4.2 Article

A new isolate of Mesorhabditis monhystera (Butschli, 1873) Dougherty, 1955 (Rhabditida: Rhabditidae): re-evaluated with molecular data and scanning electron microscopic observations

Journal

JOURNAL OF HELMINTHOLOGY
Volume 97, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0022149X2200089X

Keywords

Biogeography; D2/D3 region; haplotype network; morphology; molecular; phylogeny; scanning electron microscopy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A new isolate of Mesorhabditis monhystera is described and illustrated using both morphological and molecular data. Phylogenetic analysis revealed that Mesorhabditis is a monophyletic genus, with subordinate taxa clustered in one clade. The clade further divided into two subclades, representing the Monhystera-group and Spiculigera-group. However, GenBank sequences of several species in the Monhystera-group showed high similarity and minimal genetic divergence.
A new isolate of Mesorhabditis monhystera (Butschli, 1873) Dougherty, 1955 is described and illustrated with morphological and molecular data. The phylogenetic analysis based on the D2/D3 segment of 28S rDNA using the Bayesian inference method, revealed monophyly of the genus Mesorhabditis as the subordinate taxa clustered in one clade. The clade further divided into two subclades representing the Monhystera-group and Spiculigera-group with 100% posterior probability values. However, GenBank sequences of several species constituting the Monhystera-group, showed high similarity and very little genetic divergence (98-99%) of up to 4-5 bases. In order to ascertain the status of those isolates, detailed morphological comparison is provided along with a pictorial key. A sequence-based phylogeography of haplogroups of Mesorhabditis using the median-joining network method, was also inferred. The results suggested the need for morphological validation of a species before its sequences are deposited in GenBank.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available