MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W6892601693 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.11085326

Dactylosoma Labbe 1894

2020· article· en· W6892601693 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueProtist diversity and phylogeny
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésGenusParasite hostingHost (biology)Taxonomy (biology)Type species

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

1.3. The genus Dactylosoma Members of the genus Dactylosoma have undergone a fair number of taxonomic disputes, with D. ranarum being the first described species of the genus. Although Lankester (1871) is often given credit for the discovery of D. ranarum (see Saunders, 1960; Levine, 1971; Barta et al., 1987; Barta, 1991; Davies and Johnston, 2000), it is clear from the original descriptions (Lankester, 1871, 1882) that he was working with a species of Lankesterella Labbé 1899 (initially known as “ Drepanidium ” erected by Lankester (1871, 1882) however, this name had already been used by Ehrenberg (1861) for a ciliate). Nöller (1913) clarified that the first description of D. ranarum was by Kruse (1890) who believed he was describing additional developmental stages of the “ Drepanidium ” parasite that was Lankesterella minima (Chaussat, 1850). Kruse (1890) suggested that the parasite should be grouped with the haemogregarines, proposing the name Haemogregarina ranarum (Kruse, 1890) if the generic name “ Drepanidium ” was to fall away. Celli and San Felice (1891) also regarded it as H. ranarum, and Grassi and Feletti (1892) as a malarial parasite, due to its resemblance to human malaria. However, Labbé (1894) recognised differences between these genera, subsequently erecting Dactylosoma based on: (1) different elongated and amoeboid body forms; (2) areolar structure, vesicular nucleus and hyaline appearance of the protoplasm; (3) lack of pigment, but presence of retractile granules; (4) minimal effect on the host cell and nucleus; and (5) merogony (“sporulation”) that gives rise to between 5 and 12 merozoites (“sporozoites”) grouped in a rosette- or fan-like appearance. Labbé (1894) named the species he placed in this newly erected genus, Dactylosoma splendens Labbé 1894, however, according to Wenyon (1926) who supported the designation of Nöller (1913), Kruse (1890) had first used the species name “ ranarum ” for this parasite, thus Dactylosoma splendens was renamed Dactylosoma ranarum (Kruse, 1890). Currently there are five recognised species of Dactylosoma, two of which infect fish hosts, namely Dactylosoma iethrinorum Saunders, 1960, and Dactylosoma salvelini Fantham, Porter and Richardson, 1942 (see Table 1). The remaining three species were described from anuran hosts. The first, Dactylosoma ranarum, is the most common and a cosmopolitan species reported from several anuran species. According to Barta (1991), this species has been recorded from Pelophylax kl. esculentus (Linnaeus, 1758) in France (Laveran, 1899), the Caucasus (Finkelstein, 1908), and Corsica (Boulard et al., 1982) and other European countries (França, 1908; Nöller, 1913). Furthermore, this species has also been recorded from Central and South America in Rhinella marina (Linnaeus, 1758) (see Walton, 1946) and in an unidentified toad from Pará, Brazil (Durham, 1902). Additionally, there have been reports in Africa from Pel. kl. esculentus collected in Constantine, Algeria (Billet, 1904), Pelophylax saharicus (Boulenger in Hartert, 1913) from Morocco (Seabra-Babo et al., 2015), and Pelophylax ridibundus (Pallas, 1771) (syn. Rana ridibunda) from North Africa (Walton, 1947, 1949), all included within the Palearctic realm. From the Ethiopian realm, hosts include Hyperolius sp. (syn. Rappia marmorata), Amnirana galamensis (Dumeril and Bibron, 1841) (syn. Hylarana galamensis, Rana galamensis), Ptychadena oxyrhynchus (Smith, 1849) (syn. Rana oxyrhynchus), Ptychadena submascareniensis (Guibé and Lamotte, 1953) (syn. R. mascareniensis) and Sclerophrys regularis (Reuss, 1833) (syn. Amietophrynus regularis, Bufo regularis) from the Gambia (Dutton et al., 1907). It is clear from the illustrations provided that the latter hosts were infected with several different blood parasites, all grouped as “ Drepanidia ” (Dutton et al., 1907; Walton, 1948). Amnirana albolabris (Hallowell, 1856) (syn. Hylarana albolabris, Rana albolabris) is reported as a host for D. ranarum from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Schwetz, 1930; Walton, 1947) in Central Africa, and Scl. gutturalis (syn. Scl. regularis) in South Africa (Fantham et al., 1942). The giant bullfrog, Pyxicephalus adspersus Tschudi, 1838 is also reported to be infected with D. ranarum from an unspecified location possibly in sub-Saharan Africa (Walton, 1947). Lastly, there are also reports from Sylvirana guentheri (Boulenger, 1882) from Tonkin, northern Vietnam (Mathis and Léger, 1911) and Yung Foh Lee, Yang Ming Shan, Taiwan (Manwell, 1964). The type host and type locality for D. ranarum is Pel. kl. esculentus and probably Naples, Italy, respectively (Kruse, 1890). The second species, Dactylosoma sylvatica Fantham, Porter and Richardson, 1942 was described from the wood frog Lithobates sylvaticus (LeConte, 1825) (syn. Rana sylvatica) collected in the Province of Quebec, Canada. The third species is Dactylosoma taiwanensis Manwell, 1964, described from the Alpine cricket frog, Fejervarya limnocharis (Gravenhorst, 1829) (syn. Rana Iimnocharis) in Hualien, Hua Lien Hsien, Taiwan (see Table 1). In addition to the summary of reported species of Dactylosoma mentioned above, Netherlands et al. (2015) reported on an unidentified species of Dactylosoma in Ptychadena anchietae (Bocage, 1868) from northern KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Species previously regarded as members of Dactylosoma are Babesiosoma mariae (Hoare, 1930) and Babesiosoma jahni (Nigrelli, 1929). Two enigmatic species previously assigned to Dactylosoma, Dactylosoma tritonis (Fantham, 1905) and D. amaniae (Awerinzew, 1914) are more likely inclusions of rickettsial organisms according to Levine (1988) and Barta (1991). Dactylosoma clariae (Haiba, 1962) (syn. Cytauxzoon clariae and Haemohormidium clariae) and Dactylosoma tilapiae Imam, Marzouk, Hassan, Derhall and Itman, 1985 were considered by Negm-Eldin (1998) to not contain sufficient proof to document the validity of these species (Smit et al., 2003). Species of Dactylosoma are characterised by similar merogonic development as for species of Babesiosoma, except for the morphologically distinct primary and secondary meronts and a varying number of merozoites produced in these cycles. In summary, D. ranarum undergoes primary merogony when a merozoite enters the host frogs’ erythrocytes. Within erythrocytes, merozoites undergo simultaneous peripheral budding, transforming into a large multinucleate meront producing up to 16 merozoites arranged in the characteristic rosette- or hand-like nature for which the genus was named (see Labbé, 1894; Nöller, 1913; Barta, 1991; Lainson, 2007). Merozoites then separate and penetrate other erythrocytes, either repeating the cycle of primary merogony or initiating secondary merogony. The cycle is repeated in secondary merogony with meronts producing up to eight merozoites that either repeat secondary merogony or mature into gamonts (see Nöller, 1913; Barta et al., 1987). To date, no complete cycles for any species of Dactylosoma have been elucidated. However, Barta (1991) used frogs captured on the island of Corsica, France, to experimentally infect the North American glossiphoniid leech Desserobdella picta (Verrill, 1872), the natural vector of B. stableri (see below) with D. ranarum. In his study, although no observations on the development of gametes or zygote formation were made, D. ranarum was found to undergo sporogonic development within the intestinal epithelium of this experimentally infected leech host. The oocysts observed appear to be polysporoblastic producing 30 or more sporozoites by a process of exogenous budding directly into the cytoplasm of the epithelial cell (Barta, 1991). Other haematophagous invertebrates have also been considered as potential vectors. Nöller (1913) was the first to experimentally attempt transmission of D. ranarum using the glossiphoniid leech Hemiclepsis margmata (Müller, 1774), however, this was unsuccessful despite repeated attempts. Boulard et al. (1982) also tested the mosquito Culicoides nubeculosus (Meigen, 1830) as the potential vector of D. ranarum, but the experiments yielded no results. Although phlebotomine sand flies are the known vectors for different blood parasites of anurans (Feng and Chung, 1940; Desportes, 1942), none thus far have been tested as potential vectors for any species of Dactylosoma.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,021
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,071

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0210,006

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,034
Tête enseignante GPT0,224
Écart entre enseignants0,190 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Même sujetProtist diversity and phylogenyTravaux en français237 207