4.3 Article

Molecular characterization of Haemoproteus sacharovi (Haemosporida, Haemoproteidae), a common parasite of columbiform birds, with remarks on classification of haemoproteids of doves and pigeons

期刊

ZOOTAXA
卷 3616, 期 1, 页码 85-94

出版社

MAGNOLIA PRESS
DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3616.1.7

关键词

Haemoproteus; Parahaemoproteus; haemosporidians; Columbidae; Hippoboscidae; Ceratopogonidae; barcoding

类别

资金

  1. European Union [VP1-3.1-SMM-01]
  2. Promotion of Student Research of the Program of Human Resources Development Action Plan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Haemoproteus (Haemosporida, Haemoproteidae) is the largest genus of avian haemosporidian parasites, some species of which cause lethal diseases in birds. Subgenera Parahaemoproteus and Haemoproteus are usually accepted in this genus; these parasites are transmitted by biting midges (Ceratopogonidae) and hippoboscid flies (Hippoboscidae), respectively. As of yet, species of Parahaemoproteus have not been reported to infect doves and pigeons (Columbiformes), parasites of these birds have not been reported to be transmitted by biting midges (Ceratopogonidae). Applying microscopy and PCR based methods, we identified mitochondrial cytochrome b (cyt b) sequences of Haemoproteus sacharovi, a widespread parasite of doves and pigeons. Phylogenetic relationships of dove haemoproteids, which traditionally have been classified in the subgenus Haemoproteus, showed that H. sacharovi and H. turtur, common parasites of doves, branch in the clade with Parahaemoproteus species, indicating that these haemoproteids may belong to this subgenus and are likely transmitted by biting midges. This study provides barcodes for H. sacharovi, clarifies the taxonomic positions of H. sacharovi and H. turtur, and indicates directions for development of classification of avian haemoproteid species. Our analysis shows that the current subgeneric classification of avian haemoproteids is generally effective, but the position of some species may need to be revised.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据