Are members of the Anopheles fluviatilis complex conspecific?

• Published in: Acta tropica Vol. 224; p. 106149
• Main Authors: Singh, Om P., Sindhania, Ankita, Sharma, Gunjan, Mishra, Shobhna, Sharma, Surya K., Singh, Piyoosh K., Das, Manoj K.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier B.V 01.12.2021
• Subjects: Anopheles fluviatilis; Barcode of life; Cryptic species; Malaria; Anopheles fluviatilis; Barcode of life; Cryptic species; Malaria
• ISSN: 0001-706X; 1873-6254
• DOI: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2021.106149

Anopheles fluviatilis sensu lato, a primary malaria vector in India, has been identified to be comprised of four cryptic species, provisionally designated as species S, T, U and V. However, Kumar et al. (Mol Ecol Resour, 2013;13:354-61) considered all of the then known three members of this species complex (S, T and U) conspecific. The specific status of species S and T was refuted based on the lack of sufficient barcode gap in mitochondrial-CO1 and the perceived presence of heterozygotes in populations as detected through one of the two species-specific PCR assays employed for the cryptic species identification. The existence of species U was refuted claiming that earlier investigations have already refuted their existence. Here we discuss problems associated with the CO1-based barcode approach for delimitation of cryptic species, the perceived heterozygosity between species S and T based on a species-specific PCR assay, and interpretation of published reports. We demonstrated that fixed differences do exist in the ITS2-rDNA sequence of species S and T with no evidence of heterozygotes in sympatric populations and, that the observed heterozygosity by Kumar et al. in the ITS2-based species diagnostic PCR is due to the high mispriming tendency of the T-specific primer with species S. We infer that mitochondrial DNA-based ‘barcoding gap’, an arbitrary threshold recommended for species delimitation, alone, is inadequate to delimit the members of An. fluviatilis complex.