EDP Sciences logo
Submit your paper
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 30 (2023) Parasite, 30 (2023) 20 Full HTML
Open Access
Issue
Parasite
Volume 30, 2023
Article Number 20
Number of page(s) 14
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/parasite/2023022
Published online 06 June 2023

© J. Huang et al., published by EDP Sciences, 2023

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

Monogeneans assigned to the Diplozoidae Palombi, 1949 are blood-feeding ectoparasites that live almost entirely on the gills of freshwater cyprinid fish in Asia, Africa, and Europe [6, 40, 50]. They are a specific group with an unusual life strategy wherein two immature individuals (diporpa) permanently fuse to form an X-shaped sexually mature adult [3]. They fuse their organ tissues such as muscle, nervous, digestive or reproductive, with the vitellaria and most of the intestine in the anterior part of the body, and the reproductive organs and terminal part of the gut in the posterior part of body [56]. The haptor (attachment apparatus) of the adult has four pairs of clamps in two rows and a pair of small central hooks on the ventral side near the first pair of clamps.

Nowadays, the Diplozoidae are divided into two subfamilies: the Diplozoinae Palombi, 1949, and the Neodiplozoinae Khotenovsky, 1980 [25]. The Diplozoinae have five genera (Diplozoon von Nordmann, 1832; Eudiplozoon Khotenovsky, 1984; Inustiatus Khotenovsky, 1978; Paradiplozoon Akhmerov, 1974 and Sindiplozoon Khotenovsky, 1981), and the Neodiplozoinae have two genera (Afrodiplozoon Khotenovsky, 1981 and Neodiplozoon Tripathi, 1960) [25]. More than 70 diplozoid species have been reported worldwide, with 37 of them found in China: one species of Diplozoon, 26 species of Paradiplozoon, two species of Inustiatus, one species of Eudiplozoon, and seven species of Sindiplozoon [2, 5, 8, 13, 49, 50].

Diplozoidae taxonomy is heavily reliant on sclerite construction analysis. These parasites lack sclerotised genitalia and only possess sclerites in their haptor. Their clamps are comprised of a posterior and an anterior jaw that are joined to a median plate by anterior and posterior joining sclerites [25, 39]. These clamps are morphologically distinct and can be used to identify species [7, 44]. However, it has been verified that the measurements of clamps exhibit a relatively high degree of intraspecific variability with different hosts, water temperatures, developmental stage, and geographical origin of parasites [32, 33]. Furthermore, a two-dimensional perspective obtained from conventional light microscopy may result in obscuration of some intricate sclerites that are not perfectly flat or overlapping. Sub-optimal fixing, mounting, and staining protocols add to the difficulties. Therefore, diplozoid species determination based solely on morphological parameters is insufficient.

The importance of combining accurate morphological analysis with molecular analysis is always emphasized as the primary means of identifying diplozoid species [11, 21, 22]. Unfortunately, most of the previous publications lacked representative sequence data, as well as some detailed morphological descriptions. The ITS2 region has been successfully used to distinguish diplozoid species [10, 30, 31, 46], but it seems neither to provide the best resolution for very closely related species complexes nor to be suitable to infer phylogenies for far distantly related species. However, the vast bulk of diplozoid sequence data currently available was generated for the ITS2 fragment.

Most diplozoid species were previously thought to be strictly host specific, with the parasite often pre-determined based on the fish species [19, 25]. However, detailed surveys and molecular analyses revealed that diplozoids have a wider host range than originally believed [6, 15, 46]. Moreover, in case of cyprinids, the correct identification of the fish host is challenged by dimorphisms, geographic variation, as well as hybridisation [43, 51]. To avoid incorrect host identification, molecular data on the host are critical but often overlooked.

The Pearl River is the longest river in south China, with a length of over 2,000 km. It is composed of three separate river systems: the Xi River (originating from the Yunnan-Guizhou Plateau), the Bei River, and the Dong River (both originating from Jiangxi Province). These three rivers meet in Guangzhou, and then flows into the South China Sea. The Pearl River system contains 296 fish species from 17 orders, 45 families, and 156 genera [9]. Cyprinidae account for 146 of these fish species.

Our team has recently investigated the species diversity of monogeneans in the Pearl River system, where the diversity of their potential hosts (cyprinoids) is the highest in China. We collected some representatives of the Diplozoidae specimens, including an undescribed one from the gills of mud carp, Cirrhinus molitorella. The host is a freshwater cyprinid native to Asia, with distribution in the Mekong River (Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia), Chao Phraya River (Thailand), Red River (Vietnam), and the Pearl River (China) [36]. This article focuses on the new species’ description and phylogenetic position. Consequently, we provide not only drawings but also photographs of some valued structures of the new species, as well as ITS2 sequences from five species that include this new species.

Materials and methods

Sample collection

The host fish, Cirrhinus molitorella, were captured in March, April, and June 2015 from the Xijiang River in Wuzhou (111°35′ E, 23°46′ N) of Guangxi Province, and in July and November 2021 from the Liuxihe River in Guangzhou (113°59′–113°71′ E, 23°54′–23°69′ N) of Guangdong Province. The gills were removed from each fish and examined under a microscope for the presence of diplozoids. From 56 host fish, 16 paired adult worms were collected. All worms were gently removed and washed in double-distilled water before being preserved. Nine paired worms were fixed in 70% alcohol for staining, and two paired worms were mounted directly in Berlese’s fluid [55]. The anterior soft parts of five paired worms were preserved in 95% alcohol for DNA extraction, and the posterior haptor parts were separately mounted in Berlese’s fluid or GAP for morphometric analysis [29].

Morphological methods

Diplozoid parasites preserved in 70% ethanol were stained with acetic carmine, differentiated using HCl in 30% ethanol, dehydrated in graded ethanol series (50%, 70%, 80%, 90%, 95% and 100%), cleared in clove oil, and mounted in Canada balsam [17]. An Olympus BX51 microscope (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan) was used to examine and photograph the specimens. The illustrations were created using an Olympus BX51 microscope’ drawing apparatus and then processed on a computer using Photoshop CS4.0 (Adobe, San Jose, CA, USA). Olympus DP22 software was used to take measurements. Measurements are in micrometres (mm) and are shown as the mean followed by the range and the number of measured specimens in parentheses. The haptoral terminology used herein follows Pečínková et al. [38].

Molecular methods

Total genomic DNA was extracted and purified using a TIANamp Marine Animal DNA Kit (Tiangen Biotech, Beijing, China), as directed by the manufacturer. The ITS2 rDNA was amplified using universal primers of eukaryotes: D (5′–GGC TYR YGG NGT CGA TGA AGA ACG CAG–3′) and B1 (5′–GCC GGA TCC GAA TCC TGG TTA GTT TCT TTT CCT–3′) [4]. Each PCR amplification was carried out in a 50 μL volume containing 25 μL Master Mix (Takara Bio Inc., Kusatsu, Japan), 2 μL genomic DNA (~100 ng), 2 μL of each primer at 10 μM, and 19 μL double-distilled water. Pre-denaturation at 95 °C for 5 min was followed by 35 cycles of 95 °C for 30 s, 55 °C for 30 s, 72 °C for 1 min, and a final extension at 72 °C for 10 min. PCR products were validated by 1% agarose gel electrophoresis and purified using an E.Z.N.A Gel Extraction Kit (Omega Bio-tek, Norcross, GA, USA), according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Purified products were directly sequenced using the PCR primers by the Sangon Biotech Company (Shanghai, China). The sequences were assembled and edited using DNAMAN 7.0 before being compared to the GenBank database content with BLAST.

Trees and distances

The data obtained for this study and data from GenBank made up the final datasets. Table 1 contains details on these diplozoid sequences. With the aid of several plug-in programs, PhyloSuite was utilised to extract data and perform phylogenetic analysis [54]. Sequences were aligned with MAFFT in PhyloSuite under the G-INS-i iterative refinement algorithm, and removed ambiguously aligned fragments [24]. ModelFinder was used to select the best-fit model using BIC criterion [23]. By using the maximum likelihood method (ML) and Bayesian inference (BI), phylogenetic trees were created with a sequence of Cemocotyle carangis Sproston, 1946 as the outgroup. The ML tree was inferred using IQ-TREE under the GTR + G4 + F model for 5000 ultrafast bootstraps [34, 35]. MrBayes 3.2.6 was used to infer the BI tree under GTR + G4 + F model [41], and analyses were performed with 1 million Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) generations for four chains and samples every 100 generations, with the first 25% of trees being eliminated as a relative burn-in period after ensuring that the standard deviation split frequency was less than 0.01. Sequence divergences were estimated in MEGA7.0 using the p-distance model [26]. Finally, the trees were embellished on the Itol website after the parasite geographical distributions and host lineages were mapped on to the BI tree and ML tree, respectively [27]. The cyprinoid families are those defined by Tan et al. [47].

Table 1

List of diplozoid species used in phylogenetic analyses, their fish host species, country of collection and GenBank accession numbers for DNA sequences.

Paradiplozoon cirrhini n. sp. (Figs. 1–4)

urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:DAC5F1C0-3955-4D5E-AF2B-7C5C478B0EB0

thumbnail Figure 1

Line drawings of Paradiplozoon cirrhini n. sp. A. Whole worm, ventral view (bs, buccal sucker; p, pharynx; e, esophagus; i, intestine; ld, lateral diverticula; o, ovary; t, testis; h, haptor; c, clamp); B. Clamp in somewhat lateral view (amp, anterior end of the median plate; pmp, posterior end of the median plate; mpj, medial sclerite of posterior jaw; lpj, lateral sclerite of posterior jaw; aj, anterior jaw; ajs, anterior joining sclerites; pjs, posterior joining sclerite); C. Clamp in posterior view; D. Clamp in anterior view; E. Central hook; F. Egg.

Type-host: Cirrhinus molitorella (Valenciennes, 1844).

Site of infection: Gills.

Type locality: Xijiang River in Wuzhou (111°35′ E, 23°46′ N) of Guangxi Province in China.

Type material: Holotype (GXWZ. 2015033101), 20 paratypes (GXWZ. 2015033102-09, 2015040101-02, 2015060401, GDGZ. 2021070901-05, 2021110101-04), deposited in the Laboratory of Fish Parasite, College of Life Science, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China. One paratype (MNHN HEL1928), deposited in the Collections of the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris (MNHN).

Etymology: The new species is named after its host.

Description

Two adult individuals display typical X-shape body, divided into fore- and hindbody, with total body length of 2.813 (1.376–6.314, n = 9), tegument smooth. Forebody 1.920 (0.866–4.434, n = 9) long and 0.668 (0.443–1.107, n = 9) wide. Hindbody 0.757 (0.442–1.289, n = 9) long from the fusion area to the end of haptor, no “cup-like” widened area (Figs. 1A, 3A). One pair of buccal suckers elliptical, opening sub-terminal, 0.071 (0.041–0.110, n = 9) × 0.078 (0.044–0.115, n = 9), glandular structures absent (Fig. 1A). Pharynx ovate, immediately near buccal suckers, 0.052 (0.038–0.064, n = 9) × 0.070 (0.058–0.094, n = 9), opening into highly branched intestine (Fig. 1A). Intestine extending through region of reproductive organs and ending near haptor, with prominent lateral diverticula in forebody (Fig. 1A). From posterior to pharynx, to onset of fusion region, anterior region displays large number of vitellaria (Fig. 3B). Reproductive organs located in anterior part of hindbody (Figs. 1A, 3A). Ovary kidney-shape with one elongated projection to link backward curved oviduct (Fig. 3B). Testes two, arranged in front and back (usually front one covered by ovary or intestine), solid and oval-shaped, posterior to ovary (Figs. 1A, 3B). Egg 0.333 (0.327–0.338, n = 2) × 0.151 (0.133–0.170, n = 2) in size, with filament on one end, filament length 1.068 (0.965–1.24, n = 2) (Figs. 1F, 3E).

Haptor disc-like, 0.268 (0.202–0.344, n = 10) × 0.428 (0.308–0.657, n = 10), with four pairs of clamps and one pair of central hooks in each haptor. Clamps of adult worms smaller in size towards posterior end of haptor (Figs. 4a–4e), first clamp (most posterior) 0.060 (0.031–0.105, n = 14) × 0.96 (0.61–0.142, n = 14), second clamp 0.065 (0.033–0.104, n = 15) × 0.120 (0.074–0.187, n = 15), third clamp 0.067 (0.036–0.112, n = 15) × 0.127 (0.083–0.215, n = 15), the fourth clamp 0.073 (0.041–0.119, n = 15) × 0.126 (0.081–0.195, n = 15). Central hook sickle 0.014 (0.011–0.018, n = 6) long, hook handle 0.036 (0.026–0.041, n = 6) long (Figs. 1E, 3D).

Each clamp consists of sclerotised structures: median plate(mp), anterior joining sclerite (ajs), posterior joining sclerite (pjs), anterior jaw (aj), medial sclerite of posterior jaw (mpj), and lateral sclerite of posterior jaw (lpj) (Figs. 1B, 2). Different clamps components can be seen from different viewing angles or focal planes (Fig. 1C vs 1D, Fig. 3F vs 3G). Median plate u-shaped in lateral view (Figs. 2C, 3H), with the bottom expanding outwardly to form a Y-shaped in frontal view (Figs. 2C1–2C2). Anterior end of median plate (amp) rectangular with thick edges and many perforations in central area (Figs. 2C2, 3C). Posterior end of median plate (pmp) narrows and terminates with wide-rounded sclerite with opening (Fig. 2C1). Trapeze spur absent. Two thin anterior joining sclerites (ajs) poorly visible, protruding parallel from edge of median plate to proximal tip of anterior jaw (Figs. 2C2, 3H). Posterior joining sclerite (pjs) consists of u-shaped medial and two slender lateral sclerites with their ends close (Figs. 2C1, 3C). Anterior jaws (aj) typical in shape of big hook, with obvious circular perforation at junction with spur of anterior jaw (saj) (Fig. 2B). The medial sclerite of posterior jaw (mpj) wide and flaky with a weakly visible suture approximately in middle (Fig. 2A).

thumbnail Figure 2

Line drawings of clamp sclerites of Paradiplozoon cirrhini n. sp. A. Medial sclerite of posterior jaw (mpj) and lateral sclerite of posterior jaw (lpj); B. Anterior jaw (aj) with a spur of the anterior jaw (saj); C. Median plate (C1, median plate in posterior view; C2, median plate in anterior view).

thumbnail Figure 3

Photographs of Paradiplozoon cirrhini n. sp. A. Holotype, whole worm (ventral view); B. Reproductive system (te, testis; ov, ovary); C. Clamp in somewhat lateral view; D. Central hook; E. Eggs; F. Clamp sclerites in front view; G. Clamp sclerites in back view; H. Median plate in lateral view.

Differential diagnosis

Paradiplozoon is the most speciose genus of the Diplozoinae, and its clamp structure, particularly the median plate and its outgrowth structure (trapeze spur, anterior or posterior joining sclerites), is considered the most important morphological character for species discrimination [12, 20, 25, 30, 31]. In comparison to related species, this new species differs in the following characteristics. The anterior end of the median plate has numerous continuous perforations that extend almost the entire length of median region. The anterior joining sclerites are small and project parallel from the outer edge of the median plate (the trapeze spur is absent). The posterior joining sclerites consist of two slender lateral sclerites with closely spaced ends, and a u-shaped medial sclerite. The comparison of morphometrics of related Paradiplozoon spp. is shown in Table 2. Although the measurements of the central hook are normally considered to be taxonomically significant, the central hook of this new species overlaps with those of other species.

Table 2

Measurements of Paradiplozoon cirrhini n. sp., and related Paradiplozoon spp.

Molecular analyses

DNA sequences amplified from the ITS2 fragment of three adult worms were generated, and deposited in GenBank under accession numbers ON907642 (806 bp), OQ429337 (809 bp), and OQ429338 (813 bp). All three sequences are highly similar, with only several base variations at opposite ends of the sequence. The BLAST result indicated less than 80% identity with 98%–99% coverage for other Paradiplozoon monogeneans in GenBank, with the highest similarity (78.41%) to P. hemiculteri (DQ098892) and P. diplophyllorchidis (DQ098891). Here we also provide ITS2 sequences for four additional diplozoids species, namely P. megalobramae (ON907643), P. saurogobionis (ON907644), S. hunanensis (ON907645) and Sindiplozoon sp. (ON907646).

Representative sequences of 35 other diplozoids were selected from either different geographical regions or phylogenetically divergent host species. After aligning the data, the final dataset contained 656 positions, including 168 bp conserved sites, 488 bp variable sites, and 417 bp parsimony-information sites. The genetic distances between P. cirrhini n. sp. and other members of Diplozoidae ranged from 22.04% to 38.34% (Supplementary Table 1). The most closely related species to P. cirrhini n. sp. were P. megalobramae (ON907643), P. hemiculteri (KY124645), and P. opsariichthydis (MH794188), with estimated genetic distances of 22.04%, 22.61% and 23.23%, respectively.

For trees, the Bayesian inference (Fig. 5) and maximum likelihood (Fig. 6) methods led to identical topologies. Both trees show that all diplozoid taxa are split into two major evolutionary lineages, and further divided into five clades. The first lineage consists of two well-supported sister clades: clade 1 is composed of a single species of Afrodiplozoon from Africa and four species of Paradiplozoon from Africa, Turkey and China, and clade 2 is made up of nine species of Paradiplozoon from China. The second lineage is represented by species of Paradiplozoon and Diplozoon, most of which come from Europe, as well as members of Inustiatus, Eudiplozoon, and Sindiplozoon. In both ML and BI analyses, Inustiatus and Eudiplozoon formed a basal group (clade 3) to all other diplozoids in second lineage, but the nodes for this were not well supported in ML tree. Sindiplozoon taxa (clade 4) is consistently sister to European Paradiplozoon and Diplozoon taxa (clade 5) across all methods used, with fairly high statistical support.

The three sequences of newly described species (P. cirrhini n. sp.) formed a well-supported monophyletic group, and then clustered with other China Paradiplozoon spp., all of which form a sister group (clade 2) to species from South Africa (P. krugerense LT574865, A. polycotyleus LT719088), northwest African (P. moroccoensis MT417734), Turkey (P. bingolensis HE653910), and west of China (P. yarkandense MN892630) in clade 1.

Discussion

The Pearl River is located in a subtropical karst region and has a rich and distinctive freshwater fish community [9]. It exhibits a faunal succession from north to south in Eastern Asian [28]. However, the diversity of monogeneans in this system has been underestimated. All data presented in this article are part of ongoing research to document the diplozoid fauna in the Pearl River system. Our study presents the results of a detailed morphological and morphometric description of P. cirrhini n. sp., combined with molecular identification using ITS2 as a genetic marker. Their sclerotised structures were studied exclusively by light microscopy of mounted specimens. Even though the new species is easily distinguished from others, morphological variations in the clamps were also observed (Fig. 4). Clamps of diplozoids are typically structurally complex. Fixation and preparation, as well as the degree of pressure applied to the coverslip during fixation and mounting, can all result in skewed measurements and observations. As a result, some previous drawings of key morphological features were neither consistent nor always accurate [21, 22]. The high genetic difference (22.04% to 38.34%) from all other diplozoids further confirmed the uniqueness of the current species. Like the previous analyses [15, 22], our analysis revealed very low genetic difference (0.00%–0.31%) between the following species: P. jiangxiensis, P. opsariichthydis, P. parabramisi, and P. diplophyllorchidis. Jirsová et al. [22] undertook a redescription of P. opsariichthydis and considered that these species should be identified with P. opsariichthydis or referred to as the P. parabramisi-complex, as suggested by Dos Santos & Avenant-Oldewage [11], before additional markers (such as COI) alongside expanded morphometric analyses helped to clarify this issue. It has been amply demonstrated that the use of just one of both approaches is insufficient and can lead to controversial conclusions [5, 15]. Of 38 species recorded in China, only nine species are validated by both morphological and molecular data ([2, 8, 13, 21, 22], present study). Morphological re-evaluation of diplozoid species of China in combination with DNA sequencing is urgently needed.

thumbnail Figure 4

Photographs of clamps in different specimens of Paradiplozoon cirrhini n. sp. a–e are from adult worms, f is from a diporpa.

Our phylogenetic reconstructions revealed that all diplozoid species are split into two major lineages as shown previously [2, 6, 11]. The monophyly of Inustiatus, Eudiplozoon, and Sindiplozoon was strongly supported by the high support value of their own branches. All recent phylogenetic studies ([215], present study) on diplozoid parasites confirmed the paraphyly of the Paradiplozoon, making the revised proposal of “Genus 1–3” by Dos Santos & Avenant-Oldewage for Paradiplozoon reasonable [11]. However, there are currently no robust morphological criteria for distinguishing these putative taxa, especially because Afrodiplozoon (Neodiplozoinae) nests within the Paradiplozoon group. We noted that our trees based on ITS2 data have low root support nodes. Although our analyses place Inustiatus and Eudiplozoon in the same clade, the contradiction with other studies means that the placement of these genera requires further confirmation [10]. In contrast to previous studies on the ITS-2 sequences, Eudiplozoon formed a sister group to all other available Diplozoidae in more recent studies on mitogenome data [18, 53]. Although mitogenome analyses did not cover representatives of all groups, they provided us with a plausible scenario about the phylogenetic origin of diplozoid species.

Diplozoids have a wide distribution in Eurasia and Africa. To reveal their phylogeographic origin, we mapped the geographic distribution on the BI tree (Fig. 5). From the topology, we can see some obvious phylogeographic patterns. The first lineage consists of species from Asia (China), Africa, and the Middle East. Clade 1 consists of species from South Africa (P. krugerense, A. polycotyleus), northwest African (P. moroccoensis), Turkey (P. bingolensis), and west of China (P. yarkandense). Paradiplozoon yarkandense has been reported only from the Yarkand River (a tributary of the Tarim River) in Xinjiang Province, which is located in the westernmost part of China and has more natural geographic connections to Central Asia [2]. Paradiplozoon bingolensis from Turkey is thought to be a link between Europe, Asia and Africa [10, 40]. Owing to their phylogenetic proximity, Benovics et al. [6] assumed that species of this clade have a common origin in the Middle East/Asia. All Paradiplozoon specimens collected in China are assigned to clade 2, including one species of P. barbi recoded only from Malaysia. Interestingly, species from river systems in southern China (P. cirrhini n. sp. and P. megalobramae from the Perl River, P. yunnanensis from the Lancang-Mekong River) were placed at the basal position. The results indicate that China Paradiplozoon most likely originated in the ancient Pearl River basin and then migrated northward into the Yangtze River basin and southward into Southeast Asia. Given the wide distribution of Cirrhinus molitorella [36], P. cirrhini n. sp. could possibly exist in Southeast Asia. Therefore, we cannot rule out the possibility that they originated in Southeast Asia and then spread northward across the Pearl River into northern China. Our phylogenetic analyses support Benovics’ assumption that the first lineage species originated in Asia, most likely Southeast Asia, and spread to Africa via the Middle East [6].

thumbnail Figure 5

Mapping of the parasite geographical distribution onto the BI tree inferred from analyses of ITS2 sequences of selected diplozoids. The numbers at nodes indicate posterior probabilities (%); Paradiplozoon cirrhini n. sp are highlighted by red branches. Clades 1–5 represent the well-supported groups described in the “Results”.

The second lineage consists of species from Europe, Asia, and Africa. Both Inustiatus and Sindiplozoon occur exclusively in China, and Eudiplozoon sensu stricto is distributed only in East Asia [37, 50]. These three genera were placed at the root of the second lineage, suggesting that this lineage is of East Asian origin and diversifies primarily in Europe. All Paradiplozoon specimens collected in Europe are included in Clade 5 alongside all Diplozoon species. It is noteworthy that three Chinese Paradiplozoon sequences (P. homoion KP340972, P. skrjabini KP340974 and P. gracile KP340973) [11], two African sequences (P. vaalense HG423142 and P. ichthyoxanthon HF566124) [12, 40], and one Indian sequence (D. kashmirensis MF460994) [1] are all nested within the European group. Although the three species, P. homoion, P. skrjabini and P. gracile, have been previously reported from other localities in Eurasia, their sequences used in our study were most likely collected in Xinjiang Province according to the authors. Diplozoon kashmirensis has been collected in India’s Kashmir Valley, as well as in Kazakhstan [1]. These findings suggest that European taxa may have multiple origins, with the Middle East possibly serving an intermediary.

The phylogeographic origin of parasites and their historical dispersion are intimately linked with the phylogeography of their hosts. Coevolution is not the focus of this study, but we briefly discuss several interesting points about biogeographical origin from the host perspective. Both paleontological evidence and molecular phylogenetic reconstructions suggest that the cyprinoids originated from the Oriental subtropics [16, 48]. This is one of the reasons why the Asian origin of diplozoids taxon is prioritised. We herein mapped the host lineages onto the ML tree (Fig. 6). As can be seen, Chinese diplozoids primarily parasitise the Xenocypridinae fish. The Xenocyprinae are a highly diverse cyprinoid taxon that arose in the “Yangtze River-Pearl River” basin after the Tibetan Plateau uplift from 25 to 20 Mya, and thrived intimately with subsequent monsoon-driven climatic conditions in East Asia (especially in China) [14]. Such a rapid radiation of xenoprinines is potentially followed by the cospeciation of their Paradiplozoon parasites in geographically isolated regions. The new species is the only Chinese representative from Labeoninae (seems strictly host-specific to the mud carp Cirrhinus molitorella). The host mapping revealed that Labeoninae are an evolutionary old host group for China Paradiplozoon. Within clade 1, Diplozoids of Labeoninae are also present in Middle East (P. bingolensis) and Africa (P. krugerense). We could hypothesise that the historical origin of species in clade 1 is associated with the historical Oriental-to-Afrotropical migration of labeonines via connection of the African and Arabian or Indian plates [52]. The European diplozoids exclusively parasitise the Leuciscidae in our analyses. Different Leuciscidae clades are found in Eurasia and North America [42]. Due to a lack of representatives of Leuciscidae native to other locations, we are unable to determine specific origins of their diplozoid. However, Sindiplozoon’ association with European diplozoids implies that Xenocypridinae or Gobionidae seem to be an early and potentially ancestral host group for European diplozoids, and Leuciscidae represent a more recently evolved host group. The fact that European diplozoids are nested with species from Cyprininae, Barbinae, Labeoninae, and Schizothoracinae of Cyprinidae suggests that they have a complex evolutionary scenario ([1, 11], present study).

thumbnail Figure 6

Mapping of fish lineages onto the ML tree inferred from analyses of ITS2 sequences of selected diplozoids. The numbers at nodes indicate bootstrap values (%); Paradiplozoon cirrhini n. sp are highlighted by red branches.

Nonetheless, it is important to note that all these above phylogenetic analyses are based on only ITS2 for a limited number of diplozoid species. This marker has its own discriminatory power limitations for inferring phylogenies [11]. Comprehensive multilocus studies are needed for diplozoid taxonomy. Records of China diplozoids infecting other fish subfamilies do exist, such as Torinae, Cyprininae, Gobioninae, Opsariichthyinae, Leuciscinae, and even Channidae, Acheilognathidae, Cobitidae, and Botiidae [53]. Thus, an extensive investigation of hidden diplozoid diversity in China (however, in other regions, such as Southeast Asia, Middle Asia, as well) and studies focused on the coevolution between cyprinoids and diplozoids may shed light on the origin and historical dispersion of this group.

Conflict of interest

All authors have no conflicts of interest. We acted in accordance with all applicable institutional and national laws and guidelines during this research.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the 43rd exchange program of the China-Czech S&T Cooperation Committee (No. [2019]13: 43-11) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 32100361).

Supplementary material

Supplementary Table 1: Genetic distances between P. cirrhini n. sp. and other members of the Diplozoidae. Access here

References

  1. Ahmad F, Fazili KM, Sofi TA, Sheikh BA, Waza AA, Rashid R, Gani TT. 2015. Morphological and molecular characterization of Diplozoon kashmirensis; D. aegyptensis and D. guptai collected from fishes of Kashmir Valley-India. Fisheries and Aquaculture Journal, 06, 1000147. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. Arken K, Hao CL, Guo AM, Zhang WR, Rong MJ, Kamal W, Tian SL, Kadir M, Yue C. 2022. A New Species of Paradiplozoon (Monogenea: Diplozoidae), A gill parasite of the Schizothorax Fish (Cyprinidae: Schizothoracinae) from the Yarkand River, Xinjiang, China. Acta Parasitologica, 67(1), 330–339. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Avenant-Oldewage A, Milne SJ. 2014. Aspects of the morphology of the juvenile life stages of Paradiplozoon ichthyoxanthon Avenant-Oldewage, 2013 (Monogenea: Diplozoidae). Acta Parasitologica, 59(2), 247–254. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bachellerie JP, Qu LH. 1993. Ribosomal RNA probes for detection and identification of species. Methods in Molecular Biology, 21, 249–263. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bai JP, Wang JJ, Li J, Xu WJ, Fan LX. 2014. A new species of genus Paradiplozoon parasitic in Sikukia flavicaudata from the Lancang River, Xishuangbanna, Yunnan. Sichuan Journal of Zoology, 33(4), 540–544 (in Chinese). [Google Scholar]
  6. Benovics M, Koubková B, Civáňová K, Rahmouni I, Čermáková K, Šimková A. 2021. Diversity and phylogeny of Paradiplozoon species (Monogenea: Diplozoidae) parasitising endemic cyprinoids in the peri-Mediterranean area, with a description of three new Paradiplozoon species. Parasitology Research, 120(2), 481–496. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bychowsky BE, Nagibina LF. 1959. On the systematics of the genus Diplozoon Nordmann (Monogenoidea). Zoologichesky Zhurnal, 38, 362–377 (in Russian). [Google Scholar]
  8. Cao SY, Fu PP, Zou H, Li M, Wu SG, Wang GT. 2022. Sindiplozoon coreius n. sp. (Monogenea: Diplozoidae) from the gills of Coreius guichenoti (Cyprinidae) in China. Parasitology International, 87, 102494. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Chen YY, Cao WX. 1986. Ichthyofauna of the Zhujiang river with a discussion on zoogeographical divisions for freshwater fishes. Acta Hydrobiologica Sinica, 10(3), 228–236 (in Chinese). [Google Scholar]
  10. Civáňová K, Koyun M, Koubková B. 2013. The molecular and morphometrical description of a new diplozoid species from the gills of the Garra rufa (Heckel, 1843) (Cyprinidae) from Turkey–including a commentary on taxonomic division of Diplozoidae. Parasitology Research, 112(8), 3053–3062. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Dos Santos QM, Avenant-Oldewage A. 2020. Review on the molecular study of the Diplozoidae: analyses of currently available genetic data, what it tells us, and where to go from here. Parasites & Vectors, 13, 539. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Dos Santos QM, van Vuuren BJ, Avenant-Oldewage A. 2015. Paradiplozoon vaalense n. sp. (Monogenea: Diplozoidae) from the gills of moggel, Labeo umbratus (Smith, 1841), in the Vaal River System, South Africa. Journal of Helminthology, 89, 58–67. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Fan LX, Meng FY, Bai JP, Xu WJ, Wang X. 2018. Paradiplozoon yunnanensis n. sp. (Monogenea, Diplozoidae) from Sikukia gudgeri (Cyprinidae, Barbinae) in southwest China. Parasite, 25, 46. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Feng CG, Wang K, Xu WJ, Yang LD, Wanghe KY, Sun N, Wu B, Wu FX, Yang L, Qiu Q, Gan XN, Chen YY, He SP. 2023. Monsoon boosted radiation of the endemic East Asian carps. Science China Life Sciences, 66, 563–578. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Gao Q, Chen MX, Yao WJ, Gao Y, Song Y, Wang GT, Wang MX, Nie P. 2007. Phylogeny of diplozoids in five genera of the subfamily Diplozoinae Palombi, 1949 as inferred from ITS-2 rDNA sequences. Parasitology, 134, 695–703. [Google Scholar]
  16. Gaubert P, Denys G, Oberdorff T. 2009. Genus-level supertree of Cyprinidae (Actinopterygii: Cypriniformes), partitioned qualitative clade support and test of macro-evolutionary scenarios. Biological Reviews, 84, 653–689. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  17. Georgiev B, Biserkov V, Genov T. 1986. In toto staining method for cestodes with iron acetocarmine. Helminthologia, 23, 279–281. [Google Scholar]
  18. Hao CL, Arken K, Kadir M, Zhang WR, Rong MJ, Wei NW, Liu YJ, Yue C. 2022. The complete mitochondrial genomes of Paradiplozoon yarkandense and Paradiplozoon homoion confirm that Diplozoidae evolve at an elevated rate. Parasites & Vectors, 15(1), 149. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Jiang NC, Wu BH, Wang SX. 1985. Four new species of parasitic Diplozoon from freshwater fishes of the subfamily Gobioninae. Acta Zootaxonomica Sinica, 10, 239–245. [Google Scholar]
  20. Jiang NC, Wu BH, Wang SX. 1989. Studies on the trematode of subfamily Diplozoinae in China. Acta Zootaxonomica Sinica, 35(3), 259–269 (in Chinese). [Google Scholar]
  21. Jirsová D, Ding X, Civánová K, Jirounková E, Ilgová J, Koubková B, Kasny M, Gelnar M. 2018. Redescription of Paradiplozoon hemiculteri (Monogenea, Diplozoidae) from the type host Hemiculter leucisculus, with neotype designation. Parasite, 25, 4. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Jirsová D, Koubková B, Jirounková E, Vorel J, Zhou X, Ding X, Gelnar M, Kašný M. 2021. Redescription of Paradiplozoon opsariichthydis (Jiang, Wu et Wang 1984) Jiang, Wu et Wang, 1989 (Monogenea, Diplozoidae). Parasitology International, 84, 102409. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Kalyaanamoorthy S, Minh BQ, Wong TKF, von Haeseler A, Jermiin LS. 2017. ModelFinder: fast model selection for accurate phylogenetic estimates. Nature Methods, 14(6), 587–589. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Katoh K, Standley DM. 2013. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usability. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 30(4), 772–780. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  25. Khotenovsky IA. 1985. Suborder Octomacrinae Khotenovsky. Fauna of the USSR. Monogenea. New Series. Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow. pp. 356–384 (in Russian). [Google Scholar]
  26. Kumar S, Stecher G, Tamura K. 2016. MEGA7: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 7.0 for bigger datasets. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 33(7), 1870–1874. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Letunic I, Bork P. 2021. Interactive Tree of Life (iTOL) v5: an online tool for phylogenetic tree display and annotation. Nucleic Acids Research, 49(1), 293–296. [Google Scholar]
  28. Li HJ. 2000. Studies on the freshwater fish fauna of South China. Journal of Xinyang Teachers College (Natural Science Edition), 13(2), 239–244 (in Chinese). [Google Scholar]
  29. Malmberg G. 1957. Om förekomsten av Gyrodactylus på svenska fiskar, Skrifter Utgivna av Södra Sveriges Fiskeriförening, Årsskrift, 1956, pp. 19–76 (in Swedish). [Google Scholar]
  30. Matějusová I, Koubková B, Cunningham CO. 2004. Identification of European diplozoids (Monogenea, Diplozoinae) by restriction digestion of ribosomal RNA internal transcribed spacer. Journal of Parasitology, 90, 817–822. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Matějusová I, Koubková B, D’Amelio S, Cunningham CO. 2001. Genetic characterization of six species of diplozoids (Monogenea; Diplozoidae). Parasitology, 123, 465–474. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Matějusová I, Koubková B, Gelnar M, Cunningham CO. 2002. Paradiplozoon homoion Bychowsky & Nagibina, 1959 versus P. gracile Reichenbach-Klinke, 1961 (Monogenea): two species or phenotypic plasticity? Systematic Parasitology, 53, 39–47. [Google Scholar]
  33. Milne SJ, Avenant-Oldewage A. 2012. Seasonal growth of the attachment clamps of a Paradiplozoon sp. as depicted by statistical shape analysis. African Journal of Biotechnology, 11, 2333–2339. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  34. Minh BQ, Nguyen MA, von Haeseler A. 2013. Ultrafast approximation for phylogenetic bootstrap. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 30, 1188–1195. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Nguyen LT, Schmidt HA, von Haeseler A, Minh BQ. 2015. IQ-TREE: a fast and effective stochastic algorithm for estimating maximum-likelihood phylogenies. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 32, 268–274. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Nguyen TT, Sunnucks P. 2012. Strong population genetic structure and its management implications in the mud carp Cirrhinus molitorella, an indigenous freshwater species subject to an aquaculture and culture-based fishery. Journal of Fish Biology, 80, 651–668. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Nishihira T, Urabe M. 2020. Morphological and molecular studies of Eudiplozoon nipponicum and Eudiplozoon kamegaii sp. n. (Monogenea; Diplozoidae). Folia Parasitologica, 67, 018. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  38. Pečínková M, Matějusová I, Koubková B, Gelnar M. 2005. Classification and occurrence of abnormally developed Paradiplozoon homoion (Monogenea, Diplozoinae) parasitising gudgeon Gobio gobio. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 64(1), 63–68. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Pečínková M, Vøllestad LA, Koubková B, Gelnar M. 2007. Asymmetries in the attachment apparatus of a gill parasite. Journal of Zoology, 272(4), 406–414. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  40. Přikrylová I, Mašová Š, Gelnar M, Matla MM, Tavakol S, Luus-Powell WJ. 2018. Redescription of the genus Afrodiplozoon Khotenovski, 1981 and its only known species Afrodiplozoon polycotyleus (Paperna, 1973) (Monogenea: Diplozoidae) using a combined multidisciplinary approach. Parasitology International, 67(2), 245–252. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Ronquist F, Teslenko M, van der Mark P, Ayres DL, Darling A, Höhna S, Larget B, Liu L, Suchard MA, Huelsenbeck JP. 2012. MrBayes 3.2: efficient Bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across a large model space. Systematic Biology, 61, 539–542. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Schönhuth S, Vukic J, Sanda R, Yang L, Mayden RL. 2018. Phylogenetic relationships and classification of the Holarctic family Leuciscidae (Cypriniformes: Cyprinoidei). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 127, 781–799. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Scribner KT, Page KS, Bartron ML. 2001. Hybridization in freshwater fishes: a review of case studies and cytonuclear methods of biological inference. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 10, 293–323. [Google Scholar]
  44. Šebelová Š, Kuperman B, Gelnar M. 2002. Abnormalities of the attachment clamps of representatives of the family Diplozoidae. Journal of Helminthology, 76, 249–268. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Shimazu T, Kobayashi K, Tojo K, Besprozvannykh VV, Ogawa K. 2015. Paradiplozoon skrjabini (Monogenea, Diplozoidae), an ectoparasite on the gills of freshwater fishes (Cyprinidae, Leuciscinae) of Japan and Primorsky Region, Russia: A morphological and molecular study. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 41(3), 137–154. [Google Scholar]
  46. Sicard M, Desmarais E, Lambert A. 2001. Molecular characterization of Diplozoidae populations on five Cyprinidae species: consequences for host specificity. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie Bulgare des Science, 324(8), 709–717. [Google Scholar]
  47. Tan M, Armbruster JW. 2018. Phylogenetic classification of extant genera of fishes of the order Cypriniformes (Teleostei: Ostariophysi). Zootaxa, 4476(1), 006–039. [Google Scholar]
  48. Tao WJ, Yang L, Mayden RL, He SP. 2019. Phylogenetic relationships of Cypriniformes and plasticity of pharyngeal teeth in the adaptive radiation of cyprinids. Science China Life Sciences, 62, 553–565. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Wang X, Jiao L, Jia SA, Wang N, Hao CL, Zhu MY, Yue C. 2014. A new record of Diplozoidae in China. Arid Zone Research, 31(6), 1121–1124 (in Chinese). [Google Scholar]
  50. Wu BH, Lang S, Wang WJ. 2000. Fauna China, Platyhelminthes, Monogenoidea. Science Press, Beijing, 635–672 (In Chinese). [Google Scholar]
  51. Xu P, Zhang XF, Wang XM, Li JT. 2014. Genome sequence and genetic diversity of the common carp, Cyprinus carpio. Nature Genetics, 46, 1212–1219. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Yang L, Mayden RL. 2010. Phylogenetic relationships, subdivision, and biogeography of the cyprinid tribe Labeonini (sensu Rainboth, 1991) (Teleostei: Cypriniformes), with comments on the implications of lips and associated structures in the labeonin classification. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 54, 254–265. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Zhang D, Zou H, Wu SG, Li M, Jakovlić I, Zhang J, Chen R, Li WX, Wang GT. 2018. Three new Diplozoidae mitogenomes expose unusual compositional biases within the Monogenea class: implications for phylogenetic studies. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 18(1), 133. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Zhang D, Gao F, Jakovlić I, Zou H, Zhang J, Li WX, Wang GT. 2020. PhyloSuite: An integrated and scalable desktop platform for streamlined molecular sequence data management and evolutionary phylogenetics studies. Molecular Ecology Resources, 20(1), 348–355. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Zhang JY, Liu L, Ding XJ. 1997. Monogenea of Chinese marine fishes. VII. A new species and two new records of the Tetronchoididae from fishes of the South China and East China Seas. Systematic Parasitology, 38, 197–201. [Google Scholar]
  56. Zurawski TH, Mair GR, Maule AG, Gelnar M, Halton DW. 2003. Microscopical evaluation of neural connectivity between paired stages of Eudiplozoon nipponicum (Monogenea: Diplozoidae). Journal of Parasitology, 89, 198–200. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Cite this article as: Huang J, Zhou X, Yuan K & Ding X. 2023. Paradiplozoon cirrhini n. sp. (Monogenea, Diplozoidae), a gill parasite of Cirrhinus molitorella (Cyprinidae, Labeoninae) in South China. Parasite 30, 20.

All Tables

Table 1

List of diplozoid species used in phylogenetic analyses, their fish host species, country of collection and GenBank accession numbers for DNA sequences.

In the text
Table 2

Measurements of Paradiplozoon cirrhini n. sp., and related Paradiplozoon spp.

In the text

All Figures

thumbnail Figure 1

Line drawings of Paradiplozoon cirrhini n. sp. A. Whole worm, ventral view (bs, buccal sucker; p, pharynx; e, esophagus; i, intestine; ld, lateral diverticula; o, ovary; t, testis; h, haptor; c, clamp); B. Clamp in somewhat lateral view (amp, anterior end of the median plate; pmp, posterior end of the median plate; mpj, medial sclerite of posterior jaw; lpj, lateral sclerite of posterior jaw; aj, anterior jaw; ajs, anterior joining sclerites; pjs, posterior joining sclerite); C. Clamp in posterior view; D. Clamp in anterior view; E. Central hook; F. Egg.
In the text
thumbnail Figure 2

Line drawings of clamp sclerites of Paradiplozoon cirrhini n. sp. A. Medial sclerite of posterior jaw (mpj) and lateral sclerite of posterior jaw (lpj); B. Anterior jaw (aj) with a spur of the anterior jaw (saj); C. Median plate (C1, median plate in posterior view; C2, median plate in anterior view).
In the text
thumbnail Figure 3

Photographs of Paradiplozoon cirrhini n. sp. A. Holotype, whole worm (ventral view); B. Reproductive system (te, testis; ov, ovary); C. Clamp in somewhat lateral view; D. Central hook; E. Eggs; F. Clamp sclerites in front view; G. Clamp sclerites in back view; H. Median plate in lateral view.
In the text
thumbnail Figure 4

Photographs of clamps in different specimens of Paradiplozoon cirrhini n. sp. a–e are from adult worms, f is from a diporpa.
In the text
thumbnail Figure 5

Mapping of the parasite geographical distribution onto the BI tree inferred from analyses of ITS2 sequences of selected diplozoids. The numbers at nodes indicate posterior probabilities (%); Paradiplozoon cirrhini n. sp are highlighted by red branches. Clades 1–5 represent the well-supported groups described in the “Results”.
In the text
thumbnail Figure 6

Mapping of fish lineages onto the ML tree inferred from analyses of ITS2 sequences of selected diplozoids. The numbers at nodes indicate bootstrap values (%); Paradiplozoon cirrhini n. sp are highlighted by red branches.
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.