Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Jul 20;18(7):e0287777. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287777

Genome-wide data suggest a revision in management of the Caspian Sea trout Salmo caspius

Arezo Najafikhah 1, Mehrshad Zeinalabedini 2,*, Babak Arefnezhad 3, Mohsen Mardi 4, Maryam Nafari 5, Maryam Nasrolahpourmoghadam 6, Omid Jafari 7,*
Editor: Ishtiyaq Ahmad8
PMCID: PMC10358921  PMID: 37471390

Abstract

Salmo caspius Kessler, 1877 is one of the most commercially important species of Salmonidae in the southern basin of the Caspian Sea. The occurrence of its wild populations has undergone sever reduction during the last years. In spite of the yearly restocking activity, still no progress on the recovery of its wild population has been observed. Hence, the present study was done in order to assess the efficiency of the current restocking activity in the southern Caspian basin in term of genetic diversity. DNA extracts of 32 S. caspius from four different groups were screened using 62621 genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP). The overal genetic diversity and Fst values were 0.18 and 0.08, respectively. Considering the observed admixture pattern and the positive values for inbreeding coeficient it seems that S. caspius suffers from its small effective population size. In order to obtain the maximum performance, alonside with expanding the size of brood stocks, rehabilitation of the habitats and spawning rivers of this nationally endangered species is of great importance.

Introduction

Salmonidae, is one of the most commercially important fish families with a worldwide distribution. Many of the wild resources of Salmonidae have undergone stock enhancement programs as a consequence of sever reduction in population size [1]. Due to wide geographical distribution and allopatric isolation of brown trout alongside with their morphologic and ecologic variations, natural and/or human-caused hybridization the taxonomy level of salmo trouts has been under challenge [2]. Based on the latest reported check list on Iranian fresh water fish species, there are two species of Salmonidae in the southern basin of the Caspian Sea, namely Salmo trutta Linnaeus, 1758 (river resident) and Salmo caspius Kessler, 1877 (sea-run) which was mostly supported through morphologic approaches [3,4]. Having said that, recently published papers using simultaneous genomics and mtDNA information suggested that all populations of brown trout in the south and south-west of the Caspian Sea should be identified as S. caspius [57].

There are two ecological forms of S. caspius in the southern basin of the Caspian Sea. First, sea-run which migrates to the rivers for natural breeding during spring and fall seasons, however no genetic data supported any differences between fall and spring breeders of S. caspius. Secondly, the permanent resident of fresh water drainages which mostly are distributed in basins namely the Caspian Sea, Namak Lake, and Uromia Salt Lake. During the last decades, the capture rate of S. caspius throughout the southern basin of the Caspian Sea have had a considerable reduction. There are several factors for this observation among which the overfishing, poaching, drought, rivers’ system manipulation, water pollution and dam constructions draw more attention [8,9]. It is presumed that the populations of S. caspius, the lake-run form of Salmo in the southern Caspian basin, have been more affected by the dam constructions and consequent losing nursery grounds, making it too difficult for natural breeding and recovery of the wild stocks [10]. To compensate this reduction, the Iranian stock management department made a semi-artificial breeding program on this species by capturing the wild mature specimens migrating to the rivers and releasing-back the following fingerlings to the rivers. Historically, the first experience of Caspian salmon artificial breeding backs to the 1967 in Kelardasht breeding center and since then annually tens of thousands of fingerlings are being released to the rivers of the southern basin of the Caspian Sea. Although, based on the observed sea catch it seems that S. caspius has not yet been recovered properly and considered endangered at the national level [11]. There are two morphotypes of S. caspius based on the seasonal breeding, namely fall and spring breeders between October-November and March-April, respectively, however molecular investigations did not prove the significant differentiation and less is known about the morphology differences between these two forms [12].

The main goal of stock assessment and restocking programs are to identify distinct genetic stocks and keep the standing genetic variations between different populations in fish of the same species [13]. Hence, using molecular information in stock management and aquaculture has been inevitable part of any successful conservation program [14]. The genetic diversity and relationship parameters obtained from genetic data provide a powerful tool to watch-through and maintain the genetic health in the brood stocks and natural populations. In the study conducted on Salmo trutta using eight microsatellite loci, the importance of standing genetic diversity in the brood stock against the whirling disease of generated offspring was reported [15]. Different molecular techniques have been used in fish population studies since more than three decades ago, among which SSRs have been the most ideal markers compared to other traditional techniques [16]. Nowadays, because of the impressive advances in sequencing technologies known as Next Generation Sequencing (NGS), researchers are able to have accessibility to the genomic information of both model and nonmodel organisms [17,18]. Genotyping-by sequencing (GBS) is a technique on the basis of genome complexity reduction by restriction enzymes which has been widely applied in fish population studies and aquaculture activities [19,20]. For example, large scale SNP obtained from GBS were successfully used in separation wild and cultured populations of Cynoglossus semilaevis [21] and significant QTL affecting resistance to Koi Herpesvirus was detected through a genome-wide association study (GWAS) in Common Carp [22]. The ongoing restocking program of S. caspius has been based on random mating of breeders without knowledge on their genetic relationships, and concerning the small effective population size of this species the final output of the restocking can be affected. Hence, the present study was done using GBS-obtained SNP markers to assess the efficiency of the current restocking activity of Salmo caspius in Kelardasht restocking center in the southern basin of the Caspian Sea.

Materials and methods

Sampling

Before sampling, fish specimens were anesthetized by immersion in 6 mg/l concentration of clove oil (Sigma Aldrich, St. Louis, Missouri, United States,). A total of 31 fin tissues were randomly collected from wild and captivated brood stocks of S. caspius in the restocking center at Kelardasht in 2018 (Fig 1). The specimens were from four groups hereafter named as NCP (New wild candidate parents; aiming to be used for the ongoing breeding, n = 3); CPLY (Candidate parents used in the last year practice, n = 9); CO (Candidate offspring; offspring generated by the last year breeding, n = 15) and CP (Captured parents; the wild breeding stock of Caspian salmon caught in the past, n = 4). The fin tissue samples were stored in absolute ethanol and transferred to the genetic lab of Systems Biology department at ABRII for the later use in molecular studies.

Fig 1. Restocking center of Caspian salmon at Kalardasht, Iran.

Fig 1

DNA extraction

The DNA extraction of the fin tissue samples was done with Qiagen DNeasy Blood and Tissue kit using the provided protocol by the manufacturer (https://www.qiagen.com/us). After the DNA extraction, quality in terms of integrity and pollution and quantity of the extracted DNA samples were assessed by NanoDrop ND-1000 (https://www.thermofisher.com/ca/en/home.html) and 1% agarose gel electrophoresis.

GBS library preparation and sequencing

The method for GBS library preparation and sequencing is fully described in the paper on common carp (Cyprinus carpio) [19]. The paired-end GBS sequencing of the samples was done at BGI company in China (https://www.bgi.com/global). Briefly, the Apek I enzyme (NEB, USA) was used to digest 100ng of each DNA sample. The specific common and barcode adapters were ligated to the produced DNA fragments and incubated at 22°C for 1h. In the next step, equal volumes of the DNA products from each sample were pooled and purified using the QIAquick PCR Purification kit (Qiagen). The enrichment of adapter-ligated fragments was done through PCR amplification using PCR Primer Cocktail and PCR Master Mix. PCR products between 180-480bp were selected on an agarose gel. Agilent Technologies 2100 Bioanalyzer and the ABI StepOnePlus Real-Time PCR System were used for quality control assessment of the libraries. At the end, the 150bp PE sequencing of the GBS libraries was done in a lane of Illumina Hiseq 2000 at BGI.

Bioinformatic analyses

Quality filtering and SNP calling

The FASTQC ver. 0.11.5 was used for quality control of the fastq files (Babraham Bioinformatics, Babraham Institute (www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc/). Stacks pipeline version 2 [23] was implemented for the following SNP calling. The process rad tag package with the default parameters was used for raw reads filtering and omitting the low-quality reads. The clean reads were then mapped to the recent genome assembly of salmo trutta (NCBI; GCF_901001165.1) using Bowtie2 ver. 2.3.2 with activating the—very-sensitive option [24]. The sorted BAM files were fed into gstacks to build loci from the PE reads, remove the PCR duplicates and call the SNPs. Finally, the Populations module of the Stacks 2 was used to generate a Variant Call Format (VCF) file with the loci available in at least 65% of the animals (-r 0.65), filtering possible sequencing errors, paralogous sequence variants (PSVs) and uninformative polymorphisms. HWE and ld filtering were done through the GBS_SNP_Filter package [25]. Regarding the ld treatment, merely one locus of the loci in linkage dissequilibrium (with r2 > 0.5) was remained in the final VCF file. The PGDSpider 2.1.1.5 software was used to convert the generated VCF file into required formats [26].

Population structure analysis and genetic diversity

Three different analytical methods were used for cluster analysis. Firstly, an individual-based Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was done in R [27] package ape [28]. The dispersal of the fish individuals was visualized using the first two components by ggplot2 package [29]. Secondly, a Discriminant Analysis of Principal Components (DAPC) was done on the SNP data aiming to maximize the variance among groups. Thirdly, the STRUCTURE analysis was performed in R using adegenet package [30], considering the lowest Bayesian information criterion (BIC = 256.28) for estimating the number of optimum populations (K = 2).

The Nei-based genetic distances among individuals and different groups were calculated using the poppr package [31]. The fineRADSTRUCTURE was also used to evaluate the level of genetic structuring based on shared coancestry [32,33]. The Fst index between different groups of S. caspius was extracted using Genepop 4.0.9 [34]. Observed (Ho) and expected heterozygosity (He) indices were calculated using package GBS_SNP_Filter [25]. To avoid bias due to small sample size, allele frequency differences (AFD) between pairs of groups were calculated [35]. AMOVA was run in Genodive 2.0b23 with 9999 permutations, considering distances based on ploidy independent Infinite Allele Model (Rho) [36]. Before doing AMOVA, a pre-replacing of missing values was performed by randomly selecting values based on overall allele frequencies.

Results

The final VCF file contained 62621 variant SNPs after different steps of filtering. The proportion of missing data for each individual is available in S1 Table. PC1 and PC2 showed 9.63% of the total variance and the PCA results based on the two first components illustrated that the fish individuals of the NCP had a wider dispersal and were far away from the other groups (Fig 2). Similar to the PCA, the DAPC scatter plot separeted the NCP group from the other S. caspius individuals (Fig 3). The genetic background of the investigated fish individuals revealed a high level of admixture structure for the all investigated fish specimens except for the NCP (Fig 4).

Fig 2. PCA scatter plot of S. caspius brood stocks based on the two first components (CO: Candidate offspring, CP: Captured parents, CPLY: Candidate parents, NCP: New candidate parents).

Fig 2

Fig 3. DAPC scatter plot of investigated brood stocks of S. caspius.

Fig 3

Fig 4. The admixture plot (K = 2) showing the proportion of genome shared between different clusters.

Fig 4

The X-axis shows all the fish individuals in this study and the Y-axis represents the proportions of the individuals’ genome belonging to different ancestral populations.

The observed heterozygosity (Ho) as one of the indices of genetic diversity had its maximum value in the NCP group (Ho = 0.30), while the CO group had the lowest value with Ho = 0.12 (Table 1). The maximum number of private alleles were identified in the CPLY group while the NCP showed the less regarding this index. The highest and lowest rate of inbreeding values were recognized in the CO and NCP groups with Fis values of 0.72 and 0.24, respectively. Details information of genetic divesity paramters obtained from SNP data on S. caspius are available in Table 1. Pairwise Fst values for the between group comparisons ranged from 0.04 to 0.16 for CPLY-CO and NCP-CP comparisons, respectively (Table 2). Moreover, AFD range was from 0.03 to 0.187 for the NCP-CP copmparison (Table 2). The AMOVA assigned 95% of variance to within-pop variations while among-pop variations accounted for 5% (p = 0.001). Nei-based genetic diversity showed the maximum genetic diversity between NCP and CP groups (Fig 5), however, we observed some indications of within-population differentiation using fineRADSTRUCTURE analysis to identify fine-scale genetic clustering. Accordingly, the fineSTRUCTURE classification based on the common shared genome among individualas (coancestry history) detected three main and seven sub-groups of S. caspious (Fig 6).

Table 1. Genomic information obtained on the brood stocks of S. caspius.

NCP CPLY CO CP
Number of Private alleles 823 2107 1809 1278
Observed heterozygosity 0.30 0.13 0.12 0.19
Observed homozygosity 0.7 0.87 0.88 0.81
Expected heterozygosity 0.34 0.36 0.37 0.33
Expected homozygosity 0.66 0.64 0.63 0.67
Nucleotide diversity 0.43 0.39 0.39 0.38
Inbreeding coefficient 0.24 0.65 0.72 0.41

Table 2. Pair-wise Fst (upper diagonal) and AFD (lower diagonal) indices between different brood stocks of S. caspius.

NCP CPLY CO CP
NCP - 0.096185 0.063366 0.163711
CPLY 0.15625 - 0.044616 0.086125
CO 0.03125 0.03125 - 0.060477
CP 0.1875 0.15625 0.125 -

Fig 5. The UPGMA phylogenetic tree using the nei-based genetic distances between different brood stocks of s. caspius.

Fig 5

Fig 6. FineSTRUCTURE classification based on the obtained SNP markers on S. caspius in the Kelardasht breeding Center.

Fig 6

Individuals classified along the heatmap’s diagonal have common shared coancestry histories and pairwise comparisons outside the diagonal illustrates level of shared coancestry between groups of S. caspius.

Discussion

In the present study, the genomic structure of Salmo caspius using 62621 SNP markers was investigated at the Kelardasht breeding center in Iran. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study in the southern basin of the Caspian Sea which aimed to reveal the efficiency of the ongoing restocking activity of S. caspius with a high number of genetic markers. The obtained information based on the SNP markers suggets an especial genetic management of the brood stocks of S. caspius in the Iranian Restocking center of S. caspius.

Population structure and genetic diversity indices

A high level of admixture pattern was observed in the studied candidates of S. caspius. Based on the structural analysis, all investigated fish individuals of S. caspius in this study were classifid in two genetically distict populations, so that the NCP group (New candidate parents) could be considered in one clade and the other fish candidates can be placed into the second branch. The observed dispersal of NCP individuals can be caused by the small sample size in this study or the higher genetic differentiation in these individuals, however fish individuals of NCP were placed into one group based on their recent shared genome. The Fst as an index of populations’ differentiation ranged from 0.04 to 0.16. According to Wright [37], the Fst value between 0.0–0.05 is an indication for the low differentiation, the Fst between 0.05–0.15 indicates a moderate divergence while the Fst above 0.15 implies a complete separation of the populations. Based on the obtained values of Fst index in this study, populations are in medium level of differentiation with the mean Fst value of 0.08. Having said that, the fish candidates from the NCP group are completely separated from the other candidates with Fst higher than 0.15 which is in line with the high level of genetic differentiation observed in the wild stocks of S. caspius in the Aralo-Caspian region [5]. These show that the wild source of S. caspius can impose a satisfactory level of genetic diversity but the number of brood stocks in each breeding activity should increase to boast the effective population size and consequent genetic diversity in the next generation.

Considering the genetic diversity, all investigated populations showed a low level of genetic diversity based on the observed heterygosity wherase the NCP group showed the highest heterozygosity. Previously conducted studies on the wild Caspian trout identified different populations of S. caspius in two different rivers however they reported a realtive low nucleotide diversity based on D-loop region of mtDNA [38]. In the study on seven different wild and hatchery-based populations of S. caspius a satisfactory level of genetic diversity was reported based on the mtDNA control region and nuclear markers (ITS-1 and 10 microsatelite loci), however, it was clearly reported that the current restocking program has not produced detectable genetic changes in the wild populations [39]. The results obtained through the present research indicate that the ongoing process of Caspian trout restocking has produced low to medium level of genetic diversity, suggesting an especial attention for expanding the effective population size during the artificial breeding programs to replenish the genetic diversity of S. caspius in the southern basin of the Caspian sea.

The current restocking programe of S. caspius is mainly based on the maiting of the wild captured parrents in different years (usually two years in a row), then producing brood stock candidates from this mating and in the end using theses produced F0 candidates for breeding schemes with the wild counterparts. Based on the obtained results in this study it seems that the genetic diversity during the undergoing restocking activity of S. caspius decreses only after one generation. As it is observed in the CO group, the level of genetic diversity of the candidates offsprings is three times smaller than the new candidate parents from the wild source. On the other hand, positive values for the inbreeding coeficient was observed in the all studied groups, indicating small effective population size both in wild and hatchery-generated populations which results inbreeding depression. It is worthy to note that the breeding scheme of S. caspius in term of sex ratio is preferably 1male:3female, however it is totally dependent on the number of available mature adults and the situation. For instance, field surveys showed that during the last year only four migrant female was captured. In spite of the fact that S. caspius has faced a drastic reduction in its wild source, still no any information is available on this species in the IUCN red list. Nevertheless, the Caspian brown trout has been considered as an endangered species in the national level [10,40,41]. Additionally, in accordance with the obtained genetic results in this study it seems that there is a great need to review the restocking activities in order to heal up the wild populations of this species. Restocking is not solely a program based on artificial breeding, and other considerations such as habitat restoration, recovering natural nursury grounds and providing the connectivity among populations across Caspian river basins to enhance the wild populations should be taken into consideration [39]. This integrated conservation strategy is needed as long as the combination of stocking and destruction of trout habitats probably have led to a loss of genetically distinct populations and still is ongoing. Loss of genetyic diversity can diminish the adaptive potential of S. caspius which severly threaten its future existence in the Caspian Sea and its related rivers [42].

Conclusion

The genomic population structure of Salmo caspius brood stock in the southern Caspian Sea breeding ceneter was investigated for the first time using 62621 GBS-obtained SNP markers. The obtained results through this study highlighted that current breeding strategy has maintained the low to mdeium level of genetic diversity for S. caspius in the southern basin of the Caspian Sea. Positive values were observed for the inbreeding coeficients in all brood stocks is an implication for the small effective population size and a consequence of artificial breeding using realtives.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Proportion of missing data for each individual of S. caspius in the current study.

(TXT)

Data Availability

The GBS data of Salmo caspius used in this study is available at Sequence Read Archive (SRA) with accession no PRJNA966795.

Funding Statement

We are grateful to Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO) for providing the required financial and technical resources. MZ was the main recipient of the funding award. The identification number for this funding is: 134-05-0557-008-94006-940029. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Hong D, Joo G-J, Jung E, Gim J-S, Seong KB, Kim D-H, et al. The Spatial Distribution and Morphological Characteristics of Chum Salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) in South Korea. Fishes. 2022;7(1):27. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.D’Agaro E, Gibertoni P, Marroni F, Messina M, Tibaldi E, Esposito S. Genetic and Phenotypic Characteristics of the Salmo trutta Complex in Italy. Applied Sciences. 2022;12(7):3219. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Jouladeh-Roudbar A, Ghanavi HR, Doadrio I. Ichthyofauna from Iranian freshwater: Annotated checklist, diagnosis, taxonomy, distribution and conservation assessment. Zoological Studies. 2020;59. doi: 10.6620/ZS.2020.59-21 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Salehi M, Mousavi-Sabet H, Eagderi S. The Iranian native salmonids (Salmo caspius and S. trutta), distinct species or two forms of the same species; a geometric-morphometric based hypothesis. Aquaculture Sciences. 2022;10(2):25–34. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Hashemzadeh Segherloo I, Tabatabaei SN, Abdoli A, Freyhof J, Normandeau E, Levin B, et al. Biogeographic insights from a genomic survey of Salmo trouts from the Aralo-Caspian regions. Hydrobiologia. 2022;849(19):4325–39. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ninua L, Tarkhnishvili D, Gvazava E. Phylogeography and taxonomic status of trout and salmon from the Ponto‐Caspian drainages, with inferences on European Brown Trout evolution and taxonomy. Ecology and Evolution. 2018;8(5):2645–58. doi: 10.1002/ece3.3884 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Hashemzadeh Segherloo I, Freyhof J, Berrebi P, Ferchaud A-L, Geiger M, Laroche J, et al. A genomic perspective on an old question: Salmo trouts or Salmo trutta (Teleostei: Salmonidae)? Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 2021;162:107204. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Hashemzadeh Segherloo I, Farahmand H, Abdoli A, Bernatchez L, Primmer C, Swatdipong A, et al. Phylogenetic status of brown trout Salmo trutta populations in five rivers from the southern Caspian Sea and two inland lake basins, Iran: a morphogenetic approach. Journal of fish biology. 2012;81(5):1479–500. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2012.03428.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Tabatabaei SN, Abdoli A, Ahmadzadeh F, Primmer CR, Swatdipong A, Segherloo IH. Mixed stock assessment of lake-run Caspian Sea trout Salmo caspius in the Lar National Park, Iran. Fisheries Research. 2020;230:105644. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Niksirat H, Abdoli A. On the status of the critically endangered Caspian brown trout, Salmo trutta caspius, during recent decades in the southern Caspian Sea basin (Osteichthyes: Salmonidae). Zoology in the Middle East. 2009;46(1):55–60. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Tabatabaei SN, Abdoli A, Hashemzadeh Segherloo I, Normandeau E, Ahmadzadeh F, Nejat F, et al. Fine-scale population genetic structure of Endangered Caspian Sea trout, Salmo caspius: implications for conservation. Hydrobiologia. 2020;847:3339–53. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Habibi E, Kalbassi MR, Hosseini SJ, Qasemi SA. Feasibility of identification of fall and spring migrating Caspian trout (Salmo trutta caspius) by using AFLP molecular marker. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 2013;13(2). [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Larson WA, Seeb LW, Everett MV, Waples RK, Templin WD, Seeb JE. Genotyping by sequencing resolves shallow population structure to inform conservation of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Evolutionary Applications. 2014;7(3):355–69. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Wirgin II, Waldman JR. What DNA can do for you. Fisheries. 1994;19(7):16–27. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Eszterbauer E, Forró B, Tolnai Z, Guti CF, Zsigmond G, Hoitsy G, et al. Parental genetic diversity of brown trout (Salmo trutta m. fario) brood stock affects offspring susceptibility to whirling disease. Parasites & vectors. 2015;8(1):1–9. doi: 10.1186/s13071-015-0744-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Mojekwu T, Anumudu C. Microsatellite markers in Aquaculture: Application in Fish population genetics. 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Stapley J, Reger J, Feulner PG, Smadja C, Galindo J, Ekblom R, et al. Adaptation genomics: the next generation. Trends in ecology & evolution. 2010;25(12):705–12. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2010.09.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Allendorf FW, Hohenlohe PA, Luikart G. Genomics and the future of conservation genetics. Nature reviews genetics. 2010;11(10):697–709. doi: 10.1038/nrg2844 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Jafari O, Zeinalabedini M, Robledo D, Fernandes JMdO, Hedayati A-A, Arefnezhad B. Genotyping-by-Sequencing reveals the impact of restocking on wild common carp populations of the Southern Caspian Basin. 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Elshire RJ, Glaubitz JC, Sun Q, Poland JA, Kawamoto K, Buckler ES, et al. A robust, simple genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) approach for high diversity species. PloS one. 2011;6(5):e19379. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0019379 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Zhang B, Jia L, He X, Chen C, Liu H, Liu K, et al. Large scale SNP unearthing and genetic architecture analysis in sea-captured and cultured populations of Cynoglossus semilaevis. Genomics. 2020;112(5):3238–46. doi: 10.1016/j.ygeno.2020.06.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Palaiokostas C, Robledo D, Vesely T, Prchal M, Pokorova D, Piackova V, et al. Mapping and sequencing of a significant quantitative trait locus affecting resistance to koi herpesvirus in common carp. G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics. 2018;8(11):3507–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Catchen J, Hohenlohe PA, Bassham S, Amores A, Cresko WA. Stacks: an analysis tool set for population genomics. Molecular ecology. 2013;22(11):3124–40. doi: 10.1111/mec.12354 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Langmead B, Salzberg SL. Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nature methods. 2012;9(4):357–9. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.1923 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Alexander A. GBS_SNP_filter v1.x.x. Available online at: https://githubcom/laninsky/GBS_SNP_filter (accessed January, 2021). 2018.
  • 26.Lischer HE, Excoffier L. PGDSpider: an automated data conversion tool for connecting population genetics and genomics programs. Bioinformatics. 2012;28(2):298–9. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr642 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Team RC. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Paradis E, Schliep K. ape 5.0: an environment for modern phylogenetics and evolutionary analyses in R. Bioinformatics. 2019;35(3):526–8. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty633 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Wickham H. Elegant graphics for data analysis (ggplot2). Applied Spatial Data Analysis R. 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Jombart T. Analyses multivariées de marqueurs génétiques: développements méthodologiques, applications et extensions: Lyon 1; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Kamvar ZN, Tabima JF, Grünwald NJ. Poppr: an R package for genetic analysis of populations with clonal, partially clonal, and/or sexual reproduction. PeerJ. 2014;2:e281. doi: 10.7717/peerj.281 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Lawson DJ, Hellenthal G, Myers S, Falush D. Inference of population structure using dense haplotype data. PLoS genetics. 2012;8(1):e1002453. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002453 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Malinsky M, Trucchi E, Lawson DJ, Falush D. RADpainter and fineRADstructure: Population Inference from RADseq Data. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2018;35(5):1284–90. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msy023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Rousset F. genepop’007: a complete re‐implementation of the genepop software for Windows and Linux. Molecular ecology resources. 2008;8(1):103–6. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01931.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Berner D. Allele frequency difference AFD–an intuitive alternative to FST for quantifying genetic population differentiation. Genes. 2019;10(4):308. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Meirmans PG, Van Tienderen PH. GENOTYPE and GENODIVE: two programs for the analysis of genetic diversity of asexual organisms. Molecular ecology notes. 2004;4(4):792–4. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Wright S. Evolution and the genetics of populations, volume 4: variability within and among natural populations: University of Chicago press; 1984. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Najjar Lashgari S, Rezvni Gilkolaei S, Kamali A, Soltani M. Study of genetic diversity of wild Caspian trout Salmo trutta caspius in the Sardabrud and Astara Rivers, using D-Loop region sequencing. 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Vera M, Sourinejad I, Bouza C, Vilas R, Pino-Querido A, Kalbassi MR, et al. Phylogeography, genetic structure, and conservation of the endangered Caspian brown trout, Salmo trutta caspius (Kessler, 1877), from Iran. Hydrobiologia. 2011;664(1):51–67. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Kiabi BH, Abdoli A, Naderi M. Status of the fish fauna in the South Caspian Basin of Iran. Zoology in the Middle East. 1999;18(1):57–65. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Abdoli A. The inland water fishes of Iran. Iranian Museum of Nature and Wildlife, Tehran. 378 p. Farsi; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Largiadèr C, Scholl A, Guyomard R. The role of natural and artificial propagation on the genetic diversity of brown trout (Salmo trutta L.) of the upper Rhône drainage. Conservation of endangered freshwater fish in Europe: Springer; 1996. p. 181–97. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Ishtiyaq Ahmad

23 Mar 2023

PONE-D-23-06704GBS-obtained data highlighted the necessity of an updated action plan for wild stocks management of Salmo caspius in the Caspian SeaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Jafari,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

Reviewer 1

Dear Authors

I had a chance to act as a reviewer of the ms PONE-D-23-06704 entitled: GBS-obtained data highlighted the necessity of an updated action plan for wild stocks management of Salmo caspius in the Caspian Sea submitted to PlosOne.

This is a study on the genetic diversity of Salmo caspius from a breeding center in the southern Caspian Sea basin. The authors have analysed four different groups of individuals based on the Genotyping-by sequencing (GBS) method. The results are new and interesting. Its publication in Plos One is highly recommended, however, after a significant revision of the present manuscript.

I have made most of the comments and edits in the attached pdf file, but a few main issues are listed below:

1- There are too many knowledge gaps in the introduction section (see the comments), which need further clarifications.

2- The sampling section needs improvement. As a reader, I have no idea what the four study groups are (NCP, NCPLY, CO, and CP). The authors need to explain these groups in more detail, and also explain the rationale for this grouping. This part needs to be explained carefully and comprehensively, since the whole study seems to be based on it.

3- Finally, there is a bias in the sampling. The CO and NCP groups are represented by 4 and 3 individuals respectively, whereas this is contrasted by the fact that in a standard population genetic analysis each population/group must be represented by at least 10 individuals. If possible, the number of analyzed samples should be increased for these two groups.

Sincerely Yours

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. No

Confidential to Editor

1. Do you have any potential or perceived competing interests that may influence your review? Please review our Competing Interests policy and declare any potential interests that you feel the Editor should be aware of when considering your review. If you have no competing interests, please write "I have no competing interests." Dear Editor

PlosOne

Thanks for considering me as a reviewer of the ms PONE-D-23-06704 entitled: GBS-obtained data highlighted the necessity of an updated action plan for wild stocks management of Salmo caspius in the Caspian Sea submitted to PlosOne.

This is a study on the genetic diversity of Salmo caspius from a breeding center in the southern Caspian Sea basin. The authors have analysed four different groups of individuals based on the Genotyping-by sequencing (GBS) method. The results are new and interesting. Its publication in Plos One is highly recommended, however, after a significant revision of the present manuscript.

I have made most of the comments and edits in the attached pdf file, but a few main issues are listed below:

1- There are too many knowledge gaps in the introduction section (see the comments), which need further clarifications.

2- The sampling section needs improvement. As a reader, I have no idea what the four study groups are (NCP, NCPLY, CO, and CP). The authors need to explain these groups in more detail, and also explain the rationale for this grouping. This part needs to be explained carefully and comprehensively, since the whole study seems to be based on it.

3- Finally, there is a bias in the sampling. The CO and NCP groups are represented by 4 and 3 individuals respectively, whereas this is contrasted by the fact that in a standard population genetic analysis each population/group must be represented by at least 10 individuals. If possible, the number of analyzed samples should be increased for these two groups.

Reviewer 2

The manuscript by Jafari et al. deals with population genetic analysis of a few groups from a hatchery in the south Caspian Sea basin that can provide data for stock augmentation purposes. Based on a fast review of the manuscript, I found major problems with taxonomic aspects, data analyses and also the claims made in the manuscript. I could not see and statistical support for the claims of the authors. The most important analysis for a conservation oriented work is the analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) which is lacking. Or the genetic distance that is used has is not a good choice due to small sample sizes used in this study. Apparently, authors were not familiar with genomic works performed on the Caspian Sea trout in recent years and ignored them completely. Further, the manuscript needs language check by a native English speaking person.

Overall, I cannot accept the manuscript for publication in its current form. I suggest major revisions and resubmission.

My comments are listed bellow:

The title should be revised, may be: Genome-wide data suggest a revision in management of the Caspian Sea trout Salmo caspius

Abstract

Line 29: provide also authorship at first mention of the scientific names!

Line 34: GBS-obtained SNP variants: replace with genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP)

Line 36: admixture

38: critically endangered? It is not even listed in IUCN redlist. Please check it!

Introduction

Line 43: families

Line 45: consequence

Lines 45-47: no! Salmo trutta is the Atlantic trout! All natural populations of brown trout in the southern Caspian Sea basin are Salmo caspius: resident and sea-run forms are only ecological forms, but not species! Please rather than using general checklists, have a look at recent papers published on population genomics of Salmo caspius using the same approach used here:

Hashemzadeh Segherloo, I., Tabatabaei, S.N., Abdoli, A. et al. Biogeographic insights from a genomic survey of Salmo trouts from the Aralo-Caspian regions. Hydrobiologia 849, 4325–4339 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-022-04993-8

Hashemzadeh Segherloo, I., Freyhof, J., Berrebi, P., Ferchaud, A.L., Geiger, M., Laroche, J., Levin, B.A., Normandeau, E. and Bernatchez, L., 2021. A genomic perspective on an old question: Salmo trouts or Salmo trutta (Teleostei: Salmonidae)?. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 162, p.107204.

Tabatabaei, S.N., Abdoli, A., Hashemzadeh Segherloo, I., Normandeau, E., Ahmadzadeh, F., Nejat, F. and Bernatchez, L., 2020. Fine-scale population genetic structure of Endangered Caspian Sea trout, Salmo caspius: implications for conservation. Hydrobiologia, 847, pp.3339-3353.

Tabatabaei, S.N., Abdoli, A., Ahmadzadeh, F., Primmer, C.R., Swatdipong, A. and Segherloo, I.H., 2020. Mixed stock assessment of lake-run Caspian Sea trout Salmo caspius in the Lar National Park, Iran. Fisheries Research, 230, p.105644.

Lines 47-49: I could not see any genetic work in references, which are cited (checklists). Please use references dealing directly with the Caspian sea trout using robust data. It is clear that resident form of the Caspian trout or any other member of Salmo trutta species-complex is morphologically different from lake- or sea-run forms. Please see the above mentioned references.

Lines 62-65: I guess these are not morphotypes, are they? They should be temporal ecotypes, which migrate during different seasons. Please clarify!

Line 76: please provide the complete terms at the first mention and then use only abbreviations: Next Generation Sequencing (NGS)

Lines 76-77: please provide references.

Line 79: only two citations show the wide use of the approach in population genetics and aquaculture? Please provide examples!

Line 84: breeding center or centers across the southern Caspian Sea basin? If more than one breeding center is considered, please indicate. In m&m section authors indicate only one breeding center!

Material and Methods

Lines 87-91: it is not clear how these fish were selected? where the fish had been caught from? Were they all from the same population? What was the relationship of different groups? What does it mean “new candidate parents”, “candidate parents last year”, “candidate offspring”, and “captured parents”? please clarify! How many specimens from each group? …

Line 97: not guideline, but protocol or manual

Line 98: please provide webpage of the manufacturer.

Line 102: please refer to citations properly! Jafari et al.

Line 103: webpage for BGI co.

Line 114: hired? Used?

Lines 135-138: as sample sizes used in this study are small, it is suggested to use other metrics like allele frequency differences to avoid problems related to small sample size. Fst is sensitive to small sample sizes.

Line 139: taken or calculated?

Results:

There are no details on proportion of missing data and how it was managed! Please clarify!

Lines 142-148: which K was selected in Structure analysis? Please clarify and provide statistical evidence.

The work aims at conservation, but one of the most important statistical analyses which is mostly used in conservation genetics works is missing: I expected to see AMOVA analysis of the data to see statistical support for population structure …

Line 179: Fig. 4a? appears to be 5a

Discussion

Lines 186-189: please see my previous comments: it is not the first genomic work on the Caspian Sea trout. There had been other studies!

Line 194: structure analysis

Lines 196-199: Fst is prone to small sample sizes, see previous comments!

Line 218: based

220-224: What is the mating scheme in the noted hatchery? The reduced diversity may be a result of breeding scheme! What was the sex ratio? How many brood fish had been used? And so on. All these are important factors which must be clarified.

Lines 226-227: It is not listed in the redlist as I searched! Please check!

Data availability

Line 248: data should be deposited in public databases like SRA or VCF files can be uploaded to Dryad …

Ethics:

Lines 251-252: Was there a licence issued by the Ethics committee? Pleas provide

References

References do not follow a standard and unified format. In some cases they are incomplete and details are missing!

Figure 1 why members of the same cluster (NCP) are distributed all around the graph? Is there any justification?

Journal Requirements: 

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the experiments involving animals and ensure you have included details on (1) methods of sacrifice, (2) methods of anesthesia and/or analgesia, and (3) efforts to alleviate suffering

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide

4. We note that Figure (1) in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure(s) [#] to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission. 

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

5. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section:  

"No"

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now 

 This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear Authors

I had a chance to act as a reviewer of the ms PONE-D-23-06704 entitled: GBS-obtained data highlighted the necessity of an updated action plan for wild stocks management of Salmo caspius in the Caspian Sea submitted to PlosOne.

This is a study on the genetic diversity of Salmo caspius from a breeding center in the southern Caspian Sea basin. The authors have analysed four different groups of individuals based on the Genotyping-by sequencing (GBS) method. The results are new and interesting. Its publication in Plos One is highly recommended, however, after a significant revision of the present manuscript.

I have made most of the comments and edits in the attached pdf file, but a few main issues are listed below:

1- There are too many knowledge gaps in the introduction section (see the comments), which need further clarifications.

2- The sampling section needs improvement. As a reader, I have no idea what the four study groups are (NCP, NCPLY, CO, and CP). The authors need to explain these groups in more detail, and also explain the rationale for this grouping. This part needs to be explained carefully and comprehensively, since the whole study seems to be based on it.

3- Finally, there is a bias in the sampling. The CO and NCP groups are represented by 4 and 3 individuals respectively, whereas this is contrasted by the fact that in a standard population genetic analysis each population/group must be represented by at least 10 individuals. If possible, the number of analyzed samples should be increased for these two groups.

Sincerely Yours

Reviewer #2: The manuscript by Jafari et al. deals with population genetic analysis of a few groups from a hatchery in the south Caspian Sea basin that can provide data for stock augmentation purposes. Based on a fast review of the manuscript, I found major problems with taxonomic aspects, data analyses and also the claims made in the manuscript. I could not see and statistical support for the claims of the authors. The most important analysis for a conservation oriented work is the analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) which is lacking. Or the genetic distance that is used has is not a good choice due to small sample sizes used in this study. Apparently, authors were not familiar with genomic works performed on the Caspian Sea trout in recent years and ignored them completely. Further, the manuscript needs language check by a native English speaking person.

Overall, I cannot accept the manuscript for publication in its current form. I suggest major revisions and resubmission.

My comments are listed bellow:

The title should be revised, may be: Genome-wide data suggest a revision in management of the Caspian Sea trout Salmo caspius

Abstract

Line 29: provide also authorship at first mention of the scientific names!

Line 34: GBS-obtained SNP variants: replace with genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP)

Line 36: admixture

38: critically endangered? It is not even listed in IUCN redlist. Please check it!

Introduction

Line 43: families

Line 45: consequence

Lines 45-47: no! Salmo trutta is the Atlantic trout! All natural populations of brown trout in the southern Caspian Sea basin are Salmo caspius: resident and sea-run forms are only ecological forms, but not species! Please rather than using general checklists, have a look at recent papers published on population genomics of Salmo caspius using the same approach used here:

Hashemzadeh Segherloo, I., Tabatabaei, S.N., Abdoli, A. et al. Biogeographic insights from a genomic survey of Salmo trouts from the Aralo-Caspian regions. Hydrobiologia 849, 4325–4339 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-022-04993-8

Hashemzadeh Segherloo, I., Freyhof, J., Berrebi, P., Ferchaud, A.L., Geiger, M., Laroche, J., Levin, B.A., Normandeau, E. and Bernatchez, L., 2021. A genomic perspective on an old question: Salmo trouts or Salmo trutta (Teleostei: Salmonidae)?. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 162, p.107204.

Tabatabaei, S.N., Abdoli, A., Hashemzadeh Segherloo, I., Normandeau, E., Ahmadzadeh, F., Nejat, F. and Bernatchez, L., 2020. Fine-scale population genetic structure of Endangered Caspian Sea trout, Salmo caspius: implications for conservation. Hydrobiologia, 847, pp.3339-3353.

Tabatabaei, S.N., Abdoli, A., Ahmadzadeh, F., Primmer, C.R., Swatdipong, A. and Segherloo, I.H., 2020. Mixed stock assessment of lake-run Caspian Sea trout Salmo caspius in the Lar National Park, Iran. Fisheries Research, 230, p.105644.

Lines 47-49: I could not see any genetic work in references, which are cited (checklists). Please use references dealing directly with the Caspian sea trout using robust data. It is clear that resident form of the Caspian trout or any other member of Salmo trutta species-complex is morphologically different from lake- or sea-run forms. Please see the above mentioned references.

Lines 62-65: I guess these are not morphotypes, are they? They should be temporal ecotypes, which migrate during different seasons. Please clarify!

Line 76: please provide the complete terms at the first mention and then use only abbreviations: Next Generation Sequencing (NGS)

Lines 76-77: please provide references.

Line 79: only two citations show the wide use of the approach in population genetics and aquaculture? Please provide examples!

Line 84: breeding center or centers across the southern Caspian Sea basin? If more than one breeding center is considered, please indicate. In m&m section authors indicate only one breeding center!

Material and Methods

Lines 87-91: it is not clear how these fish were selected? where the fish had been caught from? Were they all from the same population? What was the relationship of different groups? What does it mean “new candidate parents”, “candidate parents last year”, “candidate offspring”, and “captured parents”? please clarify! How many specimens from each group? …

Line 97: not guideline, but protocol or manual

Line 98: please provide webpage of the manufacturer.

Line 102: please refer to citations properly! Jafari et al.

Line 103: webpage for BGI co.

Line 114: hired? Used?

Lines 135-138: as sample sizes used in this study are small, it is suggested to use other metrics like allele frequency differences to avoid problems related to small sample size. Fst is sensitive to small sample sizes.

Line 139: taken or calculated?

Results:

There are no details on proportion of missing data and how it was managed! Please clarify!

Lines 142-148: which K was selected in Structure analysis? Please clarify and provide statistical evidence.

The work aims at conservation, but one of the most important statistical analyses which is mostly used in conservation genetics works is missing: I expected to see AMOVA analysis of the data to see statistical support for population structure …

Line 179: Fig. 4a? appears to be 5a

Discussion

Lines 186-189: please see my previous comments: it is not the first genomic work on the Caspian Sea trout. There had been other studies!

Line 194: structure analysis

Lines 196-199: Fst is prone to small sample sizes, see previous comments!

Line 218: based

220-224: What is the mating scheme in the noted hatchery? The reduced diversity may be a result of breeding scheme! What was the sex ratio? How many brood fish had been used? And so on. All these are important factors which must be clarified.

Lines 226-227: It is not listed in the redlist as I searched! Please check!

Data availability

Line 248: data should be deposited in public databases like SRA or VCF files can be uploaded to Dryad …

Ethics:

Lines 251-252: Was there a licence issued by the Ethics committee? Pleas provide

References

References do not follow a standard and unified format. In some cases they are incomplete and details are missing!

Figure 1 why members of the same cluster (NCP) are distributed all around the graph? Is there any justification?

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by 15 April, 2023. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ishtiyaq Ahmad, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-06704_Reviewer_Comments.pdf

PLoS One. 2023 Jul 20;18(7):e0287777. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287777.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


30 May 2023

Before everything, authors are completely grateful for the peer-review of the manuscript. All comments have been seriously taken into consideration and are addressed in the manuscript.

Reviewer 1:

1- There are too many knowledge gaps in the introduction section (see the comments), which need further clarifications.

Response: We have made several changes and added new information into the introduction section to avoid the problem of knowledge gap.

2- The sampling section needs improvement. As a reader, I have no idea what the four study groups are (NCP, NCPLY, CO, and CP). The authors need to explain these groups in more detail, and also explain the rationale for this grouping. This part needs to be explained carefully and comprehensively, since the whole study seems to be based on it.

Response: The sampling section has been improved, specifically with the all details on the way of grouping.

3- Finally, there is a bias in the sampling. The CO and NCP groups are represented by 4 and 3 individuals respectively, whereas this is contrasted by the fact that in a standard population genetic analysis each population/group must be represented by at least 10 individuals. If possible, the number of analyzed samples should be increased for these two groups.

Response: Thank you for all your helpful comments. Unfortunately, it was not possible for us during the sampling to have more specimens because of several issues. Of course, availability of more samples can enrich the work but for example, in the year of sampling only 3 mature adults had been caught which disabled us to have more.

Reviewer 2:

1. The title should be revised, may be: Genome-wide data suggest a revision in management of the Caspian Sea trout Salmo caspius.

Response: The title has been changed to “Genome-wide data suggest a revision in management of the Caspian Sea trout Salmo caspius”

Abstract

Line 29: provide also authorship at first mention of the scientific names!

The authorship was provided: Salmo caspius Kessler, 1877

Line 34: GBS-obtained SNP variants: replace with genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP)

Response: Done.

Line 36: admixture

Response: Done.

Line 38: critically endangered? It is not even listed in IUCN redlist. Please check it!

Response: It has been modified to the nationally endangered species.

Introduction

Line 43: families

Response: Done.

Line 45: consequence

Response: Done.

Lines 45-47: no! Salmo trutta is the Atlantic trout! All natural populations of brown trout in the southern Caspian Sea basin are Salmo caspius: resident and sea-run forms are only ecological forms, but not species! Please rather than using general checklists, have a look at recent papers published on population genomics of Salmo caspius using the same approach used here.

Response: Thank you so much for the great comment. We have been referring to the published check list but now we changed to whole introduction based on the recent published papers on salmo caspius using GBS data.

Lines 47-49: I could not see any genetic work in references, which are cited (checklists). Please use references dealing directly with the Caspian Sea trout using robust data. It is clear that resident form of the Caspian trout or any other member of Salmo trutta species-complex is morphologically different from lake- or sea-run forms. Please see the above-mentioned references.

Response: The introduction section has been modified as you nicely suggested based on the provided references and all of them are cited now in the manuscript. Their reference numbers are: 5, 8, 9 and 11.

Lines 62-65: I guess these are not morphotypes, are they? They should be temporal ecotypes, which migrate during different seasons. Please clarify!

Response: It seems to us that the migratory behavior can be considered as a trait/morphotype, and that is why we mentioned two morphotypes. Now, it is changed to ecological forms in line 54.

Line 76: please provide the complete terms at the first mention and then use only abbreviations: Next Generation Sequencing (NGS)

Response: Done.

Lines 76-77: please provide references.

Response: Two references (17 and 18) have been mentioned in line 87.

Line 79: only two citations show the wide use of the approach in population genetics and aquaculture? Please provide examples!

Response: Some examples concerning the usage of GBS data in Fisheries sciences have been provided in lines 89-92.

Line 84: breeding center or centers across the southern Caspian Sea basin? If more than one breeding center is considered, please indicate. In m&m section authors indicate only one breeding center!

Response: Only one breeding center was considered. Indeed, Kelardasht is the one and only center for restocking Salmo caspius in the southern Caspian Sea.

Material and Methods

Lines 87-91: it is not clear how these fish were selected? where the fish had been caught from? Were they all from the same population? What was the relationship of different groups? What does it mean “new candidate parents”, “candidate parents last year”, “candidate offspring”, and “captured parents”? please clarify! How many specimens from each group?

Response: The new explanation for material and methods section has been provided in lines 100-106.

Line 97: not guideline, but protocol or manual

Response: Done (in line 114).

Line 98: please provide webpage of the manufacturer.

Response: Done (in lines 114 and 116).

Response:

Line 102: please refer to citations properly! Jafari et al.

Response: Done.

Line 103: webpage for BGI co.

Response: The related web page is available in line 121.

Line 114: hired? Used?

Response: “hired” was changed to “used” in line 132.

Lines 135-138: as sample sizes used in this study are small, it is suggested to use other metrics like allele frequency differences to avoid problems related to small sample size. Fst is sensitive to small sample sizes.

Response: We appreciate your very informative comments. The AFD (Allele Frequency Differences) between pairs of groups was estimated and provided now in the manuscript both in m&m section and the results (157-158, and 188-189, and Table 2).

Line 139: taken or calculated?

Response: "taken" was changed to "calculated".

Results:

There are no details on proportion of missing data and how it was managed! Please clarify!

Response: The proportion of missing data has been provided in supplementary information as named S12_Table. Also, during the Bioinformatic analysis, the way in which missing values were behaved has been explained in lines 160-161.

Lines 142-148: which K was selected in Structure analysis? Please clarify and provide statistical evidence.

Response: K= 2 was considered for the structure analysis based on the obtained lowest BIC. The related explanations are available in lines 151-152 and 177.

The work aims at conservation, but one of the most important statistical analyses which is mostly used in conservation genetics works is missing: I expected to see AMOVA analysis of the data to see statistical support for population structure.

Response: The AMOVA analysis has been added to the manuscript which was done using Genodive. The related sentences are in lines 158-161 and 189-190.

Line 179: Fig. 4a? appears to be 5a

Response: Done.

Discussion

Lines 186-189: please see my previous comments: it is not the first genomic work on the Caspian Sea trout. There had been other studies!

Response: Here our main focus was on the current restocking activity which is held in the Kelardasht restocking activity. So, we changed it to " To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study in the southern basin of the Caspian Sea which aimed to reveal the efficiency of the ongoing restocking activity of S. caspius with a high number of genetic markers."

Line 194: structure analysis

Response: Done.

Lines 196-199: Fst is prone to small sample sizes, see previous comments!

Response: As you nicely suggested, the AFD analysis has been added to the manuscript.

Line 218: based

Response: Done.

220-224: What is the mating scheme in the noted hatchery? The reduced diversity may be a result of breeding scheme! What was the sex ratio? How many brood fish had been used? And so on. All these are important factors which must be clarified.

Response: The related explanations are available in lines 254- 260.

Lines 226-227: It is not listed in the redlist as I searched! Please check!

Response: In lines 258-260 the revised sentences are provided (In spite of the fact that S. caspius has faced a drastic reduction in its wild source, still no any information is available on this species in the IUCN red list. Nevertheless, the Caspian brown trout has been considered as an endangered species in the national level).

Data availability

Line 248: data should be deposited in public databases like SRA or VCF files can be uploaded to Dryad …

Response: The raw data are deposited in SRA and now is indicated in the manuscript (PRJNA966795).

Ethics:

Lines 251-252: Was there a licence issued by the Ethics committee? Pleas provide

References

Response: The animal study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of Agricultural Biotechology Reasearch Institute of Iran (NO. 014-05-05-006-94006).

References do not follow a standard and unified format. In some cases, they are incomplete and details are missing!

Response: Thank you for your careful attention. We have used the endnote style of the Journal to avoid unwanted typo mistakes.

Figure 1 why members of the same cluster (NCP) are distributed all around the graph? Is there any justification?

Response: Concerning the high dispersal of NCP group in PCA scatter plot, it can be linked to the higher genetic diversity by NCP group, however, all other structural analysis such as fineRADstructure based on their recent shared genome put them in the same clade.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Ishtiyaq Ahmad

13 Jun 2023

Genome-wide data suggest a revision in management of the Caspian Sea trout Salmo caspius

PONE-D-23-06704R1

Dear Dr. Jafri,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ishtiyaq Ahmad, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Authors have adreesed all queries as per reviewer suggestions. So, I recommend your paper for publication.

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear Authors

I had a chance to review the revised version of the ms PONE-D-23-06704R1, entitled "Genome-wide data suggest a revision in management of the Caspian Sea trout Salmo caspius". It seems that you have implemented the comments/corrections based on the reviewer's comments.

I found it very interesting and now it can be considered for publication.

However, journal formatting should be done.

Best

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Prof. Hamid Reza Esmaeili

**********

Acceptance letter

Ishtiyaq Ahmad

13 Jul 2023

PONE-D-23-06704R1

Genome-wide data suggest a revision in management of the Caspian Sea trout Salmo caspius

Dear Dr. Jafari:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Ishtiyaq Ahmad

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Proportion of missing data for each individual of S. caspius in the current study.

    (TXT)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-06704_Reviewer_Comments.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The GBS data of Salmo caspius used in this study is available at Sequence Read Archive (SRA) with accession no PRJNA966795.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES