Molecular identification of two morphologically similar Eulecanium species: E. giganteum and E. kuwanai (Hemiptera: Coccidae)
Molecular identification of two morphologically similar Eulecanium species: E. giganteum and E. kuwanai (Hemiptera: Coccidae)
复制标题
两种形态相似的 Eulecanium 物种的分子鉴定：E. giganteum 和 E. kuwanai（半翅目：球虫科）
DOI：
10.4039/tce.2015.42
复制
发表时间：
2016
影响因子：
0.9
通讯作者：
Wu San’An
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Deng Jun;Li HaiBin;Wang XuBo;Yu Fang;Zhang YanZhou;Wu San’An
摘要 Eulecanium Cockerell 属（半翅目：球虫科）的大多数物种是观赏植物和果树的重要经济害虫。两个形态相似的物种，Eulecanium giganteum Shinji 和 E. kuwanai Kanda，主要分布在中国，由于缺乏显着特征，很难识别，只能在载玻片上观察到的年轻成年雌性。此外，我们在此证明该物种存在于同源性中并且存在于许多相同的寄主植物上。利用线粒体细胞色素 c 氧化酶 I (COI) 和 28S rDNA 的 D2-D3 扩展片段准确鉴定来自中国 19 个不同地点的这两种真杜鹃属物种。 COI序列的平均K2P距离在桑内桉中为0.47%，在巨桉中为0.32%，种间差异在7.23%到8.34%之间。 COI 和 28S rDNA 的邻接 (NJ) 树分别揭示了两个不同的非重叠簇。同时，“最佳紧密匹配”分析还表明，利用COI和28S序列，100%的个体被成功分类。当使用生态和形态特征时，区分 E. giganteum 和 E. kuwanai 具有挑战性。相比之下，使用 DNA 诊断进行鉴定似乎非常有效，尤其是在难以获得载玻片标本时。
Abstract Most species of the genus Eulecanium Cockerell (Hemiptera: Coccidae) are important economic pests for ornamental plants and fruit trees. Two morphologically similar species, Eulecanium giganteum Shinji and E. kuwanai Kanda, are distributed mainly in China and are quite difficult to identify because of the paucity of distinguishing characteristics, which can only be observed in slide-mounted young, adult females. Furthermore, we demonstrate here that the species occur in sympatry and on many of the same host plants. Mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase I (COI) and the D2–D3 expansion segments of 28S rDNA were used for accurate identification of these two Eulecanium species from 19 different locations in China. The average K2P distances of COI sequences were 0.47% in E. kuwanai and 0.32% in E. giganteum, and the interspecific divergences varied from 7.23% to 8.34%. Neighbour-joining (NJ) trees of COI and 28S rDNA revealed two distinct non-overlapping clusters, respectively. Meanwhile, “best close match” analysis also showed that 100% of individuals were classified successfully using COI and 28 S sequences. Differentiating between E. giganteum and E. kuwanai is challenging when using ecological and morphological traits. In contrast, identification using DNA diagnostics appears to be very effective, especially when slide-mounted specimens are difficult to obtain.