Historically neglected or considered a rare aberration in animals under the biological species concept, interspecific hybridisation has by now been recognised to be taxonomically widespread, particularly in rapidly diversifying groups (Dagilis et al. 2021; Edelman & Mallet 2021; Mallet et al. 2016; Seehausen 2004). Yet the prevalence of introgressive hybridizations, its evolutionary significance, and its impact on species diversification remain a hot topic of research in evolutionary biology. The rapid increase in genomic resources now available for non-model species has significantly contributed to the detection of introgressive hybridization across taxa showing that reticulated evolution is far more common in the animal kingdom than historically considered. Yet, detecting it, quantifying its magnitude, and assessing its evolutionary significance remains a challenging endeavour with constantly evolving methodologies to better explore and exploit genomic data (Blair & Ané 2020; Degnan & Rosenberg 2009; Edelman & Mallet 2021; Hibbins & Hahn 2022).

In the marine realm, the dearth of geographic barriers and the large dispersal abilities of pelagic species like cetaceans have raised the questions of how populations and species can diverge and adapt to distinct ecological conditions in face of potentially large gene-flow, the so-called marine speciation paradox (Bierne et al. 2003). Contemporaneous hybridization among cetacean species has been widely documented in nature despite large phenotypic differences (Crossman et al. 2016). The historical prevalence of reticulated evolution, its evolutionary significance, and how it might have impacted the evolutionary history and diversification of the cetaceans have however remained elusive so far. Recent phylogenomic studies suggested that introgression has been prevalent in cetacean evolutionary history with instances reported among baleen whales (mysticetes) (Árnason et al. 2018) and among toothed whales (odontocetes), especially in the rapidly diversifying dolphins family of the Delphininae (Guo et al. 2021; Moura et al. 2020).

Analysing publicly available whole-genome data from nine cetacean species across three families of Delphinoidae – dolphins, porpoises, and monondontidae – using phylogenomics and demo-genetics approaches, Westbury and colleagues (2022) take a step further in documenting that evolution among these species has been far from a simple bifurcating tree. Instead, their study describes widespread occurrences of introgression among Delphinoidae, drawing a complex picture of reticulated evolutionary history. After describing major topology discordance in phylogenetic gene trees along the genome, the authors use a panel of approaches to disentangle introgression from incomplete lineage sorting (ILS), the two most common causes of tree topology discordances (Hibbins & Hahn 2022). Applying popular tests that separate introgression from ILS, such as the Patterson’s D (a.k.a. ABBA-BABA) test (Durand et al. 2011; Green et al. 2010), QuIBL (Edelman et al. 2019), and D-FOIL (Pease & Hahn 2015), the authors report that signals of introgression are present in the genomes of most (if not all) the cetacean species included in their study. However, this picture needs to be nuanced. Most introgression signals seem to echo old introgression events that occurred primarily among ancestors. This is suggested by the differential signals of topology discordance along the genome when considering sliding windows along the genome of varying sizes (50kb, 100kb, and 1Mb), and by patterns of excess derived allele sharing along branches of the species tree, as captured by the f-branch test (Malinsky et al. 2021; Malinsky et al. 2018). The authors further investigated the dynamic of cessation of gene flow (and/or ILS) between species using the F1 hybrid PSMC (or hPSMC) approach (Cahill et al. 2016). By estimating the cross-coalescent rates (CRR) between species pairs with time in light of previously estimated species divergence times (McGowen et al. 2020), the authors report that gene flow (and/or ILS) most likely has stopped by now among most species, but it may have lasted for more than half of the time since the species split from each other. According to the author, this result may reflect the slow process by which reproductive isolation would have evolved between cetacean lineages, and that species isolation was marked by significant introgression events.

Now, while the present study provides a good overview of how complex is the reticulated evolutionary history of the Delphinoidae, getting a complete picture will require overcoming a few important limitations. The first ones are methodological and related to the phylogenomic analyses. Given the sampling design with one diploid genome per species, the authors could not phase the data into the parental haplotypes, but instead relied on a majority consensus creating mosaic haploidized genomes representing a mixture between the two parental copies. Moreover, by using large genomic windows (≥50kb) that likely span multiple independent loci, phylogenetic analyses in windows encompassed distinct phylogenetic signals, potentially leading to bias and inaccuracy in the inferences. Thawornwattana et al (2018) previously showed that this “concatenation approach”  could significantly impact phylogenetic inferences. They proposed instead to use loci small enough to minimise the risk of intra-locus recombination and to consider them in blocks of non-recombining loci along the genome in order to conduct phylogenetic analysed, ideally under the multi-species coalescent (MSC) that can account for ILS (e.g. BPP; Flouri et al. 2018; Jiao et al. 2020; Yang 2015). Such an approach applied to the diversification of the Delphinidae may reveal substantial changes compared to the currently admitted species tree.

Inaccuracy in the species tree estimation may have a major impact on the introgression analyses conducted in this study since the species tree and branching order must be supplied in the introgression analyses to properly disentangle introgression from ILS. Here, the authors rely on the tree topology that was previously estimated in McGowen et al. (2020), which they also recovered using their consensus estimation from ASTRAL-III (Zhang et al. 2018). While the methodologies accounted to a certain extent for ILS, albeit with potential bias induced by the concatenation approach, they ignore the presumably large amount of introgression among species during the diversification process. Estimating species branching order while ignoring introgression can lead to major bias in the phylogenetic inference and can lead to incorrect topologies. Even if these MSC-based methods account for ILS, inferences can become very inaccurate or even break down as gene flow increases (see for ex. Jiao et al. 2020; Müller et al. in press; Solís-Lemus et al. 2016). Dedicated approaches have been developed to model explicitly introgression together with ILS to estimate phylogenetic networks (Blair & Ané 2020; Rabier et al. 2021) or in isolation-with-migration model (Müller et al. in press; Wang et al. 2020). Future studies revisiting the reticulated evolutionary history of the Delphinoidae with such approaches may not only precise the species branching order, but also deliver a finer view of the magnitude and prevalence of introgression during the evolutionary history of these species.

A final part of Westbury et al. (2022)'s study set out to test whether historical periods of low abundance could have facilitated hybridization among Delphinoidae species. During these periods of low abundance, species may encounter only a limited number of conspecifics and may consider individuals from other species as suitable mating partners, leading to hybridisation (Crossman et al. 2016; Edwards et al. 2011; Westbury et al. 2019). The authors tested this hypothesis by considering genome-wide genetic diversity (or heterozygosity) as a proxy of historical effective population size (Ne), itself as a proxy of the evolution of census size with time. They also try to link historical Ne variation (from PSMC, Li & Durbin 2011) with their estimated time to cessation of gene flow or ILS (from the CRR of hPSMC). However, no straightforward relationship was found between the genetic diversity and the propensity of species to hybridize, nor was there any clear link between Ne variation through time and the cessation of gene flow or ILS. Such a lack of relationship may not come as a surprise, since the determinants of genome-wide genetic diversity and its variation through evolutionary time-scale are far more diverse and complex than just a direct link with hybridization, introgression, or even with the census population size. In fact, genetic diversity results from the balance between all the evolutionary processes at play in the species' evolutionary history (see the review of Ellegren & Galtier 2016). Other important factors can strongly impact genetic diversity, including demography and structure, but also linked selection (Boitard et al. 2022; Buffalo 2021; Ellegren & Galtier 2016). 

All in all, Westbury and coll. (2022) present here an interesting study providing an additional step towards resolving and understanding the complex evolutionary history of the Delphinoidae, and shedding light on the importance of introgression during the diversification of these cetacean species. Prospective work improving upon the taxonomic sampling, with additional genomic data for each species, considered with dedicated approaches tailored at estimating species tree or network while accounting for ILS and introgression will be key for refining the picture depicted in this study. Down the road, altogether these studies will contribute to assessing the evolutionary significance of introgression on the diversification of Delphinoides, and more generally on the diversification of cetacean species, which still remain an open and exciting perspective. 

References

Árnason Ú, Lammers F, Kumar V, Nilsson MA, Janke A (2018) Whole-genome sequencing of the blue whale and other rorquals finds signatures for introgressive gene flow. Science Advances 4, eaap9873. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aap9873

Bierne N, Bonhomme F, David P (2003) Habitat preference and the marine-speciation paradox. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 270, 1399-1406. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2003.2404

Blair C, Ané C (2020) Phylogenetic Trees and Networks Can Serve as Powerful and Complementary Approaches for Analysis of Genomic Data. Systematic Biology 69, 593-601. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syz056

Boitard S, Arredondo A, Chikhi L, Mazet O (2022) Heterogeneity in effective size across the genome: effects on the inverse instantaneous coalescence rate (IICR) and implications for demographic inference under linked selection. Genetics 220, iyac008. https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/iyac008

Buffalo V (2021) Quantifying the relationship between genetic diversity and population size suggests natural selection cannot explain Lewontin's Paradox. e-Life 10, e67509. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.67509

Cahill JA, Soares AE, Green RE, Shapiro B (2016) Inferring species divergence times using pairwise sequential Markovian coalescent modelling and low-coverage genomic data. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 371, 20150138. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0138

Crossman CA, Taylor EB, Barrett‐Lennard LG (2016) Hybridization in the Cetacea: widespread occurrence and associated morphological, behavioral, and ecological factors. Ecology and Evolution 6, 1293-1303. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1913

Dagilis AJ, Peede D, Coughlan JM, Jofre GI, D’Agostino ERR, Mavengere H, Tate AD, Matute DR (2021) 15 years of introgression studies: quantifying gene flow across Eukaryotes. biorXiv, 2021.1106.1115.448399. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.15.448399

Degnan JH, Rosenberg NA (2009) Gene tree discordance, phylogenetic inference and the multispecies coalescent. Trends Ecol Evol 24, 332-340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.01.009

Durand EY, Patterson N, Reich D, Slatkin M (2011) Testing for ancient admixture between closely related populations. Mol Biol Evol 28, 2239-2252. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msr048

Edelman NB, Frandsen PB, Miyagi M, Clavijo B, Davey J, Dikow RB, Garcia-Accinelli G, Van Belleghem SM, Patterson N, Neafsey DE, Challis R, Kumar S, Moreira GRP, Salazar C, Chouteau M, Counterman BA, Papa R, Blaxter M, Reed RD, Dasmahapatra KK, Kronforst M, Joron M, Jiggins CD, McMillan WO, Di Palma F, Blumberg AJ, Wakeley J, Jaffe D, Mallet J (2019) Genomic architecture and introgression shape a butterfly radiation. Science 366, 594-599. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw2090

Edelman NB, Mallet J (2021) Prevalence and Adaptive Impact of Introgression. Annual Review of Genetics 55, 265-283. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genet-021821-020805

Edwards CJ, Suchard MA, Lemey P, Welch JJ, Barnes I, Fulton TL, Barnett R, O'Connell TC, Coxon P, Monaghan N, Valdiosera CE, Lorenzen ED, Willerslev E, Baryshnikov GF, Rambaut A, Thomas MG, Bradley DG, Shapiro B (2011) Ancient hybridization and an Irish origin for the modern polar bear matriline. Curr Biol 21, 1251-1258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2011.05.058

Ellegren H, Galtier N (2016) Determinants of genetic diversity. Nat Rev Genet 17, 422-433. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg.2016.58

Flouri T, Jiao X, Rannala B, Yang Z (2018) Species Tree Inference with BPP Using Genomic Sequences and the Multispecies Coalescent. Mol Biol Evol 35, 2585-2593. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msy147

Green RE, Krause J, Briggs AW, Maricic T, Stenzel U, Kircher M, Patterson N, Li H, Zhai W, Fritz MH, Hansen NF, Durand EY, Malaspinas AS, Jensen JD, Marques-Bonet T, Alkan C, Prufer K, Meyer M, Burbano HA, Good JM, Schultz R, Aximu-Petri A, Butthof A, Hober B, Hoffner B, Siegemund M, Weihmann A, Nusbaum C, Lander ES, Russ C, Novod N, Affourtit J, Egholm M, Verna C, Rudan P, Brajkovic D, Kucan Z, Gusic I, Doronichev VB, Golovanova LV, Lalueza-Fox C, de la Rasilla M, Fortea J, Rosas A, Schmitz RW, Johnson PLF, Eichler EE, Falush D, Birney E, Mullikin JC, Slatkin M, Nielsen R, Kelso J, Lachmann M, Reich D, Paabo S (2010) A draft sequence of the Neandertal genome. Science 328, 710-722. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1188021

Guo W, Sun D, Cao Y, Xiao L, Huang X, Ren W, Xu S, Yang G (2021) Extensive Interspecific Gene Flow Shaped Complex Evolutionary History and Underestimated Species Diversity in Rapidly Radiated Dolphins. Journal of Mammalian Evolution 29, 353-367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10914-021-09581-6

Hibbins MS, Hahn MW (2022) Phylogenomic approaches to detecting and characterizing introgression. Genetics 220, iyab173. https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/iyab173

Jiao X, Flouri T, Rannala B, Yang Z (2020) The Impact of Cross-Species Gene Flow on Species Tree Estimation. Syst Biol 69, 830-847. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syaa001

Li H, Durbin R (2011) Inference of human population history from individual whole-genome sequences. Nature 475, 493-496. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10231

Malinsky M, Matschiner M, Svardal H (2021) Dsuite - Fast D-statistics and related admixture evidence from VCF files. Mol Ecol Resour 21, 584-595. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13265

Malinsky M, Svardal H, Tyers AM, Miska EA, Genner MJ, Turner GF, Durbin R (2018) Whole-genome sequences of Malawi cichlids reveal multiple radiations interconnected by gene flow. Nature Ecology & Evolution 2, 1940-1955. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0717-x

Mallet J, Besansky N, Hahn MW (2016) How reticulated are species? Bioessays 38, 140-149. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.201500149 

McGowen MR, Tsagkogeorga G, Alvarez-Carretero S, Dos Reis M, Struebig M, Deaville R, Jepson PD, Jarman S, Polanowski A, Morin PA, Rossiter SJ (2020) Phylogenomic Resolution of the Cetacean Tree of Life Using Target Sequence Capture. Syst Biol 69, 479-501. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syz068

Moura AE, Shreves K, Pilot M, Andrews KR, Moore DM, Kishida T, Möller L, Natoli A, Gaspari S, McGowen M, Chen I, Gray H, Gore M, Culloch RM, Kiani MS, Willson MS, Bulushi A, Collins T, Baldwin R, Willson A, Minton G, Ponnampalam L, Hoelzel AR (2020) Phylogenomics of the genus Tursiops and closely related Delphininae reveals extensive reticulation among lineages and provides inference about eco-evolutionary drivers. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 146,107047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2020.106756

Müller NF, Ogilvie HA, Zhang C, Fontaine MC, Amaya-Romero JE, Drummond AJ, Stadler T (in press) Joint inference of species histories and gene flow. Syst Biol.

Pease JB, Hahn MW (2015) Detection and Polarization of Introgression in a Five-Taxon Phylogeny. Syst Biol 64, 651-662. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syv023

Rabier CE, Berry V, Stoltz M, Santos JD, Wang W, Glaszmann JC, Pardi F, Scornavacca C (2021) On the inference of complex phylogenetic networks by Markov Chain Monte-Carlo. PLoS Comput Biol 17, e1008380. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008380

Seehausen O (2004) Hybridization and adaptive radiation. Trends Ecol Evol 19, 198-207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2004.01.003

Solís-Lemus C, Yang M, Ané C (2016) Inconsistency of Species Tree Methods under Gene Flow. Syst Biol 65, 843-851. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syw030

Thawornwattana Y, Dalquen D, Yang Z, Tamura K (2018) Coalescent Analysis of Phylogenomic Data Confidently Resolves the Species Relationships in the Anopheles gambiae Species Complex. Molecular Biology and Evolution 35, 2512-2527. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msy158

Wang K, Mathieson I, O’Connell J, Schiffels S (2020) Tracking human population structure through time from whole genome sequences. PLOS Genetics 16, e1008552. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1008552

Westbury MV, Cabrera AA, Rey-Iglesia A, Cahsan BD, Duchêne DA, Hartmann S, Lorenzen ED (2022) A genomic assessment of the marine-speciation paradox within the toothed whale superfamily Delphinoidea. bioRxiv, 2020.10.23.352286, ver. 7 peer-reviewed and recommended by Peer Community in Evolutionary Biology. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.23.352286

Westbury MV, Petersen B, Lorenzen ED (2019) Genomic analyses reveal an absence of contemporary introgressive admixture between fin whales and blue whales, despite known hybrids. PLoS ONE 14, e0222004. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222004

Yang Z (2015) The BPP program for species tree estimation and species delimitation. Current Zoology 61, 854-865. https://doi.org/10.1093/czoolo/61.5.854

Zhang C, Rabiee M, Sayyari E, Mirarab S (2018) ASTRAL-III: polynomial time species tree reconstruction from partially resolved gene trees. BMC Bioinformatics 19, 153. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-018-2129-y

Genome-wide data obtained from even a small number of individuals can provide unprecedented levels of detail about the evolutionary history of populations and species [1], determinants of genetic diversity [2], species boundaries and the process of speciation itself [3]. Loire and Galtier [4] present a clear example, using the emblematic Galápagos giant tortoise (Chelonoidis nigra), of how multi-species comparative population genomic approaches can provide valuable insights about population structure and species delimitation even when sample sizes are limited but the number of loci is large and distributed across the genome.

Galápagos giant tortoises are endemic to the Galápagos Islands and are currently recognized as an endangered, multi-species complex including both extant and extinct taxa. Taxonomic definitions are based on morphology, geographic isolation and population genetic evidence based on short DNA sequences of the mitochondrial genome (mtDNA) and/or a dozen or so nuclear microsatellite loci [5-8]. The species complex enjoys maximal protection. Population recoveries have been quite successful and spectacular conservation programs based on mitochondrial genes and microsatellites are ongoing. This includes for example individual translocations, breeding program, “hybrid” sterilization or removal, and resurrection of extinct lineages).

In 2013, Loire et al. [9] provided the first population genomic analyses based on genome scale data (~1000 coding loci derived from blood-transcriptomes) from five individuals, encompassing three putative “species”: Chelonnoidis becki, C. porteri and C. vandenburghi. Their results raised doubts about the validity/accuracy of the currently accepted designations of “genetic distinctiveness”. However, the implications for conservation and management have remained unnoticed.

In 2017, Loire and Galtier [4] have re-appraised this issue using an original multi-species comparative population genomic analysis of their previous data set [9]. Based on a comparison of 53 animal species, they show that both the level of genome-wide neutral diversity (πS) and level of population structure estimated using the inbreeding coefficient (F) are much lower than would be expected from a sample covering multiple species. The observed values are more comparable to those typically reported at the “among population” level within a single species such as human (Homo sapiens). The authors go to great length to assess the sensitivity of their method to detect population structure (or lack thereof) and show that their results are robust to potential issues, such as contamination and sequencing errors that can occur with Next Generation Sequencing techniques; and biases related to the small sample size and sub-sampling of individuals. They conclude that published mtDNA and microsatellite-based assessment of population structure and species designations may be biased towards over-splitting.

This manuscript is a very good read as it shows the potential of the now relatively affordable genome-wide data for helping to both resolve and clarify population and species boundaries, illuminate demographic trends, evolutionary trajectories of isolated groups, patterns of connectivity among them, and test for evidence of local adaptation and even reproductive isolation. The comprehensive information provided by genome-wide data can critically inform and assist the development of the best strategies to preserve endangered populations and species. Loire and Galtier [4] make a strong case for applying genomic data to the Galápagos giant tortoises, which is likely to redirect conservation efforts more effectively and at lower cost. The case of the Galápagos giant tortoises is certainly a very emblematic example, which will find an echo in many other endangered species conservation programs.

References

[1] Li H and Durbin R. 2011. Inference of human population history from individual whole-genome sequences. Nature, 475: 493–496. doi: 10.1038/nature10231

[2] Romiguier J, Gayral P, Ballenghien M, Bernard A, Cahais V, Chenuil A, Chiari Y, Dernat R, Duret L, Faivre N, Loire E, Lourenco JM, Nabholz B, Roux C, Tsagkogeorga G, Weber AA-T, Weinert LA, Belkhir K, Bierne N, Glémin S and Galtier N. 2014. Comparative population genomics in animals uncovers the determinants of genetic diversity. Nature, 515: 261–263. doi: 10.1038/nature13685

[3] Roux C, Fraïsse C, Romiguier J, Anciaux Y, Galtier N and Bierne N. 2016. Shedding light on the grey zone of speciation along a continuum of genomic divergence. PLoS Biology, 14: e2000234. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2000234

[4] Loire E and Galtier N. 2017. Lacking conservation genomics in the giant Galápagos tortoise. bioRxiv 101980, ver. 4 of September 26, 2017. doi: 10.1101/101980

[5] Beheregaray LB, Ciofi C, Caccone A, Gibbs JP and Powell JR. 2003. Genetic divergence, phylogeography and conservation units of giant tortoises from Santa Cruz and Pinzón, Galápagos Islands. Conservation Genetics, 4: 31–46. doi: 10.1023/A:1021864214375

[6] Ciofi C, Milinkovitch MC, Gibbs JP, Caccone A and Powell JR. 2002. Microsatellite analysis of genetic divergence among populations of giant Galápagos tortoises. Molecular Ecology, 11: 2265–2283. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-294X.2002.01617.x

[7] Garrick RC, Kajdacsi B, Russello MA, Benavides E, Hyseni C, Gibbs JP, Tapia W and Caccone A. 2015. Naturally rare versus newly rare: demographic inferences on two timescales inform conservation of Galápagos giant tortoises. Ecology and Evolution, 5: 676–694. doi: 10.1002/ece3.1388

[8] Poulakakis N, Edwards DL, Chiari Y, Garrick RC, Russello MA, Benavides E, Watkins-Colwell GJ, Glaberman S, Tapia W, Gibbs JP, Cayot LJ and Caccone A. 2015. Description of a new Galápagos giant tortoise species (Chelonoidis; Testudines: Testudinidae) from Cerro Fatal on Santa Cruz island. PLoS ONE, 10: e0138779. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0138779

[9] Loire E, Chiari Y, Bernard A, Cahais V, Romiguier J, Nabholz B, Lourenço JM and Galtier N. 2013. Population genomics of the endangered giant Galápagos tortoise. Genome Biology, 14: R136. doi: 10.1186/gb-2013-14-12-r136