Review of Genomic features of asexual animals
Creators: name: Anonymous
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2020

description: Summary This paper addresses the question of whether there are distinct genomic features in animals that reproduce asexually. The authors examine a range of features in the genomes of 26 species representing 18 independent evolutionary origins of asexuality. The reviewers were unanimous that this is an interesting question, and find that exploring it in a broad evolutionary context is the right approach. However, they raised questions about biases in specific analyses that complicated their interpretation, and the extent to which the central claims can be supported without comparison to closely related sexual species. Reviewer #1 This paper addresses the very interesting topic of genome evolution in asexual animals. While the topic and questions are of interest, and I applaud the general goal of a large-scale comparative approach to the questions, there are limitations in the data analyzed. Most importantly, as the authors raise numerous times in the paper, questions about genome evolution following transitions to asexuality inherently require lineage-specific controls, i.e. paired sexual species to compare with the asexual lineages. Yet such data are currently lacking for most of the taxa examined, leaving a major gap in the ability to draw important conclusions here. I also do not think the main positive results, such as the role of hybridization and ploidy on the retention and amount of heterozygosity, are novel or surprising. Reviewer #2 This paper is interesting because it is studying, through a comparative genomic approach, how asexuality affects genome evolution in animal lineages while focusing on the same features. Such an extensive comparison can, in principle, distinguish the common consequences of asexuality, in contrast to previous studies that focused on few asexual species (or only one). It is interesting that the authors did not find a universal genomic feature of "asexual" species. This is a potentially important contribution to the field of the evolution of reproductive systems. However, I am concerned about limitations and potential biases in many of the specific genomic features analysed, and resultant difficulties in drawing any general conclusions from these analyses. For example, the heterozygosity analyses need to be more clearly explained and the potential limits of the methods used discussed further. The use of kmer spectra analyses as opposed to genome assemblies is understandable, but these are biases here that were not discussed. I am also concerned about the impact of low read quality and low coverage genomic data, and whether issues with genome assembly affect the conclusions. There are also issues about conclusions related to species of hybrid origin as there are numerous "unknown" cases and cytological data is lacking for many of the studied animal groups (therefore the authors should be cautious on the evidence of reproduction mode). Ideally, all the genomes of the asexual animal clades studied should have been sequenced and assembled using the same method which would make this comparative study much stronger. We realize this may not yet be practical, but the absence of such data must temper the conclusions. It is nevertheless the first article including and comparing many distinct parthenogenetic animal clades and the main result that no common universal genomic feature of parthenogenesis is, with caveats, interesting. <strong>Major Issues and Questions:</strong> 1) The authors choose to refer to asexuality when describing thelytokous parthenogenesis. Asexuality is a very general term that can be confusing: fission, vegetative reproduction could also be considered asexuality. I suggest using parthenogenesis throughout the manuscript for the different animal clades studied here. Moreover, in thelytokous parthenogenesis meiosis can still occur to form the gametes, it is therefore not correct to write that "gamete production via meiosis… no longer take place" (lines 57-58). Fertilization by sperm indeed does not seem to take place (except during hybridogenesis, a special form of parthenogenesis). 2) The cellular mechanisms of asexuality in many asexual lineages are known through only a few, old cytological studies and could be inaccurate or incomplete (for example Triantaphyllou paper of 1981 of Meloidogyne nematodes or Hsu, 1956 for bdelloid rotifers). The authors should therefore mention in the introduction the lack of detailed and accurate cellular and genetic studies to describe the mode of reproduction because it may change the final conclusion. For example, for bdelloid rotifers the literature is scarce. However the authors refer in Supp Table 1 to two articles that did not contain any cytological data on oogenesis in bdelloid rotifers to indicate that A. vaga and A. ricciae use apomixis as reproductive mode. Welch and Meselson studied the karyotypes of bdelloid rotifers, including A. vaga, and did not conclude anything about absence or presence of chromosome homology and therefore nothing can be said about their reproduction mode. In the article of Welch and Meselson the nuclear DNA content of bdelloid species is measured but without any link with the reproduction mode. The only paper referring to apomixis in bdelloids is from Hsu (1956) but it is old and new cytological data with modern technology should be obtained. 3) In the section on Heterozygosity, the authors compute heterozygosity from kmer spectra analysis from reads to "avoid biases from variable genome assembly qualities" (page 16). But such kmer analysis can be biased by the quality and coverage of sequencing reads. While such analyses are a legitimate tool for heterozygosity measurements, this argument (the bias of genome quality) is not convincing and the authors should describe the potential limits of using kmer spectra analyses. 4) The authors state that heterozygosity levels “should decay over time for most forms of meiotic asexuality". This is incorrect, as this is not expected with "central fusion" or with "central fusion automixis equivalent" where there is no cytokinesis at meiosis I. 5) I do not fully agree with the authors’ statement that: "In spite of the prediction that the cellular mechanism of asexuality should affect heterozygosity, it appears to have no detectable effect on heterozygosity levels once we control for the effect of hybrid origins (Figure 2)." (page 17) The scaling on Figure 2 is emphasizing high values, while low values are not clearly separated. By zooming in on the smaller heterozygosity % values we may observe a bigger difference between the "asexuality mechanisms". I do not see how asexuality mechanism was controlled for, and if you look closely at intra group heterozygosity, variability is sometimes high. It is expected that hybrid origin leads to higher heterozygosity levels but saying that asexuality mechanism is not important is surprising: on Figure 2 the orange (central fusion) is always higher than yellow (gamete duplication). Also, the variability found within rotifers could be an argument against a strong importance of asexuality origin on heterozygosity levels: the four bdelloid species likely share the same origin but their allelic heterozygosity levels appears to range from almost 0 to almost 6% (Fig 2 and 3, however the heterozygosity data on Rotaria should be confirmed, see below). The authors’ main idea (i.e. asexuality origin is key) seems mostly true when using homoeolog heterozygosity and/or composite heterozygosity which is not what most readers will usually think as "heterozygosity". This should be made clear by the authors mostly because this kind of heterozygosity does not necessarily undergo the same mechanism as the one described in Box 2 for allelic heterozygosity. If homoeolog heterozygosity is sometimes not distinguishable from allelic heterozygosity, then it would be nice to have another box showing the mechanisms and evolution pattern for such cases (like a true tetraploid, in which all copies exist). The heterozygosity between homoeologs is always high in this study while it appears low between alleles, but since the heterozygosity between homeologs can only be measured when there is a hybrid origin, the only heterozygosity that can be compared between ALL the asexual groups is the one between alleles. Both in the results and the conclusion the authors should not over interpret the results on heterozygosity. The variation in allelic heterozygosity could be small (although not in all asexuals studied) also due to the age of the asexual lineages. This is not mentioned here in the result/discussion section. 6) Regarding the section on Heterozygosity structure in polyploids. There is inconsistency in many of the numbers. For example, A. vaga heterozygosity is estimated at 1.42% in Figure 1, but then appears to show up around 2% in Figure 2, and then becomes 2.4% on page 20. It is unclear is this is an error or the result of different methods. It is also unclear how homologs were distinguished from homeologs. How are 21 bp k-mers considered homologous? In the method section. the authors describe extracting unique k-mer pairs differing by one SNP, so does this mean that no more than one SNP was allowed to define heterozygous homologous regions? Does this mean that homologues (and certainly homoeologs) differing by more than 5% would not be retrieved by this method. If so, then It is not surprising that for A. vaga is classified as a diploid. The result for A. ricciae is surprising and I am still not convinced by the octoploid hypothesis. In Fig S2. there is a first peak at 71x coverage that still could be mostly contaminants. It would be helpful to check the GC distribution of k-mers in the first haploid peak of A. ricciae to check whether there are contaminants. The karyotypes of 12 chromosomes indeed do not fit the octoploid hypothesis. I am also surprised by the 5.5% divergence calculated for A. ricciae, this value should be checked when eliminating potential contaminants (if any). In general, these kind of ambiguities will not be resolved without long-read sequencing technology to improve the genome assemblies of asexual lineages. 7) Regarding the section on palindromes and gene conversion. The authors screened all the published genomes for palindromes, including small blocks, to provide a more robust unbiased view. However, the result will be unbiased and robust if all the genomes compared were assembled using the same sequencing data (quality, coverage) and assembly program. While palindromes appear not to play a major role in the genome evolution of parthenogenetic animals since only few palindromes were detected among all lineages, mitotic (and meiotic) gene conversion is likely to take place in parthenogens and should indeed be studied among all the clades. 8) Regarding the section on transposable elements. The authors are aware that the approach used may underestimate the TEs present in low copy numbers, therefore the comparison might underestimate the TE numbers in certain asexual groups. 9) Regarding the section on horizontal gene transfer. For the HGTc analysis, annotated genes were compared to the UniRef90 database to identify non-metazoan genes and HGT candidates were confirmed if they were on a scaffold containing at least one gene of metazoan origin. While this method is indeed interesting, it is also biased by the annotation quality and the length of the scaffolds which vary strongly between studies. 10) Regarding the use of GenomeScope2.0. When homologues are very divergent (as observed in bdelloid rotifers) GenomeScope probably considers these distinct haplotypes as errors, making it difficult to model the haploid genome size and giving a high peak of errors in the GenomeScope profile. Moreover, due to the very divergent copies in A. vaga, GenomeScope indeed provides a diploid genome (instead of tetraploid). For A. vaga, the heterozygosity estimated par GenomeScope2.0. on our new sequencing dataset is 2% (as shown in this paper). This % corresponds to the heterozygosity between k-mers but does not provide any information on the heterogeneity in heterozygosity measurements along the genome. A limitation of GenomeScope2.0. (which the authors should mention here) is that it is assuming that the entire genome is following the same theoretical k-mer distribution. Reviewer #3 Jaron and collaborators provide a large-scale comparative work on the genomic impact of asexuality in animals. By analysing 26 published genomes with a unique bioinformatic pipeline, they conclude that none of the expected features due to the transition to asexuality is replicated across a majority of the species. Their findings call into question the generality of the theoretical expectations, and suggest that the genomic impacts of asexuality may be more complicated than previously thought. The major strengths of this work is (i) the comparison among various modes and origins of asexuality across 18 independent transitions; and (ii) the development of a bioinformatic pipeline directly based on raw reads, which limits the biases associated with genome assembly. Moreover, I would like to acknowledge the effort made by the authors to provide on public servers detailed methods which allow the analyses to be reproduced. That being said, I also have a series of concerns, listed below: 1) Theoretical expectations. As far as I understand, the aim of this work is to test whether 4 classical predictions associated with the transition to asexuality and 5 additional features observed in individual asexual lineages hold at a large phylogenetic scale. However, I think that these predictions are poorly presented, and so they may be hardly understood by non-expert readers. Some of them are briefly mentioned in a descriptive way in the Introduction (L56 - 61), and with a little more details in the Boxes 1 and 2. However, the evolutive reasons why one should expect these features to occur (and under which assumptions) is not clearly stated anywhere in the Introduction (but only briefly in the Results &amp; Discussion). I think it is important that the authors provide clear-cut quantitative expectations for each genomic feature analysed and under each asexuality origin and mode (Box 1 and 2). Also highlighting the assumptions behind these expectations will help for a better interpretation of the observed patterns. 2) Mutation accumulation &amp; positive selection. A subtlety which is not sufficiently emphasized to my mind is that the different modes of asexuality encompass reproduction with or without recombination (Box 2), which can lead to very different genetic outcomes. For example, it has been shown that the Muller's ratchet (the accumulation of deleterious mutations in asexual populations) can be stopped by small amounts of recombination in large-sized populations (Charlesworth et al. 1993; 10.1017/S0016672300031086). Similarly a new recessive beneficial mutation can only segregate at a heterozygous state in a clonal lineage (unless a second mutation hits the same locus); whereas in the presence of recombination, these mutations will rapidly fix in the population by the formation of homozygous mutants (Haldane's Sieve, Haldane 1927; 10.1017/S0305004100015644). Therefore, depending on whether recombination occurs or not during asexual reproduction, the expectations may be quite different; and so they could deviate from the "classical predictions". In this regard, I would like to see the authors adjust their conclusions. Moreover, it is also not very clear whether the species analysed here are 100% asexuals or if they sometimes go through transitory sexual phases, which could reset some of the genomic effects of asexuality. 3) Transposable elements. I found the predictions regarding the amount of TEs expected under asexuality quite ambiguous. From one side, TEs are expected not to spread because they cannot colonize new genomes (Hickey 1982); but on the other side TEs can be viewed as any deleterious mutation that will accumulate in asexual genome due to the Muller's ratchet. The argument provided by the authors to justify the expectation of low TE load in asexual lineages is that "Only asexual lineages without active TEs, or with efficient TE suppression mechanisms, would be able to persist over evolutionary timescales". But this argument should then equally be applied to any other type of deleterious mutations, and so we won't be able to see Muller's ratchet in the first place. Therefore, not observing the expected pattern for TEs in the genomic data is not so surprising as the expectation itself does not seem to be very robust. I would like the authors to better acknowledge this issue, which actually goes into their general idea that the genomic consequences of asexuality are not so simple. 4) Heterozygosity. Due to the absence of recombination, asexual populations are expected to maintain a high level of diversity at each single locus (heterozygosity), but a low number of different haplotypes. However, as presented by the authors in the Box 2, there are different modes of parthenogenesis with different outcomes regarding heterozygosity: (1) preservation at all loci; (2) reduction or loss at all loci; (3) reduction depending on the chromosomal position relative to the centromere (distal or proximal). Therefore, the authors could benefit from their genome-based dataset to explore in more detail the distribution of heterozygosity along the chromosomes, and further test whether it fits with the above predictions. If the differing quality of the genome assemblies is an issue, the authors could at least provide the variance of the heterozygosity across the genome. The mode #3 (i.e. central fusions and terminal fusions) would be particularly interesting as one would then be able to compare, within the same genome, regions with large excess vs. deficit of heterozygosity and assess their evolutive impacts. Moreover, the authors should put more emphasis on the fact that using a single genome per species is a limitation to test the subtle effects of asexuality on heterozygosity (and also on "mutation accumulation &amp; positive selection"). These effects are better detected using population-based methods (i.e. with many individuals, but not necessarily many loci). For example, the FIS value of a given locus is negative when its heterozygosity is higher than expected under random mating, and positive when the reverse is true (Wright 1951; 10.1111/j.1469-1809.1949.tb02451.x). 5) Absence of sexual lineages. A second limit of this work is the absence of sexual lineages to use as references in order to control for lineage-specific effects. I do not agree with the authors when they say that "the theoretical predictions pertaining to mutation accumulation, positive selection, gene family expansions, and gene loss are always relative to sexual species […] and cannot be independently quantified in asexuals." I think that this is true for all the genomic features analysed, because the transition to asexuality is going to affect the genome of asexual lineages relative to their sexual ancestors. This is actually acknowledged at the end of the Conclusion by the authors. To give an example, the authors say that "Species with an intraspecific origin of asexuality show low heterozygosity levels (0.03% - 0.83%), while all of the asexual species w