylogeny and biogeography of the Ergasilidae (Copepoda, Poecilostomatoida), with reconsideration of the taxonomic status of the Vaigamidae. Contrib Zool 65:233–243
Archie JW (1989) A randomization test for phylogenetic information in systematic data. Syst Zool 38:219–252
Boxshall GA, Halsey SH (2004) An introduction to copepod diversity. London, The Ray Society
El-Rashidy HH, Boxshall GA (2001a) Biogeography and Phylogeny of Dermoergasilus Ho and Do, 1982 (Copepoda: Ergasilidae), with descriptions of three new species. Syst Parasitol 49:89–112
El-Rashidy HH, Boxshall GA (2001b) Biogeography and phylogeny of Paraergasilus Markevich, 1937 (Copepoda: Ergasilidae), with descriptions of two new species from the gills of grey mullet. J Nat Hist 35:1807–1819
Farris JS, Kallersjo M, Kluge AG, Bult C (1994) Testing significance of incongruence. Cladistics 10:315–319
Ho JS, Jayarajan P, Radhakrishnan S (1992) Copepods of the family Ergasilidae (Poecilostomatoida) parasitic on coastal fishes of Kerala, India. J Nat Hist 26:1227–1241
Huelsenbeck JP (1991) Tree-length distribution skewness: an indicator of phylogenetic information. Syst Zool 40:257–270
Huelsenbeck JP, Rongquist F (2001) MrBayes: Bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics 17:754–755
Huys R, Llewellyn-Hughes J, Olson PD, Nagasawa K (2006) Small subunit rDNA and Bayesian inference reveal Pectenophilus ornatus (Copepoda incertae sedis) as highly transformed Mytilicolidae, and support assignment of Chondracanthidae and Xarifiidae to Lichomolgoidea (Cyclopoida). Biol J Linn Soc Lond 87:403–425
Huys R, Llewellyn-Hughes J, Conroy-Dalton S, Olson PD, Spinks JN, Johnston DA (2007) Extraordinary host switching in siphonostomatoid copepods and the demise of the Monstrilloida: integrating molecular data, ontogeny and antennulary morphology. Mol Phylogenet Evol 43:368–378
Kim IH, Choi SK (2003) Copepod parasites (Crustacea) of freshwater fishes in Korea. Kor J Syst Zool 19:57–93
Kim J, Kim W (2000) Molecular phylogeny of poecilostome copepods based on the 18S rDNA sequences. Kor J Biol Sci 4:257–261
Kuang PR, Qian J (1991) Economic fauna of China: parasitic Crustacea of Freshwater Fishes. Beijing, Science Press (in Chinese)
Kumar S, Tamura K, Nei M (2004) MEGA3: Integrated software for Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis and sequence alignment. Brief Bioinform 5:150–163
Kumari P, Khera S, Gupta NK (1988) On two species of ectoparasites of freshwater fishes belonging to the genus Neoergasilus Yin (Ergasilidae: Copepoda). Res Bull Sci Panjab Univ 39:161–168
Montú MA, Boxshall GA (2002) Gauchergasilus, a new genus for Ergasilus euripedesi Montu, 1980, an abundant parasitic copepod from the Patos Lagoon in southern Brazil. Syst Parasitol 51:21–28
Posada D, Crandall KA (1998) Modeltest: testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics 14:817–818
Sambrook J, Fritsch EF, Maniatis T (1989) Analysis and cloning of eukaryotic genomic DNA. In: Sambrook J, Russell DW (eds) Molecular cloning: a laboratory manual. Cold Spring Harbor, NY, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Shimodaira H (2002) An approximately unbiased test of phylogenetic tree selection. Syst Biol 51:492–508
Shimodaira H, Hasegawa M (2001) CONSEL: for assessing the confidence of phylogenetic tree selection. Bioinformatics 17:1246–1247
Swofford DL (2003) PAUP*: phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (*and other methods) Version 4.0 beta 10. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA
Thompson JD, Gibson TJ, Plewniak F, Jeanmougin F, Higgins DG (1997) The Clustal X windows interface: flexible strategies for multiple sequence alignment aided by quality analysis tools. Nucleic Acids Res 24:4876–4882
Xia X, Xie Z (2001) DAMBE: Data analysis in molecular biology and evolution. J Heredity 92:371–373
Yin WY (1949) Three new species and a new genus of parasitic copepods (Ergasilidae) from Chinese pond fishes. Sinensia 20:32–42
Yin WY (1956) Studies on the Ergasilidae (parasitic Copepoda) from the fresh-water fishes of China. Acta Hydrobiol Sin 2:255–260 (in Chinese)
Yin WY, Lin M, Xu GA, Chen AX (1963) Studies on the Lernaeosis (Lernaea, Copepoda parasitica) of fresh-water fishes of China. Acta Hydrobiol Sin 2:48–117 (in Chinese)
Acknowledgments
We really appreciate Prof. Geoff Boxshall for his valuable comments on this work and Dr. Xiaohu Wang for his advice on the writing. This research was supported by a project (no. [2005] 192) awarded to P. Nie from the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Song, Y., Wang, G.T., Yao, W.J. et al. Phylogeny of freshwater parasitic copepods in the Ergasilidae (Copepoda: Poecilostomatoida) based on 18S and 28S rDNA sequences. Parasitol Res 102, 299–306 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00436-007-0764-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00436-007-0764-8