Abstract
Root-knot nematodes (RKN) of the genus Meloidogyne are biotrophic plant parasites of major agricultural importance, which exhibit very variable modes of reproduction, from classical amphimixis to mitotic parthenogenesis. This review focuses on those RKN species that reproduce exclusively by mitotic parthenogenesis (apomixis), in contrast to those that have meiotic/amphimitic events in their life cycle. Although populations of clonal organisms are often represented as being ecologically isolated and evolutionary inert, a considerable volume of literature provides evidence that asexual RKN are neither: they are widely distributed, extremely polyphagous, and amenable to selection and adaptive variation. The ancestors of the genus are unknown, but it is assumed that the parthenogenetic RKN have evolved from amphimictic species through hybridization and subsequent aneuploidization and polyploidization events. Molecular studies have indeed confirmed that the phylogenetic divergence between meiotic and mitotic RKN lineages occurred early, and have revealed an unexpected level of clonal diversity among populations within apomictic species. Laboratory experiments have shown that asexual RKN can rapidly adapt to new environmental constraints (eg host resistance), although with some fitness costs. Lastly, the molecular and chromosomal mechanisms that could contribute to genome plasticity leading to persistent genetic variation and adaptive evolution in apomictic RKN are discussed. It is concluded that RKN provide an excellent model system in which to study the dynamic nature and adaptive potential of clonal genomes.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Root-knot nematodes (RKN), Meloidogyne spp., belong to the order Tylenchida. These small round worms (typically from 300 μm to 2 mm for vermiform juveniles and pyriform females, respectively; Figure 1) live in soils and are obligate and sedentary endoparasites of plant roots. They harbour at their anterior end a hollow, protrusible stylet, which they use to both inject secretions into and withdraw nutrients from the infected root cells. They have evolved very sophisticated interactions with their host (Abad et al, 2003). As a result of the typical gall symptoms induced on the root system of the infested plants (Figure 1), their subsequent stunted growth and wilting, RKN are considered as significant agricultural pests. Their life cycle and reproduction mode vary considerably between species, ranging from classical amphimixis to obligatory mitotic parthenogenesis (Triantaphyllou, 1985). The occurrence of parthenogenesis is broadly correlated with increasing importance as crop pathogens.
Pluricellular eukaryotic organisms that reproduce exclusively by parthenogenesis are extremely rare, and often distributed in marginal, disturbed or ressource-poor environments, a pattern known as ‘geographic parthenogenesis’ (Peck et al, 1998; Kearney, 2003). Moreover, due to the benefits of sex in the long-term, that is the higher level of genetic diversity released by sexual reproduction, asexual lineages are generally considered as evolutionary dead ends (Maynard Smith, 1978; Kondrashov, 1993), although the debate is still running (Victoir and Dujardin, 2002; Lushai et al, 2003). From all these points of view, the mitotic parthenogenetic species of RKN appear as an outstanding exception. First, they are ubiquitous on the Earth's surface. For example, Meloidogyne incognita, the most widespread RKN species, is found from temperate to tropical regions, in any place where the lowest temperature is above 3°C (Sasser et al, 1983). Second, these biotrophic parasites have an extremely wide host range encompassing most of the flowering plants (Trudgill, 1997). In that respect, their actual distribution goes far beyond the restricted and highly specialized ecological niches supposedly inhabited by asexual organisms under the geographic parthenogenesis hypothesis. And third, it recognized that the parthenogenetic RKN species exhibit a high capacity to respond to environmental selection (eg their ability to overcome plant resistance genes; Castagnone-Sereno, 2002). Taken together, all these biological characteristics account for the extreme success of these clonal nematodes as parasites, and explain why M. incognita has been considered as ‘the world's most damaging plant pathogen’ (Trudgill and Blok, 2001).
The purpose of this review is to synthesize what is currently known on the genetics of Meloidogyne spp. in relation with their mode of reproduction, and the possible route(s) that lead them from sex to parthenogenesis, along with a discussion on the mechanisms that could generate genetic variability in these clonal organisms. We emphasize the potential interest in RKN as a model system for evolutionary studies into the origin and relative advantages of parthenogenetic lineages vs their sexual relatives.
Modes of reproduction and chromosomes
The 80 RKN species currently described (Karssen and Van Hoenselaar, 1998) have diversified to an extent that is, arguably, unparalleled in the animal kingdom. First, RKN display very different modes of reproduction. A few Meloidogyne species are amphimictic, and produce crossfertilized eggs after copulation. In that case, male and female genetic material is fused, and recombination creates genetic variation (ie new combination of genes) at each generation. However, these amphimictic species (including M. carolinensis, M. megatyla, M. microtyla, M. pini) are considered as minor RKN species because of their very restricted distribution, host range and economic impact (Jepson, 1987). In fact, most RKN reproduce by parthenogenesis, with many variations (Figure 2). Some species (eg M. chitwoodi, M. exigua, M. fallax, most M. hapla populations, etc.) can reproduce by both crossfertilization and meiotic (automictic) parthenogenesis. When males are present, mating occurs freely, and reproduction is by crossfertilization. When males are not present (thelytokous populations), the egg undergoes reduction of the chromosome number through meiosis, and the somatic chromosome number is re-established after fusion of the second polar nucleus with the egg pronucleus (Triantaphyllou, 1966; Dalmasso and Bergé, 1975; Van der Beek et al, 1998). The third mode of reproduction is obligatory mitotic (apomictic) parthenogenesis, and it is encountered in the most important species in terms of geographic distribution and agronomic impact, that is M. arenaria, M. incognita and M. javanica. In this case, there is neither reduction nor fusion of nuclei, and the egg directly develops into an embryo. When males are present, they can inseminate females, but the sperm nucleus degenerates and does not participate in fertilization (Triantaphyllou, 1962, 1963, 1981). In parthenogenetic RKN species, sex determinism is epigenetic, under strong influence of environmental factors (eg population size, host quality, etc.). When conditions are favourable, juveniles develop as females, but under poor resource conditions, they develop as males. In addition, some infrequent events of sex reversal and intersexuality have also been reported, for example female juveniles that develop into males (Triantaphyllou, 1973; Papadopoulou and Triantaphyllou, 1982). In parthenogenetic RKN, males play no role in reproduction, but they have an important biological function in terms of population density and dynamics, and thus ecological adaptation. Indeed, since only the apomictic females can produce offspring, abundance of males at generation n will significantly reduce the population size at generation n+1 (Triantaphyllou, 1973).
RKN are also highly variable with respect to their chromosomal complement. It is generally admitted that the haploid number of the genus is n=18, but most populations have somatic chromosome numbers ranging from 30 to 50, and thus are thought to be either diploids or triploids (Triantaphyllou, 1985). In fact, somatic chromosome numbers that are perfect multiple of 18 are not frequently observed, implying that there has been extensive aneuploidy or polysomy and structural rearrangements such as deletions, duplications, and translocations. These events may have been frequent, in part because, like most nematodes, RKN have a diffuse centromere lacking localized kinetochore activity (Triantaphyllou, 1983). Amphimictic RKN species are exclusively diploid, while diploid, triploid and rare tetraploid forms are encountered within parthenogenetic species (Table 1). As an example, most populations of M. incognita, the most prevalent apomictic RKN species, are considered to be (hypo)triploid, with a set of 3n=40–48 chromosomes, although diploid populations with chromosome numbers ranging from 2n=30 to 39 are not so infrequent (eg Janati et al, 1982; Marais and Kruger, 1991).
Hypothesis on the origin of parthenogenesis in RKN
As they appear to have reproduced exclusively asexually for a long stretch of evolutionary time, the apomictic RKN species have been considered as one of the putative ‘ancient asexual scandals’ (Judson and Normark, 1996). Indeed, although the calibration of dates used indirect evidence, the divergence of the parthenogenetic RKN species from the amphimictic meiotic ones has been estimated to have occurred about 43 Myr ago (Esbenshade and Triantaphyllou, 1987) and might be far older (Hugall et al, 1997). However, no definitive evidence of asexuality has been provided for these nematodes (such as the Meselson effect described in Judson and Normark, 1996). Molecular studies have nevertheless confirmed that the apomictic RKN species share a common lineage, and that they diverged early from meiotic species (Castagnone-Sereno et al, 1993b; Baum et al, 1994). There are several ways in which parthenogenetic lineages could arise (Simon et al, 2003). In the case of RKN, no fossil records are available, and the ancestors of the genus are unknown. However, based on cytogenetic (Triantaphyllou, 1985) and isoenzyme data (Dalmasso and Bergé, 1983; Esbenshade and Triantaphyllou, 1987), the following assumptions are currently widely accepted: (1) the ancestral RKN were amphimictic animals, and the rare amphimictic species encountered today (eg M. carolinensis, M. megatyla) are considered as their closest relatives; (2) parthenogenetic species evolved from amphimictic species; (3) obligatory parthenogenetic (mitotic) species evolved from facultatively parthenogenetic (meiotic) species, following suppression of meiosis during oocyte maturation (Figure 3).
Hybridization is a major route to parthenogenesis in animals, and may be implicated in the RKN. Polyploidization probably occurred by either intra- or interspecific hybridization (ie fertilization of an unreduced diploid oocyte by an haploid spermatozoon). Since functional, parthenogenetically produced males may be present in populations under poor environmental conditions, they could be involved in such exceptional fertilization events. For example, M. javanica is suspected to be a triploid interspecific hybrid species (Dalmasso and Bergé, 1983). In the same line, a possible reticulate hybrid origin of apomictic RKN has been hypothesized as the result of combinations of closely related females with more diverse parental lineages (Hugall et al, 1999). So far, no evidence has been provided for alternative hypotheses about the origin of parthenogenesis in RKN, such as spontaneous origin by mutation in genes involved in the production of sexual forms, or due to infection by microorganisms such as Wolbachia. However, we cannot definitely exclude the possibility that there have been several different routes to apomixis in RKN species, as examplified by the insects Otiorhynchus scaber (Stenberg et al, 2003) and Rhopalosiphum padi (Delmotte et al, 2003).
The species definition and clonal diversity in parthenogenetic RKN, from morphology to molecular data
The utility of species concepts has recently been challenged (see De Meeûs et al, 2003), but such debate is beyond the scope of this review. The widely used biological species concept defines species on the basis of reproductive isolation, and therefore applies only to organisms exclusively reproducing through bi-parental sexual reproduction. It is not, therefore, appropriate for most RKN species. In the case of (parthenogenetic) RKN, species definitions have therefore been based primarily on morphological traits from males, females and second-stage juveniles used in combination (eg stylet length and shape, tail and spicule shape of males and perineal patterns of females; Jepson, 1987). Genetic data, when available, generally support these groupings. Extensive allozyme electrophoresis studies have shown that the major RKN can be differentiated, in particular by esterase phenotypes, which correlate with the species previously recognized on the basis of morphology, thus supporting the concept of parthenogenetic species (Dalmasso and Bergé, 1978, 1983; Esbenshade and Triantaphyllou, 1985, 1990). The methodology works reliably on single female nematodes, and is still currenly used on a routine basis for diagnotic purposes. For the last 20 years, studies using DNA-based techniques have provided an additional perspective, and largely confirmed that the previously described species do constitute distinct genetic units. An exhaustive review of RKN molecular diagnostics would not be appropriate for this review, but relevant information about the main genetic regions commonly used for species characterization, among which ribosomal DNA, mitochondrial DNA, and anonymous loci (such as RFLP, RAPD and AFLP), can be found elsewhere (for reviews, see Hyman and Powers, 1991; Powers, 2004). Repetitive genomic sequences known as satellite DNA are thought to be involved in the stability of genome structure via chromosome folding and location during mitotic/meiotic events (Charlesworth et al, 1994; Csink and Henikoff, 1998), thus participating to the reproductive isolation of species. In meiotic parthenogenetic RKN, the distribution of such sequences is often restricted to populations belonging to the same species, thus confirming their specific status. In particular, this was experimentally shown for M. hapla (Piotte et al, 1995) and M. exigua (Randig et al, 2002).
Intraspecific RKN variability was initially detected during host-range studies, and led to the concept of ‘host race’, that is a set of populations sharing distinctive physiological characters that result in their ability to reproduce or not on selected differential hosts (Sasser, 1979). The further development of biochemical and molecular markers led to the production of an abundant literature and confirmed that a high level of clonal diversity exists among populations within RKN species, in particular within the apomictic species. However, cluster analyses did not reveal any correlation between genomic similarity and geographic origin of the populations (Blok et al, 1997; Semblat et al, 1998). Similarly, RKN populations from the same host-race do not have correlated molecular fingerprints (Cenis, 1993; Baum et al, 1994), suggesting that Meloidogyne races are not monophyletic groups, but rather evolved in a convergent manner.
High genetic diversity is not expected in obligatory apomictic taxa, yet is observed in RKN species. Its origin and maintenance demands explanation. There can be little doubt that the transition from sexual to asexual reproduction has happened many times during evolution of RKN (see above), and the current observed diversity probably results from a combination of (i) genetic variation accumulating during hybridization and persisting through subsequent polyploidization; (ii) multiple origins from a common sexual ancestor; and (iii) accumulation of independant mutations in different clonal lineages. So far, no correlation between RKN clonal diversity and biological parameters has been found (eg virulence interactions with resistant host genotypes; Semblat et al, 2000)). Taking into account their extremly wide host range and geographic distribution, apomictic Meloidogyne clones within each spesies may comprise a single (or a few) well-adapted genotype that has accumulated neutral variation, in accordance with the ‘general-purpose genotype’ model (Lynch, 1984). The resolving power of molecular tools has been increasing continuously, and allows us to distinguish larger and larger numbers of clonal genotypes. However, this extra information might actually mask the differences between ancient distinct clones and the more recent related lineages (ie those that have evolved from them only through accumulation of neutral or poorly selected mutations).
Response to plant resistance as an example of rapid adaptation
Based upon worldwide surveys, a general relationship between host-specificity and reproductive mode can be proposed for RKN, although some exceptions may occur (Jepson, 1987). Most amphimictic species are host-specific, either on woody or perennial herbaceous hosts (eg M. megatyla and M. pini, which are both restricted to Pinus spp.). Apart from M. hapla, the meiotic parthenogenetic species tend to have a narrow host range, while the mitotic species, including the extremely polyphagous major species M. arenaria, M. incognita and M. javanica, have a potential host range encompassing the majority of the flowering plants (Trudgill and Blok, 2001). However, because of the lack of cytogenetic data and complete host records for a significant number of Meloidogyne spp., it is currently not possible to try to relate RKN evolution with the evolution of their hosts. In RKN collected from natural populations, adaptation is well-documented in the form of virulence, that is overcoming of plant resistance genes. Such genes normally control avirulent populations of the parasite, and resistance is in most cases expressed as a localized necrosis of plant cells at the infection site (the so-called hypersensitive reaction (HR)), which prevents nematode installation and further development (Williamson and Hussey, 1996). However, virulent RKN populations, able to infest and develop on resistant plants without eliciting the HR, have been reported in field conditions. In particular, virulent genotypes belonging to the mitotic species M. arenaria, M. incognita and M. javanica are found in most of the World's tomato-growing areas. Their wide distribution and not infrequent occurrence is probably a consequence of the selection resulting from the monoculture of cultivars bearing the Mi resistance gene (Castagnone-Sereno, 2002). In the laboratory, artificial selection experiments demonstrated that the shift from avirulence to virulence can occur in a progressive manner in 5–10 generations of repeated inoculation of M. incognita on a Mi-resistant tomato (Jarquin-Barberena et al, 1991; Castagnone-Sereno et al, 1994). In the meiotic parthenogenetic species M. chitwoodi, a complete phenotypic change was observed after one single generation of selection on resistant Solanum fendleri carrying the Rmc2 gene (Janssen et al, 1998). One might speculate that the parthenogenetic RKN are better able to exploit new plant genotypes than their amphimictic relatives, which would explain their very wide host-range. However, such changes have been noted to have fitness costs, notably in the reproductive potential of the nematodes, which could make these genotypes less successful over the course of time (Trudgill and Blok, 2001; Castagnone-Sereno et al, submitted).
The molecular mechanisms by which plant-parasitic nematodes are able to overcome resistance genes are not yet elucidated. However, the comparative analysis of M. incognita isogenic lines, selected for their avirulence or virulence against the tomato Mi resistance gene for 25 generations only, allowed the identification of a candidate gene, map-1, coding for an amphid-secreted protein, present in the avirulent lines and lacking in the corresponding virulent lines (Semblat et al, 2001). Its detailed analysis suggested that it could be located in an unstable region of the nematode genome, which can be deleted without dramatically affecting the viability of the nematode (Semblat et al, 2001). More recently, a transcriptome analysis showed differences in gene expression profiles between M. incognita isogenic lines, that have been selected for their avirulence or virulence against the tomato Mi resistance gene for as few as 10 generations (Neveu et al, 2003). Interestingly, a previous study had shown that virulent nematodes could not revert back to an avirulent phenotype after 18 generations of continuous propagation on a susceptible host, that is without the selective pressure of the resistance gene (Castagnone-Sereno et al, 1993a). Overall, these data suggest that selection induces rapid changes in the genome of mitotic parthenogenetic RKN that could be maintained in subsequent generations, and thus could contribute to the emergence of new genotypes.
Putative mechanisms of genome evolution in parthenogenetic RKN
As mitotic parthenogenesis should theoretically produce clonal progenies, the adaptation of RKN to their environment (eg resistant hosts) raises questions about genome plasticity leading to genetic variation and adaptive evolution in apomictic animals. Besides nematodes, a wide range of other asexual taxa have been shown to undergo rapid genetic changes, including, among others, crustaceans (Schön et al, 2003) and insects (Wilson et al, 2003).
Among the mechanisms of genetic change that are independent from sexual recombination, those involving transposable elements are well documented in eukaryotes. Indeed, such mobile DNA sequences can provide host genomes with the ability to enhance their own evolution and can be a major source of genetic diversity, allowing response to environmental changes (Kidwell and Lisch, 2000). However, the dynamics and fate of transposable elements are strongly influenced by the mode of reproduction, asexual genomes having substantially reduced numbers of active transposons (Wright and Finnegan, 2001). In parthenogenetic organisms, theoretical predictions suggest that transposable elements could be beneficial in the short-term, but deleterious if present and still active in the long-term (Nuzhdin and Petrov, 2003). Indeed, it was shown that obligately parthenogenetic populations of Daphnia pulex contain only fixed (ie inactive) transposons (Sullender and Crease, 2001) and that ancient asexual bdelloid rotifers have lost all of the retrotransposables elements (Arkhipova and Meselson, 2000). Similarly, a molecular survey revealed that the genome of M. incognita totally lack sequences homologous to the Tc(s) transposable elements of Caenorhabditis elegans (Abad et al, 1991). However, mariner-like elements were found in the facultative meiotic parthenogenetic species M. chitwoodi and M. hapla, and in the obligate mitotic parthenogenetic species M. incognita and M. javanica (Leroy et al, 2000). Further cloning of the full-length Mcmar-1 mariner element in M. chitwoodi showed the presence of an uninterrupted ORF that encodes a putatively active transposase (Leroy et al, 2003), and detection of transcripts of the transposase in juveniles and females (unpublished data) suggests that this element may be mobile in the nematode. A very recent survey of the nematode EST database NEMBASE2, an upgraded version of NEMBASE (Parkinson et al, 2004), identified a number of transposase transcripts in RKN, but showed no drastic differences in their abundance in mitotic and meiotic species (unpublished). This preliminary result may nevertheless suggest that the occurrence of transposable elements may be comparable in the amphimictic and apomictic RKN. Whether such sequences are still active remains an open question, and the possibility that transposon-based mutation could generate genetic variability in these asexual organisms is currently under active investigation.
Qualitative and quantitative alteration of the genetic information can also occur at the level of the whole chromosome, and includes fissions, fusions, inversions and duplications. RKN exhibit exceptional levels of karyotypic variation even within species, and this is particularly true for species that have completely abandoned sexual reproduction. The map-1 gene is a good example of such variation in M. incognita, since the gene was shown to be present or absent in isogenic progenies selected for their avirulence or virulence to the tomato Mi resistance gene, respectively (Semblat et al, 2001). A more detailed analysis of this gene showed in its internal sequence the occurrence of highly conserved repetitive motives (Semblat et al, 2001), and cloning experiments revealed that different copies of the gene harbour a variable number of such motives (unpublished data). This result suggests that the gene may be present in an unstable region of a chromosome where amplification/deletion events might occur, resulting in the observed variability. Polyploidy can also contribute to genome evolution, and the emergence of new phenotypic and molecular variation shortly after polyploid formation has been documented (Soltis and Soltis, 1999; Osborn et al, 2003). The potential mechanisms that could generate such changes include homologous recombination and other types of DNA rearragements, point mutations and gene-conversion-like events (Song et al, 1995). Since RKN species exhibit variable levels of ploidy, these processes could be important in their genomes.
Conclusion
RKN are soil-living organisms, with limited capacity for dissemination and gene flow. Parthenogenesis gives advantages in terms of colonization (males and females do not need to meet for reproduction) and protection of the advantageous genotypes. More unexpectedly, although parthenogenesis is generally thought to reduce diversity, these species have retained sufficient genetic variation to allow rapid adaptation to unfavourable environments, for example resistant hosts. Lastly, the combination of parthenogenesis and rapid adaptive responses are reflected in an extremely wide host range and geographic distribution, and are probably the main reasons for the outstandingly successful establishment of asexual Meloidogyne spp. as plant parasites (Trudgill and Blok, 2001).
Understanding of the potential of these asexual organisms for adaptation will unquestionably provide knowledge of major fundamental and applied significance. From that point of view, RKN definitely constitute a very attractive model system. Indeed, the recently funded genome sequencing projects for the meiotic parthenogenetic species M. hapla (in the USA) and of the mitotic parthenogenetic species M. incognita (in France), and the comparative analysis of the resulting data, will represent a significant step forward in the quest to understand the molecular and genetic basis of genome structure and evolution in asexual organisms.
References
Abad P, Favery B, Rosso MN, Castagnone-Sereno P (2003). Root-knot nematode parasitism and host response: molecular basis of a sophisticated interaction. Mol Plant Pathol 4: 217–224.
Abad P, Quiles C, Tares S, Piotte C, Castagnone-Sereno P, Abadon M et al (1991). Sequences homologous to Tc(s) transposable elements of Caenorhabditis elegans are widely distributed in the phylum Nematoda. J Mol Evol 33: 251–258.
Arkhipova I, Meselson M (2000). Transposable elements in sexual and ancient asexual taxa. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97: 14473–14477.
Baum TJ, Gresshoff PM, Lewis SA, Dean RA (1994). Characterization and phylogenetic analysis of four root-knot nematode species using DNA amplification fingerprinting and automated polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 7: 39–47.
Blok VC, Phillips MS, McNicol JW, Fargette M (1997). Genetic variation in tropical Meloidogyne spp. as shown by RAPDs. Fundam Appl Nematol 20: 127–133.
Castagnone-Sereno P (2002). Genetic variability of nematodes: a threat to the durability of plant resistance genes? Euphytica 124: 193–199.
Castagnone-Sereno P, Bongiovanni M, Dalmasso A (1993a). Stable virulence against the tomato resistance Mi gene in the parthenogenetic root-knot nematode Meloidogyne incognita. Phytopathology 83: 803–805.
Castagnone-Sereno P, Piotte C, Uijthof J, Abad P, Wajnberg E, Vanlerberghe-Masutti F et al (1993b). Phylogenetic relationships between amphimictic and parthenogenetic nematodes of the genus Meloidogyne as inferred from repetitive DNA analysis. Heredity 70: 195–204.
Castagnone-Sereno P, Wajnberg E, Bongiovanni M, Leroy F, Dalmasso A (1994). Genetic variation in Meloidogyne incognita virulence against the tomato Mi resistance gene: evidence from isofemale line selection studies. Theor Appl Genet 88: 749–753.
Cenis JL (1993). Identification of the four major Meloidogyne spp. by random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD-PCR). Phytopathology 83: 76–80.
Charlesworth B, Sniegowski P, Stephan W (1994). The evolutionary dynamics of repetitive DNA in eukaryotes. Nature 371: 215–220.
Csink AK, Henikoff S (1998). Something from nothing: the evolution and utility of satellite repeats. Trends Genet 14: 200–204.
Dalmasso A, Bergé JB (1975). Variabilité génétique chez les Meloidogyne et plus particulièrement chez M. halpa. Cah ORSTOM Ser Biol 10: 233–238.
Dalmasso A, Bergé JB (1978). Molecular polymorphism and phylogenetic relationship in some Meloidogyne spp. Application to the taxonomy of Meloidogyne. J Nematol 10: 323–332.
Dalmasso A, Bergé JB (1983). Enzyme polymorphism and the concept of parthenogenetic species, exemplified by Meloidogyne. In: Stone AR, Platt HM, Khalil LF (eds) Concepts in Nematode Systematics. Academic Press: London. pp 187–196.
Delmotte F, Sabater-Munoz B, Prunier-Leterme N, Latorre A, Sunnucks P, Rispe C et al (2003). Phylogenetic evidence for hybrid origins of asexual lineages in an aphid species. Evolution 57: 1291–1303.
De Meeûs T, Durand P, Renaud F (2003). Species concepts: what for? Trends Parasitol 19: 425–427.
Esbenshade PR, Triantaphyllou AC (1985). Use of enzyme phenotypes for identification of Meloidogyne species. J Nematol 17: 6–20.
Esbenshade PR, Triantaphyllou AC (1987). Enzymatic relationships and evolution in the genus Meloidogyne (Nematoda: Tylenchida). J Nematol 19: 8–18.
Esbenshade PR, Triantaphyllou AC (1990). Isozyme phenotypes for the identification of Meloidogyne species. J Nematol 22: 10–15.
Goldstein P, Triantaphyllou AC (1982). The synaptonemal complexes of Meloidogyne: relationships of structure and evolution of parthenogenesis. Chromosoma 87: 117–124.
Hugall A, Stanton J, Moritz C (1997). Evolution of AT-rich mitochondrial DNA of the root knot nematode Meloidogyne hapla. Mol Biol Evol 14: 40–48.
Hugall A, Stanton J, Moritz C (1999). Reticulate evolution and the origins of ribosomal internal transcribed spacer diversity in apomictic Meloidogyne. Mol Biol Evol 16: 157–164.
Hyman BC, Powers TO (1991). Integration of molecular data with systematics of plant parasitic nematodes. Ann Rev Phytopathol 29: 89–107.
Janati A, Bergé JB, Triantaphyllou AC, Dalmasso A (1982). Nouvelles données sur l'utilisation des isoestérases pour l'identification des Meloidogyne. Revue Nématol 5: 147–154.
Janssen GJW, Scholten OE, Van Norel E, Hoogendoorn CJ (1998). Seelction of virulence in Meloidogyne chitwoodi to resistance in the wild potato Solanum fendleri. Eur J Plant Pathol 104: 645–651.
Jarquin-Barberena H, Dalmasso A, De Guiran G, Cardin MC (1991). Acquired virulence in the plant parasitic nematode Meloidogyne incognita. I. Biological analysis of the phenomenon. Rev Nématol 14: 299–303.
Jepson SB (1987). Identification of Root-Knot Nematodes (Meloidogyne species). CAB International: Wallingford, UK.
Judson OP, Normark BB (1996). Ancient asexual scandals. Trends Ecol Evol 11: 41–46.
Karssen G, Van Hoenselaar T (1998). Revision of the genus Meloidogyne Göldi, 1892 (Nematoda: Heteroderidae) in Europe. Nematologica 44: 713–788.
Kearney MR (2003). Why is sex so unpopular in the Australian desert? Trends Ecol Evol 18: 605–607.
Kidwell MG, Lisch DR (2000). Transposable elements and host genome evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 15: 95–99.
Kondrashov AS (1993). Classification of hypothesis on the advantages of amphimixis. J Hered 84: 372–387.
Leroy H, Castagnone-Sereno P, Renault S, Augé-Guillou C, Bigot Y, Abad P (2003). Characterization of Mcmar1, a mariner-like element with large inverted terminal repeats (ITRs) from the phytoparasitic nematode Meloidogyne chitwoodi. Gene 304: 35–41.
Leroy H, Leroy F, Augé-Guillou C, Castagnone-Sereno P, Vanlerberghe-Masutti F, Bigot Y et al (2000). Identification of mariner-like elements from the root-knot nematode Meloidogyne spp. Mol Biochem Parasitol 107: 181–190.
Lushai G, Loxdale HD, Allen JA (2003). The dynamic clonal genome and its adaptive potential. Biol J Lin Soc 79: 193–208.
Lynch M (1984). Destabilizing hybridization, general-purpose genotypes and geographic parthenogenesis. Q Rev Biol 59: 257–290.
Marais M, Kruger JCW (1991). The cytogenetics of some South African root-knot nematodes (Heteroderidae: Nematoda). Phytophylactica 23: 265–272.
Maynard Smith J (1978). The Evolution of Sex. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Neveu C, Jaubert S, Abad P, Castagnone-Sereno P (2003). A set of genes differentially expressed between avirulent and virulent Meloidogyne incognita near-isogenic lines encode secreted proteins. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact 16: 1077–1084.
Nuzhdin SV, Petrov DA (2003). Transposable elements in clonal lineages: lethal hangover from sex. Biol J Lin Soc 79: 33–41.
Osborn TC, Pires JC, Birchler JA, Auger DL, Chen ZJ, Lee HS et al (2003). Understanding mechanisms of novel gene expression in polyploids. Trends Genet 19: 141–147.
Papadopoulou J, Triantaphyllou AC (1982). Sex differentiation in Meloidogyne incognita and anatomical evidence of sex reversal. J Nematol 14: 549–566.
Parkinson J, Whitton C, Schmidt R, Thompson M, Blaxter M (2004). NEMBASE: a resource for parasitic nematode ESTs. Nucleic Acids Res 32: D427–D430.
Peck JR, Yearsley JM, Waxman D (1998). Explaining the geographic distribution of sexual and asexual populations. Nature 391: 889–892.
Piotte C, Castagnone-Sereno P, Bongiovanni M, Dalmasso A, Abad P (1995). Analysis of a satellite DNA from Meloidogyne hapla and its use as a diagnostic probe. Phytopathology 85: 458–462.
Powers TO (2004). Nematode molecular diagnostics: from bands to barcodes. Annual Rev Phytopathol 42: 367–383.
Randig O, Bongiovanni M, Carneiro RMDG, Sarah JL, Castagnone-Sereno P (2002). A species-specific satellie DNA family in the genome of the coffe root-knot nematode Meloidogyne exigua: application to molecular diagnostics of the parasite. Mol Plant Pathol 3: 431–437.
Sasser JN (1979). Pathogenicity, host ranges and variability in Meloidogyne species. In: Lamberti F, Taylor CE (eds) Root-Knot Nematodes(Meloidogyne Species). Systematics, Biology and Control. Academic Press: London. pp 257–267.
Sasser JN, Eisenback JD, Carter CC (1983). The international Meloidogyne project – its goals and achievements. Annu Rev Phytopathol 21: 271–288.
Schön I, Martens K, Van Doninck K, Butlin RK (2003). Evolution in the slow lane: molecular rates of evolution in sexual and asexual ostracords (Crustacea: Ostracorda). Biol J Lin Soc 79: 93–100.
Semblat JP, Bongiovanni M, Wajnberg E, Dalmasso A, Abad P, Castagnone-Sereno P (2000). Virulence and molecular diversity of parthenogenetic nematodes, Meloidogyne spp. Heredity 84: 81–89.
Semblat JP, Rosso MN, Hussey RS, Abad P, Castagnone-Sereno P (2001). Molecular cloning of a cDNA encoding an amphid-secreted putative avirulence protein from the root-knot nematode Meloidogyne incognita. Mol Plant-Microbe Interac 14: 72–79.
Semblat JP, Wajnberg E, Dalmasso A, Abad P, Castagnone-Sereno P (1998). High-resolution DNA fingerprinting of parthenogenetic root-knot nematodes using AFLP analysis. Mol Ecol 7: 119–125.
Simon JC, Delmotte F, Rispe C, Crease T (2003). Phylogenetic relationships between parthenogens and their sexual relatives: the possible routes to parthenogenesis in animals. Biol J Lin Soc 79: 151–163.
Soltis DE, Soltis PS (1999). Polyploidy: recurrent formation and genome evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 14: 348–352.
Song K, Lu P, Tang K, Osborn TC (1995). Rapid genome change in synthetic polyploids of Brassica and its implications for polyploid evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 92: 7719–7723.
Stenberg P, Lundmark M, Knutelski S, Saura A (2003). Evolution of clonality and polyploidy in a weevil system. Mol Biol Evol 20: 1626–1632.
Sullender BW, Crease TJ (2001). The behavior of a Daphnia pulex transposable element in cyclically and obligately parthenogenetic populations. J Mol Evol 53: 63–69.
Triantaphyllou AC (1962). Oogenesis in the root-knot nematode Meloidogyne javanica. Nematologica 7: 105–113.
Triantaphyllou AC (1963). Polyploidy and parthenogenesis in the root-knot nematode Meloidogyne arenaria. J Morphol 113: 489–500.
Triantaphyllou AC (1966). Polyploidy and reproductive patterns in the root-knot nematode Meloidogyne hapla. J Morphol 118: 403–413.
Triantaphyllou AC (1973). Environmental sex differentiation of nematodes in relation to pest management. Annu Rev Phytopathol 11: 4441–4462.
Triantaphyllou AC (1981). Oogenesis and the chromosomes of the parthenogenetic root-knot nematode Meloidogyne incognita. J Nematol 13: 95–104.
Triantaphyllou AC (1983). Cytogenetic aspects of nematode evolution. In: Stone AR, Platt HM, Khalil LF (eds) Concepts in Nematode Systematics. Academic Press: London. pp 55–71.
Triantaphyllou AC (1984). Polyploidy in meiotic parthenogenetic populations of Meloidogyne hapla and a mechanism of conversion to diploidy. Revue Nématol 7: 65–72.
Triantaphyllou AC (1985). Cytogenetics, cytotaxonomy and phylogeny of root-knot nematodes. In: Sasser JN, Carter CC (eds) An Advanced Treatise on Meloidogyne, Vol. 1. North Carolina State University Graphics: Raleigh. pp 113–126.
Triantaphyllou AC (1991). Further studies on the role of polyploidy in the evolution of Meloidogyne. J Nematol 23: 249–253.
Triantaphyllou AC, Hirschmann H (1980). Cytogenetics and morphology in relation to evolution and speciation of plant-parasitic nematodes. Annu Rev Phytopathol 18: 333–359.
Trudgill DL (1997). Parthenogenetic root-knot nematodes (Meloidogyne spp. how can these biotrophic endoparasites have such an enormous host range? Plant Pathol 46: 26–32.
Trudgill DL, Blok VC (2001). Apomictic, polyphagous root-knot nematodes: exceptionally successful and damaging biotrophic root pathogens. Annu Rev Phytopathol 39: 53–77.
Van der Beek JG, Los JA, Pijnacker LP (1998). Cytology of parthenogenesis of five Meloidogyne species. Fundam Appl Nematol 21: 393–399.
Victoir K, Dujardin JC (2002). How to succeed in parasitic life without sex? Asking Leishmania. Trends Parasitol 18: 81–85.
Williamson VM, Hussey RS (1996). Nematode pathogenesis and resistance in plants. Plant Cell 8: 1735–1745.
Wilson ACC, Sunnucks P, Hales DF (2003). Heritable genetic variation and potential for adaptive evolution in asexual aphids (Aphidoidea). Biol J Lin Soc 79: 115–135.
Wright S, Finnegan D (2001). Genome evolution: sex and the transposable element. Curr Biol 11: R296–R299.
Acknowledgements
I thank Pierre Abad for its critical reading of the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Castagnone-Sereno, P. Genetic variability and adaptive evolution in parthenogenetic root-knot nematodes. Heredity 96, 282–289 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.hdy.6800794
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.hdy.6800794
Keywords
This article is cited by
-
Aneuploidy during development in facultative parthenogenetic Drosophila
Heredity (2024)
-
Root-Knot Nematodes (Meloidogyne spp.): Biology, Plant-Nematode Interactions and Their Environmentally Benign Management Strategies
Gesunde Pflanzen (2023)
-
Satellitome analyses in nematodes illuminate complex species history and show conserved features in satellite DNAs
BMC Biology (2022)
-
Variant Meloidogyne javanica populations from Brazil could impact the breeding programs and the management in soybean fields
Tropical Plant Pathology (2022)
-
A novel virulent Brazilian pathotype of Meloidogyne javanica towards the tomato Mi-1.2 gene and pathogenicity to resistant rootstock
Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection (2022)