Next Article in Journal
Role of G-Protein-Coupled Receptors in Cardiovascular Diseases
Next Article in Special Issue
DNA and RNA Stability of Marine Microalgae in Cold-Stored Sediments and Its Implications in Metabarcoding Analyses
Previous Article in Journal
Genome-Wide Analysis of the Expansin Gene Family in Populus and Characterization of Expression Changes in Response to Phytohormone (Abscisic Acid) and Abiotic (Low-Temperature) Stresses
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJMS
Volume 24
Issue 9
10.3390/ijms24097758
ijms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Molecular Apomorphies in the Secondary and Tertiary Structures of Length-Variable Regions (LVRs) of 18S rRNA Shed Light on the Systematic Position of the Family Thaumastellidae (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Pentatomoidea)

by
Jerzy A. Lis
Institute of Biology, University of Opole, Oleska 22, 45-052 Opole, Poland
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24(9), 7758; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24097758
Submission received: 2 April 2023 / Revised: 17 April 2023 / Accepted: 19 April 2023 / Published: 24 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Studies in Ribosomal RNA)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The SSU nrDNA, a small subunit of the nuclear ribosomal DNA (coding 18S rRNA), is one of the most frequently sequenced genes in molecular studies in Hexapoda. In insects, including true bugs (Hemiptera: Heteroptera), only its primary structures (i.e., aligned sequences) are predominantly used in phylogenetic reconstructions. It is known that including RNA secondary structures in the alignment procedure is essential for improving accuracy and robustness in phylogenetic tree reconstruction. Moreover, local plasticity in rRNAs might impact their tertiary structures and corresponding functions. To determine the systematic position of Thaumastellidae within the superfamily Pentatomoidea, the secondary and—for the first time among all Hexapoda—tertiary structures of 18S rRNAs in twelve pentatomoid families were compared and analysed. Results indicate that the shapes of the secondary and tertiary structures of the length-variable regions (LVRs) in the 18S rRNA are phylogenetically highly informative. Based on these results, it is suggested that the Thaumastellidae is maintained as an independent family within the superfamily Pentatomoidea, rather than as a part of the family Cydnidae. Moreover, the analyses indicate a close relationship between Sehirinae and Parastrachiidae, expressed in morpho-molecular synapomorphies in the predicted secondary and tertiary structures of the length-variable region L (LVR L).

1. Introduction

In recent decades, studies on ribosomal RNA molecules—especially the nuclear 18S rRNA sequences—have significantly improved the quality of phylogenetic reconstructions in insects [1,2,3,4,5,6,7]. Analyses based on the sequence alignment using relevant models for nucleotide substitution are now widely accepted in molecular systematics [7,8,9,10,11,12,13]. However, the increase in the application of rRNA secondary structures in hexapod phylogenetics is less pronounced and, as far as the tertiary structures are concerned, progress is still not satisfactory [4,5,14,15,16,17,18,19].
Unfortunately, the usefulness of the secondary structures of nuclear 18S rRNA sequences in resolving the phylogenetic problems in Hemiptera in general, and Heteroptera in particular, has only been considered sporadically [9,10,19,20,21]. Nevertheless, the results have been promising, suggesting that the secondary structures of 18S rRNA could be a crucial new parameter in insect phylogenetic reconstructions. The heteropteran superfamily Pentatomoidea is the only taxon in which such analyses have been conducted comprehensively [19,20]. Unfortunately, only one study [20] considered the pentatomoid family Thaumastellidae, the within-subfamily systematic position of which is ambiguous.
In contrast to the secondary structures, tertiary rRNA structures have never been used in resolving the problems of relationships among taxa in Hemiptera in particular, or in Hexapoda in general.
The Thaumastellidae is a small pentatomoid family containing only one described genus—Thaumastella Horváth, 1896—and three species [22,23,24,25,26,27]. The individuals of T. aradoides Horváth, 1896 (North and East Africa, Near East), bearing macro- or sub-macropterous hemelytra (Figure A1A), can fly. In contrast, individuals of two Afrotropical species (Republic of South Africa, Namibia), i.e., T. namaquensis Schaefer and Wilcox, 1971 and T. elizabethae Jacobs, 1989 are completely flightless, exhibiting a staphylinoid type of forewing [22,24,25,26]. Although the species of Thaumastellidae have a limited distribution area and their specimens have been sporadically collected [22,24,25,28,29], the family is significant from a phylogenetic point of view.
Thaumastella was initially assigned to the subfamily Artheneinae of the family Lygaeidae [30]. Due to many morphological characters incompatible with those that are diagnostic for the Artheneinae, it was then assigned to a subfamily of its own, i.e., Thumastellinae, within Lygaeidae [22]. Later on, Štys [23], based on a detailed morphological study of T. aradoides, upgraded Thumastellinae to the family level and transferred it from the Lygaeidae (Lygaeoidea) to the Pentatomoidea. He also suggested the Thaumastellidae to be an early offshoot of the main pentatomoid stock and the sister taxon to all remaining Pentatomoidea [23]. Since then, the systematic position of Thaumastella as a part of the superfamily Pentatomoidea has never been challenged, and the genus has usually been considered very primitive (sometimes even the most primitive) within the entire superfamily [7,23,24,25,31,32,33,34].
Most importantly, the interpretation of its systematic position has varied significantly depending on the author and the type of analysis. Three competing hypotheses thus exist: Thaumastella as (1) a taxon of the family rank, being sister to all other Pentatomoidea [7,20,32,33,34,35,36]; (2) closely related to the Cydnidae [24,31,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45]; or (3) a subfamily in the broadly conceived Cydnidae (‘cydnoid complex’ sensu Lis et al., 2017; Cydnidae sensu Schuh and Weirauch, 2020) [25,27,46,47,48,49].
In recent molecular studies, where the systematic position of Thaumastellidae was considered [7,20,35,36,40], the genes coding ribosomal RNA—i.e., mitochondrial 16S rDNA and nuclear 18S rDNA and 28S rDNA—were predominantly utilised. I decided to focus the molecular analyses on the 18S rDNA gene (also known as SSU—a small subunit of the nuclear ribosomal DNA) because it was always the only gene with a complete sequence used in this type of study. Moreover, the yield of informative structural changes for insect phylogeny is high in 18S rDNA but poor in 28S and 16S rDNA [2,3,50].
The SSU nrDNA (coding 18S rRNA) is one of the most frequently sequenced genes in insect molecular studies [1,2,3,6,7,8,9,10,11,15,19,20,21,35,36,40]. However, in Heteroptera, its primary structure (i.e., aligned sequences) is usually used in phylogenetic reconstructions [6,7,8,9,10,11,13,35,36,40,44,51,52,53]. Nevertheless, as was observed many times [12,15,17,18,19,20,21], the hypervariation of length at multiple positions of this gene can seriously affect the accuracy of alignment of the sequences’ primary structures. Therefore, it is essential to refer to the secondary structures of the sequences during the alignment process, with particular attention to the gene length-variable regions (LVRs) [2,3,7,9,12,15,18,19,20,21]. It has been proven that including RNA secondary structures in the alignment procedure can significantly improve accuracy and robustness in phylogenetic tree reconstruction [7,9,12,17,18,19,20].
It is essential to note that some length-variable regions (LVRs) can serve as autapomorphies or synapomorphies for monophyletic groups recovered during the phylogenetic analysis [3,9,15,19,20,21]. To my knowledge, only in three papers related to the suborder Heteroptera [19,20,21] did the authors extract information from certain length-variable regions (LVRs) of the 18S rRNA secondary structure and use them to define the possible molecular autapomorphies or synapomorphies in the recovered monophyletic groups of the species. Moreover, it has been suggested [3,54] that the local plasticity in rRNAs (the LVRs’ presence or absence) might impact their tertiary structures and corresponding functions. Unfortunately, the 18S nuclear rRNA tertiary structures have been considered only sporadically in phylogenetic analyses in Hexapoda [2,3] and never in Hemiptera.
As was shown for other eukaryotic rRNAs [5,12,16,55], the tertiary structure exhibits evolutionary properties detectable neither within the primary (i.e., sequence) nor in the secondary structure. Therefore, the results of analyses considering rRNA tertiary structures for phylogenetic considerations seem very promising [2,3,5,55]. Thus, I regard it as crucial to consider the ribosomal RNA secondary and tertiary structures during phylogenetic analyses based on molecular data.
The primary purpose of the present study aims to shed light on the systematic position of the family Thaumastellidae using molecular synapomorphies in the secondary and—for the first time—the tertiary structures of length-variable regions (LVRs) of 18S rRNA.

2. Results

2.1. 18S rRNA Secondary Structure Models

The secondary structure models of the 18S rRNA gene were predicted for 46 analysed taxa, including fifteen consensus species (Table S1, Files S1 and S2). The prediction included six species of the superfamily Coreoidea (representing the outgroup) and forty species of the superfamily Pentatomoidea constituting the ingroup. The latter covered fourteen species of the family Cydnidae; four species of the Pentatomidae; three species for each of the Acanthosomatidae, Thyreocoridae and Urostylididae; two species for each of the Dinidoridae, Plataspidae, Parastrachiidae, Scutelleridae and Thaumastellidae; and a single species for the Canopidae, Lestoniidae and Tessaratomidae.
The secondary and tertiary structure models of 18S rRNA of Thaumastella elizabethae Jacobs, 1989 are provided in Figure 1. The secondary structure models are largely same as these for all other analysed species, with local differences within the certain hypervariable regions (V) and length-variable regions (LVRs) (File S2).
When the base pairing in the sequence of T. elizabethae was considered, nucleotides formed 530 pairs (58.6% of all nucleotides in the secondary structure model). The standard canonical pairs (G–C and A–U) were the most common (418 pairs, 78.9%). The wobble G:U pairs were about seven times less commonly formed between paired nucleotides (63 pairs, 11.9%). A:G or A:C pairs and other non-canonical pairs were observed infrequently (18 and 31—or 3.4% and 5.8%—respectively).
The number of nucleotides forming particular types of pairs varied slightly among all studied sequences, i.e., ±1.0–1.5% in the standard canonical pairs, ±1.5–3.2% in the wobble G:U pairs, and ±4.0–7.7% in all other non-canonical pairs. Such a range of variability is consistent with previous data for other Heteroptera species [19,20,21].

2.2. Hypervariable Regions (V2, V4, V7) Secondary Structures

The alignment results of the present analyses (File S1) indicate the existence of three hypervariable regions (V2, V4, V7), which is congruent with the results of the previous studies on 18S rRNA of Heteroptera species [19,20,21]. Predicted secondary hypervariable regions’ structures and their location within the entire gene sequences are shown in Figure 1 for T. elizabethae and in File S2 for all consensus species.
The sequence length of the hypervariable regions (Table 1) was highly diverse in the V4 region (316–320 nucleotides) and less variable in the V2 and V7 regions (192–194 and 90–91 nucleotides, respectively).

2.3. Length-Variable Regions (LVRs) in the Secondary Structures of 18S rRNA

Positions of the length-variable regions (LVRs) within the gene sequences are shown in Figure 1 for Thaumastella elizabethae and in File S2 for all analysed consensus species.
The six LVRs (F, M, S, U, R, W) always had a uniform number of nucleotides for each region. This was two nucleotides for LVR F, three for LVR W, four for LVR M and LVR R, five for LVR S and thirteen nucleotides for LVR W (Table 2). All other LVRs showed more or less significant variations in length, but the LVR G appeared to be the most specific because it was detected only in the Thaumastellidae. In species of this family, this LVR included a single nucleotide, whereas in all other taxa, this LVR was absent (Table 2, File S2).
Most notable was the LVR L, which was the longest and the most variable in length among all 13 recognised LVRs (Table 2). Therefore, it was subdivided into subregions to compare its homologous fragments in all analysed sequences. This subdivision was based on the alignment (File S1) and results of the secondary structure predictions (File S2), and the identified subregions were subjected to further analyses.

2.4. Length-Variable Region L (LVR L) Secondary Structure

The total length of the LVR L in the studied species varied from 71 to 81 nucleotides (Table 2). It was most variable in the subfamily Cydninae of the Cydnidae (73–81 nucleotides), the outgroup species (72–78 nucleotides) and the species of Parastrachiidae (73–78). The range of variability in other ingroup families showed no differentiation or was insignificant (up to four nucleotides only).
The general scheme for the outgroup and three ingroup consensus species, including Thaumastella elizabethae, is presented in Figure 2. The subdivision of LVR L into subregions was based on the alignment and results of the secondary structure predictions. These subregions were compared for all consensus species analysed (File S3). The number of nucleotides for each subregion resulting from the comparative analysis is provided in Table 3.
The LB region (LB1 + B2) was the most variable: its number of nucleotides varied from 11 to 20. Two regions (LA and LE) were less variable (in a range of seven nucleotides of variability), while two (LD and L2) were the least variable (in a range of only four nucleotides of variability).

2.5. 18S rRNA Tertiary Structure Models

The tertiary structure models of the 18S rRNA gene were predicted for the 15 consensus species listed in Table 1. The predicted models are shown in Figure 3 for Riptortus pedestris (outgroup), Parastrachia japonensis (Parastrachiidae), Lestonia haustorifera (Lestoniidae) and Thaumastella elizabethae (Thaumastellidae) and in File S4 for all consensus species.
When all 15 tertiary structures were aligned (Figure 4), their general shape appeared to be very similar, especially in five species. These include Cantao ocellatus (Scutelleridae), Elasmostethus interstinctus (Acanthosomatidae), L. haustorifera (Lestoniidae), Urochela luteovaria (Urostylididae) and T. elizabethae of the family Thaumastellidae, whose systematic position is the object of these considerations. This similarity in their tertiary structures related primarily to the location of the hypervariable regions V2, V4 and V7 (Figure 5). Nevertheless, this correlation regarding the hypervariable regions’ positions was not detected in the other ten species (File S5).

2.6. Length-Variable Region L (LVR L) Tertiary Structure

The position of the length-variable region L (LVR L) in the gene tertiary structure for the outgroup (Riptortus pedestris) and three ingroup species is shown in Figure 6. The LVR L—the longest part (71 to 81 nucleotides) of the entire hypervariable region V4—is always well recognisable (Figure 6, File S6).
The tertiary structures of the LVR L predicted for all fifteen analysed consensus species are presented in Figure 7, Figure 8, Figure 9 and Figure 10. The fragments that can serve as potential morpho-molecular synapomorphies or autapomorphies are indicated by the arrows corresponding in colour to the particular LVR L subregion (Figure 7, Figure 8, Figure 9 and Figure 10).

3. Discussion

3.1. The Predicted 18S rRNA Secondary Structures of Pentatomoidea

Comparisons of the 18S rRNA secondary structure models predicted for 15 pentatomoid consensus species show that they are almost identical. The differences found relate to the limited variations within certain hypervariable regions (V) and significant modifications within the length-variable regions (LVRs).
Among the analysed LVRs, LVR L was the most variable, which is consistent with the results of previous studies [19,20]. The unique attributes of its subregions make them appropriate to serve as apomorphies (autapomorphies or synapomorphies) for a particular taxon or groups of taxa.

3.2. Potential Synapomorphies and Apomorphies in LVR L Secondary Structures

The results of the comparative analyses of LVR L secondary structures showed the presence of several synapomorphies and autapomorphies relating to the number of nucleotides in specific subregions (Table 3).
As defined by their nucleotide numbers, the plesiomorphic conditions of the outgroup subregions were frequently shared by the ingroup taxa. The ancestral number of nucleotides for the exact subregion is observed from seven to ten times (for the L2 subregion—tenfold; L(A)–ninefold; L(B) and L(D)—eightfold; and L(C)—sevenfold). The L(E) subregion was the most derived, and demonstrated only apomorphies; its plesiomorphic state of the outgroup was never recovered in the ingroup taxa (Table 3).
Additionally, several synapomorphies were detected for specific ingroup taxa. The presence of six nucleotides in the L2 subregion and fourteen nucleotides in the L(E) subregion can be regarded as synapomorphies for the subfamily Sehirinae of the Cydnidae and for two other families, namely Parastrachiidae and Thyreocoridae. Moreover, synapomorphies for the Sehirinae and the Parastrachiidae were also identified in the L(A) and L(B) subregions (12 and 18 nucleotides, respectively). Two synapomorphies for three families, i.e., Dinidoridae, Tessaratomidae and Pentatomidae, were recovered in the L(C) and L(D) subregions (12 and 11 nucleotides, respectively).
Among all analysed taxa, two families, namely the Thaumastellidae and the Plataspidae, had the highest number of autapomorphies (four). The family Lestoniidae had two autapomorphies, while one autapomorphy was indicated for each of the three following taxa: the Acanthosomatidae, the Thyreocoridae and the subfamily Cydninae of the Cydnidae (Table 3).
Besides its autapomorphies, the Thaumastellidae had one synapomorphy with the Lestoniidae (eight nucleotides in the L(D) subregion) and one with the Plataspidae (16 nucleotides in the L(C) subregion).
However, the results of the present analyses indicate no support for the synapomorphies in LVR L for Lestoniidae + Acanthosomatidae, as previously suggested [20].

3.3. The Predicted 18S rRNA Tertiary Structures of Pentatomoidea

Although the secondary structures of all analysed species were almost identical, their predicted tertiary structures varied, sometimes significantly. Only five species—representing Scutelleridae (C. ocellatus), Acanthosomatidae (E. interstinctus), Lestoniidae (L. haustorifera), Urostylididae (U. luteovaria) and Thaumastellidae (T. elizabethae)—had a largely similar overall shape, especially when the location of the hypervariable regions V2, V4 and V7 was considered. This correlation was not detected in the other ten species, since their variable regions (V2, V4, V7) were situated in various locations of their tertiary structures. These results show that the probable in vivo tertiary configurations of the 18S rRNAs in pentatomoid true bugs are not predictable using existing software (3dRNA v2.0 Web Server).
Moreover, this may also result from small nucleolar RNAs (snoRNAs) activities, which can stabilise highly conserved ribosomal RNA secondary structures and affect changes in their tertiary structure [56,57,58,59,60]. However, such modifications have been sporadically analysed in invertebrates [57,59,60]. These cases concern, in particular, the model organisms (mainly nematodes and Drosophila species), but to my knowledge, never any other insects. It will be essential to verify in the future whether any of these rRNA modifications caused by snoRNAs could change the tertiary structures of length-variable 18S rRNA regions not only in Hemiptera but also in the entire Hemimetabola.

3.4. Potential Synapomorphies and Autapomorphies in LVR L Tertiary Structure

The results show only two analysed consensus species, Adomerus biguttatus (Cydnidae: Sehirinae) and Parastrachia japonensis (Parastrachiidae), share strict morpho-molecular synapomorphies in the LVR L structure. These two synapomorphies correspond to two subregions: L(A) and L(B) (Figure 7D,E and Figure 10B,C).
Moreover, four consensus species—Coptosoma scutellatum (Plataspidae), Thaumastella elizabethae (Thaumastellidae), Fromundus pygmaeus (Cydnidae: Cydninae) and Elasmostethus interstinctus (Acanthosomatidae)—exhibit the morpho-molecular autapomorphies in the tertiary structure of their LVR L (Figure 7, Figure 8, Figure 9 and Figure 10).
In the C. scutellatum LVR L tertiary structure, three autapomorphies were identified, namely in L(B), L(D) and L(E) (Figure 9B and Figure 10F). The T. elizabethae LVR L tertiary structure revealed two autapomorphies, one in L(A) and one in L2 (Figure 8F and Figure 10E). Moreover, two species had only one morpho-molecular autapomorphy. These were F. pygmaeus, exhibiting a single morpho-molecular autapomorphy in the L(C) subregion (Figure 7F and Figure 10D), and E. interstinctus, with a single autapomorphy in the L(A) subregion (Figure 9C and Figure 10G).
All other consensus species had no well-defined morpho-molecular-derived characters (neither synapomorphies nor autapomorphies) in their predicted tertiary 18S rRNA structures.

3.5. Systematic Position of Thaumastellidae within Pentatomoidea

The results of the present comparative analyses of the predicted 18S rRNA secondary and tertiary structures—in addition to the morphological [22,23,24,25,33], biochemical [32] and phylogenetic evidence to date [7,20,35,36,40]—support the hypothesis that the Thaumastellidae are phylogenetically distinct from the Cydnidae and should not be placed within the latter as a subfamily.
Thus far, the only morphological character considered a synapomorphy for all taxa within the broadly conceived Cydnidae (‘cydnoid complex’ sensu Lis et al. [7]; Cydnidae sensu Schuh and Weirauch [27]) was the presence of the coxal combs, unique within Heteroptera [27,43]. However, evidence for these structures’ independent origin has recently been provided [7], indicating the Thaumastellidae as the out-group for all other families of Pentatomoidea as suggested thus far [20,32,33,34,35,36].
As was already demonstrated [20]—and confirmed in the present study—the Thaumastellidae have a single nucleotide in the LVR G, which is unique among Pentatomoidea. The presence of this nucleotide should be regarded as the family autapomorphy [20]. All other pentatomoidean taxa (including the Cydnidae) display the plesiomorphic character and have no nucleotide in the LVR G [20] (present study).
Moreover, the current analyses have shown for the first time that the Thaumastellidae hold four morpho-molecular autapomorphies in the secondary structure of LVR L subregions L2, LA, LB and LE (Table 3), two of which (in the L2 and LA subregions) are also detectable in the tertiary structure (Figure 8 and Figure 10). Other autapomorphies in the number of the nucleotides in LVR L subregion secondary structures (one in the Plataspidae LC subregion and the second in the Lestoniidae LD subregion) (Table 3) are, unfortunately, not reflected in the tertiary structures (Figure 7, Figure 8, Figure 9 and Figure 10).
Furthermore—and most importantly—the Thaumastellidae did not share any synapomorphies with any of the two Cydnidae subfamilies (Cydninae and Sehirinae), in which the Thaumastellidae have previously been classified based on morphological characters [20,27,34,46,47,48,49].
Irrespective of the findings of the present analyses, the hypothesis of the sister relationship of Thaumastellidae to all other Pentatomoidea is strongly supported by several other characters. These include the presence of an m-chromosome, unknown elsewhere in this superfamily [31,32]; the chemical composition of the scent gland secretions, which are intermediate between Lygaeoidea and Pentatomoidea [32]; and the structure of the spermatheca, which is more lygaeoid or pyrrhocoroid than pentatomoid [33].
Therefore, it is suggested here to retain the Thaumastellidae as an independent family within the superfamily Pentatomoidea, not a part of the family Cydnidae (regardless of its internal classification adopted).

3.6. Other Families’ Relationships within the Superfamily Pentatomoidea

The current analyses identified two significant relationships among the investigated pentatomoid families at the molecular level.
The first concerns the synapomorphies in the LVR L subregion secondary structure of the subfamily Sehirinae (Cydnidae), the Parastrachiidae and the Thyreocoridae (Table 3). These contrasted with the predicted tertiary structures, which indicated that only Sehirinae and Parastrachiidae (but not Thyreocoridae) shared morpho-molecular synapomorphies in the LVR L subregions. The very close sister affinities of the two taxa—i.e., Sehirinae and Parastrachiidae—have been suggested previously based on phylogenetic analyses, where they always formed a highly supported monophylum [7,36,44]. This finding is also supported by the results of existing morphological analyses [33,40,61,62,63,64,65,66] and by similarities in the oviposition mode and maternal care habits of the taxa [67,68,69,70,71,72,73]. The results of the present analyses appear to support the close relationship between the subfamily Sehirinae (of the Cydnidae) and the family Parastrachiidae. However, the current analyses did not confirm the close affinity between the Parastrachiidae and the Thyreocoridae, as suggested thus far [40,44].
Moreover, two synapomorphies in LVR L secondary structures were revealed for three other families: Dinidoridae, Tessaratomidae and Pentatomidae. Although the Dini-doridae and Tessaratomidae have sometimes been considered sister taxa in phylogenetic analyses [9,10,40,74,75], their predicted LVR L tertiary structures did not demonstrate any morpho-molecular synapomorphies. Therefore, the present study cannot convincingly support a close relationship between Dinidoridae and Tessaratomidae.
All other consensus species had no distinct morpho-molecular synapomorphic characters in their 18S rRNA secondary and tertiary structures.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Reconstruction of 18S rRNA Secondary Structure Models

The secondary structure of the 18S rRNA for each analysed taxon was designed according to the gene’s universal model provided for insects [3]. Some modifications proposed for Heteroptera [19,20] were considered, and the fragments containing the length-variable regions (LVRs) were reinterpreted for each sequence using RNAstructure ver. 6.3 [76]. To avoid misinterpretations of the nucleotide substitutions during 18S rRNA secondary structure reconstruction—particularly in the regions containing LVRs [20]—the compensatory or semi-compensatory substitutions [77] were examined. This allowed for the delimitation of the variable regions and conservative portions of this gene sequence. The optimal model was selected with the principle of co-variation [78] and hypervariable region numbering, following that provided by Neefs et al. [14], Gillespie et al. [2], Yu et al. [19] and Wu et al. [20]. The numbering system for the length-variable regions (LVRs) in the present study was adopted from Neefs et al. [14], Xie et al. [3] and Wu et al. [20]. The nucleotide numbering of the entire gene sequences follows Wu et al. [20].

4.2. Selection of the Hypervariable Regions (V) and Length-Variable Regions (LVRs) for Analyses

Nine hypervariable regions (V1–V9) were recognised in the eukaryotic 18S rRNA model [14]. However, only three (V2, V4, V7) were indicated [2,3,50] to be fast-evolving and to significantly impact the phylogenetic reconstructions of relationships among high-level taxa in Hexapoda. As far as the length-variable regions (LVRs) are concerned, 24 such regions (A to X) within the nine domains (V1–V9) were recognised [3]. Most of these (18 out of 24) are restricted to the three hypervariable domains (V2, V4, V7), and the length of various LVRs can be order-specific [3]. Nevertheless, results concerning Heteroptera [19,20] have suggested that the local length sequence variations are restricted only to thirteen separate LVRs: five (B, D–G) in the V2 hypervariable region, two (L–M) in the V4 region, three (S–U) in the V7 region and three (R, X, W) in other parts of the sequences (Figure 1). However, only three LVRs (E, F, G) in the V2 region, one LVR (L) in the V4 region and two LVRs (S, T) in the V7 region have been identified as those that can potentially serve as morpho-molecular synapomorphies (or autapomorphies) for taxa within the superfamily Pentatomoidea [19,20]. Therefore, only the six LVRs mentioned above (E, F, G, L, S, T) were considered in the analyses (Figure 1).

4.3. Prediction of LVR Secondary Structures

Secondary structures of the selected length-variable regions were predicted with the computer program RNAstructure ver. 6.3 [76]. A three-step procedure was applied to the comparative sequence analysis in order to improve the quality of the predicted final structure. Firstly, the secondary structures of LVRs were predicted separately for each species. The analyses included calculating a partition function, predicting a minimum free energy (MFE) structure, finding structures with maximum expected accuracy and predicting pseudoknots [76,78]. Then, a secondary structure common to the two sequences was predicted [76] for five pentatomoid families, each represented by only two species in the analyses (Dinidoridae, Parastrachiidae, Plataspidae, Scutelleridae and Thaumastellidae). Finally, secondary structures common to three or more sequences were calculated [76]. This was performed for the outgroup, four pentatomoid families (Acanthosomatidae, Pentatomidae, Thyreocoridae, Urostylididae) and, in particular, for the subfamilies recognised within the family Cydnidae [7], which were all represented by three or more species in the analyses. The analyses covering three or more sequences fold them into their common lowest free energy conformations and combine the capabilities of Multilign and TurboFold to create distinct sets of possible structures for multiple sequences [76]. The structure exhibiting the lowest free energy was selected for further consideration. For this study, the species selected by the computer program RNAstructure ver. 6.3 [76] as exhibiting a secondary structure common to two or more sequences was considered to be the ‘consensus species’ for these sequences (Table 1 and Table S1). Additionally, the LVR L, the longest among all LVRs, was subdivided into subregions to compare its homologous fragments in analysed sequences; this subdivision was based on the alignment and results of the secondary structure predictions.

4.4. Prediction of Tertiary Structures

3dRNA v2.0 Web Server (http://biophy.hust.edu.cn/new/3dRNA, accessed on 15 January 2022) was used for the entire 18S rRNA gene tertiary structure prediction [79]. This fast, automatic method with high-accuracy RNA tertiary structure prediction uses sequence and secondary structure information to build three-dimensional RNA structures [79]. Moreover, 3dRNA Web Server can predict relatively long RNAs’ tertiary structures, even those exceeding 1400 nucleotides [79]. When constructing the secondary structures for the various 18S rRNAs and predicting the secondary structures for the LVRs, pseudoknot presence or absence was considered [76]. Thus, the possible occurrence of pseudoknots in the tertiary structures was also taken into account when the entire 18S rRNA gene was addressed. Therefore, an optimisation procedure and the ‘ProbKnot’ method [80,81,82] were applied in the analyses, which was particularly advantageous for predicting the 18S rRNA tertiary structures.
RNAComposer (http://rnacomposer.ibch.poznan.pl, accessed on 17 January 2022), a fully automated RNA structure modelling server, was used for LVR tertiary structure prediction [83,84]. RNAComposer’s method allows for the building of RNA structures up to 500 nucleotides in length, including the possible occurrence of pseudoknots with high accuracy [83,84]. In the analyses, twenty 3D RNA models were generated for each LVR sequence, and the best model of the lowest free energy was selected for further examination. All secondary structures were visualised using RNAstructure ver. 6.3 [76], while the tertiary structural images were visualised using PyMol software ver. 2.4.0 [85].

4.5. Concept of the Morpho-Molecular Structures Potentially Serving as Derived Characters

The concept of morpho-molecular-derived characters (autapomorphies and synapomorphies) of the nucleotide sequences in the predicted 18S rRNA secondary structures follows Ouvrard et al. [15], Xie et al. [3] and Yu et al. [19].
Unfortunately, a strategy for identifying morpho-molecular apomorphies in the predicted 18S rRNA (or any other ribosomal RNA) tertiary structures has not yet been developed. As already suggested [86], the homologous sequences of amino acids or nucleotides should be explored as much as possible in order to discover molecular apomorphic characters.
It is known that similar three-dimensional structural elements usually have similar secondary-structure elements [87]. Therefore, a two-step procedure was proposed for recognising the apomorphies in the predicted LVR tertiary structures of the analysed 18S rRNA sequences. Firstly, all morpho-molecular LVR tertiary structures based on the extent of uniqueness [88] were identified. Then, those LVR tertiary structures that also had their distinctness confirmed at the level of secondary structures were considered as the derived characters (apomorphies and synapomorphies) and were subjected to further analysis.

4.6. Selection of Taxa

The results of a recent molecular analysis on the ‘cydnoid complex’ within Pentatomoidea [7] were selected as the most appropriate starting point for the investigations of the rRNA secondary and tertiary structures. A survey [7] based on the 18S + 28S ribosomal DNA genes included the largest number of Cydnidae species (including two species of Thaumastella) and encompassed all Pentatomoidea families bearing sequences of 18S rDNA deposited in GenBank. Moreover, the tree resulting from the 18S rDNA analysis had the same topology as that recovered by the combined 18S + 28S ribosomal DNA genes [7]. Therefore, the Bayesian analysis tree of the combined 28S + 18S rDNA dataset using the GTR + G/GTR + G + I substitution model recovered under the Akaike Information Criterion [7] was selected as a base for the analysis (Figure A1B). A list of species used for the present study with GenBank accession numbers for 18S rDNA [7,10,20,40,52,76,89,90,91] is provided in Table S1.

5. Conclusions

  • For the first time among Hexapoda, the tertiary structures of the entire SSU were predicted and used in the analyses of the relationships among taxa, representing the heteropteran superfamily Pentatomoidea.
  • Results show that the probable in vivo configuration of the 18S rRNA tertiary structure is not predictable using only the secondary structure models and existing software (3dRNA v2.0 Web Server). This may also be the result of small nucleolar RNAs (snoRNAs) that can not only stabilise highly conserved ribosomal RNA secondary structures but can affect changes in their tertiary structure.
  • The number of nucleotides in the hypervariable regions (V2, V4, V7) and the length-variable regions (LVRs) of the 18S rDNAs show variability, suggesting that the secondary and tertiary structures of 18S rRNAs could be more diverse than has been thought to date.
  • The results concerning Pentatomoidea suggest that the local length sequence variations in the secondary structure models are restricted only to thirteen separate LVRs. However, only three LVRs (E, F, G) in the V2 region, one LVR (L) in the V4 region and two LVRs (S, T) in the V7 region were identified as those that could potentially serve as morpho-molecular apomorphies (synapomorphies or autapomorphies) for taxa within the superfamily Pentatomoidea.
  • Out of the six LVRs mentioned above, only LVR L appeared to be the most appropriate length-variable region for phylogenetic relationship analyses when considering the secondary and tertiary structure models.
  • The proposal for a new LVR L secondary structure subdivision presented in this study works well for the superfamily Pentatomoidea but should be verified in further studies in other groups within the Heteroptera.
  • It is suggested that the Thaumastellidae should remain as an independent family within the superfamily Pentatomoidea, not a part of the family Cydnidae (regardless of its internal classification adopted).
  • The predicted secondary and tertiary structures indicated a close relationship between Sehirinae and Parastrachiidae, with shared morpho-molecular synapomorphies in the LVR L subregions.
  • It seems crucial to incorporate the methods of rRNA secondary and tertiary structure analyses with phylogenetic evaluations.

Supplementary Materials

The supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijms24097758/s1.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

I want to thank my former student, P. Gradowska, for her help in preparing the final 18S rRNA secondary structures’ graphics used in File S2.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Ijms 24 07758 g0a1 550
Figure A1. (A) Thaumastella aradoides, general habitus (oryg.). (B) Phylogenetic tree of the superfamily Pentatomoidea selected as the base for the analysis (after [7], modified). Scale bar = 1 mm (A).
Figure A1. (A) Thaumastella aradoides, general habitus (oryg.). (B) Phylogenetic tree of the superfamily Pentatomoidea selected as the base for the analysis (after [7], modified). Scale bar = 1 mm (A).
Ijms 24 07758 g0a1

References

  1. Caterino, M.S.; Cho, S.; Sperling, F.A.H. The current state of insect molecular systematics: A thriving tower of Babel. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 2000, 45, 1–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Gillespie, J.J.; Johnston, J.S.; Cannone, J.J.; Gutell, R.R. Characteristics of the nuclear (18S, 5.8S, 28S and 5S) and mitochondrial (12S and 16S) rRNA genes of Apis mellifera (Insecta: Hymenoptera): Structure, organisation, and retrotransposable elements. Insect Mol. Biol. 2006, 15, 657–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Xie, Q.; Tian, X.; Qin, Y.; Bu, W. Phylogenetic comparison of local length plasticity of the small subunit of nuclear rDNAs among all Hexapoda orders and the impact of hyper-length-variation on alignment. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2009, 50, 310–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Stocsits, R.R.; Letsch, H.; Hertel, J.; Misof, B.; Stadler, P.F. Accurate and efficient reconstruction of deep phylogenies from structured RNAs. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009, 37, 6184–6193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Keller, A.; Wolf, M.; Dandekar, T. Ribosomal RNA phylogenetics: The third dimension. Biol. Sect. Cell Mol. Biol. 2010, 65, 388–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Song, N.; Li, H.; Cai, W.; Yan, F.; Wang, J.; Song, F. Phylogenetic relationships of Hemiptera inferred from mitochondrial and nuclear genes. Mitochondrial DNA 2016, 27, 4380–4389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lis, J.A.; Ziaja, D.; Lis, B.; Gradowska, P.A. Non-monophyly of the “cydnoid” complex within Pentatomoidea (Hemiptera: Heteroptera) revealed by Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of nuclear rDNA sequences. Arthropod. Syst. Phylogeny 2017, 75, 481–496. [Google Scholar]
  8. Kjer, K.M. Aligned 18S and Insect Phylogeny. Syst. Biol. 2004, 53, 506–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Xie, Q.; Bu, W.; Zheng, L. The Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of the 18S rRNA sequences from the main lineages of Trichophora (Insecta: Heteroptera: Pentatomomorpha). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2005, 34, 448–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Li, H.M.; Deng, R.Q.; Wang, J.W.; Chen, Z.Y.; Jia, F.L.; Wang, X.Z. A preliminary phylogeny of the Pentatomomorpha (Hemiptera: Heteroptera) based on nuclear 18S rDNA and mitochondrial DNA sequences. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2005, 37, 313–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Li, H.M.; Deng, R.Q.; Wang, X.Z. Phylogenetic relationships of the Pentatomomorpha (Hemiptera: Heteroptera) inferred from nuclear 18S rDNA sequences. Zool. Res. 2006, 27, 307–316. [Google Scholar]
  12. Xie, Q.; Lin, J.; Qin, Y.; Zhou, J.; Bu, W. Structural diversity of eukaryotic 18S rRNA and its impact on alignment and phylogenetic reconstruction. Protein Cell 2011, 2, 161–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Li, M.; Tian, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Bu, W. Higher Level Phylogeny and the First Divergence Time Estimation of Heteroptera (Insecta: Hemiptera) Based on Multiple Genes. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e32152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Neefs, J.M.; van der Peer, Y.; De Rijk, P.; Chapelle, S.; De Wachter, R. Compilation of small ribosomal subunit RNA structures. Nucleic Acids Res. 1993, 21, 3025–3049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Ouvrard, D.; Campbell, B.C.; Bourgoin, T.; Chan, K.L. 18S rRNA Secondary Structure and Phylogenetic Position of Peloridiidae (Insecta, Hemiptera). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2000, 16, 403–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wuyts, J.; van de Peer, Y.; de Wachter, R. Distribution of substitution rates and location of insertion sites in the tertiary structure of ribosomal RNA. Nucleic Acids Res. 2001, 29, 5017–5028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Misof, B.; Niehuis, O.; Bischoff, I.; Rickert, A.; Erpenbeck, D.; Staniczek, A. A Hexapod Nuclear SSU rRNA Secondary-Structure Model and Catalog of Taxon-Specific Structural Variation. J. Exp. Zool. B Mol. Dev. Evol. 2006, 306B, 70–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Keller, A.; Förster, F.; Müller, T.; Dandekar, T.; Schultz, J.; Wolf, M. Including RNA secondary structures improves accuracy and robustness in reconstruction of phylogenetic trees. Biol. Direct 2010, 5, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Yu, S.; Wang, Y.; Rédei, D.; Xie, Q.; Bu, W. Secondary structure models of 18S and 28S rRNAs of the true bugs based on complete rDNA sequences of Eurydema maracandica Oshanin, 1871 (Heteroptera, Pentatomidae). ZooKeys 2013, 319, 363–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wu, Y.Z.; Yu, S.S.; Wang, Y.H.; Wu, Y.H.; Li, X.R.; Men, X.Y.; Zhang, Y.W.; Rédei, D.; Xie, Q.; Bu, W.J. The evolutionary position of Lestoniidae revealed by molecular autapomorphies in the secondary structure of rRNA besides phylogenetic reconstruction (Insecta: Hemiptera: Heteroptera). Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 2016, 177, 750–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Xie, Q.; Tian, Y.; Zheng, L.; Bu, W. 18S rRNA hyper-elongation and the phylogeny of Euhemiptera (Insecta: Hemiptera). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2008, 47, 463–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Seidenstücker, G. Heteroptera aus Iran 1956 III: Thaumastella aradoides Horvarth, eine Lygaeide ohne Ovipositor. Stuttg. Beitr. Naturkd. 1960, 11, 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  23. Štys, P. Thaumastellidae–A new family of pentatomoid Heteroptera. Acta Soc. Entomol. Čechoslov. 1964, 61, 238–253. [Google Scholar]
  24. Schaefer, C.W.; Wilcox, D.B. A new species of Thaumastellidae (Hemiptera: Pentatomoidea) from southern Africa. J. Entomol. Soc. S. Afr. 1971, 34, 207–214. [Google Scholar]
  25. Jacobs, D.H. A new species of Thaumastella with notes in the morphology, biology and distribution of the two Southern African species (Heteroptera: Thaumastellidae). J. Entomol. Soc. S. Afr. 1989, 52, 302–316. [Google Scholar]
  26. Lis, J.A. Cydnidae Billberg, 1820–Burrowing bugs (burrower bugs). In Catalogue of the Heteroptera of the Palaearctic Region; Pentatomomorpha II; Aukema, B., Rieger, C., Eds.; Netherlands Entomological Society: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2006; Volume 5, pp. 119–147. [Google Scholar]
  27. Schuh, R.T.; Weirauch, C. True Bugs of the World (Hemiptera: Heteroptera). Classification and Natural History, 2nd ed.; Monograph Series 8; Siri Scientific Press: Rochdale, UK, 2020; 767p. [Google Scholar]
  28. Linnavuori, R. Hemiptera of the Sudan, with remarks on some species of the adjacent countries. 5. Tingidae, Piesmidae, Cydnidae, Thaumastellidae and Plataspidae. Acta Zool. Fenn. 1977, 147, 1–81. [Google Scholar]
  29. Linnavuori, R.E. Cydnidae of West, Central and North-East Africa (Heteroptera). Acta Zool. Fenn. 1993, 192, 1–148. [Google Scholar]
  30. Horváth, G. Hemiptera nova palaearctica. Természetrajzi Füz. 1896, 19, 322–329. [Google Scholar]
  31. Ueshima, N. Animal Cytogenetics. Insecta 6. Hemiptera II: Heteroptera; Gebrüder Borntraeger: Berlin, Germany; Stuttgart, Germany, 1979; Volume 117, 528p. [Google Scholar]
  32. Jacobs, D.H.; Apps, P.J.; Viljoen, H.W. The composition of the defensive secretions of Thaumastella namaquensis and T. elizabethae with notes on the higher classification of the Thaumastellidae (Insecta: Heteroptera). Comp. Biochem. Physiol. B Biochem. Mol. Biol. 1989, 93, 459–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Pluot-Sigwalt, D.; Lis, J.A. Morphology of the spermatheca in the Cydnidae (Hemiptera: Heteroptera): Bearing of its diversity on classification and phylogeny. Eur. J. Entomol. 2008, 105, 279–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Schaefer, C.W. The food plants of some “primitive” Pentatomoidea (Hemiptera: Heteroptera). Phytophaga 1988, 2, 19–45. [Google Scholar]
  35. Weirauch, C.; Schuh, R.T.; Cassis, G.; Wheeler, W.C. Revisiting habitat and lifestyle transitions in Heteroptera (Insecta: Hemiptera): Insights from a combined morphological and molecular phylogeny. Cladistics 2019, 35, 67–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Roca-Cusachs, M.; Schwertner, C.F.; Kim, J.; Eger, J.; Grazia, J.; Jung, S. Opening Pandora’s box: Molecular phylogeny of the stink bugs (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Pentatomidae) reveals great incongruences in the current classification. Syst. Entomol. 2022, 41, 36–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Schaefer, C.W. The sound-producing structures of some primitive Pentatomoidea (Hemiptera: Heteroptera). J. N. Y. Entomol. Soc. 1981, 88, 230–235. [Google Scholar]
  38. Henry, T.J. Phylogenetic analysis of family groups within the infraorder Pentatomomorpha (Hemiptera: Heteroptera), with emphasis on the Lygaeoidea. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 1997, 90, 275–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Popov, Y.; Pinto, I.D. On some Mesozoic burrower bugs (Heteroptera: Cydnidae). Paleontol. J. 2000, 34 (Suppl. S3), 298–302. [Google Scholar]
  40. Grazia, J.; Schuh, R.T.; Wheeler, W.C. Phylogenetic relationships of family groups in Pentatomoidea based on morphology and DNA sequences (Insecta: Heteroptera). Cladistics 2008, 24, 932–976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Henry, T.J.; Footit, R.G. Biodiversity of Heteroptera. In Insect Biodiversity; Footit, R.G., Adler, P.H., Eds.; Science and Society, Wiley-Blackwell: Chichester, UK; Hoboken, UK, 2009; pp. 233–263. [Google Scholar]
  42. Lis, J.A. Coxal combs in the Cydnidae sensu lato and three other related “cydnoid” families–Parastrachiidae, Thaumastellidae, Thyreocoridae (Hemiptera: Heteroptera): Functional, taxonomic, and phylogenetic significance. Zootaxa 2010, 2476, 53–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Rider, D.A.; Schwertner, C.F.; Vilímová, J.; Rédei, D.; Kment, P.; Thomas, D.B. Higher systematics of the Pentatomoidea. In Invasive Stink Bugs and Related Species (Pentatomoidea): Biology, Higher Systematics, Semiochemistry, and Management; McPherson, J.E., Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2018; pp. 25–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bianchi, F.M.; Barão, K.R.; Grassi, A.; Ferrari, A. A milestone for Pentatomoidea: Grazia et al. 2008-What do we know and where can we go? Zootaxa 2021, 4958, 406–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Yao, Y.-Z.; Ren, D.; Rider, D.A.; Cai, W.-Z. Phylogeny of the infraorder Pentatomomorpha based on fossil and extant morphology, with description of a new fossil family from China. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e37289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Dolling, W.L. A rationalised classification of the burrower bugs (Cydnidae). Syst. Entomol. 1981, 6, 61–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zrzavý, J. Evolution of antennal sclerites in Heteroptera (Insecta). Acta Univ. Carol. Biol. 1990, 34, 189–227. [Google Scholar]
  48. Gapud, V.P. A generic revision of the subfamily Asopinae, with consideration of its phylogenetic position in the family Pentatomidae and superfamily Pentatomoidea (Hemiptera-Heteroptera). Philipp Entomol. 1991, 8, 865–961. [Google Scholar]
  49. Schuh, R.T.; Slater, J.A. True Bugs of the World (Hemiptera: Heteroptera). Classification and Natural History; Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY, USA; London, UK, 1995; 337p. [Google Scholar]
  50. Hwang, U.W.; Ree, H.I.; Kim, W. Evolution of hypervariable regions, V4 and V7, of insect 18S rRNA and their phylogenetic implications. Zool. Sci. 2000, 17, 111–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Justi, S.S.; Russo, C.A.M.; Santos-Mallet, J.R.; Obara, M.T.; Galvão, C. Molecular phylogeny of Triatomini (Hemiptera: Reduviidae: Triatominae). Parasites Vectors 2014, 7, 149–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Wang, Y.H.; Cui, Y.; Rédei, D.; Baňař, P.; Xie, Q.; Štys, P.; Damgaard, J.; Chen, P.P.; Yi, W.B.; Wang, Y.; et al. Phylogenetic divergences of the true bugs (Insecta: Hemiptera:Heteroptera), with emphasis on the aquatic lineages: The last piece of the aquatic insect jigsaw originated in the Late Permian/EarlyTriassic. Cladistics 2016, 32, 390–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kim, J.; Jung, S. Phylogeny of the plant bug subfamily Mirinae (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Cimicomorpha: Miridae) based on total evidence analysis. Syst. Entomol. 2019, 44, 686–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Sweeney, R.; Chen, L.; Yao, M.C. An rRNA Variable Region Has an Evolutionarily Conserved Essential Role despite Sequence Divergence. Mol. Cell Biol. 1994, 14, 4203–4215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Zhang, W.; Tian, W.; Gao, Z.; Wang, G.; Zhao, H. Phylogenetic Utility of rRNA ITS2 Sequence-Structure under Functional Constraint. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 6395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kiss, T. Small Nucleolar RNAs An Abundant Group of Noncoding RNAs with Diverse Cellular Functions. Cell 2002, 109, 145–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Zemann, A.; op de Bekke, A.; Kiefmann, M.; Brosius, J.; Schmitz, J. Evolution of small nucleolar RNAs in nematodes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006, 34, 2676–2685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Schmitz, J.; Zemann, A.; Churakov, G.; Kuhl, H.; Grützner, F.; Reinhardt, R.; Brosius, J. Retroposed SNOfall-A mammalian-wide comparison of platypus snoRNAs. Genome Res. 2008, 18, 1005–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Bratkovič, T.; Božič, J.; Rogelj, B. Functional diversity of small nucleolar RNAs. Nucleic Acids Res. 2020, 48, 1627–1651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Soulé, S.; Mellottee, L.; Arab, A.; Chen, C.; Martin, J.-R. Jouvence, a new small nucleolar RNA required in the gut extends lifespan in Drosophila. Nat. Comm. 2020, 11, 987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Schaefer, C.W.; Dolling, W.R.; Tachikawa, S. The shieldbug genus Parastrachia and its position within the Pentatomoidea (Insecta: Hemiptera). Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 1988, 93, 283–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Sweet, M.H.; Schaefer, C.W. Parastrachiinae (Hemiptera: Cydnidae) raised to family level. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 2002, 95, 442–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Lis, J.A.; Heyna, J. Metathoracic wing venation in Cydnidae (Hemiptera: Heteroptera) and its bearing on the classification of the family. Ann. Zool. 2001, 51, 429–465. [Google Scholar]
  64. Lis, J.A.; Schaefer, C.W. Tibial combs in the Cydnidae (Hemiptera: Heteroptera) and their functional, taxonomic and phylogenetic significance. J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res. 2005, 43, 277–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Lis, J.A. The mesothoracic wing and its phylogenetic significance in Cydnidae (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Pentatomoidea). Pol. J. Entomol. 2002, 71, 43–71. [Google Scholar]
  66. Lis, J.A. Pretarsal structures in the family Parastrachiidae (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Pentatomoidea). Zootaxa 2010, 2693, 60–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Tachikawa, S.; Schaefer, C.W. The biology of Parastrachia japonensis (Hemiptera: Pentatomoidea: ?-dae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 1985, 78, 387–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Nakahira, T. Production of trophic eggs in the subsocial burrower bug Admerus (sic) triguttulus. Naturwissenschaften 1994, 81, 413–414. [Google Scholar]
  69. Filippi, L.; Hironaka, M.; Nomakuchi, S. A review of the ecological parameters and implications of subsociality in Parastrachia japonensis (Hemiptera: Cydnidae), a semalparous species that specializes on a poor resource. Popul. Ecol. 2001, 43, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Hironaka, M.; Nomakuchi, S.; Iwakuma, S.; Filippi, L. Trophic egg production in a subsocial shield bug, Parastrachia japonensis Scott (Heteroptera: Parastrachiidae), and its functional value. Ethology 2005, 111, 1089–1102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Agrawal, A.F.; Combs, N.; Brodie, E.D. Insights into the costs of complex maternal care behavior in the burrower bug (Sehirus cinctus). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2005, 57, 566–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Filippi, L.; Baba, N.; Inadomi, K.; Yanagi, T.; Hironaka, M.; Nomakuchi, S. Pre- and post-hatch trophic egg production in the subsocial burrower bug, Canthophorus niveimarginatus (Heteroptera: Cydnidae). Naturwissenschaften 2009, 96, 201–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Inadomi, K.; Wakiyama, M.; Hironaka, M.; Mukai, H.; Filippi, L.; Nomakuchi, S. Postovipositional maternal care in the burrower bug, Adomerus rotundus (Hemiptera: Cydnidae). Can. Entomol. 2014, 146, 211–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Tian, X.; Xie, Q.; Li, M.; Gao, C.; Cui, Y.; Xi, L.; Bu, W. Phylogeny of pentatomomorphan bugs (Hemiptera-Heteroptera: Pentatomomorpha) based on six Hox gene fragments. Zootaxa 2011, 2888, 57–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Lis, J.A.; Lis, P.; Ziaja, D.J.; Kocorek, A. Systematic position of Dinidoridae within the superfamily Pentatomoidea (Hemiptera: Heteroptera) revealed by the Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of the mitochondrial 12S and 16S rDNA sequences. Zootaxa 2012, 3423, 61–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Reuter, J.S.; Mathews, D.H. RNAstructure: Software for RNA secondary structure prediction and analysis. BMC Bioinform. 2010, 11, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Tillier, E.R.M.; Collins, R.A. High apparent rate of simultaneous compensatory base-pair substitutions in ribosomal RNA. Genetics 1998, 148, 1993–2002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Gutell, R.R.; Lee, J.C.; Cannone, J.J. The accuracy of ribosomal RNA comparative structure models. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2002, 12, 301–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Wang, J.; Wang, J.; Huang, Y.; Xiao, Y. 3dRNA v2. 0: An Updated Web Server for RNA 3D Structure Prediction. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 4116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Bellaousov, S.; Mathews, D.H. ProbKnot: Fast prediction of RNA secondary structure including pseudoknots. RNA 2010, 16, 1870–1880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Witwer, C.; Hofacker, I.L.; Stadler, P.F. Prediction of consensus RNA secondary structures including pseudoknots. IEEE/ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinform. 2004, 1, 66–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Staple, D.W.; Butcher, S.E. Pseudoknots: RNA Structures with Diverse Functions. PLoS Biol. 2005, 3, e213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Popenda, M.; Szachniuk, M.; Antczak, M.; Purzycka, K.J.; Lukasiak, P.; Bartol, N.; Blazewicz, J.; Adamiak, R.W. Automated 3D structure composition for large RNAs. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012, 40, e112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Biesiada, M.; Purzycka, K.J.; Szachniuk, M.; Blazewicz, J.; Adamiak, R.W. Automated RNA 3D structure prediction with RNAComposer. In RNA Structure Determination. Methods in Molecular Biology; Turner, D., Mathews, D., Eds.; Humana Press: New York, NY, USA, 2016; Volume 1490, pp. 199–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Schrödinger, L.; DeLano, W. PyMOL, version 2.4.0; Schrödinger, LLC: New York, NY, USA, 2020; Available online: http://www.pymol.org/pymol (accessed on 14 February 2023).
  86. Wu, H.-Y.; Wang, Y.-H.; Xie, Q.; Ke, Y.-L.; Bu, W.-J. Molecular classification based on apomorphic amino acids (Arthropoda, Hexapoda): Integrative taxonomy in the era of phylogenomics. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 28308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Gutell, R.R. Ten lessons with Carl Woese about RNA and comparative analysis. RNA Biol. 2014, 11, 254–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Hajdin, C.E.; Ding, F.; Dokholyan, N.V.; Weeks, K.M. On the significance of an RNA tertiary structure prediction. RNA 2010, 16, 1340–1349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. von Reumont, B.M.; Meusemann, K.; Szucsich, N.U.; Dell’Ampio, E.; Gowri-Shankar, V.; Bartel, D.; Simon, S.; Letsch, H.O.; Stocsits, R.R.; Luan, Y.X.; et al. Can comprehensive background knowledge be incorporated into substitution models to improve phylogenetic analyses? A case study on major arthropod relationships. BMC Evol. Biol. 2009, 9, 119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Wheeler, W.C.; Schuh, R.T. Direct Submission to GenBank. 2003. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov (accessed on 10 January 2022).
  91. Futahashi, R.; Tanaka, K.; Tanahashi, M.; Nikoh, N.; Kikuchi, Y.; Lee, B.L.; Fukatsu, T. Gene expression in gut symbiotic organ of stinkbug affected by extracellular bacterial symbiont. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e64557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijms 24 07758 g001 550
Figure 1. 18S rRNA of Thaumastella elizabethae. (A) Secondary structure model. The bases marked in colour represent the hypervariable regions (V2—red, V4—dark blue, V7—green). Thirteen length-variable regions (LVRs) are labelled as capital letters B to W in colours analogous to the base colours representing the hypervariable regions or other sequences’ regions. The capital letters in filled circles indicate six LVRs (E, F, G, L, S, and T) considered to be those that can serve as molecular synapomorphies or autapomorphies in analyses. Base pairing is shown as follows: standard canonical pairs are lines (G–C, A–U), wobble G:U pairs are dots (G·U), A:G or A:C pairs are open circles (A; G, A; C) and other non-canonical pairs are filled circles (e.g., U and U, A and A). The nucleotide numbering follows Wu et al. [20]. (B) Tertiary structure model. The fragments marked in colour represent the hypervariable regions (V2—red, V4—dark blue, V7—green).
Figure 1. 18S rRNA of Thaumastella elizabethae. (A) Secondary structure model. The bases marked in colour represent the hypervariable regions (V2—red, V4—dark blue, V7—green). Thirteen length-variable regions (LVRs) are labelled as capital letters B to W in colours analogous to the base colours representing the hypervariable regions or other sequences’ regions. The capital letters in filled circles indicate six LVRs (E, F, G, L, S, and T) considered to be those that can serve as molecular synapomorphies or autapomorphies in analyses. Base pairing is shown as follows: standard canonical pairs are lines (G–C, A–U), wobble G:U pairs are dots (G·U), A:G or A:C pairs are open circles (A; G, A; C) and other non-canonical pairs are filled circles (e.g., U and U, A and A). The nucleotide numbering follows Wu et al. [20]. (B) Tertiary structure model. The fragments marked in colour represent the hypervariable regions (V2—red, V4—dark blue, V7—green).
Ijms 24 07758 g001
Ijms 24 07758 g002 550
Figure 2. Secondary structure models of the length-variable region L. (A) Riptortus pedestris (outgroup). (B) Lestonia haustorifera (Lestoniidae). (C) Parastrachia japonensis (Parastrachiidae). (D) Thaumastella elizabethae (Thaumastellidae). Specific subregion bases are marked in the same colour.
Figure 2. Secondary structure models of the length-variable region L. (A) Riptortus pedestris (outgroup). (B) Lestonia haustorifera (Lestoniidae). (C) Parastrachia japonensis (Parastrachiidae). (D) Thaumastella elizabethae (Thaumastellidae). Specific subregion bases are marked in the same colour.
Ijms 24 07758 g002
Ijms 24 07758 g003 550
Figure 3. Tertiary structure models of the 18S rRNA gene. (A) Riptortus pedestris (outgroup). (B) Parastrachia japonensis (Parastrachiidae). (C) Lestonia haustorifera (Lestoniidae). (D) Thaumastella elizabethae (Thaumastellidae). The hypervariable regions are marked in red (V2), dark blue (V4) and green (V7).
Figure 3. Tertiary structure models of the 18S rRNA gene. (A) Riptortus pedestris (outgroup). (B) Parastrachia japonensis (Parastrachiidae). (C) Lestonia haustorifera (Lestoniidae). (D) Thaumastella elizabethae (Thaumastellidae). The hypervariable regions are marked in red (V2), dark blue (V4) and green (V7).
Ijms 24 07758 g003
Ijms 24 07758 g004 550
Figure 4. Combined tertiary structure models of the 18S rRNA gene in 15 analysed consensus species. All sequences were aligned to the outgroup (Riptortus pedestris) sequence. The hypervariable regions are marked in red (V2), dark blue (V4) and green (V7).
Figure 4. Combined tertiary structure models of the 18S rRNA gene in 15 analysed consensus species. All sequences were aligned to the outgroup (Riptortus pedestris) sequence. The hypervariable regions are marked in red (V2), dark blue (V4) and green (V7).
Ijms 24 07758 g004
Ijms 24 07758 g005 550
Figure 5. Tertiary structure models of the 18S rRNA gene in sole and combined aligned views. (A) Thaumastella elizabethae (Thaumastellidae). (B) Cantao ocellatus (Scutelleridae). (C) Elasmostethus interstinctus (Acanthosomatidae). (D) Lestonia haustorifera (Lestoniidae). (E) Urochela luteovaria (Urostylididae). The hypervariable regions are marked in red (V2), dark blue (V4) and green (V7).
Figure 5. Tertiary structure models of the 18S rRNA gene in sole and combined aligned views. (A) Thaumastella elizabethae (Thaumastellidae). (B) Cantao ocellatus (Scutelleridae). (C) Elasmostethus interstinctus (Acanthosomatidae). (D) Lestonia haustorifera (Lestoniidae). (E) Urochela luteovaria (Urostylididae). The hypervariable regions are marked in red (V2), dark blue (V4) and green (V7).
Ijms 24 07758 g005
Ijms 24 07758 g006 550
Figure 6. The LVR L position (marked in light blue) within the hypervariable region V4 in the tertiary structure models of the 18S rRNA gene. (A) Riptortus pedestris (outgroup). (B) Parastrachia japonensis (Parastrachiidae). (C) Lestonia haustorifera (Lestoniidae). (D) Thaumastella elizabethae (Thaumastellidae). The hypervariable regions are marked in red (V2), dark blue (V4) and green (V7). All sequences are aligned to the outgroup (R. pedestris) sequence.
Figure 6. The LVR L position (marked in light blue) within the hypervariable region V4 in the tertiary structure models of the 18S rRNA gene. (A) Riptortus pedestris (outgroup). (B) Parastrachia japonensis (Parastrachiidae). (C) Lestonia haustorifera (Lestoniidae). (D) Thaumastella elizabethae (Thaumastellidae). The hypervariable regions are marked in red (V2), dark blue (V4) and green (V7). All sequences are aligned to the outgroup (R. pedestris) sequence.
Ijms 24 07758 g006
Ijms 24 07758 g007 550
Figure 7. The predicted tertiary structure models of the LVR L. (A) Riptortus pedestris (outgroup). (B) Canopus sp. (Canopidae). (C) Cantao ocellatus (Scutelleridae). (D) Adomerus biguttatus (Cydnidae: Sehirinae). (E) Parastrachia japonensis (Parastrachiidae). (F) Fromundus pygmaeus (Cydnidae: Cydninae). The arrows corresponding in colour to the particular LVR L subregion indicate the fragments that can serve as potential morpho-molecular derived characters: (1, 2) synapomorphies, (3) autapomorphy. Sequences are aligned to the outgroup (R. pedestris) sequence.
Figure 7. The predicted tertiary structure models of the LVR L. (A) Riptortus pedestris (outgroup). (B) Canopus sp. (Canopidae). (C) Cantao ocellatus (Scutelleridae). (D) Adomerus biguttatus (Cydnidae: Sehirinae). (E) Parastrachia japonensis (Parastrachiidae). (F) Fromundus pygmaeus (Cydnidae: Cydninae). The arrows corresponding in colour to the particular LVR L subregion indicate the fragments that can serve as potential morpho-molecular derived characters: (1, 2) synapomorphies, (3) autapomorphy. Sequences are aligned to the outgroup (R. pedestris) sequence.
Ijms 24 07758 g007
Ijms 24 07758 g008 550
Figure 8. The predicted tertiary structure models of the LVR L. (A) Riptortus pedestris (outgroup). (B) Eurostus validus (Tessaratomidae). (C) Lestonia haustorifera (Lestoniidae). (D) Megymenum sp. (Megymeninae). (E) Urochela luteovaria (Urostylididae). (F) Thaumastella elizabethae (Thaumastellidae). The arrows corresponding in colour to the particular LVR L subregion indicate the fragments that can serve as potential morpho-molecular autapomorphies (1, 2). Sequences are aligned to the outgroup (R. pedestris) sequence.
Figure 8. The predicted tertiary structure models of the LVR L. (A) Riptortus pedestris (outgroup). (B) Eurostus validus (Tessaratomidae). (C) Lestonia haustorifera (Lestoniidae). (D) Megymenum sp. (Megymeninae). (E) Urochela luteovaria (Urostylididae). (F) Thaumastella elizabethae (Thaumastellidae). The arrows corresponding in colour to the particular LVR L subregion indicate the fragments that can serve as potential morpho-molecular autapomorphies (1, 2). Sequences are aligned to the outgroup (R. pedestris) sequence.
Ijms 24 07758 g008
Ijms 24 07758 g009 550
Figure 9. The predicted tertiary structure models of the LVR L. (A) Riptortus pedestris (outgroup). (B) Coptosoma scutellatum (Plataspidae). (C) Elasmostethus interstinctus (Acanthosomatidae). (D) Eurydema maracandica (Pentatomidae). (E) Thyreocoris scarabaeoides (Thyreocoridae). The arrows corresponding in colour to the particular LVR L subregion indicate the fragments that can serve as potential morpho-molecular autapomorphies (1–4). Sequences are aligned to the outgroup (R. pedestris) sequence.
Figure 9. The predicted tertiary structure models of the LVR L. (A) Riptortus pedestris (outgroup). (B) Coptosoma scutellatum (Plataspidae). (C) Elasmostethus interstinctus (Acanthosomatidae). (D) Eurydema maracandica (Pentatomidae). (E) Thyreocoris scarabaeoides (Thyreocoridae). The arrows corresponding in colour to the particular LVR L subregion indicate the fragments that can serve as potential morpho-molecular autapomorphies (1–4). Sequences are aligned to the outgroup (R. pedestris) sequence.
Ijms 24 07758 g009
Ijms 24 07758 g010 550
Figure 10. The predicted tertiary structure models of the LVR L, showing ring structures and hydrogen bonds. (A) Riptortus pedestris (outgroup). (B) Adomerus biguttatus (Cydnidae: Sehirinae). (C) Parastrachia japonensis (Parastrachiidae). (D) Fromundus pygmaeus (Cydnidae: Cydninae). (E) Thaumastella elizabethae (Thaumastellidae). (F) Coptosoma scutellatum (Plataspidae). (G) Elasmostethus interstinctus (Acanthosomatidae). The arrows corresponding in colour to the particular LVR L subregion indicate the fragments that can serve as potential morpho-molecular synapomorphies (1, 2) and autapomorphies (3–9). All sequences are aligned to the outgroup (R. pedestris) sequence.
Figure 10. The predicted tertiary structure models of the LVR L, showing ring structures and hydrogen bonds. (A) Riptortus pedestris (outgroup). (B) Adomerus biguttatus (Cydnidae: Sehirinae). (C) Parastrachia japonensis (Parastrachiidae). (D) Fromundus pygmaeus (Cydnidae: Cydninae). (E) Thaumastella elizabethae (Thaumastellidae). (F) Coptosoma scutellatum (Plataspidae). (G) Elasmostethus interstinctus (Acanthosomatidae). The arrows corresponding in colour to the particular LVR L subregion indicate the fragments that can serve as potential morpho-molecular synapomorphies (1, 2) and autapomorphies (3–9). All sequences are aligned to the outgroup (R. pedestris) sequence.
Ijms 24 07758 g010
Table
Table 1. The number of nucleotides of the hypervariable regions V2, V4, and V7 in the 18S rRNA of the analysed taxa. For the ‘consensus species’ definition, see the ‘Materials and Methods’ section.
Table 1. The number of nucleotides of the hypervariable regions V2, V4, and V7 in the 18S rRNA of the analysed taxa. For the ‘consensus species’ definition, see the ‘Materials and Methods’ section.
Taxon GroupConsensus SpeciesNumber of Nucleotides
V2 V4 V7
outgroupRiptortus pedestris (Fabricius, 1775)19231891
AcanthosomatidaeElasmostethus interstinctus (Linnaeus, 1758)19431791
CanopidaeCanopus sp.19331691
Cydnidae: CydninaeFromundus pygmaeus (Dallas, 1851)19331791
Cydnidae: SehirinaeAdomerus biguttatus (Linnaeus, 1758)19431691
DinidoridaeMegymenum sp.19331691
LestoniidaeLestonia haustorifera19431891
ParastrachiidaeParastrachia japonensis (Scott, 1880)19331690
PentatomidaeEurydema maracandica (Oshanin, 1871)19331691
PlataspidaeCoptosoma scutellatum (Geoffroy, 1785)19332091
ScutelleridaeCantao ocellatus (Thunberg, 1784)19331691
TessaratomidaeEurostus validus (Dallas, 1851)19331691
ThaumastellidaeThaumastella elizabethae (Jacobs, 1989)19431890
ThyreocoridaeThyreocoris scarabaeoides (Linnaeus, 1758)19431691
UrostylididaeUrochela luteovaria (Distant, 1881)19431691
Table
Table 2. The nucleotide numbers of the LVRs in the 18S rRNA of the analysed taxa.
Table 2. The nucleotide numbers of the LVRs in the 18S rRNA of the analysed taxa.
Taxon GroupNumber of Nucleotides
BDEFGLMSTURWX
outgroup10–114–54–52072–78458–913434–6
Acanthosomatidae114–55–62074–7545813435–8
Canopidae1145207345813435
Cydnidae: Cydninae11452073–8145813435
Cydnidae: Sehirinae11452073–7545813435
Dinidoridae1145207345813434–5
Lestoniidae1146207545813435
Parastrachiidae11452073–78458–1013435
Pentatomidae11452072–7445813435
Plataspidae1145207745813435
Scutelleridae1145207345813435
Tessaratomidae1145207345813435
Thaumastellidae11452172–7545813435
Thyreocoridae11452071–7445813435
Urostylididae11–12452073–74458–913435
Table
Table 3. The nucleotide numbers of the subregions of the LVR L. The autapomorphies for Thaumastellidae are indicated in red, Plataspidae in purple, Lestoniidae in green, Acanthosomatidae in yellow, Thyreocoridae in grey and Cydnidae (specifically Cydninae) in blue.
Table 3. The nucleotide numbers of the subregions of the LVR L. The autapomorphies for Thaumastellidae are indicated in red, Plataspidae in purple, Lestoniidae in green, Acanthosomatidae in yellow, Thyreocoridae in grey and Cydnidae (specifically Cydninae) in blue.
Taxon GroupConsensus SpeciesTotal LengthNumber of Nucleotides of the LVR L Subregions
L2LA (A1 + A2)LB (B1 + B2)LC (C1 + C2)LD (D1 + D2)LE (E1 + E2)
outgroupR. pedestris75414 (7 + 7)16 (9 + 7)14 (7 + 7)9 (6 + 3)18 (9 + 9)
AcanthosomatidaeE. interstinctus74415 (7 + 8)16 (9 + 7)14 (7 + 7)9 (6 + 3)16 (8 + 8)
CanopidaeCanopus sp.73414 (7 + 7)16 (9 + 7)14 (7 + 7)9 (6 + 3)16 (8 + 8)
Cydnidae: CydninaeF. pygmaeus74414 (7 + 7)16 (9 + 7)15 (8 + 7)9 (6 + 3)16 (8 + 8)
Cydnidae: SehirinaeA. biguttatus73612 (6 + 6)18 (10 + 8)14 (7 + 7)9 (6 + 3)14 (7 + 7)
DinidoridaeMegymenum sp.73414 (7 + 7)16 (9 + 7)12 (6 + 6)11 (7 + 4)16 (8 + 8)
LestoniidaeL. haustorifera75414 (7 + 7)20 (11 + 9)13 (6 + 7)8 (5 + 3)16 (8 + 8)
ParastrachiidaeP. japonensis73612 (6 + 6)18 (10 + 8)14 (7 + 7)9 (6 + 3)14 (7 + 7)
PentatomidaeE. maracandica73414 (7 + 7)16 (9 + 7)12 (6 + 6)11 (7 + 4)16 (8 + 8)
PlataspidaeC. scutellatum77418 (9 + 9)14 (10 + 4)16 (8 + 8)10 (5 + 5)15 (7 + 8)
ScutelleridaeC. ocellatus73414 (7 + 7)16 (9 + 7)14 (7 + 7)9 (6 + 3)16 (8 + 8)
TessaratomidaeE. validus73414 (7 + 7)16 (9 + 7)12 (6 + 6)11 (7 + 4)16 (8 + 8)
ThaumastellidaeT. elizabethae75 3 17 (9 + 8)11 (6 + 5)16 (8 + 8)8 (5 + 3)20 (10 + 10)
ThyreocoridaeT. scarabaeoides74614 (7 + 7)17 (10 + 7)14 (7 + 7)9 (6 + 3)14 (7 + 7)
UrostylididaeU. luteovaria73414 (7 + 7)16 (9 + 7)14 (7 + 7)9 (6 + 3)16 (8 + 8)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lis, J.A. Molecular Apomorphies in the Secondary and Tertiary Structures of Length-Variable Regions (LVRs) of 18S rRNA Shed Light on the Systematic Position of the Family Thaumastellidae (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Pentatomoidea). Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 7758. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24097758

AMA Style

Lis JA. Molecular Apomorphies in the Secondary and Tertiary Structures of Length-Variable Regions (LVRs) of 18S rRNA Shed Light on the Systematic Position of the Family Thaumastellidae (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Pentatomoidea). International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2023; 24(9):7758. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24097758

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lis, Jerzy A. 2023. "Molecular Apomorphies in the Secondary and Tertiary Structures of Length-Variable Regions (LVRs) of 18S rRNA Shed Light on the Systematic Position of the Family Thaumastellidae (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Pentatomoidea)" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 24, no. 9: 7758. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24097758

APA Style

Lis, J. A. (2023). Molecular Apomorphies in the Secondary and Tertiary Structures of Length-Variable Regions (LVRs) of 18S rRNA Shed Light on the Systematic Position of the Family Thaumastellidae (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Pentatomoidea). International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 24(9), 7758. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24097758

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop