ABSTRACT
How reproductive barriers arise in early stages of divergence among broadcast spawning organisms that exist in sympatry remains poorly understood. Reproductively isolated lineages (Clade A and B) of Stichopus cf. horrens were previously reported across the western Pacific, with an additional putative cryptic species detected within the Clade B lineage warranting further examination. The present study further examines the hypothesis that the two mitochondrial lineages (Clade A and Clade B) of Stichopus cf. horrens represent putative cryptic species and whether another cryptic species within the Clade B lineage exists using a reduced representation genomic approach. Using double‐digest RAD (ddRAD) sequencing, a total of 9788 single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers were used to examine divergence among Stichopus cf. horrens lineages (n = 82). Individuals grouped into three SNP genotype clusters, broadly concordant with their mitochondrial lineages and microsatellite genotype clusters, with limited gene flow inferred among clusters. Outlier analysis recovered highly divergent SNP loci with significant homology to proteins related to rhodopsin and tachykinin receptor signaling, sperm motility, transmembrane transport, and hormone response. This study confirms the existence of three reproductively isolated genotype clusters within Stichopus cf. horrens and highlights gene regions related to reproduction that may contribute to establishing reproductive barriers between broadcast spawning species at an early stage of divergence.
Keywords: ddRAD sequencing, echinodermata, microsatellites, reproductive isolation, sea cucumbers, SNPs, speciation
How reproductive barriers arise in early stages of divergence among broadcast spawning organisms that exist in sympatry remains poorly understood. In this study, we used ddRAD sequencing to confirm the existence of three reproductively isolated genotype clusters within Stichopus cf. horrens, and by using outlier analysis, we identified highly divergent SNP loci related to reproductive processes. This study provides valuable insights into the possible drivers of reproductive isolation in broadcast spawning organisms occurring in sympatry.

1. Introduction
With the use of molecular approaches for species delimitation, cryptic species are now more readily detected and appear to be common in the marine environment (Bickford et al. 2007; Knowlton 1993, 2000; Nygren 2014). While allopatric speciation can be easily explained by physical barriers when cryptic species have disconnected distribution ranges, species with parapatric, overlapping, or sympatric ranges likely have a more complex evolutionary history (Bird et al. 2012; Faria et al. 2021). This complexity is often seen in the marine environment, where barriers to gene flow are less obvious and divergences along ecological boundaries are thought to occur more frequently than in the terrestrial environment (Bowen et al. 2013). In the marine environment, where external fertilization is common, it is more challenging for extrinsic ecological barriers to arise, leading to increased opportunities for hybridization and decreased opportunities for divergence. Mechanisms like gametic incompatibilities and variations in the timing and spatial variation of gamete release are considered key factors maintaining reproductive isolation in broadcast spawning species occurring in sympatry (Palumbi 1994; Swanson and Vacquier 2002; Bird et al. 2011). The evolution of these mechanisms to limit hybridization is acquired in various orders throughout the “speciation continuum” (De Queiroz 2005, 2007; Kulmuni et al. 2020; Nosil and Feder 2012; Seehausen et al. 2014; Roux et al. 2016; Stankowski and Ravinet 2021) and the existence of cryptic species offers an interesting toolbox to examine how reproductive barriers arise in early stages of divergence among broadcast spawning organisms that exist in sympatry.
The tropical sea cucumber Stichopus cf. horrens exhibits a high degree of morphological variability, making species identification challenging. A recent phylogenetic study revealed two divergent lineages (Clade A and B) within S. cf. horrens, where identification based on molecular data are incongruent with spicule morphology (Lizano et al. 2024). These lineages were further revealed to be reproductively isolated, with limited contemporary gene flow among sympatric populations. Moreover, an additional putative cryptic species within the Clade B lineage was also detected, warranting further examination. The low frequency of mitonuclear discordance, coupled with the absence of F1 hybrids between lineages, raises the question: how is reproductive isolation maintained between broadcast spawning cryptic species despite occurring in sympatry? Prezygotic isolation, particularly through the accumulation of gamete incompatibilities due to selection, is thought to be a primary mechanism reinforcing isolation in broadcast spawning marine organisms in sympatry (Levitan et al. 2004; Metz and Palumbi 1996; Landry et al. 2003; Coyne and Orr 2004; Bird et al. 2012). Positive selection on gamete recognition proteins (GRPs) has been reported in several echinoderm species (Lessios 2011; Sunday and Hart 2013; Patiño et al. 2016) and these proteins have been shown to establish reproductive barriers between closely related broadcast spawning individuals in sympatry (Palumbi 2009; Vacquier and Swanson 2011; Kosman and Levitan 2014). The role of GRPs in forming prezygotic reproductive barriers in sea cucumbers; however, is not yet known, and it remains unclear whether divergence in GRPs contributes similarly to speciation in other broadcast spawning organisms. Levels of polymorphism and patterns of divergence in GRPs vary across different groups. For example, in Ciona intestinalis , although GRPs are found to evolve more rapidly than proteins with other functions, the rates of evolution between allopatric and sympatric populations of the two reproductively isolated forms were not significantly different (Nydam and Harrison 2011). Similarly, in the sea stars Cryptasterina hystera and C. pentagona, little evidence of selection on gamete recognition genes was observed. Instead, signatures of selection were found in genes related to environmental interactions (Guerra et al. 2021). In addition, in Ophioderma longicauda , there is no evidence of positive selection on gamete recognition proteins; rather, positive selection was found on two genes encoding sperm ion channels involved in the signal transduction cascade in response to pheromones (Weber et al. 2017). Alternative mechanisms, such as habitat preference and synchronized spawning triggered by hormonal cues (Bierne et al. 2003; Hamel and Mercier 1995, 1999; Mercier and Hamel 2010), have been proposed. This implies that other genes involved in reproduction, potentially those upstream in the reproductive cascade, may also play a role in prezygotic isolation in sympatric broadcast spawning species.
In this study, we utilized single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) analyzed via double‐digest restriction‐site‐associated DNA sequencing (ddRADseq; Peterson et al. 2012) to test whether similar patterns of genetic differentiation and clustering previously found within Stichopus cf. horrens using mitochondrial and microsatellite markers will be recovered. Specifically, we expect genotype clusters of Stichopus cf. horrens recovered using SNP loci to be concordant with mitochondrial lineages and microsatellite genotype clusters, and further exhibit significant genetic differentiation resulting from limited gene flow. Additionally, this study will use SNP outlier analysis to examine the hypothesis that higher levels of genetic divergence will be detected in gene regions or loci related to reproduction (e.g., GRPs). Genome scans are now commonly used to identify potential outlier loci by examining molecular signatures of selection (Ravinet et al. 2017). These techniques involve assessing genetic divergence (e.g., based on distance metrics such as F ST or d xy ) or admixture proportions (Martin et al. 2015) across thousands to millions of loci to pinpoint regions of the genome where variation deviates from neutral divergence models.
A previous study reported the existence of two cryptic species and suggested an additional third species but with weak support due to small sample sizes and limited resolution from six microsatellite markers (Lizano et al. 2024). Here in this study, using high resolution SNP markers, we recovered three genotype clusters exhibiting limited gene flow, providing evidence of the existence of three cryptic species within Stichopus cf. horrens. In addition, we did not recover highly divergent SNP loci with significant homology to GRPs; instead, we found other proteins that are related to receptor signaling, neurotransmitter receptor activity, response to testosterone, peptide hormone processing, and sperm motility. Findings from this study will provide valuable insights into the possible drivers of reproductive isolation in broadcast spawning organisms occurring in sympatry.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Sample Collection and DNA Extraction
This study used Stichopus cf. horrens individuals collected from three sites in the Philippines where cryptic species have been reported and occur in sympatry (Lizano et al. 2024): Sta. Ana, Cagayan (STA) and two sites in the Davao Gulf: Mabini, Davao de Oro (MAB), and Pujada Bay, Davao Oriental (PUJ) (Table 1) (Figure 1). Genomic DNA was extracted from preserved tissues (body wall or papillae in 96% Ethanol or RNAShield) using a QIAGEN DNeasy Blood and Tissue kit. DNA concentration was quantified using a fluorometer, and quality assessed by agarose gel electrophoresis. Of the 96 samples used in this study, some samples have been previously genotyped at the mitochondrial COI region (n = 69) and at six microsatellite loci (n = 55) for assignment to mitochondrial lineage and genotype clusters (Lizano et al. 2024, Table S1).
TABLE 1.
Sample information for Stichopus cf. horrens analyzed in this study.
| Location | Site code | Lat (°N) | Long (°E) | mtDNA | SSR | SNP | SNP Clusters | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clade A | Clade B | SA‐1 | SA‐2 | SA‐3 | SA‐A | ||||||
| Sta. Ana, Cagayan | STA | 18.511 | 122.152 | 4 | 22 | 17 | 37 | 2 | 17 | 14 | 4 |
| Mabini, Davao de Oro | MAB | 7.297 | 125.836 | 16 | 3 | 18 | 21 | 20 | 1 | ||
| Pujada Bay, Davao Oriental | PUJ | 6.844 | 126.228 | 17 | 7 | 20 | 24 | 18 | 6 | ||
| Total | 37 | 32 | 55 | 82 | 40 | 24 | 14 | 4 | |||
Note: Sample location includes collection site (Location, Site Code), georeference (Latitude, Lat; Longitude, Long). The number of individuals genotyped for mitochondrial COI lineage (Clade A, Clade B), microsatellites (SSR), SNP loci (SNP), and assigned to three SNP lineages (SA‐1, SA‐2, and SA‐3) and admixed individuals (SA‐A) are shown.
FIGURE 1.

Sampling locations for Stichopus cf. horrens. Samples were collected from three sites in the Philippines (left) where three putative pseudocryptic species were reported to be sympatric: Sta. Ana, Cagayan (STA) (top middle), Mabini, Davao de Oro (MAB), and Pujada Bay, Davao Oriental (PUJ) (bottom middle). Photographs of two cryptic species within S. cf. horrens, designated as Clade A and Clade B (Lizano et al. 2024) are shown (right). Maps were generated in R using the sf, naturalearth, and ggplot2 packages.
2.2. Double‐Digest Restriction Associated DNA Sequencing and Quality Filtering
Library preparation and sequencing were performed at the Genomics Core Lab, Texas A&M University Corpus Christi. Libraries were prepared following the double digest RADseq (ddRADseq) protocol adapted from Peterson et al. (2012) using restriction enzymes PaeI and TasI for digestion of genomic DNA. Individually barcoded libraries were pooled, size‐selected, and sequenced on one lane of Illumina HiSeq 4000 (paired‐end, 150 bp). Demultiplexed raw reads were quality assessed using FASTQC (Andrews 2010). Reads were initially filtered for quality using the “process_radtags.pl” pipeline in STACKS version 1.48 (Catchen et al. 2011). Individual reads with phred scores below 10 or with ambiguous barcodes were discarded. Quality filtered reads were then filtered for contaminants using BBMap and BBSplit (https://github.com/BioInfoTools/BBMap) by mapping against bacterial and viroid sequences.
2.3. De Novo Assembly and SNP Filtering
RADseq loci were de novo assembled using the “denovo_map.pl” pipeline in STACKS. Different parameters were explored and evaluated based on the number of generated loci and the depth of coverage per sample. The final parameters selected for this study that yielded a suitable number of loci and minimum depth of coverage (10×) were a minimum read depth to create a stack (−m = 3), number of mismatches allowed between loci within individuals (−M = 7), and number of mismatches allowed between loci within catalog (−n = 8). The parameters used followed recommendations by Paris et al. (2017) where −M should be high for populations with high divergence and −n is either = M, M−1 or M + 1.
After de novo mapping, the “populations” module of STACKS was used to filter loci. We used a relaxed filtering criterion, retaining SNPs shared by 60% percent of individuals across all populations (−r = 60), retaining only one SNP per locus (−write_single_snp). SNPs with a minor allele frequency (MAF) < 0.1 were excluded to reduce the number of false polymorphic loci due to sequencing error. The resulting SNPs were exported in GenePop format for further analysis. As missing data can influence genetic clustering and diversity estimates, we applied three different thresholds for missing data: 40%, 20%, and 10%, to compare for congruence across analyses. Filtering was performed using dartR v2.9.2 (Gruber et al. 2018) to exclude loci and individuals with missing data greater than the specified thresholds.
2.4. Genotype Cluster Analysis
To examine patterns of genetic clustering of SNP genotypes, we used two clustering approaches: multivariate analysis and model‐based assignment methods. Multivariate analysis was performed using a principal component analysis (PCA) implemented in dartR::gl.pcoa. A model‐based assignment method implemented in the software ADMIXTURE v1.3.0 (Alexander et al. 2009) was used to infer the number of genetic clusters K and estimate individual ancestry coefficients (q) using a maximum likelihood approach. The optimal K was identified based on the lowest cross‐validation error estimated across 10 independent runs (for K = 1 to 10). Individual ancestry coefficients (q) were then assessed at the optimal K with 100 independent runs. Results were examined using “pophelper” v2.3.1 (Francis 2017). Individuals were assigned to a SNP genotype cluster when q > 0.9950 corresponding to operationally “pure” individuals and identified as admixed if otherwise (Caniglia et al. 2020).
We also visualized genetic relationships among SNP genotypes by calculating a Euclidean distance matrix among individuals using the dartR::gl.dist.ind function and performing hierarchical clustering using the hclust function in the R package stats v4.3.1 (R Core Team 2023). A dendrogram was generated using dendextend v1.17.1 (Galili 2015).
To compare genotype cluster assignments between SNP and microsatellite (SSR) markers, published SSR genotype data (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8273196) was re‐analyzed for 55 samples genotyped at six SSR loci and with matching SNP genotypes. PCA performed using the R package adegenet v2.1.3 (Jombart 2008) revealed three emergent SSR genotype clusters (SSR‐1, SSR‐2, SSR‐3; Figure S1). A Bayesian model‐based assignment approach implemented in the software STRUCTURE v.2.3.4 (Pritchard et al. 2000) was then used to estimate individual ancestry coefficients (q), at K = 3 to assign individuals to genotype clusters revealed by PCA. Ten replicate MCMC simulations were performed for each K value using an admixture model with correlated allele frequencies. Each run was carried out for 1 × 106 iterations with an initial burn‐in of 100,000 steps. Individuals were assigned to an SSR cluster based on a threshold value of q > = 0.9 (Vähä and Primmer 2006), while individuals having q values between 0.10 and 0.9 were categorized as admixed (SSR‐A; Table S1).
2.5. Genetic Diversity and Differentiation
Genetic differentiation estimators were calculated for SSR and SNP genotype clusters. For SSR genotypes, measures of genetic differentiation between genotype clusters were estimated using F ST (Weir and Cockerham 1984) and a standardized G ST (G' ST; Hedrick 2005) corrected for highly polymorphic SSR loci, calculated using the package “diveRsity” v.1.9.9 (Keenan et al. 2013). The significance of F ST and G' ST (null hypothesis of genetic homogeneity, H o: F ST = 0) was evaluated by estimating the bootstrapped 95% confidence interval (95% CI). For SNP genotypes, we used the dartR package to calculate Weir and Cockerham's F ST and associated p‐values.
2.6. Outlier Loci Analysis and Functional Annotation
To identify SNP loci underlying divergence between genotype clusters, outlier loci were identified using three approaches: BayeScan v2.1 (Foll and Gaggiotti 2008), Arlequin v3.5.2.1 (Excoffier and Lischer 2010), and pcadapt v4.3.5 (Luu et al. 2017). BayeScan and Arlequin are F ST‐based methods that identify loci that exhibit higher genetic differentiation among defined groups than expected under a neutral model (Ahrens et al. 2018). BayeScan analysis was performed using 20 pilot runs, each consisting of 5000 iterations, followed by 100,000 iterations with a burn‐in of 50,000 iterations. We used a posterior odds (PO) threshold > 10 and q‐value < 0.05 after correction for false discovery rate (FDR; Benjamini and Hochberg 1995). Arlequin, meanwhile, accounts for hierarchical genetic structure in parameter estimations, and outlier analysis was performed using 200,000 simulations and 100 demes with default expected heterozygosity settings. In contrast, pcadapt identifies outliers as loci that contribute significantly to population structure following a principal component analysis (Luu et al. 2017). We used an alpha value of 0.05 and used the package qvalue v2.1.12 (Storey et al. 2024) to calculate FDR corrected q‐values, setting a threshold of q < 0.05 for outlier loci identification. All loci identified by any of the three methods were considered as candidate outliers.
To characterize the outlier loci, contigs were queried against the NCBI nonredundant database using BLASTx v 2.15.0 (Altschul et al. 1990). The BLAST search was restricted to Echinodermata with an e‐value cutoff of 10−5. Gene ontology (GO) annotation terms of the outlier loci were retrieved from the Gene Ontology database (Gene Ontology Consortium 2023) through UniProt (UniProt Consortium 2023). GO terms were summarized using REVIGO (Supek et al. 2011), a clustering algorithm that relies on semantic similarity measures, and were clustered using the simRel score for functional similarity, allowing for redundancy in similar terms up to a value of 0.7 before removal. The resulting GO clusters were visualized using a tree dendrogram, where hierarchical relationships between terms were inferred based on their principal component (PC) similarity. Hierarchical clustering was performed using the hclust function from the R package stats v4.3.1 (R Core Team 2023) and the dendrogram was generated using the R package ape v5.8 (Paradis and Schliep 2019).
3. Results
3.1. ddRADseq Data Filtering and SNP Genotyping
A total of 644,788,232 raw reads consisting of forward reads (146 bp) and reverse reads (151 bp) were obtained from 96 individuals collected from three sites (STA, MAB and PUJ). Eleven of the 96 samples were excluded due to low read recovery accounting for only 0.13% (892,096) of the total reads. Quality control and contaminant filtering yielded 459,329,688 reads consisting of sequences from 85 samples: 40 from STA, 21 from MAB, and 24 from PUJ, with a total of 1,941,591 variable sites and 4,296,347 heterozygous SNPs identified among individuals. The depth of coverage per individual ranged from 9×–23× with an average read depth of 14x across all samples. A total of 9788 SNPs were identified from the remaining 85 individuals. Three individuals with a high percentage of missing data (> 60% missing data) were excluded before filtering was conducted at varying thresholds of missing data. Applying three filtering thresholds for maximum percentage of missing data across loci and individual genotypes yielded the following datasets (Table S2): 40% (9788 loci, 82 individuals), () 30% (5011 loci, 80 individuals) and () 10% (2410 loci, 75 individuals). Results from the 40% missing dataset are presented unless indicated otherwise, based on concordance of results across the three SNP filtering thresholds.
3.2. Genotype Cluster Analysis
Cluster analysis of SNP genotypes using various approaches consistently recovered three groups that broadly corresponded with mitochondrial lineage and microsatellite genotype clusters. ADMIXTURE analysis identified the optimal number of clusters at K = 3 across all datasets with varying missing data thresholds. The majority of the samples were assigned to one of three clusters, hereafter designated as clusters SA‐1, SA‐2, and SA‐3, based on a threshold of q > 0.9950. A small number of samples exhibited mixed ancestry (0.0050 < q < 0.9950) and were identified as admixed (SA‐A; Table 2, Figure 2a), with the number of admixed individuals varying across missing data thresholds (n = 4–7, Table S3). For admixed individuals, the highest q‐values ranged from q = 0.800 to q = 0.974. Assignment to clusters was broadly concordant across all missing data thresholds, except for three samples identified as parental or pure categories at 40% missing data but identified as admixed at 20% and 10% missing data (Figure S2; Table S3). All admixed individuals occurred in one population (STA) and have ancestry from clusters SA‐1 or SA‐3 (Figure 2a).
TABLE 2.
Count of Stichopus cf. horrens individual assignments to two mtCOI lineages (mtDNA Clade), three microsatellite clusters (SSR Cluster), and three SNP genotype clusters (SA‐1, SA‐2, SA‐3) and individuals with mixed nuclear marker ancestry for microsatellite and SNP loci (SSR‐A, SA‐A).
| mtDNA clade | SSR cluster | SA‐1 | SA‐2 | SA‐3 | SA‐A | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | SSR‐1 | 26 | 26 | |||
| A | SSR‐3 | 2 | 2 | |||
| A | SSR‐A | 4 | 4 | |||
| A | ND | 3 | 1 | 4 | ||
| B | SSR‐1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| B | SSR‐2 | 2 | 8 | 1 | 11 | |
| B | SSR‐3 | 2 | 5 | 7 | ||
| B | Admixed | 1 | 2 | 3 | ||
| B | ND | 7 | 2 | 9 | ||
| ND | ND | 2 | 6 | 5 | 2 | 15 |
| Total | 40 | 24 | 14 | 4 | 82 |
Abbreviation: ND, No data available.
FIGURE 2.

Cluster analysis of Stichopus cf. horrens SNP genotypes: (a) Barplot of individual ancestry coefficients (q) from ADMIXTURE analysis of 82 Stichopus cf. horrens samples genotyped at 9788 SNP loci. Each bar on the x‐axis represents an individual, the y‐axis is the proportion of ancestry in each of three identified clusters, K: SA‐1, SA‐2, SA‐3; (b) Principal component analysis of the same individuals showing three genetic lineages (SP‐1, SP‐2, and SP‐3). Each point represents an individual, with lineages identified by shape (mtDNA Clade) and color (SSR genotype clusters). Individuals that were not typed at mtDNA and SSRs (ND = no data) are indicated as crosses (+); (c) Dendrogram of the same individuals based on genetic distance. Lineages are colored according to ADMIXTURE assignments (colored bars beside the dendrogram), with admixed individuals colored yellow.
The PCA plot segregates samples into three distinct, non‐overlapping groups, designated as SP‐1, SP‐2, and SP‐3 (Figure 2b). Excluding admixed individuals (SA‐A), cluster assignments were congruent between PCA and ADMIXTURE, that is, SP‐1 = SA‐1, SP‐2 = SA‐2, and SP‐3 = SA‐3 (Table S4). The primary axis (PC1 = 28.64% of the total variance) separated the 82 samples into two groups broadly concordant with mitochondrial lineages: one group consists predominantly of Clade A individuals (SP‐1; n = 34 of 38 samples), while the second group consists exclusively of Clade B individuals (SP‐2, SP‐3; n = 27). The second PCA axis (PC2 = 10.7% of the total variance) further segregates Clade B individuals into two groups broadly corresponding to microsatellite genotype clusters (SSR Cluster), with SP‐2 consisting mostly of SSR Cluster 2 individuals (n = 11 of 18 individuals), and SP‐3 consisting mostly of SSR Cluster 3 individuals (n = 5 of 9 individuals).
Hierarchical clustering of pairwise individual genetic distances likewise reveals three clusters broadly concordant with PCA and ADMIXTURE assignments (Figure 2c). Clusters SA‐2 and SA‐3 are genetically more similar, with a smaller mean pairwise Euclidean distance (mean = 88.7, range = 78.9–97), than either SA‐2 or SA‐3 is to SA‐1 (SA‐1 vs. SA‐2, mean = 98.0, range = 82.6–110.0; SA‐1 vs. SA‐3, mean = 92.3, range 78.2–101). Genotype clusters SA‐1 and SA‐2 occurred in all three sites, with SA‐1 being more abundant than SA‐2 (48.7% and 29.2% of samples, respectively). Cluster SA‐3, accounting for 17% of the samples, was restricted to STA.
3.3. Genetic Differentiation
The three SNP clusters exhibit significant genetic differentiation. Overall F ST (global F ST = 0.458, p < 0.001, n = 78 excluding admixed individuals) and pairwise comparisons between SNP clusters indicate significant differentiation (F ST > 0): SA‐1 and SA‐2 (F ST = 0.510), SA‐1 and SA‐3 (F ST = 0.434), SA‐2 and SA‐3 (F ST = 0.423). Differentiation between clusters is maintained even in sympatry, that is, in PUJ (SA1 and SA‐2, F ST = 0.5057, p < 0.001) and STA (SA‐2 and SA‐3, F ST = 0.422, p < 0.001), and exhibits much higher F ST values compared to within‐cluster comparisons for different sites. Cluster SA‐1 PUJ and MAB populations and Cluster SA‐2 PUJ and STA populations exhibit much lower F ST values than sympatric clusters (F ST = 0.015 and F ST = 0.004; p < 0.001; Figure S3a), despite their geographic separation (200 km and 1400 km, respectively).
The three microsatellite clusters likewise exhibit genetic differentiation (overall F ST = 0.177, G' ST = 0.591). All pairwise F ST comparisons reject the null hypothesis of homogeneity (F ST > 0): SSR Cluster 1 and SSR Cluster 2 (F ST = 0.226), SSR Cluster 2 and SSR Cluster 3 (F ST = 0.035), SSR Cluster 1 and SSR Cluster 3 (F ST = 0.156). Differentiation between clusters is significant even in sympatry in MAB (SSR Cluster 1 and Cluster 2, F ST = 0.231, p < 0.001) and STA (Cluster 2 and Cluster 3 STA, F ST = 0.176, p < 0.001; Figure S3b). SSR Cluster 2 STA and MAB populations exhibit lower F ST values (F ST = 0.156) compared to sympatric lineages at these sites. SSR Cluster 1 populations in MAB and PUJ are not significantly differentiated (F ST = 0), in contrast with differentiation detected by SNP markers.
3.4. Comparison of Lineage Assignments Across Mitochondrial, Microsatellite, and SNP Markers
Comparing lineage assignments across multiple marker types reveals broad concordance of SNP clusters with mtDNA and SSR lineage assignments for 54 individuals with data across all three marker types (Table 2, Figure 3). While mtDNA lineages recover only two lineages, these broadly correspond with SNP clusters, that is, SA‐1 consists predominantly of Clade A (n = 32 of 35 SA‐1 individuals), while SA‐2 and SA‐3 both belong to Clade B (18 SA‐2 and SA‐3 individuals). Meanwhile, individual assignments based on PCA and STRUCTURE analysis of SSR genotypes at K = 3 groups generally correspond with SNP clusters (Table 2): SA‐1 consists mostly of SSR‐1 (n = 26 of 35 individuals), SA‐2 is mostly SSR‐2 (n = 8 of 11 individuals), and SA‐3 is predominantly SSR‐3 (n = 5 of 8 individuals).
FIGURE 3.

Comparison of lineage assignment barplots for 54 Stichopus cf. horrens individuals for mtDNA, SSR (at K = 2 and K = 3), and SNP markers. Each individual is represented by a vertical bar where the proportion of ancestry (q) in a cluster is indicated by colors corresponding to mitochondrial lineages (Clade A, Clade B), microsatellite genotype clusters inferred from STRUCTURE analysis at K = 2 and K = 3, and SNP genotype clusters inferred from ADMIXTURE analysis at K = 3. The horizontal dashed line represents q‐value thresholds for identifying admixed individuals for SSR data (0.1 < q < 0.9).
Excluding one SNP genotype with mixed ancestry (SA‐A), discordant assignments were observed between mtDNA and SNP lineages in three of 53 samples (SA‐1 genotypes with Clade B lineage observed at two sites, MAB and PUJ), and between SSR and SNP lineages in 13 of 53 samples. The majority of the mismatched SSR cluster assignments were identified as admixed by SSRs, but not by SNPs (7 of 13 assignments), while the remaining mismatches were accounted for by SA‐1 identified as SSR Cluster 2 or SSR Cluster 3 (n = 4), and SA‐2 identified as SSR‐3 (n = 2) (Table 2, Figure 3).
3.5. SNP Outlier Analysis and Annotation
A total of 108 outlier SNP loci were identified by BayeScan with statistically significant patterns of genetic differentiation. In addition, a total of 384 outlier loci were detected by Arlequin, and 1162 outlier loci were detected by pcadapt (Figure S4). All 1507 loci detected using the three methods were considered candidate loci potentially under selection and were subjected to annotation. A total of 157 outlier loci were successfully annotated from the pool of outliers detected with an e‐value cutoff of 10−5 and were mostly mapped against Apostichopus japonicus and Holothuria leucospilota . Functional annotation revealed GO terms related to cell‐matrix adhesion, response to testosterone, neuromuscular process, transmembrane transport, peptide hormone binding, and receptor signaling (Figure 4).
FIGURE 4.

The tree dendrogram represents the hierarchical clustering of GO terms ((a) Molecular function, (b) Biological process) based on their semantic similarity. GO terms were grouped into clusters, with nodes colored according to the number of terms in each cluster with representative GO terms displayed per cluster. Clustering was performed using the principal component values derived from dimensionality reduction of the semantic similarity matrix implemented in REVIGO.
4. Discussion
The present study provides genomic evidence of further cryptic species within Stichopus cf. horrens and confirms the existence of an additional cryptic species within the Clade B lineage of Stichopus cf. horrens, first reported by Lizano et al. (2024). Using high‐resolution SNP markers, we confirm the presence of three divergent lineages within Stichopus cf. horrens that maintain reproductive isolation despite occurring in sympatry. These SNP genotype lineages are broadly concordant with mitochondrial lineage and microsatellite genotype assignments. We also identify several outlier loci underlying genomic divergence which provide insight into putative genes contributing to the development and maintenance of reproductive barriers among sympatrically‐occurring cryptic lineages of Stichopus cf. horrens.
4.1. SNP Loci Reveal Reproductive Isolation Among Stichopus cf. horrens Lineages
Using double‐digest RAD sequencing to interrogate genetic divergence among previously described Stichopus cf. horrens lineages provided unparalleled resolution for identifying genetic clusters, with 9788 SNP loci recovering three distinct groups (SA‐1, SA‐2, and SA‐3). Individual assignments were consistent across various clustering approaches and were also relatively robust to the proportion of missing data. While a small proportion of individuals (3 of 82 genotypes) exhibited discordant assignments across three missing data thresholds, this involved identification of pure individuals as admixed or vice versa, and there were no misassignments of individuals between pure clusters.
Genetic differentiation of sympatric SNP clusters, coupled with broad concordance with mitochondrial and SSR lineages, provides further evidence for reproductive isolation. Genetic differentiation among S. cf. horrens SNP lineages (F ST = 0.458) is similar to values for other cryptic echinoderm species also delineated using SNP markers, such as Stronglyocentrotus (F ST range = 0.467–0.497, Addison and Kim 2018) and Ophioderma (F ST range = 0.191–0.472; Weber et al. 2017). SNP‐based F ST estimates are also higher than microsatellite‐based F ST values, indicating greater resolution of SNP loci at detecting genetic divergence (Morin et al. 2004). Previous studies suggest that SNP allele lineages are less prone to homoplasy than microsatellites (Coates et al. 2009), and in the case of this study, the small number of microsatellite markers likely accounts for weaker resolving power (Osborne et al. 2023). The low proportion of admixed SNP genotypes (4 of 82 samples) points to limited contemporary gene flow. Moreover, ancestry coefficients of admixed individuals (maximum q value range = 0.8–0.97) are consistent with older‐generation hybrids, and are not typical of recent‐generation hybrids, that is, F1 or F2 where q values are expected to be between 0.35–0.70 (Caniglia et al. 2020). Thus, these results strongly suggest that the three SNP lineages of Stichopus cf. horrens represent different species.
The apparent mitonuclear discordance observed in a few samples belonging to the SA‐1 genotype but belonging to Clade B instead of Clade A lineage may be due to two scenarios: incomplete lineage sorting or hybridization. Past hybridization is likely, particularly considering the observed admixture between SA‐1 and SA‐3 genotypes (associated with Clade A and Clade B, respectively), with four admixed individuals found in STA. However, the discordant mitonuclear combinations were detected in MAB and PUJ, and not STA, which may also reflect past hybridization between SA‐1 and SA‐2 genotypes. Further analysis with larger sample sizes is recommended to test hypotheses of historical gene flow pointing to past hybridization or introgression events.
4.2. Outlier Analysis Reveals SNP Loci Related to Reproductive Processes
Fertilization in broadcast‐spawning invertebrates progresses through a series of interactions between sperm and egg, including sperm chemotaxis, which is the activation and attraction of sperm mediated by chemoattractants released by the egg, acrosome reaction, penetration, and membrane fusion (Vacquier 1998). We detected outlier loci with putative functions related to the fertilization process in broadcast spawning invertebrates. Outlier loci detected had relevant BLAST hits with proteins encompassing different functions such as rhodopsin and tachykinin receptor signaling, neurotransmitter receptor activity, response to testosterone, peptide hormone processing, cell‐matrix adhesion, sperm head, and sperm motility. Most of the outlier loci detected have functions involved in regulating the reproductive process by acting as receptors or by regulating receptor activity. High differentiation at these regions suggests the potential role of these outlier loci in the formation of pre‐zygotic barriers among divergent lineages of Stichopus cf. horrens.
Several outliers identified in this study are involved in cell signaling, a key process in cellular development, and its basic machinery involves a receptor that perceives signals such as light, hormones, or neurotransmitters (Trewavas and Malho 1997). Many of these outliers mapped to G protein‐coupled receptors (GPCRs), known for their roles in chemosensory reception. Although GPCRs are functionally pleiotropic, previous studies have shown how they can negatively or positively regulate reproduction, i.e., cannabinoid receptors (Rhodopsin type GPCR) found on sea urchin sperm are receptors of endocannabinoids that prevent polyspermy by blocking the acrosome reaction (Chang et al. 1993; Schuel et al. 1994) or the binding of gonadotropic neuropeptides to GPCRs to induce spawning (Iwakoshi 1995; Kato et al. 2009; Ohtani et al. 2002; Fujiwara et al. 2010; Yamano et al. 2013). In addition, putative tachykinin‐like receptors are GPCRs found to stimulate sperm motility (Satake et al. 2013) and are also identified to be involved with hormone reception in zebrafish (Biran et al. 2012). The outlier loci detected in this study suggest the potential role of chemosensory signaling in spawning, and previous studies have already shown how hormonal reception influences spawning behavior in sea cucumbers (Hamel and Mercier 1999; Kato et al. 2009; Marquet et al. 2018).
Aggregation and synchrony in spawning play a huge part in the reproductive success of broadcast spawners by offsetting sperm dilution due to water currents (Pennington 1985; Levitan 2000) and is the mechanism by which sympatric Hawaiian limpet species have diverged (Bird et al. 2011). Stichopus cf. horrens is known to display aggregative behavior during spawning, and in situ spawning observations have shown that Clade A and Clade B individuals spawn at different times. Clade A individuals spawned 3–4 days before the new moon, between 22:00 and 02:00 h of the next day, while Clade B individuals spawned 1–4 days after the new moon, at an earlier time, between 19:00 and 23:00 h (Juinio‐Meñez et al. 2024). How chemosensory reception influences the synchrony of spawning in Stichopus cf. horrens is unknown. However, earlier studies may provide valuable evidence on how chemical communication affects aggregation and synchrony in the spawning of sea cucumbers. While photoperiod is a major trigger of gametogenesis in marine invertebrates (Pearse and Cameron 1991; McClintock and Watts 1990), chemical communication plays a key role in fine‐tuning these processes in broadcast spawning invertebrates (Hamel and Mercier 1995; Soong et al. 2005; Mercier and Hamel 2010; Marquet et al. 2018). Mercier and Hamel (2010) have shown that gametogenesis was highly asynchronous in Cucumaria frondosa individuals kept separately even under natural conditions (Hamel and Mercier 1995) and that the mucus secreted by C. frondosa was found to induce gametogenic synchrony (Hamel and Mercier 1999). Holothuria arguinensis male sea cucumbers were also found to release chemicals that induce aggregation and spawning (Marquet et al. 2018). Male‐first spawning behavior is common among echinoderms, and it is generally observed that male sea cucumbers are more likely to respond to environmental cues than females (Mercier and Hamel 2010). Therefore, one possible explanation would be that males are triggered to spawn in response to certain environmental variables such as lunar phase, which will subsequently synchronize spawning using biological cues such as pheromones. Stichopus cf. horrens males spawn first during a specific lunar phase, followed afterward by the spawning of females (Juinio‐Meñez et al. 2024). This is similar to the previous observation in the crown‐of‐thorns starfish where males are found to be more responsive to environmental cues and subsequently synchronize spawning by using pheromones to induce spawning in females and other males (Caballes and Pratchett 2017). Divergence in pheromone receptors may thus exhibit variation in response to cues and ultimately in synchronicity and spawning success. Currently, there is no direct evidence on how divergence in hormone receptors can form a reproductive barrier in sea cucumbers, but a previous study on brittle stars found compelling evidence of positive selection on sperm‐expressed genes that encode the sodium–proton exchanger (NHE) and the tetrameric potassium‐selective cyclic nucleotide‐gated channel (TetraKCNG). These two genes form part of the signal transduction cascade within the sperm in response to pheromones (Weber et al. 2017). Moreover, numerous other studies in chemosensory systems have likewise shown how chemosensory receptors can be key players in speciation (Smadja and Butlin 2009; Van Schooten et al. 2020).
In echinoderms, where visual capabilities are largely confined to photoreceptors (Millott 1976; Yamamoto and Yoshida 1978; Blevins and Johnsen 2004) and where predator avoidance, localization of food sources and species recognition are mostly mediated through chemical signaling (McClintock and Vernon 1990; Campbell et al. 2001; Morishita and Barreto 2011; Lawrence 2013), the role of chemical receptors in survival is undeniably important. Variation in receptors vital to reproduction may thus affect synchrony of broadcast spawning species, and temporal differences in gamete release are one of the primary mechanisms contributing to prezygotic reproductive isolation between closely related marine species in sympatry (Palumbi 1994). The widespread occurrence of synchronous spawning among marine organisms suggests that this trait is strongly favored by natural selection. However, among potentially hybridizing species in sympatry and where hybrids have lower fitness than parental lineages, selection may thus favor asynchrony in gamete release (Geyer and Palumbi 2003; Wolstenholme 2004; Fogarty et al. 2012; Monteiro et al. 2016). The evolution of pre‐zygotic isolating mechanisms to limit hybridization is crucial in maintaining species cohesion and may be key factors driving speciation in sympatry (Palumbi 1994; Gardner 1997; Fukami et al. 2003; Levitan et al. 2004; Coyne and Orr 2004). How divergence in putative hormone receptors can facilitate aggregation and spawning synchrony in sympatric species of Stichopus cf. horrens remains to be uncovered.
4.3. Implications for Species Identification
Mitochondrial and microsatellite markers can diagnose two lineages, Clade A‐Cluster1 and Clade B‐Cluster 2, which match gross morphological differences in papillae distribution and density, but not spicule morphology (Lizano et al. 2024) and are further characterized by asynchronous spawning (Juinio‐Meñez et al. 2024). Genome‐wide SNP markers provide improved resolution over mitochondrial and microsatellite markers, clearly recovering a third lineage, previously detected as a sub‐lineage within Stichopus cf. horrens Clade B‐Cluster 2. Interrogating genomic variation using SNP genotyping methods addresses challenges in species identification such as morphological similarity and hybridization, and is expected to be pivotal in increasing the discovery and reporting of cryptic species.
Apart from the genetic data reported here, there is limited information on the morphology, ecology, and reproductive biology of the third cryptic species. These results call for a more comprehensive reassessment of the morphology, genetic variation, and ecology of Stichopus cf. horrens across its distributional range. The SNP markers reported in this study represent novel genomic resources that can be leveraged to develop sequence‐based methods for species identification, which can accelerate species assessments and monitoring efforts to support broader‐scale studies on the biology, ecology, and taxonomy of this species complex.
5. Conclusions
Findings from this study provide strong evidence that the three genotype clusters of Stichopus cf. horrens recovered using genomic SNPs are reproductively isolated and represent cryptic species. The recovery of the third genotype cluster thus confirms the existence of the third species within the Clade B lineage. Further investigation into the morphology, ecology, and reproductive biology of the third cryptic species, as well as broader reassessments of Stichopus cf. horrens across its distribution range, are still needed. F ST outlier analysis from this study revealed a set of highly divergent SNP loci that are mapped to putative genes involved in reproductive processes, such as G‐protein coupled receptors (GPCRs). The detection of outlier SNPs in gene regions related to receptor signaling and hormone response, and where a growing body of evidence points to hormone receptors as key players in spawning synchrony (Hamel and Mercier 1999; Mercier and Hamel 2010; Marquet et al. 2018) suggests that these pathways may play a key role in the reproductive isolation in sympatric populations of Stichopus cf. horrens. Findings from the present work provide a basis for further examination of the role of divergence in hormone receptors in the formation of pre‐zygotic isolating mechanisms among sympatric individuals with external fertilization.
Author Contributions
Kenneth M. Kim: conceptualization (equal), data curation (lead), formal analysis (lead), investigation (lead), methodology (lead), writing – original draft (lead), writing – review and editing (lead). Apollo Marco D. Lizano: methodology (supporting), writing – review and editing (supporting). Robert J. Toonen: resources (supporting), writing – review and editing (supporting), writing – review and editing (supporting). Rachel Ravago‐Gotanco: conceptualization (equal), formal analysis (equal), funding acquisition (lead), project administration (equal), supervision (lead), writing – original draft (supporting), writing – review and editing (equal).
Ethics Statement
No ethical considerations to declare.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Supporting information
Figures S1–S4.
Tables S1–S4.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Department of Science and Technology – Philippine Council for Agriculture, Aquatic and Natural Resources Research and Development (DOST‐PCAARRD). We would like to acknowledge funding support from Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) Sinergia award [grant number 198691] and we are grateful to Marc Robinson‐Rechavi (UNIL‐DEE) for his guidance and support. The authors are grateful to the following individuals for their assistance with sample collection and providing information and observations on Stichopus ecology and distribution: Faith Jessica Paran, Deo Macahig, Marie Antonette Juinio‐Meñez, Rose Angeli Rioja (UP MSI), Ruberto Alforque (BFAR‐Romblon), Corazon Batoy (Holy Name University), Helen Bangi (Cagayan State University), Nonita Cabacaba (BFAR Guiuan), Christine Edullantes, Girley Gumanao (Davao del Norte State College), Nadia Palomar‐Abesamis (Silliman University), Abduraji S. Tahil (MSU Tawi‐Tawi) and to the Genomics Core Lab, Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi (Sharon Magnuson and Chris Bird) for RAD sequencing. We extend our gratitude to the reviewers for their constructive feedback and suggestions which greatly improved the manuscript. This is MSI contribution number 1607.
Funding: This work was supported by Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (198691); Philippine Council for Agriculture, Aquatic and Natural Resources Research and Development.
Data Availability Statement
All raw sequence files are deposited in NCBI with the BioProject accession number: PRJNA1168564. SNP data and associated metadata are deposited in Zenodo 10.5281/zenodo.13887755.
References
- Addison, J. A. , and Kim J.‐H.. 2018. “Cryptic Species Diversity and Reproductive Isolation Among Sympatric Lineages of Strongylocentrotus Sea Urchins in the Northwest Atlantic.” Facets 3, no. 1: 61–78. 10.1139/facets-2017-0081. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Ahrens, C. W. , Rymer P. D., Stow A., et al. 2018. “The Search for Loci Under Selection: Trends, Biases and Progress.” Molecular Ecology 27, no. 6: 1342–1356. 10.1111/mec.14549. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Alexander, D. H. , Novembre J., and Lange K.. 2009. “Fast Model‐Based Estimation of Ancestry in Unrelated Individuals.” Genome Research 19, no. 9: 1655–1664. 10.1101/gr.094052.109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Altschul, S. F. , Gish W., Miller W., Myers E. W., and Lipman D. J.. 1990. “Basic Local Alignment Search Tool.” Journal of Molecular Biology 215, no. 3: 403–410. 10.1016/S0022-2836(05)80360-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Andrews, S. 2010. “FASTQC. A Quality Control Tool for High Throughput Sequence Data.”
- Benjamini, Y. , and Hochberg Y.. 1995. “Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B: Statistical Methodology 57, no. 1: 289–300. 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Bickford, D. , Lohman D. J., Sodhi N. S., et al. 2007. “Cryptic Species as a Window on Diversity and Conservation.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 22, no. 3: 148–155. 10.1016/j.tree.2006.11.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bierne, N. , Bonhomme F., and David P.. 2003. “Habitat Preference and the Marine‐Speciation Paradox.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 270, no. 1522: 1399–1406. 10.1098/rspb.2003.2404. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Biran, J. , Palevitch O., Ben‐Dor S., and Levavi‐Sivan B.. 2012. “Neurokinin Bs and Neurokinin B Receptors in Zebrafish‐Potential Role in Controlling Fish Reproduction.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, no. 26: 10269–10274. 10.1073/pnas.1119165109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bird, C. E. , Fernandez‐Silva I., Skillings D. J., and Toonen R. J.. 2012. “Sympatric Speciation in the Post “Modern Synthesis” Era of Evolutionary Biology.” Evolutionary Biology 39: 158–180. 10.1007/s11692-012-9183-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Bird, C. E. , Holland B. S., Bowen B. W., and Toonen R. J.. 2011. “Diversification of Sympatric Broadcast‐Spawning Limpets (Cellana spp.) Within the Hawaiian Archipelago.” Molecular Ecology 20, no. 10: 2128–2141. 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05081.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Blevins, E. , and Johnsen S.. 2004. “Spatial Vision in the Echinoid Genus Echinometra.” Journal of Experimental Biology 207, no. 24: 4249–4253. 10.1242/jeb.01286. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bowen, B. W. , Rocha L. A., Toonen R. J., and Karl S. A.. 2013. “The Origins of Tropical Marine Biodiversity.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 28, no. 6: 359–366. 10.1016/j.tree.2013.01.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Caballes, C. F. , and Pratchett M. S.. 2017. “Environmental and Biological Cues for Spawning in the Crown‐Of‐Thorns Starfish.” PLoS One 12, no. 3: e0173964. 10.1371/journal.pone.0173964. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Campbell, A. C. , Coppard S., D'Abreo C., and Tudor‐Thomas R.. 2001. “Escape and Aggregation Responses of Three Echinoderms to Conspecific Stimuli.” Biological Bulletin 201, no. 2: 175–185. 10.2307/1543332. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Caniglia, R. , Galaverni M., Velli E., et al. 2020. “A Standardized Approach to Empirically Define Reliable Assignment Thresholds and Appropriate Management Categories in Deeply Introgressed Populations.” Scientific Reports 10, no. 1: 2862. 10.1038/s41598-020-59521-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Catchen, J. M. , Amores A., Hohenlohe P., Cresko W., and Postlethwait J. H.. 2011. “Stacks: Building and Genotyping Loci De Novo From Short‐Read Sequences.” G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics 1, no. 3: 171–182. 10.1534/g3.111.000240. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Chang, M. C. , Berkery D., Schuel R., et al. 1993. “Evidence for a Cannabinoid Receptor in Sea Urchin Sperm and Its Role in Blockade of the Acrosome Reaction.” Molecular Reproduction and Development 36, no. 4: 507–516. 10.1002/mrd.1080360416. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Coates, B. S. , Sumerford D. V., Miller N. J., et al. 2009. “Comparative Performance of Single Nucleotide Polymorphism and Microsatellite Markers for Population Genetic Analysis.” Journal of Heredity 100, no. 5: 556–564. 10.1093/jhered/esp028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Coyne, J. A. , and Orr H. A.. 2004. Speciation. Sinauer Associates. [Google Scholar]
- De Queiroz, K. 2005. “Ernst Mayr and the Modern Concept of Species.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102, no. suppl_1: 6600–6607. 10.1073/pnas.0502030102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- De Queiroz, K. 2007. “Species Concepts and Species Delimitation.” Systematic Biology 56, no. 6: 879–886. 10.1080/10635150701701083. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Excoffier, L. , and Lischer H. E. L.. 2010. “Arlequin Suite ver 3.5: A New Series of Programs to Perform Population Genetics Analyses Under Linux and Windows.” Molecular Ecology Resources 10, no. 3: 564–567. 10.1111/j.1755-0998.2010.02847.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Faria, R. , Johannesson K., and Stankowski S.. 2021. “Speciation in Marine Environments: Diving Under the Surface.” Journal of Evolutionary Biology 34, no. 1: 4–15. 10.1111/jeb.13756. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fogarty, N. D. , Vollmer S. V., and Levitan D. R.. 2012. “Weak Prezygotic Isolating Mechanisms in Threatened Caribbean Acropora Corals.” PLoS One 7, no. 2: e30486. 10.1371/journal.pone.0030486. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Foll, M. , and Gaggiotti O.. 2008. “A Genome‐Scan Method to Identify Selected Loci Appropriate for Both Dominant and Codominant Markers: A Bayesian Perspective.” Genetics 180, no. 2: 977–993. 10.1534/genetics.108.092221. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Francis, R. M. 2017. “Pophelper: An R Package and Web App to Analyse and Visualize Population Structure.” Molecular Ecology Resources 17, no. 1: 27–32. 10.1111/1755-0998.12509. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fujiwara, A. , Yamano K., Ohno K., and Yoshikuni M.. 2010. “Spawning Induced by Cubifrin in the Japanese Common Sea Cucumber Apostichopus japonicus .” Fisheries Science 76, no. 5: 795–801. 10.1007/s12562-010-0262-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Fukami, H. , Omori M., Shimoike K., Hayashibara T., and Hatta M.. 2003. “Ecological and Genetic Aspects of Reproductive Isolation by Different Spawning Times in Acropora Corals.” Marine Biology 142: 679–684. [Google Scholar]
- Galili, T. 2015. “Dendextend: An R Package for Visualizing, Adjusting and Comparing Trees of Hierarchical Clustering.” Bioinformatics 31, no. 22: 3718–3720. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv428. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gardner, J. P. A. 1997. “Hybridization in the Sea.” In Advances in Marine Biology, vol. 31, 1–78. Elsevier. 10.1016/S0065-2881(08)60221-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Geyer, L. B. , and Palumbi S. R.. 2003. “Reproductive Character Displacement and the Genetics of Gamete Recognition in Tropical Sea Urchins.” Evolution 57, no. 5: 1049–1060. 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2003.tb00315.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gruber, B. , Unmack P. J., Berry O. F., and Georges A.. 2018. “Dartr: An r Package to Facilitate Analysis of SNP Data Generated From Reduced Representation Genome Sequencing.” Molecular Ecology Resources 18, no. 3: 691–699. 10.1111/1755-0998.12745. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Guerra, V. I. , Haynes G., Byrne M., and Hart M. W.. 2021. “Selection on Genes Associated With the Evolution of Divergent Life Histories: Gamete Recognition or Something Else?” Evolution & Development 23, no. 5: 423–438. 10.1111/ede.12392. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hamel, J. F. , and Mercier A.. 1995. “Prespawning Behavior, Spawning, and Development of the Brooding Starfish Leptasterias polaris .” Biological Bulletin 188, no. 1: 32–45. 10.2307/1542065. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hamel, J.‐F. , and Mercier A.. 1999. “Mucus as a Mediator of Gametogenic Synchrony in the Sea Cucumber Cucumaria Frondosa (Holothuroidea: Echinodermata).” Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 79, no. 1: 121–129. 10.1017/S0025315498000137. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Hedrick, P. W. 2005. “A Standardized Genetic Differentiation Measure.” Evolution 59, no. 8: 1633–1638. 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2005.tb01814.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Iwakoshi, E. 1995. “Comparative Aspects of Structure and Action of Bioactive Peptides Isolated From the Sea Cucumber Stichopus japonicus .” Peptide Chemistry 2: 261–264. [Google Scholar]
- Jombart, T. 2008. “Adegenet: A R Package for the Multivariate Analysis of Genetic Markers.” Bioinformatics 24, no. 11: 1403–1405. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btn129. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Juinio‐Meñez, M. A. , Palomar‐Abesamis N., Edullantes C. M., Cabanayan‐Soy R., and Rioja R. A.. 2024. “Ecology and Culture of the Warty Sea Cucumber (Stichopus Cf. Horrens) in The Philippines.” In The World of Sea Cucumbers, 783–799. Elsevier. 10.1016/B978-0-323-95377-1.00020-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Kato, S. , Tsurumaru S., Taga M., et al. 2009. “Neuronal Peptides Induce Oocyte Maturation and Gamete Spawning of Sea Cucumber, Apostichopus japonicus .” Developmental Biology 326, no. 1: 169–176. 10.1016/j.ydbio.2008.11.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Keenan, K. , McGinnity P., Cross T. F., Crozier W. W., and Prodöhl P. A.. 2013. “diveRsity: An R Package for the Estimation and Exploration of Population Genetics Parameters and Their Associated Errors.” Methods in Ecology and Evolution 4, no. 8: 782–788. 10.1111/2041-210X.12067. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Knowlton, N. 1993. “Sibling Species in the Sea.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 24, no. 1: 189–216. 10.1146/annurev.es.24.110193.001201. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Knowlton, N. 2000. “Molecular Genetic Analyses of Species Boundaries in the Sea.” Hydrobiologia 420, no. 1: 73–90. 10.1023/A:1003933603879. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Kosman, E. T. , and Levitan D. R.. 2014. “Sperm Competition and the Evolution of Gametic Compatibility in Externally Fertilizing Taxa.” MHR: Basic Science of Reproductive Medicine 20, no. 12: 1190–1197. 10.1093/molehr/gau069. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kulmuni, J. , Butlin R. K., Lucek K., Savolainen V., and Westram A. M.. 2020. “Towards the Completion of Speciation: The Evolution of Reproductive Isolation Beyond the First Barriers.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences 375, no. 1806: 20190528. 10.1098/rstb.2019.0528. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Landry, C. , Geyer L. B., Arakaki Y., Uehara T., and Palumbi S. R.. 2003. “Recent Speciation in the Indo–West Pacific: Rapid Evolution of Gamete Recognition and Sperm Morphology in Cryptic Species of Sea Urchin.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 270, no. 1526: 1839–1847. 10.1098/rspb.2003.2395. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lawrence, J. M. 2013. Starfish: Biology and Ecology of the Asteroidea. JHU Press. [Google Scholar]
- Lessios, H. A. 2011. “Speciation Genes in Free‐Spawning Marine Invertebrates.” Integrative and Comparative Biology 51, no. 3: 456–465. 10.1093/icb/icr039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Levitan, D. R. 2000. “Sperm Velocity and Longevity Trade Off Each Other and Influence Fertilization in the Sea Urchin Lytechinus Variegatus .” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 267, no. 1443: 531–534. 10.1098/rspb.2000.1032. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Levitan, D. R. , Fukami H., Jara J., et al. 2004. “Mechanisms of Reproductive Isolation Among Sympatric Broadcast‐Spawning Corals of the Montastraea Annularis Species Complex.” Evolution 58, no. 2: 308. 10.1554/02-700. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lizano, A. M. D. , Kim K. M., Juinio‐Meñez M. A., and Ravago‐Gotanco R.. 2024. “Pseudocryptic Diversity and Species Boundaries in the Sea Cucumber Stichopus Cf. Horrens (Echinodermata: Stichopodidae) Revealed by Mitochondrial and Microsatellite Markers.” Scientific Reports 14, no. 1: 4886. 10.1038/s41598-024-54987-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Luu, K. , Bazin E., and Blum M. G. B.. 2017. “Pcadapt: An R Package to Perform Genome Scans for Selection Based on Principal Component Analysis.” Molecular Ecology Resources 17, no. 1: 67–77. 10.1111/1755-0998.12592. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Marquet, N. , Hubbard P. C., Da Silva J. P., Afonso J., and Canário A. V. M.. 2018. “Chemicals Released by Male Sea Cucumber Mediate Aggregation and Spawning Behaviours.” Scientific Reports 8, no. 1: 239. 10.1038/s41598-017-18655-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Martin, S. H. , Davey J. W., and Jiggins C. D.. 2015. “Evaluating the Use of ABBA–BABA Statistics to Locate Introgressed Loci.” Molecular Biology and Evolution 32, no. 1: 244–257. 10.1093/molbev/msu269. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McClintock, J. B. , and Vernon J. D.. 1990. “Chemical Defense in the Eggs and Embryos of Antarctic Sea Stars (Echinodermata).” Marine Biology 105, no. 3: 491–495. 10.1007/BF01316320. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- McClintock, J. B. , and Watts S. A.. 1990. “The Effects of Photoperiod on Gametogenesis in the Tropical Sea Urchin Eucidaris tribuloides (Lamarck) (Echinodermata: Echinoidea).” Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 139, no. 3: 175–184. 10.1016/0022-0981(90)90145-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Mercier, A. , and Hamel J.‐F.. 2010. “Synchronized Breeding Events in Sympatric Marine Invertebrates: Role of Behavior and Fine Temporal Windows in Maintaining Reproductive Isolation.” Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 64, no. 11: 1749–1765. 10.1007/s00265-010-0987-z. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Metz, E. C. , and Palumbi S. R.. 1996. “Positive Selection and Sequence Rearrangements Generate Extensive Polymorphism in the Gamete Recognition Protein Bindin.” Molecular Biology and Evolution 13, no. 2: 397–406. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a025598. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Millott, N. 1976. “The Photosensitivity of Echinoids.” In Advances in Marine Biology, vol. 13, 1–52. Elsevier. 10.1016/S0065-2881(08)60279-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Monteiro, C. A. , Paulino C., Jacinto R., Serrão E. A., and Pearson G. A.. 2016. “Temporal Windows of Reproductive Opportunity Reinforce Species Barriers in a Marine Broadcast Spawning Assemblage.” Scientific Reports 6, no. 1: 29198. 10.1038/srep29198. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Morin, P. A. , Luikart G., Wayne R. K., and The Snp Workshop Group . 2004. “SNPs in Ecology, Evolution and Conservation.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19, no. 4: 208–216. 10.1016/j.tree.2004.01.009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Morishita, V. , and Barreto R.. 2011. “Black Sea Urchins Evaluate Predation Risk Using Chemical Signals From a Predator and Injured Con‐ and Heterospecific Prey.” Marine Ecology Progress Series 435: 173–181. 10.3354/meps09253. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Nosil, P. , and Feder J. L.. 2012. “Genomic Divergence During Speciation: Causes and Consequences.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences 367, no. 1587: 332–342. 10.1098/rstb.2011.0263. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Nydam, M. L. , and Harrison R. G.. 2011. “Reproductive Protein Evolution in Two Cryptic Species of Marine Chordate.” BMC Evolutionary Biology 11, no. 1: 18. 10.1186/1471-2148-11-18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Nygren, A. 2014. “Cryptic Polychaete Diversity: A Review.” Zoologica Scripta 43, no. 2: 172–183. 10.1111/zsc.12044. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Ohtani, M. , Iwakoshi E., Muneoka Y., Minakata H., and Nomoto K.. 2002. “Isolation and Characterization of Bioactive Peptides From the Sea Cucumber, Stichopus japonicus .” In Peptide Science—Present and Future, edited by Shimonishi Y., 419–420. Kluwer Academic Publishers. 10.1007/0-306-46864-6_137. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Osborne, M. J. , Caeiro‐Dias G., and Turner T. F.. 2023. “Transitioning From Microsatellites to SNP ‐Based Microhaplotypes in Genetic Monitoring Programmes: Lessons From Paired Data Spanning 20 Years.” Molecular Ecology 32, no. 2: 316–334. 10.1111/mec.16760. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Palumbi, S. R. 1994. “Genetic Divergence, Reproductive Isolation, and Marine Speciation.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 25: 547–572. [Google Scholar]
- Palumbi, S. R. 2009. “Speciation and the Evolution of Gamete Recognition Genes: Pattern and Process.” Heredity 102, no. 1: 66–76. 10.1038/hdy.2008.104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Paradis, E. , and Schliep K.. 2019. “Ape 5.0: An Environment for Modern Phylogenetics and Evolutionary Analyses in R.” Bioinformatics 35, no. 3: 526–528. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty633. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Paris, J. R. , Stevens J. R., and Catchen J. M.. 2017. “Lost in Parameter Space: A Road Map for Stacks.” Methods in Ecology and Evolution 8, no. 10: 1360–1373. 10.1111/2041-210X.12775. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Patiño, S. , Keever C. C., Sunday J. M., Popovic I., Byrne M., and Hart M. W.. 2016. “Sperm Bindin Divergence Under Sexual Selection and Concerted Evolution in Sea Stars.” Molecular Biology and Evolution 33, no. 8: 1988–2001. 10.1093/molbev/msw081. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pearse, J. S. , and Cameron R. A.. 1991. “Echinodermata: Echinoidea.” Reproduction of marine invertebrates. Vol VI. Echinoderms and lophophorates, edited by A. C. Giese, J. S. Pearse and V. B. Pearse, 513–662. The Boxwood Press. [Google Scholar]
- Pennington, J. T. 1985. “The Ecology of Fertilization of Echinoid Eggs: The Consequences of Sperm Dilution, Adult Aggregation, and Synchronous Spawning.” Biological Bulletin 169, no. 2: 417–430. 10.2307/1541492. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Peterson, B. K. , Weber J. N., Kay E. H., Fisher H. S., and Hoekstra H. E.. 2012. “Double Digest RADseq: An Inexpensive Method for De Novo SNP Discovery and Genotyping in Model and Non‐Model Species.” PLoS One 7, no. 5: e37135. 10.1371/journal.pone.0037135. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pritchard, J. K. , Stephens M., and Donnelly P.. 2000. “Inference of Population Structure Using Multilocus Genotype Data.” Genetics 155, no. 2: 945–959. 10.1093/genetics/155.2.945. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- R Core Team . 2023. R: A Language and Environment for Statistial Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [Google Scholar]
- Ravinet, M. , Faria R., Butlin R. K., et al. 2017. “Interpreting the Genomic Landscape of Speciation: A Road Map for Finding Barriers to Gene Flow.” Journal of Evolutionary Biology 30, no. 8: 1450–1477. 10.1111/jeb.13047. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 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, no. 12: e2000234. 10.1371/journal.pbio.2000234. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Satake, H. , Aoyama M., Sekiguchi T., and Kawada T.. 2013. “Insight Into Molecular and Functional Diversity of Tachykinins and Their Receptors.” Protein and Peptide Letters 20, no. 6: 615–627. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Schuel, H. , Goldstein E., Mechoulam R., Zimmerman A. M., and Zimmerman S.. 1994. “Anandamide (Arachidonylethanolamide), a Brain Cannabinoid Receptor Agonist, Reduces Sperm Fertilizing Capacity in Sea Urchins by Inhibiting the Acrosome Reaction.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 91, no. 16: 7678–7682. 10.1073/pnas.91.16.7678. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Seehausen, O. , Butlin R. K., Keller I., et al. 2014. “Genomics and the Origin of Species.” Nature Reviews Genetics 15, no. 3: 176–192. 10.1038/nrg3644. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Smadja, C. , and Butlin R. K.. 2009. “On the Scent of Speciation: The Chemosensory System and Its Role in Premating Isolation.” Heredity 102, no. 1: 77–97. 10.1038/hdy.2008.55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Soong, K. , Chang D., and Chao S.. 2005. “Presence of Spawn‐Inducing Pheromones in Two Brittle Stars (Echinodermata: Ophiuroidea).” Marine Ecology Progress Series 292: 195–201. 10.3354/meps292195. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Stankowski, S. , and Ravinet M.. 2021. “Defining the Speciation Continuum.” Evolution 75, no. 6: 1256–1273. 10.1111/evo.14215. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Storey, J. , Bass A., Dabney A., Robinson D., and Warnes G.. 2024. “Qvalue: Q‐value estimation for false discovery rate control.” R package version 2.12.0. 10.18129/B9.bioc.qvalue. [DOI]
- Sunday, J. M. , and Hart M. W.. 2013. “Sea Star Populations Diverge by Positive Selection at a Sperm‐Egg Compatibility Locus.” Ecology and Evolution 3, no. 3: 640–654. 10.1002/ece3.487. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Supek, F. , Bošnjak M., Škunca N., and Šmuc T.. 2011. “REVIGO Summarizes and Visualizes Long Lists of Gene Ontology Terms.” PLoS One 6, no. 7: e21800. 10.1371/journal.pone.0021800. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Swanson, W. J. , and Vacquier V. D.. 2002. “The Rapid Evolution of Reproductive Proteins.” Nature Reviews Genetics 3, no. 2: 137–144. 10.1038/nrg733. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- The Gene Ontology Consortium , Aleksander S. A., Balhoff J., et al. 2023. “The Gene Ontology Knowledgebase in 2023.” Genetics 224, no. 1: iyad031. 10.1093/genetics/iyad031. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- The UniProt Consortium , Bateman A., Martin M.‐J., et al. 2023. “UniProt: The Universal Protein Knowledgebase in 2023.” Nucleic Acids Research 51, no. D1: D523–D531. 10.1093/nar/gkac1052. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Trewavas, A. J. , and Malho R.. 1997. “Signal Perception and Transduction: The Origin of the Phenotype.” Plant Cell 2: 1181–1195. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Vacquier, V. D. 1998. “Evolution of Gamete Recognition Proteins.” Science 281, no. 5385: 1995–1998. 10.1126/science.281.5385.1995. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Vacquier, V. D. , and Swanson W. J.. 2011. “Selection in the Rapid Evolution of Gamete Recognition Proteins in Marine Invertebrates.” Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology 3, no. 11: a002931. 10.1101/cshperspect.a002931. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Vähä, J. , and Primmer C. R.. 2006. “Efficiency of Model‐Based Bayesian Methods for Detecting Hybrid Individuals Under Different Hybridization Scenarios and With Different Numbers of Loci.” Molecular Ecology 15, no. 1: 63–72. 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2005.02773.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Van Schooten, B. , Meléndez‐Rosa J., Van Belleghem S. M., et al. 2020. “Divergence of Chemosensing During the Early Stages of Speciation.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117, no. 28: 16438–16447. 10.1073/pnas.1921318117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Weber, A. A.‐T. , Abi‐Rached L., Galtier N., Bernard A., Montoya‐Burgos J. I., and Chenuil A.. 2017. “Positive Selection on Sperm Ion Channels in a Brooding Brittle Star: Consequence of Life‐History Traits Evolution.” Molecular Ecology 26, no. 14: 3744–3759. 10.1111/mec.14024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Weir, B. S. , and Cockerham C. C.. 1984. “Estimating F‐Statistics for the Analysis of Population Structure.” Evolution 38, no. 6: 1358–1370. 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1984.tb05657.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wolstenholme, J. K. 2004. “Temporal Reproductive Isolation and Gametic Compatibility Are Evolutionary Mechanisms in the Acropora humilis Species Group (Cnidaria; Scleractinia).” Marine Biology 144, no. 3: 567–582. 10.1007/s00227-003-1209-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Yamamoto, M. , and Yoshida M.. 1978. “Fine Structure of the Ocelli of a Synaptid Holothurian, Opheodesoma spectabilis, and the Effects of Light and Darkness.” Zoomorphologie 90, no. 1: 1–17. 10.1007/BF00993740. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Yamano, K. , Fujiwara A., Nakamura A., and Yoshikuni M.. 2013. “In Vitro Induction of Oocyte Maturation in the Japanese Sea Cucumber Apostichopus japonicus by Cubifrin and the Developmental Ability of the Eggs.” Fisheries Science 79, no. 5: 823–832. 10.1007/s12562-013-0665-y. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Figures S1–S4.
Tables S1–S4.
Data Availability Statement
All raw sequence files are deposited in NCBI with the BioProject accession number: PRJNA1168564. SNP data and associated metadata are deposited in Zenodo 10.5281/zenodo.13887755.
