Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Characterization of Meloidogyne indica (Nematoda: Meloidogynidae) Parasitizing Neem in India, with a Molecular Phylogeny of the Species Cover

Characterization of Meloidogyne indica (Nematoda: Meloidogynidae) Parasitizing Neem in India, with a Molecular Phylogeny of the Species

Open Access
|Oct 2018

Figures & Tables

Fig. 1

Plant symptoms (A–C) and morphology (D–K) of Meloidogyne indica infecting neem. A, Healthy neem seedlings; B, Infected neem seedlings devoid of lateral roots; C, Root gall with eggmass; D, Adult females; E, Anterior region of adult female; F and G, Perineal pattern morphology; H, Anterior region of male; I, Male tail; J, Anterior end of second-stage juvenile (J2); K, Second-stage juvenile tail (scale bar = D: 550 µm; E: 100 µm; H,I: 10 µm; J,K: 20 µm).
Plant symptoms (A–C) and morphology (D–K) of Meloidogyne indica infecting neem. A, Healthy neem seedlings; B, Infected neem seedlings devoid of lateral roots; C, Root gall with eggmass; D, Adult females; E, Anterior region of adult female; F and G, Perineal pattern morphology; H, Anterior region of male; I, Male tail; J, Anterior end of second-stage juvenile (J2); K, Second-stage juvenile tail (scale bar = D: 550 µm; E: 100 µm; H,I: 10 µm; J,K: 20 µm).

Fig. 2

Scanning electron microscopy photomicrographs of Meloidogyne indica. A, Female lip region; B, Male lip region; C, Male tail; D, Lateral field with lateral lines; E, Second-stage juvenile tail (scale bar in µm).
Scanning electron microscopy photomicrographs of Meloidogyne indica. A, Female lip region; B, Male lip region; C, Male tail; D, Lateral field with lateral lines; E, Second-stage juvenile tail (scale bar in µm).

Fig. 3

Citrus roots showing development of galls and eggmasses upon inoculation with the neem population of Meloidogyne indica. A, Citrus plant inoculated with neem population of M. indica; B, Healthy roots of citrus; C, Infected roots of citrus with galls and eggmasses.
Citrus roots showing development of galls and eggmasses upon inoculation with the neem population of Meloidogyne indica. A, Citrus plant inoculated with neem population of M. indica; B, Healthy roots of citrus; C, Infected roots of citrus with galls and eggmasses.

Fig. 4

Evolutionary relationship of Meloidogyne indica using ITS rRNA sequence. The evolutionary history was inferred by using the maximum likelihood method based on Kimura 2-parameter model. The bootstrap consensus tree inferred from 1,000 replicates is taken to represent the evolutionary history of the analyzed taxa. Branches corresponding to partitions reproduced in less than 30% bootstrap replicates are collapsed. The percentage of replicate trees in which the associated taxa clustered together in the bootstrap test (1,000 replicates) is shown next to the branches. Initial tree(s) for the heuristic search were obtained automatically by applying neighbour-joining and BioNJ algorithms to a matrix of pairwise distances estimated using the maximum composite likelihood approach and then selecting the topology with superior log likelihood value (–1869.0466). A discrete Gamma distribution was used to model evolutionary rate differences among sites (five categories [+G, parameter = 1.0929]). The analysis involved 29 nucleotide sequences. All positions containing gaps and missing data were eliminated. There were a total of 170 positions in the final dataset. Evolutionary analyses were conducted in MEGA6.
Evolutionary relationship of Meloidogyne indica using ITS rRNA sequence. The evolutionary history was inferred by using the maximum likelihood method based on Kimura 2-parameter model. The bootstrap consensus tree inferred from 1,000 replicates is taken to represent the evolutionary history of the analyzed taxa. Branches corresponding to partitions reproduced in less than 30% bootstrap replicates are collapsed. The percentage of replicate trees in which the associated taxa clustered together in the bootstrap test (1,000 replicates) is shown next to the branches. Initial tree(s) for the heuristic search were obtained automatically by applying neighbour-joining and BioNJ algorithms to a matrix of pairwise distances estimated using the maximum composite likelihood approach and then selecting the topology with superior log likelihood value (–1869.0466). A discrete Gamma distribution was used to model evolutionary rate differences among sites (five categories [+G, parameter = 1.0929]). The analysis involved 29 nucleotide sequences. All positions containing gaps and missing data were eliminated. There were a total of 170 positions in the final dataset. Evolutionary analyses were conducted in MEGA6.

Fig. 5

Evolutionary relationship of Meloidogyne indica using D2D3 expansion segment of 28S rRNA sequence. The evolutionary history was inferred by using the maximum likelihood method based on General Time Reversible model. The bootstrap consensus tree inferred from 1,000 replicates is taken to represent the evolutionary history of the analyzed taxa. Branches corresponding to partitions reproduced in less than 30% bootstrap replicates are collapsed. The percentage of replicate trees in which the associated taxa clustered together in the bootstrap test (1,000 replicates) is shown next to the branches. Initial tree(s) for the heuristic search were obtained automatically by applying neighbour-joining and BioNJ algorithms to a matrix of pairwise distances estimated using the Maximum Composite Likelihood approach and then selecting the topology with superior log likelihood value (−4112.4125). A discrete Gamma distribution was used to model evolutionary rate differences among sites (five categories [+G, parameter = 0.4693]). The analysis involved 34 nucleotide sequences. All positions containing gaps and missing data were eliminated. There were a total of 525 positions in the final dataset. Evolutionary analyses were conducted in MEGA6.
Evolutionary relationship of Meloidogyne indica using D2D3 expansion segment of 28S rRNA sequence. The evolutionary history was inferred by using the maximum likelihood method based on General Time Reversible model. The bootstrap consensus tree inferred from 1,000 replicates is taken to represent the evolutionary history of the analyzed taxa. Branches corresponding to partitions reproduced in less than 30% bootstrap replicates are collapsed. The percentage of replicate trees in which the associated taxa clustered together in the bootstrap test (1,000 replicates) is shown next to the branches. Initial tree(s) for the heuristic search were obtained automatically by applying neighbour-joining and BioNJ algorithms to a matrix of pairwise distances estimated using the Maximum Composite Likelihood approach and then selecting the topology with superior log likelihood value (−4112.4125). A discrete Gamma distribution was used to model evolutionary rate differences among sites (five categories [+G, parameter = 0.4693]). The analysis involved 34 nucleotide sequences. All positions containing gaps and missing data were eliminated. There were a total of 525 positions in the final dataset. Evolutionary analyses were conducted in MEGA6.

Fig. 6

Evolutionary relationship of Meloidogyne indica using mitochondrial COI sequences. The evolutionary history was inferred by using the maximum likelihood method based on General Time Reversible model. The bootstrap consensus tree inferred from 1,000 replicates is taken to represent the evolutionary history of the analyzed taxa. Branches corresponding to partitions reproduced in less than 30% bootstrap replicates are collapsed. The percentage of replicate trees in which the associated taxa clustered together in the bootstrap test (1,000 replicates) is shown next to the branches. Initial tree(s) for the heuristic search were obtained automatically by applying neighbour-joining and BioNJ algorithms to a matrix of pairwise distances estimated using the maximum composite likelihood approach and then selecting the topology with superior log likelihood value (−2471.1920). A discrete Gamma distribution was used to model evolutionary rate differences among sites (five categories [+G, parameter = 0.5728]). The analysis involved 21 nucleotide sequences. All positions containing gaps and missing data were eliminated. There were a total of 309 positions in the final dataset. Evolutionary analyses were conducted in MEGA6.
Evolutionary relationship of Meloidogyne indica using mitochondrial COI sequences. The evolutionary history was inferred by using the maximum likelihood method based on General Time Reversible model. The bootstrap consensus tree inferred from 1,000 replicates is taken to represent the evolutionary history of the analyzed taxa. Branches corresponding to partitions reproduced in less than 30% bootstrap replicates are collapsed. The percentage of replicate trees in which the associated taxa clustered together in the bootstrap test (1,000 replicates) is shown next to the branches. Initial tree(s) for the heuristic search were obtained automatically by applying neighbour-joining and BioNJ algorithms to a matrix of pairwise distances estimated using the maximum composite likelihood approach and then selecting the topology with superior log likelihood value (−2471.1920). A discrete Gamma distribution was used to model evolutionary rate differences among sites (five categories [+G, parameter = 0.5728]). The analysis involved 21 nucleotide sequences. All positions containing gaps and missing data were eliminated. There were a total of 309 positions in the final dataset. Evolutionary analyses were conducted in MEGA6.

Morphometrics for Meloidogyne indica infecting neem and citrus_ All linear measurements are in micrometer and in the form of mean ± SD_

Neem populationCitrus population (After Whitehead, 1968)
CharacterJ2MaleFemaleJ2Female
n 201530258
L 484 ± 31.5 (430–520)1253 ± 80 (1180–1380)653 ± 92.2 (450–790)414 ± 4.5 (381–448)
Body width18 ± 1.5 (16.77–21.15)28 ± 4 (24.55–34.66)408 ± 75 (325–550)
A 26.68 ± 1.9 (24.20–29.87)44.89 ± 3.5 (39.81–48.06)1.60 ± 0.3 (1.38–2.10)
Stylet length13.8 ± 0.1 (13.57–14.21)16.3 ± 0.4 (15.90–17.08)13.7 ± 0.4 (13.32–14.18)12 ± 0.9 (10–14)14 (12–16)
DGO2.8 ± 0.2 (2.45–3.25)3.1 ± 0.1 (2.92–3.30)2.9 ± 0.3 (2.49–3.67)3 (2–4)
Head-metacorpus50 ± 2.3 (46.45–53.02)73 ± 4.1 (68.70–78.14)
Head-oesophageal gland138 ± 4.8 (129.97–144.65)
b′3.5 ± 0.1 (3.10–3.65)
c26.2 ± 1.2 (24.15–27.65)24.9 ± 1.36 (21.2–31)
c′1.6 ± 0.1 (1.52–1.91)1.57 ± 0.012 (1.06–1.78)
Tail length18 ± 0.6 (17.50–19.50)16.8 ± 1.88 (13–20.1)
Anal body width11.1 ± 1.0 (9.85–12.45)
Spicule26 ± 0.6 (25.90–27.50)

List of primers used for polymerase chain reaction amplification in this study_

Primer nameGeneSequenceReferences
V5367 ITS 5′-TTGATTACGTCCCTGCCCTTT-3′ Vrain et al. (1992)
26S ITS 5′-TTTCACTCGCCGTTACTAAGG-3′ Vrain et al. (1992)
D2A LSU 5′-ACAAGTACCGTGAGGGAAAGTTG-3′ Castillo et al. (2003)
D3B LSU 5′-TCGGAAGGAACCAGCTACTA-3′ Castillo et al. (2003)
JB3 COI 5′-TTTTTTGGGCATCCTGAGGTTTAT-3′ Bowles et al. (1992)
JB5 COI 5′-AGCACCTAAACTTAAAACATAATGAAAATG-3′ Derycke et al. (2005)

List of GenBank accession numbers used in phylogenetic analyses (** Not found in NCBI database)_

SpeciesITS rRNAD2D3 28S rRNACOI mtDNA
Meloidogyne arabicida **KF993624**
Meloidogyne africana ****KY433441
Meloidogyne arenaria AF387092JX987332JX683705
Meloidogyne artiellia KC545880AY150369KU517173
Meloidogyne baetica AY150366AY150367**
Meloidogyne camelliae JX912885KF542869KM887148
Meloidogyne chitwoodi AY281852AF435802KU517168
Meloidogyne christiei KR082319KR082317**
Meloidogyne dunensis EF612711EF612712**
Meloidogyne duytsi ****KU517177
Meloidogyne enterolobii KM046989KJ146862KT936633
Meloidogyne ethiopica KF482366KF482372**
Meloidogyne exigua **AF435795**
Meloidogyne fallax AY281853KC241969KU517182
Meloidogyne graminicola KM111531KJ728847KY250093
Meloidogyne graminis JN157866JN019326**
Meloidogyne hapla EU908052DQ145641JX683719
Meloidogyne haplanaria ****KU174206
Meloidogyne hispanica EU443613EU443607JX683712
Meloidogyne ichinohei **EF029862KY433448
Meloidogyne incognita KJ739707JX100425JX683696
Meloidogyne indica KC311146MF680038MF662179
Meloidogyne inornata KF482368KF482374**
Meloidogyne izalcoensis **KF993621**
Meloidogyne javanica KJ739709KC953092JX683711
Meloidogyne konaensis **AF435797**
Meloidogyne lopezi **KF993616**
Meloidogyne luci KF482365KF482371**
Meloidogyne mali JX978228KF880398KU517175
Meloidogyne marylandi JN157854JN019333
Meloidogyne minor KC241953JN628436KU517178
Meloidogyne naasi KJ934132KC241979KU517170
Meloidogyne panyuensis ******
Meloidogyne paranaensis **AF435799**
Meloidogyne silvestris EU570216EU570214**
Meloidogyne spartelensis KP896294KP895293KP997301
Meloidogyne thailandica AY858795EU364890**
Meloidogyne trifoliophila JX465593AF435801**
Pratylenchus vulnus FJ713011EU130885KX349427
Hirschmanniella oryzae DQ309588JX291142**
Tylenchorhynchus leviterminalis EF030984KJ475548**
Heterodera glycines HM370421GU595446**
Radopholus similis KJ845638JN091964KX349430
Heterotheca mucronata ****KR819278
Tylenchorhynchus sp****KY639376
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/jofnem-2018-015 | Journal eISSN: 2640-396X | Journal ISSN: 0022-300X
Language: English
Page range: 387 - 398
Published on: Oct 17, 2018
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year
Keywords:

© 2018 Victor Phani, Satyapal Bishnoi, Amita Sharma, Keith G. Davies, Uma Rao, published by Society of Nematologists, Inc.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.