Skip to main content
International Journal for Parasitology: Parasites and Wildlife logoLink to International Journal for Parasitology: Parasites and Wildlife
. 2022 Aug 11;19:56–67. doi: 10.1016/j.ijppaw.2022.07.002

Rodentolepis microstoma isolated from different species of Sigmodontinae rodents (Rodentia: Cricetidae) in the Cuenca del Plata, Argentina: Morphological aspects and molecular characterization

Natalia Beatriz Guerreiro Martins a,, María del Rosario Robles a,1, Marcelo Knoff b, Graciela Teresa Navone a, Rocío Callejón c
PMCID: PMC9420344  PMID: 36043155

Abstract

The purpose of this paper was to study specimens of the genus Rodentolepis isolated from eight species of Sigmodontinae rodents (Rodentia: Cricetidae) from six provinces in the Cuenca del Plata, Argentina, based on morphological, morphometric and molecular characteristics (ITS1 rDNA and cox1 mtDNA). The genetic distances among studied specimens and other Hymenolepididae from rodents available in the GenBank were analyzed and phylogenetic inferences were provided. A total of 955 specimens of Sigmodontinae rodents were examined from seven localities of six provinces in the Cuenca del Plata region in Argentina. Tapeworms were removed from the rodents’ small intestines. Conventional studies were used for the morphological and molecular analysis. Specimens of R. microstoma were identified. An amended diagnosis and detailed morphological description of this species is provided. The molecular analyses showed that the specimens studied form the same clade as that of R. microstoma previously studied from other hosts and regions. The genetic polymorphisms of R. microstoma observed corresponded to different groups of species hosts and regions. Moreover, eight species of sigmodontine rodents and 33 localities from the Cuenca del Plata region in Argentina constitute new host and geographical records. This study shows the importance of using integrative taxonomic approaches that combine morphological and molecular characters to understand biological diversity. Moreover, the discovery of R. microstoma in humans suggests the importance of further studies on this zoonotic cestode. This study provides important data on the taxonomy and distribution of R. microstoma to advance knowledge of the transmission dynamics of this parasite.

Keywords: Hymenolepididae, Rodentolepis, Rodents, Argentina, Taxonomy

Graphical abstract

Image 1

Highlights

  • Rodentolepis microstoma is recorded parasitizing Sigmodontinae rodents in Argentina.

  • Morphological variations are observed in R. microstoma between host species and areas.

  • Amended diagnosis of Rodentolepis microstoma is provided.

  • Phylogenetic inferences of Hymenolepididae from rodents are proposed.

1. Introduction

The Hymenolepididae (Cyclophyllidea) are the family with the highest species richness recorded among the Cestoda, with more than 920 valid species (Czaplinski and Vaucher, 1994; Mariaux et al., 2017). This family includes tapeworms that parasitize mostly birds and mammals. Among mammals, most of the genera and species occur in Soricomorpha, Chiroptera, and Rodentia (e.g., Vaucher, 1971; Czaplinski and Vaucher, 1994; Georgiev et al., 2006; Mariaux et al., 2017). Among rodents, the families with the most frequently recorded host species of Hymenolepididae are Muridae, Geomyidae, Sciuridae, Cricetidae, and Spalacidae (Gardner and Schmidt, 1988; Makarikov and Tkach, 2013; Makarikov et al., 2013, 2015; Gardner et al., 2014). Phylogenetic hypotheses on Cyclophyllidea have been proposed based on partial genes of mitochondrial DNA (cox1) and on regions of nuclear ribosomal DNA (12S, 18S, and ITS2) (Von Nickisch-Rosenegk et al., 1999; Foronda et al., 2004; Tandon et al., 2011; Sharma et al., 2016). Also, morphological and molecular analyses have been provided for various genera and species of Hymenolepididae (e.g., Hoberg et al., 2001; Olson et al., 2001; Georgiev et al., 2006; Haukisalmi et al., 2010). In addition, a hypothesis about the relationship of mammalian hymenolepidids based on partial 28S rDNA sequencing showed a pronounced morphological variation among parasites infecting unrelated hosts which form a monophyletic group (Haukisalmi et al., 2010).

Some species of hymenolepidids are important for public health, particularly the species that parasitize rodents, such as Hymenolepis diminuta (Rudolphi, 1819), Rodentolepis nana (Von Siebold, 1852), and Rodentolepis microstoma (Dujardin, 1845), capable of infecting humans (Macnish et al., 2003; Marangi et al., 2003; Nkouawa et al., 2016). Around six hymenolepidid genera from rodents have been reported in North and South America (e.g., Arostrilepis Mas-Coma and Tenora, 1997, Hobergia Gardner, Dursahinhan, Campbell and Rácz, 2020, Hymenandrya Smith, 1954, Hymenolepis Weinland, 1858, Monogynolepis Czaplinski and Vaucher, 1994, Rodentolepis Spasskii, 1954), of which 17 species of the genus Rodentolepis have been reported parasitizing Cricetidae, two from South America, and only one from Argentina (Barker, 1915; Rider and Macy, 1947; Neiland and Senger, 1952; Schiller, 1952; Wardle and McLeod, 1952; Rêgo, 1967, 1970; Sutton, 1974; Cunningham and Olson, 2010; Guerreiro Martins et al., 2014; Panisse et al., 2017). The species with the widest geographic and host range are R. nana and R. microstoma, parasitizing several genera of Muridae and Cricetidae, such as Apodemus, Arvicanthis, Mastomys, Mesocricetus, Microtus, Mus, Rattus, and Sigmodon (e.g., Litchford, 1963; Cunningham and Olson, 2010; Gomez-Puerta and Valdivia-Carrera, 2018). Rodentolepis akodontis Rêgo (1967) and R. srivastavai Rêgo (1970) have also been recorded for different sigmodontine rodents (Cricetidae) in Brazil: Akodon cursor (Winge, 1887), Akodon montensis Thomas, 1913 and Necromys lasiurus (Lund, 1840) (e.g., Rêgo, 1967; Simões et al., 2011; Costa et al., 2019).

Sigmodontine rodents are endemic to the American continent, with a wide environmental and geographical distribution and a great diversity of diets (Redford and Eisenberg, 1992; Patton et al., 2015; Wilson et al., 2017). This group of rodents includes around 110 species grouped in 40 genera in Argentina (Galliari et al., 1996; Pardiñas et al., 2006; Teta et al., 2018). In this country, specimens of genus Rodentolepis sp. were found from Oxymycterus rufus (Fischer, 1814) and Deltamys kempi Thomas, 1917 in different locations of Buenos Aires province (Navone et al., 2009). Later, specimens assigned to Rodentolepis cf. akodontis of O. rufus and A. montensis were recorded in different locations of Buenos Aires, Corrientes, Entre Ríos, and Misiones provinces (Guerreiro Martins et al., 2014; Panisse et al., 2017).

The purpose of this paper was to study specimens of the genus Rodentolepis isolated from eight species of Sigmodontinae rodents (Rodentia: Cricetidae) from six provinces included in the Cuenca del Plata, Argentina, based on morphological and molecular characteristics. For the molecular characterization, nuclear Internal Transcribed Spacer 1 (ITS1) and mitochondrial partial gene cytochrome c oxidase 1 (cox1) sequences were used. The genetic distances among the specimens studied and other Hymenolepididae from rodents available in the GenBank were analyzed and phylogenetic inferences were provided.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Study area and host sampling

A total of 955 Sigmodontinae rodents were examined: 251 specimens of Akodon azarae (Fischer, 1829) from 18 localities, 16 specimens of Akodon dolores Thomas, 1916 from one locality, 259 specimens of Akodon montensis from six localities, 15 specimens of Akodon philipmiyersi Pardiñas, D'Elía, Cirignoli y Suarez, 2005 from one locality, 112 specimens of Necromys lasiurus from nine localities, 10 specimens of Oxymycterus misionalis Sanborn, 1931 from two localities, 260 specimens of Oxymycterus rufus from 17 localities, and 32 specimens of Thaptomys nigrita (Lichtenstein, 1829) from seven localities, of six provinces in the Cuenca del Plata region in Argentina (Table 1). Rodents were obtained and identified by several collaborators between 1994 and 2018 (see Acknowledgments).

Table 1.

List of new localities records for Rodentolepis microstoma from Cuenca del Plata region in Argentina.

Province Locality Latitude (S) Longitude (W)
Buenos Aires Arana 35°00′25.00″ 57°54′34.00″
Buenos Aires Laguna de Chascomús 35°32′38.52″ 58°04′46.47″
Buenos Aires Arroyo de las Brusquitas 38°14′05.97″ 57°46′49.98″
Buenos Aires Cerro de la Gloria 36°01′00.00″ 57°26′00.00″
Buenos Aires La Balandra 34°55′45.47″ 57°42′58.39″
Buenos Aires Olavarría 36°58′34.00″ 60°14′13.00″
Buenos Aires Parque Provincial Ernesto Tornquist, Sierra de la Ventana 38°04′44.55″ 62°00′19.04″
Buenos Aires Pereyra 34°50′14.00″ 58°05′23.00″
Buenos Aires Pergamino 33°52.9′39.56″ 60°46.07′4.6″
Buenos Aires Punta Indio 35°16′00.00″ 57°15′00.00″
Buenos Aires Reserva Natural de Hudson 34°44′00.00″ 58°12′00.00″
Buenos Aires Reserva Selva Marginal de Punta Lara 34°47′30.00″ 58°00′05.00″
Corrientes Estancia San Juan Poriahú 27°42′00.00″ 57°12′14.00″
Corrientes Estación Biológica Corrientes (ex Caprim) 27°33′00.62 58°40′52.33″
Corrientes Finca La Adelita, Laguna Paiva 27°28′41.76″ 58°44′41.14″
Corrientes Reserva Santo Domingo 20 km al N de Paso de los Libres 29°36′14.27″ 56°58′50.63″
Corrientes Estancia El Cimarrón, RP 118, km 169 27°41′10.73″ 57°12′41.91″
Entre Ríos Arroyo Feliciano 30°58′21.00″ 59°41′49.00″
Entre Ríos Arroyo Caraballo 32°05′06.00″ 58°10′30.00″
Entre Ríos Estancia Santa Ana de Carpinchorí 30°47′39.25″ 58°38′51.10″
Entre Ríos Villa Elisa 32°09′14.73″ 58°20′10.40″
Formosa Estación de Animales Silvestres Guaycolec, Ruta Nacional 11, km 1201 25°58′57.80″ 58°10′04.00″
Formosa Reserva El Bagual 26°18′21.96″ 58°49′53.34″
Formosa Río Bermejo 26°19′45.00″ 59°06′43.00″
Misiones 2 km aguas abajo desembocadura Parana-í Guazú 26°40′39.30″ 54°50′08.20″
Misiones Campo Anexo M. Belgrano, INTA, San Antonio 26°02′54.21″ 53°46′32.40″
Misiones Cuña Pirú 27°05′17.00″ 54°57′09.00″
Misiones Estancia Santa Inés 27°31′53.69″ 55°52′30.48″
Misiones Parque Provincial Piñalito 26°25′40.07″ 53°50′38.26″
Misiones Parque Provincial Urugua-í 25°51′25.58″ 54°09′59.87″
Misiones Refugio Moconá 27°08′29.04″ 53°55′40.40″
Misiones Reserva de Vida Silvestre Urugua-í, Fundación Vida Silvestre 25°58′32.29″ 54°07′00.08″
Santa Fe Oliveros 32°34′00.00″ 60°51′00.00″

2.2. Ethics statement

The research was conducted according to Argentine laws. Sample collection was carried out during fieldwork under official permission. This study was conducted in accordance with the recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the National Institute of Health. Rodent specimens were collected following the procedures and protocols approved by national laws (National Animal Protection law 14.346 and references in the provincial permits), and the ethical recommendations for Research on Laboratory Animals, Farm and Obtained from Nature of the National Council of Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET), and subsequently approved by the National Agency for the Promotion of Science and Technology of Argentina (ANPCYT). No endangered species were involved in this study.

Rodent specimens were deposited in the Mammalogy Collection of the Centro Nacional Patagónico (CNP), Puerto Madryn, Chubut, and in the Mammalogy Collection of the Museo de La Plata (MLP), La Plata, Buenos Aires.

2.3. Morphological analysis

Viscera were studied under a stereomicroscope (Olympus SZ61-TR). Cestode specimens were removed from the rodent's small intestines, fixed in 10% formalin and preserved in 70% ethanol. Some specimens were stained with hydrochloric carmine, dehydrated in a graded ethanol series, cleared in eugenol, and mounted in natural Canada balsam. In addition, serial histological sections of two specimens were made for a complete study of the internal morphology. One specimen was dried using the critical point method, examined and photographed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) (JEOL, JSM 6360 LV). Specimens were studied and photographed using a polarized light microscope (Olympus BX51®), and drawings were made with the aid of a drawing tube.

Types of Rodentolepis akodontis (CHIOC 29.316a-b, 29.317, 29.318a-c, 29.319, 29.320) were studied with a Carl Zeiss Axiophot light microscope equipped with a Canon Power Shot S80 camera at the Coleção Helmintológica do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

The specimens identified as Rodentolepis cf. akodontis from previous surveys such as Guerreiro Martins et al. (2014) and Panisse et al. (2017) were restudied.

Table 2 shows measurements of specimens of Rodentolepis microstoma and other species of Rodentolepis recorded in Sigmodontinae rodents (R. srivastavai and R. akodontis) as follows: mean, standard deviation, and range in parentheses. All measurements are given in millimeters (mm) unless otherwise indicated. The scales of Fig. 1, Fig. 2 are given in micrometers (μm).

Table 2.

Morphometrical characteristics of Rodentolepis microstoma and of the species of Rodentolepis recorded in Sigmodontinae rodents.


Rodentolepis akodontis
Rodentolepis srivastavai
Rodentolepis microstoma
Reference Rêgo (1967) Rêgo (1970) Rêgo (1967) Casanova et al. (2001) Cunningham and Olson (2010) Gómez Puerta and Valdivia Carrera, 2018 This papera
Host
Akodon cursor (=A. arviculoides)
Necromys lasiurus (=Zygodontomys pixuna)

Mus musculus (natural host)
Mus musculus (experimental)
Mus musculus (natural host)
Akodon
Oxymycterus
Necromys
Thaptomys
Countries
Brazil
Brazil
Brazil
Spain and France
England
Peru
Argentina
Argentina
Argentina
Argentina
Site of Infection
Small intestine
Small intestine


Bile duct and small intestine
Bile duct
Small intestine
Small intestine
Small intestine
Small intestine
Maximum width 0.82 0.98-1.40 1.42 0.45-1.42 0.83-1.38 0.68 (0.36–0.86) 0.77 (0.35–1.80) 1.11 (0.43–1.8) 0.80
Rostellum length 0.15 0.05 0.06 0.04-0.06 00.05-0.07 0.05-0.07 0.05 (0.05–0.06) 0.06 (0.04–0.10) 0.06 (0.06–0.07) 0.05
Rostellum width 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.03-0.06 0.02-0.05 0.03-0.05 0.04 (0.04–0.05) 0.07 (0.06–0.09) 0.05 (0.05–0.06) 0.04
Scolex length 0.30 0.15 0.25 0.14-0.20 0.11-0.15 0.14 (0.07–0.23) 0.13 (0.09–0.21) 0.15 (0.12–0.17) 0.15
Scolex width 0.36 0.21 0.18-0.29 0.20-0.28 0.21-0.26 0.19 (0.12–0.30) 0.18 (0.13–0.30) 0.18 (0.13–0.22) 0.16
Sucker maximum diameter 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.05-0.09 0.08-0.13 0.08-0.11 0.06 (0.05–0.11) 0.06 (0.05–0.08) 0.07 (0.06–0.08) 0.08
Sucker minimum diameter 0.08 0.07 0.07-0.11 0.05 (0.03–0.09) 0.06 (0.04–0.08) 0.06 (0.05–0.08) 0.06
Number of rostellar hooks 24 26–30 25–29 25 (23–29) 25 (22–26) 24–26 24 (23–29) 26 (22–31) 24 (24–27) 23
Rostellar hooks length 0.018 0.015-0.017 0.015 0.010-0.023 0.013 0.014-0.016 0.017 (0.015–0.020) 0.018 (0.011–0.023) 0.013 (0.013–0.016) 0.015 (0.014–0.016)
Length of testes 0.11 0.10 0.05-0.11 0.06-0.11 0.12-0.18 0.06 (0.04–0.12) 0.06 (0.04–0.12) 0.06 (0.04–0.09) 0.06
Width of testes 0.09 0.08 0.04-0.08 0.05-0.11 0.11-0.16 0.04 (0.02–0.06) 0.03 (0.02–0.06) 0.02 (0.02–0.04) 0.02
Length of cirrus sac 0.10 0.12 0.18 0.09-0.18 0.09-0.30 0.14-0.20 0.09 (0.05–0.17) 0.08 (0.04–0.17) 0.06 (0.04–0.09) 0.07
Width of cirrus sac 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.03-0.04 0.04-0.09 00.03-0.05 0.03 (0.02–0.05) 0.03 (0.02–0.06) 0.02 (0.02–0.04) 0.04
Eggs length 0.05 0.07 0.082-0.09 0.062-0.098 0.083-0.094 0.03 (0.02–0.04) 0.03 (0.02–0.04) 0.054 (0.052–0.057) 0.04
Eggs width 0.05 0.06 0.067 0.051-0.075 0.069-0.087 0.02 (0.02–0.03) 0.02 (0.02–0.03) 0.038 (0.036–0.041) 0.03
Oncosphera length 0.026 0.028 0.027-0.047 0.038-0.044 0.014 (0.014–0.016) 0.017 (0.016–0.018) 0.032 (0.029–0.036) 0.03
Oncosphera width 0.026 0.028 0.029-0.054 0.012 (0.012–0.013) 0.012 (0.012–0.013) 0.022 (0.020–0.025) 0.02
a

Specimens previously studied from Guerreiro Martins et al. (2014) and Panisse et al. (2017) were included. Measurements are given in millimeters.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Morphological features of Rodentolepis microstoma: (A, D, G, J) scolex and rostellar hooks; (B, E, H, K) mature proglottids; (C, F, I, L) egg from different host species, (A–C) Akodon; (D–F) Necromys; (G–I) Thaptomys; (J–L) Oxymycterus.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Scanning electron micrographs of Rodentolepis microstoma: (A) scolex with invaginated rostellum, lateral view; (B) scolex with invaginated rostellum, apical view; (C) acicular filitriches (mature proglottids). Histological section of Rodentolepis microstoma: (D) testes (t), ovary (o), external seminal vesicle (esv), cirrus sac (cs) and cirrus (c) in mature proglottid.

Voucher specimens were deposited in the Helminthological Collection of Museo de La Plata (MLP-He), La Plata, Buenos Aires province.

2.4. Molecular analysis

2.4.1. DNA extraction, amplification, and sequencing

Fourteen specimens studied morphologically from six rodent species were stored in 96% ethanol until used for DNA extraction: A. azarae (n = 2), A. montensis (n = 4), N. lasiurus (n = 3), O. misionalis (n = 1), O. rufus (n = 3), and T. nigrita (n = 1).

Genomic DNA from individual Hymenolepididae was extracted and purified using the Wizard® Genomic DNA Purification Kit (Promega), according to the manufacturer's protocol for tissues. Quality of extractions was assessed using 0.8% agarose gel electrophoresis and ethidium bromide staining.

The ITS1 rDNA region was PCR-amplified using the forward F3 (5′ GCGGAAGGATCATTACACGTTC 3′) and the reverse R3 (5′ GCTCGACTCTTCATCGATCCACG 3′) (Macnish et al., 2002), and the cox1 mtDNA partial gene region was PCR-amplified using the forward pr-a (5′ TGGTTTTTTGTGCATCCTGAGGTTTA 3′) and the reverse pr-b (5′ AGAAAGAACGTAATGAAAATGAGCAAC 3’) (Okamoto et al., 1997). The amplification conditions were: 95 °C for 15 min (initial denaturation), 35 amplification cycles (95 °C for 30 s, 57 °C for 25 s, 72 °C for 1 min), followed by final extension at 72 °C for 7 min for ITS1 region and 94 °C for 3 min (initial denaturation), 30 amplification cycles (94 °C for 50 s, 42 °C for 1 min 30 s, 72 °C for 1 min 30 s), followed by final extension at 72 °C for 7 min for cox1. The PCR was performed in a Multigene Labnet Internation, Inc. thermocycler and the products were checked on ethidium bromide-stained 1.5% Tris-Borate-EDTA (TBE) using 0.8% agarose gels electrophoresis and examined by UV transillumination. All PCR products were purified and sequenced in both directions using amplifying primers (Macrogen, Seoul, Korea).

2.4.2. Sequence alignment

Molecular analyses were performed on the rDNA (ITS1) and mtDNA (cox1) sequences and aligned using the MUSCLE alignment method included in MEGA, version 7.0 (Kumar et al., 2016). Additional Hymenolepididae species sequences from the National Centre for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) GenBank database were incorporated into the alignments (Table 3).

Table 3.

Sequences of Rodentolepis from rodents and other Hymenolepididae species used for phylogenetic analyses (GenBank Accession numbers).

Species Host species/Geographical origin Code Gene/Region GenBank Accession numbers
Rodentolepis microstoma This paper Akodon montensis/Misiones RmC18 ITS1 ON000414
RmC19 ON000413
RmC24 ON000412
Thaptomys nigrita/Misiones RmC41 ON000411
Oxymycterus misionalis/Misiones RmC57 ON000410
Necromys lasiurus/Misiones RmC70 ON000407
RmC73 ON000408
RmC74 ON000409
Akodon azarae/Buenos Aires RmC76 ON000405
RmC77 ON000406
Oxymycterus rufus/Buenos Aires RmC79 ON000402
RmC80 ON000403
RmC82

ON000404
Rodentolepis microstoma Homo sapiens/Australia Rm1 AY221156
Rm2 AY221158
Rm3 AY221160
Rm4 AY221161
Rm5 AY221162
Rm6 AY221163
Rm7 AY221164
Rm8 AY221167
Rm10 AY221155
Mus musculus/Canary Islands Rm9 JN258040
Rm11 JN258040
Mus spretus/Portugal Rm12 AY221165
Rodentolepis nana Homo sapiens/Asia Rn1 MH629970
Rn2 MH629973
Rn3 AF461124
Rattus rattus/Iran Rn4 KJ917784
Mus musculus/México Rn5 HM447238
Homo sapiens/Asia Rn6 MH629972
Rn7 MH629969
Rn8 MH829968
Rn9 MH629967
Rodentolepis fraterna
Rattus rattus/Spain
Rf

JN258041
Rodentolepis microstoma This paper Akodon montensis/Misiones RmC18 Cox1 ON005434
RmC34 ON005433
Thaptomys nigrita/Misiones RmC41 ON005432
Oxymycterus misionalis/Misiones RmC57 ON005431
Necromys lasiurus/Misiones RmC70 ON005430
RmC73 ON005429
RmC74 ON005425
Akodon azarae/Buenos Aires RmC76 ON005424
RmC77 ON005435
Oxymycterus rufus/Buenos Aires RmC79 ON005428
RmC80 ON005426
RmC82

ON005427
Rodentolepis microstoma Mus musculus/Peru Rm1 MG570384
Mus musculus/China Rm2 LC063188
Mus musculus/Japan Rm3 AB494473
Rodentolepis nana Mus musculus/Japan Rn1 AB494471
Mesocricetus auratus/Uruguay Rn2 AB494472
Homo sapiens/Mexico Rn3 HM447234
Homo sapiens/Mexico Rn4 HM447235
Mus sp./Mexico Rn5 HM447238
Mus musculus/China Rn6 LC063187
Rattus rattus/India Rn7 KU821727
Rattus norvergicus/China Rn8 KY079336
Rattus sp./Egypt Rn9 GU433102
Rattus sp./Egypt Rn10 GU433103
Homo sapiens/Egypt Rn11 GU433104
Rodentolepis fraternal
Rattus rattus, Mus musculus/Spain
Rf

JN258053
Outgroups
Hymenolepis diminuta Rattus norvergicus/South Africa Hd1 ITS1 MG322245
Rattus rattus/South Africa Hd2 MG322244
Lemur catta/China
Hd3

KP317833
Hymenolepis diminuta Rattus norvergicus/United State Hd1 Cox1 MH472979
Hd2 MH472980
Rattus rattus/United State Hd3 MH472981
Homo sapiens/United State Hd4 MH472982
Rattus norvergicus/United State Hd5 MH472983
Rattus rattus/United State Hd6 MH472986
Hd7 KF689687
Rattus norvergicus/China Hd8 LC063185
Rattus norvergicus/Poland Hd9 KF689686
Arostripelis horrida Cletrhionomys gloereolus/Lithuania Ah1 DQ340976
Ah2 DQ340977
Coronacanthus magnihamatus Clethrionomys glareolus/Belarus Cm KJ710327
Coronacanthus vassilevi Neomys fodiens/Bulgary Cv KJ710328
Coronacathus integrus Ci KJ710329
Staphylocystoides gulyaevi Sg KC789837
Staphylocystoides parissima Sorex monticolus/USA Sp KC789840

The nucleotide sequences of the protein-coding genes (cox1) were first translated into amino acids to confirm that they lacked internal stop codons and to predict cestode protein. To assess the similarity among the marker sequences of specimens analyzed in the present study and other Hymenolepididae species, the number of base differences per sequence with respect to those under investigation was assessed using the number of differences method of the MEGA 7 program version 7.0 (Kumar et al., 2016).

2.4.3. Comparative sequences analyses and phylogenetic inferences

Since we were looking to measure the diversity and conservancy between a set of sequences, considering that rDNA (ITS1) dataset sequences present a substantial length variation which compromises inferences of positional homology, an unrooted tree is proposed. Nevertheless, we propose a rooted tree for the mtDNA (cox1) dataset, using Hymenolepis diminuta, Arostripelis horrida, Coronacanthus spp. and Staphylocystoides spp. as outgroups (Table 3).

Phylogenetic inferences were performed by Maximum Likelihood (ML) using the PHYML package from Guindon and Gascuel (2003) and Bayesian inferences (BI) were generated using MrBayes, version 3.2.6 (Ronquist and Huelsenbeck, 2003). Each dataset was analyzed separately, and both mitochondrial and ribosomal datasets were combined into a total evidence dataset. jModeltest was employed to compute the best partitioning scheme, as well as the best nucleotide substitution models for each partition (Posada, 2008). Models of evolution were chosen for subsequent analysis according to the Akaike Information Criterion (Posada and Buckley, 2004).

For the study of the dataset containing the concatenation of two markers (ITS1 and cox1), analyses based on BI were partitioned by gene, and models for individual genes within partitions were those selected by the jModelTest. For ML inference, best-fit nucleotide substitution models included the general time-reversible model with gamma-distributed rate GTR + G (ITS1), the general time-reversible model with gamma-distributed rate variation, and a proportion of invariable sites GTR + I + G (cox1 mtDNA) and general time-reversible models with gamma-distributed rate GTR + G (concatenated markers). Support for the topology was examined using bootstrapping (heuristic option) (Felsenstein, 1985) over 1000 replications to assess the relative reliability of clades. The commands used in MrBayes for BI were nst = 6 with gamma rates (ITS1), nst = 6 with invgamma rates (cox1) and nst = mixed (concatenated phylogenetic trees).

Bayesian posterior probabilities (BPP) comprise the percentage converted for BI. The standard deviation of split frequencies was used to determine whether the number of generations completed was sufficient. Each analysis was run for 10 million generations, and the tree was sampled every 500 generation. Trees from the first million generations were discarded based on an assessment of convergence. Burn-in was determined empirically by examination of the log likelihood values of the chains. After eliminating the first million trees as “burn-in”, we constructed a 50% majority-rule consensus tree, with nodal values representing the probability (posterior probability) that the recovered clades exist, given the aligned sequence data. We accepted a clade in the Bayesian tree at around 70% posterior probability.

3. Results

3.1. Morphological analysis

Specimens of R. microstoma based on morphological characteristics were identified from the eight species of sigmodontine rodents, being the first records for these host species (number of recovery cestodes of each species host: A. azarae, n = 63; A. dolores, n = 3; A. montensis, n = 171; A. philipmyersi, n = 8; N. lasiurus, n = 62; T. nigrita, n = 1, O. misionalis, n = 1; O. rufus, n = 173). Moreover, 33 localities from the Cuenca del Plata region in Argentina constitute new geographical records for the species (see Table 1).

3.1.1. Rodentolepis microstoma (Fig. 1, Fig. 2)

Amended diagnosis: Cyclophyllidea, Hymenolepididae. Strobila long, craspedote, with proglottids wider than long, and in gradual maturation. Scolex with four muscular suckers. Rostellum armed with a single crown of hooks of the cricetoid type (Nº = 22–31), retractable into contractile rostellar pouch. Entire worm covered with acicular filitriches (sensu Chervy, 2009). Young proglottids contain only primordia of testes. Mature proglottids containing three spherical to oval testes, arranged one poral and two aporal, are disposed aligned or in a triangle; vas deferens form an external seminal vesicle; cirrus sac ovoid, does not touch or extends beyond osmoregulatory canals, enclosing cirrus smooth and internal seminal vesicle; lobated ovary, located in the medial zone; vitelline gland compact, lobated, median; vagina located below the cirrus sac; well-developed seminal receptacle, visible even in gravid proglottids; common genital pore unilateral, dextral, near the midpoint of the margin. In gravid segments, the uterus occupies almost the entire proglottid, and contains numerous eggs. Eggs are ovoid, enclosing embryophore with polar filaments (difficult to observe) and oncosphere with embryonic hooks.

3.1.2. Taxonomic summary

Rodent hosts: Mus musculus Linnaeus, 1758, Apodemus spp. Kaup, 1829, Mastomys spp. Thomas, 1915, Mus musculus Linnaeus, 1758, Rattus norvegicus, R. rattus, Meriones spp. Illiger, 1811 (Muridae); Dendromus spp. Smith, 1829 (Nesomyidae); Mesocricetus auratus (Waterhouse, 1839), Microtus spp. Schrank, 1798, Akodon azarae, A. dolores, A. montensis, A. philipmyersi, Necromys lasiurus, Thaptomys nigrita, Oxymycterus misionalis, O. rufus. (Cricetidae) (Hughes, 1940; Dvorak et al., 1961; Litchford, 1963; Cunningham and Olson, 2010; Guerreiro Martins et al., 2014; Panisse et al., 2017; Panti-May et al., 2018).

New localities: see Table 1.

Voucher specimens: MLP-He 6804, 6806, 6810, 6811, 7592-7622.

Remarks: The specimens here studied show diagnostic morphological features of genus Rodentolepis and the parasitic species of American rodents are compared below (Czaplinski and Vaucher, 1994).

Rodentolepis microstoma can be separated from R. evaginata (Barker and Andrews, 1915), R. johnsoni (Schiler, 1952), R. octocoronata (Von Linstow, 1879) and R. oregonensis (Neiland and Senger, 1952) by the number of rostellar hooks (22–31 vs. 10, 10, 8, 10, respectively). The specimens of R. microstoma studied have scolex smaller than R. nana (Von Siebold, 1852) and R. octocoronata (0.07–0.23 vs. 0.30–0.40, 0.39, respectively). Moreover, R. microstoma has the cirrus sac longer than R. nana and R. johnsoni (0.04–0.17 x 0.02–0.05 vs. 0.05–0.07 x 0.02–0.025, 0.11 x 0.04, respectively), and is smaller than R. octocoronata (0.04–0.17 x 0.02–0.05 vs. 0.30 x 0.37). Rodentolepis microstoma can be separated from R. evaginata, R. nana, R. octocoronata, R. oregonensis and R. srivastavai (Rêgo, 1970) by the size of the eggs (Barker, 1915; Neiland and Senger, 1952; Schiller, 1952; Wardle and McLeod, 1952; Rêgo, 1970; Sutton, 1974).

Although some features, e.g., cirrus sac, size of eggs, length and shape of hooks, may separate R. microstoma and R. srivastavai, these should be reviewed in detail, (Rêgo, 1970). In addition, R. microstoma and R. akodontis show a similar morphology of scolex, length and shape of hooks, number of rostellar hooks, size of suckers, size of cirrus sac and eggs (e.g., Rêgo, 1967; Casanova et al., 2001; Cunningham and Olson, 2010; Gomez-Puerta and Valdivia-Carrera, 2018).

3.2. Molecular analysis

Nucleotide sequence data of the ITS1 rDNA fragment and cox1 partial sequences of mtDNA from R. microstoma are reported and are available in GenBank (GenBank accession number) (Table 3).

The ITS1 rDNA region revealed 13 haplotypes (ON000402-ON000414): these sequences were 517 base pairs (bp) (exclusive of the primers) and their G + C content was 50.9–52% The multiple alignment of 38 ITS1 sequences (including sequences of species representing members of the genus Rodentolepis from rodents and H. sapiens, and H. diminuta from Rattus spp. and Lemur catta available in GenBank, Table 3) shows a dataset of 559 characters.

The intra-specific similarity observed in ITS1 sequences of R. microstoma from Argentina ranged from 94.91 to 99.74% (Table 4). Similar values of intra-specificity are found among other species of hymenolepidids. For the genus Rodentolepis, the minimum values of inter-specific similarity were observed between R. microstoma (T. nigrita) and R. nana (80.28%) and the maximum between R. microstoma (O. rufus) and R. nana (81.44%). Between different genera, the minimum and maximum values of inter-specific similarity were observed in H. diminuta vs. R. microstoma (N. temchuki) (53.59%) and H. diminuta vs. R. microstoma (A. azarae) (55.20%), respectively (Table 4).

Table 4.

Intra-specific and inter-specific similarity observed in ITS1 partial sequences in Rodentolepis and Hymenolepis species isolated from different host species and geographical origin.

Rodentolepis microstoma (Oxymycterus rufus) Rodentolepis microstoma (Oxymycterus misionalis) Rodentolepis microstoma (Akodon azarae) Rodentolepis microstoma (Akodon montensis) Rodentolepis microstoma (Necromys temchuki) Rodentolepis microstoma (Thaptomys nigrita) Rodentolepis microstoma Rodentolepis nana Hymenolepis diminuta
Rodentolepis microstoma (Oxymycterus rufus) 98.71%
Rodentolepis microstoma (Oxymycterus misionalis) 98.77%
Rodentolepis microstoma (Akodon azarae) 94.91% 95.09% 97.58%
Rodentolepis microstoma (Akodon montensis) 96.89% 97.34% 97.02% 99.61%
Rodentolepis microstoma (Necromys temchuki) 96.05% 96.37% 96.89% 97.93% 99.74%
Rodentolepis microstoma (Thaptomys nigrita) 95.40%% 95.73% 95.05% 97.09% 98.89%
Rodentolepis microstoma 94.81% 95.129% 94.09% 95.97% 94.61% 93.77% 99.59%
Rodentolepis nana 81.44% 80.86% 80.77% 80.47% 80.54% 80.28% 80.58% 99.78%
Hymenolepis diminuta 53.63% 53.98% 55.20% 54.20% 53.59% 54.56% 54.05% 54.75% 98.95%

Cox1 mtDNA encoding gene revealed 12 haplotypes (ON005424– ON005435): these sequences were 350 base pairs (bp) (exclusive of the primers) and their G + C content was 32–33.5%. The multiple alignment of 43 cox1 partial sequences (including sequences of species representing members of the genus Rodentolepis and H. diminuta from Rattus spp. and H. sapiens and other outgroups available in GenBank [Table 3]) yields a dataset of 350 characters.

The intra-specific similarity observed in cox1 sequences of R. microstoma from Argentina ranged from 88 to 99.74% (Table 5). Similar values of intra-specificity are found among other species of hymenolepidids. For the genus Rodentolepis, the minimum values of inter-specific similarity were observed between R. microstoma (A. montensis) and R. nana (81.10%) and the maximum between R. microstoma (Australia, Portugal, Spain) and R. nana (85.45%). Between different genera, the minimum and maximum values of inter-specific similarity were observed in H. diminuta vs. R. microstoma (A. montensis) (77.97%) and H. diminuta vs. R. nana (82.41%), respectively (Table 5).

Table 5.

Intra-specific and inter-specific similarity observed in cox1 partial sequences in Rodentolepis and Hymenolepis species isolated from different host species.

Rodentolepis microstoma (Oxymycterus rufus) Rodentolepis microstoma (Oxymycterus misionalis) Rodentolepis microstoma (Akodon azarae) Rodentolepis microstoma (Akodon montensis) Rodentolepis microstoma (Necromys temchuki) Rodentolepis microstoma (Thaptomys nigrita) Rodentolepis microstoma Rodentolepis nana Hymenolepis diminuta
Rodentolepis microstoma (Oxymycterus rufus) 98.71%
Rodentolepis microstgoma (Oxymycterus misionalis) 94.29%
Rodentolepis microstoma (Akodon azarae) 89.61% 90.29% 97.58%
Rodentolepis microstoma (Akodon montensis) 88.29% 89.86% 88% 99.61%
Rodentolepis microstoma (Necromys temchuki) 92.57% 91.33% 89.05% 88% 99.74%
Rodentolepis microstoma (Thaptomys nigrita) 92.47% 92.86% 89.43% 88.29% 96.86%
Rodentolepis microstoma 89.81% 88.86% 89.23% 86.67% 90.35% 91.43% 99.62%
Rodentolepis nana 82.36% 82.60% 83.48% 81.10% 83.65% 84.10% 85.45% 98.65%
Hymenolepis diminuta 81.41% 80.25% 81.11% 77.97% 81.78% 82.83% 81.94.7% 83.413% 99.70%

Phylogenetic trees based on ITS1 rDNA provided robust phylogenetic resolution among Hymenolepididae taxa studied, regardless of the inference method (ML and BPP). The topology showed the existence of two main clades within genus Rodentolepis: Clade 1 including R. microstoma, with three subclades, and Clade 2 including R. nana and R. fraterna with strong support of branches (100% ML bootstrap values BV and Bayesian posterior probability BPP). Furthermore, within Clade 1 were observed: subclade 1a including 12 haplotypes from H. sapiens from Australia, Mus musculus from Canary Islands and Mus spretus from Portugal (100% ML BV and BPP), subclade 1b including haplotypes of O. rufus from Buenos Aires province and O. misionalis from Misiones province (99% ML BV and BPP) and subclade 1c with a polytomy of three branches (100% ML BV and 100% BPP) including haplotypes of A. montensis from Misiones province (100% ML BV and 73% BPP), haplotypes of N. lasiurus and T. nigrita from Misiones province (100% ML BV and BPP), and haplotypes of A. azarae from Buenos Aires province (99% ML BV and 85% BPP). Subclades including R. microstoma from Argentina (b and c) form a group separate from subclade 1a including those of other geographical origin (100% ML BV and 84% BPP). In addition, a separate group is observed formed by H. diminuta as an outgroup (100% ML BV and 100% BPP) (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Phylogenetic tree of Rodentolepis spp. (Hymenolepididae: Cestoda) based on ITS1 mitochondrial DNA. Phylogenetic tree inferred using Bayesian method. Maximum Likelihood bootstrap values of clades are listed first, followed by Bayesian Posterior Probabilities respectively, for clade frequencies exceeding 65%.

The analysis of the dataset based on cox1 mtDNA showed partial congruence with respect to the phylogenetic relationships between Rodentolepis spp. based on dataset ITS1. Phylogenetic analysis provided robust phylogenetic resolution among Hymenolepididae taxa, regardless of the inference method (ML and BPP). The topology showed the existence of two main clades within genus Rodentolepis: Clade 1 including R. microstoma, with five subclades, and Clade 2 including R. nana with strong support of branches (100% ML bootstrap values BV and Bayesian posterior probability BPP). Furthermore, within Clade 1 were observed: subclade 1a including 3 haplotypes from M. musculus from Peru, China, and Japan (100% ML BV and 95% BPP); subclade 1b including haplotypes of O. rufus from Buenos Aires province and O. misionalis from Misiones province (80% ML BV), and 1c with a polytomy of three branches including a haplotype of A. montensis from the province of Misiones (100% ML BV and BPP); haplotypes of A. azarae from the province of Buenos Aires and A. montensis from the province of Misiones (100% ML BV and BPP); and haplotypes of N. lasiurus and T. nigrita from the province of Misiones. Subclades including R. microstoma from Argentina (b y c) form a separate group of subclade 1a including those of other geographical origin (100% ML BV and BPP). In addition, a separate grouped is formed including H. diminuta and other Hymenolepidids as an outgroup (100% ML BV and BPP) (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

Phylogenetic tree of Rodentolepis spp. (Hymenolepididae: Cestoda) based on cox1 mitochondrial DNA. Phylogenetic tree inferred using Bayesian method. Maximum Likelihood bootstrap values of clades are listed first, followed by Bayesian Posterior Probabilities respectively, for clade frequencies exceeding 65%.

The concatenated dataset of ribosomal (ITS1) and mitochondrial (cox1) gene sequences included 931 aligned sites and only 22 taxa (outgroups not included for phylogenetic analysis). Phylogenetic analyses of this dataset yielded a tree with branches that were strongly supported (100% ML BV and 92–100% BPP). Phylogenetic inferences match the phylogenetic results based on separate markers. Thus, two main clades were observed: Clade 1 including R. microstoma and Clade 2 including R. nana. Clade 1 includes the same clades as shown in ITS1 and the cox1 trees, but the relation among them is slightly different, since subclade 1b forms a sister group with a part of subclade 1c (100% ML bootstrap values BV and BPP) (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5

Phylogenetic tree of Rodentolepis spp. (Hymenolepididae: Cestoda) based on concatenated cox1 mitochondrial and ITS1 ribosomal DNA. Phylogenetic tree inferred using Bayesian method. Maximum Likelihood bootstrap values of clades are listed first, followed by Bayesian Posterior Probabilities respectively, for clade frequencies exceeding 65%.

4. Discussion

Rodentolepis microstoma was first described as Taenia microstoma by Dujardin (1845) from bile ducts of mice, and was later transferred to the genus Hymenolepis Weinland, 1858 (Blanchard, 1891). Later, Spasskii (1954) in a revision of the Hymenolepididae family, transferred H. microstoma again to the genus Rodentolepis. Since Schmidt (1986) considered Rodentolepis as synonymous with Vampirolepis Spasskii, 1954 genus, a new combination, Vampirolepis microstoma, was proposed. In the last taxonomic revision of the Hymenolepididae family, Czaplinski and Vaucher (1994) considered the genus Rodentolepis as valid.

Rodentolepis microstoma is recorded in America, Africa, Europe, and Asia from a wide range of rodent genera (e.g., Apodemus, Arvicanthis, Dendromys, Leggada, Mastomys, Merionis, Mesocricetus, Microtus, Mus, Promomys, Rattus, and Sigmodon) (Dvorak et al., 1961; Litchford, 1963; Hickman, 1964; Casanova et al., 2001). Rodentolepis microstoma infection in humans feces in Australia suggests the possibility of a potential zoonosis (Macnish et al., 2003).

Mature tapeworms occur in the small intestine; however, R. microstoma was recorded on several occasions in the bile duct of the mammalian host (e.g., Cunningham and Olson, 2010; Gomez-Puerta and Valdivia-Carrera, 2018). Litchford (1963) showed that this species can also parasitize the mouse, hamster, and rat duodenum. In the present study, specimens of host species were found in the small intestine, mainly in the duodenum.

The morphometric characters of R. microstoma provided by different studies agree with the specimens examined in this study (e.g., scolex size, suckers, proglottids, testes, cirrus sac, eggs). The range of number of rostellar hooks was wider in the present survey at 22–31 than the ranges recorded previously of 23–29 by Casanova et al. (2001), 22–26 by Cunningham et al. (2010), 24–26 by Gomez-Puerta and Valdivia-Carrera (2018). On the other hand, some morphologically close species, such as R. srivastavai and R. akodontis, show overlapping hook number ranges (26–30 and 24, respectively) (Rêgo, 1967, 1970). This data must be reviewed due to the frequent loss of hooks during recovery and study of the specimens, which may indicate a greater or complete overlap of those ranges.

In addition, some minimum variations in size and arrangement of testes were observed among the specimens of R. microstoma from different host genera, as well as the size of the eggs and cirrus sac (crossing or not crossing excretory canals). Thus, the disposition of the testes can be presented as a polymorphic character, as is suggested in the present paper.

These observations show phenotype plasticity since R. microstoma occurs in a wide range of host species and areas. Particularly, in this study, morphological variations are observed in R. microstoma among the eight species of Sigmodontinae rodents and 33 localities of Argentina, expanding their host and geographic distribution, and morphometrical features from previous studies (Table 2).

Originally, the surveys of Guerreiro Martins et al. (2014) and Panisse et al. (2017) assigned the same specimens studied in the present paper to Rodentolepis cf. akodontis. However, the morphological revision of these specimens and several others indicated the presence of phenotypic variability and their identification as R. microstoma. In addition, the type specimens of R. akodontis were also reviewed and these could not be separated from R. microstoma either (see Rêgo, 1967; Casanova et al., 2001; Cunningham and Olson, 2010; Gomez-Puerta and Valdivia-Carrera, 2018). Consequently, the validity of R. akodontis as a full species is questioned, and a full review should be made. Nevertheless, considering the poor state of conservation of type specimens, neotypes should be designed, and the species R. akodontis treated as inquirenda.

The molecular analyses showed that the specimens studied form a same clade with R. microstoma previously studied from other hosts and regions (ITS: H. sapiens form Australia, Mus spp. from Canary Islands and Portugal; cox1: Mus spp. from Peru, China, and Japan). The specimens form 3 subclades (Clade 1a-c) which correspond to different group of species hosts and regions. Specimens of R. microstoma from humans and Muridae distributed outside American continent form a subclade 1a, separate from the rest, and subclade 1b is the sister group of subclade 1c (ITS and cox1). Specimens of subclade 1b are parasites of Oxymycterus spp., and are a clade separate from the rest of Akodontini, such as the genera Akodon, Necromys and Thaptomys. Therefore, the genetic polymorphism observed of R. microstoma corresponds with some of the phylogenetic proposals of the hosts (D’Elía, 2003; Salazar-Bravo et al., 2013). Each subclade from the ITS1 and cox1 phylogenetic trees shows percentages of robustness. The phylogenetic tree based on concatenated ITS1 and cox1 shows different relationships among some of the subclades from Argentinian specimens.

This study shows the importance of using integrative taxonomic approaches that combine morphological and molecular characters to understand biological diversity. Thus, when it comes to morphologically very similar specimens, where subtle differences are observed, it can be defined whether they are part of the intraspecific variability of the species or indicate different taxa.

In addition, the discovery of R. microstoma in humans (Macnish et al., 2003) suggests the importance of further studies on this zoonotic cestode. This study provides significant data on the taxonomy and distribution of R. microstoma to advance knowledge of the transmission dynamics of this parasite.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Acknowledgements

We thank Carlos Galliari, Ulyses Pardiñas, Marcela Lareschi, Juliana Notarnicola, Pablo Teta, Juliana Sanchez, Ekaterina Savchenko, Mara Urdapilleta, Martín de los Reyes, Agustín Abba and other collaborators for their cooperation in host collections; to Carlos Galliari and Ulyses Pardiñas for the identification of the hosts; to Micaela Rojas for collaborating with the parasitological examination. This study was funded by grants from Agencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y Tecnológica (CONICET) and Universidad Nacional de La Plata.

References

  1. Barker F.D. Parasites of the American muskrat (Fiber zibethicus) J. Parasitol. 1915;1:184–197. [Google Scholar]
  2. Blanchard R. Société d'éditions scientifiques; Paris: 1891. Histoire Zoologique et Médicale des Téniadés du genre Hymenolepis Weinland. [Google Scholar]
  3. Casanova J.C., Santalla F., Durand P., Vaucher C., Feliu C., Renaud F. Morphological and genetic differentiation of Rodentolepis straminea (goeze, 1752) and Rodentolepis microstoma (Dujardin, 1845) (Hymenolepididae) Parasitol. Res. 2001;87:439–444. doi: 10.1007/s004360100379. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Costa N.A., dos Santos Cardoso T., da Costa Neto S.F., Júnior A.M., Gentile R. Metacommunity structure of helminths of Necromys lasiurus (Rodentia: Sigmodontinae) in different land use areas in the Brazilian Cerrado. J. Parasitol. 2019;105(2):271–282. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Cunningham L.J., Olson P.D. Description of Hymenolepis microstoma (Nottingham strain): a classical tapeworm model for research in the genomic era. Parasites Vectors. 2010;3(1):1–9. doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-3-123. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Czaplinski B., Vaucher C. In: Keys to the Cestode Parasites of Vertebrates. Khalil L.F., Jones A., Bray R.A., editors. CAB International; Wallingford: 1994. Family Hymenolepididae ariola, 1899; pp. 595–663. [Google Scholar]
  7. D’Elía G. Phylogenetics of Sigmodontinae (Rodentia, Muroidea, Cricetidae), with special reference to the akodont group, and with additional comments on historical biogeography. Cladistics. 2003;19(4):307–323. [Google Scholar]
  8. Dujardin M.F. Roret; Paris: 1845. Histoire Naturelle des Helminthes ou vers intestinaux. [Google Scholar]
  9. Dvorak J.A., Jones A.W., Kuhlman H.H. Studies on the biology of Hymenolepis microstoma (Dujardin, 1845) J. Parasitol. 1961;39:128–132. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Felsenstein J. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution. 1985;39(4):783–791. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1985.tb00420.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Foronda P., Casanova J.C., Valladares B., Martinez E., Feliu C. Molecular systematics of several cyclophyllid families (Cestoda) based on the analysis of 18S ribosomal DNA gene sequences. Parasitol. Res. 2004;93:279–282. doi: 10.1007/s00436-004-1130-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Galliari C., Pardiñas U.F.J., Goin F. Lista comentada de los mamíferos argentinos. Mastozool. Neotrop. 1996;3:39–61. [Google Scholar]
  13. Gardner S.L., Luedders B.A., Duszynski D.W. Hymenolepis robertrauschi n. sp. from grasshopper mice Onychomys spp. in New Mexico and Nebraska, U.S.A. Occas. Pap. Mus. Texas Tech. Univ. 2014;322:1–10. [Google Scholar]
  14. Gardner S.L., Schmidt G.D. Cestodes of the genus Hymenolepis Weinland, 1858 sensu stricto from pocket gophers Geomys and Thomomys spp. (Rodentia: Geomyidae) in Colorado and Oregon, with a discriminant analysis of four species of Hymenolepis. Can. J. Zol. 1988;66:96–903. [Google Scholar]
  15. Georgiev B.B., Bray R.A., Timothy D., Littlewood J. In: Micromammals and Macroparasites. Morand S., Krasnov B.R., Poulin R., editors. Springer; Tokyo: 2006. Cestodes of small mammals: taxonomy and life cycles; pp. 29–62. [Google Scholar]
  16. Gomez-Puerta L.A., Valdivia-Carrera C.A. Hymenolepis microstoma (Cestoda: Hymenolepididae) en ratones caseros (Mus musculus) de Lima. Perú. Rev. Peru. Biol. 2018;25(3):311–314. [Google Scholar]
  17. Guerreiro Martins N.B., Robles M.D.R., Navone G.T. Distribución geográfica de cestodes Hymenolepididae de Oxymycterus rufus (Rodentia-Cricetidae) en Argentina. Rev. Arg. Parasitol. 2014;2:16–24. [Google Scholar]
  18. Guindon S., Gascuel O. A simple, fast, and accurate algorithm to estimate large phylogenies by maximum likelihood. Syst. Biol. 2003;52(5):696–704. doi: 10.1080/10635150390235520. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Haukisalmi V., Hardman L.M., Foronda P., Feliu C., Laakkonen J., Niemimaa J., Lehtonen J.T., Henttonen H. Systematic relationships of hymenolepidid cestodes of rodents and shrews inferred from sequences of 28S ribosomal RNA. Zool. Scripta. 2010;39(6):631–641. [Google Scholar]
  20. Hickman J.L. The biology of Hymenolepis microstoma (Dujardin) Pap. Proc. R. Soc. Tasman. 1964;98:73–77. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hoberg E.P., Mariaux J., Brooks D.R. In: Interrelationships of the Platyhelminthes. Littlewood D.T.J., Bray R.A., editors. Taylor and Francis; London: 2001. Pylogeny among the orders of the Eucestoda (Cercomeromorphae): Integrating morphology, molecules and total evidence; pp. 112–126. [Google Scholar]
  22. Hughes R.C. Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical College Agricultural Experiment Station; Oklahoma: 1940. The Genus Hymenolepis Weinland 1858. [Google Scholar]
  23. Kumar S., Stecher G., Tamura K. MEGA7: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 7.0 for bigger datasets. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2016;33:1870–1874. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msw054. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Litchford R.G. Observations on Hymenolepis microstoma in three laboratory hosts: Mesocricetus auratus, Mus musculus, and Rattus novegicus. J. Parasitol. 1963;49(3):403–410. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Macnish M., Morgan-Ryan U.M., Monis P.T., Behnke J.M., Thompson R.C.A. A molecular phylogeny of nuclear and mitochondrial sequences in Hymenolepis nana (Cestoda) supports the existence of a cryptic species. Parasitology. 2002;125(6):567–575. doi: 10.1017/s0031182002002366. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Macnish M.G., Ryan U.M., Behnke J.M., Thompson R.C.A. Detection of the rodent tapeworm Rodentolepis (= Hymenolepis) microstoma in humans. A new zoonosis? Int. J. Parasitol. 2003;33:1079–1085. doi: 10.1016/s0020-7519(03)00137-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Makarikov A.A., Nims T.N., Galbreath K.E., Hoberg E.P. Hymenolepis folkertsi n. sp. (Eucestoda: Hymenolepididae) in the oldfield mouse Peromyscus polionotus (Wagner) (Rodentia: Cricetidae: Neotominae) from the southeastern Nearctic with comments on tapeworm faunal diversity among deer mice. Parasitol. Res. 2015;114:2107–2117. doi: 10.1007/s00436-015-4399-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Makarikov A.A., Tkach V.V., Bush S.E. Two new species of Hymenolepis (Cestoda: Hymenolepididae) from murid rodents (Rodentia: Muridae) in the Philippines. J. Parasitol. 2013;99:847–855. doi: 10.1645/12-173.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Makarikov A.A., Tkach V.V. Two new species of Hymenolepis (Cestoda: Hymenolepididae) from Spalacidae and Muridae (Rodentia) from eastern Palearctic. Acta Parasitol. 2013;58:37–49. doi: 10.2478/s11686-013-0115-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Marangi M., Zechini B., Fileti A., Quaranta G., Aceti A. Hymenolepis diminuta infection in a child living in the urban area of Rome, Italy. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2003;41(8):3994–3995. doi: 10.1128/JCM.41.8.3994-3995.2003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Mariaux J., Tkach V.V., Vasileva G.P., Waeschenbach A., Beveridge I., Dimitrova Y., Hukisalmi V., Greiman S.T., Littlewood D.T.J., Makarikov A.A., Phillips A.J., Razafiarisolo T., Widmer V., Georgiev B. In: Planetary Biodiversity Inventory (2008–2017): Tapeworms from Vertebrate Bowels of the Earth. Caira J.N., Jensen K., editors. University of Kansas, Natural History Museum, Special Publication No. 25. University of Kansas; Lawrence: 2017. Cyclophyllidea van Beneden in Braun, 1900; pp. 77–148. [Google Scholar]
  32. Navone G.T., Notarnicola J., Nava S., Robles M.D.R., Galliari C., Lareschi M. Arthropods and helminths assemblage in sigmodontine rodents from wetlands of the Rio de la Plata, Argentina. Mastozool. Neotrop. 2009;16(1):121–133. [Google Scholar]
  33. Neiland K.A., Senger C.M. Helminths of Northwestern mammals. Part I. Two new species of Hymenolepis. J. Parasitol. 1952;38:409–414. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Nkouawa A., Haukisalmi V., Li T., Nakao M., Lavikainen A., Chen X., Henttonen H., Ito A. Cryptic diversity in hymenolepidid tapeworms infecting humans. Parasitol. Int. 2016;65(2):83–86. doi: 10.1016/j.parint.2015.10.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Okamoto M., Agatsuma T., Kurosawa T., Ito A. Phylogenetic relationships of three hymenolepidid species inferred from nuclear ribosomal and mitochondrial DNA sequences. Parasitology. 1997;115:661–666. doi: 10.1017/s0031182097001741. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Olson P.D., Littlewood D.T.J., Bray R.A., Mariaux J. Interrelationships and evolution of the tapeworms (Platyhelminthes: Cestoda) Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2001;19:443–467. doi: 10.1006/mpev.2001.0930. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Panisse G., Robles M.D.R., Digiani M.C., Notarnicola J., Galliari C., Navone G.T. Description of the helminth communities of sympatric rodents (Muroidea: Cricetidae) from the Atlantic Forest in northeastern Argentina. Zootaxa. 2017;4337(2):243–262. doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.4337.2.4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Panti-May J.A., Digiani M.C., Palomo-Arjona E.E., Gurubel-González Y.M., Navone G.T., Williams C.M., Hernández-Betancourt S.F., Robles M.D.R. A checklist of the helminth parasites of sympatric rodents from two Mayan villages in Yucatán, México. Zootaxa. 2018;4403(3):495–512. doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.4403.3.4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Pardiñas U.F.J., D’Elía G., Teta P., Ortiz P.E., Jayat P.J., Cirignoli S. In: Mamíferos de Argentina, Sistemática y Distribución. Barquez R.M., Díaz M.M., Ojeda R.A., editors. Sociedad Argentina para el Estudio de los Mamíferos; Tucumán: 2006. Subfamilia Sigmodontini, Tribu Akodontini; pp. 146–202. [Google Scholar]
  40. Patton J.L., Pardiñas U.F.J., D’Elía G. vol. 2. University of Chicago Press; Chicago and London: 2015. Mammals of South America. (Rodents). [Google Scholar]
  41. Posada D., Buckley T.R. Model selection and model averaging in phylogenetics: advantages of Akaike information criterion and Bayesian approaches over likelihood ratio tests. Syst. Biol. 2004;53:793–808. doi: 10.1080/10635150490522304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Posada D. jModelTest: phylogenetic model averaging. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2008;25:1253–1256. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msn083. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Redford K.H., Eisenberg J.F. Paraguay. University of Chicago Press; Chicago: 1992. Mammals of the Neotropics. The Southern Cone. Chile, Argentina, Uruguay. [Google Scholar]
  44. Rêgo A.A. Sobre alguns cestódeos parasitos de roedores do Brasil (Cestoda, Cyclophyllidea) Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz. 1967;65:1–18. [Google Scholar]
  45. Rêgo A.A. H. D. Srivastava Commen; 1970. Uma nova espécie de Rodentolepis parasita de roedor (Cestoda, Hymenolepididae) pp. 251–254. [Google Scholar]
  46. Rider C.L., Macy R.W. Preliminary survey of the helminth parasites of muskrats in northwestern Oregon, with description of Hymenolepis ondatrae n. sp. Trans. Am. Microsc. Soc. 1947;66(2):176–181. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Ronquist F., Huelsenbeck J.P. MrBAYES 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics. 2003;19:1572–1574. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btg180. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Salazar‐Bravo J., Pardiñas U.F., D'Elía G.A. Phylogenetic appraisal of Sigmodontinae (Rodentia, Cricetidae) with emphasis on phyllotine genera: systematics and biogeography. Zool. Scripta. 2013;42(3):250–261. [Google Scholar]
  49. Schiller E.L. Hymenolepis johnsoni n. sp. a cestode from the vole Microtus pennsylvanicus drumondii. J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 1952;42:53–55. [Google Scholar]
  50. Schmidt G.D. CRC Press; Florida: 1986. Handbook of Tapeworm Identification. [Google Scholar]
  51. Sharma S., Lyngdoh D., Roy B., Tandon V. Molecular phylogeny of Cyclophyllidea (Cestoda: Eucestoda): an in-silico analysis based on mtCOI gene. Parasitol. Res. 2016;115(9):3329–3335. doi: 10.1007/s00436-016-5092-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Simões R.O., Souza J.G.R., Maldonado A., Jr., Luque J.L. Variation in the helminth community structure of three sympatric sigmodontine rodents from the coastal Atlantic Forest of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. J. Helminthol. 2011;85:171–178. doi: 10.1017/S0022149X10000398. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Spasskii A.A. Classification of Hymenolepididae from mammals. Tr. Gel’mintol. Lab. 1954;7:120–167. [Google Scholar]
  54. Sutton C.A. Contribución al conocimiento de la fauna parasitológica Argentina, Rodentolepis octocoronata (von Linstow, 1879) Neotrópica. 1974;20:145–148. [Google Scholar]
  55. Tandon V., Biswal D.K., Prasad P.K., Malsawmtluangi C. In: Biomedical Engineering Systems and Technologies. Fred A., Filipe J., Gamboa H., editors. vol. 127. Springer; Berlin: 2011. Reconstructing the phylogenetic relationships of the cyclophyllidean cestodes: a case study using ITS2 rDNA and sequence structure alignment; pp. 309–321. BIOSTEC 2010, CCIS. [Google Scholar]
  56. Teta P., Abba A.M., Cassini G.H., Flores D.A., Galliari C.A., Lucero S.O., Ramírez M. Lista revisada de los mamíferos de Argentina. Mastozool. Neotrop. 2018;25:163–198. [Google Scholar]
  57. Vaucher C. Les Cestodes parasites des Soricidae d'Europe. Etude anatomique, révision taxonomique et biologie. Rev. Suisse Zool. 1971;78:1–113. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Von Nickisch-Rosenegk M., Lucius R., Loss-Frank B. Contributions to the phylogeny of the Cyclophyllidea (Cestoda) inferred from mitochondial 12S rDNA. J. Mol. Evol. 1999;48:586–596. doi: 10.1007/pl00006501. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Wardle M.A., McLeod J.A. University of Minnesota Press; Minneapolis: 1952. The Zoology of Tapeworms. [Google Scholar]
  60. Wilson D.E., Lacher T.E., Mittermeier R.A. vol. 7. Lynx Edicions; Barcelona: 2017. Handbook of the Mammals of the World. (Rodents II). [Google Scholar]

Articles from International Journal for Parasitology: Parasites and Wildlife are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES