Transcriptome-based molecular systematics: Rhodnius montenegrensis (Triatominae) and its position within the Rhodnius prolixus-Rhodnius robustus cryptic-species complex.
Molecular systematics
Rhodnius
Transcriptomics
Triatominae
Journal
Parasites & vectors
ISSN: 1756-3305
Titre abrégé: Parasit Vectors
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101462774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 Jun 2019
17 Jun 2019
Historique:
received:
22
01
2019
accepted:
09
06
2019
entrez:
19
6
2019
pubmed:
19
6
2019
medline:
14
8
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Rhodnius montenegrensis (Triatominae), a potential vector of Chagas disease, was described after R. robustus-like bugs from southwestern Amazonia. Mitochondrial cytb sequence near-identity with sympatric R. robustus (genotype II) raised doubts about the taxonomic status of R. montenegrensis, but comparative studies have reported fairly clear morphological and genetic differences between R. montenegrensis and laboratory stocks identified as R. robustus. Here, we use a transcriptome-based approach to investigate this apparent paradox. We retrieved publicly-available transcriptome sequence-reads from R. montenegrensis and from the R. robustus stocks used as the taxonomic benchmark in comparative studies. We (i) aligned transcriptome sequence-reads to mitochondrial (cytb) and nuclear (ITS2, D2-28S and AmpG) query sequences (47 overall) from members of the R. prolixus-R. robustus cryptic-species complex and related taxa; (ii) computed breadth- and depth-coverage for the 259 consensus sequences generated by these alignments; and, for each locus, (iii) appraised query sequences and full-breadth-coverage consensus sequences in terms of nucleotide-sequence polymorphism and phylogenetic relations. We found evidence confirming that R. montenegrensis and R. robustus genotype II are genetically indistinguishable and, hence, implying that they are, in all likelihood, the same species. Furthermore, we found compelling genetic evidence that the benchmark 'R. robustus' stocks used in R. montenegrensis description and in later transcriptome-based comparisons are in fact R. prolixus, although likely mixed to some degree with R. robustus (probably genotype II, a.k.a. R. montenegrensis). We illustrate how public-domain genetic/transcriptomic data can help address challenging issues in disease-vector systematics. In our case-study, taxonomic confusion apparently stemmed from the misinterpretation of sequence-data analyses and misidentification of taxonomic-benchmark stocks. More generally, and together with previous reports of mixed and/or misidentified Rhodnius spp. laboratory colonies, our results call into question the conclusions of many studies (on morphology, genetics, physiology, behavior, bionomics or interactions with microorganisms including trypanosomes) based on non-genotyped 'R. prolixus' or 'R. robustus' stocks. Correct species identification is a prerequisite for investigating the factors that underlie the physiological, behavioral or ecological differences between primary domestic vectors of Chagas disease, such as R. prolixus, and their sylvatic, medically less-relevant relatives such as R. robustus (s.l.) including R. montenegrensis.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Rhodnius montenegrensis (Triatominae), a potential vector of Chagas disease, was described after R. robustus-like bugs from southwestern Amazonia. Mitochondrial cytb sequence near-identity with sympatric R. robustus (genotype II) raised doubts about the taxonomic status of R. montenegrensis, but comparative studies have reported fairly clear morphological and genetic differences between R. montenegrensis and laboratory stocks identified as R. robustus. Here, we use a transcriptome-based approach to investigate this apparent paradox.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We retrieved publicly-available transcriptome sequence-reads from R. montenegrensis and from the R. robustus stocks used as the taxonomic benchmark in comparative studies. We (i) aligned transcriptome sequence-reads to mitochondrial (cytb) and nuclear (ITS2, D2-28S and AmpG) query sequences (47 overall) from members of the R. prolixus-R. robustus cryptic-species complex and related taxa; (ii) computed breadth- and depth-coverage for the 259 consensus sequences generated by these alignments; and, for each locus, (iii) appraised query sequences and full-breadth-coverage consensus sequences in terms of nucleotide-sequence polymorphism and phylogenetic relations. We found evidence confirming that R. montenegrensis and R. robustus genotype II are genetically indistinguishable and, hence, implying that they are, in all likelihood, the same species. Furthermore, we found compelling genetic evidence that the benchmark 'R. robustus' stocks used in R. montenegrensis description and in later transcriptome-based comparisons are in fact R. prolixus, although likely mixed to some degree with R. robustus (probably genotype II, a.k.a. R. montenegrensis).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
We illustrate how public-domain genetic/transcriptomic data can help address challenging issues in disease-vector systematics. In our case-study, taxonomic confusion apparently stemmed from the misinterpretation of sequence-data analyses and misidentification of taxonomic-benchmark stocks. More generally, and together with previous reports of mixed and/or misidentified Rhodnius spp. laboratory colonies, our results call into question the conclusions of many studies (on morphology, genetics, physiology, behavior, bionomics or interactions with microorganisms including trypanosomes) based on non-genotyped 'R. prolixus' or 'R. robustus' stocks. Correct species identification is a prerequisite for investigating the factors that underlie the physiological, behavioral or ecological differences between primary domestic vectors of Chagas disease, such as R. prolixus, and their sylvatic, medically less-relevant relatives such as R. robustus (s.l.) including R. montenegrensis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31208458
doi: 10.1186/s13071-019-3558-9
pii: 10.1186/s13071-019-3558-9
pmc: PMC6580618
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
305Références
Mol Biol Evol. 2018 Jun 1;35(6):1547-1549
pubmed: 29722887
Virus Evol. 2018 Jun 08;4(1):vey016
pubmed: 29942656
Mol Ecol Resour. 2019 Sep;19(5):1230-1239
pubmed: 31070854
PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e45523
pubmed: 23029072
Elife. 2017 Nov 21;6:
pubmed: 29157359
Bioinformatics. 2012 Apr 15;28(8):1166-7
pubmed: 22368248
Zookeys. 2016 Oct 3;(621):45-62
pubmed: 27833419
Mol Ecol. 2016 Mar;25(6):1224-41
pubmed: 26756714
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2000 Apr;62(4):460-5
pubmed: 11220761
Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2007 Oct 30;102 Suppl 1:57-70
pubmed: 17906805
PLoS One. 2016 Jun 17;11(6):e0157857
pubmed: 27314587
Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2018 Nov;18(11):605-610
pubmed: 30016209
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2008 Apr 02;2(4):e210
pubmed: 18382605
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Dec 1;112(48):14936-41
pubmed: 26627243
Bioinformatics. 2009 Aug 15;25(16):2078-9
pubmed: 19505943
Adv Parasitol. 2018;99:265-344
pubmed: 29530308
PLoS One. 2019 Feb 7;14(2):e0211285
pubmed: 30730919
Acta Trop. 2009 May-Jun;110(2-3):159-77
pubmed: 18619938
Bioinformatics. 2009 Jul 15;25(14):1754-60
pubmed: 19451168
PeerJ. 2019 Jan 24;7:e6271
pubmed: 30697483
Mol Biol Evol. 2013 Apr;30(4):772-80
pubmed: 23329690
J Med Entomol. 2002 Jan;39(1):44-51
pubmed: 11931271
Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1993 Jul-Aug;87(4):492
pubmed: 8249094
Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2013 May;108(3):
pubmed: 23778665
Trop Med Int Health. 2007 Jun;12(6):751-8
pubmed: 17550472
Infect Genet Evol. 2013 Mar;14:426-33
pubmed: 23219914
Parasit Vectors. 2014 Jan 09;7:17
pubmed: 24405517
Trends Parasitol. 2001 Jul;17(7):344-7
pubmed: 11423378
Mol Ecol. 2003 Apr;12(4):997-1006
pubmed: 12753218
Zookeys. 2017 May 18;(675):1-25
pubmed: 28769676
Acta Trop. 2008 Aug;107(2):90-8
pubmed: 18550022
Oecologia. 2017 Dec;185(4):607-618
pubmed: 29067559
Gene. 2015 Nov 15;573(1):171-5
pubmed: 26344710
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2001 Jan;18(1):136-42
pubmed: 11161750
PLoS One. 2017 Apr 13;12(4):e0174997
pubmed: 28406967
Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2013;108 Suppl 1:92-9
pubmed: 24473808
Mitochondrial DNA B Resour. 2017 Jul 11;2(2):397-399
pubmed: 33473839
Mol Ecol. 2007 Aug;16(16):3361-73
pubmed: 17688539
Bioinformatics. 2010 Mar 15;26(6):841-2
pubmed: 20110278
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Jun 1;107(22):10290-5
pubmed: 20479227