EDP Sciences logo
Submit your paper
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 29 (2022) Parasite, 29 (2022) 56 Full HTML
Open Access
Issue
Parasite
Volume 29, 2022
Article Number 56
Number of page(s) 19
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/parasite/2022056
Published online 16 December 2022

© A. Chaabane et al.,published by EDP Sciences, 2022

Licence Creative CommonsThis is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Introduction

The Neodermata, a clade comprising only parasitic platyhelminths, contains three well-defined groups of flatworms, the Digenea, the Cestoda and the Monogenea. While the monophyly of the Monogenea is still being debated [23, 27, 31, 34], the monophyly of the two subclasses Polyonchoinea and Heteronchoinea has been widely accepted [3–5, 24–26, 29, 31]. Monogeneans of both subclasses are mainly ectoparasites of gills and skin of Chondrichthyes and Actinopterygii fishes, which may account for more than 25,000 species [9, 47]. However, fewer than 250 monogenean species deviated from the norm as they are parasites of semi-aquatic tetrapods, mainly amphibians and chelonians. They are classified into three families of the Polyonchoinea, namely the Gyrodactylidae, the Lagarocotylidae and the Iagotrematidae, and into a single family of the Heteronchoinea, the Polystomatidae sensu Sinnappah et al. [37]. The Polystomatidae comprises just more than 200 species, infecting anurans, salamanders and caecilians of the Amphibia; freshwater turtles of the Testudines; the common hippopotamus, Hippopotamus amphibius Linnaeus of the Mammalia; but also a fish, i.e. the Australian lungfish, Neoceratodus forsteri Krefft of the Dipnoi. Polystome species are classified into 32 genera, of which 20 occur specifically within amphibian hosts, 10 are recognized in chelonians, and one each are reported from the common hippopotamus and Australian lungfish, respectively.

Polystomes of frogs and chelonians were first described as Polystoma Zeder, 1800, and more than a century later a new subgenus Polystomoides Ward, 1917 was created to account for chelonian polystomes. Polystomoides, being found in the mouth, esophagus, nasal cavities or urinary bladder of its host, was described as having a haptor with two pairs of large hooks, the outer pair being larger than the inner one, a single testis, a short uterus containing usually a single egg and vitellaria extending into the posterior part of the body. Vaginae and eyes are absent in adults. Polystomoides was raised later to genus rank by Ozaki [32] who pointed out the absence of a uterus. Besides Polystomoides, Price [36] created two new genera for chelonian polystomes, namely Polystomoidella Price, 1939 being found in the urinary bladder of its host and differing from Polystomoides by having a single pair of large haptoral hooks, and Neopolystoma Price, 1939, being found in the urinary bladder and nostrils of its host and differing from Polystomoides and Polystomoidella by the absence of large haptoral hooks. Strelkov [38] first reported Neopolystoma from conjunctival sacs of turtles. Tinsley and Tinsley [43], based on phylogenetic studies by Héritier et al. [11], created a new genus Uropolystomoides Tinsley & Tinsley 2016 to account for all Polystomoides species occurring in the urinary bladder of their African, Asian, and Australian hosts. Uropolystomoides spp. differ from Polystomoides spp. of the oral cavity by the size of hamulus 1, being always bigger than the sucker diameter, which was originally mentioned in Knoepffler and Combes [18]. Tinsley [42], following the description of Polystomoides nelsoni Du Preez & Van Rooyen 2015, created Uteropolystomoides Tinsley 2017 to account for this unique species. Uteropolystomoides nelsoni (Du Preez & Van Rooyen 2015) differs from species of Polystomoides sensu Tinsley and Tinsley [43] by the presence of a uterus containing several eggs but also by a massive genital bulb encompassing a great number of genital spines. Du Preez and Verneau [8], based on the most comprehensive phylogeny of chelonian polystomes, created three new genera to account for all polystomes of the conjunctival sacs, namely Aussietrema Du Preez & Verneau 2020, Fornixtrema Du Preez & Verneau 2020, and Apaloneotrema Du Preez & Verneau 2020. Aussietrema is mainly characterized by a spherical ovary and egg, Fornixtrema by a separate egg-cell-maturation-chamber and fusiform to diamond-shaped egg with acute tips, and Apaloneotrema by a large fusiform egg with rounded tips. Finally, Du Preez et al. [7], following a revision of South American and Australian polystomes infecting specifically turtles of the Pleurodira suborder, described two new genera that are both restricted to South America and Australia, respectively. Though these two genera share vaginae that are latero-ventral and positioned in line with the anterior margin of testis, Manotrema Du Preez, Domingues & Verneau 2022 of South American pleurodires differs from Pleurodirotrema Du Preez, Domingues & Verneau 2022 of Australian pleurodires by the presence of two pairs of small hamuli with very deep cuts between handle and guard and a haptor with deep incisions between suckers.

While Bayesian trees inferred from phylogenetic analyses of the four concatenated genes 12S, 18S, 28S and COI [8, 11] indicate that the two genera, i.e. Polystomoides sensu Du Preez et al. [7] and Neopolystoma sensu Du Preez et al. [7], are each polyphyletic, all Polystomoides and Neopolystoma species fall into a robust lineage, including U. nelsoni of Pseudemys nelsoni Carr. Therefore, one may question the possibility of finding specific morphological characters for this clade. In this paper, we studied polystome samples collected from North American chelonians, type and paratype slides borrowed from the Parasitic Worm Collection, National Museum, Bloemfontein, South Africa, and voucher slides stored in the private collection of the second author (LdP) to revise the classification of these two genera. We also investigated the molecular phylogeny of polystomes sampled from the oral cavity of North American turtles, including specimens of Polystomoides multifalx (Stunkard, 1924) collected from Pseudemys floridana (Le Conte) and Pseudemys concinna (Le Conte) of Florida, in order to determine the validity of the genus Uteropolystomoides.

Materials and methods

Ethics

Ethical clearance for this study was obtained from the North-West University Animal Care ethics committee (Ethical clearance no. NWU-00256-17A5).

Turtle sampling and polystome collection

The fieldwork procedures used to collect freshwater turtles were detailed in Du Preez and Verneau [8]. To summarize, turtles were captured in a number of water bodies in North Carolina and Florida, USA using baited traps that were left overnight (Table 1). Captured animals were kept individually in plastic containers at room temperature for two to three days and screened on a daily basis for the presence of polystome eggs following the procedure detailed in Verneau et al. [45]. Polystome eggs collected were preserved in ethanol 75% for further molecular analyses. Depending on the intensity of infection, based on the number of eggs released per host individual, a few animals were euthanized with a lethal injection of a concentrated buffered MS222 (ethyl-4-aminobenzoate) solution. They were then dissected and polystomes were retrieved from the urinary bladder, oral cavity, and/or conjunctival sacs. Polystomes were removed according to the procedure reported in Du Preez and Verneau [8].

Table 1

List of North American turtle species investigated for polystomes in 2018–2019, with sampling localities and their GPS coordinates, prevalence of infection, infection site of polystomes, and total number of worms collected.

Collection of polystomes using a non-lethal method

Because killing of animals collected from the Ichetucknee River in Ichetucknee Springs State Park of Florida was not allowed, specimens of P. concinna that released polystome eggs were examined by swabbing the mouth and pharyngeal pouches. The turtle was held with the head facing upwards and the mouth held open with a small hook made from wire (Fig. 1A). A dry 120 mm wooden stem cotton swab was gently lowered down the mouth into the pharyngeal region while slowly rotating the swab. The technique was successful, and three parasites were retrieved from three distinct specimens (Fig. 1B, Table 1) with no adverse effect on the hosts. Parasites were heat killed and stored for further analysis. Some were fixed slightly flattened under coverslip pressure, while others were fixed directly either in 10% neutral buffered formalin for permanent mounts, in Bouin’s fixative [15] for histology or in molecular grade 70% ethanol for genetics.

thumbnail Figure 1

A: Non-lethal procedure for retrieving a polystome from the pharyngeal pouches of a freshwater turtle; B: polystome collected on wooden stem cotton swab.

Morphological analyses

In 2004, LdP visited the United States National Parasite Collection in Beltsville, Maryland for a research visit and studied the entire polystome collection. A loan of voucher and paratype specimens was approved and specimens were studied and photographed in South Africa. Type and paratype slides borrowed from the Parasitic Worm Collection, National Museum, Bloemfontein, South Africa were also examined as well as voucher slides stored in the second author’s collections (Table 2). All slides were of whole-mounted stained specimens. While the main focus was on species belonging to Neopolystoma, Polystomoides, and Uteropolystomoides, representatives of Fornixtrema and Uropolystomoides were also examined. Polystomes infecting P. nelsoni and P. concinna were morphologically examined, measured, and photographed using a Nikon AZ100M microscope (Nikon, Netherlands) fitted with 0.5X, 1X and 4X objectives as well as a Nikon U3 digital camera. Measurements were captured using the Nikon NIS software. Small features were examined, measured, and photographed using a Zeiss Imager Axio10 compound microscope (Zeiss, Germany) fitted with a Zeiss Axio cam 305 camera (Zeiss, Germany) and Zeiss Zen Blue elements (Zeiss, Germany) software. Measurements were based on ten specimens each from P. nelsoni and P. concinna, all collected near Gainesville, Alachua County, FL, USA. Morphological examination focussed on body size, relative size of the haptor, genital bulb diameter, number of genital spines, position of the vaginae in relation to body width and length, position of ovary, position of testis, presence and size of hamuli and haptoral sucker diameter.

Table 2

List of polystome species examined by microscopy with their host species, geographical area, infection site and accession numbers.

Molecular experiments

DNA extractions were performed with 150 μL of Chelex 10% and Proteinase K 1 mg/mL, following the protocol reported in Héritier et al. [11], from several eggs and worms collected from distinct host species and areas of North Carolina and Florida (Table 3). For the PCR, we followed the amplification procedure of Héritier et al. [11] for the two genes of interest COI and 28S. COI was amplified in one round, either with primers L-CO1p/H-Cox1p2 or L-CO1p/H-Cox1R whose sequences are reported in Littlewood et al. [22] and Héritier et al. [11]. The partial 28SrRNA gene was, however, amplified in two rounds with the combination of primers LSU5′/IR16 and IF15/LSU3′ whose sequences are reported in Verneau et al. [44] and Héritier et al. [11]. The procedure we followed for gene amplification was identical regardless of the combination of primers and gene of interest: one initial step of 5′ at 95 °C for long denaturation; 30 cycles of 1′ at 95 °C for denaturation, 1′ at 48 °C for annealing and 1′ at 72 °C for elongation; one final step of 10′ at 72 °C for terminal elongation. PCR reactions were run twice and independently in a final volume of 25 μL comprising Buffer 1x, MgCl2 1.5 mM, dNTPs 0.2 mM, primers 0.4 mM, GoTaq Polymerase 0.75 unit (Promega, France) and DNA (2 μL). PCR products were then pooled and sent to GenoScreen (Lille, France) for purification and sequencing with their respective forward and reverse PCR primers. Finally, we used Geneious software (Saint Joseph, MO, USA) to check chromatograms, and to read and edit resulting sequences. New sequences were deposited in GenBank with accession numbers OP784895, OP793140 to OP793161 and OP793434 to OP793461 for COI, and OP795734 to OP795746 and OP795805 to OP795807 for 28S.

Table 3

List of turtle specimens collected in the USA in 2018 from which polystome worms and/or eggs were investigated for partial COI and 28S.

Phylogenetic and distance analyses within polystomes of the pharyngeal cavity

New COI and 28S sequences, after primer trimming, were first aligned independently using Clustal W implemented in MEGA version 7 [19] under default parameters [41]. Only those characterizing polystomes of the oral cavity were kept at this stage. All these sequences were subsequently aligned with other COI and 28S sequences of distinct polystomes species retrieved from GenBank (Table 4). These sequences characterized polystomes of the oral cavity with the exception of Fornixtrema palpebrae (Strekov, 1950) of the conjunctival sacs and Polystomoidella whartoni Price, 1939 and Uropolystomoides malayi (Rohde, 1963) of the urinary bladder, that were used for outgroup comparisons after Du Preez and Verneau [8]. In the final COI and 28S alignments, when identical sequences were found from the sequencing of eggs and/or worm, a single sequence was kept for each distinct haplotype.

Table 4

List of polystome species retrieved from GenBank and investigated by phylogenetic analysis with references to their COI and 28S haplotypes, 28S GenBank accession numbers, and bibliographic sources.

The COI phylogenetic analysis was conducted on a data set comprising 64 haplotypes and 396 characters which was considered a single partition. A GTR + I + G model was selected following the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) implemented in Modeltest 3.06 [35]. Six types of substitutions and invariable-gamma rates with four gamma rate categories were therefore applied. On the contrary, the 28S phylogenetic analysis was conducted on a data set comprising 15 haplotypes and 1,370 characters also considered as a single partition. A GTR + G model was selected following the AIC, with six types of substitutions and gamma rates with four gamma rate categories. The Bayesian analyses were run using MrBayes 3.04b [14], with four chains running for one million generations and sampled every 100 cycles. The Bayesian consensus trees were drawn after removing the first 1000 trees (10%) as the burn-in phase and viewed with TreeView version 1.6 [33].

Corrected pairwise distances were calculated for COI sequences using the Kimura 2-parameter model, while the total number of differences was estimated for partial 28S in MEGA version 7 [17]. Species delimitation was discussed in the light of the COI threshold defined for polystomes [12].

Results

Morphological delimitation of the clade grouping Neopolystoma, Polystomoides, and Uteropolystomoides spp.

After examination of newly collected specimens, as well as types and paratypes of Neopolystoma, Polystomoides, and Uteropolystomoides spp. borrowed from museum collections, no obvious morphological character was evidenced supporting the clustering of these three genera into a clade with the exception of the vaginae that are peripheral (Fig. 2). Following a thorough study of all the drawings published in the literature for chelonian polystomes (see Morrison and Du Preez [30] for a review), this character is found in all species of the genera. It also characterizes all species of Fornixtrema and some polystome species of Uropolystomoides infecting specifically cryptodire turtles.

thumbnail Figure 2

Micrograph of the reproductive system of Polystomoides multifalx (Stunkard, 1924). Abbreviations: Gb, genital bulb; Te, testis; Ut, Uterus with eggs; Va, vagina. Scale bar = 200 μm.

Systematics of Uteropolystomoides, a monotypic genus infecting Pseudemys spp.

Measurements obtained from the 10 polystomes collected from Pseudemys nelsoni (Table 5, column 1) and the 10 collected from P. concinna (Table 5, column 2), showed an overlap indicating that all specimens belong to a single species. We therefore combined the measurements from the two polystome samples into a single set of data with their range, mean, and standard deviation (Table 5, column 3).

Table 5

Relative placement of some organs as % measurements from anterior end and average body measurements in micrometer for polystomes collected from Pseudemys nelsoni Carr, originally regarded as Uteropolystomoides nelsoni (Du Preez & Van Rooyen 2015) and from Pseudemys concinna (Le Conte), originally regarded as Polystomoides stunkardi Harwood, 1931. The fourth column combines measurements obtained from both samples. Measurements are presented as the range followed in parenthesis by the mean, standard deviation, and sample size.

In the molecular study, we obtained 55 COI sequences including 16 new haplotypes (H145 to H160) and 13 28S sequences including two new haplotypes (Hnuc36 and Hnuc37). The resulting Bayesian consensus trees for COI and 28S are depicted in Figures 3 and 4, respectively. The COI tree shows 12 well-resolved lineages that each likely reflect a distinct parasite species. All COI haplotypes characterizing polystomes of Pseudemys spp. cluster in a single clade being strongly supported by Bayesian posterior probabilities. The 28S tree also shows 12 well-differentiated species, including U. nelsoni (Hnuc20) which shares the same haplotype with polystomes collected from P. concinna and P. floridana (see Table 3).

thumbnail Figure 3

Bayesian tree inferred from the analysis of COI sequences. Numbers at nodes indicate Bayesian Posterior Probabilities (BPP). Only BPP ≫ 0.95 are indicated. Scale bar reflects expected changes per site. * designates haplotypes characterizing specimens of Polystomoides multifalx (Stunkard, 1924) that were, for some of them, collected from Pseudemys concinna (Le Conte), for the others, from P. floridana (Le Conte) (see Table 3 for more details).

thumbnail Figure 4

Bayesian tree inferred from the analysis of 28S sequences. Numbers at nodes indicate Bayesian Posterior Probabilities (BPP). Only BPP ≫ 0.95 are indicated. Scale bar reflects expected changes per site. * designates Hnuc20 haplotype that also characterizes specimens of Polystomoides multifalx (Stunkard, 1924) (see Table 3 for more details).

The Kimura-2 parameter distances for COI vary from 0.003 to 0.016 within polystomes collected from Pseudemys nelsoni (H43), P. concinna (H145 to H148), and P. floridana (H145, H147). The distance, however, varies from 0.110 to 0.180 between these parasites and their closest relatives. Additionally, a single 28S haplotype (Hnuc20) was reported for all polystomes collected from Pseudemys spp. That haplotype has seven mutations that differ from Hnuc6, Hnuc7, and Hnuc 21, which characterize P. oris Paul, 1938, P. soredensis Héritier, Verneau, Smith, Coetzer & Du Preez, 2018, and P. scriptanus Héritier, Verneau, Smith, Coetzer & Du Preez, 2018, respectively. On the contrary, two differences were observed in the 28S between P. scriptanus and Polystomoides sp2 of Trachemys scripta (Thunberg), between P. oris and P. soredensis and between P. ocellatum (Rudolphi, 1819) and Polystomoides sp1 of Emys orbicularis (Linnaeus). According to the threshold designed by Héritier et al. [12] within chelonian polystomes, that was set to 3.4% of COI genetic divergence, and to the high degree of 28S divergence between Hnuc20 and Hnuc19 (14 mutations), which characterizes the sister species of U. nelsoni, we suggest that all specimens collected from Pseudemys spp. belong to the same polystome species. This conclusion is strengthened by the existence of the same 28S haplotype within those polystomes.

Discussion

Systematics revision of Polystomoides

All the Neopolystoma, Polystomoides, and Uteropolystomoides spp. show similar morphology with vaginae that are peripheral and extend well beyond the intestine. Though this morphological characteristic is also found within Fornixtrema and some species of Uropolystomoides, Fornixtrema differs from these species by the shape of the egg and infection site, i.e. the conjunctival sacs, while Uropolystomoides differs by the shape of its first pair of hamuli. For these reasons, we propose the generic name Polystomoides for the entire clade after excluding Uteropolystomoides (see below). According to the principle of priority in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, article 23 [16], Polystomoides has priority over Neopolystoma. As a result, we reassign nine species, previously attributed to Neopolystoma, to Polystomoides, and propose the following new combinations, namely P. aspidonectis (MacCallum, 1918) n. comb., P. cayensis (Du Preez, Badets, Héritier & Verneau, 2017) n. comb., P. cyclovitellum (Caballero, Zerecero & Grocott, 1956) n. comb., P. domitilae (Caballero, 1938) n. comb., P. euzeti (Combes & Ktari, 1976) n. comb., P. exhamatum (Ozaki, 1935) n. comb., P. orbiculare (Stunkard, 1916) n. comb., P. rugosa (MacCallum, 1918) n. comb., and P. terrapenis (Harwood, 1932) n. comb. It did not escape our attention that the type-species of Neopolystoma, Neopolystoma orbiculare (Stunkard, 1916), was nested in the clade (see Du Preez and Verneau [8]) but not the type-species of Polystomoides, i.e. Polystomoides coronatum (Leidy, 1888). Unfortunately, we could not sample the latter species because the identity of its type-host was fueled by ambiguity (see below). Nevertheless, in our estimation, based on the information available at present, P. coronatum should be attributed to this clade.

Polystomoides was originally created as a subgenus of Polystoma Zeder, 1800 by Ward [46] who designated Polystoma coronatum Leidy, 1888 as the type species. Ward (1917) based his subgenus chiefly on the presence of “a short uterus containing only a single egg”. Subsequently, Polystomoides was raised to the genus rank by Ozaki [32]. From 1939 until recently, the generic circumscription of Polystomoides was altered several times, and several species of Polystomoides were transferred to Neopolystoma, Uropolystomoides, Uteropolystomoides, and Manotrema on the basis of one character or a combination of characters [7, 36, 42, 43]. The type-species of Polystomoides, P. coronatum, was originally described by Leidy (1888) from a North American host turtle whose identity, “a common food terrapin”, was vague. Leidy [21] described it poorly and did not include any figures. Polystomoides coronatum was redescribed thoroughly and figured by Stunkard [39] from its type-specimen (No. USNM 1315426) and allegedly collected (quoting Stunkard) from Emys palustris Leidy, 1887 (now Trachemys terrapen (Bonnaterre, 1789)) and Emys rugosa Duméril & Bibron, 1835 (now Trachemys decussata (Gray, 1831)) (Stunkard, 1917). The genus Polystomoides, as redefined herein, groups only polystomes infecting either the oral cavity or the urinary bladder of cryptodires, with or without two pairs of small hamuli and some peripheral vaginae.

Uteropolystomoides, a valid taxon?

Uteropolystomoides, as its generic name indicates, is characterized by the possession of a uterus containing a few eggs (up to 12 eggs in the present study). This feature was not found in Polystomoides or any other chelonian polystomes which possess an oötype where a single egg is often retained. The uterus is sacciform and pre-ovarian. Based on the phylogenetic relationship of polystomes infecting anurans, it was shown that Polystoma, the most widespread polystome genus, could represent a polyphyletic group, including a subgroup of species infecting specifically Asian frogs of India, China and Japan [1, 44]. By investigating the morphology of these species more in depth, Chaabane et al. [6] found some specific characters of these taxa that were used for describing a new genus, i.e. Indopolystoma, Chaabane, Verneau & Du Preez 2019 within the Polystomatidae. On the contrary, given the phylogenetic position of Metapolystoma which is nested within Polystoma, Bentz et al. [2] considered that Metapolystoma might be not valid. However, based on the morphology and life cycle of the monophyletic Metapolystoma, Landman et al. [20] concluded that this genus should be kept as a valid taxon within the Polystomatidae. Although we follow a cladistic approach in general to name groups and although Uteropolystomoides is nested in the Polystomoides clade, we propose to retain Uteropolystomoides as a valid genus based on its unique morphological characteristics.

Revision of Uteropolystomoides outlines

Polystomoides multifalx, originally described as Polystoma multifalx Stunkard, 1924 from the pharyngeal region of Pseudemys floridana from central Florida (USA), was the first chelonian polystome known to have a huge genital bulb bearing numerous long spines in excess of 100 (120–124) [40]. Stunkard [40] mentioned that the number of genital spines of this species was three times greater than in any other known polystomes at the time. Based on samples from the mouth of Pseudemys hieroglyphica Boulenger (now Pseudemys concinna) from Oklahoma (USA), Harwood [10] distinguished Polystomoides stunkardi Harwood, 1931 from P. multifalx by the fewer genital spines, the smaller size of the genital bulb and testis, and the arrangement of haptoral suckers. From a morphological comparison between a set of specimens collected by Mr. Macintosh from P. floridana from southern Florida and vouchers of P. stunkardi from P. concinna from Oklahoma, Price [36] proposed the conspecificity of P. stunkardi with P. multifalx. However, Tinsley [42] concluded that U. nelsoni, P. multifalx, and P. stunkardi may form a coherent group of apparently related species. Based on morphological observations and measurements of samples collected from P. concinna and P. nelsoni (Table 5), we were unable to distinguish polystomes collected from both host species. Moreover, the genetic data indicated that polystome samples collected from the three distinct host species, namely P. concinna, P. floridana, and P. nelsoni, belong to the same polystome species. We therefore agree with Price [36], and consider that the specimens collected from P. concinna from the Ichetucknee River of Florida and those collected from P. nelsoni are conspecific with P. multifalx. We thus propose to consider a single species, namely Uteropolystomoides multifalx (Stunkard, 1924) n. comb. in the genus Uteropolystomoides and provide below a supplementary description for the new type species.

Supplementary description of Uteropolystomoides multifalx n. comb.

Synonyms: Polystoma multifalx Stunkard, 1924; Polystomoides multifalx (Stunkard, 1924); Polystoma stunkardi Harwood, 1931; Polystomoides stunkardi (Harwood, 1931); Polystomoides nelsoni Du Preez & Van Rooyen, 2015; Uteropolystomoides nelsoni (Du Preez & Van Rooyen, 2015).

Taxonomy: Monogenea Bychowsky, 1937. Polystomatidae Gamble, 1896. Polystomoidinae Yamaguti, 1963.

Type-host and locality: Pseudemys floridana (Leconte, 1830) from central Florida, USA [40].

Other records: Pseudemys concinna (Leconte, 1830) from Oklahoma, USA [10]; Pseudemys concinna from southern Florida, USA [36] (based on the reported geographical distribution, this should be P. floridana); Pseudemys concinna from the Ichetucknee River in Ichetucknee Springs State Park of Florida, USA. Pseudemys nelsoni Carr, 1938 from Gainesville, Florida, USA.

Infection site: Oral cavity.

Measurements (in micrometres): Body elongated and ellipsoid (Fig. 5A), dorsoventrally flat, 4730–10,691 (6743) long, 1761–3058 (2449) wide at vaginae, which is the widest point; position of vaginae 28–38% (32%) of total length measured from anterior end; body 2.2–3.9 (2.8) times longer than wide. Mouth surrounded by sub-ventral false oral sucker 684–1281 (962) in diameter. Pharynx 417–676 (554) long, 619–959 (783) wide. Intestine bifurcate with no diverticulae and no anastomoses extending full length of body proper, not entering the haptor and not confluent posteriorly. Posterior haptor 1130–2043 (1459) long, 1409–2657 (2026) wide, 16–26% (22%) of body length, bearing three pairs of cup-shaped haptoral suckers equal in diameter 343–477 (419), supported by a ring of well-developed skeletal elements. Ovary 131–350 (233) long, 70–192 (124) wide, elongate, not lobed, positioned pretesticular. Mehlis’ glands large, surrounding the base of the oötype. Uterus, spherical sac like, containing up to 12 ovoid, operculate eggs. Of the 19 specimens, five had no eggs, four had 1, one had 2, two had 3, two had 4, two had 6, one had 7, one had 8 and two had 12. Eggs 137–269 (232) long, 137–193 (169) wide. No intra-uterine development. Two lateral vaginae at the level of the ovary very prominent and big, 353–860 (565) long, bearing multiple marginal openings formed by branching vaginal canal. Vitellaria extended throughout most of body, except the ovary, uterus and genital bulb, and not entering the haptor. Stretching in between haptoral suckers, surrounding the female reproductive organs. Genito-intestinal canal, posterior to ovary. Testis 342–892 (545) long, 425–778 (632) wide, spherical, dense equatorial to post-equatorial. Vas deferens widens anteriorly to form the semen vesicle, narrowing towards genital bulb, opening in common genital opening. Genital pore opening ventral, directly posterior to intestinal ceca bifurcation, situated 18–24% (21%) of total length from most anterior point, genital bulb muscular, very big 438–847 (650) in diameter, surrounded by glandular cells, armed with a genital crown with 118–136 (125) genital spines (Fig. 5B), 83–98 (93) long. Two pairs of small hamuli (Fig. 5C) between posterior–most haptoral suckers with deep cut between handle and guard, handle 105–175 (137) long; guard 86–167 (121) long; hook 59–86 (70) long. Marginal hooklets placed as for other polystomes: pairs one and two between hamuli, marginal hooklet pairs three to five embedded in suckers, pairs six to eight between anterior suckers. Marginal hooklet pairs one 25–30 (28) long and hooklet pairs two to eight 24–29 (27) long.

thumbnail Figure 5

Uteropolystomoides multifalx n. comb. (Stunkard, 1924). A: Full parasite; B: Genital bulb with genital spines; C: Sclerotized haptoral hooks. Abbreviations: Gb, genital bulb; Ha, haptor; Hm, hamulus; Hm1, hamulus 1; Hm2, hamulus 2; Mh1, marginal hooklet 1; Mo, mouth; Ph, pharynx; Su, sucker; Te, testis; Ut, Uterus with eggs; Va, vagina; Vi, vitellarium. Scale bars: A = 500 μm; B = 200 μm; C = 50 μm.

Conclusion

Following our investigations on morphological and molecular characters on the one hand, and based on the most updated phylogeny of polystomes infecting turtles on the other [8], we now consider nine genera within chelonian polystomes. According to the literature related to the taxonomy and systematics of polystomes, Apaloneotrema is a monotypic genus which infects the conjunctival sacs of cryptodire restricted to the Nearctic realm; Aussietrema comprises four species infecting the conjunctival sacs of pleurodires restricted to the Australian realm; Fornixtrema comprises seven species infecting the conjunctival sacs of cryptodires of the Indomalayan, Nearctic, Neotropical and Palearctic realms; Manotrema comprises three species infecting the urinary bladder of pleurodires restricted to the Neotropical realm; Pleurodirotrema comprises four species infecting the urinary bladder and the oral cavity of pleurodires restricted to the Australian realm; Polystomoidella comprises three species infecting the urinary bladder of cryptodires restricted to the Nearctic realm; Polystomoides comprises 29 species infecting the urinary bladder and the oral cavity of cryptodires distributed in the Nearctic, Neotropical and Palearctic realms; Uropolystomoides comprises 13 species infecting the urinary bladder of both pleurodires and cryptodires that are distributed in the Ethiopian and Australian realms, respectively on the one hand and in the Indomalayan realm on the other; Uteropolystomoides is a monotypic genus which infects the oral cavity of cryptodires restricted in the Nearctic realm. Regarding the distribution of polystome genera across chelonians and geographical areas, all genera with the exception of Uropolystomoides are restricted to a single group of turtles (pleurodires versus cryptodires), and usually found in a single or a few biogeographic realms. If future studies on the morphology of Uropolystomoides spp. split polystomes infecting pleurodires from those infecting cryptodires [7], it could demonstrate a correlation between historical biogeography of pleurodires and cryptodires and the diversification of polystomes. This deserves to be studied more in depth from a phylogeny including a larger sampling of species collected from all genera and ecozones.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

We thank Jamie Casteel and Jeremy Geiger for their assistance during fieldwork in Florida, Paul Moler for providing road-killed specimens and Annemarie Ohler (MNHN, Paris, France) who kindly provided advice concerning the ICZN. We also thank two reviewers and the editor for their valuable comments.

References

  1. Badets M, Whittington I, Lalubin F, Allienne J-F, Maspimby J-L, Bentz S, Du Preez LH, Hasegawa H, Tandon V, Imkongwapang R, Ohler A, Combes C, Verneau O. 2011. Correlating early evolution of parasitic platyhelminths to Gondwana breakup. Systematic Biology, 60, 762–781. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bentz S, Leroy S, Du Preez L, Mariaux J, Vaucher C, Verneau O. 2001. Origin and evolution of African Polystoma (Monogenea: Polystomatidae) assessed by molecular methods. International Journal for Parasitology, 31, 697–705. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Boeger WA, Kritsky DC. 1993. Phylogeny, coevolution and a revised classification of the Monogenoidea Bychowsky, 1937 (Platyhelminthes). Systematic Parasitology, 26, 1–32. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. Boeger WA, Kritsky DC. 1997. Coevolution of the Monogenoidea (Platyhelminthes) based on a revised hypothesis of parasite phylogeny. International Journal for Parasitology, 27, 1495–1511. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Boeger WA, Kritsky DC. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships of the Monogenoidea, in Interrelationships of the Platyhelminthes. Littlewood DTJ, Bray RA, Editors. Taylor & Francis Inc.: New York. p. 92–102. [Google Scholar]
  6. Chaabane A, Verneau O, Du Preez L. 2019. Indopolystoma n. gen. (Monogenea, Polystomatidae) with the description of three new species and reassignment of eight known Polystoma species from Asian frogs (Anura, Rhacophoridae). Parasite, 26, 67. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Du Preez L, Domingues MV, Verneau O. 2022. Classification of pleurodire polystomes (Platyhelminthes, Monogenea, Polystomatidae) revisited with the description of two new genera from the Australian and Neotropical Realms. International Journal for Parasitology: Parasites and Wildlife, 19, 180–186. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. Du Preez LH, Verneau O. 2020. Eye to eye: classification of conjunctival sac polystomes (Monogenea: Polystomatidae) revisited with the description of three new genera Apaloneotrema n. g., Aussietrema n. g. and Fornixtrema n. g. Parasitology Research, 119, 4017–4031. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Fletcher AS, Whittington ID. 1998. A parasite-host checklist for Monogenea from freshwater fishes in Australia, with comments on biodiversity. Systematic Parasitology, 41, 159–168. [Google Scholar]
  10. Harwood PD. 1931. Some parasites of Oklahoma turtles. Journal of Parasitology, 18, 98–101. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. Héritier L, Badets M, Du Preez LH, Aisien MS, Lixian F, Combes C, Verneau O. 2015. Evolutionary processes involved in the diversification of chelonian and mammal polystomatid parasites (Platyhelminthes, Monogenea, Polystomatidae) revealed by palaeoecology of their hosts. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 92, 1–10. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Héritier L, Valdeón A, Sadaoui A, Gendre T, Ficheux S, Bouamer S, Kechemir-Issad N, Du Preez L, Palacios C, Verneau O. 2017. Introduction and invasion of the red-eared slider and its parasites in freshwater ecosystems of Southern Europe: risk assessment for the European pond turtle in wild environments. Biodiversity and Conservation, 26, 1817–1843. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. Héritier L, Verneau O, Smith KG, Coetzer C, Du Preez LH. 2018. Demonstrating the value and importance of combining DNA barcodes and discriminant morphological characters for polystome taxonomy (Platyhelminthes, Monogenea). Parasitology International, 67, 38–46. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Huelsenbeck JP, Ronquist F. 2001. MRBAYES: Bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics, 17, 754–755. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Humason GL. 1979. Animal tissue techniques (4th edn). WH Freeman: San Francisco. [Google Scholar]
  16. ICZN. 1999. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (4th edn.). The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature: London. p. 306. [Google Scholar]
  17. Kimura M. 1980. A simple method for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. Journal of Molecular Evolution, 16, 111–120. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Knoepffler L-P, Combes C. 1977. Présence en Corse de Polystomoides ocellatum (Rudolphi, 1819) chez Emys orbicularis (L., 1758) (Chelonia, Emydidae). Considérations sur la répartition mondiale du genre Polystomoides. Vie & Milieu, Série C, 27, 221–230. [Google Scholar]
  19. Kumar S, Stecher G, Tamura K. 2016. MEGA7: Molecular evolutionary genetic analysis version 7.0 for bigger datasets. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 33, 1870–1874. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Landman W, Verneau O, Vences M, Du Preez L. submitted. Metapolystoma ohleranum n. sp. (Monogenea: Polystomatidae) from the Madagascan Jumping Frog Aglyptodactylus madagascariensis (Anura: Mantellidae). Acta Parasitologica. [Google Scholar]
  21. Leidy J. 1888. Entozoa of the terrapin. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 18, 127–128. [Google Scholar]
  22. Littlewood DTJ, Rohde K, Clough KA. 1997. Parasite speciation within or between host species? Phylogenetic evidence from site-specific polystome monogeneans. International Journal for Parasitology, 27, 1289–1297. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Littlewood DTJ, Cribb TH, Olson PD, Bray RA. 2001. Platyhelminth phylogenetics – a key to understanding parasitism? Belgian Journal of Zoology, 131, 35–46. [Google Scholar]
  24. Littlewood DTJ, Rohde K, Clough KA. 1998. The phylogenetic position of Udonella (Platyhelminthes). International Journal for Parasitology, 28, 1241–1250. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Littlewood DTJ, Rohde K, Bray RA, Herniou EA. 1999. Phylogeny of the Platyhelminthes and the evolution of parasitism. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 68, 257–287. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  26. Littlewood DTJ, Rohde K, Clough KA. 1999. The interrelationships of all major groups of Platyhelminthes: phylogenetic evidence from morphology and molecules. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 66, 75–114. [Google Scholar]
  27. Lockyer AE, Olson PD, Littlewood DTJ. 2003. Utility of complete large and small subunit rRNA genes in resolving the phylogeny of the Platyhelminthes: implications and a review of the Cercomer theory. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 78, 155–171. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  28. Meyer L, Du Preez L, Bonneau E, Héritier L, Quintana MF, Valdeón A, Sadaoui A, Kechemir-Issad N, Palacios C, Verneau O. 2015. Parasite host-switching from the invasive American red-eared slider, Trachemys scripta elegans, to the native Mediterranean pond turtle, Mauremys leprosa, in natural environments. Aquatic Invasions, 10, 79–91. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  29. Mollaret I, Jamieson BGM, Adlard RD, Hugall A, Lecointre G, Chombard C, Justine J-L. 1997. Phylogenetic analysis of the Monogenea and their relationships with Digenea and Eucestoda inferred from 28S rDNA sequences. Molecular and Biochemical Parasitology, 90, 433–438. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Morrison C, Du Preez L. 2011. Turtle polystomes of the world. Neopolystoma, Polystomoidella & Polystomoides. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Muller. [Google Scholar]
  31. Olson PD, Littlewood DTJ. 2002. Phylogenetics of the Monogenea – evidence from a medley of molecules. International Journal for Parasitology, 32, 233–244. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Ozaki Y. 1935. Studies on the frog – trematode Diplorchis ranae. I. Morphology of the adult form with review of the family Polystomatidae. Journal of Science of the Hiroshima University, 3, 193–223. [Google Scholar]
  33. Page RDM. 1996. Tree View: an application to display phylogenetic trees on personal computers. Bioinformatics, 12, 357–358. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  34. Perkins EM, Donnellan SC, Bertozzi T, Whittington ID. 2010. Closing the mitochondrial circle on paraphyly of the Monogenea (Platyhelminthes) infers evolution in the diet of parasitic flatworms. International Journal for Parasitology, 40, 1237–1245. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Posada D, Crandall KA. 1998. Modeltest: testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics, 14, 817–818. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Price EW. 1939. North American monogenetic trematodes. IV. The family Polystomatidae (Polystomatoidea). Proceedings of the Helminthological Society of Washington, 6, 80–92. [Google Scholar]
  37. Sinnappah ND, Lim LHS, Rohde K, Tinsley R, Combes C, Verneau O. 2001. A paedomorphic parasite associated with a neotenic amphibian host: phylogenetic evidence suggests a revised systematic position for Sphyranuridae within anuran and turtle polystomatoineans. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 18, 189–201. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Strelkov YA. 1950. New species of monogenetic trematode of the far-east tortoise Amyda sinensis. Docklladi Akademii Nauk SSSR, 74, 159–162 (in Russian). [Google Scholar]
  39. Stunkard HW. 1917. Studies on North American Polystomidae, Aspidogastridae, and Paramphistomidae. Illinois Biological Monographs, 3, 3. [Google Scholar]
  40. Stunkard HW. 1924. On some trematodes from Florida turtles. Transactions of the American Microscopical Society, 43, 97–117. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  41. Thompson JD, Higgins DG, Gibson TJ. 1994. CLUSTALW: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Research, 22, 4673–4680. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Tinsley RC. 2017. Reproductive innovation and the recognition of a new genus within the Polystomatidae (Monogenea) infecting chelonian vertebrates. Folia Parasitologica, 64, 017. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  43. Tinsley RC, Tinsley MC. 2016. Tracing ancient evolutionary divergence in parasites. Parasitology, 143, 1902–1916. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Verneau O, Du Preez LH, Laurent VR, Raharivololoniaina L, Glaw F, Vences M. 2009. The double odyssey of Madagascan polystome flatworms leads to new insights on the origins of their amphibian hosts. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276, 1575–1583. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Verneau O, Palacios C, Platt T, Alday M, Billard E, Allienne J-F, Basso C, Du Preez LH. 2011. Invasive parasite threat: parasite phylogenetics reveals patterns and processes of host-switching between non-native and native captive freshwater turtles. Parasitology, 138, 1778–1792. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Ward HB. 1917. On the structure and classification of North American parasitic worms. The Journal of Parasitology, 4, 1–11. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  47. Whittington ID. 1998. Diversity “down under” monogeneans in the Antipodes (Australia) with a prediction of monogenean biodiversity worldwide. International Journal for Parasitology, 28, 1481–1493. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Cite this article as: Chaabane A, Du Preez L, Johnston G & Verneau O. 2022. Revision of the systematics of the Polystomoidinae (Platyhelminthes, Monogenea, Polystomatidae) with redefinition of Polystomoides Ward, 1917 and Uteropolystomoides Tinsley, 2017. Parasite 29, 56.

All Tables

Table 1

List of North American turtle species investigated for polystomes in 2018–2019, with sampling localities and their GPS coordinates, prevalence of infection, infection site of polystomes, and total number of worms collected.

In the text
Table 2

List of polystome species examined by microscopy with their host species, geographical area, infection site and accession numbers.

In the text
Table 3

List of turtle specimens collected in the USA in 2018 from which polystome worms and/or eggs were investigated for partial COI and 28S.

In the text
Table 4

List of polystome species retrieved from GenBank and investigated by phylogenetic analysis with references to their COI and 28S haplotypes, 28S GenBank accession numbers, and bibliographic sources.

In the text
Table 5

Relative placement of some organs as % measurements from anterior end and average body measurements in micrometer for polystomes collected from Pseudemys nelsoni Carr, originally regarded as Uteropolystomoides nelsoni (Du Preez & Van Rooyen 2015) and from Pseudemys concinna (Le Conte), originally regarded as Polystomoides stunkardi Harwood, 1931. The fourth column combines measurements obtained from both samples. Measurements are presented as the range followed in parenthesis by the mean, standard deviation, and sample size.

In the text

All Figures

thumbnail Figure 1

A: Non-lethal procedure for retrieving a polystome from the pharyngeal pouches of a freshwater turtle; B: polystome collected on wooden stem cotton swab.
In the text
thumbnail Figure 2

Micrograph of the reproductive system of Polystomoides multifalx (Stunkard, 1924). Abbreviations: Gb, genital bulb; Te, testis; Ut, Uterus with eggs; Va, vagina. Scale bar = 200 μm.
In the text
thumbnail Figure 3

Bayesian tree inferred from the analysis of COI sequences. Numbers at nodes indicate Bayesian Posterior Probabilities (BPP). Only BPP ≫ 0.95 are indicated. Scale bar reflects expected changes per site. * designates haplotypes characterizing specimens of Polystomoides multifalx (Stunkard, 1924) that were, for some of them, collected from Pseudemys concinna (Le Conte), for the others, from P. floridana (Le Conte) (see Table 3 for more details).
In the text
thumbnail Figure 4

Bayesian tree inferred from the analysis of 28S sequences. Numbers at nodes indicate Bayesian Posterior Probabilities (BPP). Only BPP ≫ 0.95 are indicated. Scale bar reflects expected changes per site. * designates Hnuc20 haplotype that also characterizes specimens of Polystomoides multifalx (Stunkard, 1924) (see Table 3 for more details).
In the text
thumbnail Figure 5

Uteropolystomoides multifalx n. comb. (Stunkard, 1924). A: Full parasite; B: Genital bulb with genital spines; C: Sclerotized haptoral hooks. Abbreviations: Gb, genital bulb; Ha, haptor; Hm, hamulus; Hm1, hamulus 1; Hm2, hamulus 2; Mh1, marginal hooklet 1; Mo, mouth; Ph, pharynx; Su, sucker; Te, testis; Ut, Uterus with eggs; Va, vagina; Vi, vitellarium. Scale bars: A = 500 μm; B = 200 μm; C = 50 μm.
In the text

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.