Understanding the factors that shape the virome of a host is key to understanding virus ecology and evolution (Obbard, 2018; French & Holmes, 2020). There is still much to learn about the diversity and distribution of viruses in a host community (Wille et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2023). The viruses of parasitoid wasps are well studied, and their viruses, or integrated viral genes, are known to suppress their insect host’s immune response to enhance parasitoid survival (Herniou et al., 2013; Coffman et al., 2022). Likewise, the insect virome is being increasingly well studied (Shi et al., 2016), with the virome of Drosophila species being particularly well characterised over the best part of the last century (L'Heritier & Teissier, 1937; L'Heritier, 1970; Brun & Plus, 1980; Longdon et al., 2010; Longdon et al., 2011; Longdon et al., 2012; Webster et al., 2015; Webster et al., 2016; Medd et al., 2018; Wallace et al., 2021). However, the viromes of parasitoids and their insect host communities have been less well studied (Leigh et al., 2018; Caldas-Garcia et al., 2023), and the inherent connectivity between parasitoids and their hosts provides an interesting system to study virus host range and cross-species transmission.

Here, Varaldi et al (Varaldi et al., 2024) have examined the viruses associated with a community of nine Drosophilidae hosts and six parasitoids. Using both RNA and DNA sequencing of insects reared for two generations, they selected viruses that are maintained in the lab either via vertical transmission or contamination of rearing medium. From 55 pools of insects they found 53 virus-like sequences, 37 of which were novel. Parasitoids were host to nearly twice as many viruses as their Drosophila hosts, although they note this could be due to differences in the rearing temperatures of the hosts.  

They next quantified if species, year, season, or location played a role in structuring the virome, finding only a significant effect of host species, which explained just over 50% of the variation in virus distribution. No evidence was found of related species sharing more similar virus communities. Although looking at a limited number of species, this suggests that these viruses are not co-speciating or preferentially host switching between closely related species.

Finally, they carried out crosses between lines of the parasitoid Leptopilina heterotoma that were infected and uninfected for a novel Iflavirus found in their sequencing data.  They found evidence of high levels of maternal transmission and lower level horizontal transmission between wasp larvae parasitising the same host. No evidence of changes in parasitoid-induced mortality, developmental success or the sex ratio was found in iflavirus-infected parasitoids. Interestingly individuals infected with this RNA virus also contained viral DNA, but this did not appear to be integrated into the wasp genome.

Overall, this work has taken the first steps in examining the community structure of the virome of parasitoids together with their Drosophilidae hosts. This work will not doubt stimulate follow-up studies to explore the evolution and ecology of these novel virus communities.

References

Brun G, Plus N (1980) The viruses of Drosophila. In: The genetics and biology of Drosophila eds Ashburner M & Wright TRF), pp. 625-702. Academic Press, New York.
 
Caldas-Garcia GB, Santos VC, Fonseca PLC, de Almeida JPP, Costa MA, Aguiar ERGR (2023) The Viromes of Six Ecosystem Service Provider Parasitoid Wasps. Viruses, 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/v15122448
 
Chen YM, Hu SJ, Lin XD, Tian JH, Lv JX, Wang MR, Luo XQ, Pei YY, Hu RX, Song ZG, Holmes EC, Zhang YZ (2023) Host traits shape virome composition and virus transmission in wild small mammals. Cell, 186, 4662-4675 e4612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2023.08.029
 
Coffman KA, Hankinson QM, Burke GR (2022) A viral mutualist employs posthatch transmission for vertical and horizontal spread among parasitoid wasps. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2120048119
 
French RK, Holmes EC (2020) An Ecosystems Perspective on Virus Evolution and Emergence. Trends in Microbiology, 28, 165-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2019.10.010
 
Herniou EA, Huguet E, Thézé J, Bézier A, Periquet G, Drezen JM (2013) When parasitic wasps hijacked viruses: genomic and functional evolution of polydnaviruses. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 368. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0051
 
L'Heritier PH (1970) Drosophila viruses and their role as evolutionary factors. Evolutionary Biology, 4, 185-209
 
L'Heritier PH, Teissier G (1937) Une anomalie physiologique héréditaire chez la Drosophile. C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris, 231, 192-194
 
Leigh BA, Bordenstein SR, Brooks AW, Mikaelyan A, Bordenstein SR (2018) Finer-Scale Phylosymbiosis: Insights from Insect Viromes. Msystems, 3. https://doi.org/10.1128/mSystems.00131-18
 
Longdon B, Obbard DJ, Jiggins FM (2010) Sigma viruses from three species of Drosophila form a major new clade in the rhabdovirus phylogeny. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 277, 35-44. 
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.1472
 
Longdon B, Wilfert L, Jiggins FM (2012) The Sigma Viruses of Drosophila. Caister Academic Press, Norfolk, UK.
 
Longdon B, Wilfert L, Osei-Poku J, Cagney H, Obbard DJ, Jiggins FM (2011) Host switching by a vertically-transmitted rhabdovirus in Drosophila. Biology Letters, 7, 747-750. 
https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2011.0160
 
Medd NC, Fellous S, Waldron FM, Xuereb A, Nakai M, Cross JV, Obbard DJ (2018) The virome of Drosophila suzukii, an invasive pest of soft fruit. Virus Evol, 4, vey009. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/ve/vey009
 
Obbard DJ (2018) Expansion of the metazoan virosphere: progress, pitfalls, and prospects. Curr Opin Virol, 31, 17-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coviro.2018.08.008
 
Shi M, Lin XD, Tian JH, Chen LJ, Chen X, Li CX, Qin XC, Li J, Cao JP, Eden JS, Buchmann J, Wang W, Xu J, Holmes EC, Zhang YZ (2016) Redefining the invertebrate RNA virosphere. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature20167
 
Varaldi J, Lepetit D, Burlet N, Faber C, Baretje B, Allemand R (2024) Community structure of heritable viruses in a Drosophila-parasitoids complex. bioRxiv, 2023.2007.2029.551099, ver.3, peer-reviewed and recommended by Peer Community in Evolutionary Biology. https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.07.29.551099
 
Wallace MA, Coffman KA, Gilbert C, Ravindran S, Albery GF, Abbott J, Argyridou E, Bellosta P, Betancourt AJ, Colinet H, Eric K, Glaser-Schmitt A, Grath S, Jelic M, Kankare M, Kozeretska I, Loeschcke V, Montchamp-Moreau C, Ometto L, Onder BS, Orengo DJ, Parsch J, Pascual M, Patenkovic A, Puerma E, Ritchie MG, Rota-Stabelli O, Schou MF, Serga SV, Stamenkovic-Radak M, Tanaskovic M, Veselinovic MS, Vieira J, Vieira CP, Kapun M, Flatt T, Gonzalez J, Staubach F, Obbard DJ (2021) The discovery, distribution, and diversity of DNA viruses associated with Drosophila melanogaster in Europe. Virus Evol, 7, veab031. https://doi.org/10.1093/ve/veab031
 
Webster CL, Longdon B, Lewis SH, Obbard DJ (2016) Twenty-Five New Viruses Associated with the Drosophilidae (Diptera). Evol Bioinform Online, 12, 13-25. https://doi.org/10.4137/EBO.S39454
 
Webster CL, Waldron FM, Robertson S, Crowson D, Ferrai G, Quintana JF, Brouqui JM, Bayne EH, Longdon B, Buck AH, Lazzaro BP, Akorli J, Haddrill PR, Obbard DJ (2015) The discovery, distribution and evolution of viruses associated with Drosophila melanogaster. Plos Biology, 13(7): e1002210. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002210
 
Wille M, Shi M, Klaassen M, Hurt AC, Holmes EC (2019) Virome heterogeneity and connectivity in waterfowl and shorebird communities. ISME J, 13, 2603-2616. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-019-0458-0

In partially clonal organisms, genetic markers are often used to characterize the genotypic diversity of populations and infer thereof the relative importance of clonal versus sexual reproduction. Most studies report a measure of genotypic diversity based on a ratio, R, of the number of distinct multilocus genotypes over the sample size, and qualitatively interpret high / low R as indicating the prevalence of sexual / clonal reproduction. However, a theoretical framework allowing to quantify the relative rates of clonal versus sexual reproduction from genotypic diversity is still lacking, except using temporal sampling. Moreover, R is intrinsically highly dependent on sample size and sample design, while alternative measures of genotypic diversity are more robust to sample size, like D*, which is equivalent to the Gini-Simpson diversity index applied to multilocus genotypes. Another potential indicator of reproductive strategies is the inbreeding coefficient, Fis, because population genetics theory predicts that clonal reproduction should lead to negative Fis, at least when the sexual reproduction component occurs through random mating. Taking advantage of this prediction, Arnaud-Haond et al. [1] reanalysed genetic data from 165 populations of four partially clonal seagrass species sampled in a standardized way. They found positive correlations between Fis and both R and D* within each species, reflecting variation in the relative rates of sexual versus clonal reproduction among populations. Moreover, the differences of mean genotypic diversity and Fis values among species were also consistent with their known differences in reproductive strategies. Arnaud-Haond et al. [1] also conclude that previous works based on the interpretation of R generally lead to underestimate the prevalence of clonality in seagrasses. Arnaud-Haond et al. [1] confirm experimentally that Fis merits to be interpreted more properly than usually done when inferring rates of clonal reproduction from population genetics data of species reproducing both sexually and clonally. An advantage of Fis is that it is much less affected by sample size than R, and thus should be more reliable when comparing studies differing in sample design. Hence, when the rate of clonal reproduction becomes significant, we expect Fis < 0 and D* < 1. I expect these two indicators of clonality to be complementary because they rely on different consequences of clonality on pattern of genetic variation. Nevertheless, both measures can be affected by other factors. For example, null alleles, selfing or biparental inbreeding can pull Fis upwards, potentially eliminating the signature of clonal reproduction. Similarly, D* (and other measures of genotypic diversity) can be low because the polymorphism of the genetic markers used is too limited or because sexual reproduction often occurs through selfing, eventually resulting in highly similar homozygous genotypes.
The work of Arnaud-Haond et al. [1] shows that the populations genetics of partially clonal organisms should be better studied, an endeavour encompassed in a companion paper using numerical simulations [2]. A further step that remains to be accomplished is to build a mathematical framework for developing estimators of rates of clonal versus sexual reproduction based on genotypic diversity.

References

[1] Arnaud-Haond, S., Stoeckel, S., and Bailleul, D. (2019). New insights into the population genetics of partially clonal organisms: when seagrass data meet theoretical expectations. ArXiv:1902.10240 [q-Bio], v6 peer-reviewed and recommended by Peer Community in Evolutionary Biology. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1902.10240
[2] Stoeckel, S., Porro, B., and Arnaud-Haond, S. (2019). The discernible and hidden effects of clonality on the genotypic and genetic states of populations: improving our estimation of clonal rates. ArXiv:1902.09365 [q-Bio], v4 peer-reviewed and recommended by Peer Community in Evolutionary Biology. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1902.09365

Genetic markers are used for in modern population genetics/genomics to uncover the past neutral and selective history of population and species. Besides Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) obtained from whole genome data, microsatellites (or Short Tandem Repeats, SSR) have been common markers of choice in numerous population genetics studies of non-model species with large sample sizes [1]. Microsatellites can be used to uncover and draw inference of the past population demography (e.g. expansion, decline, bottlenecks…), population split, population structure and gene flow, but also life history traits and modes of reproduction (e.g. [2,3]). These markers are widely used in conservation genetics [4] or to study parasites or disease vectors [5]. Microsatellites do show higher mutation rate than SNPs increasing, on the one hand, the statistical power to infer recent events (for example crop domestication, [2,3]), while, on the other hand, decreasing their statistical power over longer time scales due to homoplasy [6].
To perform such analyses, however, an excellent and reliable quality of data is required. As emphasized in the article by De Meeûs et al. [7] three main issues do bias the observed heterozygosity at microsatellites: null alleles, short allele dominance (SAD) and stuttering. These originates from poor PCR amplification. As a result, an excess of homozygosity is observed at the microsatellite loci leading to overestimation of the variation statistics FIS and FST as well as increased linage disequilibrium (LD). For null alleles, several methods and software do help to reduce the bias, and in the present study, De Meeûs et al. [7] propose a way to tackle issues with SAD and stuttering.
The authors study a dataset consisting of 387 samples from 61 subsamples genotyped at nine loci of the species Ixodes scapularis, i.e. ticks transmitting the Lyme disease. Based on correlation methods and FST, FIS they can uncover null alleles and SAD. Stuttering is detected by evaluating the heterozygote deficit between alleles displaying a single repeat difference. Without correction, six loci are affected by one of these amplification problems generating a large deficit of heterozygotes (measured by significant FIS and FST) remaining so after correction for the false discovery rate (FDR). These results would be classically interpreted as a strong Wahlund effect and/or selection at several loci.
After correcting for null alleles, the authors apply two novel corrections: 1) a re-examination of the chromatograms reveals previously disregarded larger alleles thus decreasing SAD, and 2) pooling alleles close in size decreasing stuttering. The corrected dataset shows then a significant excess of heterozygotes as could be expected in a dioecious species with strong population structure. The FDR correction removes then the significant excess of homozygotes and LD between pairs of loci. FST on the cured dataset is used to demonstrate the strong population structure and small effective subpopulation sizes. This is confirmed by a clustering analysis using discriminant analysis of principal components (DAPC).
While based on a specific dataset of ticks from different populations sampled across the USA, the generality of the authors’ approach is presented in Figure 6 in which they provide a step by step flowchart to cure microsatellite datasets from null alleles, SAD and stuttering. Several criteria based on FIS, FST and LD between loci are used as decision keys in the flowchart. An excel file is also provided as help for the curation steps. This study and the proposed methodology are thus extremely useful for all population geneticists working on non-model species with large number of samples genotyped at microsatellite markers. The method not only allows more accurate estimates of heterozygosity but also prevents the thinning of datasets due to the removal of problematic loci. As a follow-up and extension of this work, an exhaustive simulation study could investigate the influence of these data quality issues on past demographic and population structure inference under a wide range of scenarios. This would allow to quantify the current biases in the literature and the robustness of the methodology devised by De Meeûs et al. [7].

References

[1] Jarne, P., and Lagoda, P. J. (1996). Microsatellites, from molecules to populations and back. Trends in ecology & evolution, 11(10), 424-429. doi: 10.1016/0169-5347(96)10049-5
[2] Cornille, A., Giraud, T., Bellard, C., Tellier, A., Le Cam, B., Smulders, M. J. M., Kleinschmit, J., Roldan-Ruiz, I. and Gladieux, P. (2013). Postglacial recolonization history of the E uropean crabapple (Malus sylvestris M ill.), a wild contributor to the domesticated apple. Molecular Ecology, 22(8), 2249-2263. doi: 10.1111/mec.12231
[3] Parat, F., Schwertfirm, G., Rudolph, U., Miedaner, T., Korzun, V., Bauer, E., Schön C.-C. and Tellier, A. (2016). Geography and end use drive the diversification of worldwide winter rye populations. Molecular ecology, 25(2), 500-514. doi: 10.1111/mec.13495
[4] Broquet, T., Ménard, N., & Petit, E. (2007). Noninvasive population genetics: a review of sample source, diet, fragment length and microsatellite motif effects on amplification success and genotyping error rates. Conservation Genetics, 8(1), 249-260. doi: 10.1007/s10592-006-9146-5
[5] Koffi, M., De Meeûs, T., Séré, M., Bucheton, B., Simo, G., Njiokou, F., Salim, B., Kaboré, J., MacLeod, A., Camara, M., Solano, P., Belem, A. M. G. and Jamonneau, V. (2015). Population genetics and reproductive strategies of African trypanosomes: revisiting available published data. PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 9(10), e0003985. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0003985
[6] Estoup, A., Jarne, P., & Cornuet, J. M. (2002). Homoplasy and mutation model at microsatellite loci and their consequences for population genetics analysis. Molecular ecology, 11(9), 1591-1604. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-294X.2002.01576.x
[7] De Meeûs, T., Chan, C. T., Ludwig, J. M., Tsao, J. I., Patel, J., Bhagatwala, J., and Beati, L. (2019). Deceptive combined effects of short allele dominance and stuttering: an example with Ixodes scapularis, the main vector of Lyme disease in the USA. bioRxiv, 622373, ver. 4 peer-reviewed and recommended by Peer Community In Evolutionary Biology. doi: 10.1101/622373

Plants display an amazing diversity of reproductive strategies with and without sex. This diversity is particularly remarkable in flowering plants, as highlighted by Charles Darwin, who wrote several botanical books scrutinizing plant reproduction. One particularly influential work concerned floral variation [1]. Darwin recognized that flowers may present different forms within a single population, with or without sex specialization. The number of species concerned is small, but they display recurrent patterns, which made it possible for Darwin to invoke natural and sexual selection to explain them. Most of early evolutionary theory on the evolution of reproductive strategies was developed in the first half of the 20th century and was based on animals. However, the pioneering work by David Lloyd from the 1970s onwards excited interest in the diversity of plant sexual strategies as models for testing adaptive hypotheses and predicting reproductive outcomes [2]. The sex specialization of individual flowers and plants has since become one of the favorite topics of evolutionary biologists. However, attention has focused mostly on cases related to sex differentiation (dioecy and associated conditions [3]). Separate unisexual flower types on the same plant (monoecy and related cases, rendering the plant functionally hermaphroditic) have been much less studied, apart from their possible role in the evolution of dioecy [4] or their association with particular modes of pollination [5].
Two specific non-mutually exclusive hypotheses on the evolution of separate sexes in flowers (dicliny) have been proposed, both anchored in Lloyd’s views and Darwin’s legacy, with selfing avoidance and optimal limited resource allocation. Intermediate sex separation, in which sex morphs have different combinations of unisexual and hermaphrodite flowers, has been crucial for testing these hypotheses through comparative analyses of optimal conditions in suggested transitions. Again, cases in which floral unisexuality does not lead to sex separation have been studied much less than dioecious plants, at both the microevolutionary and macroevolutionary levels. It is surprising that the increasing availability of plant phylogenies and powerful methods for testing evolutionary transitions and correlations have not led to more studies, even though the frequency of monoecy is probably highest among diclinous species (those with unisexual flowers in any distribution among plants within a population [6]).
The study by Torices et al. [7] aims to fill this gap, offering a different perspective to that provided by Diggle & Miller [8] on the evolution of monoecious conditions. The authors use heads of a number of species of the sunflower family (Asteraceae) to test specifically the effect of resource limitation on the expression of sexual morphs within the head. They make use of the very particular and constant architecture of inflorescences in these species (the flower head or “capitulum”) and the diversity of sexual conditions (hermaphrodite, gynomonoecious, monoecious) and their spatial pattern within the flower head in this plant family to develop an elegant means of testing this hypothesis. Their results are consistent with their expectations on the effect of resource limitation on the head, as determined by patterns of fruit size within the head, assuming that female fecundity is more strongly limited by resource availability than male function.
The authors took on a huge challenge in choosing to study the largest plant family (about 25 thousand species). Their sample was limited to only about a hundred species, but species selection was very careful, to ensure that the range of sex conditions and the available phylogenetic information were adequately represented. The analytical methods are robust and cast no doubt on the reported results. However, I can’t help but wonder what would happen if the antiselfing hypothesis was tested simultaneously. This would require self-incompatibility (SI) data for the species sample, as the presence of SI is usually invoked as a powerful antiselfing mechanism, rendering the unisexuality of flowers unnecessary. However, SI is variable and frequently lost in the sunflower family [9]. I also wonder to what extent the very specific architecture of flower heads imposes an idiosyncratic resource distribution that may have fixed these sexual systems in species and lineages of the family. Although not approached in this study, intraspecific variation seems to be low. It would be very interesting to use similar approaches in other plant groups in which inflorescence architecture is lax and resource distribution may differ. A whole-plant approach might be required, rather than investigations of single inflorescences as in this study. This study has no flaws, but instead paves the way for further testing of a long-standing dual hypothesis, probably with different outcomes in different ecological and evolutionary settings. In the end, sex is not only in the head.

References

[1] Darwin, C. (1877). The different forms of flowers on plants of the same species. John Murray.
[2] Barrett, S. C. H., and Harder, L. D. (2006). David G. Lloyd and the evolution of floral biology: from natural history to strategic analysis. In L.D. Harder, L. D., and Barrett, S. C. H. (eds) Ecology and Evolution of Flowers. OUP, Oxford. Pp 1-21.
[3] Geber, M. A., Dawson, T. E., and Delph, L. F. (eds) (1999). Gender and sexual dimorphism in flowering plants. Springer, Berlin.
[4] Charlesworth, D. (1999). Theories of the evolution of dioecy. In Geber, M. A., Dawson T. E. and Delph L. F. (eds) (1999). Gender and sexual dimorphism in flowering plants. Springer, Berlin. Pp. 33-60.
[5] Friedman, J., and Barrett, S. C. (2008). A phylogenetic analysis of the evolution of wind pollination in the angiosperms. International Journal of Plant Sciences, 169(1), 49-58. doi: 10.1086/523365
[6] Renner, S. S. (2014). The relative and absolute frequencies of angiosperm sexual systems: dioecy, monoecy, gynodioecy, and an updated online database. American Journal of botany, 101(10), 1588-1596. doi: 10.3732/ajb.1400196
[7] Torices, R., Afonso, A., Anderberg, A. A., Gómez, J. M., and Méndez, M. (2019). Architectural traits constrain the evolution of unisexual flowers and sexual segregation within inflorescences: an interspecific approach. bioRxiv, 356147, ver. 3 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Evol Biol. doi: 10.1101/356147
[8] Diggle, P. K., and Miller, J. S. (2013). Developmental plasticity, genetic assimilation, and the evolutionary diversification of sexual expression in Solanum. American journal of botany, 100(6), 1050-1060. doi: 10.3732/ajb.1200647
[9] Ferrer, M. M., and Good‐Avila, S. V. (2007). Macrophylogenetic analyses of the gain and loss of self‐incompatibility in the Asteraceae. New Phytologist, 173(2), 401-414. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2006.01905.x

Ecology needs rules stipulating how species distributions and ecological communities should be assembled along environmental gradients, but few rules have yet emerged in the ecological literature. The search of ecogeographical rules governing the spatial variation of birds colours has recently known an upsurge of interest in the litterature [1]. Most studies have, however, looked at pigmentary colours and not structural colours (e.g. iridescence), although it is know that color perception by animals (both birds and their predators) can be strongly influenced by light diffraction causing iridescence patterns on feathers.
In the present study [2], the authors study ca. 190 ecological communities of hummingbirds as a function of their iridescent colors, in a large study zone spanning varied habitats across Ecuador. They show that colour composition of local hummingbirds communities are shaped by two main processes :
(i) phenotyping clustering of birds with similar dorsal colours, due to local selection of species with similar camouflages against predators (i.e. some sort of mimetic circles).
(ii) phenotypic overdispersion of birds with distinct facial and ventral colours, resulting from character displacement and limiting reproductive interference.
I found this second result particularly interesting because it adds to the mounting evidence that character displacement (also for songs or olfactory signaling) allow local coexistence between closely-related bird species once they have reached secondary sympatry. It is important to note that not all color patches though to be involved in sexual selection followed this overdispersion rule -- throat and crown color patches were not found overdispersed. This suggests that further investigation is needed to determine how color variation shape the structure of hummingbird communities, or bird communities in general.
Another notable quality of the present study is that it is making extensive use of museum specimens and thus shows that very innovative research can be performed with museum collections.

References

[1] Delhey, K. (2019). A review of Gloger’s rule, an ecogeographical rule of colour: definitions, interpretations and evidence. Biological Reviews, 94(4), 1294–1316. doi: 10.1111/brv.12503
[2] Gruson, H., Elias, M., Parra, J. L., Andraud, C., Berthier, S., Doutrelant, C., & Gomez, D. (2019). Distribution of iridescent colours in hummingbird communities results from the interplay between selection for camouflage and communication. BioRxiv, 586362, v5 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Evolutionary Biology. doi: 10.1101/586362