Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T01:55:21.155Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The genetic relationships between Echinostoma caproni, E. paraensei, and E. trivolvis as determined by electrophoresis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2009

B. Sloss ,
J. Meece ,
M. Romano  and
P. Nollen
B. Sloss
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Science, Western Illinois University Macomb, Illinois 61455, USA
J. Meece
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Science, Western Illinois University Macomb, Illinois 61455, USA
M. Romano
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Science, Western Illinois University Macomb, Illinois 61455, USA
P. Nollen
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Science, Western Illinois University Macomb, Illinois 61455, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Adults of Echinostoma caproni, F. paraensei, and E. trivolvis were processed for starchgel electrophoresis. Ten enzyme systems representing 12 structural loci were examined using three different buffer systems. E. paraensei and E. caproni were found to be genetically inbred as indicated by the lack of heterozygosity in individual worms. All three taxa showed fixed differences indicating they are distinct species. Fixed differences were found between E. paraensei and E. caproni in six enzyme systems, between E. paraensei and E. trivolvis in five enzyme systems, and betweenE. trivolvis and E. caproni in five enzyme systems. Phenic relationships among the three species showed E. caproni was genetically more similar to E. trivolvis than to E. paraensei.

Type
Research Papers
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 69 , Issue 3 , September 1995 , pp. 243 - 246
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Christensen, N.ø., Fried, B. & Kanev, I. (1990) Taxonomy of 37- collar spined Echinostoma (Trematoda: Echinostomatidae) in studies on the population regulation in experimental rodent hosts. Angewandte Parasitologie 31, 127–130.Google Scholar
Clayton, J.W.& Tretiak, D.N. (1972) Amine-citrate buffers for pH control in starch gel electrophoresis. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 29, 1169–1172.Google Scholar
Farris, J.S. (1972) Estimating phylogenetic trees from distance matrices. American Naturalist 106, 645–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farris, J.S. (1981) Distance data phylogenetic analysis. pp.30 in Funk, V.A. & Brooks, D.R. (Eds) Advances in Cladistics: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the Willi Henning Society. New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.Google Scholar
Harris, H.G. & Hopkinson, D.A. (1977) Handbook of enzyme electrophoresis in human genetics. New York, Am. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Hartl, D.L. (1988) A primer of population genetics. Sunderland, Massachusetts, USA, Sinauer Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
Kanev, I. (1985) On the morphology, biolog, ecology, and taxonomy of the Echinostoma revolutum group (Trematoda: Echinostomatidae: Echinostoma) Ph.D thesis (in Bulgarian) University of Sophia, Bulgaria.Google Scholar
Kristensen, A.R. & Fried, B. (1991) A comparison of Echinostoma caproni and Echinostoma trivolvis (Trematoda: Echinstomatidae) adults using isoelectric focusing. Journal of Parasitology 77, 496–498.Google Scholar
Lie, K.J.& Basch, P.F. (1967) The life history of Echinostoma paraensei sp. n. (Trematoda: Echinostomatidae). Journal of Parasitology 53, 1192–1199.Google Scholar
Nakanishi, M., Wilson, A.C., Nolan, R.A., Gorman, G.C. & Bailey, G.S. (1969) Phenoxyethanol: protein preservation for taxonomists. Science 163, 681–683.Google Scholar
Nei, M. (1972) Genetic distances between populations. American Naturalist 106, 283–292.Google Scholar
Nei, M. (1975) Molecular population genetics and evolution. Amsterdam, North HollandGoogle Scholar
Nei, M. (1978) Estimate of average heterozygosity and genetic distance from a small sample of individuals. Genetics 89, 583–590.Google Scholar
Rogers, J.S. (1972) Measures of genetic similarity and genetic distance. Studies in genetics: VII. University of Texas Publication 7213, 145–153.Google Scholar
Ross, G.C., Fried, B. & Southgate, V.A. (1989) Echinostoma revolutum and E. liei: Observations on enzymes and pigments, Journal of Natural History 23, 978–981.Google Scholar
Selander, R.K., Smith, M.H., Yang, S.Y., Johnson, W.E. & Gentry, J.B. (1971 )Biochemical polymorphism and systematics of the genus Peromyscus. Variation in the oldfield mouse (Peromyscus polionotus). Studies in genetics: VII. University of Texas Publication 7103, 49–90.Google Scholar
Shaw, C.R. & Prasad, R.C. (1970) Starch gel electrophoresis of enzymes – a compilation of recipes. Biochemical Genetics 4, 297–320.Google Scholar
Smithies, O. (1955) Zone electrophoresis in starch gel: group variation in the serum proteins of normal human adults. Biochemistry Journal 61, 629–641.Google Scholar
Sneath, P.H.A. & Sokal, R.R. (1973) San Francisco, W.H. Freeman, 573pp.Google Scholar
Swofford, D.L. & Selander, R.B. (1981) Biosys I: a fortran program for the comprehensive analysis of electrophoretic data in population genetics and systematics. Journal of Heredity 72, 281–283.Google Scholar
Voltz, A., Richard, J.& Pesson, B. (1987)A genetic comparison between natural and laboratory strains of Echinostoma (Trematoda) by isoenzymatic analysis. Parasitology 95, 471–477.Google Scholar
Voltz, A., Richard, J.Pesson, B. & Jourdane, J. (1988) Isoenzyme analysis of Echinostoma liei: Comparison and hybridization with other African species. Experimental Parasitology 66, 13–17.Google Scholar