Are members of the Anopheles fluviatilis complex conspecific?

Abstract

AbstractAnopheles fluviatilis sensu lato, a primary malaria vector in India, was 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. This conclusion is concerning because of the differential public health implications of members of the Fluviatilis Complex. 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.