Evolutionary Biology

Evaluation Summary:

This paper's central findings - that wtf genes are old, rapidly evolving, and often meiotic drivers - are important and of broad interest to evolutionary biologists and geneticists. The study's main claims are supported by convincing evidence from comparative genomic data, phylogenetic analyses, and functional experiments. However, support for the verbal model of wtf persistence is currently incomplete.

(This preprint has been reviewed by eLife. We include the public reviews from the reviewers here; the authors also receive private feedback with suggested changes to the manuscript. Reviewer #1 agreed to share their name with the authors.)

Evaluation Summary:

This article is of potential interest to researchers working on primate social behaviour, as it presents a novel mechanism for how an association with non-relatives can be favoured under kin selection. In a wild mandrill population, mothers are observed to preferentially lead offspring to associate with paternal half-sibs, a potential mechanism for encouraging nepotistic interactions between their offspring and other members of their group. The authors' explanation for their results was considered to be only partially supported by the data and a more measured and nuanced presentation would be appropriate.

(This preprint has been reviewed by eLife. We include the public reviews from the reviewers here; the authors also receive private feedback with suggested changes to the manuscript. Reviewer #3 agreed to share their name with the authors.)

Evaluation Summary:

By integrating in silico predictions and mass-spectrometry, this manuscript tackles the problem of annotating the currently nameless stretches of genomic sequence that actually code for proteins. The hundreds of protein coding fruit fly genes described here offer new inroads for studying some of the very youngest functional elements in genomes, particularly those that have recently emerged from non-coding DNA sequences. To clarify the biological significance of the present study, the authors should both highlight the genes mostly like to encode functional products and conduct a comparison to published datasets that used different methods to identify such genes in fruit flies.

(This preprint has been reviewed by eLife. We include the public reviews from the reviewers here; the authors also receive private feedback with suggested changes to the manuscript. The reviewers remained anonymous to the authors.)

Evaluation Summary:

This manuscript is of broad interest to readers in the field of animal behavior and the evolution of cooperation. This work experimentally investigates the effect of differences in group size and group composition on reproductive behavior, by using an impressive sample of semi-wild populations of ostriches. While the paper does not address some aspects of groups, such as relatedness and parentage, overall, this paper is a complete analysis of the breeding ecology of this system and can serve as a blueprint for more of such work in the fields of cooperation, group living and breeding ecology.

(This preprint has been reviewed by eLife. We include the public reviews from the reviewers here; the authors also receive private feedback with suggested changes to the manuscript. Reviewer #2 agreed to share their name with the authors.)

Evaluation Summary:

This paper challenges a fundamental view concerning why males of most animals have a higher germline mutation rate than females. Evidence is provided to show that it is not simply the fact that males have more cell divisions in the germline, but instead, most of the mutations arise from a different balance of DNA damage vs. DNA repair. The case is supported by data from multiple species, from de novo mutation rate estimates from pedigrees, and from fits to a simple heuristic model. This work will be of interest to the broad field of DNA mutations and DNA repair, as well as evolutionary and phylogenomics researchers.

(This preprint has been reviewed by eLife. We include the public reviews from the reviewers here; the authors also receive private feedback with suggested changes to the manuscript. Reviewer #1 and Reviewer #2 agreed to share their names with the authors.)

Evaluation Summary:

This manuscript models the evolution of simple multicellular life cycles using evolutionary game theory. The authors discuss natural selection between different life cycles by modeling growth, fragmentation, and interactions between propagules, discovering conditions for selection of a single life cycle or coexistence of multiple ones. Overall, the model is biologically intuitive, the results are rigorous, and the implications for the evolution of multicellularity are interesting.

(This preprint has been reviewed by eLife. We include the public reviews from the reviewers here; the authors also receive private feedback with suggested changes to the manuscript. Reviewer #3 agreed to share their name with the authors.)

Evaluation Summary:

This article will be of interest to evolutionary biologists and behavioural ecologists. It aims to quantify the fitness benefits of helping with the breeding attempts of others vs. seeking own breeding attempts via dispersal. It is generally considered that helping is less profitable than breeding, but occurs when superior reproductive options are constrained. Using a long-term dataset of birds, the authors call into question this assumption, and propose that both reproductive tactics can in fact have similar fitness returns, resulting in mixed-kin societies.

(This preprint has been reviewed by eLife. We include the public reviews from the reviewers here; the authors also receive private feedback with suggested changes to the manuscript. Reviewer #1 and Reviewer #3 agreed to share their names with the authors.)

Evaluation Summary:

Boddé et al propose a new approach for species identification in the genus Anopheles. The approach uses an amplicon panel, a kmer-based similarity metric, and a variant auto-encoder to minimize issues of sequence alignment between divergent lineages. The authors provide strong evidence that their approach works well for most samples. The work will be of potential interest to practitioners in the field of parasite carrying mosquitoes.

(This preprint has been reviewed by eLife. We include the public reviews from the reviewers here; the authors also receive private feedback with suggested changes to the manuscript. The reviewers remained anonymous to the authors.)

Evaluation Summary:

In this paper, the authors generate and analyze new genome and gene expression data to understand better the evolution of the white-throated sparrow supergene region, which contains 1000 genes and determines whether a bird has a tan or a white stripe. The study nicely illustrates how the cessation of recombination that results from a chromosomal inversion can become a source of evolutionary novelty. The lack of recombination can result in the accumulation of deleterious variation leading to degeneration, but it can also (as here) facilitate genomic diversification and adaptation. The results will be of interest to a broad array of researchers studying genome architecture and phenotypic diversity and evolution.

(This preprint has been reviewed by eLife. We include the public reviews from the reviewers here; the authors also receive private feedback with suggested changes to the manuscript. Reviewer #2 agreed to share their name with the authors.)

Evaluation Summary:

This very clear paper, which will be of interest to scientists in the field of evolutionary biology, investigates the effect of population structure on the efficacy of selection on a single locus. The results are based on analytical computations and numerical simulations, conducted in a scientifically rigorous manner. Although the conclusions are currently limited, the paper could serve as a solid basis for a more ambitious investigation.

(This preprint has been reviewed by eLife. We include the public reviews from the reviewers here; the authors also receive private feedback with suggested changes to the manuscript. Reviewer #1 and Reviewer #2 agreed to share their names with the authors.)