Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-nf276 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-16T21:43:38.163Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative study of four known species of the genus Acrobeles von Linstow, 1877 (Nematoda, Cephalobidae) with ‘single’ and ‘double’ cuticle from coastal dunes in Spain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2021

A.N. Ruiz-Cuenca Open the ORCID record for A.N. Ruiz-Cuenca [Opens in a new window]  and
J. Abolafia Open the ORCID record for J. Abolafia [Opens in a new window]
A.N. Ruiz-Cuenca
Affiliation:
Departamento de Biología Animal, Biología Vegetal y Ecología, Universidad de Jaén, Campus ‘Las Lagunillas’ s/n, Edificio B3, 23071 Jaén, Spain
J. Abolafia*
Affiliation:
Departamento de Biología Animal, Biología Vegetal y Ecología, Universidad de Jaén, Campus ‘Las Lagunillas’ s/n, Edificio B3, 23071 Jaén, Spain
*
Author for correspondence: J. Abolafia, E-mail: abolafia@ujaen.es
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The nematode genus Acrobeles is composed of two morphological groups distinguished by the presence (‘double’ cuticle) or absence (‘single’ cuticle) of the refringent inner layer of the cuticle. In the present study, four species of this genus, two with ‘single’ cuticle (Acrobeles ciliatus and Acrobeles cylindricus) and two with ‘double’ (Acrobeles aenigmaticus and Acrobeles complexus) are studied from coastal dunes in Spain. This study provides detailed morphological and morphometrical analyses for the four species, while molecular analysis, based on 18S and 28S ribosomal DNA, is provided for A. complexus. The four species are studied with scanning electron microscopy, which is obtained for the first time for A. cylindricus. These analyses revealed morphological and molecular differentiations between both groups, appearing as two related monophyletic entities. The subgenera Acrobeles and Seleborca, formerly considered as separate genera, are proposed to accommodate both groups.

Keywords

18s rDNA28 rDNAcephalobidsIberian Peninsulanew subgeneraSeleborcataxonomy

Information

Type
Research Paper
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 95 , 2021 , e42
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

The nematode genus Acrobeles von Linstow, 1877 (Rhabditida, Cephalobidae) was proposed by Otto F.B. von Linstow (Reference von Linstow1877) to include one species having oral expansions. Later, Thorne (Reference Thorne1925) revised this genus and included 40 species, all of them with oral expansion (labial probolae) with variable morphology. Thorne (Reference Thorne1937) revised again these species and divided the genera Acrobeles according to the morphology of the labial probolae and proposed five new genera, maintaining in Acrobeles only those species with long bifurcate labial probolae. Thus, this genus is mainly characterized by having a lip region with six asymmetrical triangular lips and an oral opening surrounded by three bifurcated labial probolae, all of which – lips and probolae – are bordered by triangular processes. Andrássy (Reference Andrássy1985) divided this genus in two genera: the genus Acrobeles sensu stricto containing species that have a cuticle lacking an inner refringent layer (known as ‘single’ cuticle), and the new genus Seleborca Andrássy, Reference Andrássy1985 (the word ‘Seleborca’ comes from ‘Acrobeles’ inverted) containing species that have a cuticle with an inner refringent layer (known as ‘double’ cuticle). Rashid et al. (Reference Rashid, Heyns and Coomans1990) examined species of both genera and, based on the structure of the cuticle and the variability of the lateral field, confirmed the validity of the genus Seleborca. However, in the same year, De Ley et al. (Reference De Ley, Geraert and Coomans1990) considered that the separation of both genera based only on the morphology of the cuticle was not justified and, later, Shahina & De Ley (Reference Shahina and De Ley1997) considering Seleborca a junior synonym of Acrobeles. However, Andrássy (Reference Andrássy2005) maintained Seleborca as a valid genus.

On the other hand, molecular studies provided by several authors (Nadler et al., Reference Nadler, De Ley and Mundo-Ocampo2006; Mehdizadeh et al., Reference Mehdizadeh, Shokoohi and Abolafia2013; Abolafia et al., Reference Abolafia, Divsalar, Panahi and Shokoohi2014, Reference Abolafia, Shokoohi, Du Preez and Fourie2019; Abolafia & Peña-Santiago, Reference Abolafia and Peña-Santiago2020) showed that both morphological groups appear in different clades.

The genus Acrobeles sensu lato includes 34 valid species (Abolafia & Peña-Santiago, Reference Abolafia and Peña-Santiago2004; Boström & Holovachov, Reference Boström and Holovachov2019), 21 of them having a ‘single’ cuticle and 13 of them having a ‘double’ cuticle. This paper redescribes four known species of the genus Acrobeles, two belonging to the ciliatus-group (Acrobeles ciliatus von Linstow, Reference von Linstow1877 and Acrobeles cylindricus Ivanova, 1968) and two to the complexus-group (Acrobeles aenigmaticus Abolafia, Shokoohi, Du Preez & Fourie, Reference Abolafia, Shokoohi, Du Preez and Fourie2019 and Acrobeles complexus Thorne, Reference Thorne1925), all of which were collected from sand dunes on the Atlanto-Mediterranean coast of Spain. Each pair of species, easily confused, is characterized morphologically, morphometrically and, for some, also molecularly.

Materials and methods

Sampling and nematode extraction

The specimens examined were extracted from the rhizosphere of xerophile plants from sand dunes in three coastal localities in the provinces of Alicante, Barcelona and Huelva (Spain). Nematodes were extracted from soil samples using a modified Baermann's (Reference Baermann1917) funnel technique provided of a stainless-steel sieve (10 cm diameter, 100 μm mesh), killed by heat and fixed in a 4% formalin solution. Nematodes were processed to anhydrous glycerine according to Siddiqi's (Reference Siddiqi1964) method using lactophenol-glycerine solutions, and were then permanently mounted on glass microscope slides to enable species identification.

Light microscopy (LM)

Observations were made using a Nikon Eclipse 80i (Nikon, Tokyo, Japan) microscope. Measurements were taken using an ocular micrometre or a curvimeter after drawing the corresponding organ or structure attached to an Olympus BH-2 microscope (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan); Demanian indices (de Man, 1881) and other ratios were calculated. Micrographs were taken with a Nikon Eclipse 80i (Nikon, Tokyo, Japan) light microscope equipped with differential interference contrast optics and a Nikon Digital Sight DS-U1 camera. Micrographs were combined using Adobe® Photoshop® CS (Adobe Inc., San José, USA) and figures mounted using Microsoft® PowerPoint (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, USA)®. The terminology used for the morphology of stoma and spicules-gubernaculum follows the proposals by De Ley et al. (Reference De Ley, van de Velde, Mounport, Baujard and Coomans1995) and Abolafia & Peña-Santiago (Reference Abolafia and Peña-Santiago2017), respectively.

Scanning electron microscopy (SEM)

Specimens preserved in glycerine were selected for observation under SEM according to Abolafia (Reference Abolafia2015). The nematode was hydrated in distilled water, dehydrated in a graded ethanol-acetone series, critical-point dried, coated with gold, and observed with a Zeiss Merlin microscope (5 kV) (Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany).

DNA extraction, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and sequencing

Nematode DNA was extracted from single fresh individuals using the proteinase K protocol and PCR assays as described by Castillo et al. (Reference Castillo, Vovlas, Subbotin and Troccoli2003), somewhat modified (Archidona-Yuste et al., Reference Archidona-Yuste, Navas-Cortés, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Palomares-Rius and Castillo2016). The specimens were cut into small pieces using a sterilized dental needle on a clean slide with 18 ml of TE (Tris-EDTA) buffer (10 mm Tris-Cl (tris hydrochloride) + 0.5 mm EDTA (ethylene-diamine-tetraacetic acid); pH 9.0), transferred to a microtube and adding 2 μl proteinase K (700 μg/ml−1) (Roche, Basel, Switzerland), and stored to –80°C within 15 min (for several days). The microtubes were incubated at 65°C (1 h), then at 95°C (15 min). For DNA amplification, 3 μl of the extracted DNA was transferred to a microtube containing 0.6 μl of each primer (10 mm), 3 μl Master Mix Taq DNA Polymerase (5× Hot FirePol Blend Master Mix) and ddH2O to a final volume of 20 μl. The primers used for amplification of the region of 18S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene were the forward primer 988 F (5′-CTCAAAGATTAAGCCATGC-3′) and the reverse primer 1912R (5′-TTTACGGTCAGAACTAGGG-3′) (Holterman et al., Reference Holterman, van der Wurff, van den Elsen, van Megen, Bongers, Holovachov, Bakker and Helder2006). The primers used for amplification of the D2–D3 region of 28S rRNA gene were the D2A (5'-ACAAGTACCGTGAGGGAAAGTTG-3’) and the D3B (5'-TCGGAAGGAACCAGCTACTA-3’) primers (Nunn, Reference Nunn1992; De Ley et al., Reference De Ley, Felix, Frisse, Nadler, Sternberg and Thomas1999). PCR cycle conditions were as follows: one cycle of 94°C for 15 min, followed by 35 cycles of 94°C for 45 s + annealing temperature of 55°C for 45 s + 72°C for 45 s and finally one cycle of 72°C for 5 min. After DNA amplification, 5μl of product was loaded on a 1% agarose gel in 0.5% Tris-acetate-EDTA (40 mm Tris, 20 mm glacial acetic acid and 2 mm EDTA; pH 8) to verify the amplification using an electrophoresis system (Labnet Gel XL Ultra V–2, Progen Scientific, London, UK). The bands were stained with RedSafe (20,000×) previously added to the agarose gel solution. The sequencing reactions of the PCR products were performed at Sistemas Genómicos (Paterna, Valencia, Spain) according the Sanger et al. (Reference Sanger, Nicklen and Coulson1977) method. The sequences obtained were submitted to the GenBank database.

Phylogenetic analyses

For phylogenetic relationships, analyses were based on 18S and 28S ribosomal DNA (rDNA) fragments. The newly obtained sequences were manually edited using BioEdit 7.2.6 (Hall, Reference Hall1999) and aligned with another 18S or 28S rDNA sequences available in GenBank using ClustalW alignment tool implemented in the MEGA7 (Kumar et al., Reference Kumar, Stecher and Tamura2016). Poorly aligned regions at extremes were removed from the alignments using MEGA7. The best-fit model of nucleotide substitution used for the phylogenetic analysis was statistically selected using jModelTest 2.1.10 (Darriba et al., Reference Darriba, Taboada, Doallo and Posada2012). Phylogenetic trees were generated with the Bayesian inference method using MrBayes 3.2.6 (Ronquist et al., Reference Ronquist, Teslenko and van der Mark2012). Drilocephalobus sp. (AY284680) for 18S rDNA and Teratolobus sp. (KJ652552) for 28S rDNA was chosen as outgroup. Analysis under the General Time Reversible plus Invariant sites plus Gamma distribution (GTR + I + G) model was initiated with a random starting tree and run with the Markov Chain Monte Carlo method (Larget & Simon, Reference Larget and Simon1999) for 1 × 106 generations. The trees were visualized and saved with FigTree 1.4.4 (Rambaut, Reference Rambaut2018).

Results

Acrobeles ciliatus von Linstow, 1877

Material examined

Three females and three males from sand dunes in L'Altet (province of Alicante, Spain), in good condition.

Measurements

For measurements, see table 1.

Table 1.

Morphometrics of Acrobeles species collected from coastal dunes in Spain. All measurements in μm.

Demanian indices (de Man, 1881): a = body length / body diameter; b = body length / neck length; c = body length / tail length; c′ = tail length / anal body diameter; V = vulva – anterior end / body length × 100.

Description

Adult (figs 1A–E and 2A–F). Body fusiform, 0.48–0.53 mm long. Usually curved ventrad after fixation. Cuticle clearly annulated and ‘single’. Annuli 3 μm wide. Lateral fields with two longitudinal incisures that continue until phasmids, occupying 26–37% of mid-body diameter. Lip region very wide, continuous with body contour, having three pairs of asymmetrical lips, one dorsal and two ventrolateral and bearing six labial and four cephalic sensilla. Primary axils deep, U-shaped and bearing two elongate triangular processes originating from the incomplete first annulus. Secondary axils with one small and rounded guarding process. Lips asymmetrical, triangular, with dentate margin bearing triangular tines (pinnae) with elongate tip with similar morphology: eight pinnae at primary axils and seven pinnae at secondary axils and one longer acute apical pinna. Oral opening surrounded by three labial probolae; each probolae composed of a short basal part (stipe) and a longer and bifurcated distal part (furca) with very long and divergent prongs, bearing seven elongated and very thin lateral pinnae in the outer and inner margin, and two very thin elongated pinnae at distal or apical end (apex). Amphids situated at the base of each lateral lip, and rounded. Stoma cephaloboid. Pharynx also cephaloboid, differentiated in three parts: pharyngeal corpus subcylindrical, 3.1–4.8 times isthmus length; isthmus narrower than metacorpus; basal bulb ovoid, with well-developed valvular apparatus. Cardia conoid, surrounded by intestinal tissue. Nerve ring at 74–78% of neck length at level of the isthmus. Excretory pore anterior at 45–53% of neck length. Deirids at 83–91% of neck length, at level of bulb. Intestine without distinct specializations.

Fig. 1.

LM. (A–E) Acrobeles ciliatus. (F–J) Acrobeles cylindricus; (K–O) Acrobeles aenigmaticus; (P–T) Acrobeles complexus.

Fig. 2.

SEM of Acrobeles species with ‘single’ cuticle. (A–F) Acrobeles ciliatus; (G–M) Acrobeles cylindricus.

Female. Reproductive system monodelphic–prodelphic, cephaloboid, right side in relation to intestine. Ovary with flexure, very short oviduct and well-developed spermatheca, 0.8 times the body diameter. Uterus length twice the body diameter. Post-vulval uterine sac with length 0.9–1.1 times the body diameter. Vagina short, extending inward 30–32% of body diameter. Vulva not protruding. Rectum 0.8–1.0 times the anal body diameter; three small gland-like cells are distinguishable around the intestine–rectum junction. Tail conical. Phasmids located at 26–35% of tail length.

Male. Reproductive system monorchid, with well-developed testis reflexed ventrally, anteriorly. Spicules paired and symmetrical, 28–39 times longer than wide, slightly elongate and ventrally curved, having cylindrical calamus and ventrally curved with acute tip bent ventrally. Gubernaculum arcuate in lateral view. Three small gland-like cells are distinguishable around the cloaca. Two pairs of pre-cloacal genital papillae. Five pairs of post-cloacal genital papillae (two pairs at the middle of tail and three pairs near tail terminus). Tail conical, ventrally curved, with acute terminus. Phasmids located at 30–38% of tail length.

Acrobeles cylindricus Ivanova, 1968

Material examined

Ten females and ten males from sand dunes in Gavá (province of Barcelona, Spain), in good condition.

Measurements

For measurements, see table 1.

Description

Adult (figs 1F–J and 2G–M). Body fusiform, 0.4–0.5 mm long. Usually curved ventrad after fixation. Cuticle clearly annulated and ‘single’. Annuli 2 μm wide. Lateral fields with two longitudinal incisures that continue until phasmids, occupying 29–46% of mid-body diameter. Lip region narrower than the adjacent part of body, continuous with the body contour, having three pairs of asymmetrical lips, one dorsal and two ventrolateral, and bearing six labial and four cephalic sensilla. Primary axils deep, U-shaped and bearing two elongate triangular processes originating from the incomplete first annulus. Secondary axils bearing two elongated guarding processes. Lips asymmetrical, triangular, bordered by more or less triangular pinnae having elongate, almost filiform, terminus: six pinnae at primary axils, seven pinnae at secondary axils and apex with one longer acute pinna. Oral opening surrounded by three labial probolae provided by a short basal stipe and a longer and bifurcated distal furca bordered by pinnae similar to those from lips: seven pinnae at both outer and inner margin, and two very thin and elongated apical pinnae. Amphids situated at the base of each lateral lip, and rounded. Stoma cephaloboid. Pharynx also cephaloboid, differentiated in three parts: pharyngeal corpus subcylindrical, 2–4 times isthmus length; isthmus narrower than metacorpus; basal bulb ovoid, with well-developed valvular apparatus. Cardia conoid, surrounded by intestinal tissue. Nerve ring at 48–65% of neck length at level of pharyngeal corpus base. Excretory pore anterior at 23–31% of neck length. Deirids at 56–62% of neck length. Intestine without distinct specializations.

Female. Reproductive system monodelphic–prodelphic, cephaloboid, dextral side in relation to intestine. Ovary without flexure, oviduct very short and spermatheca one times the body diameter. Uterus length 1–2 times the body diameter. Post-vulval uterine sac length one times the body diameter. Vagina short, extending 20–33% of body diameter. Vulva not protruding. Rectum one times the anal body diameter; three small gland-like cells are distinguishable around the intestine–rectum junction. Tail conical with acute or finely rounded terminus. Phasmids located at 26–33% of tail length.

Male. Reproductive system monorchid, with well-developed testis reflexed ventrally, anteriorly. Spicules paired and symmetrical, 7–9 times longer than wide, slightly elongate and ventrally curved, having cylindrical calamus and ventrally curved lamina with acute tip bent ventrally. Gubernaculum arcuate in lateral view. Three small gland-like cells are distinguishable at rectum–cloaca junction. Two pairs of pre-cloacal genital papillae and five pairs of post-cloacal genital papillae (two pairs at the middle of tail and three pairs near tail terminus). Tail conical, ventrally curved, with acute terminus. Phasmids located at 29–46% of tail length.

Acrobeles aenigmaticus Abolafia, Shokoohi, Du Preez & Fourie, 2019

Material examined

Eight females and seven males from sand dunes in L'Altet (province of Alicante, Spain), in good condition.

Measurements

For measurements, see table 1.

Description

Adult (figs 1K–O and 3A–H). Body fusiform, 0.6–0.7 mm long. Usually curved ventrad after fixation. Cuticle annulated and ‘double’; annuli with few and separated small pore-like structures located at the interannular space. Lateral fields with two longitudinal incisures that continue until phasmids, occupying 14–21% of mid-body diameter. Lip region continuous with body contour having three pairs of asymmetrical lips, one dorsal and two ventrolateral, and bearing six labial and four cephalic sensilla. Primary axils deep, U-shaped and bearing two elongate triangular processes originating from the incomplete first annulus. Secondary axils bearing two guarding processes, each one originating from each lip. Lips asymmetrical, triangular, with dentate margin bearing triangular pinnae with fine rounded or rhomboid terminus: 7–9 pinnae at primary axils, 6–7 pinnae at secondary axils, the third from base more elongated and one longer acute apical pinna. Oral opening surrounded by three labial probolae, each composed of a short basal stipe and a longer and bifurcated distal furca having very long and divergent prongs bearing lateral pinnae, thinner towards the apex: eight elongated with fine rounded terminus at outer margin, six rounded shorter with rounded terminus at inner margin and two or three thinner at apical end. Amphids situated at the base of each lateral lip, large and rounded. Stoma cephaloboid. Pharynx also cephaloboid, differentiated in three parts: pharyngeal corpus subcylindrical, 3–5 times isthmus length; isthmus slightly anteriorly wider; basal bulb ovoid, with well-developed valvular apparatus. Cardia conoid, surrounded by intestinal tissue. Nerve ring at 70–74% of neck length, at level of posterior part of metacorpus. Excretory pore at 67–78% of neck length, at level of posterior part of metacorpus. Deirids at 80–100% of neck length, at level of bulb. Intestine without distinct specializations.

Fig. 3.

SEM of Acrobeles species with ‘double’ cuticle. (A–H) Acrobeles aenigmaticus; (I–P) Acrobeles complexus.

Female. Reproductive system monodelphic–prodelphic, cephaloboid, dextral in relation to intestine. Ovary long, oviduct very short and spermatheca well developed, 1.0–1.1 times the body diameter. Uterus length twice the body diameter. Post-vulval uterine sac well developed, long, 3–4 times the body diameter. Vagina short, extending inward 29–36% of body diameter. Vulva very reduced and displaced to left side, close to lateral field and without protruding lips. Rectum one times the anal body diameter; three small gland-like cells are distinguishable around the intestine–rectum junction. Tail conoid-elongate, anteriorly slightly ventrad curved and posteriorly straight or slightly dorsal, curved, narrower after phasmids, especially on dorsal side. Phasmids located at 26–29% of tail length.

Male. Reproductive system monorchid, dextral in position, with underdeveloped testis reflexed ventrad anteriorly. Spicules paired and symmetrical, 10–11 times longer than wide, slightly elongate and ventrally curved, having rounded calamus and ventrally curved with acute tip bent ventrally. Gubernaculum well developed, curved, about half the length of spicules, well-developed crura. Three small gland-like cells are distinguishable at rectum–cloaca junction. Genital papillae as follows: three pre-cloacal pairs and five post-cloacal pairs (two at middle part, one lateral pair at lateral field level and one subventral, and three pairs near tail terminus), one subdorsal, one lateral and one subventral. Tail conical, posteriorly ventrad curved, with acute tip. Phasmids located at 30–38% of tail length.

Acrobeles complexus Thorne, 1925

Material examined

Ten females and ten males from sand dunes in Matalascañas (province of Huelva, Spain), in good condition.

Measurements

For measurements, see table 1.

Description

Adult (figs 1P–T and 3I–P). Body fusiform, 0.7–0.87 mm long. Usually curved ventrad after fixation. Cuticle annulated and ‘double’; annuli with few and separated small pore-like structures. Lateral fields with two longitudinal incisures that continue until phasmids, occupying 14–18% of mid-body diameter. Lip region continuous with body contour having three pairs of asymmetrical lips, one dorsal and two ventrolateral, bearing six labial and four cephalic sensilla. Primary axils deep, U-shaped, with two elongate triangular processes originating from the incomplete first annulus. Secondary axils bearing two guarding processes, each one originating from each lip. Lips asymmetrical, triangular, bordered by rounded pinnae: six pinnae at primary axils, seven pinnae at secondary axils, the third of them from the base having an elongate tip, and one longer acute pinna at apex. Oral opening surrounded by three labial probolae, each one provided by a short stipe and a longer and bifurcated distal furca with very long and convergent prongs bordered by lateral pinnae: six rounded to almost triangular at outer margin, six almost triangular at inner margin and two very elongated at apical terminus. Amphids situated at the base of each lateral lip, clearly visible with circular opening. Stoma cephaloboid. Pharynx also cephaloboid, differentiated in three parts: pharyngeal corpus subcylindrical, 2.5–3.9 times isthmus length; isthmus slightly anteriorly wider; basal bulb ovoid, with well-developed valvular apparatus. Cardia conoid, surrounded by intestinal tissue. Nerve ring at 68–75% of neck length, at isthmus level. Excretory pore at 64–78% of neck length, at level of posterior part of metacorpus. Deirids at 65–82% of neck length, at level of bulb. Intestine without distinct specializations.

Female. Reproductive system monodelphic–prodelphic, cephaloboid, dextral in relation to intestine. Ovary long, oviduct very short and spermatheca well developed, 0.7–1.2 times the body diameter. Uterus length 2.3–2.7 times the body diameter. Post-vulval uterine sac well developed, long, 1.7–2.5 times the body diameter. Vagina well developed, extending inward 32–43% of body diameter. Vulva transverse. Rectum 0.6–0.9 times the anal body diameter; three small gland-like cells are distinguishable around the intestine–rectum junction. Tail conical with acute rounded terminus. Phasmids located at 22–31% of tail length.

Male. Reproductive system monorchid, dextral in position, with well-developed testis reflexed ventrally, anteriorly. Spicules paired and symmetrical, 7.3–10.5 times longer than wide, slightly elongate and ventrally curved, having rounded calamus and ventrally curved with acute tip bent ventrally. Gubernaculum well developed, curved, about half of spicule length, with well-developed crura. Three small gland-like cells are distinguishable at rectum–cloaca junction. Two pairs of pre-cloacal papillae and five pairs of post-cloacal genital papillae (two close to phasmid and three at tail terminus). Tail conical, posteriorly ventrad curved, with acute terminus. Phasmids located at 30–38% of tail length.

Molecular characterization

Five 18S rDNA sequences of A. complexus were obtained, having 894 bp (MZ407234), 690 bp (MZ407235), 795 bp (MZ407236), 741 bp (MZ407237) and 708 bp (MZ407238), all of which were 100% similar in having a shared segment in common with 679 bp. Compared with other A. complexus sequences (AY284671, KU180671), the Spanish specimens showed 99.5% similarity (or 3 bp differences) in having a segment in common with 635 bp. On the other hand, one 28S rDNA sequence with 755 bp (MZ407239) maintained 3 bp differences with A. complexus from California (DQ145620).

Discussion

Morphological results

Each pair of species examined, all of which are very frequent in the xeric areas examined in southern Spain, appear together in the same samples with very similar morphology, thus accounting for why they could be easily confused. As a result of the present study, the following important morphological differences have been found:

Acrobeles ciliatus vs. A. cylindricus

Both species with ‘single’ cuticle are very similar, having similar body size (484–553 μm vs. 402–528 μm), but they can be distinguished by the width of lip region, similar at the adjacent part of the body in A. ciliatus (figs 1A and 2A) and visibly narrower in A. cylindricus (figs 1F and 2G), excretory pore located anteriorly (at metacorpus level (fig. 1A) vs. at procorpus (fig. 1F)). Both species present labial probolae with similar elongate pinnae (figs 2B, C and 4C for A. ciliatus; figs 2H, I and 4D for A. cylindricus).

Fig. 4.

Schematic view of the lip region pattern of four Acrobeles species based on SEM observations. (A) Acrobeles aenigmaticus; (B) Acrobeles complexus; (C) Acrobeles ciliatus; (D) Acrobeles cylindricus.

Acrobeles aenigmaticus vs. A. complexus

Both species with ‘double’ cuticle were considered very similar by Abolafia et al. (Reference Abolafia, Shokoohi, Du Preez and Fourie2019), but these species present some clear differences. The body length of A. aenigmaticus is slightly smaller than in A. complexus (600–800 μm vs. 700–870 μm), labial probolae of the first species are also smaller and elongate than the second species (12–15 μm vs. 13–17 μm), having different morphology of the pinnae, triangular in A. aenigmaticus (figs 3B, C and 4A) vs. more or less rounded (figs 3J, K and 4B). However, a very important character that differentiates both species is the position of the vulva (ventrally centred in A. complexus (fig. 3L) vs. left sublateral in A. aenigmaticus (fig. 3D)). This characteristic appears in other cephalobid pairs of species, such as Acrobeloides saeedi Siddiqi, De Ley & Khan, 1992 and Acrobeloides longiuterus (Rashid & Heyns, 1990) Siddiqi, De Ley & Khan, 1992, Chiloplacus insularis Orselli & Vinciguerra, 2002 and Chiloplacus magnus Rashid & Heyns, 2000, Chiloplacus tenuis Rashid & Henys, 2000 and Chiloplacus membranifer Holovachov, Boström, Mundo-Ocampo & Villenave, 2008, all very similar species to each other and mainly distinguishable by the position of the vulva (midventral vs. sublateral). In the material examined of A. aenigmaticus in this study, males have a very underdeveloped, small testis, while in A. complexus, testis is very well developed and large. Another difference between males is in the spicule morphology, where the manubrium is rounded in A. aenigmaticus and conoid in A. complexus.

Ciliatus-group vs. complexus-group

Both groups, distinguished by the presence of a ‘single’ and ‘double’ cuticle, respectively, are also distinguished by having several important differences: body size (402–553 μm vs. 600–870 μm), morphology of the pinnae at labial probolae (conoid with elongate tip vs. more rounded), absence vs. presence of pore-like cuticular processes and position of the excretory pore (at pharyngeal corpus level vs. at isthmus level). We can also consider other differences, such as the presence of three longitudinal incisures in the lateral field in the ciliatus-group and 2–4 incisures in the complexus-group. Also, in most species having a ‘double’ cuticle, the post-vulval sac is well developed and large (with the exceptions of Acrobeles iranicus Shokoohi, Abolafia & Zad, 2007, Acrobeles mariannae Andrássy, 1968, Acrobeles oasiensis Böstrom, 1985 and Acrobeles timmi (Chaturvedi & Khera, 1979) Andrássy, Reference Andrássy1985), while in species with a ‘single’ cuticle, the post-vulval sac is very small (with the exceptions of A. ciliatus, Acrobeles microstomus Iliev, Ilieva & Mitor, 2003, Acrobeles seelyae Rashid, Heyns & Coomans, Reference Rashid, Heyns and Coomans1990 and Acrobeles sheasbyi Heyns & Hogewind, 1969).

Molecular results

Molecular analyses in the present paper and previous papers (Nadler et al., Reference Nadler, De Ley and Mundo-Ocampo2006; Mehdizadeh et al., Reference Mehdizadeh, Shokoohi and Abolafia2013; Abolafia et al., Reference Abolafia, Divsalar, Panahi and Shokoohi2014, Reference Abolafia, Shokoohi, Du Preez and Fourie2019; Abolafia & Peña-Santiago, Reference Abolafia and Peña-Santiago2020) showed the phylogenetic separation of both complexus and ciliatus groups being both monophyletic groups. The trees based on 18S rDNA (fig. 5) and 28S rDNA (fig. 6) segments show two clearly separated groups of species belonging to the complexus-group and ciliatus-group. Species of the genus Cervidellus Thorne, 1937 appear related with these two groups, especially with the complexus-group, as is observable in the 28S tree, while the 18S tree does not resolve this relationship.

Fig. 5.

Bayesian inference tree from known and newly sequenced Acrobeles complexus based on sequences of the 18S rDNA region. Bayesian posterior probabilities (%) are given for each clade. Scale bar shows the number of substitutions per site.

Fig. 6.

Bayesian inference tree from known and newly sequenced Acrobeles complexus based on sequences of the 28S rDNA region. Bayesian posterior probabilities (%) are given for each clade. Scale bar shows the number of substitutions per site.

The 18S sequences of A. complexus compared with other species with a ‘double’ cuticle, in a segment in common with 635 bp, present 98.8% similarity (8 bp differences: insertions, deletions or substitutions) with A. aenigmaticus (MH092911) and 97.6% (17 bp) with A. mariannae (KC509907), while in comparison to species with a ‘single’ cuticle, such as A. ciliatus (AF202148), they present 98.3% similarity (9 or 12 bp differences). The other two species, Acrobeles cephalatus (Cobb, 1901) Thorne, 1925 and Acrobeles ctenocephalus Thorne, 1925 (AB630972, AY630971, DQ080560) do not show any overlapped segment with A. complexus sequenced in the present study; however, with other A. complexus sequences (KU180671, AY284671) and A. ciliatus, they maintain a shared segment with 591 bp, having 97.6% similarity (14 bp differences) with each other. Thus, A. ctenocephalatus, with a ‘double’ cuticle, presents 98.9% similarity (6 bp differences) with A. ciliatus, 98.8% (7 bp) with A. cephalatus and 98.6% (8–9 bp) with A. complexus (KU180671, AY284671). Acrobeles cephalatus with a ‘single’ cuticle’ has 99.2% similarity (2 bp and 7 bp differences) with A. complexus (KU180671, AY284671, respectively), and 98.3% (10 bp) with A. ciliatus.

The new 28S sequence obtained has been analysed and compared with other 28S rDNA sequences available in GenBank. From a shared segment with 674 bp, A. complexus maintains 97.6% similarity (15–18 bp differences) with A. aenigmaticus (MG200059), 91.5% (56–59 bp) with Acrobeles cf. undulatus Loof, 1964 (HM055387), 88.8% (73–75 bp) with Acrobeles singulus (DQ145622) and 88.7% (76 bp) with A. ciliatus (DQ14561). On the other hand, A. ciliatus presents 92.9% similarity (48 bp differences) with A. singulus, 87.9% (81 bp) with A. undulatus, all of them with a ‘single’ cuticle, and 89.2% (73 bp) with A. aenigmaticus and 88.7% (76 bp) with A. complexus, both species with a ‘double’ cuticle.

With respect to other genera, the 18S sequences of the complexus-group and the ciliatus-group, comparing a shared segment with 637 bp, differ, respectively, in 7 vs. 10 bp with Cervidellus, 32 vs. 33 bp with Acrobeloides (Cobb, 1924) Thorne, 1937, 30 vs. 27 bp with Pseudacrobeles Steiner, 1938 and 34 vs. 33 bp with Eucephalobus Steiner, 1936. The 28S sequences differ, regarding the complexus and ciliatus groups, respectively, in 125 vs. 138 bp with Nothacrobeles Allen & Noffsinger, 1971, 150 vs. 186 bp with Cervidellus, 143 vs. 203 bp with Acrobeloides, 179 vs. 220 bp with Eucephalobus and 213 vs. 232 bp with Pseudacrobeles. This shows that the species of the genera Cervidellus and Nothacrobeles are the most related with both Acrobeles groups, as is visible in both phylogenetic trees. Nevertheless, these molecular analyses show that these related genera are polyphyletic, as is evident in the morphology of the lip region of their species, which have great variability and are in need of a deep review.

Integrative morphological and molecular results

The morphological and molecular analyses show that both groups are very similar but have important differences – in particular, the presence or absence of an inner refringent cuticle. This could indicate that both groups of species are not closely related, as shown in the phylogenetic trees. The ciliatus-group contains 21 species but, unfortunately, only four of them have available 18S or 28S sequences. The complexus-group includes 13 species, only four of them have available 18S or 28S sequences. Unfortunately, most specimens with sequences available in GenBank lack description and their identity cannot be confirmed. The present molecular analyses based on 18S and 28S rDNA segments show that species with a ‘single’ cuticle appear together as well as species with a ‘double’ cuticle. This phylogenetic arrangement agrees, in general, with the morphological differences described previously. Thus, according to morphological and molecular observations, the ciliatus-group present plesiomorphic characters (‘single’ cuticle, absence of cuticular pore-like structures), while the complexus-group present apomorphic characters (‘double’ cuticle, presence of cuticular pore-like structures).

According to these morphological and molecular differences, it should justify erecting both groups as separate genera, as proposed by Andrássy (Reference Andrássy1985, Reference Andrássy2005). Both groups maintain few, albeit important, morphological differences, which are not enough to consider them as separate genera. On the other hand, three species were described with an ‘intermediate’ cuticle having an incomplete refringent inner cuticular layer (Acrobeles andalusicus Abolafia & Peña-Santiago, Reference Abolafia and Peña-Santiago2004, Acrobeles sparsus Heyns, 1969 and A. undulatus), provisionally included in the ciliatus-group; however, any sequences that may have been obtained for these species (only an unidentified species but having similarities with A. undulatus, HM055387) and their phylogenetic relationships remain unknown. In addition, most species belonging to both groups lack molecular analyses at the present, being premature to reinstate both taxa to the generic level. Thus, according to both morphological and molecular differences, we consider it more suitable to erect the separation of both groups in subgeneric levels, the subgenus Acrobeles for the ciliatus-group and the subgenus Seleborca for the complexus-group, maintaining the names proposed by Andrássy (Reference Andrássy1985, Reference Andrássy2005) until sequences of more species are obtained and their phylogenetic position more reliably identified.

List of species

Subgenus Acrobeles (ciliatus-group)

  • Acrobeles (Acrobeles) andalusicus Abolafia & Peña-Santiago, Reference Abolafia and Peña-Santiago2004

  • Acrobeles (Acrobeles) annulatus Heyns, 1969

  • Acrobeles (Acrobeles) bushmanicus Heyns, 1969

  • Acrobeles (Acrobeles) canalis Andrássy, Reference Andrássy1985

  • Acrobeles (Acrobeles) chelatus Thomas & Allen, 1965

  • Acrobeles (Acrobeles) ciliatus von Linstow, Reference von Linstow1877

  • Acrobeles (Acrobeles) cylindricus Ivanova, 1968

  • Acrobeles (Acrobeles) elaboratus Thorne, 1925

  • Acrobeles (Acrobeles) ensicaudatus Thomas & Allen, 1965 (species was transferred to the genus Seleborca by Andrássy (Reference Andrássy1985); however, it lacks a ‘double’ cuticle and is now maintained in Acrobeles (Acrobeles) as was originally proposed by Thomas & Allen (1965))

    • = Acrobeles ensicaudatus Thomas & Allen, 1965

    • = Seleborca ensicaudata (Thomas & Allen, 1965) Andrássy, Reference Andrássy1985

  • Acrobeles (Acrobeles) farzanae Heyns, 1995

  • Acrobeles (Acrobeles) kotingotingus Yeates, 1967

  • Acrobeles (Acrobeles) microstomus Iliev, Ilieva & Mitor, 2003

  • Acrobeles (Acrobeles) seelyae Rashid et al., Reference Rashid, Heyns and Coomans1990

  • Acrobeles (Acrobeles) serricornis Thorne, 1925

  • Acrobeles (Acrobeles) sheasbyi Heyns & Hogewind, 1969

  • Acrobeles (Acrobeles) singulus Heyns, 1969

  • Acrobeles (Acrobeles) sparsus Heyns, 1969

  • Acrobeles (Acrobeles) taraus Yeates, 1967

  • Acrobeles (Acrobeles) thornei Heyns, 1962

  • Acrobeles (Acrobeles) undulatus Loof, 1964

  • Acrobeles (Acrobeles) zapatai Mundo-Ocampo, Baldwin, Dorado-Ramírez & Morales-Ruiz, 2003

Subgenus Seleborca n. rank (complexus-group)

Species inquirendae vel incertae sedis

  • Acrobeles cephalatus (Cobb, 1901) Thorne, 1925

  • Acrobeles ilidzensis Paesler, 1941

  • Acrobeles neocephalatus Kannan, 1961

  • Acrobeles pachidinovae Atakhanov, 1958

  • Acrobeles raoi Kannan, 1961

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful for the assistance of technical staff (Amparo Martínez-Morales) and provision of equipment of the ‘Centro de Instrumentación Científico-Técnica (CICT)’ from the University of Jaén in obtaining SEM pictures. English revised by Dr Primavera Cuder (Southwest Minnesota State University).

Financial support

The authors thank the ‘University of Jaén/Caja Rural Jaén Foundation’, Spain, for the financial support received for the project entitled ‘Filogeografía de nematodos rabdítidos (Nematoda, Rhabditida) en ambientes xerofíticos del sur de la Península Ibérica’ (UJA2014/03/01) and the research activities ‘PAIUJA 2019/2020: EI_RNM02_2019’ and ‘PAIUJA 2021/2022: EI_RNM02_2021’ of the University of Jaén, Spain.

Conflicts of interest

None

References

Abolafia, J (2015) A low-cost technique to manufacture a container to process meiofauna for scanning electron microscopy. Microscopy Research and Technique 78, 771–776.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abolafia, J, Divsalar, N, Panahi, H and Shokoohi, E (2014) Description of Paracrobeles deserticola sp. n. and Nothacrobeles hebetocaudatus sp. n. (Nematoda: Rhabditida: Cephalobidae) from Iran and the phylogenetic relationships of these two species. Zootaxa 3827, 001–019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abolafia, J and Peña-Santiago, R (2004) Nematodes of the order Rhabditida from Andalucía Oriental, Spain. The genus Acrobeles von Linstow, 1877 with description of A. andalusicus sp. n. and a key to species. Journal of Nematode Morphology and Systematics 6(2003), 103–128.Google Scholar
Abolafia, J and Peña-Santiago, R (2017) On the identity of Chiloplacus magnus Rashid and Heyns, 1990 and C. insularis Orselli and Vinciguerra, 2002 (Rhabditida: Cephalobidae), two confusable species. Nematology 19, 1017–1034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abolafia, J and Peña-Santiago, R (2020) On the identity of Eucephalobus oxyuroides (de Man, 1876) Steiner, 1936, (Rhabditida, Cephalobidae) with an updated taxonomy of the genus and notes about its phylogeny. Journal of Nematology 52, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abolafia, J, Shokoohi, E, Du Preez, G and Fourie, H (2019) Description of Acrobeles aenigmaticus sp. n. (Rhabditida: Cephalobidae), an unusual species with a poorly developed vulva, from the Kalahari desert (Ngamiland, Botswana). Nematology 21, 319–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrássy, I (1985) A dozen new nematode species from Hungary. Opuscula Zoologica Budapestinensis 19, 3–39.Google Scholar
Andrássy, I (2005) Free-living nematodes of Hungary (Nematoda errantia). Volume I. In the series: Csuzdi C and Mahunka S (eds). Pedozoologica Hungarica, No. 3. Hungarian Natural History Museum, Budapest, 518 pp.Google Scholar
Archidona-Yuste, A, Navas-Cortés, JA, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, C, Palomares-Rius, JE and Castillo, P (2016) Unravelling the biodiversity and molecular phylogeny of needle nematodes of the genus Longidorus (Nematoda: Longidoridae) in olive and a description of six new species. PLoS One 11, e0147689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baermann, G (1917) Eine einfache methodezurauffindung von ankylostomum (nematoden) larven in erdproben. Geneeskunding Tijdschriftvoor Nederlandsh-Indië 57, 131–137.Google Scholar
Boström, S and Holovachov, O (2019) Descriptions of species of Acrobeles von Linstow, 1877 (Nematoda, Rhabditida, Cephalobidae) from Kelso Dunes, Mojave National Preserve, California, USA. Zootaxa 4651, 330–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castillo, P, Vovlas, N, Subbotin, SA and Troccoli, A (2003) A new root-knot nematode, Meloidogyne baetica n. sp. (Nematoda: Heteroderidae), parasitizing wild olive in Southern Spain. Phytopathology 93, 1093–1102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darriba, D, Taboada, GL, Doallo, R and Posada, D (2012) Jmodeltest 2: more models, new heuristics and parallel computing. Nature Methods 9, 772.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Ley, P, Felix, AM, Frisse, LM, Nadler, SA, Sternberg, PW and Thomas, WK (1999) Molecular and morphological characterization of two reproductively isolated species with mirror-image anatomy (Nematoda: Cephalobidae). Nematology 1, 591–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Ley, P, Geraert, E and Coomans, A (1990) Seven cephalobids from Senegal (Nematoda: Rhabditida). Journal of African Zoology 104, 287–304.Google Scholar
De Ley, P, van de Velde, MC, Mounport, D, Baujard, P and Coomans, A (1995) Ultrastructure of the stoma in Cephalobidae, Panagrolaimidae and Rhaditidae, with a proposal for a revised stoma terminology in Rhabditida (Nematoda). Nematologica 41, 153–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Man, J G (1881) Die einheimischen, frei in der reinen Erde und im süssen Wasser lebenden Nematoden. Tijdschrift van der Nederlandsche dierkundige Vereeniging 5, 1–104.Google Scholar
Hall, TA (1999) Bioedit: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for windows 95/98/NT. Nucleic Acids Symposium Series 41, 95–98.Google Scholar
Holterman, M, van der Wurff, A, van den Elsen, S, van Megen, H, Bongers, T, Holovachov, O, Bakker, J and Helder, J (2006) Phylum-wide analysis of SSU rDNA reveals deep phylogenetic relationships among nematodes and accelerated evolution toward crown clades. Molecular Biology and Evolution 23, 1792–1800.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kumar, S, Stecher, G and Tamura, K (2016) MEGA7: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 7.0 for bigger datasets. Molecular Biology and Evolution 33, 1870–1874.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larget, B and Simon, DL (1999) Markov Chain Monte Carlo algorithms for the Bayesian analysis of phylogenetic trees. Molecular Biology and Evolution 16, 750–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehdizadeh, S, Shokoohi, E and Abolafia, J (2013) Morphology, molecular characterization and systematic position of some known species of cephalobid nematodes (Rhabditida. Cephalobidae) from Iran. Journal of Nematode Mophological Systematics 16, 143–160.Google Scholar
Nadler, SA, De Ley, P, Mundo-Ocampo, M, et al. (2006) Phylogeny of Cephalobina (Nematoda): molecular evidence for recurrent evolution of probolae and incongruence with traditional classifications. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 40, 696–711.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nunn, GB (1992) Nematode molecular evolution. An investigation of evolutionary patterns among nematodes based upon DNA sequences. PhD dissertation, University of Nottingham, UK, 228 pp.Google Scholar
Rambaut, A (2018) Figtree, a graphical viewer of phylogenetic trees. Available at https://github.com/rambaut/figtree/releases/tag/v1.4.4Google Scholar
Rashid, F, Heyns, J and Coomans, A (1990) Species of Seleborca andrássy, 1985 from south West Africa/Namibia (Nematoda: Cephalobidae). Phytophylactica 22, 51–62.Google Scholar
Ronquist, F, Teslenko, M, van der Mark, P, et al. (2012) MrBayes 3.2: efficient Bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across a large model space. Systematic Biology 61, 539–542.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sanger, F, Nicklen, S and Coulson, AR (1977) DNA sequencing with chain-terminating inhibitors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U.S.A 74, 5463–5467.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shahina, F and De Ley, P (1997) Two new species of Cephalobidae from Valle de la Luna, Argentina, and observations on the genera Acrobeles and Nothacrobeles (Nematoda: Rhabditida). Fundamental and Applied Nematology 20, 329–347.Google Scholar
Siddiqi, MR (1964) Studies on Discolaimus spp. (Nematoda: Dorylaimidae) from India. Zeitschrift für Zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung 2, 174–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorne, G (1925) The genus Acrobeles von Linstow, 1887. Transactions of the American Microscopical Society 44, 171–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorne, G (1937) A revision of the nematode family Cephalobidae Chitwood and Chitwood, 1934. Proceedings of the Helminthological Society of Washington 4, 1–16.Google Scholar
von Linstow, OFB (1877) Helminthologica. Archiv für Naturgeschichte 43, 1–18. Plates I, II.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Morphometrics of Acrobeles species collected from coastal dunes in Spain. All measurements in μm.

Figure 1

Fig. 1. LM. (A–E) Acrobeles ciliatus. (F–J) Acrobeles cylindricus; (K–O) Acrobeles aenigmaticus; (P–T) Acrobeles complexus.

Figure 2

Fig. 2. SEM of Acrobeles species with ‘single’ cuticle. (A–F) Acrobeles ciliatus; (G–M) Acrobeles cylindricus.

Figure 3

Fig. 3. SEM of Acrobeles species with ‘double’ cuticle. (A–H) Acrobeles aenigmaticus; (I–P) Acrobeles complexus.

Figure 4

Fig. 4. Schematic view of the lip region pattern of four Acrobeles species based on SEM observations. (A) Acrobeles aenigmaticus; (B) Acrobeles complexus; (C) Acrobeles ciliatus; (D) Acrobeles cylindricus.

Figure 5

Fig. 5. Bayesian inference tree from known and newly sequenced Acrobeles complexus based on sequences of the 18S rDNA region. Bayesian posterior probabilities (%) are given for each clade. Scale bar shows the number of substitutions per site.

Figure 6

Fig. 6. Bayesian inference tree from known and newly sequenced Acrobeles complexus based on sequences of the 28S rDNA region. Bayesian posterior probabilities (%) are given for each clade. Scale bar shows the number of substitutions per site.