...
首页> 外文期刊>European Journal of Protistology >Correct identification of species makes the amoebozoan rRNA tree congruent with morphology for the order Leptomyxida Page 1987; with description of Acramoeba dendroida n. g., n. sp., originally misidentified as 'Gephyramoeba sp.'
【24h】

Correct identification of species makes the amoebozoan rRNA tree congruent with morphology for the order Leptomyxida Page 1987; with description of Acramoeba dendroida n. g., n. sp., originally misidentified as 'Gephyramoeba sp.'

机译:正确鉴定物种会使变形虫rRNA树与Leptomyxida Page 1987的形态一致。带有of草的描述。 g。 sp。,最初被误认为是“ Gephyramoeba sp。”

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Morphological identification of protists remains an expert task, especially for little known and poorly described species. Culture collections normally accept organisms under the name provided by depositors and are not responsible for identification. Uncritical acceptance of these names by molecular phylogeneticists may result in serious errors of interpretation of phylogenctic trees based on DNA sequences, making them appear more incongruent with morphology than they really are. Several cases of misidentification in a major culture collection have recently been reported. Here we provide evidence for misidentifications of two more gymnamoebae. The first concerns "Gephyramoeba sp." ATCC 50654; it is not Gephyramoeba, a leptomyxid with lobose pseudopods, but a hitherto undescribed branching amoeba with fine, filamentous subpseudopods named here Acramoeba dendroida gen. et sp. nov. We also sequenced 18S rRNA of Page's strain of Rhizamoeba saxonica (CCAP 1570/2) and show that it is the most deeply branching leptomyxid and is not phylogenetically close to 'Rhizamoeba saxonica' ATCC 50742, which was misidentified. Correcting these misidentifications improves the congruence between morphological diversity of Amoebozoa and their rRNA-based phylogenies, both for Leptomyxida and for the Acramoeba part of the tree. On morphological grounds we transfer Gephyramoebidae from Varipodida back to Leptomyxida and remove Flamella from Leptomyxida; sequences are needed to confirm these two revisions. (C) 2007 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.
机译:原生生物的形态鉴定仍然是一项专家任务,尤其是对于鲜为人知和描述不清的物种。培养物收集物通常以保存者提供的名称接受生物,并且不负责鉴定。分子系统学家对这些名称的不加批判的接受可能会导致基于DNA序列的系统发育树解释方面的严重错误,从而使它们在形态上看起来比实际情况更加不一致。最近已经报道了在主要文化收藏中出现的一些误识别案例。在这里,我们提供了对另外两个裸藻科的错误识别的证据。第一个涉及“ Gephyramoeba sp。”。 ATCC 50654;它不是Gephyramoeba,一种具有松散假足的瘦线虫,而是一种迄今未描述的分支细变形虫,其具有细的丝状亚假足,在这里称为Acramoeba dendroida gen。等。十一月我们还对了萨克森根霉(PageCAP)的Page菌株(CCAP 1570/2)的18S rRNA进行了测序,结果表明它是分支最深的瘦霉菌,并且在系统发育上与被错误鉴定的'Rhizamoeba saxonica'ATCC 50742不相近。纠正这些错误标识可以提高变形虫和树的ram形虫部分变形虫及其基于rRNA的系统发育形态多样性之间的一致性。出于形态学的考虑,我们将Gephyramoebidae从Varipodida转移回Leptomyxida,并从Leptomyxida去除Flamella。需要序列来确认这两个修订。 (C)2007 Elsevier GmbH。版权所有。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号