4.4 Review

Molecular systematics, phylogeny and ecology of anisakid nematodes of the genus Anisakis Dujardin, 1845: An update

期刊

PARASITE
卷 13, 期 2, 页码 99-113

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/parasite/2006132099

关键词

Anisakis; allozyme markers; mtDNA cox-2; genetic relationships; intermediate/paratenic hosts; cetaceans; coevolution; anisakiosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Advances in the taxonomy and ecological aspects concerning geographical distribution and hosts of the so far genetically recognised nine taxa of the nematodes belonging to genus Anisakis (i.e. A. pegreffii, A. simplex s.s., A. simplex C, A. typica, A. ziphidarum, Anisakis sp., A. physeteris, A. brevispiculata and A. paggiae) are here summarized. Genetic differentiation and phylogenetic relationships inferred from allozyme (20 enzyme-loci) and mitochondrial (sequences of cox-2 gene) markers, are revised and compared. The two genetic analyses are congruent in depicting their phylogenetic relationships. Two main clusters are showed to exist in the obtained trees, one encompassing the species A. pegreffii, A. simplex s.s., A. simplex C, A. typica, A. ziphidarum and Anisakis sp.; while, the second including A. physeteris, A. brevispiculata and A. paggiae. The existence of two clades is also supported by their morphological differentiation in adult and larval morphology. Comparison of phylogenetic relationships among Anisakis spp. with those currently available for their cetacean definitive hosts suggests parallelism between host and parasite phylogenetic tree topologies. Preliminary data for reconstruction of a possible co-evolutionary scenario between cetacean hosts and their Anisakis endoparasites suggests that cospeciation and host-switching events may have accompanied the evolution of this group of parasites. Finally, genetic/molecular markers for the identification of the so far genetically recognized taxa of Anisakis at any life-stage and both sexes were given also in relation to human anisakiosis is discussed.

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

4.4
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