# The Spore Killers, Fungal Meiotic Driver Elements

Aaron A. Vogan, Ivain Martinossi-Allibert, S. Lorena Ament-Velásquez, Jesper Svedberg, Hanna Johannesson

► To cite this version:

Aaron A. Vogan, Ivain Martinossi-Allibert, S. Lorena Ament-Velásquez, Jesper Svedberg, Hanna Johannesson. The Spore Killers, Fungal Meiotic Driver Elements. Mycologia, 2022, 114 (1), pp.1-23.
10.1080/00275514.2021.1994815. hal-04833236

HAL Id: hal-04833236

https://cnrs.hal.science/hal-04833236v1

Submitted on 12 Dec 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

# The spore killers, fungal meiotic driver elements

Aaron A. Vogan, Ivain Martinossi-Allibert, S. Lorena Ament-Velásquez, Jesper Svedberg & Hanna Johannesson

**To cite this article:** Aaron A. Vogan, Ivain Martinossi-Allibert, S. Lorena Ament-Velásquez, Jesper Svedberg & Hanna Johannesson (2022) The spore killers, fungal meiotic driver elements, *Mycologia*, 114:1, 1-23, DOI: 10.1080/00275514.2021.1994815

**To link to this article:** https://doi.org/10.1080/00275514.2021.1994815

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

© 2022 The Author(s). Published with
license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

Published online: 09 Feb 2022.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

Submit your article to this journal

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

Article views: 2918

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

View related articles

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

CrossMark

View Crossmark data

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

Citing articles: 14 View citing articles

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>
OPEN ACCESS

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

Check for updates

# The spore killers, fungal meiotic driver elements

Aaron A. Vogan IDª, Ivain Martinossi-Allibert IDª,ᵇ, S. Lorena Ament-Velásquez IDª, Jesper Svedberg IDᶜ, and Hanna Johannesson IDª

ªSystematic Biology, Department of Organismal Biology, Uppsala University, 752 36, Uppsala, Sweden; ᵇInstitut de Biochimie et de Génétique Cellulaire, UMR 5095 CNRS, Université de Bordeaux, 33077, Bordeaux CEDEX, France; ᶜDepartment of Biomolecular Engineering, University of California, –Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California 95064

## ABSTRACT

During meiosis, both alleles of any given gene should have equal chances of being inherited by the progeny. There are a number of reasons why, however, this is not the case, with one of the most intriguing instances presenting itself as the phenomenon of meiotic drive. Genes that are capable of driving can manipulate the ratio of alleles among viable meiotic products so that they are inherited in more than half of them. In many cases, this effect is achieved by direct antagonistic interactions, where the driving allele inhibits or otherwise eliminates the alternative allele. In ascomycete fungi, meiotic products are packaged directly into ascospores; thus, the effect of meiotic drive has been given the nefarious moniker, "spore killing." In recent years, many of the known spore killers have been elevated from mysterious phenotypes to well-described systems at genetic, genomic, and molecular levels. In this review, we describe the known diversity of spore killers and synthesize the varied pieces of data from each system into broader trends regarding genome architecture, mechanisms of resistance, the role of transposable elements, their effect on population dynamics, speciation and gene flow, and finally how they may be developed as synthetic drivers. We propose that spore killing is common, but that it is under-observed because of a lack of studies on natural populations. We encourage researchers to seek new spore killers to build on the knowledge that these remarkable genetic elements can teach us about meiotic drive, genomic conflict, and evolution more broadly.

## ARTICLE HISTORY

Received 14 July 2021

Accepted 14 October 2021

## KEYWORDS

Meiotic drive; fungi; spore killing; gene drive; Ascomycetes

## INTRODUCTION

Functional meioses are all alike, but every dysfunctional meiosis is unique. Meiotic drive occurs when the sexual process is manipulated by given genes or haplotypes that, as selfish elements, can become overrepresented in the progeny. The transmission advantage of meiotic drivers may allow them to invade a population quickly, even if they impose a fitness cost to their host. An evolutionary arms race may ensue between host and driver, affecting genomic architecture and other aspects of evolution such as population divergence and demography (Burt and Trivers 2009). If a meiotic driver becomes fixed in a population, it becomes undetectable, as it can only drive in heterozygous states. Furthermore, the hallmark of meiotic drive, segregation distortion, is difficult to detect without intensive genetic investigations, unless it is linked to an obvious phenotype. Thus, the true prevalence of meiotic drivers in natural populations is unknown (Lindholm et al. 2016). Nevertheless, meiotic drivers have been identified in animals, plants, and fungi, with a great diversity of genetic architecture and modes of action (Lindholm

et al. 2016). The focus of this review is on a group of meiotic drivers specific to ascomycete fungi for which new data are currently emerging at a high pace: the spore killers Table 1.

Fungi provide an ideal platform in which to study meiotic drive, as it can be directly observable due to the induced abortion of sibling spores. In ascomycete fungi, meiotic products are packaged together in individual sacs called asci. A given species will produce a set number of spores per ascus, usually four or eight. Meiotic drive can thus be observed by inspecting fruiting bodies for the presence of asci that possess only half the expected number of viable spores (FIG. 1A). Like sperm or pollen killers found in animals and plants, a spore killer genetic element will kill meiotic products that do not carry the element and are sensitive to killing (FIG. 1B).

Spore killers act through two main mechanisms: killer-target or poison-antidote (Bravo Núñez et al. 2018). In killer-target systems, the driver attacks a target element that is found in the genome of a sensitive individual, but not in the genome of the killer.

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** General mechanism and observable phenotype of spore killing. A. Spore killing phenotype in three species of ascomycetes. A.1. *N. sitophila* (photo by Aaron Vogan). A.2. *S. pombe* (photo by Nicole Nuckolls). A.3. *P. anserina* (photo by S. Lorena Ament-Velasquez). Killer spores are indicated by black arrowheads and killed spores by red arrowheads, if visible. Notice that in *S. pombe* and *N. sitophila*, the aborted spores are small and colorless, whereas when spore killing is inflicted by *Spok* genes in *P. anserina* they disappear completely. B. Mechanism of spore killing in ascomycetes with monokaryotic or dikaryotic spores (see Glossary). Red arrows show the killing direction. Lightning bolts represent the killing action being effective on sensitive spores, whereas the green shield represents the killing action being ineffective on resistant spores. In zygotes heterozygous at the killing locus, sensitive spores (S) are eliminated while resistant spores (R) survive. In species with dikaryotic spores (e.g., *P. anserina*), killing only occurs among homoallelic spores resulting from first-division segregation (FDS), whereas heteroallelic spores resulting from second-division segregation (SDS) are protected.</figcaption></figure>

In drivers that employ a poison-antidote mechanism, the poison that causes killing is produced together with an antidote, which protects the killer from suicidal action. In order to successfully drive, a target must never be inherited with a killer and the poison and antidote must always be inherited together. These mechanisms are effective in spore killing because after meiosis nuclei share a common cytoplasm,

allowing products of one nucleus to diffuse to the other nuclei. After the formation of cell walls, the spores become isolated and experience the effects of the toxins. Killers with no targets, or which produce the antidote, are thereby spared the deadly fate of their sensitive sisters.

A number of repercussions may result from spore killing. As fungal spores are not gametes, but offspring,
<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

spore killing eliminates, in a simple case, half of the progeny of a mating event. However, in practice, the killing action will not necessarily result in halved fitness because of compensatory mechanisms. For example, if local sibling competition for resources is common among spores of the same ascus, spore killing could increase the survival probability of killer spores that eliminate their siblings, thereby leading to a partial recovery of the parent's reproductive success (Lindholm et al. 2016). We refer to such putative positive fitness effects of killing as the *killing advantage* (see Glossary). Similarly, the parental mycelia may be able to recover some resources from aborted spores to produce additional progeny and replace a certain proportion of the killed offspring (Martinossi-Allibert et al. 2021; Vogan et al. 2021). Therefore, the fitness reduction to the host may be not as drastic as suggested by the intrinsic reduction in spore yield. This reflects a parallel with sperm and pollen killers, for which the reduction in gamete production does not necessarily translate into a reduction in offspring number (Hartl 1972).

Furthermore, the potential negative effects of spore killers can spur the evolution of *resistance* to killing (see Glossary), because strains that are able to suppress the action of the spore killer genes derive a fitness benefit. Alternatively, as the transmission of meiotic drivers relies on individuals reproducing sexually and outcrossing (e.g., Wright et al. 2008), affected populations may respond through modified mating strategies. Ascomycetes present a diversity of reproductive systems ranging from total asexuality to obligate outcrossing, including haploid and diploid selfing (Billiard et al. 2012). In many cases, outcrossing is a possibility but not a necessity (Nieuwenhuis and James 2016), which raises the question of the frequency of outcrossing events in ascomycetes and how that may relate to the transmission of spore killers.

Instances of spore killing have been found in numerous genera of ascomycetes: the model Sordariomycetes *Podospora* and *Neurospora*, the devastating plant pathogens *Fusarium* and *Bipolaris*, and the model fission yeast *Schizosaccharomyces*. We will briefly describe the characteristics of these known spore killers and their host species and then review important aspects of spore killers and their interactions with their hosts (summarized in Table 1). First, we compare the genetic architecture of different spore killers and then examine resistance mechanisms. We follow with their associations with transposable elements (TEs), before summarizing theoretical knowledge of population dynamics of spore killers and their putative role in gene flow and speciation. We also discuss the possibility for future development of

fungal synthetic drive based on naturally occurring spore killers. Lastly we put forth a call to arms for researchers across the field of mycology to examine their study species of choice for evidence of spore killing. Indeed, our knowledge of spore killers is rapidly growing but still limited. Fungal systems have much to tell us about how meiotic drive impacts evolution, and about genomic conflict from a broader perspective.

## SPECIES

**Podospora.**— *Podospora anserina* is a coprophilus species with a pseudohomothallic lifestyle (i.e., it packages two nuclei of opposite mating types into a single ascospore to ensure that offspring will be self-fertile upon germination; Raju and Perkins 1994). It has been used as a model system for genetics and molecular biology for much of the past century, and a wealth of wild collections exists, some of which date back to the 1930s. The very first spore killer elements were discovered in *P. anserina* (Bernet 1965; Padieu and Bernet 1967), although they were not identified as meiotic drive elements for a number of years (Turner and Perkins 1991; Dalstra et al. 2003). Subsequent genetic analyses of natural populations revealed upward of nine different spore killer types in populations of *P. anserina* (Van der Gaag et al. 2000; Hamann and Osiewacz 2004), some of which were assigned to *Podospora* spore killer designations *Psk-1* through *Psk-7* based on classical genetics (Van der Gaag et al. 2000). Later, a family of genes capable of spore killing was discovered. The first gene of this family, called *Spok1* (for spore killing), was found in a strain of the sibling species *P. comata*. The second, *Spok2*, was identified in *P. anserina* itself (Grognet et al. 2014). At that point, the relationship between the *Psk* types and the *Spok* genes was unclear. More recently, high quality genomic sequencing of multiple *Podospora* spore killer strains and species revealed that three separate spore killer genes, *Spok2*, *Spok3*, and *Spok4*, are segregating at various frequencies within *P. anserina* (Vogan et al. 2019). *Spok2* is present in nearly all strains investigated, except for a handful that appear to possess a deletion of *Spok2*, as indicated by a remnant and fragmented TE at the site (Vogan et al. 2019). This result suggests that the gene may have been fixed in the recent past. By contrast, *Spok3* and *Spok4* are typically found at low frequencies. These two genes entail a much more unusual case in that they occur within a large transposable element called *Enterprise*, forming a hyperselfish genetic element, the *Spok* block (Vogan et al. 2021). Additionally, it was found that *Spok2*, *Spok3*, and *Spok4* have functionally diverged to provide no epistatic cross-resistance, so that strains with only *Spok2* are
<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>Table 1. Spore killer systems and their main characteristics.</figcaption></figure>

<table><thead><tr><th>Species</th><th>Phenotype</th><th>Genes</th><th>Mode of action</th><th>Architecture</th><th>Sexual system (1)</th><th>Mating system</th><th>Realized mating system (2)</th><th>Abundance</th><th>Resistance</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Neurospora sitophila</td><td>Sk-1</td><td>Spk-1</td><td>poison-antidote</td><td>Single gene</td><td>He</td><td>Outcrossing + potential inbreeding</td><td>Presumably outcrossing</td><td>Variable</td><td>One strain, inconclusive; MSUD-dependent</td></tr><tr><td>Neurospora intermedia</td><td>Sk-2</td><td>rk + rfk-1</td><td>poison-antidote</td><td>Multilocus</td><td>He</td><td>Outcrossing + potential inbreeding</td><td>Presumably outcrossing</td><td>Very rare</td><td>Observed</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Sk-3</td><td>rk + ?</td><td>poison-antidote</td><td>Multilocus</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Very rare</td><td>Observed</td></tr><tr><td>Podospora anserina</td><td>Psk-S, Psk1-Psk9 [het-s*]</td><td>Spok2, Spok3, Spok4 het-s</td><td>poison-antidote killer-target</td><td>Single gene</td><td>PH</td><td>Diploid selfing + outcrossing</td><td>High selfing</td><td>Fixed to rare</td><td>One strain, or absent</td></tr><tr><td>Podospora comata</td><td>Psk-P1</td><td>Spok3, Spok4</td><td>poison-antidote</td><td>Single gene</td><td>PH</td><td>Diploid selfing + outcrossing</td><td>?</td><td>High frequency</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Podospora pauciseta</td><td>Psk-C1</td><td>Spok1</td><td>poison-antidote</td><td>Single gene</td><td>PH</td><td>Diploid selfing + outcrossing</td><td>?</td><td>?</td><td>?</td></tr><tr><td>Schizosaccharomyces pombe</td><td>-</td><td>wtf family</td><td>poison-antidote</td><td>Single gene</td><td>Ho</td><td>Haploid selfing</td><td>Very high selfing</td><td>?</td><td>Observed</td></tr><tr><td>Fusarium verticillioides</td><td>-</td><td>?</td><td>?</td><td>?</td><td>He</td><td>Outcrossing + potential inbreeding</td><td>Presumably outcrossing</td><td>High frequency</td><td>Observed</td></tr><tr><td>Fusarium fujikuroi</td><td>-</td><td>?</td><td>?</td><td>?</td><td>He</td><td>Outcrossing + potential inbreeding</td><td>Presumably outcrossing</td><td>?</td><td>?</td></tr><tr><td>Bipolaris maydis</td><td>-</td><td>?</td><td>?</td><td>?</td><td>He</td><td>Outcrossing + potential inbreeding</td><td>Presumably outcrossing</td><td>?</td><td>?</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote>[1] He: Heterothallic; PH: Pseudohomothallic; Ho: Homothallic. (2) As inferred from empirical data from natural populations.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>

susceptible to spore killing from *Spok3* or *Spok4* and strains with only *Spok3* are susceptible to spore killing from *Spok2* or *Spok4*, and so on. As a result, most strains of *P. anserina* are actually spore killers (*Psk-S*, containing only *Spok2*), some strains have a *Spok* block that can kill *Psk-S*, and a minority possess no spore killers at all (so-called “naive” strains). One strain has been reported that is resistant to *Spok2*, but its interactions with the other *Spok* genes is unknown (Grognet et al. 2014). Thus, through the presence and absence of the three genes, and multiple genomic locations of the *Spok* block with either *Spok3* or *Spok4* or both, a complicated hierarchy of spore killing is formed, which explains all previous observations of the different spore killing types (Vogan et al. 2019).

It is now apparent that *P. anserina* is part of a species complex that encompasses itself, *P. comata*, and five other species (Boucher et al. 2017). In the few *P. comata* strains that have been studied, *Spok1* is always present at the same locus (Vogan et al. 2021). Intriguingly, *Spok1* provides resistance against killing from all other *Spok* genes and is able to kill in the presence of *Spok2* and *Spok3*, but not *Spok4*. Additionally, in another species of the complex, *P. pauciseta*, one strain has been discovered that possesses the *Spok* block with *Spok3* and *Spok4* (Vogan et al. 2019). Given that the individual species of the complex are extremely closely related (Vogan et al. 2019), yet seem to possess unique arrays of *Spok* genes, each lineage can be viewed as an independent natural experiment regarding the impact of meiotic drive on populations. Thus, understanding the dynamics of spore killing in this system will provide invaluable insights to the evolutionary role of meiotic drive on speciation (or lack thereof).

In addition to the *Spok* genes, there is another well-known spore killer in *P. anserina*, *het-s* (Dalstra et al. 2003). There are two alleles of the *het-s* gene: *het-s* and *het-S*. The HET-s protein product exists as a prion, which when it encounters a cell of *het-S* genotype induces a cell death response. This prion-induced cell death occurs in both vegetative and sexual tissues. In the vegetative state, cell death will prevent anastomosis between two strains with opposite *het-s* alleles, a phenomenon known in fungi as heterokaryon incompatibility, and well characterized in *P. anserina* (Coustou et al. 1997; Pinan-Lucarré et al. 2007). In the sexual cycle, the cell death reaction occurs when the maternal strain is HET-s prion infected and the paternal strain is *het-S*, resulting in segregation distortion toward the *het-s* genotype. The reaction is temperature sensitive, however, and has been observed at 18 C, but not at 25–28 C (Bernet 1965; Dalstra et al. 2003). The molecular mechanism of how the two protein products interact

to result in meiotic drive is perhaps the best understood of any known meiotic drivers (Riek and Saupe 2016), but given the specific circumstances that are required for the drive to occur, and its dual role as a heterokaryon incompatibility gene, it is unclear how important the driving behavior is in nature. As with other heterokaryon incompatibility genes, het-s is likely subject to balancing selection forces, which should lead to approximately balanced allele frequencies (Debets et al. 2012; Milgroom et al. 2018). Still, the het-s allele was found to be overrepresented in a monitored population, consistent with an effect of drive in its dynamics (Debets et al. 2012).

**Neurospora.**—*Neurospora* is relatively closely related to *Podospora* (divergence time, ~100 million years ago [mya]; Lutzoni et al. 2018), and it has been used as a model for as long. *Neurospora crassa* is heterothallic and has remained one of the most important fungal model systems. However, it is within the closely related species, *N. sitophila* and *N. intermedia*, where the spore killers have been found. Together, these two species harbor three known spore killers: *Sk-1*, *Sk-2*, and *Sk-3* (Turner and Perkins 1979). The latter two are the best studied, as they occur in the species *N. intermedia* and have been introgressed into *N. crassa* for genetic characterization under laboratory conditions (Campbell and Turner 1987). *Sk-1* is found in *N. sitophila* and was only described in depth recently (Svedberg et al. 2021).

Throughout the years, thousands of *Neurospora* isolates have been collected from around the world and phenotyped for the presence of the spore killers. *Sk-1* is prevalent in ~15% of *N. sitophila* isolates but shows a patchy distribution, appearing fixed, absent, or polymorphic at given locales. Conversely, *Sk-2* has only been found in four isolates and *Sk-3* in just one. However, resistance phenotypes are commonly found for both *Sk-2* and *Sk-3*, with some strains exhibiting resistance to both (Turner 2001). For *Sk-1*, only a single isolate was ever found to show resistance, but population genetic analyses suggest that the resistant strain may belong to a distinct lineage or a yet undescribed species; therefore, the prevalence of resistance to *Sk-1* in nature is still obscure (Svedberg et al. 2021).

The *Sk-1* locus was only recently described at the genetic level. Spore killing by *Sk-1* strains is caused by a single gene, *Spk-1*, that resides on chromosome 6. So far, little is known about *Spk-1*, but phylogenetic analyses suggest that it may have been introgressed to *N. sitophila* from another *Neurospora* species, *N. hispaniola*. Additionally, numerous potential homologs appear to be scattered across the genomes of many
<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>

strains and species of *Neurospora*, suggesting that it
could be a member of a large gene family, although
none of the other homologs have known function
(Svedberg et al. 2021). Although no specific resistance
mechanisms against *Spk-1* have been identified, the gen-
ome defense machinery known as meiotic silencing of
unpaired DNA (described in Mechanisms of
Resistance), is able to suppress activity of *Spk-1* under
certain circumstances. The ability of strains to suppress
*Spk-1* appears to be population specific, and future stu-
dies may reveal important evolutionary dynamics
between *Sk-1* and host genome defense.

The *Sk-2* and *Sk-3* killer loci are distinguished from
each other based on mutual killing. That is, when an *Sk-2*
strain is crossed to an *Sk-3* strain, no viable spores are
observed. Both spore killers encompass large haplotypes
of ~400 genes and have separate killing and resistance
loci linked by a nonrecombining region (Campbell and
Turner 1987; Svedberg et al. 2018). This is akin to well-
described sperm killers from mice and flies (Lindholm
et al. 2016), but unlike all other known spore killers. The
two haplotypes span a similar region, straddling the
centromere of chromosome 3, and share the same resis-
tance locus (called *rsk*) (Hammond et al. 2012). The
killer locus of *Sk-2* has been identified (*rfk*), but there
is no homologous gene in the *Sk-3* region (Harvey et al.
2014; Rhoades et al. 2019). Additionally, a comparison
of the spore killer regions shows significant divergence,
including independent inversions (Svedberg et al. 2018).
Additional observations suggest that separate genetic
incompatibilities have been accumulating within *Sk-2*
and *Sk-3* that increase the reproductive boundary between
*N. intermedia* and its sister species, *N. metzenbergii*
(Vogan et al. 2020), consistent with a protracted period
of independent evolution between the killers.
Interestingly, for both *Spk-1* and *rfk* (of *Sk-2*), RNA
A-to-I editing occurs, which may either be a general
feature of meiotic drive genes or a particularity of how
*Neurospora* controls its sexual cycle.

**Schizosaccharomyces.**—The model fission yeast, *Schizosaccharomyces pombe*, is the only species outside of the Pezizomycotina in which spore killers have been found. Although *S. pombe* is extremely well studied in the laboratory, its natural history is poorly understood. Additionally, strains of *S. pombe* are capable of mating type switching, a process that allows clones to mate among themselves (i.e., to go through haploid selfing). Thus, it is unclear how often mating among unrelated individuals occurs in the wild. Although the spore killing in *Schizosaccharomyces pombe* was identified most recently (Zanders et al. 2014), an impressive amount of

insight has been gleaned in a short span of time. In this
system, spore killing was first identified between the
standard laboratory strain and a strain isolated from
kombucha that is sometimes treated as a separate species
but now known to be a hybrid between two divergent
ancestral populations (Tusso et al. 2019). The genes
responsible for drive in *S. pombe* belong to the *wtf*
gene family (referring to “*with *Tf*”; see below, Spore
Killers and Their Romance with TEs), which can be
present in dozens of copies per strain (Hu et al. 2017;
Nuckolls et al. 2017). These are single-gene drivers that
encode both a poison and an antidote through alterna-
tive splicing. The full open reading frame (ORF)
expresses the poison, whereas a splice variant that uses
a downstream start codon that excludes the first exon
codes for the antidote. Multiple *wtf* genes have been
identified from global collections of *S. pombe*, including
those that lack the upstream exon and thus only code for
the antidote but not the poison (i.e., they act as resis-
tance alleles; see below, Mechanisms of Resistance)
(Núñez et al. 2018). Due to individual differences in
copy numbers between strains, the *wtf* genes contribute
significantly to low spore viability in crosses between
even closely related strains, through mutual killing in
*S. pombe* (Eickbush et al. 2019; Bravo Núñez et al. 2020a,
2020b). The exact details of the molecular mechanism
through which the *wtf* genes act is not fully understood,
but initial results suggest that it may involve protein
aggregation, as in the case with *het-s* in *Podospora*
(Coustou et al. 1997; Nuckolls et al. 2020).

**Fusarium.**—*Fusarium* is a cosmopolitan group of plant pathogens that spans some 70+ million years of divergence (Lutzoni et al. 2018). Within the genus, many species have no known sexual cycle, although sex is ancestral to the genus (Ma et al. 2013). *Fusarium* can further be divided into a number of complexes that differ in host plant specificity (Summerell 2019). At least two separate spore killers have been identified from *Fusarium*. One spore killing locus has been identified from *Fusarium verticillioides* (= *Fusarium moniliforme*). Up to 80% of wild isolates carry a spore killing locus, which drives with an efficiency of ~95%, although some isolates appear to be partially resistant (34%–61% killing efficiency) (Kathariou and Spieth 1982). Later efforts were successful in locating the spore killer locus to a 102 kb region on chromosome 5 of *F. verticillioides*, but the exact genetic underpinnings are currently unknown. Analysis of the region did identify three hyper-variable regions, which may harbor the spore killer genes (Pyle et al. 2016). This finding suggests that the *Fusarium* spore killer could be a multilocus system like in
<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>

*Neurospora Sk-2/3*, although it would have to be significantly smaller.

Another locus has been identified in *F. fujikuori* (= *Gibberella fujikuroi*), which is part of a large species complex, formerly referred to by multiple “mating groups” (O’Donnell et al. 2000). A follow-up investigation of wild strains of *F. subglutinans* (= *Gibberella fujikuroi* var. *subglutinans*) confirmed that this second spore killer was also present in this clade (Sidhu 1984) and thus may be widespread in the complex.

**Bipolaris.**—The most understudied spore killer was identified in *Bipolaris maydis* (= *Cochliobolus heterostrophus*), a dothideomycete pathogen of corn. It was found that the locus responsible for production of the T-toxin (an important compound for plant virulence) was tightly linked to a meiotic drive locus, such that some strains that do not produce the T-toxin (also called race O) contain a killer locus; all T-toxin-producing strains (race T) appear to be sensitive to killing (Taga et al. 1985). The story is complicated by the fact that the T-toxin locus is involved in a chromosomal rearrangement that also results in abortive ascospores, but this alone does not account for the observed drive (Bronson 1988, 1990). The waters were muddied further when it was discovered that the T-toxin locus was actually composed of two separate loci on different chromosomes, such that the relative location of the spore killer locus became ambiguous (Turgeon et al. 1995; Turgeon and Baker 2007). To our knowledge, further efforts to

characterize the spore killer locus have so far not been undertaken, so the details of the drive remain virtually unknown.

## GENOMIC ARCHITECTURE OF SPORE KILLERS

Like all killer meiotic drivers, spore killers must perform two key functions in order to cause drive: they need to (i) destroy the meiotic products that do not inherit the drive locus and (ii) at the same time protect themselves. Close genetic linkage between the two factors ensures that the two elements do not become uncoupled and create a situation where the spore killer destroys itself. Although linking two separate genes with distinct functions could be accomplished by having them in close physical proximity, the general expectation is rather that genomic rearrangements will evolve that encompass both genes and prevent recombination from separating them. Sex chromosomes provide an attractive target for the evolution of these systems, as heteromorphic chromosomes will already have large nonrecombining regions, which could serve as hot spots for the origin of meiotic drive genes (Frank 1991a; Hurst and Pomiankowski 1991; Jaenike 2001). In the case of the spore killers, however, the norm seems to be single-gene systems (FIG. 2), which have no such restriction when it comes to recombination. With the *Spok* genes in *P. anserina*, a single protein is capable of acting as both the poison and the antidote (Grognet et al. 2014; Vogan et al. 2019), whereas with the *wtf* genes in *S. pombe* the

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>

**Figure 2.** Genome architecture of spore killers. Within a genome, represented by a schematic chromosome (drawn as a gray bar with black centromere), spore killers (symbol: skull and bones) are found as either single genes with both the antidote and poison functions (most known instances, e.g., *Spok1*, *Spok2*, and *Spk-1*) or as multigene systems within nonrecombining regions (*Sk-2* and *Sk-3*). In some cases, the spore killer genes are in low copy number and can be associated with TEs (e.g., *Spok1*, *Spok2*) or not (e.g., *Spk-1*). In the case of the *wtf* gene family, TE-associated mobilization and other processes result in the proliferation of multiple copies, including those with only a functional antidote or that are fully pseudogenized. As a special case, the *Spok3* and *Spok4* genes are only found within a large TE (Enterprise), which relocates them during transposition.
<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>

dual function is accomplished through alternative tran-
scripts (Hu et al. 2017; Nuckolls et al. 2017). It remains
unclear precisely how the two functions are encoded in
*N. sitophila*, but the evidence again points to a single
protein being responsible for both actions (Svedberg
et al. 2021). Of all known spore killers, only *Sk-2* and
*Sk-3* in *N. intermedia* involve a large nonrecombining
region (FIG. 2), spanned by several large inversions, and
given that they exist at the same locus, they may have
a shared evolutionary origin (Svedberg et al. 2018). It is
therefore pertinent to ask whether single-gene drivers
are likely to be the common architecture and the asso-
ciation with large nonrecombining regions seen in other
organisms merely reflects observation bias. A key fact of
meiotic drive is that in many cases, researchers are much
more likely to observe it when it is linked to a clear
phenotype. Skewing sex ratios is grossly apparent, as is
the short tail of the mouse t-haplotype, two conspicuous
phenotypes linked to drivers from other taxa (Lyttle
1991). Other known drivers involve large heterochro-
matic regions that could be observed in karyotypes of
corn, for example (Rhoades 1942). As the action of
meiotic drive is directly observable with spore killers,
they offer an ideal basis in which to construct hypotheses
about the evolution of drive, as the aforementioned
phenotypic biases do not apply. From such a perspec-
tive, it could be hypothesized that the bias toward single
genes observed in fungi might also be present in other
eukaryotes. This would suggest that there is a large
diversity of single-gene meiotic drivers that have gone
undetected in animals and plants, potentially because
they are not linked to a distinct phenotype or because
they may quickly go to fixation and become even more
difficult to observe.

Still, there could be factors that make multigene
complexes less likely to evolve in fungi. One potential
difference lies in the consequences of structural rearran-
gements such as inversions. In fungi, large inversions
can often be inferred through a significant production of
inviable spores in crosses heterozygous for the inversion
(Perkins 1974), which can be expected to have signifi-
cant negative fitness effects. In many other organisms,
such as *Drosophila*, several mechanisms are present that
will reduce these fitness effects and segregating inver-
sions are therefore more tolerated and relatively com-
mon (Reis et al. 2018). In such cases, it is easy to see
that inversions can suppress recombination locally on
a chromosome, but if inversions are instead accompa-
nied by a reduced reproductive output, they may be less
likely to provide a fitness increase. *Sk-2* and *Sk-3* carry
inversions spanning a 30-40 cM region (~1.8 Mb)
(Campbell and Turner 1987; Svedberg et al. 2018), but
despite this, a corresponding elevated production of

inviable spores beyond what is caused by the spore kill-
ing itself has not been observed (Turner and Perkins
1979). This may be explained by the presence of other
mechanisms that can reduce recombination, as has been
observed in *N. tetrasperma* (Sun et al. 2017), but little is
still known about these mechanisms and to what extent
they can facilitate the proliferation of multigene com-
plexes. Additionally, little is known about the effects of
genetic background on recombination rates, especially
since much of the genetic analysis of *Sk-2* and *Sk-3* was
performed in an *N. crassa* background (Turner and
Perkins 1979). Further work is thus necessary to deter-
mine how they affect the observed recombination
patterns.

Multigene complexes not only can facilitate meiotic
drive by linking toxin and antidote genes, but sometimes
they will also contain other genes that have evolved to
increase the efficiency of the drive (Crow 1991b; Hurst
and Pomiankowski 1991). Such genes are called “enhan-
cers,” and although some have been identified in other
meiotic drive systems (Charron et al. 2019; Courret et al.
2019), none have been observed in spore killers, with the
possible exception that the *Sk-2* and *Sk-3* complexes may
carry a factor that blocks the genome defense system
MSUD (see Genome Defense, below). In the cases of
single-gene spore killers, these might provide less of
a substrate to evolve tight linkage to, and one might
also speculate that single-gene drivers could be less
deleterious on average and thus fix more readily, leaving
little time for enhancers to evolve. Furthermore, most
spore killers appear to be highly efficient, and there may
simply be little need for additional factors that can
increase killing efficiency.

Although at first glance single-gene drivers may
appear to be simple in their structure and organization,
the reality is quite the opposite. A number of gene
duplications are involved with both the *Spok* and *wtf*
genes, and putatively for *Spk-1* (Svedberg et al. 2021),
leading to gene family expansion. In *Podospora anserina*,
this has created at least three separate copies: *Spok2*,
*Spok3*, and *Spok4* (Vogan et al. 2019). Additionally,
a pseudogenized *Spok* gene has also been identified,
which could be descended from either *Spok3* or *Spok4*,
as it occurs in a degraded *Spok* block (Vogan et al. 2021).
Alternatively, it may be another independent homolog.
In *S. pombe*, the *wtf* genes have expanded to an even
greater extent, such that some strains possess as many as
38 copies (Bravo Núñez et al. 2020a) and the total
number of homologs in the species could be larger
(Eickbush et al. 2019). Immediately after a duplication
event, the new spore killing gene will have no effect on
drive dynamics if it is linked to the original copy, but it
can drive if it locates to an unlinked locus due to
<figure><img src="image_22.png" /></figure>

recombination and independent assortment during meiosis. However, the spore killer genes can subsequently diversify in a number of ways, each with unique effects on the dynamics of spore killing. First, they may evolve into unique drivers, with no epistatic interactions. Second, they may lose the ability to kill but retain their antidote function, effectively becoming a resistance allele (see below). Third, a hierarchy may form whereby one homolog can drive in the presence of another, but not vice versa (e.g., *Spok1* vs. *Spok2*). Lastly, the new homolog may degrade and lose all functionality but could still activate genome defense machinery. Thus, although single-locus drives may originate as simple systems, they may become an interlinked network of complex interactions involving competing drivers, and suppression. Therefore, one may question whether the known array of multigene drivers all originated as such, or conversely, whether some may have begun as single-gene drivers that subsequently expanded to additional loci, connected by genomic rearrangements.

## MECHANISMS OF RESISTANCE

The potential fitness costs of spore killers, caused by the destruction of spores, genomic inversions, or hitchhiking deleterious mutations, create a selective pressure that favors mechanisms counteracting or disabling the drive. We propose to distinguish the action of “suppressors” (see Glossary), factors that specifically target spore killers, from generalist genome defense mechanisms that can also affect spore killers under specific circumstances but are not restricted to that action (FIG. 3). In general, selfish elements are dependent on their genomic context; thus, we do not consider cases where spore killers fail to

function in novel populations (as may be the case for *Sk-1*; see *Neurospora* section) as resistance. Because of their specificity, suppressors are generally expected to invade a population in response to a costly spore killer, whereas genome defense mechanisms likely exist in the population before the invasion of the driver. In many instances, the population dynamics of the host and driver likely determine the fate of the driver, as selection will act to purge the driver from the population if it is too costly. However, in the context of genome defense, there may exist a more nuanced game of “cat and mouse,” with successful drivers being the ones that avoid detection by the host in the first place.

**Suppressors.**—In the context of spore killing, suppressors are genes that lead to a phenotype of resistance, where the loss of viable spores is reduced or absent. In all known examples, suppressors are homologous to the antidote function of the killer that they confer resistance to, although in theory this is not the only possible mechanism. Below, we distinguish different classes of suppressor genes, with different evolutionary origins, leading to different expressions of the resistance phenotype (see FIG. 3).

A first scenario, for which several examples are known, is the case of a sequence homologous to the killer that lacks the ability to kill spores but carries an active antidote function, thus leading to a resistant phenotype. Such homologous suppressors can arise from several mechanisms depending on the genomic architecture of the driver. For spore killers that operate with separate poison and antidote genes (or killer and target genes), the association between the two loci may be less

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.** Mechanisms of resistance. The phenotype of resistance (partially or completely avoiding spore killing) can occur either due to the action of specific genetic elements (suppressors) or to general genome defense mechanisms. All known suppressors are homologous to their corresponding spore killer elements, although in principle nonhomologous suppressors could also evolve. In turn, homologous suppressors could be restricted to the antidote function and thus unable to drive, or be drivers themselves, creating asymmetrical killing relationships. Some known examples are given. Within fungi, two genome defense mechanisms are known to deactivate meiotic drivers: MSUD (e.g., working against *Spk-1*) and RIP (e.g., as hinted by the pseudogenized *SpokΨ1* gene).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_24.png" /></figure>

strict than in the case of single-gene killers. Rare recom-
bination events may thus give rise to nondriving homo-
logous suppressors by separating the two components.
For such two-gene systems, an alternative scenario must
also be considered, whereby resistance is ancestral to the
population: when first arising, a killer gene could co-opt
an antidote function from a particular allele that is
polymorphic in the present population (Sweigart et al.
2019). If that is the case, an allele with the antidote
function already exists in the population and represents
a homologous nondriving suppressor (FIG. 3). Although
this scenario involving a preexisting antidote may
appear counterintuitive, it is to our knowledge the
most likely explanation for the well-known rsk suppres-
sors found in N. intermedia, where resistance is com-
mon in Southeast Asia, the same locale in which the Sk-2
and Sk-3 spore killers were found (Turner 2001). The rsk
gene, which corresponds to the antidote function of Sk-2
and Sk-3, also exists at the same locus in some non-killer
strains and acts as a suppressor, with different alleles
conferring resistance to Sk-2, Sk-3, or both. The different
rsk alleles show high degrees of sequence divergence (up
to 20%) within N. intermedia, suggesting that they were
segregating in the species before the appearance of Sk-2
and Sk-3, and it is therefore possible that the spore killer
precursor genes captured already existing alleles, which
allowed them to suppress their own killing (Svedberg
et al. 2018). In this case, resistant rsk alleles may have
spread locally as a consequence of the presence of spore
killers in the region, but it is also possible that an initial
higher frequency of resistant alleles due to some other
reason made it more likely for spore killers to evolve in
that geographic area.

In the case of single-gene drivers such as the *Spok*
genes and *wtf* genes, homologous suppressors can arise
by loss of the killing function. In *S. pombe*, in which the
mechanism of drive relies on an alternative start codon,
loss of the upstream start site will prevent the transcrip-
tion of the toxin but still allow the antidote to be pro-
duced (Hu et al. 2017; Nuckolls et al. 2017). In
*Podospora*, although a single protein enacts both func-
tions, the mutation of a single residue can halt toxicity,
resulting in an allele only conferring resistance (Vogan
et al. 2019). Thus, it may be that for poison-antidote
systems, the poison function can generally be separated
from the antidote function to produce a nondriving
suppressor (i.e., a resistance allele). Whether this sup-
pressor invades and leads to extinction of the driver will
depend on a number of factors, in particular the fitness
cost imposed by the killer. Consequently, even though
suppressor alleles may be likely to be produced, they
may never reach appreciable frequencies in the
population.

A second scenario of resistance, probably more
restricted, involves homologous sequences at a different
locus that retain the ability to drive but are able to kill
one another in a nonreciprocal fashion (FIG. 3). This
type of asymmetrical driving leads to instances where
some killers confer resistance to others. This scenario is
observed to be the result of gene family expansion and is
observed for both the *Spok* and *wtf* genes. Among the
*Spok* genes, *Spok2*, *Spok3*, and *Spok4* have rapidly
diverged functionally, so as to be completely indepen-
dent drivers. However, *Spok1* is able to suppress the
killing of all *Spoks* and is only suppressed by *Spok4*.
The *wtf* genes have numerous variants that have lost
the killing action and thus serve as resistance loci for
various drivers, but there are also instances (e.g.,
FY29033 *wtf1* and FY29033 *wtf35*) where apparent
gene conversion between *wtf* genes results in copies
that, while still functioning as independent drivers,
acquire the ability to suppress other *wtf* genes
(Eickbush et al. 2019; Bravo Núñez et al. 2020a).
Although we currently only have two examples of
spore killing gene family expansion, they both suggest
that the prevailing forces promote diversification into
independent drivers, rather than maintaining epistatic
interactions for suppression. With *Podospora*, only
*Spok1* has suppressive effects, and it is found in
a separate species, *P. comata*, indicating that it has not
directly evolved with the influence of the other *Spok*
genes. In *S. pombe*, the large number of copies of *wtf*
genes makes it difficult to understand their specific
interactions, but given the large degree of mutual killing
between strains, many copies must have unique killing
functions (Zanders et al. 2014). However, as *S. pombe*
appears to outcross rarely, it may be the case that drive
occurs rarely in nature and thus that many of the factors
affecting *wtf* gene diversity are incidental (but see
Hernández et al. 2021).

We have seen that homologous suppressors can arise
by loss of the killing function in both one- and two-gene
spore killers. This type of suppressor can then occur at
the same locus as the killer itself (intralocus homologous
suppressor; see FIG. 3), but also at a different locus in the
case of killers undergoing gene family expansion, such as
the *wtf* and *Spok* genes (interlocus homologous suppres-
sor; see FIG. 3). If the spore killer and its suppressor are
found at different loci (unlinked), this can have pro-
found effects on the ability of a spore killer to spread,
and the selective pressures to evolve new specificities
that can evade existing suppressors, but little is known
about these dynamics. In *S. pombe*, interlocus suppres-
sion has been observed (Bravo Núñez et al. 2020a), but
more work remains to be done to fully understand this
complex meiotic drive system.
<figure><img src="image_25.png" /></figure>

Finally, it is in theory possible that resistance appears because of a nonhomologous gene, likely unlinked, that, for example, produces an inhibitor to the poison without homology to the antidote function of the killer itself. However, examples of nonhomologous suppressors are not yet known in spore killers. It may therefore be unlikely to evolve in practice.

**Genome defense.**—In ascomycete fungi, two primary forms of genome defense may prevent the invasion of spore killers: repeat induced point mutation (RIP) affecting multicopy killers and RNAi-mediated silencing known as meiotic silencing of unpaired DNA (MSUD) (FIG. 3). Both phenomena are active during the sexual cycle and could prevent spore killers from functioning.

RIP is one of the most prevalent genome defense mechanisms across ascomycetes and is easily detectable on the genomic scale in many species (Clutterbuck 2011). It operates by targeting any duplicate sequence within the genome and induces C-to-T mutations, often within a specific di- or trinucleotide context (Cambareri et al. 1989). It appears to be widespread across Pezizomycotina, but basidiomycetes may possess analogous machinery to mutate repetitive regions (Horns et al. 2012). RIP will target genes just as effectively as selfish genetic elements such as TEs or meiotic drivers, and so it may come at a cost of limiting innovation within genomes (Catalanotto et al. 2006). RIP is very well studied within *Neurospora*, where it was discovered, and functions in *P. anserina* (Graïa et al. 2001) and *Fusarium solani* (= *Nectria haematococca*) (Coleman et al. 2009), among others, but it is absent from *S. pombe*. As RIP is a stochastic process that targets both copies of a duplicate sequence, it can spur the divergence rate between paralogs. Although the majority of mutations are likely to be deleterious and result in nonfunctional gene products, some will likely still be functional and may even result in a shift in poison-antitoxin interactions to derive novel drivers. This action could explain, for instance, the rapid divergence of *Spok3* and *Spok4* in *Podospora*, which is likely the result of a tandem duplication, but they now display no cross-resistance or other epistatic interactions (Vogan et al. 2019). RIP has also presumably been successful at eliminating at least one *Spok* block (and associated *Spok* gene) from the population, as evident from a degraded copy that is polymorphic within *P. anserina* (Vogan et al. 2021). RIP therefore has a complex interaction with spore killers wherein it will be entirely ineffective against single-copy spore killers but then either enact the destruction or promote the diversification of multicopy drivers.

The RNA silencing machinery of fungi is homologous to that from plants and animals (Cerutti and Casas-Mollano 2006), and so direct parallels between fungi and the well-investigated drivers in *Drosophila* can be made here. Although *S. pombe* has RNAi, it appears to be primarily used for heterochromatin formation and has little impact on the transcription of TEs or the *wtf* genes (Hansen et al. 2005). On the other hand, RNAi has profound effects on TEs in *Neurospora*, through the MSUD pathway. Unlike RNAi in *Drosophila*, which targets duplicated sequences, the MSUD machinery silences RNA expression of any genomic sequence that has no homolog on the sister chromatid during meiosis. This includes transgenes, which led to the discovery of MSUD (Shiu et al. 2001). As a result, any novel insertions or indels in heteroallelic crosses will be silenced. This should mean that a spore killer that is present in one strain but not the other will not be transcribed and thus should be ineffective in *Neurospora*. However, all three spore killers in *Neurospora* evade MSUD to various extents. For *Sk-2* and *Sk-3*, it has been hypothesized that the large amount of unpaired sequence in the spore killer haplotype overwhelms the MSUD machinery and allows the drive to function (Raju et al. 2007). In *N. sitophila*, the situation is more complex. Most of the time, the *Sk-1* driver seems to avoid being silenced through an unknown process. However, some populations of *N. sitophila* are able to mount a successful MSUD response to inhibit the action of the drive (Svedberg et al. 2021). Efficiency of MSUD increases with the relatedness of the cross, but exactly why some strains can silence the drive while others cannot will be the subject of future research.

Studies of genome defense are still relatively restricted to a handful of model systems. RIP appears to be widespread in ascomycetes, and although the machinery for RNAi production is well conserved across fungi (Choi et al. 2014), MSUD has only been described in a limited number of species (Nakayashiki et al. 2006; Son et al. 2011). These observations on different types of suppressors paint a complex picture whereby the propensity for a spore killer to successfully invade depends not only on the intrinsic properties of the driver, but also on the genomic background within which it evolves, highlighting the need to gather data on drivers in natural populations. Studying the interaction between meiotic drive and genome defense has revealed a great deal of information about how both systems function. An important question for the future will be to discover how universal these dynamics are across systems and species, or whether given meiotic drivers will be shown to have unique interactions with their host's defense machinery.
<figure><img src="image_26.png" /></figure>

## SPORE KILLERS AND THEIR ROMANCE WITH TEs

In both *Podospora* and *S. pombe*, the spore killer genes have conspicuous associations with transposable elements (TEs; FIG. 2). As mentioned above, the name *wtf* is short for “with *Tf*,” a retrotransposon that is commonly found flanking the *wtf* genes (Bowen et al. 2003). All four *Spok* genes are either flanked by TEs (Grognet et al. 2014) or are found within the giant transposon *Enterprise* (Vogan et al. 2021). The *wts* were first identified due to their large copy number and TE association, long before their role as spore killers was known. Long terminal repeat (LTR) elements are particularly prone to ectopic recombination, and the *wtf* genes are in double-stranded DNA breakage hot spots (Eickbush et al. 2019), suggesting that TEs may help drive diversification of the gene family. *Spok1* and *Spok2* are found within TE-rich regions in *P. comata* and *P. anserina*, respectively. These regions are both located on the same arm of chromosome 5, but at different locations (Grognet et al. 2014). Although both *Spoks* are seemingly in high frequency, and all species within the *P. anserina* complex are extremely closely related, the corresponding locus of each *Spok* shows no indications of past *Spok* genes in the other species. Additionally, a third species, *P. pauciseta*, also shows no traces of *Spok* genes in these regions (Vogan et al. 2019). As the genomes of these species are highly syntenic, once again ectopic recombination induced by TEs appears likely for moving the *Spok* genes among loci. *Spok3* and *Spok4* are unique in that they are actively moving through the genome because they have been captured by *Enterprise*. Furthermore, the two homologs may have arisen as part of a duplication within *Enterprise* (Vogan et al. 2021), hinting that the size and/or composition of this TE is playing a role in the diversification of the *Spok* genes. Both the *wtf* genes and the *Spok* genes are also known to undergo gene conversion between copies (Eickbush et al. 2019; Vogan et al. 2019), entangling their evolutionary relationships and making it difficult to precisely reconstruct past events.

In *N. sitophila*, *Spk-1* is not found in direct association with TEs. However, the putative ORF responsible for drive appears to have been inserted into another gene, truncating it. Additionally, numerous homologs of *Spk-1* can be found distributed across the genomes of the various species of *Neurospora*, suggesting that they too are somehow being translocated. Although *N. crassa* has little to no direct evidence of active TEs, variation in TE content between closely related strains and species of *Neurospora* suggests that transposons are not static across the genus (Nguyen et al. 2020). Given that only *Spk-1* has been identified as a spore killer, the other copies may no longer be capable of driving, and what

we observe is a landscape of dead copies. Perhaps in controlling its TE content, *Neurospora* also ended the proliferation of this gene family, ultimately resulting in the near extinction of this driver. The *Sk-2/Sk-3* locus is also enriched for TEs, but given its size, it is unknown whether these TEs played a specific role in its evolution as a spore killer, or whether they simply accumulated there due to lack of purifying selection. The latter option is supported by the fact that the region shows a signature of accumulation of slightly deleterious mutations (Svedberg et al. 2018).

Although the fate of a successful spore killer is fixation, there could be ample time during this process, or even after, in which a spore killer could find itself in another genomic location. If the translocation is due to an associated TE, then the spore killer may become permanently associated with it as the cycle of drive-fixation-translocation-drive repeats itself. However, if the movement of the spore killer occurs at a higher rate than fixation, it may never fix but rather exist in polymorphic states at various genomic loci. This could be the case for both *Spok3* and *Spok4* within *Enterprise*, as well as with many *wts* in unstable genomic regions. This may ultimately have disastrous consequences on reproduction, as when the spore killers ultimately diversify into independent drivers, heterozygous crosses will lead to mutual killing and may result in low outcrossing viability, as observed in *S. pombe*. In the end, this could either lead to selection removing the driver altogether or result in a drastic shift in mating system or population structure. Studying the evolution of selfing vs. outcrossing rates in *Podospora* and *S. pombe* could potentially reveal underappreciated roles of meiotic drive in shaping population dynamics. Conversely, different populations could fix spore killers at separate loci while diverging. If these populations eventually undergo speciation, then the drivers could contribute to reproductive isolation between the species.

## SPECIATION AND GENE FLOW

New meiotic drivers are often discovered in hybrid crosses between different species or populations (Burt and Trivers 2009; Bravo Núñez et al. 2018). In that context, meiotic drive can be seen as a type of intrinsic postzygotic isolation barrier with a potential role in the speciation process (Coyne and Orr 2004; Frank 1991b; Hurst and Pomiankowski 1991; Lindholm et al. 2016). As meiotic drivers can go to fixation faster than neutral variants, in principle any associated reproductive incompatibilities can also build faster between diverging populations. In animals and plants, the effects of meiotic drive in reproductive isolation are most often discussed
<figure><img src="image_27.png" /></figure>

in relation to sex chromosomes (Haldane's rule) and associated modifiers (suppressors and enhancers), or to female centromeric drive (Frank 1991a; Hurst and Pomiankowski 1991; Coyne and Orr 2004), although there are certainly other types of drivers with fertility effects (Zanders and Unckless 2019). As fungi have no sex chromosomes, and production of male and female reproductive structures (e.g., trichogyne and spermatia, equivalent to gametes) is decoupled from meiosis in the life cycle, we can study the role of autosomal drivers in the speciation process more directly. Here, we distinguish three particular models of spore killing effects on reproductive isolation, all starting from two allopatric populations.

In the first model, a spore killer invades one of the populations and drives to fixation (FIG. 4A). During population invasion, suppressors and enhancers evolve, although as discussed above (see Genomic Architecture of Spore Killers) enhancers may be rare for single-gene systems. If the spore killer is associated with a large genomic region by suppression of recombination or

other means, it might further accumulate additional mutations that can be deleterious. The host genome in the population where the spore killer has invaded then compensates with additional mutations to ameliorate these deleterious effects. At this point, secondary contact with the other population may produce hybrids with reduced viability. Reproductive incompatibilities might occur due to the selfish action of the spore killer itself, but also due to epistatic interactions between the genetic background of the naïve population and either linked modifiers or the accumulated mutations in the spore killer haplotype that are unrelated to the killing function. The latter incompatibilities correspond to the classic Bateson-Dobzhansky-Muller (BDM) model, where independent lineages evolve gene sets that interact negatively in hybrids (Orr 1996). A similar situation is observed in the *Sk-2* and *Sk-3* spore killers of *N. intermedia*, which have independently evolved incompatibilities with the sister species *N. metzenbergii* that are not related to the spore killing action but locate within their haplotypes (Vogan et al. 2020).

<figure><img src="image_28.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.** Models of spore killing effects on reproductive isolation. Starting from two idealized populations that diverge in allopatry, spore killers can have different effects on the buildup of reproductive barriers. A. A spore killer invades a population and a genomic conflict ensues. Along with suppressors and enhancers, other mutations can evolve and increase in frequency, acting as Bateson-Dobzhansky-Muller (BDM) incompatibilities if the invaded population comes into contact with a naive population. As a result, the hybrid crosses have additional incompatibilities on top of spore killing. B. Both populations accumulate different spore killers. Upon hybridization, the resulting spores are killed at various degrees depending on linkage between the spore killers, which lowers hybrid fitness and creates a reproductive barrier. C. Finally, a spore killer accumulates in one population, and like in A, it causes spore killing in the hybrid crosses. However, in this scenario, the spore killer eventually invades the naive population, lowering average divergence and hence reducing potential incompatibilities between the populations.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_29.png" /></figure>

As is probably the case with *Sk-2* and *Sk-3*, the BDM incompatibilities associated with the spore killer haplotype might not be the original cause of speciation. Instead, they might act as additional reproductive barriers between already diverged species. However, the spore killers can theoretically lead to a peculiar situation where their selfish action results in an extreme case of postzygotic isolation, even in the absence of other incompatibilities (FIG. 4B). If two noninteracting spore killers fix independently in allopatric populations, hybrids would be the victim of the action of two poisons upon secondary contact (Bravo Núñez et al. 2018). If the spore killers are unlinked, they could either segregate together randomly, producing spore killing, or segregate independently, in which case all spores (i.e., all hybrids) would die. At the extreme, full hybrid lethality would occur if the two killers are located at the same locus. We call this second model the “reciprocal killing” reproductive barrier. Such a lethal cross has been artificially engineered by putting either *Spok3* or *Spok4* at the same locus in *P. anserina* (Vogan et al. 2019) and is observed when crossing *Sk-2* and *Sk-3 Neurospora* strains (Turner and Perkins 1991). At the same time, as more spore killers accumulate in each population, the effects of reciprocal killing get multiplied, resulting also in extremely low viability even if the killers are unlinked. For example, there are so many *wtf* genes in different *S. pombe* strains that crosses are often largely sterile (Zanders et al. 2014; Hu et al. 2017; Nuckolls et al. 2017). At this point, however, the extent of reciprocal killing in natural populations of *S. pombe* is unknown, and on the contrary, genetic background may predominantly determine spore viability (Tusso et al. 2019).

The third model highlights the fact that the selfish nature of the spore killers might go against, instead of in favor of, speciation (FIG. 4C). As a population fixed for one spore killer comes into contact with a naïve population, the segregation distortion advantage of the killer might in fact promote the invasion of the spore killer into the new population. Thus, the spore killer might sweep quickly in the new background, bringing with it linked variants from the other population. In this case, the divergence between the two populations decreases, potentially removing other genetic incompatibilities (Crespi and Nosil 2013). This situation has been famously observed in *Drosophila* (Meiklejohn et al. 2018). Similarly, it is known that, in spite of strong postzygotic isolation in the laboratory, the region containing *Sk-1* in *N. sitophila* was introgressed from another species, *N. hispaniola* (Svedberg et al. 2021). However, as little is known about the population dynamics of most spore killers and their host species, it

remains unclear just how much spore killers transit through different fungal populations. Naturally, what could start as a reciprocal-killing situation could later turn into divergence erosion if the few surviving offspring are enough for the spore killers to persist and invade the hybridizing populations. Ultimately, the impact of fungal meiotic drive in population divergence and speciation might depend on the actual abundance of spore killers in natural populations, as well as the specificities of the life cycle and population dynamics of each system.

## POPULATION DYNAMICS OF SPORE KILLERS

Due to a transmission advantage at the gene level, meiotic drivers can invade a population even when they lower the fitness of their host (Burt and Trivers 2009). The study of this counterintuitive phenomenon has opened a fruitful area of research aimed at understanding and predicting the dynamics of these selfish genes in animals and plants, with a growing body of both theoretical and empirical work. Early studies on meiotic drive in mice were paralleled by theoretical population genetics (e.g., Lewontin and Dunn 1960), and since then theoretical studies on meiotic drive have multiplied and diversified (e.g., demographic model, Marshall 2009; spatial models, Rode et al. 2020), often with strong connections to empirical systems and showing impressive predictive powers under controlled conditions (e.g., Fishman and Kelly 2015; Hall and Dawe 2018). In comparison with meiotic drivers in plants and animals, however, the study of fungal spore killer's population dynamics is still at an early stage: theoretical work is scarce and restricted to population genetics, and knowledge of dynamics in natural populations is fragmentary and limited to a few model species.

As of today, there are two population genetics studies of the condition for invasion, i.e., stable polymorphism or fixation of a spore killer in ascomycete fungi (Nauta and Hoekstra 1993; Martinossi-Allibert et al. 2021). Both studies take into account potential fitness costs associated with the killer, as well as killing advantage, the possibility for a net fitness benefit associated with killing. However, the two studies are quite distinct. The Nauta and Hoekstra (1993) study, the first theoretical description of spore killers, is based on *Sk-2* and *Sk-3* in *N. intermedia*. It focuses on the creation of resistant genotypes through recombination between the poison and antidote functions of the killer. They show that a relative driver, such as a spore killer, has a selective advantage that is proportional to the amount of killing per generation, which is in turn dependent on the frequency of the killer itself in the population, assuming
<figure><img src="image_30.png" /></figure>

random mating. Working in an infinite population size framework, the authors conclude that invasion of a spore killer without additional fitness benefits is impossible, because the selective advantage that a single killer derives from killing in an infinite population is effectively null.

In the more recent study, Martinossi-Allibert et al. (2021) describe the population genetics of a single-gene killer. They show that in a finite population framework, invasion is possible due to a non-negligible selective advantage, provided that populations are not too large or are fragmented (FIG. 5). As a heuristic, they propose that a simple spore killer, without killing advantage or fitness cost, can be compared in many respects with a recessive beneficial mutation in terms of invasion dynamics (except that it will decrease, not increase, population mean fitness during invasion). They further note that the effect of host population size on the invasion probability of spore killers is not clear, as it both depends on the selective advantage of the killer (diluted in larger populations) and the mutational input (emergence of new killers, potentially increasing with population size depending on the mechanism of origin).

In summary, population genetics models predict that invasion of a spore killer should be possible by the simple action of killing, especially in small or fragmented populations (Martinossi-Allibert et al. 2021; but see

<figure><img src="image_31.png" /></figure>

**Figure 5.** Simulation of the invasion probability of a spore killer as a function of population size. Each line represents the invasion probability of a spore killer, as calculated from $10^4$ Wright-Fisher simulations for each population size (see Martinossi-Allibert et al. 2021 for details of the simulation). Simple Killer: the only feature of the invading allele is to kill sibling spores that do not carry the allele; 10% Killing Advantage: in addition to killing, the invading allele obtains a 10% increase in viability after killing events (e.g., because of additional resources due to reduced sib competition); 50% Killing Efficiency: the killing efficiency of the invading allele is reduced to 50%, so that half of the non-killer spores survive; 75% Selfing: the host is selfing at a high rate, reducing the opportunity for heterozygous crosses between the killer and non-killer alleles; 10% Viability Cost: the killer is associated with a viability cost (e.g., due to side effects of toxin production).

Sweigart et al. 2019 for a verbal neutral theory of the evolution of spore killers). Fitness costs to the killer will prevent invasion (FIG. 5) unless they are recessive or balanced by a compensation phenomenon (Nauta and Hoekstra 1993; Martinossi-Allibert et al. 2021).

Understanding the conditions that allow for coexistence between a meiotic driver and a nondriving allele are important, as meiotic drivers under stable polymorphism are much more likely to be observed (a meiotic driver can go to fixation rapidly and the driving phenotype subsequently disappears; Lindholm et al. 2016). Both spore killer models show that if a spore killer is 100% efficient (no sensitive spore exposed to killing survives), there can be no coexistence between killer and sensitive alleles. In this case, if a killer can invade, it should subsequently go to fixation (Nauta and Hoekstra 1993; Martinossi-Allibert et al. 2021). Coexistence between killer and sensitive alleles becomes possible if (i) killing efficiency is not complete, (ii) a resistant genotype evolves through recombination between the toxin and antidote functions (Nauta and Hoekstra 1993), or (iii) selfing of the host reduces the transmission rate of the killer (Martinossi-Allibert et al. 2021). In all cases, an additional necessary condition is the existence of fitness differences between the genotypes due to fitness costs, killing advantage, or both, resulting in some form of heterozygote advantage that favors invasion of the killer but prevents its fixation. Note that in ascomycetes that do not have an extended vegetative dikaryotic stage, such recessive effects can only arise during the very short-lived diploid stage.

Recombination between the killing and antidote functions leading to a nonkilling resistant genotype is unlikely in most known spore killing systems (see Genomic Architecture of Spore Killers). However, resistance may appear in a number of other ways (see Mechanisms of Resistance) and may be common in *N. intermedia* and *S. pombe*. The role of selfing, or inbreeding in heterothallic species, could be crucial in determining the fate of spore killers; coevolution between reproductive strategy and costly selfish genetic elements is supported in several other systems (e.g., mate choice in the stalk-eyed fly, Wilkinson et al. 1998; breeding system in plants, Burt and Trivers 1998). Selfing or inbreeding could thus be an efficient strategy to counteract the invasion of spore killers across fungi.

From only two theoretical studies, we still have a limited understanding of spore killer dynamics. However, both studies agree that spore killers present unique dynamics as compared with other types of meiotic drivers and thus deserve more attention, since their behavior cannot simply be extrapolated from other systems. A productive step forward
<figure><img src="image_32.png" /></figure>

would be to start systematic empirical testing of the-
oretical predictions. Some observations on frequencies
of *Spok* genes in *P. anserina* seem to match the pre-
dictions that selfing rate of the host and fitness costs
associated with the killer can become limiting factors
over killing efficiency (Martinossi-Allibert et al. 2021;
Vogan et al. 2021). This suggests that the diversity and
flexibility of fungal mating strategies may indeed play
a role in shaping the landscape of spore killers across
species. There is one additional observation consistent
with the model prediction stating that coexistence
requires incomplete killing or resistance: in
*N. sitophila*, the *Spk-1* killer is fixed, absent, or poly-
morphic in three different clades, respectively; in the
polymorphic clade, resistance to killing is present
(Svedberg et al. 2021).

Population dynamics of spore killers is still a very
young field, with an incomplete theoretical frame and
only fragmented knowledge from a few model systems.
Nevertheless, as recent empirical efforts have advanced
our knowledge of spore killing in several ascomycetes,
and the field of meiotic drive research is very much alive
with the perspective of engineering synthetic drive, there
is a will and a need to push forward. Different aspects of
the theory will have to be explored, including demo-
graphic effects of spore killing, spatial models of spore
killer invasion, the evolution of different types of resis-
tance to killing, and more. All models will have to rely
on ecological data from natural populations, outcrossing
rates, demography, survival rates, and migration rates,
which should be a focus of future collection efforts.

SPORE KILLERS AND SYNTHETIC DRIVE

Using naturally occurring meiotic drive to control popu-
lations was suggested almost as early as the first observa-
tions of sex-ratio distortion, which can have dramatic
effects on the demography of species with separate sexes
(Craig et al. 1960). The idea of controlling demography,
which offered perspectives such as managing the malaria
vector *Aedes aegypti*, was soon tested on caged popula-
tions of mosquitoes (Curtis et al. 1976), but the method
lacked flexibility due to the limitation of genetic manip-
ulation techniques available at the time (Burt and
Crisanti 2018). The advent of more refined genetic engi-
neering methods opened the possibility to engineer syn-
thetic drivers as well as to link a gene of interest
designated as “cargo” to a driver, natural or synthetic
(e.g., Hammond et al. 2016). These technical advances
permit more nuanced approaches, not limited to low-
ering the demography of the target population but
allowing the introduction of genes of interest regardless
of their fitness effects. They also allow for the

implementation of rudimentary safety mechanisms to
lower the risks of spreading to nontarget populations or
organisms (Esvelt et al. 2014; Champer et al. 2016; Burt
and Crisanti 2018; Wedell et al. 2019; Rode et al. 2020).
However, despite potential applications with huge
impact on public health (e.g., malaria vector control)
and conservation (control of invasive species), imple-
mentation in natural populations remains to be seen,
because of perceived risks from the scientific community
as well as the public (Long et al. 2020; Rode et al. 2019;
Wedell et al. 2019).

A key aspect in engineering both efficient and safe synthetic drivers is to understand and accurately predict the dynamics of the driving element once released in a natural environment (Backus and Delborne 2019; Wedell et al. 2019). This will require a detailed knowledge of fitness effects of the driver across environments and genetic backgrounds, as well as of the demography of the target population (Backus and Delborne 2019; Courtier-Orgogozo et al. 2020). For example, theoretical models show the key importance of spatial structure in the target population, which can allow the evolution of resistance (Bull et al. 2019) or interact with and disrupt potential safety mechanisms (e.g., gene brake; Girardin et al. 2019). The challenge of applied uses of synthetic drive thus goes beyond genetic engineering and requires a leap forward in the predictive power of evolutionary biology. It may take years of careful research before the safe introduction of a single synthetic drive in a natural population is made possible, and similar efforts may be needed to tailor the method to the specificities of each target population.

Spore killers may represent an opportunity to use
a natural drive system to control populations of asco-
mycete fungi, for example by reducing virulence of
crop pathogens such as *Fusarium graminearum*. As
in other applications of synthetic drive, the potential
benefits are large, including better crop yields and
reduced use of fungicides (Gardiner et al. 2020). This
potential use has been demonstrated in vitro, with the
successful introduction of *Spok1* (initially found in
*P. comata*) in laboratory populations of
*F. graminearum* (Gardiner et al. 2020). Thus, as with
other types of synthetic drivers, there is an experi-
mental proof of concept that harnessing spore killers
for applied uses is feasible (Gardiner et al. 2020), but
much more work is needed before population
dynamics can be predicted (see Population Dynamics
of Spore Killers) and an actual safe application is
possible. Nevertheless, with the knowledge available
today, we can examine the pros and cons of using
naturally occurring spore killers as a basis for the
development of synthetic drive.
<figure><img src="image_33.png" /></figure>

A first argument in favor of using spore killers to develop synthetic drive is that there are already several well-known genetic elements in several species of ascomycetes that are potential candidates to choose from. Most represent short genetic sequences (see Genetic Architecture of Spore Killers), which makes them easily transferable across species (e.g., Nuckolls et al. 2020). Second, there are several potential mechanisms of host resistance in ascomycetes, including the evolution of suppressors and host genome defense mechanisms, that could be seen as useful features, since they have the potential to be co-opted as safety mechanisms to “recall” a synthetic driver if needed (as suggested by Gardiner et al. 2020). At the same time, such defense mechanisms could also appear as a downside, since they could make the introduction of synthetic drivers difficult or impossible altogether. One additional potential flaw in the idea of using synthetic drivers at all in ascomycetes is the fact that these selfish genetic elements rely on outcrossing to spread in the host population. This requirement may become problematic if asexual reproduction, selfing, or even inbreeding are frequent in populations of ascomycete fungi (see Population Dynamics of Spore Killers). On this last point we can only speculate, but the prevalence of spore killers in several species of ascomycetes shows that they are indeed able to invade; yet, the pace of that invasion is unknown and may be very slow if outcrossing events are rare in natural conditions. The fact that the spore killer introduced in laboratory populations of *F. graminearum* by Gardiner et al. (2020) was able to spread within a few generations, even though the host was allowed to freely choose its mode of reproduction, is encouraging. In addition, several studies suggest that fungal pathogens in particular may increase outcrossing frequency due to the need of rapid coevolution with their host (Kaltz and Shykoff 1999; Laine et al. 2019). Finally, spore killers may naturally be candidates for being engineered as threshold dependent drivers, a type of driver that presents lower risks of invading nontarget populations because they require a minimum frequency in the population to start driving efficiently (Marshall and Akbari 2018; Champer et al. 2020; Girardin et al. 2019). As shown by population genetics models (Nauta and Hoekstra 1993; Martinossi-Allibert et al. 2021), spore killers have a naturally low selective advantage at low frequency, so a small associated fitness cost would be enough to make them threshold dependent drivers.

In conclusion, spore killers have several features that could make them a useful basis for the engineering of synthetic drivers in ascomycetes, which could in turn prove useful for eliminating plant pathogens or reducing their virulence. As for other types of meiotic drivers,

natural or synthetic, their population dynamics need to be much better understood before applied use in natural populations should be envisioned.

## HOW COMMON IS SPORE KILLING?

The diversity of the identified spore killer genes is high, with each spore killing gene having a generally limited phylogenetic distribution. In the three most studied fungal genera (*Neurospora*, *Podospora*, and *Schizosaccharomyces*), five distinct genes or gene families have been identified, and of these, two (*Spok* and *wtf*) show high within-family diversification with corresponding functional divergence in poison-antidote specificity. All of these gene families appear to be species or genus specific, with the exception of the *Spok* family, where homologous sequences can be found throughout Pezizomycotina (Grognet et al. 2014; Vogan et al. 2019). Even in the case of the *Spok* genes, it is still unclear whether these homologs have any spore killing activity, or whether this is a unique mutational event in *Podospora* that caused an existing gene to gain meiotic drive activity.

In any case, these results suggest that the potential for de novo evolution of spore killer genes is large. *Neurospora*, *Podospora*, and *Schizosaccharomyces* are all well-studied model systems for fungal biology, and the other species where spore killing has been observed (*F. verticillioides*, *F. subglutinans*, and *B. maydis*) are important plant pathogens. Spore killing was identified in these cases because different natural isolates were crossed to each other and either aberrant patterns of dead spores or segregation distortion of known markers were observed. Such crosses have only been done in a small number of species, and this fact, together with the high diversity and limited phylogenetic distribution of the known spore killer genes, makes it highly likely that the vast majority of spore killer genes remain unsampled.

There are several reasons why potential spore killers may not have been discovered, even in well-studied systems. Many important plant pathogens are not known to have a sexual cycle, and in others, sex is rare or dominated by selfing. In the case of obligate clonal species, spore killing should be unable to spread through a population, but genes that were active in a sexual ancestor may still remain functional. In the case of species where outcrossing is rare or difficult due to reduced fertility, researchers may have focused on other parts of the biology and missed it. One example of this is *S. pombe*, where spore killing was first described in 2017 (Hu et al. 2017; Nuckolls et al. 2017) despite decades of intense laboratory research. In this case,
<figure><img src="image_34.png" /></figure>

spore killing was not observed due to a combination of
difficulty distinguishing dead from living spores under
a microscope, the availability of only a small number of
natural isolates, and severe reproductive barriers
between these isolates. Interestingly, these reproductive
barriers may in part be caused by the spore killer genes
themselves.

It may be informative to compare this case with *Saccharomyces cerevisiae*, and other members of Saccharomycotina, which are model organisms for genetics and numerous other fields but which have no reported spore killers. The genomes of common laboratory strains of *S. cerevisiae* are well characterized and the presence of a single spore killer gene in these genomes would most likely have been identified, but this may not be the case for genes that are segregating in nature. Although many natural isolates are available, the types of experiments and procedures that could reveal the presence of spore killing appear to be rare. Some features of Saccharomyces biology may make them less likely to harbor meiotic drivers. For instance, large population sizes may make even small negative fitness effects of carrying extra spore killer genes be exposed to selection and relatively quickly purged. Additionally, *S. cerevisiae* outcrosses rarely as compared with other closely related yeast species (Niewenhuis and James 2016). On the other hand, some strains of *S. cerevisiae* and other yeasts contain so-called “killer plasmids,” which are also toxin-antidote systems that kill all yeast that do not carry the plasmid (Liu et al. 2015). This ensures segregation of the plasmid at both mitosis and meiosis, and it has similar evolutionary consequences and dynamics as spore killer genes (Boynton 2019). Thus, it is possible that spore killers are present in the Saccharomycotina, and future screening experiments, perhaps focused on species that outcross often, have the potential to identify such genetic elements.

All known spore killers have so far been found in
ascomycete fungi. Is it possible that spore killing
could also happen among other fungal clades?
Ascomycete meiosis and sporogenesis takes place in
a single cell (the ascus), where the four meiotic
products will initially share a syncytium and then
form individual spores by building cell walls around
themselves. This creates a favorable environment for
spore killing, where proteins generated from one
meiotic product can easily diffuse throughout the
ascus and any potential killing factor can reach
a sensitive target. In basidiomycetes, meiosis and
sporogenesis occur in a single cell as well; the basi-
dium, and basidiospores are then formed through
budding. This developmental program creates similar
opportunities for spore killing, but it may also be

more difficult to distinguish living from dead spores.
Segregation distortion has been observed in basidio-
mycetes (Larraya et al. 2000; Chang and Jung 2008;
Vogan and Xu 2014), but the mechanism behind this
phenomenon is not yet known. It would be of great
interest to know whether spore killing is found
among basidiomycetes and other fungal clades, and
whether this has any other consequences on their
lifestyle and biology, such as rate of outcrossing,
genome size, de novo gene evolution rate, etc.

PERSPECTIVES

It has been over 50 years since spore killing was first
observed in fungi, but only in recent years has an under-
standing of the genetics behind the phenomenon
emerged. The first spore killer gene to be described
was the prion form of het-s in 2003 (Dalstra et al.
2003), and since 2014, four more genes or gene families
causing spore killing have been identified. We now can
start to try to find generalizable patterns that are com-
mon among these systems.

The most striking finding is that four out of the five
identified genes causing spore killing are single genes,
capable of inducing meiotic drive by themselves. This is
in stark contrast to what is seen in other eukaryotes,
where most well-studied meiotic drive elements are
caused by multiple interacting genes that are located in
large nonrecombining regions, or on sex chromosomes,
where the presence of multiple interacting genes may be
likely or cannot easily be excluded. Still, for several
reasons, it may be premature to claim that this difference
is a general pattern. One is that the number of described
spore killer genes is still low, and although the majority
of these are single-gene systems, we also have examples
of multigene complexes with Sk-2 and Sk-3 in
N. intermedia. It could be the case that both single-
gene and multigene drivers occur, but that single-gene
drivers escape detection in most circumstances. Indeed,
a single gene is less likely to be linked to deleterious
mutations than a multigene system in a region of low
recombination, and it might therefore be expected to
sweep to fixation more quickly, making it more difficult
to detect unless its invasion is slowed down by other
factors. As many fungi have the ability to spread clonally
or are self-fertile, this may cause spore killers to remain
polymorphic for longer, which makes them more likely
to be detected. On top of this, unlike sperm killing
meiotic drive elements in plants and animals that kill
gametes, spore killers actually reduce the number of
offspring, and this can lower the selective advantage of
the spore killer and may also increase the time when
a spore killer gene remains polymorphic. This model
<figure><img src="image_35.png" /></figure>

suggests a large undetected diversity of single-gene
meiotic drivers in nonfungal systems, and it also sug-
gests that multigene spore killers may be less likely to
spread in fungi, due to the extra negative fitness of
carrying linked deleterious mutations. In either case,
this question can only be answered through further
sampling.

The results presented here suggest that a large
diversity of spore killers may be found in nature—
and that they may not just be genetic oddities,
instead serving as major drivers in fungal diversifica-
tion, through the erection of reproductive barriers or
in extreme cases such as S. pombe by severely redu-
cing the capacity for outcrossing. Furthermore, they
may be expected to affect genome evolution, in the
shape of gene duplication, de novo gene evolution,
and the accumulation of structural rearrangements
and transposable elements.

We still have much to learn in regard to the
molecular mechanisms underlying the spore killing
phenomenon, both in terms of the killing of sensitive
spores and the protection of nonsensitive ones.
Further work on the population and interspecies
dynamics of spore killing is also necessary, both in
the field and in a controlled laboratory setting, and it
will be of great interest to see whether lessons
learned from natural spore killers can be applied
when considering the possibility of population con-
trol through synthetic drivers. With the high pace of
methodological development in affordable genome
sequencing and through techniques such as CRISPR
(clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic
repeats), biologists who study nonmodel systems are
in an increasingly better position to identify and
study this phenomenon. Spore killers often have the
advantage of being easily identifiable using standard
microscopes, and we encourage fungal biologists to
be aware of the phenomenon and keep an eye out for
these distinct patterns of dead and living spores.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

FUNDING

This work was supported by the European Research Council (ERC) under grant 648143 SpoKiGen (to H.J.); the Swedish Research Council under grant Vetenskapsrådet 2015-04649 (to H.J.) and 2019-06294 (to I.M.); and FORMAS under grant svenska forskningsrådet formas (2019-01227 [to A.A. V.]).

GLOSSARY

**Dikaryon:** The condition of having two nuclear types per cell compartment. For example, *Podospora* species and *N. tetrasperma* have dikaryotic ascospores.

**Enhancer:** Genetic elements that increase the transmission advantage of a meiotic driver.

**Heterothallism:** Reproductive system where mating is only possible between individuals carrying different alleles in a mating type locus. It prevents haploid selfing.

**Homothallism:** Reproductive system where an individual is universally compatible with all individuals in the population, including itself. It allows haploid selfing.

**Killing advantage:** Attenuation of fitness cost imposed by a gamete killing/spore killing driver. For example, production of additional meiotic products to replace the killed ones, or any other fitness benefit for surviving ones.

**Meiotic drivers:** Selfish genetic elements that have the feature of being overrepresented among meiotic products, leading to non-Mendelian segregation patterns.

**Monokaryon:** The condition of having a single nuclear type per cell compartment.

**Pseudohomothallism:** Reproductive system derived from heterothallism where nuclei of different mating types are packaged together in sexual spores, leading to dikaryotic, self-compatible mycelia. It facilitates diploid selfing but does not allow haploid selfing.

**Resistance:** The phenotype of not being affected by a driving mechanism, while also not driving. Suppressors may confer partial or total resistance.

**Suppressor:** Genetic elements that reduce the transmission advantage of a meiotic driver.

ORCID

Aaron A. Vogan http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2013-7445
Ivain Martinossi-Allibert http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8332-8620

S. Lorena Ament-Velásquez http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3371-9292

Jesper Svedberg http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0951-3019

Hanna Johannesson http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6359-9856

LITERATURE CITED

Backus GA, Delborne JA. 2019. Threshold-dependent gene drives in the wild: spread, controllability, and ecological uncertainty. *BioScience*. 69(11):900–1007. doi:10.1093/biosci/biz098

Bernet J. 1965. Mode d'action des gènes de "barrage" et relation entre l'incompatibilité cellulaire et l'incompatibilité sexuelle chez "Podospora anserina" [doctoral dissertation]. Paris (France): University of Paris.
<figure><img src="image_36.png" /></figure>

Billiard S, López-Villavicencio M, Hood ME, Giraud T. 2012. Sex, outcrossing and mating types: unsolved questions in fungi and beyond. J Evol Biol. 25(6):1020–1038. doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2012.02495.x.

Boucher C, Nguyen T-S, Silar P. 2017. Species delimitation in the *Podospora anserina/P. pauciseta/P. comata* species complex (Sordariales). Cryptogam Mycol. 38(4):485–506. doi:10.7872/crym/v38.iss4.2017.485.

Bowen NJ, Jordan IK, Epstein JA, Wood V, Levin HL. 2003. Retrotransposons and their recognition of Pol II promoters: a comprehensive survey of the transposable elements from the complete genome sequence of *Schizosaccharomyces pombe*. Genome Res. 13(9):1984–1997. doi:10.1101/gr.1191603.

Boynton PJ. 2019. The ecology of killer yeasts: interference competition in natural habitats. Yeast. 36(8):473–485. doi:10.1002/yea.3398.

Bravo Núñez MA, Nuckolls NL, Zanders SE. 2018. Genetic villains: killer meiotic drivers. Trends Genet. 34(6):424–433. doi:10.1016/j.tig.2018.02.003.

Bravo Núñez MA, Sabbarini IM, Eickbush MT, Liang Y, Lange JJ, Kent AM, Zanders SE. 2020a. Dramatically diverse *Schizosaccharomyces pombe* *wtf* meiotic drivers all display high gamete-killing efficiency. PLoS Genet. 16(2):e1008350. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1008350.

Bravo Núñez MA, Sabbarini IM, Eide LE, Unckless RL, Zanders SE. 2020b. Atypical meiosis can be adaptive in outcrossed due to meiotic drivers. eLife. 9. doi:10.7554/eLife.57936.

Bronson CR. 1988. Ascospore abortion in crosses of *Cochliobolus heterostrophus* heterozygous for the virulence locus Tox1. Genome. 30(1):12–18. doi:10.1139/g88-003.

Bronson CR. 1990. Genetic control and distorted segregation of T-toxin production in field isolates of *Cochliobolus heterostrophus*. Phytopathology. 80(9):819. doi:10.1094/Phyto-80-819.

Bull JJ, Remien CH, Gomulkiewicz R, Krone SM. 2019. Spatial structure undermines parasite suppression by gene drive cargo. PeerJ. 7:e7921. doi:10.7717/peerj.7921.

Burt A, Crisanti A. 2018. Gene drive: evolved and synthetic. ACS Chem Biol. 13(2):343–346. doi:10.1021/acschembio.7b01031.

Burt A, Trivers R. 1998. Selfish DNA and breeding system in flowering plants. Proc R Soc Lond B. 265(1391):141–146. doi:10.1098/rspb.1998.0275.

Burt A, Trivers R. 2009. Genes in conflict: the biology of selfish genetic elements. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press. 612 p.

Cambareri E, Jensen B, Schabtach E, Selker E. 1989. Repeat-induced G-C to A-T mutations in *Neurospora*. Science. 244 (4912):1571–1575. doi:10.1126/science.2544994.

Campbell JL, Turner BC. 1987. Recombination block in the spore killer region of *Neurospora*. Genome. 29(1):129–135. doi:10.1139/g87-022.

Catalanotto C, Nolan T, Cogoni C. 2006. Homology effects in *Neurospora crassa*. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 254(2):182–189. doi:10.1111/j.1574-6968.2005.00037.x.

Cerutti H, Casas-Mollano JA. 2006. On the origin and functions of RNA-mediated silencing: from protists to man. Curr Genet. 50(2):81–99. doi:10.1007/s00294-006-0078-x.

Champer J, Buchman A, Akbari OS. 2016. Cheating evolution: engineering gene drives to manipulate the fate of wild

populations. Nat Rev Genet. 17(3):146–159. doi:10.1038/nrg.2015.34.

Champer J, Lee YL, Yang E, Liu C, Clark AG, Messer PW. 2020. A toxin-antidote CRISPR gene drive system for regional population modification. Nature Communications. 11:1082. doi:10.1101/628354.

Chang SW, Jung G. 2008. The first linkage map of the plant-pathogenic basidiomycete *Typhula ishikariensis*. Genome. 51(2):128–136. doi:10.1139/G07-097.

Charron Y, Willert J, Lipkowitz B, Kusecek B, Herrmann BG, Bauer H. 2019. Two isoforms of the RAC-specific guanine nucleotide exchange factor TIAM2 act oppositely on transmission ratio distortion by the mouse t-haplotype. PLoS Genet. 15(2):e1007964. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1007964.

Choi J, Kim K, Jeon J, Wu J, Song H, Asiegbu F O, Lee Y. 2014. funRNA: a fungi-centered genomics platform for genes encoding key components of RNAi. BMC Genomics. 15: S14. doi:10.1186/1471-2164-15-S9-S14.

Clutterbuck AJ. 2011. Genomic evidence of repeat-induced point mutation (RIP) in filamentous ascomycetes. Fungal Genet Biol. 48:306–326.

Coleman JJ, et al. 2009. The genome of *Nectria haematococca*: contribution of supernumerary chromosomes to gene expansion. PLoS Genet. 5(8):e1000618. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000618.

Courret C, Chang C-H, Wei KH-C, Montchamp-Moreau C, Larracuente AM. 2019. Meiotic drive mechanisms: lessons from. Proc Biol Sci. 286:20191430.

Courtier-Orgogozo V, Danchin A, Gouyon P-H, Boëte C. 2020. Evaluating the probability of CRISPR-based gene drive contaminating another species. Evol Appl. 13 (8):1888–1905. doi:10.1111/eva.12939.

Coustou V, Deleu C, Saupe S, Begueret J. 1997. The protein product of the het-s heterokaryon incompatibility gene of the fungus *Podospora anserina* behaves as a prion analog. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 94(18):9773–9778. doi:10.1073/pnas.94.18.9773.

Coyne JA, Orr HA. 2004. Speciation. Sunderland (MA): Sinauer Associates. 545 p.

Craig GB Jr, Hickey WA, Vandehey RC. 1960. An inherited male-producing factor in *Aedes aegypti*. Science. 132 (3443):1887–1889. doi:10.1126/science.132.3443.1887.

Crespi B, Nosil P. 2013. Conflictual speciation: species formation via genomic conflict. Trends Ecol Evol. 28(1):48–57. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2012.08.015.

Crow JF. 1991b. Why is Mendelian segregation so exact? Bioessays. 13(6):305–312. doi:10.1002/bies.950130609.

Curtis CF, Grover KK, Suguna SG, Uppal DK, Dietz K, Agarwal HV, Kazmi SJ. 1976. Comparative field cage tests of the population suppressing efficiency of three genetic control systems for *Aedes aegypti*. Heredity. 36(1):11–29. doi:10.1038/hdy.1976.2.

Dalstra HJP, Swart K, Debets AJM, Saupe SJ, Hoekstra RF. 2003. Sexual transmission of the [Het-S] prion leads to meiotic drive in *Podospora anserina*. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 100(11):6616–6621. doi:10.1073/pnas.1030058100.

Debets AJM, Dalstra HJP, Slakhorst M, Koopmanschap B, Hoekstra RF, Saupe SJ. 2012. High natural prevalence of a fungal prion. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 109 (26):10432–10437. doi:10.1073/pnas.1205331109.
<figure><img src="image_37.png" /></figure>

Eickbush MT, Young JM, Zanders SE. 2019. Killer meiotic drive and dynamic evolution of the *wtf* gene family. Mol Biol Evol. 36:1201–1214.

Esvelt KM, Smidler AL, Catteruccia F, Church GM. 2014. Concerning RNA-guided gene drives for the alteration of wild populations. eLife. 3. doi:10.7554/eLife.03401.

Fishman L, Kelly JK. 2015. Centromere-associated meiotic drive and female fitness variation in *Mimulus*. Evolution. 69(5):1208–1218. doi:10.1111/evo.12661.

Frank SA. 1991a. Divergence of meiotic drive-suppression systems as an explanation for sex-biased hybrid sterility and inviability. Evolution. 45:262–267.

Frank SA. 1991b. Haldane's rule: a defense of the meiotic drive theory. Evolution. 45(7):1714–1717. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1991.tb02678.x.

Gardiner DM, Rusu A, Barrett L, Hunter GC, Kazan K. 2020. Can natural gene drives be part of future fungal pathogen control strategies in plants? New Phytol. 228(4):1431–1439. doi:10.1111/nph.16779.

Girardin L, Calvez V, Débarre F. 2019. Catch me if you can: a spatial model for a brake-driven gene drive reversal. Bull Math Biol. 81(12):5054–5088. doi:10.1007/s11538-019-00668-z.

Graïa F, Lespinet O, Rimbault B, Dequard-Chablat M, Coppin E, Picard M. 2001. Genome quality control: RIP (repeat-induced point mutation) comes to *Podospora*. Mol Microbiol. 40(3):586–595. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2958.2001.02367.x.

Grognet P, Lalucque H, Malagnac F, Silar P. 2014. Genes that bias Mendelian segregation. PLoS Genet. 10(5):e1004387. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1004387.

Hall DW, Dawe RK. 2018. Modeling the evolution of female meiotic drive in Maize. G3 8(1):123–130. doi:10.1534/g3.117.300073.

Hamann A, Osiewacz HD. 2004. Genetic analysis of spore killing in the filamentous ascomycete *Podospora anserina*. Fungal Genet Biol. 41(12):1088–1098. doi:10.1016/j.fgb.2004.08.008.

Hammond A, et al. 2016. A CRISPR-Cas9 gene drive system targeting female reproduction in the malaria mosquito vector *Anopheles gambiae*. Nat Biotechnol. 34(1):78–83. doi:10.1038/nbt.3439.

Hammond TM, Rehard DG, Xiao H, Shiu PKT. 2012. Molecular dissection of *Neurospora* spore killer meiotic drive elements. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 109 (30):12093–12098. doi:10.1073/pnas.1203267109.

Hansen KR, Burns G, Mata J, Volpe TA, Martienssen RA, Bähler J, Thon G. 2005. Global effects on gene expression in fission yeast by silencing and RNA interference machineries. Mol Cell Biol. 25(2):590–601. doi:10.1128/MCB.25.2.590-601.2005.

Hartl DL. 1972. Population dynamics of sperm and pollen killers. Theor Appl Genet. 42(2):81–88. doi:10.1007/BF00277948.

Harvey AM, Rehard DG, Groskreutz KM, Kuntz DR, Sharp KJ, Shiu PKT, Hammond TM. 2014. A critical component of meiotic drive in *Neurospora* is located near a chromosome rearrangement. Genetics. 197(4):1165–1174. doi:10.1534/genetics.114.167007.

Hernández JFL, Helston RM, Lange JJ, Blake Billmyre R, Schaffner SH, Eickbush MT, McCroskey S, Zanders SE. 2021. Diverse mating phenotypes impact the spread of *wtf*

meiotic drivers in *S. pombe*. bioRxiv. doi:10.1101/2021.05.28.446231.

Horns F, Petit E, Yockteng R, Hood ME. 2012. Patterns of repeat-induced point mutation in transposable elements of basidiomycete fungi. Genome Biol Evol. 4(3):240–247. doi:10.1093/gbe/evs005.

Hu W, Jiang Z-D, Suo F, Zheng J-X, He W-Z, Du -L-L. 2017. A large gene family in fission yeast encodes spore killers that subvert Mendel's law. eLife. 6. doi:10.7554/eLife.26057.

Hurst LD, Pomiankowski A. 1991. Causes of sex ratio bias may account for unisexual sterility in hybrids: a new explanation of Haldane's rule and related phenomena. Genetics. 129 (2):603. doi:10.1093/genetics/129.2.603.

Jaenike J. 2001. Sex chromosome meiotic drive. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 32(1):25–49. doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.32.081501.113958.

Kaltz O, Shykoff JA. 1999. Selfing versus outcrossing propensity of the fungal pathogen *Microbotryum violaceum* across *Silene latifolia* host plants. J Evol Biol. 12(2):340–349. doi:10.1046/j.1420-9101.1999.00014.x.

Kathariou S, Spieth PT. 1982. Spore killer polymorphism in *Fusarium moniliforme*. Genetics. 102(1):19–24. doi:10.1093/genetics/102.1.19.

Laine A-L, Barrès B, Numminen E, Siren JP. 2019. Variable opportunities for outcrossing result in hotspots of novel genetic variation in a pathogen metapopulation. eLife. 8:e47091.

Larraya LM, Pérez G, Ritter E, Pisabarro AG, Ramírez L. 2000. Genetic linkage map of the edible basidiomycete *Pleurotus ostreatus*. Appl Environ Microbiol. 66(12):5290–5300. doi:10.1128/AEM.66.12.5290-5300.2000.

Lewontin RC, Dunn LC. 1960. The evolutionary dynamics of a polymorphism in the house mouse. Genetics. 45 (6):705–722. doi:10.1093/genetics/45.6.705.

Lindholm AK, et al. 2016. The ecology and evolutionary dynamics of meiotic drive. Trends Ecol Evol. 31 (4):315–326. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2016.02.001.

Liu G-L, Chi Z, Wang G-Y, Wang Z-P, Li Y, Chi Z-M. 2015. Yeast killer toxins, molecular mechanisms of their action and their applications. Crit Rev Biotechnol. 35(2):222–234. doi:10.3109/07388551.2013.833582.

Long KC, et al. 2020. Core commitments for field trials of gene drive organisms. Science. 370(6523):1417–1419. doi:10.1126/science.abd1908.

Lutzoni F, et al. 2018. Contemporaneous radiations of fungi and plants linked to symbiosis. Nat Commun. 9(1):5451. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-07849-9.

Lyttle TW. 1991. Segregation distorters. Annu Rev Genet. 25 (1):511–557. doi:10.1146/annurev.ge.25.120191.002455.

Ma L-J, Geiser DM, Proctor RH, Rooney AP, O'Donnell K, Trail F, Gardiner DM, Manners JM, Kazan K. 2013. *Fusarium* pathogenomics. Annu Rev Microbiol. 67 (1):399–416. doi:10.1146/annurev-micro-092412-155650.

Marshall JM. 2009. The effect of gene drive on containment of transgenic mosquitoes. J Theor Biol. 258(2):250–265. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2009.01.031.

Marshall JM, Akbari OS. 2018. Can CRISPR-based gene drive be confined in the wild? A question for molecular and population biology. ACS Chem Biol. 13:424–430. doi:10.1021/acschembio.7b00923.

Martinossi-Allibert I, Veller C, Ament-Velásquez SL, Vogan AA, Rueffler C, Johannesson H. 2021. Invasion and
<figure><img src="image_38.png" /></figure>

maintenance of meiotic drivers in populations of ascomycete
fungi. Evolution. 75(5):1150-1169. doi:10.1111/evo.14214.

Meiklejohn CD, et al. 2018. Gene flow mediates the role of sex chromosome meiotic drive during complex speciation. *eLife*. 7. doi:10.7554/eLife.35468.

Milgroom MG, Smith ML, Drott MT, Nuss DL. 2018. Balancing selection at nonself recognition loci in the chestnut blight fungus, *Cryphonectria parasitica*, demonstrated by trans-species polymorphisms, positive selection, and even allele frequencies. Heredity. 121(6):511-523. doi:10.1038/s41437-018-0060-7.

Nakayashiki H, Kadotani N, Mayama S. 2006. Evolution and diversification of RNA silencing proteins in fungi. J Mol Evol. 63(1):127-135. doi:10.1007/s00239-005-0257-2.

Nauta MJ, Hoekstra RF. 1993. Evolutionary dynamics of spore killers. Genetics. 135(3):923-930. doi:10.1093/genetics/135.3.923.

Nguyen D, Peona V, Unneberg P, Suh A, Jern P, Johannesson H. 2020. Transposon- and genome dynamics in the fungal genus *Neurospora*: insights from nearly gapless genome assemblies. bioRxiv. doi:10.1101/2020.09.27.311811.

Nieuwenhuis BPS, James TY. 2016. The frequency of sex in fungi. Philos Trans R Soc B. 371(1706):20150540. doi:10.1098/rstb.2015.0540.

Nuckolls NL, et al. 2020. The meiotic driver utilizes controlled protein aggregation to generate selective cell death. eLife. 9. doi:10.7554/eLife.55694.

Nuckolls NL, Bravo Núñez MA, Eickbush MT, Young JM, Lange JJ, Yu JS, Smith GR, Jaspersen SL, Malik HS, Zanders SE. 2017. Wtf genes are prolific dual poison-antidote meiotic drivers. eLife. 6:e26033.

Núñez MAB, Lange JJ, Zanders SE. 2018. A suppressor of a wtf poison-antidote meiotic driver acts via mimicry of the driver's antidote. PLoS Genet. 14(11):e1007836. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1007836.

O'Donnell K, Nirenberg HI, Aoki T, Cigelnik E. 2000. A Multigene phylogeny of the *Gibberella fujikuroi* species complex: detection of additional phylogenetically distinct species. Mycoscience. 41(1):61-78. doi:10.1007/bf02464387.

Orr A. 1996. Dobzhansky, Bateson, and the genetics of speciation. Genetics. 144:1331-1335. doi:10.1093/genetics/144.4.1331.

Padieu E, Bernet J. 1967. Mode of action of the genes responsible for abortion of certain products of meiosis in the Ascomycete, *Podospora anserina*. C R Acad Hebd Seances Acad Sci D. 264:2300-2303.

Perkins DD. 1974. The manifestation of chromosome rearrangements in unordered asci of *Neurospora*. Genetics. 77 (3):459-489. doi:10.1093/genetics/77.3.459.

Pinan-Lucarré B, Paoletti M, Clavé C. 2007. Cell death by incompatibility in the fungus *Podospora*. Semin Cancer Biol. 17(2):101-111. doi:10.1016/j.semcancer.2006.11.009.

Pyle J, Patel T, Merrill B, Nsokoshi C, McCall M, Proctor RH, Brown DW, Hammond TM. 2016. A meiotic drive element in the maize pathogen *Fusarium verticillioides* is located within a 102 kb region of chromosome V. G3. 6 (8):2543-2552. doi:10.1534/g3.116.029728.

Raju NB, Metzenberg RL, Shiu PKT. 2007. *Neurospora* spore killers Sk-2 and Sk-3 suppress meiotic silencing by unpaired DNA. Genetics. 176(1):43-52. doi:10.1534/genetics.106.069161.

Raju N, Perkins D. 1994. Diverse programs of ascus development in pseudohomothallic species of *Neurospora*, *Gelasinospora*, and *Podospora*. Dev Genet. 15(1):104-118. doi:10.1002/dvg.1020150111.

Reis M, Vieira CP, Lata R, Posnien N, Vieira J. 2018. Origin and consequences of chromosomal inversions in the virilis group of Drosophila. Genome Biol Evol. 10(12):3152-3166. doi:10.1093/gbe/evy239.

Rhoades MM. 1942. Preferential segregation in maize. Genetics. 27(4):395-407. doi:10.1093/genetics/27.4.395.

Rhoades NA, et al. 2019. Identification of rfk-1, a meiotic driver undergoing RNA editing in *Neurospora*. Genetics. 212(1):93-110. doi:10.1534/genetics.119.302122.

Riek R, Saupe SJ. 2016. The HET-S/s prion motif in the control of programmed cell death. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 8(9):a023515. doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a023515.

Rode NO, Courtier-Orgogozo V, Débarre F. 2020. Can a population targeted by a CRISPR-based homing gene drive be rescued? G3. 10(9):3403-3415. doi:10.1534/g3.120.401484.

Rode NO, Estoup A, Bourguet D, Courtier-Orgogozo V, Débarre F. 2019. Population management using gene drive: molecular design, models of spread dynamics and assessment of ecological risks. Conserv Genet. 20 (4):671-690. doi:10.1007/s10592-019-01165-5.

Shiu PK, Raju NB, Zickler D, Metzenberg RL. 2001. Meiotic silencing by unpaired DNA. Cell. 107(7):905-916. doi:10.1016/S0092-8674(01)00609-2.

Sidhu GS. 1984. Genetics of *Gibberella fujikuroi* V. Spore killer alleles in *G. fujikuroi*. J Hered. 75(3):237-238. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jhered.a109923.

Son H, Min K, Lee J, Raju NB, Lee Y-W. 2011. Meiotic silencing in the homothallic fungus *Gibberella zeae*. Fungal Biol. 115 (12):1290-1302. doi:10.1016/j.funbio.2011.09.006.

Summerell BA. 2019. Resolving *Fusarium*: current status of the genus. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 57(1):323-339. doi:10.1146/annurev-phyto-082718-100204.

Sun Y, Svedberg J, Hiltunen M, Corcoran P, Johannesson H. 2017. Large-scale suppression of recombination predates genomic rearrangements in *Neurospora tetrasperma*. Nat Commun. 8(1):1140. doi:10.1038/s41467-017-01317-6.

Svedberg J, et al. 2018. Convergent evolution of complex geno-mic rearrangements in two fungal meiotic drive elements. Nat Commun. 9(1):4242. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-06562-x.

Svedberg J, Vogan AA, Rhoades NA, Sarmarajeewa D, Jacobson DJ, Lascoux M, Hammond TM, Johannesson H. 2021. An introgressed gene causes meiotic drive in *Neurospora sitophila*. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 118(17): e2026605118.

Sweigart AL, Brandvain Y, Fishman L. 2019. Making a Murderer: the evolutionary framing of hybrid gamete-killers. Trends Genet. 35(4):245-252. doi:10.1016/j.tig.2019.01.004.

Taga M, Bronson CR, Yoder OC. 1985. Nonrandom abortion of ascospores containing alternate alleles at the Tox-1 locus of the fungal plant pathogen *Cochliobolus heterostrophus*. Can J Genet Cytol. 27:450-456. doi:10.1139/g85-066.

Turgeon BG, Baker SE. 2007. Genetic and genomic dissection of the *Cochliobolus heterostrophus* Tox1 locus controlling biosynthesis of the polyketide virulence factor T-toxin. Adv Genet. 57:219-261.
<figure><img src="image_39.png" /></figure>

Turgeon BG, Kodama M, Yang G, Rose MS, Lu SW, Yoder OC. 1995. Function and chromosomal location of the *Cochliobolus heterostrophus* TOX1 locus. Can J Bot. 73 (S1):1071-1076. doi:10.1139/b95-359.

Turner BC. 2001. Geographic distribution of *Neurospora* spore killer strains and strains resistant to killing. Fungal Genet Biol. 32(2):93-104. doi:10.1006/fgbi.2001.1253.

Turner BC, Perkins DD. 1979. Spore killer, a chromosomal factor in *Neurospora* that kills meiotic products not containing it. Genetics. 93(3):587-606. doi:10.1093/genetics/93.3.587.

Turner BC, Perkins DD. 1991. Meiotic drive in *Neurospora* and other fungi. Am Nat. 137(3):416-429. doi:10.1086/285174.

Tusso S, Nieuwenhuis BPS, Sedlazeck FJ, Davey JW, Jeffares DC, Wolf JBW. 2019. Ancestral admixture is the main determinant of global biodiversity in fission yeast. Mol Biol Evol. 36:1975-1989.

Van der Gaag M, Debets AJ, Oosterhof J, Slakhorst M, Thijssen JA, Hoekstra RF. 2000. Spore-killing meiotic drive factors in a natural population of the fungus *Podospora anserina*. Genetics. 156(2):593-605. doi:10.1093/genesitics/156.2.593.

Vogan AA, et al. 2019. Combinations of *Spok* genes create multiple meiotic drivers in *Podospora*. eLife. 8. doi:10.7554/eLife.46454.

Vogan AA, Ament-Velásquez SL, Bastiaans E, Wallerman O, Saupe SJ, Suh A, Johannesson H. 2021. The Enterprise, a massive transposon carrying meiotic drive genes. Genome Res. 31:789-798. doi:10.1101/gr.267609.120.

Vogan AA, Xu J. 2014. Evidence for genetic incompatibilities associated with post-zygotic reproductive isolation in the human fungal pathogen *Cryptococcus neoformans*. Genome. 57(6):335-344. doi:10.1139/gen-2014-0077.

Vogan A, Svedberg J, Grudzinska-Sterno M, Johannesson H. 2020. Meiotic drive is associated with sexual incompatibility in *Neurospora*. bioRxiv. doi:10.1101/2020.11.27.400796.

Wedell N, Price TAR, Lindholm AK. 2019. Gene drive: progress and prospects. Proc R Soc B. 286(1917):20192709. doi:10.1098/rspb.2019.2709.

Wilkinson GS, Kahler H, Baker RH. 1998. Evolution of female mating preferences in stalk-eyed flies. Behav Ecol. 9 (5):525-533. doi:10.1093/beheco/9.5.525.

Wright SI, Ness RW, Foxe JP, Barrett SCH. 2008. Genomic consequences of outcrossing and selfing in plants. Int J Plant Sci. 169(1):105-118. doi:10.1086/523366.

Zanders SE, Eickbush MT, Yu JS, Kang J-W, Fowler KR, Smith GR, Malik HS. 2014. Genome rearrangements and pervasive meiotic drive cause hybrid infertility in fission yeast. eLife. 3:e02630. doi:10.7554/eLife.02630.

Zanders SE, Unckless RL. 2019. Fertility costs of meiotic drivers. Curr Biol. 29:R512-R520.