Blastocystismitochondrial Genomes Appear to Show Multiple
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Author's Manuscript (764.7Kb)
1 BROADLY SAMPLED TREE OF EUKARYOTIC LIFE Broadly Sampled Multigene Analyses Yield a Well-resolved Eukaryotic Tree of Life Laura Wegener Parfrey1†, Jessica Grant2†, Yonas I. Tekle2,6, Erica Lasek-Nesselquist3,4, Hilary G. Morrison3, Mitchell L. Sogin3, David J. Patterson5, Laura A. Katz1,2,* 1Program in Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, University of Massachusetts, 611 North Pleasant Street, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003, USA 2Department of Biological Sciences, Smith College, 44 College Lane, Northampton, Massachusetts 01063, USA 3Bay Paul Center for Comparative Molecular Biology and Evolution, Marine Biological Laboratory, 7 MBL Street, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543, USA 4Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Brown University, 80 Waterman Street, Providence, Rhode Island 02912, USA 5Biodiversity Informatics Group, Marine Biological Laboratory, 7 MBL Street, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543, USA 6Current address: Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut 06520, USA †These authors contributed equally *Corresponding author: L.A.K - [email protected] Phone: 413-585-3825, Fax: 413-585-3786 Keywords: Microbial eukaryotes, supergroups, taxon sampling, Rhizaria, systematic error, Excavata 2 An accurate reconstruction of the eukaryotic tree of life is essential to identify the innovations underlying the diversity of microbial and macroscopic (e.g. plants and animals) eukaryotes. Previous work has divided eukaryotic diversity into a small number of high-level ‘supergroups’, many of which receive strong support in phylogenomic analyses. However, the abundance of data in phylogenomic analyses can lead to highly supported but incorrect relationships due to systematic phylogenetic error. Further, the paucity of major eukaryotic lineages (19 or fewer) included in these genomic studies may exaggerate systematic error and reduces power to evaluate hypotheses. -
Catalogue of Protozoan Parasites Recorded in Australia Peter J. O
1 CATALOGUE OF PROTOZOAN PARASITES RECORDED IN AUSTRALIA PETER J. O’DONOGHUE & ROBERT D. ADLARD O’Donoghue, P.J. & Adlard, R.D. 2000 02 29: Catalogue of protozoan parasites recorded in Australia. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 45(1):1-164. Brisbane. ISSN 0079-8835. Published reports of protozoan species from Australian animals have been compiled into a host- parasite checklist, a parasite-host checklist and a cross-referenced bibliography. Protozoa listed include parasites, commensals and symbionts but free-living species have been excluded. Over 590 protozoan species are listed including amoebae, flagellates, ciliates and ‘sporozoa’ (the latter comprising apicomplexans, microsporans, myxozoans, haplosporidians and paramyxeans). Organisms are recorded in association with some 520 hosts including mammals, marsupials, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates. Information has been abstracted from over 1,270 scientific publications predating 1999 and all records include taxonomic authorities, synonyms, common names, sites of infection within hosts and geographic locations. Protozoa, parasite checklist, host checklist, bibliography, Australia. Peter J. O’Donoghue, Department of Microbiology and Parasitology, The University of Queensland, St Lucia 4072, Australia; Robert D. Adlard, Protozoa Section, Queensland Museum, PO Box 3300, South Brisbane 4101, Australia; 31 January 2000. CONTENTS the literature for reports relevant to contemporary studies. Such problems could be avoided if all previous HOST-PARASITE CHECKLIST 5 records were consolidated into a single database. Most Mammals 5 researchers currently avail themselves of various Reptiles 21 electronic database and abstracting services but none Amphibians 26 include literature published earlier than 1985 and not all Birds 34 journal titles are covered in their databases. Fish 44 Invertebrates 54 Several catalogues of parasites in Australian PARASITE-HOST CHECKLIST 63 hosts have previously been published. -
Phylogenetic Position of Karotomorpha and Paraphyly of Proteromonadidae
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 43 (2007) 1167–1170 www.elsevier.com/locate/ympev Short communication Phylogenetic position of Karotomorpha and paraphyly of Proteromonadidae Martin Kostka a,¤, Ivan Cepicka b, Vladimir Hampl a, Jaroslav Flegr a a Department of Parasitology, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Vinicna 7, 128 44 Prague, Czech Republic b Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Vinicna 7, 128 44 Prague, Czech Republic Received 9 May 2006; revised 17 October 2006; accepted 2 November 2006 Available online 17 November 2006 1. Introduction tional region is alike that of proteromonadids as well, double transitional helix is present. These similarities led Patterson The taxon Slopalinida (Patterson, 1985) comprises two (1985) to unite the two families in the order Slopalinida and families of anaerobic protists living as commensals in the to postulate the paraphyly of the family Proteromonadidae intestine of vertebrates. The proteromonadids are small (Karotomorpha being closer to the opalinids). The ultrastruc- Xagellates (ca. 15 m) with one nucleus, a single large mito- ture of Xagellar transition region and proposed homology chondrion with tubular cristae, Golgi apparatus and a Wbril- between the somatonemes of Proteromonas and mastigo- lar rhizoplast connecting the basal bodies and nucleus nemes of heterokont Xagellates led him further to conclude (Brugerolle and Mignot, 1989). The number of Xagella diVers that the slopalinids are relatives of the heterokont algae, in between the two genera belonging to the family: Protero- other words that they belong among stramenopiles. Phyloge- monas, the commensal of urodelans, lizards, and rodents, has netic analysis of Silberman et al. (1996) not only conWrmed two Xagella, whereas Karotomorpha, the commensal of frogs that Proteromonas is a stramenopile, but also showed that its and other amphibians, has four Xagella. -
Systema Naturae. the Classification of Living Organisms
Systema Naturae. The classification of living organisms. c Alexey B. Shipunov v. 5.601 (June 26, 2007) Preface Most of researches agree that kingdom-level classification of living things needs the special rules and principles. Two approaches are possible: (a) tree- based, Hennigian approach will look for main dichotomies inside so-called “Tree of Life”; and (b) space-based, Linnaean approach will look for the key differences inside “Natural System” multidimensional “cloud”. Despite of clear advantages of tree-like approach (easy to develop rules and algorithms; trees are self-explaining), in many cases the space-based approach is still prefer- able, because it let us to summarize any kinds of taxonomically related da- ta and to compare different classifications quite easily. This approach also lead us to four-kingdom classification, but with different groups: Monera, Protista, Vegetabilia and Animalia, which represent different steps of in- creased complexity of living things, from simple prokaryotic cell to compound Nature Precedings : doi:10.1038/npre.2007.241.2 Posted 16 Aug 2007 eukaryotic cell and further to tissue/organ cell systems. The classification Only recent taxa. Viruses are not included. Abbreviations: incertae sedis (i.s.); pro parte (p.p.); sensu lato (s.l.); sedis mutabilis (sed.m.); sedis possi- bilis (sed.poss.); sensu stricto (s.str.); status mutabilis (stat.m.); quotes for “environmental” groups; asterisk for paraphyletic* taxa. 1 Regnum Monera Superphylum Archebacteria Phylum 1. Archebacteria Classis 1(1). Euryarcheota 1 2(2). Nanoarchaeota 3(3). Crenarchaeota 2 Superphylum Bacteria 3 Phylum 2. Firmicutes 4 Classis 1(4). Thermotogae sed.m. 2(5). -
Kingdom Chromista)
J Mol Evol (2006) 62:388–420 DOI: 10.1007/s00239-004-0353-8 Phylogeny and Megasystematics of Phagotrophic Heterokonts (Kingdom Chromista) Thomas Cavalier-Smith, Ema E-Y. Chao Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK Received: 11 December 2004 / Accepted: 21 September 2005 [Reviewing Editor: Patrick J. Keeling] Abstract. Heterokonts are evolutionarily important gyristea cl. nov. of Ochrophyta as once thought. The as the most nutritionally diverse eukaryote supergroup zooflagellate class Bicoecea (perhaps the ancestral and the most species-rich branch of the eukaryotic phenotype of Bigyra) is unexpectedly diverse and a kingdom Chromista. Ancestrally photosynthetic/ major focus of our study. We describe four new bicil- phagotrophic algae (mixotrophs), they include several iate bicoecean genera and five new species: Nerada ecologically important purely heterotrophic lineages, mexicana, Labromonas fenchelii (=Pseudobodo all grossly understudied phylogenetically and of tremulans sensu Fenchel), Boroka karpovii (=P. uncertain relationships. We sequenced 18S rRNA tremulans sensu Karpov), Anoeca atlantica and Cafe- genes from 14 phagotrophic non-photosynthetic het- teria mylnikovii; several cultures were previously mis- erokonts and a probable Ochromonas, performed ph- identified as Pseudobodo tremulans. Nerada and the ylogenetic analysis of 210–430 Heterokonta, and uniciliate Paramonas are related to Siluania and revised higher classification of Heterokonta and its Adriamonas; this clade (Pseudodendromonadales three phyla: the predominantly photosynthetic Och- emend.) is probably sister to Bicosoeca. Genetically rophyta; the non-photosynthetic Pseudofungi; and diverse Caecitellus is probably related to Anoeca, Bigyra (now comprising subphyla Opalozoa, Bicoecia, Symbiomonas and Cafeteria (collectively Anoecales Sagenista). The deepest heterokont divergence is emend.). Boroka is sister to Pseudodendromonadales/ apparently between Bigyra, as revised here, and Och- Bicoecales/Anoecales. -
The New Higher Level Classification of Eukaryotes with Emphasis on the Taxonomy of Protists
J. Eukaryot. Microbiol., 52(5), 2005 pp. 399–451 r 2005 by the International Society of Protistologists DOI: 10.1111/j.1550-7408.2005.00053.x The New Higher Level Classification of Eukaryotes with Emphasis on the Taxonomy of Protists SINA M. ADL,a ALASTAIR G. B. SIMPSON,a MARK A. FARMER,b ROBERT A. ANDERSEN,c O. ROGER ANDERSON,d JOHN R. BARTA,e SAMUEL S. BOWSER,f GUY BRUGEROLLE,g ROBERT A. FENSOME,h SUZANNE FREDERICQ,i TIMOTHY Y. JAMES,j SERGEI KARPOV,k PAUL KUGRENS,1 JOHN KRUG,m CHRISTOPHER E. LANE,n LOUISE A. LEWIS,o JEAN LODGE,p DENIS H. LYNN,q DAVID G. MANN,r RICHARD M. MCCOURT,s LEONEL MENDOZA,t ØJVIND MOESTRUP,u SHARON E. MOZLEY-STANDRIDGE,v THOMAS A. NERAD,w CAROL A. SHEARER,x ALEXEY V. SMIRNOV,y FREDERICK W. SPIEGELz and MAX F. J. R. TAYLORaa aDepartment of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS B3H 4J1, Canada, and bCenter for Ultrastructural Research, Department of Cellular Biology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602, USA, and cBigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences, West Boothbay Harbor, ME 04575, USA, and dLamont-Dogherty Earth Observatory, Palisades, New York 10964, USA, and eDepartment of Pathobiology, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada, and fWadsworth Center, New York State Department of Health, Albany, New York 12201, USA, and gBiologie des Protistes, Universite´ Blaise Pascal de Clermont-Ferrand, F63177 Aubiere cedex, France, and hNatural Resources Canada, Geological Survey of Canada (Atlantic), Bedford Institute of Oceanography, PO Box 1006 Dartmouth, NS B2Y 4A2, Canada, and iDepartment of Biology, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Lafayette, Louisiana 70504, USA, and jDepartment of Biology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708-0338, USA, and kBiological Faculty, Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia, St. -
The Revised Classification of Eukaryotes
Published in Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology 59, issue 5, 429-514, 2012 which should be used for any reference to this work 1 The Revised Classification of Eukaryotes SINA M. ADL,a,b ALASTAIR G. B. SIMPSON,b CHRISTOPHER E. LANE,c JULIUS LUKESˇ,d DAVID BASS,e SAMUEL S. BOWSER,f MATTHEW W. BROWN,g FABIEN BURKI,h MICAH DUNTHORN,i VLADIMIR HAMPL,j AARON HEISS,b MONA HOPPENRATH,k ENRIQUE LARA,l LINE LE GALL,m DENIS H. LYNN,n,1 HILARY MCMANUS,o EDWARD A. D. MITCHELL,l SHARON E. MOZLEY-STANRIDGE,p LAURA W. PARFREY,q JAN PAWLOWSKI,r SONJA RUECKERT,s LAURA SHADWICK,t CONRAD L. SCHOCH,u ALEXEY SMIRNOVv and FREDERICK W. SPIEGELt aDepartment of Soil Science, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 5A8, Canada, and bDepartment of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, B3H 4R2, Canada, and cDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island, 02881, USA, and dBiology Center and Faculty of Sciences, Institute of Parasitology, University of South Bohemia, Cˇeske´ Budeˇjovice, Czech Republic, and eZoology Department, Natural History Museum, London, SW7 5BD, United Kingdom, and fWadsworth Center, New York State Department of Health, Albany, New York, 12201, USA, and gDepartment of Biochemistry, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, B3H 4R2, Canada, and hDepartment of Botany, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada, and iDepartment of Ecology, University of Kaiserslautern, 67663, Kaiserslautern, Germany, and jDepartment of Parasitology, Charles University, Prague, 128 43, Praha 2, Czech -
Adl S.M., Simpson A.G.B., Lane C.E., Lukeš J., Bass D., Bowser S.S
The Journal of Published by the International Society of Eukaryotic Microbiology Protistologists J. Eukaryot. Microbiol., 59(5), 2012 pp. 429–493 © 2012 The Author(s) Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology © 2012 International Society of Protistologists DOI: 10.1111/j.1550-7408.2012.00644.x The Revised Classification of Eukaryotes SINA M. ADL,a,b ALASTAIR G. B. SIMPSON,b CHRISTOPHER E. LANE,c JULIUS LUKESˇ,d DAVID BASS,e SAMUEL S. BOWSER,f MATTHEW W. BROWN,g FABIEN BURKI,h MICAH DUNTHORN,i VLADIMIR HAMPL,j AARON HEISS,b MONA HOPPENRATH,k ENRIQUE LARA,l LINE LE GALL,m DENIS H. LYNN,n,1 HILARY MCMANUS,o EDWARD A. D. MITCHELL,l SHARON E. MOZLEY-STANRIDGE,p LAURA W. PARFREY,q JAN PAWLOWSKI,r SONJA RUECKERT,s LAURA SHADWICK,t CONRAD L. SCHOCH,u ALEXEY SMIRNOVv and FREDERICK W. SPIEGELt aDepartment of Soil Science, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 5A8, Canada, and bDepartment of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, B3H 4R2, Canada, and cDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island, 02881, USA, and dBiology Center and Faculty of Sciences, Institute of Parasitology, University of South Bohemia, Cˇeske´ Budeˇjovice, Czech Republic, and eZoology Department, Natural History Museum, London, SW7 5BD, United Kingdom, and fWadsworth Center, New York State Department of Health, Albany, New York, 12201, USA, and gDepartment of Biochemistry, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, B3H 4R2, Canada, and hDepartment of Botany, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada, and iDepartment -
Phylogenetic Position of Protoopalina Intestinalis Based on SSU Rrna Gene Sequence
MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETICS AND EVOLUTION Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 33 (2004) 220–224 www.elsevier.com/locate/ympev Phylogenetic position of Protoopalina intestinalis based on SSU rRNA gene sequence Martin Kostka*, Vladimir Hampl, Ivan Cepicka, Jaroslav Flegr Department of Parasitology, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic Received 29 March 2004 Available online 8 July 2004 Abstract A robust recognition of phylogenetic affinities of Opalinidae—the peculiar multinucleated intestine commensals of frogs—is hin- dered by the absence of reliable molecular data. Up to now all attempts to sequence opalinid genes failed, as the obtained sequences labeled as Protoopalina intestinalis, Cepedea virguloidea, and Opalina ranarum in GenBank apparently originate from a zygomycete contamination. In this paper, we present the first molecular data for the family Opalinidae—SSU rRNA gene of P. intestinalis. Our phylogenetic analyses undoubtedly show opalinids as a sister group to Proteromonas within the Stramenopila clade, confirming the monophyly of PattersonÕs order Slopalinida. The enigmatic genus Blastocystis is resolved with high statistical support as a sister group to Slopalinida. The information contained in the SSU rRNA gene proved insufficient to uncover broader affinities of this group to other groups of Stramenopila. Nevertheless, our analyses clearly demonstrate that Cavalier-SmithÕs phylum Bigyra, which comprises Oomycetes and their relatives together with Slopalinida and Blastocystis, is not monophyletic. Ó 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Protoopalina; Opalinidae; Stramenopila; Phylogeny; 18S rRNA gene 1. Introduction Opalinids resemble ciliates in having multiple flagella and were for a long time considered to be related to Opalinids, first observed by Leeuwenhoek in 1683 them (e.g., Stein, 1860—after Delvinquier and Patter- (Dobell, 1932), are large (up to 2.8mm), multinucleated, son, 1993; Metcalf, 1923). -
Cercozoa Apusozoa Heliozoa Phytomyxids Haplosporidia Filosa Foraminifera Radiolaria Opisthokonts Fungi
PROTISTS GROUPS (ref. 1) Cercozoa Apusozoa Heliozoa Phytomyxids Haplosporidia Filosa Foraminifera Radiolaria Opisthokonts Fungi Animals Nuclearids Ichthyosporea Choanoflagellates Amoebozoa Lobosea Slime Molds Archamoebae Excavates Oxymonads Trimastix Hypermastigotes Trichomonads Retortamonads Diplomonads Carpediamonas Jakobids (core) Discicristates Kinetoplastids Diplonemids Euglenids Heterolobosea Chromists Cryptomonads Haptophytes Opalinids Bicosoecids Oomycetes Diatoms Brown Algae Alveolates Ciliates Colpodellids Apicomplexa Dinoflagellates Oxyrrhis Perkinsus Plantae Plants (Plants and other autotrophs ignored.) Charophytes Chlorophytes Red Algae Glaucophytes SUMMARY: NUMBER OF SPECIES IN EACH GROUP CONTAINING INFORMATION ON PLOIDY AND LIFE STYLE Diploid Parasite (~1468-1963 species) Some Lobosea (<10 species?, ref. 2, p. 7-8) Some Diplomonads (~8 species, ref. 2, p. 202) Some Trypanosomes (unknown fraction of ~495 species are diploid, ref. 2, p. 218) Some Oomycetes (>250 species, ref. 2, p. 672-678) Some Ciliates (~1200 species; ref. 3, p. 40) Haploid Parasite (~2573-3068 species) All Phytomyxids (~29 species, ref. 2, p. 399) Some Trichomonads (~4 species, ref. 4) Some Trypanosomes (unknown fraction of ~495 species are haploid, ref. 2, p. 218) All Apicomplexa (~2400 species, ref. 2, p. 549) Some Dinoflagellates (~140 species, ref. 5, p. 1) Diploid Non-Parasite (~7284 species) All Heliozoa (~90 species, ref. 2, p. 347) Most Lobosea (~200 species, ref. 2, p. 3) Some Oxymonads (~20 species, ref. 6) Some Hypermastigotes (~4 species, ref. 6) Most Diplomonads (~100 species, ref. 2, p. 202) Most Ciliates (>6300 species = 85% of 7500, ref. 2, p. 498) All Opalinids (~400 species, ref. 2, p. 239) Some Oomycetes (>170 species, ref. 2, p. 672-678) Haploid Non-Parasite (~1465 species) Dictyostelium (~50 species, ref. 2, p. -
Ultrastructure and Molecular Phylogenetic Position of a Novel Phagotrophic Stramenopile from Low Oxygen Environments: Rictus Lutensis Gen
ARTICLE IN PRESS Protist, Vol. 161, 264–278, April 2010 http://www.elsevier.de/protis Published online date 28 December 2009 ORIGINAL PAPER Ultrastructure and Molecular Phylogenetic Position of a Novel Phagotrophic Stramenopile from Low Oxygen Environments: Rictus lutensis gen. et sp. nov. (Bicosoecida, incertae sedis) Naoji Yubukia,1, Brian S. Leandera, and Jeffrey D. Silbermanb aCanadian Institute for Advanced Research, Program in Integrated Microbial Biodiversity, Departments of Botany and Zoology, University of British Columbia, 6270 University Boulevard, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada bDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA Submitted July 12, 2009; Accepted October 11, 2009 Monitoring Editor: Michael Melkonian A novel free free-living phagotrophic flagellate, Rictus lutensis gen. et sp. nov., with two heterodynamic flagella, a permanent cytostome and a cytopharynx was isolated from muddy, low oxygen coastal sediments in Cape Cod, MA, USA. We cultivated and characterized this flagellate with transmission electron microscopy, scanning electron microscopy and molecular phylogenetic analyses inferred from small subunit (SSU) rDNA sequences. These data demonstrated that this organism has the key ultrastructural characters of the Bicosoecida, including similar transitional zones and a similar overall flagellar apparatus consisting of an x fiber and an L-shape microtubular root 2 involved in food capture. Although the molecular phylogenetic analyses were concordant with the ultrastructural data in placing R. lutensis with the bicosoecid clade, the internal position of this relatively divergent sequence within the clade was not resolved. Therefore, we interpret R. lutensis gen. et sp. nov. as a novel bicosoecid incertae sedis. & 2009 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved. -
A New Deep-Branching Stramenopile, Platysulcus Tardus Gen. Nov., Sp. Nov
A New Deep-branching Stramenopile, Platysulcus tardus gen. nov., sp. nov. 著者 Shiratori Takashi, Nakayama Takeshi, Ishida Ken-ichiro journal or Protist publication title volume 166 number 3 page range 337-348 year 2015-07 権利 (C) 2015. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4 .0/ URL http://hdl.handle.net/2241/00148461 doi: 10.1016/j.protis.2015.05.001 Creative Commons : 表示 - 非営利 - 改変禁止 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.ja 1 A new deep-branching stramenopile, Platysulcus tardus gen. nov., sp. nov. 2 3 Takashi Shiratoria, Takeshi Nakayamab, and Ken-ichiro Ishidab,1 4 5 aGraduate School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, 6 Ibaraki 305-8572, Japan; 7 bFaculty of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 8 305-8572, Japan 9 10 Running title: A new deep-branching stramenopile 11 1 Corresponding Author: FAX: +81 298 53 4533 E-mail: [email protected] (K. Ishida) 1 A novel free-living heterotrophic stramenopile, Platysulcus tardus gen. nov., sp. nov. was 2 isolated from sedimented detritus on a seaweed collected near the Ngeruktabel Island, 3 Palau. P. tardus is a gliding flagellate with tubular mastigonemes on the anterior short 4 flagellum and a wide, shallow ventral furrow. Although the flagellar apparatus of P. tardus 5 is typical of stramenopiles, it shows novel ultrastructural combinations that are not applied 6 to any groups of heterotrophic stramenopiles. Phylogenetic analysis using SSU rRNA genes 7 revealed that P.