First discovery of parasite eggs in a vertebrate coprolite of the Late Triassic in Thailand

Abstract

A paleoparasitological investigation of a vertebrate coprolite from the Huai Hin Lat Formation (Upper Triassic) was carried out. Five morphotypes of potential parasite eggs or sporocysts were identified in the coprolite by microscopic analysis using thin section technique. The rounded or oval shape and thick shell of one of the five morphotypes suggests that it belongs to nematode of the order Ascaridida. Systematic assignment of other morphotypes cannot be done in detail but suggests that the host was parasitized by different species of parasites. This is the first record of parasites in terrestrial vertebrate hosts from the Late Triassic in Asia and it provides new information on parasite-host interactions during the Mesozoic era.

Introduction

Paleoparasitology is the investigation of parasites found in paleontological and archaeological sites [1–9]. Although specialized parasites producing traces in hard tissues have sometimes been partly identified [10–16], other parasites have a very poor fossil record because the soft tissues of the host in which they occur are rarely preserved, except in exceptional conditions such as in amber [10, 11]. Another important source of parasite remains are coprolites, i.e., fossilized faecal material, which can shed light on trophic chains [4, 8, 17–19].

Several reports have described parasite eggs in coprolites [3–6, 8, 18]. The assignment of coprolites to a specific host is challenging, but their different shapes can provide systematic information [20, 21]. The insights into parasite-host interactions derived from these discoveries allow a better understanding of palaeo-coevolution and palaeo-ecosystems [6, 17–19].

Helminth eggs have been described in vertebrate coprolites, including those of Permian sharks [6], cynodonts, dinosaurs [5, 8] and other Mesozoic archosaurs. and Quaternary mammals, e.g., hyena, deer and sloth [22–24]. We report the discovery of parasites, including helminth egg, in a Late Triassic vertebrate coprolite from Northeast Thailand. The coprolite was collected by a Thai-French joint paleontological field survey in 2010 during a field work in the Huai Nam Aun outcrop near Nong Yakong village (Khon San District, Chaiyaphum Province, Thailand). The coprolite is preserved in the collections of the Palaeontological Research and Education Centre, Mahasarakham University, Mahasarakham province in Thailand under the catalogue number PRC 021.

The Huai Nam Aun outcrop contains various beds of limestone and mudstone, deposited in brackish water or freshwater and in a low energy depositional environment [25]. The vertebrate fossil remains in the outcrop consist of Hybodus teeth, ganoid fish scales, and temnospondyl fragments [25–27]. The Huai Nam Aun outcrop is part of the Huai Hin Lat Formation (Fig 1), which has been dated as Carnian-Norian based on palynomorphs, plant macro-remains, conchostracans, and vertebrate remains [28–32]. So far, the vertebrate fossils found in the Huai Hin Lat Formation comprise Hybodus sp. [25, 33], ginglymodians [25, 34, 35], lungfishes (possibly Ferganoceratodus sp.) [36, 37], temnospondyls (including Cyclotosaurus and Plagiosauridae) [25, 27, 38, 39], the primitive stem-turtle Proganochelys ruchae [40, 41], and phytosaurs [42]. Furthermore, archosauromorph footprints were identified as cf. ichnogenus Apatopus sp., and could have been done by a phytosaur [43].

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Materials and methods

The studied coprolite was photographed, measured, and classified based on its shape. To search for internal structures and fossil inclusion, the coprolite was hardened by embedding in epoxy resin, and then cut with a diamond saw in longitudinal and transversal sections using a standard thin section method. The coprolite slices were glued to glass slides, and optimal thickness for transmission microscopy was obtained using a grinder with a graded series [6, 44]. All microscopic structures and fossil remains were photographed with a light microscope Nikon ECLIPSE E200, and multiple images taken with different focal distances were combined using a focus stacking technique.

Results

The coprolite has an elongated cylindrical shape, curved on one side, with a rounded end (Fig 2), and is approximately 74 mm in length and 21 mm in diameter. The surface is hard, smooth and grey in colour. Microscopic observations of all slides showed a dark, high-density clay-like material and absence of soft tissue, e.g., folded or spiral traces. Five different morphotypes of organic structures were visible in the coprolite slices.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Morphotype I: ellipsoid in shape with a round to oval sections (Fig 3) and 40 to 60 μm wide and 50 to 70 μm long. They exhibit a hardly discernible and relatively thin shell (1 to 2μm) and show internal structures that could correspond to dividing cytoplasmic or nuclear material (Fig 3A). The most elongated one (Fig 3D) shows an apical opening (micropyle or operculum).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Morphotype II: spherical in shape (Fig 4) with a diameter of around 80 μm and a thick (3–4 μm) and irregular shell that is interrupted and could present a pore; the surface shows slightly developed wrinkles.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Morphotype III: irregular ellipsoid shape (Fig 5) with a minimum diameter of 80 μm and a maximal diameter of 120 μm) with a very thick shell (10 μm) and it shows a segmented or multicellular body within the shell.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Morphotype IV: spherical rounded shape (Fig 6) with a clearly defined shell of 3 to 5 μm, with a reticulated and anastomosed surface ornamentation. This morphotype is 80 to 140 μm in diameter. Within that structure, no clear cellular or nuclear material can be observed and there is no evidence of pore or operculum.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Morphotype V ellipsoid shape (Fig 7) with a very thick shell (7 to 9 μm). It is 60 μm long and 43 μm wide. In this morphotype, a second translucent layer is observable within the shell and is irregular in thickness (2 to 7 μm). There is no evidence of operculum, and the ornamentation of external surface is not properly appreciated.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Discussion and systematic assessment

The sedimentological conditions of the site where the coprolite was found allowed the preservation of parasites and other organic structures in the coprolite. Microscopic observation of thin sections revealed the highly well-preserved internal structures of the organic structures. This approach had yielded similar results in a study of tapeworm eggs in a shark coprolite [6].

The five observed morphotypes are potentially eggs of parasite. Morphotypes II and IV present some ornamentation on external surfaces. No clearly organized bodies could be defined within these structures. Ornamented surfaces could initially correspond to the sporoderm of fern or moss spores that might have been ingested but not digested by the animal. However, our sections are not showing any fern or moss spore diagnostic features (structures are not triangular or kidney shaped, there is no indication of aperture or sporogenesis scars). The wrinkled surface could correspond to the diagnostic surface of nematode eggs. Using chemical methods may have provided information the external characteristic ornamentation, as in the studies of fossilized Ascaridida eggs using chemical methods [3, 5, 8, 45], but they cannot provide important information on internal structures.

Morphotypes I, III and V apparently do not present trace of ornamentation and are likely not plant spores but rather parasite elimination form through the feces of their hosts. A large number of parasite groups carry out these elimination steps (protists and helminths). Morphotype I is relatively small and could potentially correspond to unicellular cyst (i.e., Coccidia). Protist cysts have been found in terrestrial coprolites dating back to the early Cretaceous period [45]. Oocysts of coccidians, such as Eimeria, overlap in size range with this morphotype [46, 47]. Morphotype III shows a well-developed shell and organized bodies within the shell. It could be a nematode egg with a developed embryo, but confirmation requires other diagnostic characters.

The ellipsoid shape and thick wall of morphotype V are diagnostic traits of eggs of Ascaridida nematodes [48]. Parasites of this order are commonly found in terrestrial vertebrates such as fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammal-like reptiles, and mammals [3, 5, 8, 49, 50]. Fossil eggs of nematodes have been ascribed to the genus Ascarites. The earliest fossil record of Ascarididae eggs, ascribed to Ascarites rufferi is Triassic and comes from a cynodont coprolite from Rio Grande do Sul State in Brazil [5]. Other Mesozoic findings are Ascarites gerus and Ascarites priscus [45] from Early Cretaceous archosaur coprolites (iguanodontian dinosaur) in Belgium, and Ascaridida eggs discovered in Crocodyliformes coprolites from the Early Cretaceous in Brazil [3]. Morphotype V differs from Ascarites priscus by its smoother shell and slightly larger size and by its more homogeneous vitelline layers, it differs also from Ascarites gerus and A rufferi by its smooth and thicker shell. Other individual eggs must be found and studied using both thin sections and chemical techniques to be able to create a new taxon.

The cylindrical and curved shape of the coprolite and the absence of prey remains are typical of the Crurotarsi, especially crocodile-like animals [3, 20, 51, 52]. Crocodiles are not known in Huai Hin Lat but abundant vertebrate assemblages have been discovered in several outcrops of the Huai Hin Lat Formation including actinopterygian fishes [25, 34, 35], lungfish [36, 37], temnospondyls [25, 27, 38, 39], turtles [40, 41], and phytosaurs [42]. The studied coprolite was therefore likely produced by a crocodile-like reptile, possibly a phytosaur, a reptile that evolved convergently with crocodilians, and whose tooth and bone remains have been found in the same formation [25, 42, 43].

The discovery of at least six parasites with at least five different morphotypes in a single coprolite suggests that multi-parasite infection was common had already diversified by the late Triassic. The presence of the Ascaridida eggs and the evidence for multi-infection found in the coprolite can presumably be explained by the predatory habits of the host, which would have been parasitized by feeding on parasitized fishes, amphibians, or other reptiles [3, 4, 18].

Conclusion

Parasites of several species, including Ascaridida eggs were found in a coprolite probably produced by a crocodile-like reptile and possibly a phytosaur. This is therefore the first discovery of Ascaridida eggs and evidence of multi-infection in a host assignable to the Crurotarsi from the Late Triassic of Asia.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all staff of the Palaeontological Research and Education Centre (PRC) of Mahasarakham University who took part in the fieldwork.

Citation: Nonsrirach T, Morand S, Ribas A, Manitkoon S, Lauprasert K, Claude J (2023) First discovery of parasite eggs in a vertebrate coprolite of the Late Triassic in Thailand. PLoS ONE 18(8): e0287891. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287891

About the Authors:

Thanit Nonsrirach

Roles: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original draft

E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation: Palaeontological Research and Education Centre, Mahasarakham University, Kantarawichai, Mahasarakham, Thailand

ORICD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7432-628X

Serge Morand

Roles: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations: MIVEGEC, CNRS – IRD – Montpellier Université, Montpellier, France, Faculty of Veterinary Technology, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand

ORICD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3986-7659

Alexis Ribas

Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations: Parasitology Section, Department of Biology, Healthcare and Environment, Faculty of Pharmacy and Food Science, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain, Institut de Recerca de la Biodiversitat (IRBio), Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

ORICD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1256-3316

Sita Manitkoon

Roles: Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Writing – original draft

Affiliation: Palaeontological Research and Education Centre, Mahasarakham University, Kantarawichai, Mahasarakham, Thailand

Komsorn Lauprasert

Roles: Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Resources

Affiliation: Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Mahasarakham University, Kantarawichai, Mahasarakham, Thailand

Julien Claude

Roles: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations: Institut des Sciences de l’Évolution de Montpellier (ISEM), Montpellier Université, UMR UM/CNRS/IRD/EPHE, Montpellier, France, Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand

References

1. Anastasiou E, Mitchell PD. Simplifying the process of extracting intestinal parasite eggs from archaeological sediment samples: A comparative study of the efficacy of widely-used disaggregation techniques. Int J Paleopathol. 2013;3: 204–207. pmid:29539457

2. Beltrame MO, Fugassa MH, Barberena R, Sauthier DE Udrizar, Sardella NH. New record of anoplocephalid eggs (Cestoda: Anoplocephalidae) collected from rodent coprolites from archaeological and paleontological sites of Patagonia, Argentina. Parasitol Int. 2013;62: 431–434. pmid:23602736

3. Cardia DFF, Bertini RJ, Camossi LG, Letizio LA. The first record of ascaridoidea eggs discovered in crocodyliformes hosts from the upper cretaceous of Brazil. Rev Bras Paleontol. 2018;21: 238–244.

4. Cardia DFF, Bertini RJ, Camossi LG, Letizio LA. First record of Acanthocephala parasites eggs in coprolites preliminary assigned to Crocodyliformes from the Adamantina Formation (Bauru Group, Upper Cretaceous), São Paulo, Brazil. An Acad Bras Cienc. 2019;91Suppl. 2: e20170848. pmid:31090797

5. Silva PAD, Borba VH, Dutra JMF, Leles D, Da-Rosa AAS, Ferreira LF, et al. A new ascarid species in cynodont coprolite dated of 240 million years. An Acad Bras Cienc. 2014;86: 265–270. pmid:24519010

6. Dentzien-Dias PC, Poinar G, de Figueiredo AEQ, Pacheco ACL, Horn BLD, Schultz CL. Tapeworm eggs in a 270 million-year-old shark coprolite. PLoS One. 2013;8: 8–11. pmid:23383033

7. Dittmar K, Steyn M. Paleoparasitological analysis of coprolites from K2, an Iron Age archaeological site in South Africa: the first finding of Dicrocoelium sp. eggs. J Parasitol. 2004;90: 171–173. pmid:15040686

8. Hugot J-P, Gardner SL, Borba V, Araujo P, Leles D, Stock Da-Rosa ÁA, et al. Discovery of a 240 million year old nematode parasite egg in a cynodont coprolite sheds light on the early origin of pinworms in vertebrates. Parasit Vectors. 2014;7: 1–8. pmid:25495824

9. Beltrame MO, Fugassa MH, Sardella NH, Civalero MT, Aschero C. Raptor pellets as zooarchaeological material for paleoparasitological studies in Patagonia. J Archaeol Sci. 2011;38: 1511–1515.

10. Poinar G, Buckley R. Nematode (Nematoda: Mermithidae) and hairworm (Nematomorpha: Chordodidae) parasites in Early Cretaceous amber. J Invertebr Pathol. 2006;93: 36–41. pmid:16737709

11. Poinar GO, Currie DC. Mermithid nematode (Nematoda: Mermithidae) parasites of a fossil black fly (Diptera: Simuliidae) in Baltic amber. Nematology. 2020;22: 655–658.

12. Balinski A, Sun Y, Dzik J. Traces of marine nematodes from 470 million years old Early Ordovician rocks in China. Nematology. 2013;15: 567–574.

13. Brachaniec T, Niedźwiedzki R, Surmik D, Krzykawski T, Szopa K, Gorzelak P, et al. Coprolites of marine vertebrate predators from the Lower Triassic of southern Poland. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol. 2015;435: 118–126.

14. Klompmaker AA, Boxshall GA. Fossil crustaceans as parasites and hosts. Adv Parasitol. 2015;90: 233–289. pmid:26597069

15. Littlewood DTJ, Donovan SK. Feature: Fossil parasites: a case of identity. Geol Today. 2003;19: 136–142.

16. Lukševics E, Lebedev O, Mark-Kurik E, Karatajūtė-Talimaa V. The earliest evidence of host–parasite interactions in vertebrates. Acta Zool. 2009;90: 335–343.

17. De Baets K, Littlewood DTJ. Fossil Parasites. Academic Press; 2015.

18. Barrios-de Pedro S, Osuna A, Buscalioni ÁD. Helminth eggs from Early Cretaceous faeces. Sci Reports 2020 101. 2020;10: 1–8. pmid:33127992

19. Leung TLF. Fossils of parasites: what can the fossil record tell us about the evolution of parasitism? Biol Rev. 2017;92: 410–430. pmid:26538112

20. Dentzien-Dias P, Carrillo-Briceño JD, Francischini H, Sánchez R. Paleoecological and taphonomical aspects of the Late Miocene vertebrate coprolites (Urumaco Formation) of Venezuela. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol. 2018;490: 590–603.

21. Hunt AP, Lucas SG. Descriptive terminology of coprolites and recent feces. Vertebr Coprolites New Mex Museum Nat Hist Sci Bull. 2012;57: 153–160.

22. Ferreira LF, Araújo A, Duarte AN, Araujo A. Nematode larvae in fossilized animal coprolites from Lower and Middle Pleistocene sites, Central Italy. J Parasitol. 1993;79: 440–442. pmid:8501604

23. Ferreira LF, Araújo A, Confalonieri U, Chame M, Ribeiro B. Eimeria oocysts in deer coprolites dated from 9,000 years BP. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 1992;87: 105–106.

24. Schmidt GD, Duszynski DW, Martin PS. Parasites of the extinct Shasta ground sloth, Nothrotheriops shastensis, in Rampart Cave, Arizona. J Parasitol. 1992;78: 811–816.

25. Laojumpon C, Deesri U, Khamha S, Wattanapituksakul A, Lauprasert K, Suteethorn S, et al. New vertebrate-bearing localities in the Triassic of Thailand. J Sci Technol MSU. 2014;4: 335–343.

26. Laojumpon C, Matkhammee T, Wathanapitaksakul A, Suteethorn V, Suteethorn S, Lauprasert K, et al. Preliminary report on coprolites from the Late Triassic of Thailand. Vertebr Coprolites New Mex Museum Nat Hist Sci Bull. 2012;57: 207–213.

27. Nonsrirach T, Manitkoon S, Lauprasert K. First occurrence of brachyopid temnospondyls in Southeast Asia and review of the Mesozoic amphibians from Thailand. Foss Rec. 2021;24: 33–47.

28. Buffetaut E, Suteethorn V. The biogeographical significance of the Mesozoic vertebrates from Thailand. Biogeogr Geol Evol SE Asia. 1998; 83–90.

29. Department of Mineral Resources. The Geology of Thailand. 1st ed. Bangkok, Thailand: Department of Mineral Resources, Ministry of Natural Reources and Environment; 2014.

30. Kobayashi T. Upper Triassic estheriids in Thailand and the conchostracan development in Asia in the Mesozoic Era. Geol Palaeontol Southeast Asia. 1975;16: 57–90. Available: https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/10007415985/

31. Racey A, Love M., Canham A., Goodall JGS. Stratigraphy and reservoir potential of the Mesozoic Khorat Group, NE Thailand. Pet Geol. 1996; 5–40. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1747-5457.1996.tb00511.x

32. Racey A, Goodall JGS. Palynology and stratigraphy of the Mesozoic Khorat Group red bed sequences from Thailand. Geol Soc London, Spec Publ. 2009;315: 69–83.

33. Manitkoon S, Deesri U, Lauprasert K, Warapeang P, Nonsrirach T, Nilpanapan A, et al. Fossil assemblage from the Khok Pha Suam locality of northeastern, Thailand: an overview of vertebrate diversity from the Early Cretaceous Khok Kruat Formation (Aptian-Albian). Foss Rec 25(1) 83–98. 2022;25: 83–98.

34. Martin M. The actinopterygian scales and teeth (PISCES) from the continental; Upper Triassic of Thailand, their paleogeographical significance. Mémoires la Société géologique Fr. 1984; 101–105.

35. Deesri U, Lauprasert K, Varavudh S, Wongko K, Cavin L. A new species of the ginglymodian fish Isanichthys (Actinopterygii, Holostei) from the Late Jurassic Phu Kradung Formation, northeastern Thailand. Acta Palaeontol Pol. 2014;59: 313–331.

36. Cavin L, Deesri U, Suteethorn V. The Jurassic and Cretaceous bony fish record (Actinopterygii, Dipnoi) from Thailand. Geological Society Special Publication. Geological Society of London; 2009. pp. 125–139.

37. Deesri U, Wongko K, Cavin L. Taxic diversity and ecology of Mesozoic bony fish assemblages from the Khorat Group, NE Thailand. Res Knowl. 2017;3: 18–22.

38. Ingavat R, Janvier P. Cyclotosaurus cf. posthumus Fraas (Capitosauridae, Stereospondyli) from the Huai Hin Lat Formation (Upper Triassic), Northeastern Thailand: with a note on capitosaurid biogeography. Geobios. 1981;14: 711–725.

39. Suteethorn V, Janvier P, Morales M. Evidence for a plagiosauroid amphibian in the Upper Triassic Huai Hin Lat Formation of Thailand. J Southeast Asian Earth Sci. 1988;2: 185–187.

40. Broin de france. Proganochelys ruchae n. sp., chélonien du Trias supérieur de Thailande. Stud Geol Salamanticensia, Stud Palaeocheloniologica. 1984;1: 87–97. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285363434

41. Tong H, Claude J, Buffetaut E, Suteethorn V, Naksri W, Chitsing S. Fossil turtles of Thailand: an updated review. In Papers from the 2005 Heyuan International dinosaur symposium. Beijing: Geological Publishing House; 2006. pp. 183–194.

42. Buffetaut E, Ingavat R. Phytosaur remains (Reptilia, Thecodontia) from the Upper Triassic of North-Eastern Thailand. Geobios. 1982;15: 7–17.

43. Kozu.Shohei. Dinosaur Footprints from the Khorat Group, Northeastern Thailand. University of Tsukuba. 2017.

44. Chin K. The paleobiological implications of herbivorous dinosaur coprolites from the Upper Cretaceous Two Medicine Formation of Montana: why eat wood? Palaios. 2007;22: 554–566.

45. Poinar G, Boucot AJ. Evidence of intestinal parasites of dinosaurs. Parasitology. 2006;133: 245. pmid:16623965

46. Yang R, Brice B, Ryan U. Morphological and molecular characterization of Eimeria purpureicephali n. sp. (Apicomplexa:Eimeriidae) in a red-capped parrot (Purpureicephalus spurius, Kuhl, 1820) in Western Australia. Int J Parasitol Parasites Wildl. 2016;5: 34–39. pmid:26977403

47. Fugassa MH, Sardella NH, Taglioretti V, Reinhard KJ, Araújo A. Eimeriid Oocysts from Archaeological Samples in Patagonia, Argentina. J Parasitol. 2008;94: 1418–1420. pmid:18576839

48. Maurelli MP, Alves LC, Aggarwal CS, Cociancic P, Levecke B, Cools P, et al. Ascaris lumbricoides eggs or artefacts? A diagnostic conundrum. Parasitology. 2021;148: 1554–1559. pmid:34250886

49. Bouchet F, Araújo A, Harter S, Chaves SM, Duarte AN, Monnier JL, et al. Toxocara canis (Werner, 1782) eggs in the Pleistocene site of Menez-Dregan, France (300,000–500,000 years before present). Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2003;98: 137–139. Available: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0074-02762003000900020&script=sci_arttext

50. Sprent JFA. Ascaridoid nematodes of amphibians and reptiles: Orneoascaris. Ann Parasitol Hum Comp. 1985;60: 33–55.

51. Lucas SG, Spielmann JA, Hunt AP, Emry RJ. Crocodylian coprolites from the Eocene of the Zaysan Basin, Kazakstan. Vertebr Coprolites New Mex Museum Nat Hist Sci Bull. 2012;57: 319–324.

52. Milàn J. Crocodylian scatology–a look into morphology, internal architecture, inter-and intraspecific variation and prey remains in extant crocodylian feces. Vertebr Coprolites New Mex Museum Nat Hist Sci Bull. 2012;57: 65–71.