[Further comment on the coccidian nature of cryptosporidia (Sporozoa: Apicomplexa)].
The coccidian nature of the genus Cryptosporidium was undoubtedly accepted by Tyzzer who was the first to describe this sporozoan parasite in 1907. Electron microscopic studies made in 70-90s demonstrated the intracellular, although extracytoplasmic localization of Cryptosporidium spp. The pattern of Cryptosporidium life cycle fits well that of other intestinal homogeneous coccidian genera of the suborder Eimeriina: macro- and microgamonts develop independently, a microgamont gives rise to numerous male gametes, oocysts serving for parasite's spreading in the environment. Along with these characters, Cryptosporidium spp. demonstrate some secondary peculiarities (an endogenous phase of development in microvilli of epithelial surfaces, two morphofunctional types of oocysts, the smallest number of sporozoites per oocyst, a multi-membraneous "feeder" organelle etc.), which may be due presumably to their early acquisition of specialization in the course of evolution. The recent studies based on molecular sequence data (18S rRNA) applied to 8 eimeriid and isosporid coccidian genera (Morrison, Ellis, 1997), suggested that the subclass Coccidia (class, according to Morrison and Ellis) be considered monophylic if Cryptosporidium were excluded, and this genus was regarded as the sister group to the rest of the Apicomplexa, or as the sister to the suborder (class) Hematozoa within the Apicomplexa. Either of these placements of Cryptosporidium definitely conflicts with both the generally accepted taxonomic scheme by Levine (1982) and the phenotypically based phylogeny of the phylum Apicomplexa (Barta e. a., 1990). The author's opinion is that the differences between the examined eimeriid and isosporid coccidia, on the one hand, and Cryptosporidium, on the other hand, provided by molecular sequence data, may testify primarily to the well known morphofunctional dissimilarities between the compared organisms, rather than cast doubt on the coccidian nature of Cryptosporidium. Again, these data can hardly prove that Cryptosporidium does not belong to the coccidia. Thus, the modern molecular sequence data, despite their obvious scientific value, would make sense for phylogeny estimation only, if they are critically analysed and considered in combination with results of the relevant basic research.
Beĭer
T V
TV
D000818:Animals; D016782:Apicomplexa / Q000145:classification* / Q000235:genetics / Q000648:ultrastructure; D001483:Base Sequence; D003044:Coccidia / Q000145:classification* / Q000235:genetics / Q000648:ultrastructure; D003458:Cryptosporidium / Q000145:classification* / Q000235:genetics / Q000648:ultrastructure; D010802:Phylogeny; D016053:RNA, Protozoan / Q000235:genetics; D012337:RNA, Ribosomal, 18S / Q000235:genetics
D016053:RNA, Protozoan; D012337:RNA, Ribosomal, 18S