Polyploidy, which results in the presence of more than two sets of homologous chromosomes represents a major feature of plant genomes that have undergone successive rounds of duplication followed by more or less rapid diploidization during their evolutionary history. Polyploid complexes containing diploid and derived polyploid taxa are excellent model systems for understanding the short-term consequences of whole genome duplication, and have been particularly well-explored in evolutionary ecology (Ramsey and Ramsey 2014, Rice et al. 2019). Many polyploids (especially when resulting from interspecific hybridization, i.e. allopolyploids) are successful invaders (te Beest et al. 2012) as a result of rapid genome dynamics, functional novelty, and trait evolution. The origin (parental legacy) and modes of formation of polyploids have a critical impact on the subsequent polyploid evolution. Thus, elucidation of the genomic composition of polyploids is fundamental to understanding trait evolution, and such knowledge is still lacking for many invasive species.

Genus Ludwigia is characterized by a complex taxonomy, with an underexplored evolutionary history. Species from section Jussieae form a polyploid complex with diploids, tetraploids, hexaploids, and decaploids that are notorious invaders in freshwater and riparian ecosystems (Thouvenot et al.2013).   Molecular phylogeny of the genus based on nuclear and chloroplast sequences (Liu et al. 2027) suggested some relationships between diploid and polyploid species, without fully resolving the question of the parentage of the polyploids. In their study, Barloy et al. (2023) have used a combination of molecular cytogenetics (Genomic In situ Hybridization), morphology and experimental crosses to elucidate the genomic compositions of the polyploid species, and show that the examined polyploids are of hybrid origin (allopolyploids). The tetraploid L. stolonifera derives from the diploids L. peploides subsp. montevidensis (AA genome) and L. helminthorhiza (BB genome). The tetraploid L. ascendens also share the BB genome combined with an undetermined different genome. The hexaploid L. grandiflora subsp. grandiflora has inherited the diploid AA genome combined with additional unidentified genomes. The decaploid L. grandiflora subsp. hexapetala has inherited the tetraploid L. stolonifera and the hexaploid L. grandiflora subsp. hexapetala genomes. As the authors point out, further work is needed, including additional related diploid (e.g. other subspecies of L. peploides) or tetraploid (L.  hookeri and L. peduncularis)  taxa that remain to be investigated, to address the nature of the undetermined parental genomes mentioned above. 

The presented work (Barloy et al.  2023) provides significant knowledge of this poorly investigated group with regard to genomic information and polyploid origin, and opens perspectives for future studies. The authors also detect additional diagnostic morphological traits of interest for in-situ discrimination of the taxa when monitoring invasive populations.  

References

Barloy D., Portillo-Lemus L., Krueger-Hadfield S.A., Huteau V., Coriton O. (2024). Genomic relationships among diploid and polyploid species of the genus Ludwigia L. section Jussiaea using a combination of molecular cytogenetic, morphological, and crossing investigations. BioRxiv, ver. 4 peer-reviewed and recommended  by Peer Community in Evolutionary Biology https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.01.02.522458

te Beest M., Le Roux J.J., Richardson D.M., Brysting A.K., Suda J., Kubešová M., Pyšek P. (2012). The more the better? The role of polyploidy in facilitating plant invasions. Annals of Botany, Volume 109, Issue 1 Pages 19–45, https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcr277

Ramsey J. and Ramsey T. S. (2014). Ecological studies of polyploidy in the 100 years following its discovery Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B369 1–20  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0352  

Rice, A., Šmarda, P., Novosolov, M. et al. (2019). The global biogeography of polyploid plants. Nat Ecol Evol 3, 265–273. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0787-9

Thouvenot L, Haury J, Thiebaut G. (2013). A success story: Water primroses, aquatic plant pests. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 23:790–803  https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2387  

Awareness has been growing that structural variants in the genome of species play a fundamental role in adaptive evolution and diversification [1]. Here, Le Moan and co-authors [2] report empirical genomic-wide SNP data on the European plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) across a major environmental transmission zone, ranging from the North Sea to the Baltic Sea. Regions of high linkage disequilibrium suggest the presence of two structural variants that appear to have evolved 220 kya. These two putative structural variants show weak signatures of isolation by distance when contrasted against the rest of the genome, but the frequency of the different putative structural variants appears to co-vary in some parts of the studied range with the environment, indicating the involvement of both selective and neutral processes. This study adds to the mounting body of evidence that structural genomic variants harbour significant information that allows species to respond and adapt to the local environmental context.

References

[1] Wellenreuther, M., Mérot, C., Berdan, E., & Bernatchez, L. (2019). Going beyond SNPs: the role of structural genomic variants in adaptive evolution and species diversification. Molecular ecology, 28(6), 1203-1209. doi: 10.1111/mec.15066
[2] Le Moan, A. Bekkevold, D. & Hemmer-Hansen J. (2020). Evolution at two time-frames: ancient and common origin of two structural variants involved in local adaptation of the European plaice (Pleuronectes platessa). bioRxiv, 662577, ver. 5 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Evol Biol. doi: 10.1101/662577

In spite of its name, the effective population size, Ne, has a complex and often distant relationship to census population size, as we usually understand it. In truth, it is primarily an abstract concept aimed at measuring the amount of genetic drift occurring in a population at any given time. The standard way to model random genetic drift in population genetics is the Wright-Fisher model and, with a few exceptions, definitions of the effective population size stems from it: “a certain model has effective population size, Ne, if some characteristic of the model has the same value as the corresponding characteristic for the simple Wright-Fisher model whose actual size is Ne” (Ewens 2004). Since Sewall Wright introduced the concept of effective population size in 1931 (Wright 1931), it has flourished and there are today numerous definitions of it depending on the process being examined (genetic diversity, loss of alleles, efficacy of selection) and the characteristic of the model that is considered. These different definitions of the effective population size were generally introduced to address specific aspects of the evolutionary process. One aspect that has been hotly debated since the first estimates of genetic diversity in natural populations were published is the so-called Lewontin’s paradox (1974). Lewontin noted that the observed variation in heterozygosity across species was much smaller than one would expect from the neutral expectations calculated with the actual size of the species.
In essence, what Galtier and Rousselle propose in their clever paper is to introduce a new approach to compare effective population sizes across species and thereby a new way to address Lewontin’s paradox. Classically, the effective population size in this type of comparative genomic studies is simply estimated from nucleotide diversity at putatively neutral sites using the equation relating levels of diversity (θ) to mutation rate per generation (μ) and effective population size, Ne, θ = 4Neμ. As Galtier and Rousselle point out there are many issues with this approach. In particular, although we can now estimate θ very precisely, we generally do not have a reliable estimate of the mutation rate, and the method rests on many, unwarranted, assumptions; for example that the population is at mutation-drift equilibrium. Instead they propose to estimate the effective population size from the load of segregating deleterious mutations which can be summarized by the ratio of nonsynonymous to synonymous mutations, πN/πS: small-Ne species are expected to accumulate more deleterious mutations and carry a higher load than large-Ne ones at selection/drift equilibrium (Ohta et al. 1973; Welch et al. 2008). At first glance, this suggestion seems counterintuitive since considering sites under selection undoubtedly adds a new layer of complexity to an already intricate situation. Indeed, one is now bringing to the brew another elusive object, namely, the Distribution of Fitness Effect of mutations (DFE). However, estimating Ne from the load of segregating deleterious mutations may actually simplify the situation in two important ways. First, using πN/πS does not require assumption about μ (as the mutation rate will cancel out in the ratio). Second, the ratio of nonsynonymous to synonymous nucleotide diversity, reaches equilibrium faster than the nucleotide diversity at synonymous site after a change in population size, so we can hope for less sensitivity to (often unknown) recent demographic history (Brandvain and Wright 2016).
Extending recent developments in the estimation of the DFE, Galtier and Rousselle eventually obtain estimates of the average deleterious effect, , where Ne is the effective population size and is the mean fitness effect of non-synonymous mutations. Assuming further that distinct species share a common DFE and therefore a common , they obtain estimates of the between species ratio of Ne from the between species ratio of . Applying their newly developed approach to various datasets they conclude that the power of drift varies by a factor of at least 500 between large-Ne (Drosophila) and small-Ne species (H. sapiens). This is an order of magnitude larger than what would be obtained by comparing estimates of the variation in neutral diversity. Hence the proposed approach seems to have gone some way in making Lewontin’s paradox less paradoxical. But, perhaps more importantly, as the authors tersely point out at the end of the abstract their results further questions the meaning of Ne parameters in population genetics. And arguably this could well be the most important contribution of their study and something that is badly needed.

References

Brandvain Y, Wright SI (2016) The Limits of Natural Selection in a Nonequilibrium World. Trends in Genetics, 32, 201–210. doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2016.01.004
Ewens WJ (2010) Mathematical Population Genetics: Theoretical Introduction. Springer-Verlag New York Inc., New York, NY. doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-21822-9
Galtier N, Rousselle M (2020) How much does Ne vary among species? bioRxiv, 861849, ver. 4 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Evolutionary Biology. doi: 10.1101/861849
Lewontin RC (1974) The genetic basis of evolutionary change. Columbia University Press, New York. Ohta T (1973) Slightly Deleterious Mutant Substitutions in Evolution. Nature, 246, 96–98. doi: 10.1038/246096a0
Welch JJ, Eyre-Walker A, Waxman D (2008) Divergence and Polymorphism Under the Nearly Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution. Journal of Molecular Evolution, 67, 418–426. doi: 10.1007/s00239-008-9146-9
Wright S (1931) Evolution in Mendelian Populations. Genetics, 16, 97–159. url: https://www.genetics.org/content/16/2/97

The observed levels of genomic diversity in contemporary populations are the result of changes imposed by several evolutionary processes. Among them, natural selection is known to dramatically shape the genetic diversity of loci associated with phenotypes which affect the fitness of carriers. As such, many efforts have been dedicated towards developing methods to detect signatures of natural selection from genomes of contemporary samples [1].
Recent technological advances made the generation of large-scale genomic data from temporal samples, either from experimental populations or historical or ancient samples, accessible to a wide scientific community [2]. Notably, temporal population genomic data allow for a direct observation and study of how, for instance, allele frequencies change through time in response to evolutionary stimuli. Such information can be exploited to detect loci under natural selection, either via mathematical modelling or by investigating empirical distributions [3].
However, most of current methods to detect selection from temporal genomic data have largely ignored selfing populations, despite the latter comprising a significant proportion of species with social and economic importance. Selfing changes genomic patterns by reducing the effective recombination rate, which makes distinguishing between neutral evolution and natural selection even more challenging than for the case of outcrossing populations [4]. Nevertheless, an outlier-approach based on temporal genomic data for the selfing Arabidopsis thaliana population revealed loci under selection [5].
This study suggested the promise of detecting selection for selfing populations and encouraged further investigations to test the power of selection scans under different mating systems.
To address this question, Navascués et al. [6] extended a previously proposed approach for temporal genome scan [7] to incorporate partial self-fertilization. In the original implementation [7], it is assumed that, under neutrality, all loci provide levels of genetic differentiation drawn from the same distribution. If some of the loci are under selection, such distribution should show heterogeneity. Navascués et al. [6] proposed a test for the homogeneity between loci-specific and genome-wide differentiation by deriving a null distribution of FST via simulations using SLiM [8]. After filtering for low-frequency variants and correct for multiple tests, authors derived a statistical test for selection and assess its power under a wide range of scenarios of selfing rate, selection coefficient, duration and type of selection [6].
The newly proposed test achieved good performance to distinguish between neutral and selected loci in most tested scenarios.
As expected, the test's performance significantly drops for scenarios of high selfing rates and selection from standing variation. Additionally, the probability to correctly detect selection decreases with increasing distance from the causal variant. Intriguingly, the test showed high power when the selected ancestral allele had an initial low frequency, and when the selected derived allele had a high initial frequency. When applied to a data set of around 1,000 SNPs from the highly selfing Medicago truncatula population, an annual plant of the legume family [9], the test did not provide any candidate loci under selection [6].
In summary, the detection of loci under selection in selfing populations is and largely remains a challenging task even when explictly account for the different mating system. However, recombination events that occurred before the selective pressure allow ancestral beneficial alleles to exhibit a detectable pattern of non-neutrality. As such, in partially selfing populations, the strength of the footprint of selection depends on several factors, mostly on the selfing rate, the time of onset and type of selection.
One major assumption of this study is that the model implies unstructured population and continuity between samples obtained from the same geographical location over time. As such assumptions are typically violated in real populations, further research into the effect of more complex demographic scenarios is desired to fully understand the power to detect selection in selfing populations. Furthermore, more power could be gained by including additional genomic information at each time point. In this context, recent approaches that make full use of genomic data based on deep learning [10] may contribute significantly towards this goal. Similarly, the effect of data filtering on the power to detect selection should be further explored, especially in the context of DNA resequencing experiments. These analyses will help elucidate the power offered by selection scans from temporal genomic data in selfing populations.

References

[1] Stern AJ, Nielsen R (2019) Detecting Natural Selection. In: Handbook of Statistical Genomics , pp. 397–40. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119487845.ch14
[2] Leonardi M, Librado P, Der Sarkissian C, Schubert M, Alfarhan AH, Alquraishi SA, Al-Rasheid KAS, Gamba C, Willerslev E, Orlando L (2017) Evolutionary Patterns and Processes: Lessons from Ancient DNA. Systematic Biology, 66, e1–e29. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syw059
[3] Dehasque M, Ávila‐Arcos MC, Díez‐del‐Molino D, Fumagalli M, Guschanski K, Lorenzen ED, Malaspinas A-S, Marques‐Bonet T, Martin MD, Murray GGR, Papadopulos AST, Therkildsen NO, Wegmann D, Dalén L, Foote AD (2020) Inference of natural selection from ancient DNA. Evolution Letters, 4, 94–108. https://doi.org/10.1002/evl3.165
[4] Vitalis R, Couvet D (2001) Two-locus identity probabilities and identity disequilibrium in a partially selfing subdivided population. Genetics Research, 77, 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0016672300004833
[5] Frachon L, Libourel C, Villoutreix R, Carrère S, Glorieux C, Huard-Chauveau C, Navascués M, Gay L, Vitalis R, Baron E, Amsellem L, Bouchez O, Vidal M, Le Corre V, Roby D, Bergelson J, Roux F (2017) Intermediate degrees of synergistic pleiotropy drive adaptive evolution in ecological time. Nature Ecology and Evolution, 1, 1551–1561. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0297-1
[6] Navascués M, Becheler A, Gay L, Ronfort J, Loridon K, Vitalis R (2020) Power and limits of selection genome scans on temporal data from a selfing population. bioRxiv, 2020.05.06.080895, ver. 4 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Evol Biol. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.06.080895
[7] Goldringer I, Bataillon T (2004) On the Distribution of Temporal Variations in Allele Frequency: Consequences for the Estimation of Effective Population Size and the Detection of Loci Undergoing Selection. Genetics, 168, 563–568. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.103.025908
[8] Messer PW (2013) SLiM: Simulating Evolution with Selection and Linkage. Genetics, 194, 1037–1039. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.113.152181
[9] Siol M, Prosperi JM, Bonnin I, Ronfort J (2008) How multilocus genotypic pattern helps to understand the history of selfing populations: a case study in Medicago truncatula. Heredity, 100, 517–525. https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.2008.5
[10] Sanchez T, Cury J, Charpiat G, Jay F Deep learning for population size history inference: Design, comparison and combination with approximate Bayesian computation. Molecular Ecology Resources, n/a. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13224

Studying the effects of speciation, hybridisation, and evolutionary outcomes following reproduction from divergent populations is a major research area in evolutionary genetics [1]. There are two phenomena that have been the focus of contemporary research. First, a classic concept is the formation of ‘Bateson-Dobzhansky-Muller’ incompatibilities (BDMi) [2–4] that negatively affect hybrid fitness. Here, two diverging populations accumulate mutations over time that are unique to that subpopulation. If they subsequently meet, then these mutations might negatively interact, leading to a loss in fitness or even a complete lack of reproduction. BDMi formation can be complex, involving multiple genes and the fitness changes can depend on the direction of introgression [5]. Second, such secondary contact can instead lead to heterosis, where offspring are fitter than their parental progenitors [6].

Understanding which outcomes are likely to arise require one to know the potential fitness effects of mutations underlying reproductive isolation, to determine whether they are likely to reduce or enhance fitness when hybrids are formed. This is far from an easy task, as it requires one to track mutations at several loci, along with their effects, across a fitness landscape.

The work of De Sanctis et al. [7] neatly fills in this knowledge gap, by creating a general mathematical framework for describing the consequences of a cross from two divergent populations. The derivations are based on Fisher’s Geometric Model, which is widely used to quantify selection acting on a general fitness landscape that is affected by several biological traits [8,9], and has previously been used in theoretical studies of hybridisation [10–12]. By doing so, they are able to decompose how divergence at multiple loci affects offspring fitness through both additive and dominance effects.

A key result arising from their analyses is demonstrating how offspring fitness can be captured by two main functions. The first one is the ‘net effect of evolutionary change’ that, broadly defined, measures how phenotypically divergent two populations are. The second is the ‘total amount of evolutionary change’, which reflects how many mutations contribute to divergence and the effect sizes captured by each of them. The authors illustrate these measurements using simulations covering different scenarios, demonstrating how different parental states can lead to similar fitness outcomes. They also propose experimental methods to measure the underlying mutational effects.

This study neatly demonstrates how complex genetic phenomena underlying hybridisation can be captured using fairly simple mathematical formulae. This powerful approach will thus open the door for future research to investigate hybridisation in more detail, whether it is by expanding on these theoretical models or using the elegant outcomes to quantify fitness effects in experiments.

References

1. Coyne JA, Orr HA. Speciation. Sunderland, Mass: Sinauer Associates; 2004.
2. Bateson W, Seward A. Darwin and modern science. Heredity and variation in modern lights. 1909;85: 101. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511693953.007
3. Dobzhansky T. Genetics and the Origin of Species. Columbia university press; 1937.
4. Muller HJ. Isolating mechanisms, evolution and temperature. Biol Symp. 1942;6: 71-125.
5. Fraïsse C, Elderfield JAD, Welch JJ. The genetics of speciation: are complex incompatibilities easier to evolve? J Evol Biol. 2014;27: 688-699. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.12339
6. Birchler JA, Yao H, Chudalayandi S, Vaiman D, Veitia RA. Heterosis. The Plant Cell. 2010;22: 2105-2112. https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.110.076133
7. De Sanctis B, Schneemann H, Welch JJ. How does the mode of evolutionary divergence affect reproductive isolation? bioRxiv. 2022. 2022.03.08.483443 version 4. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.03.08.483443 
8. Fisher RA. The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford: The Clarendon Press; 1930. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.27468 
9. Tenaillon O. The Utility of Fisher's Geometric Model in Evolutionary Genetics. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2014;45: 179-201. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-120213-091846
10. Barton NH. The role of hybridization in evolution. Molecular Ecology. 2001;10: 551-568. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294x.2001.01216.x 
11. Chevin L-M, Decorzent G, Lenormand T. Niche Dimensionality and The Genetics of Ecological Speciation. Evolution. 2014;68: 1244-1256. https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.12346 
12. Fraïsse C, Gunnarsson PA, Roze D, Bierne N, Welch JJ. The genetics of speciation: Insights from Fisher's geometric model. Evolution. 2016;70: 1450-1464. https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.12968