Intra-host speciation in the

Lamellodiscus ignoratus
morphotype?

Timothée Poisot • Olivier Verneau • Yves Desdevises

Université de Montpellier — Faculté des Sciences
August 2008

1
Monogeneans : gill parasites

Haptor

Anterior
sucks

2
Monogeneans : gill parasites

Haptor
Eggs
Anterior
sucks

c h
ear
t s
o s
e h
t i v
Larvae Ac

2
Evolution of Lamellodiscus

3
Evolution of Lamellodiscus

3
Evolution of Lamellodiscus

3
Evolution of Lamellodiscus

Cospeciation + intra-host speciation + … ?

3
Hypotheses for Lamellodiscus evolution

• Host-switch followed by speciation

• Suggested for Gyrodactylus

• Thought important for Lamellodiscus

• Intra-host speciation

• Suggested for Dactylogyrus

• Yet to study for Lamellodiscus

4
Methods

Haptor (fixation organ)

ITS1

18S […] 5.8S Desdevises et coll. 2000

Variable in size (≈1kb)

tRNA-Trp Cox1 tRNA-Thr 16S Littlewood et coll. 1997

5
Why the ignoratus morphotype?

L. ignoratus

L. neifari

L. confusus

6
Why the ignoratus morphotype?

L. ignoratus

2.5
2.0
●

1.5
1.0

L. neifari
Axe 2: 8.54 %
0.5
0.0
−0.5
−1.0

L. confusus
−1.5

●
−2.0

−6 −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4

Axe 1: 71.1 %

6
Genetic similarity (%)

18S Its1 Cox1 18S

Mean (≠ species) : 94.3%
L. ignoratus 95,7 86 76
L. fraternus/L. ergensi : 99.4%
L. neifari 99,8 85 91 L. ignoratus/L. virgula : 94.3%
L. parisi/L. elegans : 90.8%
Ignoratus-like 97,3 86 79

18S Mouse Chicken Xenopus Nematode

Human 99,2 96,4 95,9 87,1

7
18S rDNA (Maximum likelihood + Bayesian)

8
18S rDNA (Maximum likelihood + Bayesian)

Ignoratus
8
Its1 (ML + Bayesian)

9
Its1 (ML + Bayesian)

Ignoratus
?

9
Hypotheses

10
Hypotheses

10
Hypotheses

10
Conclusions

•Genetic variability of Lamellodiscus is high

•Confirmed by new sequences (Cox1)

•Potential under-estimation of the real diversity of the genus

•The ignoratus morphotype

•“New” species are not genetically distinguishable

•Paraphyletic species, or greater diversity than expected?

11
Thank you for your attention

12
Cox1 : estimation of saturation

Triplet 1&2 3
0.4

0.4

0.4
● ●
●
● ●
● ● ● ●● ●
● ● ●● ● ●
0.3

0.3

0.3
● ●●● ●
●●● ●
●● ●
● ● ●●●
● ●
● ● ●
● ● ●
0.2

0.2

0.2
Tv

Tv

Tv
● ●
●● ● ●
● ●●
●
● ●
●
● ●●● ●
● ● ●● ● ● ●
● ● ●
● ●
●●●●● ● ●
●● ● ●
●●
●●
●●● ●
●● ● ●
0.1

0.1

0.1
● ●
● ●●● ●● ●
● ●●
● ●
● ● ●●●● ●
●● ●
● ●● ● ●●
●● ●
●●
●●● ● ●
●
● ●●●● ● ●● ●●
● ● ● ●
0.0

0.0

0.0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Ti Ti Ti

13
Principal components analysis
L. elegans L. ignoratus
0.5 1.5

2.0
!
Axe 2: 9.28 %

Axe 2: 8.54 %
1.0
!1.0

!0.5
!2.5

!2.0
!
!6 !5 !4 !3 !2 !1 0 1 2 3 4 !6 !5 !4 !3 !2 !1 0 1 2 3 4
Axe 1: 74.5 % Axe 1: 71.1 %

L. ergensi L. kechemirae
0.5 1.5

2.0
Axe 2: 10.7 %

Axe 2: 15.3 %
! 0.5
!
!1.0

!2.5 !1.0

!
!2.5

!8 !7 !6 !5 !4 !3 !2 !1 0 1 2 3 !4 !3 !2 !1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Axe 1: 66.7 % Axe 1: 54.5 %

14
Ignoratus-like

L. neifari

L. falcus

L. ignoratus

15