Fig 1.
Localities of Uruguay including an overview of the geographical distribution of fascioliasis infection risk.
A. Location of Uruguay in South America. B. Map of Uruguay showing localities and departments of Montevideo, Salto, Paysandú and Canelones where the fasciolid flukes and the lymnaeid snails were collected. Other departments highlighted are those where most of the human fascioliasis cases have been reported. Dots correspond to farms where more than 20% of the cattle was known to be infected by Fasciola hepatica according to data from the 1972–1973 period (modified from [37]).
Table 1.
Uruguayan fasciolid and lymnaeid materials used, hosts, localities and DNA haplotype information for each molecular marker.
Fig 2.
Differences found in mtDNA cox1 gene of Fasciola hepatica from Uruguay and other haplotypes.
In the position where two or three different nucleotides or amino acids are noted, the first (noted with capital letter) is the majority one for F. hepatica intraspecific variation. Position = numbers (to be read in vertical) refer to variable positions obtained in the alignment made with MEGA 6.0.6;. = identical; * = present paper. ** 69 F. hepatica haplotypes described in Mas-Coma et al., 2009 [6] (39 populations from 10 countries); haplotype Accesion Number (Acc. No.) M93388 from Salt Lake City, Utah, USA of Garey and Wolstenholme, 1989 [82], and the haplotype Acc. No. AF216697 corresponding to the Geelon strain from Australia of Le et al., 2001 [83]. Nt = nucleotide base pair; aa = amino acids.
Fig 3.
Differences found in mtDNA nad1 gene of Fasciola hepatica from Uruguay and other haplotypes.
In the position where two or three different nucleotides or amino acids are noted, the first (noted with capital letter) is the majority one for F. hepatica intraspecific variation. Position = numbers (to be read in vertical) refer to variable positions obtained in the alignment made with MEGA 6.0.6;. = identical; * = present paper. ** 51 F. hepatica haplotypes described in Mas-Coma et al., 2009 [6] (39 populations from 10 countries); haplotype Acc. No. M93388 from Salt Lake City, Utah, USA of Garey and Wolstenholme, 1989 [82], and the haplotype Ac. No. AF216697 corresponding to the Geelon strain from Australia of Le et al., 2001 [83]. Nt = nucleotide base pair; aa = amino acids.
Fig 4.
Differences found in mtDNA cox1 of Lymnaea neotropica from Uruguay and other haplotypes.
Position = numbers (to be read in vertical) refer to variable positions obtained in the alignment made with MEGA 6.0.6;. = identical; ** = present paper. Haplotype codes only provisional due to incomplete sequences of the gene. *GenBank and country/locality noted in parentheses: 1 = AM494008 from Peru: Lima; Cajamarca; 2 = FN356741 from Argentina: Mendoza; 3 = JF461485 from Venezuela: Carabobo; 4 = JF461486 from Venezuela: Falcon; 5 = KT215350 from Argentina: Catamarca; 6 = KT215350 from Uruguay: Paysandu, Montevideo; 7 = AM49008 from Uruguay: Canelones.
Fig 5.
Shell of Lymnaea neotropica used for the experimental study of the transmission of Uruguayan Fasciola hepatica.
A. Ventral view; B. Dorsal view.
Table 2.
Comparison of the results obtained in monomiracidial infection experiments of Uruguayan Lymnaea neotropica and Bolivian Altiplanic Galba truncatula with Fasciola hepatica isolates from Uruguay and the Northern Bolivian Altiplano, respectively.
Fig 6.
Soft parts of Lymnaea neotropica infected with Fasciola hepatica, at the end of cercarial shedding.
A. Apical view showing extent of redial infection. B. Magnification showing massive presence of rediae.
Fig 7.
Cercarial shedding of Fasciola hepatica by Lymnaea neotropica from Uruguay and by Galba truncatula from Bolivia.
Studies on the fluke/snail couple from Uruguay (A, C) and from the Northern Bolivian Altiplano (B, D) performed under identical procedures and standardized experimental abiotic factors [48]. A, B. Shedding period analyzed from the day of the emergence of the first cercaria by each snail. C, D. Shedding period analyzed from the day of the miracidial infection.
Fig 8.
Livestock movement timeline in the early introduction and spread of Fasciola hepatica and lymnaeids in Uruguay.
Maps of South America (A) and Uruguay (B) showing main livestock passageways during the early Spanish and Portuguese colonizations. The analysis concerns the time of the old Viceroyalty of Rio de la Plata, from Buenos Aires in the South and the "Banda Oriental" in the Southeast up to "Alto Peru" in the North. 1, 14, First introductions of pigs in 1541, horses in 1574, and goats in 1577; 2, 15, 16, First and second introduction of cattle derived from Corrientes population in 1611 and 1617; 3, 17, Introduction of cattle from Misiones by Jesuits at the beginning of 17th century; 4, 5, 18, 19, First introduction of sheep from Santa Fe in 1727 (4, 18) and subsequent large scale cattle introductions with "faeneros" from Asuncion, Corrientes and Santa Fe (4, 5, 18, 19); 6, Livestock route for silver transport from Potosi mines from mid 16th century; 7, Original route for introduced goats in 1611–1618; 8, 20, Introduction of sheep by the Portuguese in 1734–1735; 9, 21, Largest rustle of more than 400,000 cattle in 1705, from Vaqueria del Mar to Vaqueria de los Pinares, at the southern part of the Jesuit Misiones Orientales area (brownish area); 10, 22, Livestock spread at mid and end of 17th century; 11, Livestock route (Camino Real, Ruta del Viamont or Caminho do Viamão) for gold transport from Minas Geraes mines from 1690; 12, Interconnection livestock route (Ruta de las Misiones or Caminho das Missões); 13, Interconnection livestock route (Ruta de la Vaquería or Caminho da Vacaria); 23, Groups of Portuguese "bandeirantes" also using livestock; 24, Northward spread of livestock. Background for A from composed satellite map of South America orthographic projection by NASA (full resolution of 1,215 x 1,712 pixels; public domain) via Wikimedia Commons. Original S. Mas-Coma.