Genomic features of parthenogenetic animals

  1. Kamil S. Jaron
  2. Jens Bast
  3. Reuben W. Nowell
  4. T. Rhyker Ranallo-Benavidez
  5. Marc Robinson-Rechavi
  6. Tanja Schwander

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Evolution without sex is predicted to impact genomes in numerous ways. Case studies of individual parthenogenetic animals have reported peculiar genomic features which were suggested to be caused by their mode of reproduction, including high heterozygosity, a high abundance of horizontally acquired genes, a low transposable element load, or the presence of palindromes. We systematically characterized these genomic features in published genomes of 26 parthenogenetic animals representing at least 18 independent transitions to asexuality. Surprisingly, not a single feature was systematically replicated across a majority of these transitions, suggesting that previously reported patterns were lineage specific rather than illustrating general consequences of parthenogenesis. We found that only parthenogens of hybrid origin were characterized by high heterozygosity levels. Parthenogens that were not of hybrid origin appeared to be largely homozygous, independently of the cellular mechanism underlying parthenogenesis. Overall, despite the importance of recombination rate variation for the evolution of sexual animal genomes, the genome-wide absence of recombination does not appear to have had the dramatic effects which are expected from classical theoretical models. The reasons for this are probably a combination of lineage-specific patterns, impact of the origin of parthenogenesis, and a survivorship bias of parthenogenetic lineages.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1101/497495v3 on bioRxiv
  2. eLife

    ###Author Response

    ##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.

    We agree with the reviewer that having the sexual outgroups would improve the interpretations; this is one of the points we make in our manuscript. Importantly however, all previous genome studies of asexual species focus on individual asexual lineages, generally without sexual species for comparison. Yet reported genome features have been interpreted as consequences of asexuality (e.g., Flot et al. 2013). By analysing and comparing these genomes, we can show that these features are in fact lineage-specific rather than general consequences of asexuality. Unexpectedly, we find that asexuals that are not of hybrid origin are largely homozygous, independently of the cellular mechanism underlying asexuality. This contrasts with the general view that cellular mechanisms such as central fusion (which facilitates heterozygosity retention between generation) promotes the evolutionary success of asexual lineages relative to mechanisms such as gamete duplication (which generate complete homozygosity) by delaying the expression of the recessive load. We also do not observe the expected relationship between cellular mechanism of asexuality and heterozygosity retention in species of hybrid origin. Thus we respectfully disagree that our results are not surprising. Reviewer #2 found our results “interesting” and a “potentially important contribution”, and reviewer #3 wrote that we “call into question the generality of the theoretical expectations, and suggest that the genomic impacts of asexuality may be more complicated than previously thought”.

    We also make it very clear that some of the patterns we uncover (e.g. low TE loads in asexual species) cannot be clearly evaluated with asexuals alone. Our study emphasizes the importance of the fact that asexuality is a lineage-level trait and that comparative analyses using asexuals requires lineage-level replication in addition to comparisons to sexual species.

    References

    Flot, Jean-François, et al. "Genomic evidence for ameiotic evolution in the bdelloid rotifer Adineta vaga." Nature 500.7463 (2013): 453-457.

    ##Reviewer #2:

    [...] Major Issues and Questions:

    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).

    We will clarify more explicitly what asexuality refers to in our manuscript. Notably our study does not include species that produce gametes which are fertilized (which is the case under hybridogenesis, which sensu stricto is not a form of parthenogenesis). Even though many forms of parthenogenesis do indeed involve meiosis (something we explain in much detail in box 2), there is no production of gametes.

    1. 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.

    We will correct the rotifer citations and thank the reviewer for picking up the error. We agree that there are uncertainties in some cytological studies, but the same is true for genomic studies (which is why we base our analyses as much as possible on raw reads rather than assemblies because the latter may be incorrect). We in fact excluded cytological studies where the findings could not be corroborated. For example, we discarded the evidence for meiosis and diploidy by Handoo at al. 2004 for its incompatibility with genomic data because this study does not provide any verifiable evidence (there are no data or images, only descriptions of observations). We provide all the references in the supplementary material concerning the cytological evidence used.

    1. 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.

    We excluded all the samples with unsuitable quality of data (e.g. one tardigrade species with excessive contamination or the water flea samples for insufficient coverage), and T. Rhyker Ranallo Benavidez, the author of the method we used, collaborated with us on the heterozygosity analyzes. However, we will clarify the limitations of the method for species with extremely low or high heterozygosity (see also comment 5 of this reviewer).

    1. 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.

    Our statement is correct. Note that we say “most” and not “all” because certain forms of endoduplication in F1 hybrids result in the maintenance of heterozygosity. Central fusion is expected to fully retain heterozygosity only if recombination is completely suppressed (see for example Suomalainen et al. 1987 or Engelstädter 2017).

    1. 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).

    As we explain in detail in the text, the three comparatively high heterozygosity values under spontaneous origins of asexuality (“orange” points in the bottom left corner of the figure) are found in an only 40-year old clone of the Cape bee. Among species of hybrid origin, we see no correlation between asexuality mechanism and heterozygosity. These observations suggest that the asexuality mechanism may have an impact on genome-wide heterozygosity in recent incipient asexual lineages, but not in established asexual lineages.

    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).

    We prefer not using the data from rotifers for making such arguments, given the large uncertainty with respect to genome features in this group (including the possibility of octoploidy in some species which we describe in the supplemental information). One could even argue that the highly variable genome structure among rotifer species could indicate repeated transitions to asexuality and/or different hybridization events, but the available genome data would make all these arguments highly speculative.

    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.

    By definition, homoeologs have diverged between species, while alleles have diverged within species. So indeed divergence between homoeologs will generally exceed divergence between alleles. We will consider adding expected patterns in perfect tetraploid species for Box 2.

    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..

    We explain in section Overview of species and genomes studied that age effects are important but that we do not consider them quantitatively because age estimates are not available for the majority of asexual species in our paper.

    1. 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.

    Figure 1 a presents the values reported in the original genome studies, not our results. This is explained in the corresponding figure legend. Hence, 1.42 is the value reported by Flot at al. 2013. 2.4 is the value we measure and it is consistent in Figures 2 and 3.

    We used k-mer pairs differing by one SNP to estimate ploidy (smudgeplot). The heterozygosity estimates were estimated from kmer spectra (GenomeScope 2.0). The kmers that are found in 1n must be heterozygous between homologs, as the homoeolog heterozygosity would produce 2n kmers, We used the kmer approach to estimate heterozygosity in all other cases than homoeologs of rotifers, which were directly derived from the assemblies. We explain this in the legend to Figure 3, but we will add the information also to the Methods section for clarification.

    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.

    We understand the scepticism of the reviewer regarding the octoploidy hypothesis, but it is important to note that we clearly present it as a possible explanation for the data that needs to be corroborated, i.e., we state that the data are better consistent with octo- than tetraploidy. Contamination seems quite unlikely, as the 71.1x peak represents nearly exactly half the coverage of the otherwise haploid peak (142x). Furthermore, the Smudgeplot analysis shows that some of the kmers from the 71x peak pair with genomic kmers of the main peaks. We also performed KAT analysis (not presented in the manuscript) showing that these kmers are also represented in the decontaminated assembly. We will add this clarification regarding possible contamination to the supplementary materials.

    1. 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.

    We agree with the reviewer that gene conversion might be one of the key aspects of asexual genome evolution. Our study merely pointed out that genomes of asexual animals do not show organisation in palindromes, indicating that palindromes might not be of general importance in asexual genome evolution. Note also that we clearly point out that these analyses are biased by the quality of the available genome assemblies.

    1. 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.

    Yes. We clearly explain this limitation in the manuscript. The currently available alternatives are based on assembled genomes, so the results are biased by the quality of the assemblies (and similarities to TEs in public databases) and our aim was to broadly compare genomes in the absence of assembly-generated biases.

    1. 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.

    Yes, this is true and we explain many limitations in the supplemental information, but re-assembling and re-annotating all these genomes would be beyond reasonable computational possibilities.

    1. 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.

    The model of estimating genome wide heterozygosity indeed assumes a random distribution of heterozygous loci and indeed is unable to estimate divergence over a certain threshold, which is the reason why we used genome assemblies for the estimation of divergence of homoeologs. Regarding estimates in all other genomes, the assumptions are unlikely to fundamentally change the output of the analysis. GenomeScope2 is described in detail in a recent paper (Ranallo-Benavidez et al. 2019), where the assumption that heterozygosity rates are constant across the genome is explicitly mentioned.

    References

    Engelstädter, Jan. "Asexual but not clonal: evolutionary processes in automictic populations." Genetics 206.2 (2017): 993-1009.

    Flot, Jean-François, et al. "Genomic evidence for ameiotic evolution in the bdelloid rotifer Adineta vaga." Nature 500.7463 (2013): 453-457.

    Handoo, Z. A., et al. "Morphological, molecular, and differential-host characterization of Meloidogyne floridensis n. sp.(Nematoda: Meloidogynidae), a root-knot nematode parasitizing peach in Florida." Journal of nematology 36.1 (2004): 20.

    Suomalainen, Esko, Anssi Saura, and Juhani Lokki. Cytology and evolution in parthenogenesis. CRC Press, 1987.

    Ranallo-Benavidez, Timothy Rhyker, Kamil S. Jaron, and Michael C. Schatz. "GenomeScope 2.0 and Smudgeplots: Reference-free profiling of polyploid genomes." BioRxiv (2019): 747568.

    ##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:

    We thank this reviewer for the relevant comments and for providing many constructive suggestions in the points below. We will take them into account for our final version of the manuscript.

    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 & 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.

    We will clarify the expectations for non expert readers.

    1. Mutation accumulation & 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.

    Yes, the predictions regarding the efficiency of selection are indeed influenced by cellular modes of asexuality. Adding some details or at least a good reference would certainly increase the readability of the section. We thank the reviewer for this suggestion.

    1. 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.

    Indeed, the survivorship bias should affect all genomic features. Nothing that is incompatible with the viability of the species will ever be observed in nature. Perhaps the difference between Muller’s ratchet and the dynamics of accumulation of transposable elements (TEs) is that TEs are expected to either propagate very fast or not at all (Dolgin and Charlesworth 2006), while the effects of Muller’s ratchet are expected to vary among different populations and cellular mechanisms of asexuality. We will rephrase the text to better reflect the complexity of the predicted consequences of TE dynamics.

    1. 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 & 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).

    We agree with the reviewer that the analysis of the distribution of heterozygosity along the chromosomes would be very interesting. However, the necessary data is available only for the Cape honey bee, and its analysis has been published by Smith et al. 2018. Calculating the probability distribution of heterozygosities would be possible, but it would require SNP calling for each of the datasets. Such an analysis would be computationally intensive and prone to biases by the quality of the genome assemblies.

    1. 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 with a known hybrid origin display high heterozygosity levels (1.73% - 8.5%)". Interpreting these low vs. high heterozygosity values is difficult without having sexual references, because the level of genetic diversity is also heavily influenced by the long term life history strategies of each species (e.g. Romiguier et al. 2014; 10.1038/nature13685).

    I understand that the genome of related sexual species are not available, which precludes direct comparisons with the asexual species. However, I think that the results could be strengthened if the authors provided for each genomic feature that they tested some estimates from related sexual species. Actually, they partially do so along the Result & Discussion section for the palindromes, transposable elements and horizontal gene transfers. I think that these expectations for sexual species (and others) could be added to Table 1 to facilitate the comparisons.

    Our statement "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." specifically refers to methodology: analyses to address these predictions require orthologs between sexual and asexual species. We fully agree that in addition to methodological constraints, comparisons to sexual species are also conceptually relevant - which is in fact one of the major points of our paper. We will clarify these points.

    1. Regarding statistics, I acknowledge that the number of species analysed is relatively low (n=26), which may preclude getting any significant results if the effects are weak. However, the authors should then clearly state in the text (and not only in the reporting form) that their analyses are descriptive. Also, their position regarding this issue is not entirely clear as they still performed a statistical test for the effect of asexuality mode / origin on TE load (Figure 2 - supplement 1). Therefore, I would like to see the same statistical test performed on heterozygosity (Figure 2).

    We will unify the sections and add an appropriate test everywhere where suited.

    1. As you used 31 individuals from 26 asexual species, I was wondering whether you make profit of the multi-sample species. For example, were the kmer-based analyses congruent between individuals of the same species?

    Unfortunately, some of the 31 individuals do not have publicly available reads (some of the root-knot nematode datasets are missing), others do not have sufficient quality (the coverage for some water flea samples is very low). Our analyses were consistent for the few cases where we have multiple datasets available.

    References

    Dolgin, Elie S., and Brian Charlesworth. "The fate of transposable elements in asexual populations." Genetics 174.2 (2006): 817-827.

    Smith, Nicholas MA, et al. "Strikingly high levels of heterozygosity despite 20 years of inbreeding in a clonal honey bee." Journal of evolutionary biology 32.2 (2019): 144-152.

  3. eLife

    ###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 & 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.

    1. Mutation accumulation & 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.

    1. 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.

    1. 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 & 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).

    1. 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 with a known hybrid origin display high heterozygosity levels (1.73% - 8.5%)". Interpreting these low vs. high heterozygosity values is difficult without having sexual references, because the level of genetic diversity is also heavily influenced by the long term life history strategies of each species (e.g. Romiguier et al. 2014; 10.1038/nature13685).

    I understand that the genome of related sexual species are not available, which precludes direct comparisons with the asexual species. However, I think that the results could be strengthened if the authors provided for each genomic feature that they tested some estimates from related sexual species. Actually, they partially do so along the Result & Discussion section for the palindromes, transposable elements and horizontal gene transfers. I think that these expectations for sexual species (and others) could be added to Table 1 to facilitate the comparisons.

    1. Regarding statistics, I acknowledge that the number of species analysed is relatively low (n=26), which may preclude getting any significant results if the effects are weak. However, the authors should then clearly state in the text (and not only in the reporting form) that their analyses are descriptive. Also, their position regarding this issue is not entirely clear as they still performed a statistical test for the effect of asexuality mode / origin on TE load (Figure 2 - supplement 1). Therefore, I would like to see the same statistical test performed on heterozygosity (Figure 2).

    2. As you used 31 individuals from 26 asexual species, I was wondering whether you make profit of the multi-sample species. For example, were the kmer-based analyses congruent between individuals of the same species?

  4. eLife

    ###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.

    Major Issues and Questions:

    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.

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    1. 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.

    1. 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.

    1. 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.

    1. 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.

    1. 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.

  5. eLife

    ###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.

  6. eLife

    ##Preprint Review

    This preprint was reviewed using eLife’s Preprint Review service, which provides public peer reviews of manuscripts posted on bioRxiv for the benefit of the authors, readers, potential readers, and others interested in our assessment of the work. This review applies only to Version 2 of the preprint: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/497495v2

    ###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.

  7. Version published to 10.1101/497495v2 on bioRxiv
  8. Version published to 10.1101/497495v1 on bioRxiv