|
The debate about whether head and body lice belong to the same species
rages on.
Here's two articles from both sides on the issue:

Centuries-Old
Lice Row Settled at Last?
AFP
Sept. 9, 2004 — A controversy over lice
that has had zoologists scratching their heads for almost 250 years may be
resolved, says a report in next Saturday's New Scientist.
The squabble dates back to 1758 when Carl
Linnaeus, the father of the taxonomic system for classifying organisms,
declared there was one species of human louse which he boldly baptized
Pediculus humanus.
Linnaeus then became racked by nitpicking
doubt, sometimes agonizing that there might in fact be two species of
human lice, not one.
The debate has raged ever since.
Backers of the two-species theory point out
that body lice are bigger than head lice and live in clothes rather than
in head hair.
Body lice can also transmit diseases such as
typhus and trench fever, something that head lice have never been known to
do.
One-species advocates say that in lab
conditions head and body lice can interbreed, which means they must be the
same species. However, this is not necessarily the case — under artificial
conditions, certain organisms can breed together successfully even though
they are distinct species.
Genetic detective work using 100-percent
guaranteed wild lice has now found the answer.
DNA fingerprinting of 443 head and body lice,
collected from seven boys in Nepal and four girls in Inner Mongolia, show
"two genetically distinct populations," the British scientific weekly
says.
Despite this, there is still room for a fresh
spat, for the next challenge will be to agree on names for the two
species.
Name: Human Louse
(Pediculus humanus)
Primary Classification: Anoplura (Sucking Lice)
Location: Anywhere inhabited by humans.
Habitat: Human body.
Diet: Human blood.
Size: Around 0.08 inches in length.
Description: Reddish-brown; short, segmented antennae; two pairs of
eyes; sucking mouthparts; long, segmented torso, which in females is
forked at the end; six claw-like legs.
Cool Facts: Lice have killed more humans than any other insect
except the malaria mosquito.
Conservation Status: Common
Picture Courtesy of HeadLice.Org
Copyright © 2004 Discovery Communications Inc.
BACK TO TOP |
Adobe Acrobat Required
To print this article click the icon in the boxed area below
BACK TO TOP
| SHORT COMMUNICATION
Evidence from Mitochondrial DNA That Head Lice and Body Lice of
Humans (Phthiraptera: Pediculidae) are Conspecific
N. P. LEO,1,2 N.J.H. CAMPBELL,2 X. YANG,3 K. MUMCUOGLU,4 AND S. C. BARKER2
J. Med. Entomol. 39(4): 662Ð666 (2002)
ABSTRACT The speciÞc status of the head and body lice of humans has been debated for more than
200 yr. To clarify the speciÞc status of head and body lice, we sequenced 524 base pairs (bp) of the
cytochrome oxidase I (COI) gene of 28 head and 28 body lice from nine countries. Ten haplotypes
that differed by 1Ð5 bp at 11 nucleotide positions were identiÞed. A phylogeny of these sequences
indicates that these head and body lice are not from reciprocally monophyletic lineages. Indeed, head
and body lice share three of the 10 haplotypes we found. FST values and exact tests of haplotype
frequencies showed signiÞcant differences between head and body lice. However, the same tests also
showed signiÞcant differences among lice from different countries. Indeed, more of the variation in
haplotype frequencies was explained by differences among lice from different countries than by
differences between head and body lice. Our results indicate the following: (1) head and body lice
do not represent reciprocally monophyletic lineages and are conspeciÞc; (2) gene ßow among
populations of lice from different countries is limited; and (3) frequencies of COI haplotypes can be
used to study maternal gene ßow among populations of head and body lice and thus transmission of
lice among their human hosts.
KEY WORDS Pediculus humanus, Pediculus capitis, lice, Phthiraptera, Pediculidae, cytochrome
oxidase I
ALTHOUGH THE HEAD and body lice of humans are very
similar morphologically, investigators have reported
consistent morphological differences between the
two types (Busvine 1978, Schaefer 1978, Tarasevich et
al. 1988). Head and body lice interbreed readily in the
laboratory, yet one study of their morphology suggested
they do not interbreed in nature (Busvine
1978). However, whether or not these lice are conspeciÞc
remains controversial (Durden and Musser
1994, Burgess 1995, Khudobin 1995). We studied a
fragment of the cytochrome oxidase I (COI) gene of
mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from lice collected
from nine countries. Our aim was to collect evidence
that would clarify the speciÞc status of head and body
lice. If they are different species, we would expect
head and body lice to be reciprocally monophyletic
lineages; whereas if they are conspeciÞc, we would
expect that these two types of lice would not be in
reciprocally monophyletic lineages (clades). We also
1 E-mail address: n.leo@imb.uq.edu.au.
2 Department of Microbiology & Parasitology, and Institute for
3
Molecular Biosciences and ARC Special ResearchCentre for Functional
and Applied Genomics, University of Queensland, Brisbane,
Queensland, 4072, Australia.
Animal Medical Department, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University,
Huhehot, 010018, China.
4 Department of Parasitology, Hebrew University, HadassahMedical
School (P.O. Box 12272), and the Department of Dermatology,
HadassahUniversity Hospital (P.O. Box 12000), 91120 Jerusalem,
Israel.
0022-2585/02/0662Ð0666$02.00/0 2002 Entomological Society of America
examined genetic differentiation among different
populations of these lice using FST values and exact
tests of haplotype frequency differences.
Materials and Methods
Lice from nine countries were studied: Australia,
China, Hungary, Israel, Japan, Kenya, New Zealand,
Papua New Guinea, and the United States (28 head
and 28 body lice, Table 1). These included four lice
from Inner Mongolia Province in China that were
from two hosts infested withbothh ead lice and body
lice. We sampled one head louse and one body louse
from each of these two hosts.
DNA was extracted from lice by either a phenolchloroform
method (Sambrook et al. 1989) or with
chelex beads (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA). The latter involved
crushing a louse with a micropestle in a tissue
grinding tube withliquid nitrogen. One milliliter of
boiling 5% chelex beads in 1TE buffer withRNaseA
(1 l of 25 mg/ml RNaseA for every 100 ml of chelex
in 1 TE buffer) was added to the tube and then put
in boiling water for 15 min. Tubes were cooled for 10
min at 20C and then spun in a microcentrifuge at
12,000g for 10 min. Three microliters of the top layer
was used in each25 l polymerase chain reaction
(PCR). The insect-speciÞc primer C1-J-1718 (forward:
5-GGAGGATTTGGAAATTGATTAGTTCC-
3) (Simon et al. 1994) and a primer speciÞc to Pediculus
humanus (designed by N.L.) C1-N-2191
July 2002
Table 1. Location and hosts of the lice used in this study
Country
Australia
China
Hungary
Israel
Japan
Kenya
New Zealand
Papua New Guinea
Auckland
Askaroff, Lake Murray
Hole in the wall village, Madang
United States of America Orlando, Florida & Washington DC
(reverse:5-CCAGGAAGAATAAGAATATAAACTTC-
3) were used to amplify 524 bp of the mitochondrial
COIgene. Primer names refer to where they anneal by
gene, strand and 3 base position relative to the Drosophila
yakuba sequence (after Simon et al. 1994).
PCR reactions contained 1Ð3 l of DNA template, 2.5
l of Reaction Buffer IV at 10 concentration (AB
Gene, Epsom, UK), 2.25 l of MgCl2 (25 mM), 1.1 l
of dNTPs (5 mM), 0.3 l of eachprimer (10 M), 0.2
l of Red Hot Taq polymerase (AB Gene), and MilliQ
water to a Þnal volume of 25 l. The cycling conditions
were 94C for 1 min; 35 cycles of 30 s at 94C, 30 s at
55C, and 40 s at 68C; and a Þnal extension time of 5
min at 68C. PCR products were visualized under UV
light after electrophoresis in an ethidium bromidestained
agarose gel. If insufÞcient DNA was ampliÞed
Locality
Townsville, Queensland
Brisbane, Queensland
Cele, Cele County, Xinjiang Province
Yiliqi, Hotan County, Xinjiang Province
Huhehot, Inner Mongolia Province
Longxi County, Ganshu Province
Budapest
Bet-Shemesh
Sapporo
Tokyo
Nairobi
Head
Head
Body
Body
Body
Head
Head
Head
Body
Body
Head
Body
Mountain village, Inner Mongolia Province Body, Head
Body, Head
Head
Head
Head
Head
Body
Body
Head
Body
Head
Head
Head
Body
Table 2. Variable sites in the 524 bp region of the cytochrome oxidase I (COI) gene of Pediculus humanus, and the haplotypes found
in each country
91 106 116 120 150 255 264 291 345 357 453
T T G C C A T G A A T
A . . . . . . . . . .
A . . . T . . . . G C 3
A . . . . G . . . . .
A . . . T . C . T G .
A . . . T . . . . G .
A . . T . . . . . . .
A . . . T . . A . G .
A . A . . . . . . . .
A A . . . . . . . . . 10
Sites are numbered according to the alignment of sequences. A dot indicates identity with the sequence of haplotype 1. AUS, Australia; CHI,
China; HUN, Hungary; ISR, Israel; JAP, colony originally from Japan; KEN, Kenya; NZ, New Zealand; PNG, Papua New Guinea; USA, colony
originally from the United States of America; H, head lice; B, body lice.
No. of lice from eachh aplotype from eachlocality Base position
HUN ISR JAP CHI Haplotype AUS
Total
H H B H H B H B H H B
1 1
2 1 7 3 1 1 2 3 3
1 9
1 3
2
1
4 1
5
6
7
8
9
1
1
3 3 27
10
6
3
4
2
1
1
1
2 29 1 3 5 6 3 4 3 56
1
3
1
NZ PNG USA KEN
3 1
LEO ET AL.: MTDNA FROM THE HEAD AND BODY LICE OF HUMANS
Type
for sequencing, hot-start PCR was attempted with a
fresh sample of DNA from that louse. The conditions
for hot-start PCR were 5 min at 94C, polymerase
added, 2 min at 94C; 35 cycles of 30 s at 94C, 30 s at
55C and 40 s at 68C; and then 5 min at 68C. PCR
products were puriÞed withQiaquick columns (QIAGEN,
Venlo, The Netherlands) and sequenced directly
(DyeDeoxy Terminator; PE Applied Biosystems,
Foster City, CA) withth e PCR primers (above),
by an ABI 377 gene sequencer. The Þrst 24 lice were
sequenced withbothforward and reverse primers.
This revealed haplotypes 1Ð5. The rest of the lice were
sequenced with the forward primer only. If the sequence
data indicated a new haplotype, or if the identity
of a nucleotide was ambiguous, the gene was then
sequenced withth e reverse primer.
Haplotype (s)
2
4
2, 2, 2
3, 3, 3
3, 3, 10
2, 2
2, 2
2, 2, 3
1, 3
3, 3, 3,
2
6
6, 7
6, 6
7
8
2
2, 4, 9
5, 5, 5
2, 2
2, 2, 2
2, 2, 2
4, 4, 4
2, 2, 4
2
2, 2, 2
663
Host
1 louse from 1 host
1 louse from 1 host
3 lice from 1 host
3 lice from 1 host
3 lice from 1 host
2 lice from 1 host
2 lice from 1 host
3 head lice from 3 separate hosts
2 lice from 1 host
3 body lice from 3 separate hosts
1 louse from 1 host
1 louse from 1 host
2 lice from a double infestation
2 lice from a double infestation
1 louse from 1 host
1 louse from 1 host
1 louse from 1 host
3 lice from 3 separate hosts
3 lice from a laboratory colony
2 lice from 1 host
3 lice pooled from 3 hosts
3 lice pooled from 3 hosts
3 lice pooled from 5 hosts
3 lice from 3 separate hosts
1 louse from 1 host
3 lice from a laboratory colony
JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ENTOMOLOGY 664
Fig. 1. The single most parsimonious (shortest) unrooted tree (11 steps) of the 10 haplotypes of head and body lice
from a branchand bound searchin PAUP. There was only one internal branchin this tree; it had a bootstrap support of
86%. Numbers in circles show the haplotype identiÞcation number (refer to Table 2). The size of the circles indicates the
frequency of the haplotypes. Shaded areas indicate the proportion of body lice; nonshaded areas indicate the proportion of
head lice.
Sequences were aligned by eye in Sequencher 3.1.1
(GeneCodes Corporation,AnnArbor, MI), then comparedwithCOI
sequences of other insects inGenBank
to check that the COI had been ampliÞed. We executed
a branchand bound searchin PAUP 4.0b3a
(Swofford 1998) to Þnd the maximum parsimony
tree(s) for the sequences, and then tested the robust-
Vol. 39, no. 4
ness of these relationships with 1,000 cycles of bootstrap
resampling.
Arlequin 2.000 (Schneider et al. 2000) was used to
calculate FST values and to execute an exact test of
sample differentiation from haplotype frequencies, for
differences between all head and body lice tested, and
for differences among lice from different countries.
LEO ET AL.: MTDNA FROM THE HEAD AND BODY LICE OF HUMANS July 2002
Results
There was little nucleotide variation among the lice
we studied: we found 10 COI haplotypes in the 56 lice
from nine countries. These haplotypes differed from
eachoth er by 1Ð5 base substitutions (0.2Ð1.1%) at 11
variable sites in the 524 bp fragment (Table 2). Eight
of the substitutions were conservative (silent) transitions
at the third codon position. The other three
substitutions were, relative to the most common haplotype,
nonconservative transversions in haplotypes 1
and 10 at the Þrst codon position, and in haplotype 9
at the second codon position (sites 91, 106, and 116,
respectively, Table 2). Haplotype 2 was the most common
and widespread haplotype overall; it was found
in 27 of the 56 lice and in lice from all countries except
New Zealand (GenBank accession number
AF320286). This haplotype was the most common
haplotype in both head lice (16 of 28 lice) and body
lice (11 of 28 lice) (Table 2).
The single most parsimonious tree of the COI haplotypes
had 11 steps and only one internal branch; this
branch had bootstrap support of 86% (Fig. 1). This
internal branchdivided the lice into two clades: one
withbothh ead and body lice from all nine countries
(haplotypes 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, and 10) and the other with
head and body lice from China and Japan (haplotypes
3, 5, 6, and 8). Haplotypes from bothof these clades
were found in a head louse (haplotype 7) and a body
louse (haplotype 6) from one host in Inner Mongolia
Province, in China. Both lice from the other host
infested withtwo types of lice (also from Inner Mongolia
Province) had haplotype 6.
Bothth e FST values and the exact test of haplotype
frequencies showed signiÞcant differences between
head and body lice (FST 0.09, P 0.00880; exact P
value 0.00000). However, bothtests also showed
signiÞcant differencesamonglice from different countries
(FST0.23, P0.00098; exact P value0.00236).
Some infestations (lice from one host) had more
than one haplotype (Table 1). Of nine hosts, from
which two to three lice were studied, three hosts had
lice withtwo different haplotypes: (1) a person from
Xinjiang Province in China had two body lice with
haplotype 3, and one body louse with haplotype 10;
(2) another person from Xinjiang Province in China
had one body louse with haplotype 1 and another body
louse withh aplotype 3; and (3) a girl from a remote
mountain village in Inner Mongolia Province in China
had a body louse with haplotype 6 and a head louse
withh aplotype 7.
Discussion
We examined 28 head and 28 body lice from nine
countries. Ten COI haplotypes were identiÞed. Phylogenetic
analysis revealed a single tree withone internal
branch that separated haplotypes 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, and
10 from 3, 5, 6, and 8. Bothof these clades contained
head and body lice; therefore, the phylogeny of the
COI sequences indicates that head and body lice do
not come from reciprocally monophyletic lineages.
665
This is evidence that head and body lice are conspeciÞc,
however, we note that the phylogeny of a single
gene does not necessarily indicate the true phylogeny.
But it is noteworthy that head and body lice share
three of 10 haplotypes. These shared haplotypes may
be ancestral Pediculus humanus haplotypes that have
been retained by bothtypes of lice after divergence,
or the shared haplotypes may be evidence of conspeciÞcity.
Wepropose that haplotype 2 is anancestral
P. humanus haplotype, because it iscommonand widespread.
Haplotypes 3 and 6 were common in the two
provinces in China, Xinjiang Province and Inner Mongolia
Province, respectively, but were not found in any
other locations, so they are probably not ancestral
haplotypes. Therefore, the simplest explanation for
the presence of haplotypes 3 and 6 in both head and
body lice is that head and body lice are conspeciÞc.
We looked for differences between head and body
lice by comparing haplotype frequencies. The FST and
exact tests showed signiÞcant differences between the
haplotype frequencies of head and body lice. However,
comparison of lice from different countries explained
even more of the variation in haplotype frequencies;
this is further evidence for conspeciÞcity.
Our results from COI provide evidence that the
head and body lice of humans belong to the same
species. The COI sequences from the head and body
lice that we studied did not come from reciprocally
monophyletic lineages. Indeed, the head and body lice
shared three of the 10 haplotypes we found, which is
evidence for conspeciÞcity. Moreover, analysis of haplotype
frequencies showed that although there were
signiÞcant differences between the head and body lice
we studied, more of the variation was explained by
differences among lice from different countries than
by differences between head and body lice. Further
analyses of COI should reveal much about transmission
and maternal gene ßow among populations of lice
on global, local and individual host levels.
Acknowledgments
We thank the following for their help in collecting and
donating the head and body lice used in this study: Wen
Chao, Mutsuo Kobayashi, James Opiyo Ochanda, Ricardo
Palma, Lajos Rozsa, Renfu Shao, and Richard Speare.
References Cited
Burgess, I. F. 1995. Human lice and their management. Adv.
Parasitol. 36: 271Ð342.
Busvine, J. R. 1978. Evidence from double infestations for
the speciÞc status of human head and body lice (Anoplura).
Syst. Entomol. 3: 1Ð8.
Durden, L. A., and G. G. Musser. 1994. The sucking lice
(Insecta: Anoplura) of the world: A taxonomic checklist
with records of mammalian hosts and geographical distributions.
Bull. Am. Mus. Natl. Hist. 218: 1Ð90.
Khudobin, V. V. 1995. The adaptive potentials of human
head and clothes lice when parasitizing on man. Medskaya.
Parazitol. 1: 23Ð25.
JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ENTOMOLOGY 666
Sambrook, J., E. F. Fritsch, and T. Maniatis. 1989. Molecular
cloning: a laboratory manual. Cold Spring Harbor Press,
Cold Spring Harbor, New York.
Schaefer, C. W. 1978. Ecological separation of the human
head and body lice (Anoplura: Pediculidae). Trans. R.
Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 72: 669.
Schneider, S., D. Roessli, and L. Excoffier. 2000. Arlequin.A
software for population genetics data analysis, version
2.000. Genetics and Biometry Laboratory, University of
Geneva, Switzerland.
Simon, C., F. Frati, A. Beckenbach, B. Crespi, H. Liu, and P.
Flook. 1994. Evolution, weighting and phylogenetic
utility of mitochondrial gene sequences and a compila-
Vol. 39, no. 4
tion of conserved polymerase chain reaction primers.
Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 87: 651Ð701.
Swofford, D. L. 1998. PAU, p. 4.0-phylogenetic analysis using
parsimony computer program, version 4. Sinauer,
Sunderland, MA.
Tarasevich, I. V., A. A. Zemskaya, and V. V. Khudobin. 1988.
Diagnostics of the species of lice genus Pediculus. Medskaya.
Parazitol. 1: 48Ð52.
Received for publication 18 December 2000; accepted 2 October
2001.
|
|