Skip to main content
PLOS Genetics logoLink to PLOS Genetics
. 2020 Nov 9;16(11):e1009121. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1009121

A frog with three sex chromosomes that co-mingle together in nature: Xenopus tropicalis has a degenerate W and a Y that evolved from a Z chromosome

Benjamin L S Furman 1,2, Caroline M S Cauret 1, Martin Knytl 1,3, Xue-Ying Song 1, Tharindu Premachandra 1, Caleb Ofori-Boateng 4, Danielle C Jordan 5, Marko E Horb 5, Ben J Evans 1,*
Editor: Catherine L Peichel6
PMCID: PMC7652241  PMID: 33166278

Abstract

In many species, sexual differentiation is a vital prelude to reproduction, and disruption of this process can have severe fitness effects, including sterility. It is thus interesting that genetic systems governing sexual differentiation vary among—and even within—species. To understand these systems more, we investigated a rare example of a frog with three sex chromosomes: the Western clawed frog, Xenopus tropicalis. We demonstrate that natural populations from the western and eastern edges of Ghana have a young Y chromosome, and that a male-determining factor on this Y chromosome is in a very similar genomic location as a previously known female-determining factor on the W chromosome. Nucleotide polymorphism of expressed transcripts suggests genetic degeneration on the W chromosome, emergence of a new Y chromosome from an ancestral Z chromosome, and natural co-mingling of the W, Z, and Y chromosomes in the same population. Compared to the rest of the genome, a small sex-associated portion of the sex chromosomes has a 50-fold enrichment of transcripts with male-biased expression during early gonadal differentiation. Additionally, X. tropicalis has sex-differences in the rates and genomic locations of recombination events during gametogenesis that are similar to at least two other Xenopus species, which suggests that sex differences in recombination are genus-wide. These findings are consistent with theoretical expectations associated with recombination suppression on sex chromosomes, demonstrate that several characteristics of old and established sex chromosomes (e.g., nucleotide divergence, sex biased expression) can arise well before sex chromosomes become cytogenetically distinguished, and show how these characteristics can have lingering consequences that are carried forward through sex chromosome turnovers.

Author summary

Sex chromosomes often come in pairs (e.g., an X and a Y, or a Z and a W) and variation among species evidences widespread rapid evolutionary changes of sex chromosomes. To understand why, we examined a rare example of a frog (Xenopus tropicalis) with three sex chromosomes. We discovered a small sex-linked sliver of the genome that has a high proportion of genes with higher expression in males than females during gonadal differentiation. Molecular variation in expressed transcripts from this genomic region suggests that this pattern stems from decreased or lost expression of alleles on the W chromosome combined with a recent origin of the Y chromosome from an ancestral Z chromosome. These findings are consistent with theoretical expectations associated with reduced genetic recombination, and demonstrate that features of ancestral chromosomes have persistent genomic effects that bleed through sex chromosome transitions.

Introduction

During eukaryotic evolution, genetic control of sexual differentiation changed many times [1]. In some instances, the establishment of a new master regulator for sexual differentiation is associated with cessation of recombination, and extensive divergence in nucleotides, gene content, and gene expression between non-recombining regions of each sex chromosome [27]. In other species, extensive recombination between sex chromosomes may occur, and gene content, function (in terms of gene expression), and cytological appearances of each sex chromosome may be almost identical (e.g., [8]). Between these extremes, there exists an astonishing range of variation in the extent of recombination suppression and the degree of sex chromosome divergence [6]. For those sex chromosome pairs that do diverge, it is unclear how fast and in what order differences between them arise. The ability to cope with differences between the sexes in the dosage of gene products stemming from degeneration of sex-linked alleles on the W or the Y chromosome [9], periodic recombination [10], and genomic conflict associated with mutations with sexually antagonistic fitness effects via the origin of sex-biased expression patterns [11] all may influence whether or not—and how much—sex chromosomes diverge from each other.

Another phenomenon that may influence recombination and divergence between sex chromosomes is turnover, wherein the genomic location, genetic function (i.e., whether female or male determining) or gene that triggers sexual differentiation changes [12, 13]. A sex chromosome turnover is considered “homologous” when a new variant that assumes the role of sex determination arises on an ancestral sex chromosome [1417] and “non-homologous” if it establishes on a different chromosome pair from the ancestral sex chromosomes. Homologous and non-homologous turnovers may involve a new variant taking over with the opposite effects of an ancestral sex determining locus; this changes which sex is heterogametic (females for WZ systems, males for XY systems). For example, in medaka fishes, a new trigger for female development replaced an ancestral trigger for male development, creating a turnover of XY to WZ sex chromosomes [18]. Turnovers can also occur via translocation of a sex determination allele, which is the case in strawberries [19] and some salmonids [20]. Non-homologous XY to XY turnovers may be favoured by natural selection if the ancestral Y chromosome has a high load of deleterious mutations due to genetic degeneration [21, 22]. However, Y-linked deleterious mutations may disfavour an XY to WZ transitions if this results in homozygotes for the ancestral Y chromosome [16].

Understanding why sex determination systems and their associated sex chromosomes change is a challenging prospect (reviewed in [17]), but catching them in the act—during evolutionary windows where multiple sex determination systems co-exist in one species—may help us understand why and how this occurs. Specifically, these transition periods may offer insights into whether and how characteristics of ancestral sex chromosomes (e.g., nucleotide divergence, sex-biased expression, degeneracy) affect the evolution of the sex chromosome systems that follow.

In amphibians, many changes between male and female heterogamy have been inferred [15, 2325], making this group a compelling focus for studies of new sex determining systems and early evolutionary events of young sex chromosomes. Within-species variation in the heterogametic sex has been identified in a handful of amphibians such as the Japanese wrinkled frog, (Glandirana rugosa; [14]), Hochstetter’s frog (Leiopelma hochstetteri; [26]), and the Western clawed frog (Xenopus tropicalis; [27]), studied here. In X. tropicalis, W, Z, and Y chromosomes have been identified [2729], but no cytological divergence among sex chromosomes of this or any other Xenopus species has been detected [30]. Most of the sex chromosomes of X. tropicalis are pseudoautosomal regions where genetic recombination occurs [31]. Current understanding is that the W is dominant for female differentiation over the Z, and the Y is dominant for male differentiation over the W [27]. WW and WZ individuals develop into females and WY, ZY, and ZZ individuals develop into males [27]. Thus females carry at least one W chromosome but not all males carry a Y chromosome. Although it is technically no longer a Z chromosome after the Y chromosome appeared, we nonetheless use this term following [27] as a placeholder to refer to the extant non-male-specific sex chromosome that descended from the ancestral Z chromosome. In principle, YY offspring could be generated if a genetic male (WY or ZY) was sex reversed and developed into a phenotypic female and then crossed with another genetic male. To our knowledge, natural sex reversal has not been reported in X. tropicalis, and we assume here that this is rare.

The genomic location of the female-associated region of the W chromosome was narrowed down using genetic mapping in a laboratory strain to a 95% Bayes credible interval positions 0–3.9 megabases (Mb) on chromosome 7 in genome assembly 9.1 (v9) [29]. However, this region was not completely linked to the female phenotype in that study, and it was proposed that this lack of complete linkage could stem from ancestral admixture with an individual carrying a Y chromosome [29]. The male determining factor of the Y chromosome of X. tropicalis is thought to be in a similar location as the female-determining factor [27], but its precise location has not been determined. Within the genus Xenopus, the most recent common ancestor of subgenus Silurana, which includes X. tropicalis, probably had heterogametic females [25]. This implies that the Y chromosome of X. tropicalis is younger than the W chromosome and Z chromosome, and thus derived from an ancestor of one of these chromosomes. Mitochondrial genomes of species in subgenus Silurana diverged about 25 million years ago [32], implying that the Y chromosome of X. tropicalis is younger than that. This information raises the possibility that X. tropicalis is currently in the midst of a homologous sex chromosome turnover.

X. tropicalis is a model organism for study of developmental biology and human disease [3335]. Y chromosomes have been detected in laboratory strains of X. tropicalis that are thought to originate in Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast, Nigeria, and Cameroon [27], although this has not been confirmed directly in specimens sampled in nature. Also unknown is whether populations with male and female heterogamy geographically overlap and interact genetically in nature, whether the variation that defines these chromosomes occurs in the same gene or genomic region, or exactly when cytogenetically undifferentiated sex chromosomes, such as those of X. tropicalis, acquire characteristics that are often associated with old sex chromosomes (nucleotide divergence, sex-biased gene expression). Thus, the goals of this study are to (i) test whether there is male or female heterogamy in natural populations of X. tropicalis, (ii) narrow down the region of sex linkage in this species, (iii) evaluate genome-wide patterns of sex-biased expression and nucleotide differentiation, and (iv) characterize patterns of recombination across the genome and between the sexes of wild-caught individuals of this species.

Results

We used reduced representation genome sequencing (RRGS) to assess population structure and sex chromosome differentiation in wild-caught and georeferenced laboratory X. tropicalis individuals from Ghana, Sierra Leone and Nigeria. Then, to explore sex chromosome evolution and sex-linkage, we generated three families at McMaster University from imported wild caught frogs from Ghana, and their offspring. Nucleotide divergence, sex-linkage, and recombination was evaluated in two families using RRGS and Sanger sequencing, and nucleotide divergence and gene expression were evaluated in offspring from the third family using transcriptome sequencing (RNAseq). There are differences in the v9 genome assembly used by [29] and the v10 genome assembly used in this study in the sex-linked region of chromosome 7 (S1 Fig). To facilitate comparison to other studies, we report genomic coordinates of both assemblies for the FST results and below for the sex-linkage results. Other findings discussed below from RRGS and RNAseq are reported using v10 coordinates and the genome-wide recombination analyses were performed using v9.

Population structure in X. tropicalis and a small region of sex chromosome differentiation

We first tested whether there was a genome-wide signature of population differentiation in X. tropicalis samples derived from wild and georeferenced laboratory animals. This analysis identifies population differentiation between samples from Sierra Leone and Ghana + Nigeria with two partitions, and between Sierra Leone, Ghana west, and Ghana east + Nigeria with three (Fig 1). With more than three partitions, additional subdivisions are found within individuals from each geographic locality.

Fig 1. Genetic cluster analysis of RRGS data illustrates geographic structure of wild X. tropicalis.

Fig 1

(a) Ancestry assignments of individual samples for 2–5 populations (K). (b) log-likelihood of values of K from 1–5.

We then quantified FST between females (n = 12) and males (n = 26) over a moving average of 50 SNPs in wild individuals from Ghana, and georeferenced lab individuals from Sierra Leone and Nigeria. Population structure coupled with different geographic sampling of males and females should have a genome-wide effect on FST between females and males. There are two possible sex chromosome genotypes in females (WZ, WW) and three in males (ZZ, ZY, WY), and six possible parental genotype combinations (Fig 2). Therefore, in sex-linked regions, differences in allele frequencies and nucleotide divergence between the W, Y, and Z chromosomes are expected to cause FST to be higher than elsewhere in the genome, including compared to the pseudoautosomal regions of the sex chromosomes.

Fig 2.

Fig 2

The three sex chromosomes of X. tropicalis can be crossed in six ways to produce offspring with different types of sex-linkage and/or skewed offspring sex ratios (left). Crosses on the left that are not shaded are expected to have male-specific SNPs passed from father to all sons in the male-specific portion of the Y chromosome. We generated three laboratory families from west and east Ghana for RRGS and RNAseq analyses (right). For the RNAseq analysis (Family 3), offspring were analyzed from a cross between the father and a daughter from Family 2 (indicated with arrows). On the right, putative sex chromosome genotypes described in main text are in parentheses with a question mark indicating either a W or a Z chromosome.

Across the genome, the 95% CI for FST is 0.002—0.038. Over the sex-linked region identified below and elsewhere [29], the mean FST value is 0.049 (standard deviation = 0.023), which is significantly higher than the value over the entire genome. The highest FST value in the genome (0.13) was present at position 9,940,000 in the sex-linked region of chromosome 7 in v10; FST was >0.09 from positions 9,775,600–9,999,600 (Fig 3, S2 Fig). The locations of this FST peak and range are 1,615,479 and 1,454,645–1,664,477 in v9, respectively. The FST peak and the male-specific SNPs on the X. tropicalis Y chromosome discussed below (Table 1) overlap with a small genomic window of strongly female-linked variation on the X. tropicalis W chromosome found previously [29] (S1 Fig). Specifically, the margins of the FST peak overlap with the most strongly female-linked genomic region (linkage group super_547:0; positions 1,365,917–1,693,249 in v9; LOD score: 13.13296453 [29]).

Fig 3. FST between females and males for X. tropicalis chromosome 7 of wild samples from Ghana, and georeferenced lab strains from Nigeria and Sierra Leone.

Fig 3

The grey band represents the whole genome bootstrap confidence intervals for the mean FST that were generated by resampling FST measured on the autosomes.

Table 1. Results of the Sanger sequencing survey of 18 amplified regions (Locus) for seven groups of X. tropicalis: a lab cross and wild individuals from west Ghana (Family1, GWwild) or east Ghana (Family2, GEwild) that were used for the RRGS data (but not the RNAseq data), and captive strains at the National Xenopus Resource from Ivory Coast (IC) and Nigeria (Nigerian and Superman).

The genomic position of each locus in the X. tropicalis v9 and v10 are indicated, with the chromosome or scaffold followed by a range of genomic coordinates. For each group, the number of males and females sequenced are separated by slashes, followed by whether a male-specific SNP was detected (Y) or not (N); “NV” indicates no variation in the sequences. A dash indicates that the amplification was not attempted or that Sanger sequences were not clean. For two loci from the Family 2, an asterisk indicates that 4/5 males had a male-specific SNP and in both of these amplicons, the same male individual did not have this SNP; thus variants at these loci were almost but not completely sex-linked.

Locus v9 v10 Family1 GWwild Family2 GEwild IC Nigerian Superman Notes
- scaffold_486: 109006-109688 Chr7: 590989-591647 3/2/N 2/1/N
- scaffold_1093: 25288-26168 Chr7: 2401099-2401979 3/2/N 4/1/N
vwa2 scaffold_132: 209950-210334 Chr7: 3988998-3989381 1/1/Y 2/0/NV a
bag3 scaffold_83: 134640-135403 Chr7: 6350671-6351443 2/1/N
LOC108644867 scaffold_130: 572284-572814 Chr7: 7445611-7446140 3/2/NV
phc1 scaffold_130:760304-761055 Chr7: 7992897-7992184 2/2/N 1/1/NV
LOC100488897 scaffold_130: 643554-643884 Chr7: 8109808-8110138 2/2/N 5/5/N 5/7/Y 5/1/N
aicda Chr7: 665453-665920 Chr7: 9026686-9027153 4/3/N 3/1/N
LOC116406517 Chr7: 901880-902194 Chr7: 9256905-9257219 2/2/NV 5/7/N* 1/1/Y
LOC100127624 Chr7: 1364981-1365454 Chr7: 9677066-9677539 4/3/N 3/1/N
grp162 Chr7: 1386997-1387487 Chr7: 9698865-9699356 4/3/N 3/1/N
LOC116412229 Chr7:1928340-1928761 Chr7: 10256773-10257194 2/2/N 4/5/N 5/7/N* 3/1/Y 3/5/N 5/7/Y 10/7/Y b
LOC116412144 Chr7: 2045411-2045931 Chr7: 10389186-10389706 4/3/N 3/1/N
prkg1 Chr7: 5207535-5208256 Chr7: 13469130-13469851 5/7/N 1/1/Y

a: This is possibly an allele-specific amplification in some populations; no amplification occurred in several male and female individuals, and in the Ghana west population, one male sequence differed from one female sequence by 1 homozygous nucleotide; sequences from two Ghana east males were invariant and identical to the Ghana west male.

b: The same SNP was present in Superman and Nigerian males, but a different SNP was present in Ghana east males. The male-linked allele in Superman and Nigerian males amplified weakly, but consistently.

Evidence of genetic degeneration of the sex-linked region of X. tropicalis, and that the Y chromosome is derived from an ancestral Z chromosome

In X. tropicalis, one combination of parental sex chromosomes (WZ x ZY) produces a 1:3 female:male offspring sex ratio (WZ daughters and ZZ, ZY, or WY sons; Fig 2); this type of family does not have completely sex-linked genetic variation passed from either parent to all of the same-sex offspring (because the W and Z chromosomes are both inherited by sons and daughters, and the Y chromosome is not inherited by some sons). Another parental combination (WW x ZZ) produces only WZ daughters. This parental combination, and one other with no offspring sex-bias (WZ x ZZ), are expected to have completely female-linked genetic variation passed from mother to daughters on the W chromosome. The three other parental combinations (unshaded in Fig 2) are all expected to have no sex-bias in offspring numbers, and also completely male-linked genetic variation passed from father to sons on the Y chromosome: WZ x WY, WW x ZY, WW x WY.

In the RRGS data from two families (Family 1 and 2) that were generated from wild caught individuals from the western and eastern edges of Ghana, genome-wide inheritance of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) provides unambiguous evidence for a sex determining system where males carry a Y chromosome. There were no maternal heterozygous sites that were sex linked prior to or after FDR correction in either family. However, five paternal sex-linked RRGS markers were found in the region between 8.1 Mb and 13.5 Mb on chromosome 7 of v10 in Family 1, and three paternal sex-linked RRGS markers were found in the region between 2.7 Mb and 6.54 Mb on chromosome 7 in Family 2. (Fig 4, S3 Fig). We intentionally sampled a subset of offspring with approximately equal numbers of each sex in Family 1 and 2 (22 daughters and 21 sons for Family 1, seven and five daughters and sons for Family 2). The presence of sons allows us to rule out the possibility that either of these two crosses was between a WW mother and a ZZ father. Together these observations demonstrate that the father of each of these families carried a Y chromosome, and that at least one of the parents in both crosses did not carry a Z chromosome, because any combination with both parents carrying one or more Z chromosomes would not have any completely male-linked SNPs (Fig 2). Thus the sex chromosome genotypes of Families 1 and 2 both could be any one of the three unshaded crosses in Fig 2. Additional details about polymorphism and sex-linkage in Family 1 and 2 are provided in S1 Text.

Fig 4. Manhattan plot of association between genotype and sex phenotype for chromosome 7 in Family 1 from Ghana west (top) and Family 2 from Ghana east (bottom) for paternal heterozygous sites.

Fig 4

For both families, light dots indicate variants that are not significantly associated with sex, and dark dots indicate significant associations with sex after FDR correction (top) or before FDR correction (bottom). As discussed in the main text, we did not apply FDR correction for Family 2 due to a smaller dataset.

There were no informative RRGS markers between 6.54 Mb and 11 Mb on chromosome 7 of v10 in Family 2, so it was not possible to assess whether RGGS markers in this region were also sex-linked. However, genotyping of additional markers in Family 2 by Sanger sequencing found three completely or almost completely sex-linked markers located between 8.1 Mb and 10.26 Mb, suggesting that this region is sex-linked in both Families 1 and 2 (Table 1, Fig 4). By contrast, informative RRGS markers between 0 and 8.1 Mb on chromosome 7 of v10 were present in Family 1, but were not sex-linked in this family even though this region was sex-linked in Family 2 (Fig 4).

Analyses discussed below allowed us to conclude that the sex chromosome genotype of the father of Family 2 (BJE4362) was WY. Although we were not able to discern whether the sex chromosome genotype of the father of Family 1 (BJE4360) was WY or ZY, we suspect that his sex chromosome genotype was ZY, and that recombination occurs between the Z and Y chromosomes <8 Mb, but not at all or rarely between the sex-linked regions (<10.3 Mb; see below) of the W and Y chromosomes (and possibly not also between the sex-linked regions of the W and Z chromosomes, though we do not attempt to address this possibility here). This scenario would explain why there were sex-linked sites on the end of chromosome 7 in Family 2 but not Family 1. It is also consistent with evidence presented below for an origin of the Y chromosome from an ancestral Z chromosome (because recombination is more likely to occur in the sex-linked regions of closely related chromosomes), and also with degeneration of the sex-linked portion of the W chromosome (which is associated with recombination suppression) as a mechanism for a high density of transcripts with male-biased expression that is also discussed below.

Under this scenario of parental sex chromosome genotypes, recombination between the Z and Y chromosomes during spermatogenesis could cause some of the sons to not carry Y-linked SNPs at LOC100488897 (Table 1), which is located at ∼8Mb, even though they may have inherited the Y-linked male determining factor that is located between 8 and ∼10.3 Mb on chromosome 7; we do not precisely know the upper boundary of the sex-linked region, but 10.3 Mb is not sex-linked in wild individuals from Ghana east and west (Table 1), and most male-biased transcripts, discussed below, are encoded by genes <10.3 Mb (Table A in S1 Text). In Family 2, the lack of complete sex-linkage at two loci <10.3 Mb on chromosome 7 was due to homozygous genotypes in one son (four other sons had sex-linked SNPs in heterozygous genotypes). RNAseq data discussed below suggests that the mother of Family 2 was WZ, which would mean that two different sex chromosome genotypes are expected in sons of Family 2 (see top center of left side of Fig 2). One possibility is that the one unusual son was ZY and the other sons were WY, and that their heterozygous positions were due to divergence between the W and Y chromosomes that was not present in the ZY son.

One amplicon (LOC116412229) had a male-specific SNP in two strains from Nigeria (Nigerian and Superman) and a small sample of Ghana east wild individuals, but not in other strains we surveyed. In the strains from Nigeria, males were A/G and females G/G at position 1,928,777 or 10,257,211 in v9 or v10, respectively. A male-specific SNP is not definitive evidence of a Y chromosome because a segregating polymorphism on a Z chromosome or an autosome could by chance be present only in males. However, without invoking Y linkage, the chance of observing a heterozygous genotype in 15 of 15 males and none of 14 females is very low (P < 2 × 10−9). The sex-linked SNPs in the Nigeria strain are in different genomic positions from the nearby sex-linked SNP in three wild Ghana east males. Overall, while the extent of the Sanger sequencing data were limited by difficulties with obtaining clean sequences from our amplicons, the findings from the available data are generally congruent with the results from the RRGS data in the sense that part of chromosome 7 <10.3 Mb appears to be partially or completely sex-linked in Family 2.

We also examined genotypes in sex-linked expressed transcripts of each individual offspring of a third family (Family 3) using RNAseq data in order to detect transcripts expressed from only one of the individual’s sex chromosomes (based on observing no heterozygous variants), and those co-expressed by both alleles in heterozygous genotypes [17]. The RNAseq data was from tadpole stage 50 gonad/mesonephros. Although this study does not explore this issue, the initial motivation for selecting this tissue and developmental stage was that it corresponds with the timing of gonadal differentiation in X. laevis [36] and the sex determining gene of X. tropicalis could also be expressed in this tissue type and developmental stage. These tissues were dissected from tadpoles of Family 3 which was generated from a cross between the wild-caught father of Ghana east Family 2 that was used for the RRGS analysis (BJE4362), and a daughter of this cross (BJE4687; Fig 2). The sex of each tadpole was assessed using Sanger sequencing of amplicons in the sex-linked region (beginning at coordinates 8,109,808 and 9,256,905 in v10; Methods and Table 1). Although we did not assess sex-linkage in Family 3, evidence discussed above indicates that the father carried a Y chromosome. There was not a male-sex-bias in offspring numbers (we ended up sequencing transcriptomes from nine daughters and five sons) which, following the same reasoning above, indicates that at least one of these parents did not carry a Z chromosome, and that the sex chromosome genotypes of the parents of Family 3 could be any one of the same three unshaded crosses in Fig 2 that were possible for Families 1 and 2.

For two of the three possible sex chromosome genotype combinations (WW mother x WY father; WW mother x ZY father), if recombination is suppressed in the sex-linked portion of the W chromosome, we expected divergent sites in expressed transcripts of sex-linked genes to be similar within each offspring sex. This is because there is only one sex chromosome genotype for each sex for each of these parental sex chromosome genotypes (bottom middle and bottom right of the left side of Fig 2). However, for offspring from a WZ mother and a WY father, daughters and sons each have two possible sex chromosome genotypes (WW or WZ for daughters, WY or ZY for sons; top middle of the left side of Fig 2). If recombination is suppressed in the sex-linked portion of the W chromosome, we would expect that this type of cross could have two distinctive levels of within female nucleotide diversity in sex-linked expressed transcripts (in WW and WZ daughters), and also two distinctive levels of within male nucleotide diversity in sex-linked expressed transcripts (in ZY and WY sons). After filtering (Methods), we retained for analysis an average of 782 (range: 653–904) expressed transcripts from the sex-linked region (<10.3 Mb on chromosome 7 in v10) per individual, and an average of 50 bp (range: 43-57) per transcript within each individual.

Consistent with our predictions associated with a cross between a WZ mother and a WY father in Family 3, we observed two distinct levels of nucleotide diversity in expressed transcripts of sex-linked genes within daughters, and also two within sons (Fig 5). In addition to resolving the sex chromosome genotypes of the parents of Family 3 (the mother was WZ and the father was WY), these results indicate that the genotype of the mother of Family 2 (BJE4361, Fig 2) was also WZ because her daughter, who was the mother of Family 3 (BJE4687) carried a Z chromosome, and her father did not. These findings also indicate that the Y chromosome is derived from the Z chromosome and not from the W chromosome because divergence between the Z and Y chromosomes is lower than divergence between the Z and W or between the Y and W chromosomes (Fig 5). Additionally, and perhaps most surprisingly, these results demonstrate that W, Z, and Y chromosomes all co-occur in nature in individuals from the same small seep (<6 feet wide) in east Ghana.

Fig 5. In daughters and sons of Family 3, two distinct levels of within individual polymorphism in expressed sex-linked transcripts imply that there are two distinct sex chromosome genotypes in offspring of each sex.

Fig 5

Inferred sex chromosome genotypes (x-axis) are based on within individual polymorphism of expressed sex-linked transcripts (y-axis). The range of pairwise nucleotide diversity for non-sex-linked transcripts in the 14 individuals for which RNAseq was performed is depicted in gray.

The sex-linked portion of the X. tropicalis sex chromosomes has a very high density of genes with male-biased expression

Using the RNAseq data from Family 3, we then analyzed whole transcriptome expression from the gonad/mesonephros complex during an early stage of sexual differentiation. We used these expression data to evaluate how genes with sex-biased expression are distributed over the genome, including in sex-linked and non-sex-linked portions of the sex chromosomes. A total of 259,197 transcripts were assembled that mapped to one of the 10 chromosomes in v10; 296 transcripts were detected that mapped to scaffolds that were not assigned to chromosomes, and 2,816 did not map to these assemblies. Of these, 151, 1, and 5, respectively, had significant sex-biased expression after FDR correction.

In the non-sex-linked portion of the genome (including the pseudoautosomal region of chromosome 7), the numbers of transcripts with significantly male- or female-biased expression were relatively similar (n = 63 and 44, respectively). However, there were two genomic regions with a high density of genes with sex-biased gene expression (Fig 6, S5 Fig). The first is the sex-linked portion of chromosome 7 (<3.3 Mb in v9 or <10.3 Mb in v10), which has a very high density of genes with male-biased expression (45 transcripts from 30 genes in v10) but not female-biased expression (1 transcript; Table A in S1 Text, Fig 6). Twenty-seven of these transcripts from 20 genes were male-specific (expressed only in males); 18 transcripts from 13 genes were male-biased (expressed in both sexes but significantly higher in males), and only one transcript was female-specific. The proportions of differentially expressed transcripts from this region with male-biased or male-specific expression are significantly higher than expected based on the proportion from the rest of the genome (P < 0.00001, binomial tests). As a consequence of the high density of these genes on the sex-linked region, the number of transcripts with significantly male-biased or male-specific expression was far higher on chromosome 7 than any of the other chromosomes (Table B in S1 Text), even though the proportion of this chromosome that is sex-linked is small (<10% of chromosome 7; Fig 4; [31]), and even though chromosome 7 is intermediate in size. We also explored the effect of contrasting expression in subsets of male and female offspring based on inferred sex chromosome genotypes (S1 Text, S6, S7, S8 and S9 Figs). These analyses also suggest that some transcripts encoded by gametologs on the sex-linked portions of the W, Z, and Y chromosomes are differentially regulated, presumably due to a combination of divergence and polymorphism in the regulatory regions of genes in the sex-linked regions of these sex chromosomes.

Fig 6. Log2 transformed male/female transcript expression ratio (logFC) along X. tropicalis chromosome 7 in offspring of Family 3.

Fig 6

The x-axis indicates the genomic coordinates in millions of base pairs (Mb). Small dots represent individual transcripts and * represent transcripts that are significantly differentially expressed after FDR correction (sigFDR). Positive values reflect male biased expression, negative values are female biased. A red box highlights a cluster of genes on the sex-linked portion of chromosome 7 with mostly male-biased expression.

The second region with a high density of sex-biased transcripts is on chromosome 3 between 114—128 Mb in v10; this area encodes a high density of female-biased transcripts (21 transcripts from 14 genes) but not male-biased (one transcript; Table C in S1 Text). However, the density of sex-biased transcripts on this region of chromosome 3 (1.5 transcripts/Mb) is substantially lower than the density of sex-biased transcripts on the sex-linked portion of chromosome 7 (4.4 transcripts/Mb) (S5 Fig). We do not know why this region has an atypically high density of female-biased transcripts.

Why do genes in the sex-linked region encode so many transcripts with male-biased expression?

There are several possible explanations for the strong skew towards male-biased expression of transcripts encoded by genes in the sex-linked region of these frogs. One possibility is that this particular region had a high density of male-biased transcripts in an ancestor when this region was not sex-linked (that is, prior to the origin of a sex-determining locus on chromosome 7 in X. tropicalis). To gain perspective into this possibility, we turned to expression data that we collected for another study from X. borealis, a closely related allotetraploid species, from the same tissue (gonad/mesonephros) and a similar developmental stage (tadpole stage 48) [37]. We determined genomic locations of assembled transcripts in the X. laevis genome assembly version 9.2 using the same methods as described here for X. tropicalis, and as described in more detail elsewhere [37]. Because X. borealis is allotetraploid and because it has different sex chromosomes than X. tropicalis (on chromosome 8L [38]), this species has two autosomal chromosomes (chromosomes 7L and 7S), that are orthologous to the sex chromosomes of X. tropicalis. Inspection of genomic regions in X. borealis that are orthologous to the sex-linked region in X. tropicalis identified only one significantly male-biased transcript on X. borealis chromosome 7L, one on X. borealis chromosome 7S, and no significantly female-biased transcripts on either of these chromosomes (S10 Fig). This comparison does not rule out the possibility that a strongly male-biased expression skew was present ancestrally but lost during evolution of X. borealis, but it does suggest that there is no reason to expect that transcripts in this genomic region are somehow predisposed to have male-biased expression. Taken together, these comparisons favor the interpretation that the evolution of male-biased expression occurred in concert with the origin of sex-linkage <10.3 Mb on chromosome 7 in X. tropicalis.

Rates and locations of recombination are sex-specific in X. tropicalis

We used RRGS data from Families 1 and 2 to compare genome-wide rates and locations of crossover events in females and males. For both families, the total length of the female linkage map greatly exceeded that of the male map, even though the female and male maps had a similar number of markers and spanned similar proportions of the genome. For the Ghana west family, the female map length was 920 cM (including 1504 SNPs), and the male map was 367 cM (including 1645 SNPs). For the Ghana east family, the female map length was 1495 cM (2061 SNPs), and the male map length was 630 cM (1857 SNPs). This indicates that recombination is far more common during oogenesis than during spermatogenesis.

There was a positive relationship between linkage map length and the physical size in base pairs (bp) of the genome assembly in female maps, but this was not evident in male maps. The slope of this relationship in females from Family 1 is 28.7 (95% confidence interval (CI): 6.7–50.7) and in females from Family 2 is 50.9 (CI: 28.5–71.8), whereas this slope for males from Family 1 is 7.5 (CI: -13.7–28.6) and males from Family 2 is 17.6 (CI: -3.9–39.0; Fig 7A). That male recombination rates were unrelated to the size in bp of the genomic region to which the linkage map corresponds, argues that their crossover events in males occur in more concentrated genomic regions, as compared to females. Consistent with this, crossover events were more biased towards chromosome tips in during male recombination compared to female recombination, although both sexes had a lower density of crossover events near the centers of chromosomes as compared to the first and third quartiles (Fig 7B). These differences are unlikely to be related to sex-differences in coverage of the RRGS data because markers included in the linkage maps spanned similar proportions of the chromosomes in both sexes, and in both populations (Family 1: an average of 95.1% of the chromosome lengths were covered for females and 93.2% for males; Family 2: 99.0% for females and 98.8% for males). We did not detect a substantial disparity in the number of crossovers on the sex chromosome (chromosome 7) in male maps of either family (Fig 7A), which is consistent with most of this chromosome being pseudoautosomal [31].

Fig 7.

Fig 7

A) Linkage map length in centimorgans (cM) is positively correlated with the length of the genomic region in millions of base pairs (Mb) in females (left) but not in males (right) from Family 1 and Family 2 (top and bottom rows, respectively). B) Crossover density is more strongly biased towards chromosome tips in males than females in Family 1 and Family 2.

Discussion

The geographical context of X. tropicalis sex chromosomes

Xenopus tropicalis is distributed in tropical habitats in West Africa, ranging from Sierra Leone to western Cameroon [39]. Rainforest habitat in West Africa is interrupted by savanna in a region called the Dahomey Gap, which lies roughly in the center of the distribution of X. tropicalis, including southeastern Ghana, the southern portions of the countries of Togo and Benin, and southwestern Nigeria [40, 41]. Few records of Xenopus are available from the Dahomey Gap, and it is possible that there is a discontinuity in the range of X. tropicalis in this region. Limited data from mitochondrial DNA sequences suggests that there may be population subdivision within X. tropicalis that is associated with the Dahomey Gap [31]. Genome-wide data analyzed here point more strongly to subdivision between X. tropicalis populations from Sierra Leone and Ghana + Nigeria, and suggest populations from east Ghana, which were sampled in a forested patch within the Dahomey Gap, are less differentiated from populations from Nigeria (east of the Dahomey Gap) than from populations from west Ghana (west of the Dahomey Gap; Fig 1).

Our results identify, for the first time, a Y chromosome in X. tropicalis individuals sampled directly from nature (two localities in Ghana) and suggest a Y chromosome is present in a laboratory strain from Nigeria. In a recent study of sex-linkage in X. tropicalis that included the Nigeria laboratory strain that was used for the genome sequencing, the nature of the crosses did not permit assessment of whether a Y chromosome was present [29]. However, the authors concluded that if there was a Y chromosome, it would have originated from the Nigeria strain that was used in their cross [29]. Our limited Sanger sequencing survey of variation in a laboratory strain from Ivory Coast, which is situated between Sierra Leone and Ghana, did not identify sex-linked SNPs (Table 1). This does not rule out the possibility that the Ivory Coast strain also carries a Y chromosome because some of the males may have two Z chromosomes. Our findings from the RRGS and RNAseq data also provide the first georeferenced evidence of a Z chromosome in wild caught individuals (in west and east Ghana). Overall, these results demonstrate that the W, Z, and Y chromosomes co-mingle in the natural range of X. tropicalis in Ghana, and perhaps elsewhere. A key question motivated by these co-mingling sex chromosomes asks how and why they co-exist when they are associated with substantial offspring sex-ratio skew [27], which is expected to often be disadvantageous [4245]. It may be the case that the Z chromosome has a low frequency in the populations we sampled in Ghana, and that the W chromosome segregates in these populations, more or less, like an X chromosome. Eventual extinction of the Z chromosome would transition the W chromosome into a new X chromosome, which is one way to prevent offspring sex-ratio skew with the new sex determining system associated with the newly emerged Y chromosome. Alternatively, if the Y chromosome were rare in a population, most crosses also would have a balanced sex ratio governed by the W and Z chromosomes. Extinction of the Y chromosome thus could also prevent offspring sex-ratio skew via reversion to the ancestral (WZ/ZZ) system for sex determination. Results presented here provide direct or indirect evidence that all three sex chromosomes were present in Families 1, 2, and 3, but does not quantify the frequencies of each of these chromosomes in natural populations. Further efforts to genotype sex chromosomes of X. tropicalis sampled in nature could evaluate these possibilities.

Are the three sex chromosomes of X. tropicalis defined by different variants at one gene?

The three sex chromosomes of X. tropicalis could be part of an evolutionary transition, with a new system for sex determination on its way to fixation. Alternatively, this variation may be stable over evolutionary time, with different frequencies of each sex chromosome favored by unique factors in distinct environments [46]. In two laboratory bred families from Ghana and a laboratory strain from Nigeria, we identified male-specific SNPs that fall within the tightly female-linked region on the W chromosome of another X. tropicalis strain [29] and also a closely related species, X. mellotropicalis (S1 Text; [25]). That the male-specific region of the Y chromosome and the female-specific region of the W chromosome occur in gametologous locations (Fig 4) along with a peak of nucleotide differentiation (Fig 3, S1 Fig) points to the possibility that the female-specific (W-linked) and male-specific (Y-linked) variation that drives female and male differentiation, respectively, could be in the same locus or possibly segmental duplicates that are closely situated.

Mechanistically, genetic sex determination can be realized in many ways [1] which could include, for example, a dominant sex-specific allele (such as Sry in eutherian mammals), or dosage mechanisms that involve differences in copy number of a shared allele (such as Dmrt1 in birds). At this point we can only speculate about mechanisms in X. tropicalis. One possibility is that there is a combination of these mechanisms, such as a loss of function allele for male differentiation on the W chromosome (which causes WZ individuals to be phenotypically female and ZZ individuals to be male). However, this is inconsistent with previous findings that WZZ triploids develop into females [27]. Additionally, WWY triploids develop into males, which argues against sensitivity of the Y chromosome to dosage of the W [27]. A more plausible alternative is that the W chromosome carries female-determining allele whose function is not present on the Z chromosome, whereas the Y chromosome carries a dominant negative regulator of the female-determining allele on the W. A dominant negative regulatory role has been proposed for dm-w, which is a W-linked trigger for female differentiation in X. laevis over the male-related dmrt1 gene (which is autosomal) and closely related to dmw by partial gene duplication [36, 47]. Future efforts aimed at identifying the variants that trigger female and male variation in X. tropicalis is crucial to unravel their fascinating evolutionary histories and genetic interactions.

Signs of genetic degeneration in cytologically indistinguishable sex chromosomes

During gonadal differentiation, a total of 151 transcripts in the gonad/mesonephros transcriptome were identified with significant sex bias and a known genomic location; one third of these transcripts (n = 50) were in the sex-linked region of chromosome 7 in v10 (Fig 6, S5 Fig), which comprises <1% of the 1.7 Gb genome of X. tropicalis [48]. Of the transcripts in this genomic region with significantly sex-biased expression (n = 46), almost all were male-specific (n = 27) or male-biased (n = 18), none were female-biased, and only one was female-specific (Table A in S1 Text). An excess of sex-linked genes with male-biased expression was also observed in adult tissues, although that excess was not significant [49], which is a possible consequence of the lower quality genome assembly that was available at that time for determining the genomic locations of transcripts. Sex-biased expression of sex-linked transcripts in multiple developmental stages has also been observed in fish, and may be a more effective mechanism for resolving genomic conflict in broadly expressed transcripts than differential expression orchestrated by steroid hormones [50].

In the sex-linked portion of the X. tropicalis sex chromosomes there exists more substantial nucleotide divergence compared to the rest of the genome (Fig 3, S2 Fig) and divergence between expressed transcripts encoded by sex-linked genes on the W chromosome and the Z or Y chromosomes is higher than that between expressed transcripts encoded by sex-linked genes on the Z and Y chromosomes (Fig 5,). This information, combined with the observation that the closely related tetraploid species X. mellotropicalis has a female-linked genomic region in a homologous location to X. tropicalis [25], suggests that the Y chromosome evolved from the Z chromosome rather than from the W chromosome. If the Y chromosome eventually fixes in X. tropicalis (and the Z goes extinct), the mechanism of turnover would appear to follow the scenario depicted in Table 1D of [51] but with an ancestor with female heterogamy and a descendant with male heterogamy. In the absence of dosage compensation, sex chromosome turnover may be favored due to the accumulation of deleterious mutations and associated lowered or lost expression of alleles on the non-recombining sex chromosome [21, 22]. However, in X. tropicalis this scenario does not appear to apply since the degenerate W chromosome is staged to survive a transition to male heterogamy if the Y chromosome fixes in the future because, if this happened, the W chromosome would become an X chromosome.

Several factors have the potential to influence regulatory evolution on sex chromosomes, such as faster-X or faster-Z effects [52, 53]). The faster-X effect may be heightened in species with dosage compensation [52], although there is no strong evidence of dosage compensation in amphibians [54]. Evidence presented here is most consistent with degeneration of the W chromosome, presumably prior to the origin of the Y chromosome from the Z chromosome, as a mechanism for male-biased expression of transcripts encoded by sex-linked loci. For example, a comparison between putative WW females and WY males identifies more substantial sex-biased expression than a comparison between WZ females and ZY males (S6 and S7 Figs). We also detected higher nucleotide polymorphism in expressed transcripts encoded by genes in the sex-linked region of putative WZ and WY individuals than in transcripts encoded by non-sex-linked (autosomal and pseudoautosomal) transcripts. This is also suggestive of divergence due to recombination suppression on the sex-linked portion of the W chromosome. One prediction that is associated with the mechanism behind male-biased expression of sex-linked transcripts in X. tropicalis is that X. mellotropicalis should also have a degenerate W chromosome and also exhibit male-biased expression in the sex-linked portion of its sex chromosomes. This is another interesting direction for further exploration.

Sex differences in recombination

In X. tropicalis from Ghana, the rate of recombination is higher during oogenesis than spermatogenesis, and the crossover densities vary during these meiotic events as well, with proportionately more crossovers occurring in more central region of chromosomes during oogenesis compared to spermatogenesis (Fig 7B). This pattern was evident in a relatively small sample of crossover events that were observed in two biological replicates, but are congruent with results recovered from the other two Xenopus species examined so far—X. laevis and X. borealis [55]. A lower density of crossover events in the center of chromosomes was also detected in another study of X. tropicalis [29], although sex-differences in these densities were not evaluated in that study. Overall, this suggests that these sex-biases in recombination rate and location are widespread in Xenopus, including across ploidy levels (X. laevis and X. borealis are both allotetraploid), and probably as well the most recent common ancestor of extant Xenopus. In several other species, including other frogs, the recombination rate is also higher in females compared to males, though the opposite pattern has also been observed [5662]. Paternal crossovers are more concentrated at the ends of chromosomes than maternal crossovers in other vertebrates as well, including humans [5658, 61, 62]. Why sex differences in the locations of recombination exist is not entirely clear, but is mechanistically achieved by sex-differences in the rate that double strand breaks occur and in the rate that they are resolved into crossover or gene conversion events [62], which are influenced by the unique ways that meiosis occurs in females and males [63].

These sex-differences in recombination rate and location have interesting ramifications for the genomic positions of male-specific and female-specific variation on sex chromosomes. In females, triggers for female-determination should frequently be located on the ends of a W chromosome because there they should be disrupted less frequently by recombination as compared to alleles that are not near chromosome ends [62]. This prediction is supported by the W chromosome of X. tropicalis and in X. laevis where another female-determining gene − dm-w − is also positioned on the end of a chromosome (2L) [36], where the rate of recombination in females is relatively low [55]. The position of the male-determining factor on the end of the Y chromosome is not expected because recombination is higher in this region. However, it appears that suppressed recombination between the W and Z chromosomes <10.3 Mb was already in place prior to the origin of the Y, and this would presumably prevent disruption of the trigger for male differentiation on the Y.

Outlook

We report here the co-occurrence of W, Z, and Y chromosomes in natural populations of X. tropicalis from Ghana. We identified a high density of transcripts with a strong skew towards male-biased expression that originate from a small, differentiated, sex-linked genomic region in this frog. The findings of this study are consistent with the expectation that recombination suppression can lead to degeneration of sex chromosomes [64]. These results also evidence W chromosome genetic degeneration in a species with cytologically undifferentiated sex chromosomes, show a small male-linked region on the Y chromosome overlaps with a female-linked region of the W chromosome [29], and demonstrate that these three sex chromosomes co-occur in the same populations in nature. These findings open the possibility that variation at a single locus or a set of tightly linked loci define the three sex chromosomes of X. tropicalis, with alternative pairings of these variants governing whether an individual develops into a female or male. Exactly what genetic variation governs sex determination in X. tropicalis and how this variation is distributed across the natural range of this species remain uncharacterized, and are a promising direction for future efforts. Together, these features illustrate that several characteristics that are frequently attributed to old sex chromosomes (regulatory degeneration, nucleotide divergence) can in fact be present before divergence is detectable at the cytogenetic level, and persist through the evolutionary windows during which new sex chromosomes arise and replace ancestral sex chromosomes.

Methods

Genetic samples; reduced representation genome sequencing

To study sex-linkage, recombination, and population structure in X. tropicalis, we performed reduced representation genome sequencing (RRGS, [65]) on laboratory generated and wild caught individuals. The RRGS samples included 22 female and 21 male offspring from Family 1 whose parents were both from west Ghana (mother: BJE4359; father: BJE4360), seven female and five male offspring from Family 2 whose parents originated from east Ghana (mother: BJE4361; father: BJE4362), both parents from both of these families, 18 and seven additional wild caught samples from Ghana west and Ghana east, eight samples from individuals derived from Sierra Leone, and one from an individual derived from Nigeria. Parents of the lab crosses were performed at higher (∼four times) coverage than the offspring in order to increase the genotype quality in these individuals. Libraries were constructed with the Sbf1 restriction enzyme (Floragenex, Portland, OR, USA), and multiplexed on one lane of an Illumina 2500 machine.

The wild X. tropicalis samples were collected from two locations near the western and eastern borders of Ghana: Ankasa Nature Reserve (GPS: 5.24424 -2.64044, altitude: 48 m; Ghana west), and near the town of Admedzofe (GPS: 6.83165 0.43642, altitude: 738 m; Ghana east). Offspring of animals from Ghana west and east are available upon request from McMaster University. Families from each population were generated by injecting parents with Human Chorionic Gonadrotropin (Biovendor, Asheville, NC, USA) to induce ovulation and clasping, and offspring were reared until post-metamorphic maturation. The Sierra Leone individuals (four females, four males) and a Nigeria individual (a female) were derived from georeferenced populations that were maintained at the Station de Zoologie Expérimentale at the University of Geneva [66]. The phenotypic sex of lab offspring were determined by surgical examination of gonads after euthanasia via transdermal overdose of MS222 (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA). The sexes of individuals from Ghana, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone were determined based on external morphology (females with larger size and larger cloacal lobes; males with nuptial pads on the forearms and smaller cloacal lobes). DNA was extracted from webbing, liver, muscle, or blood using the DNeasy blood and tissue extraction kit (Qiagen, Toronto, Canada).

RRGS reads from each individual were de-multiplexed using using Radtools [67], and trimmed with Trimmomatic version 0.39 [68], enforcing a minimum length of 36 bp, removing 3 bp from the leading and trailing ends, and requiring less than four ambiguous bp in a sliding window of 15 bp. This resulted in an average of 5,000,000 reads per individual (range ∼700,000–20,000,000). We aligned these data to the X. tropicalis genomes v9.1 and v10.0 using BWA [69], and used samtools/bcftools [70, 71] to call genotypes. Individual genotypes that did not have a minimum depth of 15 or had a genotype quality below 20 were set to missing. Additionally, all individual genotypes were discarded from a genomic position if >20% of laboratory offspring had missing genotypes, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium in the lab offspring was violated, or >10% of lab offspring had a genotype that was not possible given the parental genotypes. This last category of sites are often a consequence of genotyping errors where heterozygous positions are called as homozygous [55, 72, 73]. For Family 1, we also filtered any individuals that had greater than 20% missing data, leaving 36 offspring; we did not apply the same quality filter to Family 2, because of the substantially smaller family size. Finally, we filtered the data to one randomly selected SNP per restriction-site associated region (RADTag) in each family.

The analysis of RRGS data involved mapping reads to a reference genome that was generated from a female individual of unknown sex chromosome genotype. Possible concerns with and justification of this approach are discussed in further detail in S1 Text.

Analysis of sex-linkage

With the filtered SNP datasets for the two families aligned to v9 and v10, we calculated allelic association with sex following [74]; results were essentially the same for both genomes and v10 is presented here. This analysis was performed within each of our two families (Family 1 and 2) for bi-allelic sites that were heterozygous in the father or mother. Genotyping errors can reduce power to detect sex linkage, so we developed an approach to detect putative genotyping errors that resembled double recombination events in a small genomic window, and set them to missing data, thereby reducing their impact (additional details are provided in S1 Text). This substantially reduced the frequency of false positive signals of genotype association with sex (comparing S3 to S11 Figs).

In an attempt to narrow down the sex-linked region in populations of X. tropicalis with male heterogamy beyond the signal that was present in the RRGS data, we used Sanger sequencing to survey for sex-linked variants (Table 1). We analyzed both of our laboratory crosses, our wild caught samples from both of these localities in Ghana, and male and female individuals from a colony at the National Xenopus Resource, Woods Hole, MA, USA, that are thought to be derived from Ivory Coast (RRID:NXR_1009) and Nigeria (RRID:NXR_1018). We focused these efforts on genomic regions in the vicinity of the sex-linked regions that were identified by our RRGS analysis and [29, 31].

Sex chromosome differentiation and population subdivision

For the samples originating from Sierra Leone, Nigeria, and Ghana—including the parents of each laboratory cross but not including the offspring of these crosses—we assessed admixture proportions by analyzing the RRGS data using NGSadmix version 32 [75]. We removed reads with a map quality <20 from the bam files, set the SNP_pval (likelihood of there being a SNP) parameter of NGSadmix to 1e-6, and used a minimum minor allele frequency (minMAF) of 0.05. We estimated genetic ancestry for partitions of 1–5 clusters (K), and ran 20 replicates for each value of K. We used CLUMPP [76] to combine the replicates while averaging the population assignments and correcting for label switching.

To test for differentiation of the sex chromosomes, we quantified FST between females and males for each SNP following the bi-allelic FST approach of [77]. Because we do not know the sex chromosome genotype of almost all individuals for which we performed RRGS (both parents of Family 2 and the father of Family 1 are exceptions, see Results), we were unable to evaluate FST between cohorts of females and males that each had the same sex genotype. Instead, we evaluated FST between males and females across all samples for which we collected RRGS data, except the offspring of the two laboratory crosses. This included wild individuals from Ghana east (1 female, 8 males), Ghana west (6 females, 14 males), and georeferenced lab individuals from Sierra Leone (4 females, 4 males) and Nigeria (1 female).

Transcriptome analysis

We dissected gonad/mesonephros tissue from 14 tadpoles at developmental stage 50 [78] that were offspring of Family 3, which had a wild caught father from Ghana east that was used in the RRGS (BJE4362) and one of his daughters from Family 2 (BJE4687). Tadpole stage 50 was chosen for analysis because this is the stage where expression of the sex determining gene dm-w has been detected in X. laevis [36]. The tadpole gonad/mesonephros tissue was preserved in RNAlater, and RNA was extracted individually from each sample using the RNeasy micro kit (Qiagen, Toronto, Canada). For each tadpole, we also preserved tail tissue in ethanol, and genomic DNA was extracted using the DNeasy kit.

Based on our results from RRGS and Sanger sequencing (see Results), the sex of each tadpole from the second Ghana east cross was determined based on the presence (males) or absence (females) of heterozygous genotypes in two completely or almost completely sex-linked amplicons (LOC100488897, primers: Scaf2_f1 + Scaf2_r2 and LOC116406517, primers: trop_east_SNP1_F1 + trop_east_SNP1_R1; Table 1; Table D in S1 Text). In Family 2, which was used for the RRGS data, the first of these amplicons had a sex-specific heterozygous SNP in five of five sons and none of seven daughters, and the second of these amplicons had an almost sex-specific SNP in four of five sons and none of seven daughters (Table 1). For the tadpoles that were used for RNAseq, heterozygosity at both of these amplicons was concordant for all individuals in the sense that heterozygosity was observed either at both amplicons or at neither amplicon (results from these tadpoles are not presented in Table 1 because we were not able to infer sex from adult individuals). This effort indicated that nine of the 14 tadpoles used in the RNAseq analysis were female and five were male. The accuracy of this indirect approach to sexing these tadpoles is evidenced by the very strong signature of expression divergence in the sex-linked region (Fig 6).

Library preparation and transcriptome sequencing was performed at the Centre for Applied Genomics (Toronto, Canada), multiplexing all 14 samples on one lane of an Illumina 2500 machine and 150 bp reads. Reads were trimmed using Trimmomatic version 0.36, removing the first and last three bases, retaining reads with a minimum length of 36 bp, and a ‘maxinfo’ setting of 30 and 0.7 (which determines the nature of an adaptive quality trim that aims to balance the benefits of preserving longer reads against the costs of retaining sequences that have errors). A de novo transcriptome assembled using Trinity version 2.8.2 with a minimum k-mer coverage of two.

Transcript counts were quantified for each sample using Kallisto v.0.43.0 following the methods of [79] with default parameters for indexing (using a kmer size of 31) and quantification (using quant parameter settings: -b 0 -t 1). We discarded genes with an average of less than one raw read per sample. Read counts from Kallisto were then used for differential expression between males and females with the EdgeR package version 3.4, using the vanilla pipeline (i.e., calcNormFactors, estimateCommonDisp, estimateTagwiseDisp, exactTest for comparison between males and females), following the EdgeR vignette [80]. EdgeR was used to calculate the log2-transformed male/female expression ratio (logFC), wherein values above or below zero indicate genes that are more highly expressed in males or females, respectively. To avoid ratios equal to zero or undefined, a default prior count of 0.125 was added to all samples using the exactTest function of EdgeR. Using estimated read counts from Kallisto, we also performed an independent differential expression analysis with the DESeq2 package [81], following the DESeq2 vignette. Shrinkage was used with adaptive t prior shrinkage estimator from the package “apeglm” [82]. This option reduces the mean squared error of expression levels of each gene relative to the classical estimator, especially for genes with low expression levels [81, 82]. Because the results of the EdgeR and DeSeq2 analyses were similar (S12 Fig), we report only the EdgeR results.

We defined significantly sex-biased genes based on a false discovery rate (FDR) with Benjamini-Hochberg correction cutoff of 0.05 from the EdgeR output, and requiring the absolute value of logFC to be > 2. Genomic locations of individual transcripts were then ascertained based on the best match of each transcript against the X. tropicalis v10 (NCBI BioProject AAMC00000000.4; GenBank Assembly submission GCA_000004195.4) using a splice-aware aligner GMAP [83]. Median expression values for each sex were quantified after transcripts per million normalization (TPM) [84]. Confidence intervals for these medians were obtained using the DescTools package [85].

To quantify variation in expressed transcripts encoded by sex-linked genes, for each offspring from Family 3 we mapped the RNAseq data to the transcriptome assembly and called genotypes using bwa and bcftools. We filtered genotypes with < 4X coverage, genotype quality < 20, and map quality < 20. Pairwise nucleotide diversity was then calculated for each individual using a perl script and collated with transcript location as assessed above using R.

Linkage mapping

In order to evaluate whether and how the rates and genomic locations of recombination differ between the sexes, we used the RRGS data to build and compare sex-specific linkage maps for each chromosome of the X. tropicalis families using Onemap v1.0 [86] and v9.1 [29]. Using the same approach as [55], we first identified the largest linkage group per chromosome using all genotypes (maternal-specific, paternal-specific, or both parents heterozygous), setting the minimum logarithm of the odds (LOD) score to five and the maximum recombination fraction to 0.4. We then separated heterozygous markers that were maternal-specific or paternal-specific for each chromosomal linkage map, and reconstructed sex-specific linkage maps for each chromosome, using a minimum LOD score of three. In this way we were able to reconstruct sex-specific rates and locations of recombination during oogenesis and spermatogenesis, respectively. Ordering of markers used in the linkage map was based on their mapping positions to the v9.1 genome.

After an initial build, we inspected individuals and set as missing data any single markers or sets of markers within a 10 Mb window that indicated a double recombination event, under the assumption that these genotypes are most likely due to genotyping errors because two recombination events are usually rare in very small genomic windows. We then reconstructed a sex- and chromosome-specific linkage maps with these filtered sets of markers. To determine how chromosome lengths (as covered by markers used in the linkage map) related to inferred map lengths for both families, we used a linear model with fixed effects of sex in which recombination occurs, family used for the linkage map, and interaction between those fixed effects, and a three-way interaction between sex, family, and amount of base-pairs covered by the extreme markers used in the linkage map (i.e., maplengthsex*family+sex:family:bpcovered). Residuals were evaluated for non-normality to ensure proper model fit. Analyses were performed in R using the lm function and confidence intervals were generated with confint [87].

Ethics statement

This work was approved by the Animal Care Committee at McMaster University (AUP# 17-12-43).

Supporting information

S1 Data. Numerical data for figures.

(ZIP)

S1 Text. Supplemental methods, results, and Tables A–D.

(PDF)

S1 Fig. A dot plot of the sex-linked portion of chromosome 7 in v9 (y-axis) and the corresponding region in v10 (x-axis).

The most strongly female-linked linkage group identified by [29] (pink) the FST peak identified here (dotted line; Fig 3). The 95% CI of the female-linked region from [29] has an inversion between assembly v9 and v10 at the upper bound of the most strongly linked region (super_547:1), and an insertion in v10. However, the most strongly sex-linked linked regions identified by [29] and this study are syntenous between these assemblies.

(EPS)

S2 Fig. FST between females and males for all X. tropicalis chromosomes provides perspective on the level of differentiation of the sex linked region of chromosome 7.

FST was calculated and plotted as described in Fig 3.

(EPS)

S3 Fig. Genome-wide sex linkage Manhattan plot for genotype association with sex for paternal heterozygous sites with correction for double recombinants (S1 Text).

For the Ghana west population (left), the p-values are FDR corrected, and for the Ghana east population (right), the p-values are not corrected (due to a much smaller sample size, see Methods).

(EPS)

S4 Fig. Pairwise nucleotide diversity in expressed transcripts encoded by genes in the sex-linked (SL) region in individuals with different putative sex chromosome genotypes.

For comparison, data from the entire sex linked region from Fig 5 are displayed in blue next to values from the first (<6Mb) and second (6-11 Mb) portions of the sex-linked region; other labeling follows Fig 5.

(EPS)

S5 Fig. The degree of sex-biased expression of gonad/mesonephros tissue in stage 50 tadpoles, expressed as the log2 transformed ratio of the male/female fold change (logFC) on each of the ten X. tropicalis chromosomes (labeled on the right) in offspring of Family 3.

The x-axis indicates the genomic coordinates of the transcript start position in millions of bp (Mb) on v10. Small dots represent individual transcripts and * represent transcripts that are significantly differentially expressed after FDR correction. Boxes indicate a cluster of genes on the sex-linked portion of chromosome 7 with mostly male-biased expression, and another cluster of genes on a portion of chromosome 3 with mostly female-biased expression.

(EPS)

S6 Fig. Analysis of differential expression between putative WW females and WY males (subset 1) on chromosome 7.

Labeling follows Fig 6. The high density of genes encoding transcripts with sex-biased expression extends slightly beyond the region with a high density of male-biased transcripts that was identified in the RNAseq analysis of all samples (red box). In this analysis, the sex-linked region of chromosome 7 had 34 significantly male-biased transcripts with 27 of these being male-specific and 7 being expressed in both sexes; 3 transcripts in the sex-linked region were significantly female biased and all three were expressed in both sexes.

(EPS)

S7 Fig. Analysis of differential expression between putative WZ females and ZY males (subset 2) on chromosome 7.

Labeling follows Fig 6. In this analysis, the sex-linked region of chromosome 7 had 19 significantly male-biased transcripts with 16 of these being male-specific and 3 being expressed in both sexes; there were no significantly female-biased transcripts detected in the sex-linked region.

(EPS)

S8 Fig. Analysis of differential expression between putative WW females and ZY males (subset 3) on chromosome 7.

Labeling follows Fig 6. The high density of genes encoding transcripts with sex-biased expression extends slightly beyond the region with a high density of male-biased transcripts that was identified in the RNAseq analysis of all samples (red box). In this analysis, the sex-linked region of chromosome 7 had 37 significantly male-biased transcripts with 29 of these being male-specific and 8 being expressed in both sexes; 2 transcripts in the sex-linked region were significantly female biased and both were expressed in both sexes.

(EPS)

S9 Fig. Analysis of differential expression between putative WZ females and WY males (subset 4) on chromosome 7.

Labeling follows Fig 6. In this analysis, the sex-linked region of chromosome 7 had 19 significantly male-biased transcripts with 16 of these being male-specific and 3 being expressed in both sexes; 1 transcript in the sex-linked region were significantly female biased and it was expressed in both sexes.

(EPS)

S10 Fig. In the allotetraploid species X. borealis, genomic regions that are orthologous to the sex-linked region of X. tropicalis (boxes) do not encode transcripts with substantially skewed male-biased expression.

Data are from gonad/mesonephros tissue from X. borealis tadpole stage 48; labeling follows Fig 6. Assembly and expression analysis of these X. borealis data followed the same steps as for X. tropicalis, with the exception that the transcripts were mapped to the X. laevis genome assembly version 9.2 because a high quality assembly is currently unavailable for X. borealis. Orthology was established using dot plots as in S1 Fig, but using chromosome sequences from X. tropicalis and X. laevis instead of different genome assemblies of X. tropicalis. A comprehensive analysis of these X. borealis data is presented elsewhere [37].

(EPS)

S11 Fig. Genome-wide sex linkage Manhattan plot for genotype association with sex for paternal heterozygous sites, without correction of double recombinants (S1 Text).

FDR correction and non-correction follows S3 Fig.

(EPS)

S12 Fig. Differential expression analysis with EdgeR and DeSeq2 produced similar results as illustrated here for chromosome 7.

In the sex-linked region <10.3 Mb, both methods identified 32 male-biased transcripts, EdgeR but not DeSeq2 identified 13 additional male-biased and 1 female-biased transcripts, DeSeq2 but not EdgeR identified 2 additional female-biased transcripts, and neither methods identified significant sex-biased expression in 1,737 other transcripts on chromosome. 7.

(EPS)

Acknowledgments

We thank Brian Golding for access to computational resources, and Jessen Bredeson, Sofia Medina Ruiz, Dan Rohksar and their colleagues, and Xenbase [88], for making the v10 X. tropicalis genome assembly available. We also thank the Associate Editor and three annonymous reviewers for constructive feedback on earlier versions of this manuscript.

Data Availability

The RRGS and RNAseq data from Xenopus tropicalis have been deposited in the Short Read Archive of NCBI (BioProject PRJNA627066) as has the RNAseq data from Xenopus borealis (BioProject PRJNA616217). Representative Sanger sequences have been deposited in GenBank (accession numbers MW115652-MW115842). The transcriptome assembly has been deposited at DDBJ/EMBL/GenBank under the accession GIVH00000000.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (RGPIN-2017-05770) (BJE), Resource Allocation Competition awards from Compute Canada (BJE), the Whitman Center Fellowship Program at the Marine Biological Laboratory (BJE), the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University (BJE), and National Institutes of Health grants R01-HD084409 (MEH) and P40-OD010997 (MEH). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1. Bachtrog D, Mank JE, Peichel CL, Kirkpatrick M, Otto SP, Ashman TL, et al. Sex determination: Why so many ways of doing it? PLoS Biology. 2014;12(7):e1001899 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001899 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Lahn BT, Page DC. Four evolutionary strata on the human X chromosome. Science. 1999;286(5441):964–967. 10.1126/science.286.5441.964 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Zhou Q, Zhang J, Bachtrog D, An N, Huang Q, Jarvis ED, et al. Complex evolutionary trajectories of sex chromosomes across bird taxa. Science. 2014;346(6215):1246338 10.1126/science.1246338 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Matsubara K, Tarui H, Toriba M, Yamada K, Nishida-Umehara C, Agata K, et al. Evidence for different origin of sex chromosomes in snakes, birds, and mammals and step-wise differentiation of snake sex chromosomes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2006;103(48):18190–18195. 10.1073/pnas.0605274103 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Bachtrog D. Y-chromosome evolution: Emerging insights into processes of Y-chromosome degeneration. Nature Reviews Genetics. 2013;14(2):113–124. 10.1038/nrg3366 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Wright AE, Dean R, Zimmer F, Mank JE. How to make a sex chromosome. Nature Communications. 2016;7(1):1–8. 10.1038/ncomms12087 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Deakin J. Chromosome evolution in marsupials. Genes. 2018;9(2):72 10.3390/genes9020072 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Kamiya T, Kai W, Tasumi S, Oka A, Matsunaga T, Mizuno N, et al. A trans-species missense SNP in Amhr2 is associated with sex determination in the tiger pufferfish, Takifugu rubripes (fugu). PLoS Genetics. 2012;8(7):e1002798 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002798 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Adolfsson S, Ellegren H. Lack of dosage compensation accompanies the arrested stage of sex chromosome evolution in ostriches. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2013;30(4):806–810. 10.1093/molbev/mst009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Perrin N. Sex reversal: A fountain of youth for sex chromosomes? Evolution: International Journal of Organic Evolution. 2009;63(12):3043–3049. 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00837.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Vicoso B, Kaiser VB, Bachtrog D. Sex-biased gene expression at homomorphic sex chromosomes in emus and its implication for sex chromosome evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2013;110(16):6453–6458. 10.1073/pnas.1217027110 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Bull JJ. Evolution of sex determining mechanisms. The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc; 1983. [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Volff JN, Nanda I, Schmid M, Schartl M. Governing sex determination in fish: Regulatory putsches and ephemeral dictators. Sexual Development. 2007;1(2):85–99. 10.1159/000100030 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Miura I. An evolutionary witness: The frog Rana rugosa underwent change of heterogametic sex from XY male to ZW female. Sexual Development. 2007;1(6):323–331. 10.1159/000111764 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Jeffries DL, Lavanchy G, Sermier R, Sredl MJ, Miura I, Borzée A, et al. A rapid rate of sex-chromosome turnover and non-random transitions in true frogs. Nature Communications. 2018;9(1):4088 10.1038/s41467-018-06517-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Saunders PA, Neuenschwander S, Perrin N. Impact of deleterious mutations, sexually antagonistic selection, and mode of recombination suppression on transitions between male and female heterogamety. Heredity. 2019;123(3):419–428. 10.1038/s41437-019-0225-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Vicoso B. Molecular and evolutionary dynamics of animal sex-chromosome turnover. Nature Ecology and Evolution. 2019; p. 1–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Myosho T, Takehana Y, Hamaguchi S, Sakaizumi M. Turnover of sex chromosomes in celebensis group medaka fishes. G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics. 2015;5(12):2685–2691. 10.1534/g3.115.021543 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Tennessen JA, Wei N, Straub SC, Govindarajulu R, Liston A, Ashman TL. Repeated translocation of a gene cassette drives sex-chromosome turnover in strawberries. PLoS Biology. 2018;16(8):e2006062 10.1371/journal.pbio.2006062 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Yano A, Nicol B, Jouanno E, Quillet E, Fostier A, Guyomard R, et al. The sexually dimorphic on the Y-chromosome gene (sdY) is a conserved male-specific Y-chromosome sequence in many salmonids. Evolutionary applications. 2013;6(3):486–496. 10.1111/eva.12032 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Blaser O, Grossen C, Neuenschwander S, Perrin N. Sex-chromosome turnovers induced by deleterious mutation load. Evolution: International Journal of Organic Evolution. 2013;67(3):635–645. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Blaser O, Neuenschwander S, Perrin N. Sex-chromosome turnovers: The hot-potato model. The American Naturalist. 2014;183(1):140–146. 10.1086/674026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Evans BJ, Pyron RA, Wiens JJ. Polyploidization and sex chromosome evolution in amphibians In: Polyploidy and Genome Evolution. Springer; 2012. p. 385–410. [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Pennell MW, Mank JE, Peichel CL. Transitions in sex determination and sex chromosomes across vertebrate species. Molecular Ecology. 2018;27(19):3950–3963. 10.1111/mec.14540 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Cauret CM, Gansauge MT, Tupper AS, Furman BL, Knytl M, Song XY, et al. Developmental systems drift and the drivers of sex chromosome evolution. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2020;37(3):799–810. 10.1093/molbev/msz268 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Green DM, Zeyl CW, Sharbel TF. The evolution of hypervariable sex and supernumerary (B) chromosomes in the relict New Zealand frog, Leiopelma hochstetteri. Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 1993;6(3):417–441. 10.1046/j.1420-9101.1993.6030417.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Roco ÁS, Olmstead AW, Degitz SJ, Amano T, Zimmerman LB, Bullejos M. Coexistence of Y, W, and Z sex chromosomes in Xenopus tropicalis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2015;112(34):E4752–E4761. 10.1073/pnas.1505291112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Olmstead AW, Lindberg-Livingston A, Degitz SJ. Genotyping sex in the amphibian, Xenopus (Silurana) tropicalis, for endocrine disruptor bioassays. Aquatic Toxicology. 2010;98(1):60–66. 10.1016/j.aquatox.2010.01.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Mitros T, Lyons J, Session A, Jenkins J, Shu S, Kwon T, et al. A chromosome-scale genome assembly and dense genetic map for Xenopus tropicalis. Developmental Biology. 2019. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 30. Tymowska J. Polyploidy and cytogenetic variation in frogs of the genus Xenopus. Amphibian cytogenetics and evolution. 1991;259:297. [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Bewick AJ, Chain FJ, Zimmerman LB, Sesay A, Gilchrist MJ, Owens ND, et al. A large pseudoautosomal region on the sex chromosomes of the frog Silurana tropicalis. Genome Biology and Evolution. 2013;5(6):1087–1098. 10.1093/gbe/evt073 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Evans BJ, Gansauge MT, Stanley EL, Furman BL, Cauret CM, Ofori-Boateng C, et al. Xenopus fraseri: Mr. Fraser, where did your frog come from? PloS One. 2019;14(9). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Grainger RM. Xenopus tropicalis as a model organism for genetics and genomics: Past, present, and future In: Xenopus Protocols. Springer; 2012. p. 3–15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Blum M, Ott T. Xenopus: an undervalued model organism to study and model human genetic disease. Cells Tissues Organs. 2018;205(5-6):303–313. 10.1159/000490898 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Showell C, Conlon FL. The Western clawed frog (Xenopus tropicalis): An emerging vertebrate model for developmental genetics and environmental toxicology. Cold Spring Harbor Protocols. 2009;2009(9):pdb–emo131. 10.1101/pdb.emo131 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Yoshimoto S, Okada E, Umemoto H, Tamura K, Uno Y, Nishida-Umehara C, et al. A W-linked DM-domain gene, DM-W, participates in primary ovary development in Xenopus laevis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2008;105(7):2469–2474. 10.1073/pnas.0712244105 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Song XY, Furman BL, Premachandra T, Knytl M, Cauret CMS, Wasonga DV, et al. Sex-biased expression of sex-linked transcripts in African clawed frogs (Xenopus). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B;in press. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 38. Furman BLS, Evans BJ. Sequential turnovers of sex chromosomes in African clawed frogs (Xenopus) suggest some genomic regions are good at sex determination. G3: Genes|Genomes|Genetics. 2016;6(11):3625–3633. 10.1534/g3.116.033423 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Tinsley R, Loumont C, Kobel H. Geographical distribution and ecology In: Tinsley R, Kobel H, editors. The Biology of Xenopus. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1996. p. 35–41. [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Miller CS, Gosling WD. Quaternary forest associations in lowland tropical West Africa. Quaternary Science Reviews. 2014;84:7–25. 10.1016/j.quascirev.2013.10.027 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Demenou BB, Doucet JL, Hardy OJ. History of the fragmentation of the African rain forest in the Dahomey Gap: Insight from the demographic history of Terminalia superba. Heredity. 2018;120(6):547–561. 10.1038/s41437-017-0035-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Düsing K. The regulation of the gender ratio in the multiplication of the people, animals and plants. Fischer; 1884. [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Fisher RA. The genetical theory of natural selection. The Clarendon Press; 1958. [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Hamilton WD. Extraordinary sex ratios. Science. 1967;156(3774):477–488. 10.1126/science.156.3774.477 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. Vuilleumier S, Lande R, Van Alphen J, Seehausen O. Invasion and fixation of sex-reversal genes. Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 2007;20(3):913–920. 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2007.01311.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46. Bateman A, Anholt B. Maintenance of polygenic sex determination in a fluctuating environment: an individual-based model. Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 2017;30(5):915–925. 10.1111/jeb.13054 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47. Bewick AJ, Anderson DW, Evans BJ. Evolution of the closely related, sex-related genes DM-W and DMRT1 in African clawed frogs (Xenopus). Evolution: International Journal of Organic Evolution. 2011;65(3):698–712. 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2010.01163.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48. Hellsten U, Harland RM, Gilchrist MJ, Hendrix D, Jurka J, Kapitonov V, et al. The genome of the Western Clawed Frog Xenopus tropicalis. Science. 2010;328(5978):633–636. 10.1126/science.1183670 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49. Chain FJ. Sex-biased expression of young genes in Silurana (Xenopus) tropicalis. Cytogenetic and Genome Research. 2015;145(3-4):265–277. 10.1159/000430942 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50. Kitano J, Kakioka R, Ishikawa A, Toyoda A, Kusakabe M. Differences in the contributions of sex-linkage and androgen regulation to sex-biased gene expression in juvenile and adult sticklebacks. Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 2020;. 10.1111/jeb.13662 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51. Bull JJ, Charnov EL. Changes in the heterogametic mechanism of sex determination. Heredity. 1977;39(1):1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52. Charlesworth B, Coyne JA, Barton NH. The relative rates of evolution of sex chromosomes and autosomes. The American Naturalist. 1987;130(1):113–146. 10.1086/284701 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 53. Vicoso B, Charlesworth B. Effective population size and the faster-X effect: an extended model. Evolution: International Journal of Organic Evolution. 2009;63(9):2413–2426. 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00719.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54. Malcom JW, Kudra RS, Malone JH. The sex chromosomes of frogs: Variability and tolerance offer clues to genome evolution and function. Journal of Genomics. 2014;2:68 10.7150/jgen.8044 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55. Furman BL, Dang UJ, Evans BJ, Golding GB. Divergent subgenome evolution after allopolyploidization in African clawed frogs (Xenopus). Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 2018;31(12):1945–1958. 10.1111/jeb.13391 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56. Ottolini CS, Newnham LJ, Capalbo A, Natesan SA, Joshi HA, Cimadomo D, et al. Genome-wide maps of recombination and chromosome segregation in human oocytes and embryos show selection for maternal recombination rates. Nature Genetics. 2015;47(7):727 10.1038/ng.3306 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57. Sardell JM, Cheng C, Dagilis AJ, Ishikawa A, Kitano J, Peichel CL, et al. Sex differences in recombination in sticklebacks. G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics. 2018;8(6):1971–1983. 10.1534/g3.118.200166 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58. Brelsford A, Dufresnes C, Perrin N. High-density sex-specific linkage maps of a European tree frog (Hyla arborea) identify the sex chromosome without information on offspring sex. Heredity. 2016;116(2):177 10.1038/hdy.2015.83 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59. Berset-Brändli L, Jaquiéry J, Broquet T, Ulrich Y, Perrin N. Extreme heterochiasmy and nascent sex chromosomes in European tree frogs. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2008;275(1642):1577–1585. 10.1098/rspb.2008.0298 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60. Theodosiou L, McMillan W, Puebla O. Recombination in the eggs and sperm in a simultaneously hermaphroditic vertebrate. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2016;283(1844):20161821 10.1098/rspb.2016.1821 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61. Sutherland BJ, Rico C, Audet C, Bernatchez L. Sex chromosome evolution, heterochiasmy, and physiological QTL in the salmonid brook charr Salvelinus fontinalis. G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics. 2017;7(8):2749–2762. 10.1534/g3.117.040915 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62. Sardell JM, Kirkpatrick M. Sex differences in the recombination landscape. The American Naturalist. 2020;195(2):361–379. 10.1086/704943 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63. Brandvain Y, Coop G. Scrambling eggs: meiotic drive and the evolution of female recombination rates. Genetics. 2012;190(2):709–723. 10.1534/genetics.111.136721 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64. Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D. The degeneration of Y chromosomes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences. 2000;355(1403):1563–1572. 10.1098/rstb.2000.0717 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65. Baird NA, Etter PD, Atwood TS, Currey MC, Shiver AL, Lewis ZA, et al. Rapid SNP discovery and genetic mapping using sequenced RAD markers. PLoS One. 2008;3(10):e3376 10.1371/journal.pone.0003376 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66. Rungger D. Xenopus helveticus, an endangered species? International Journal of Developmental Biology. 2002;46(1):49–63. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67. Baxter SW, Davey JW, Johnston JS, Shelton AM, Heckel DG, Jiggins CD, et al. Linkage mapping and comparative genomics using next-generation RAD sequencing of a non-model organism. PloS One. 2011;6(4):e19315 10.1371/journal.pone.0019315 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68. Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B. Trimmomatic: A flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics. 2014; p. btu170. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu170 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69. Li H, Durbin R. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows–Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics. 2009;25(14):1754–1760. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp324 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70. Li H, Handsaker B, Wysoker A, Fennell T, Ruan J, Homer N, et al. The sequence alignment/map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics. 2009;25(16):2078–2079. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp352 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71. Li H. A statistical framework for SNP calling, mutation discovery, association mapping and population genetical parameter estimation from sequencing data. Bioinformatics. 2011;27(21):2987–2993. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr509 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72. Andrews KR, Good JM, Miller MR, Luikart G, Hohenlohe PA. Harnessing the power of RADseq for ecological and evolutionary genomics. Nature Reviews Genetics. 2016;17(2):81 10.1038/nrg.2015.28 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73. Glaubitz JC, Casstevens TM, Lu F, Harriman J, Elshire RJ, Sun Q, et al. TASSEL-GBS: A high capacity genotyping by sequencing analysis pipeline. PloS One. 2014;9(2):e90346 10.1371/journal.pone.0090346 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74. Goudet J, Raymond M, de Meeüs T, Rousset F. Testing differentiation in diploid populations. Genetics. 1996;144(4):1933–1940. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75. Skotte L, Korneliussen TS, Albrechtsen A. Estimating individual admixture proportions from next generation sequencing data. Genetics. 2013;195(3):693–702. 10.1534/genetics.113.154138 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76. Jakobsson M, Rosenberg NA. CLUMPP: A cluster matching and permutation program for dealing with label switching and multimodality in analysis of population structure. Bioinformatics. 2007;23(14):1801–1806. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btm233 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77. Bhatia G, Patterson N, Sankararaman S, Price AL. Estimating and interpreting FST: The impact of rare variants. Genome Research. 2013;23(9):1514–1521. 10.1101/gr.154831.113 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78. Nieuwkoop PD. Normal table of Xenopus laevis (Daudin). Normal table of Xenopus laevis (Daudin). 1956; p. 162–203. [Google Scholar]
  • 79. Bray NL, Pimentel Haroldand Melsted P, Pachter L. Near-optimal probabilistic RNA-seq quantification. Nature Biotechnology. 2016;34(5):525–527. 10.1038/nbt.3519 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80. Robinson MD, McCarthy DJ, Smyth GK. edgeR: A Bioconductor package for differential expression analysis of digital gene expression data. Bioinformatics. 2010;26(1):139–140. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp616 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81. Love MI, Huber W, Anders S. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biology. 2014;15(12):550 10.1186/s13059-014-0550-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82. Zhu A, Ibrahim JG, Love MI. Heavy-tailed prior distributions for sequence count data: removing the noise and preserving large differences. Bioinformatics. 2019;35(12):2084–2092. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty895 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83. Wu TD, Watanabe CK. GMAP: A genomic mapping and alignment program for mRNA and EST sequences. Bioinformatics. 2005;21(9):1859–1875. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bti310 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84. Wagner GP, Kin K, Lynch VJ. Measurement of mRNA abundance using RNA-seq data: RPKM measure is inconsistent among samples. Theory in biosciences. 2012;131(4):281–285. 10.1007/s12064-012-0162-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Signorell A, et al. DescTools: Tools for Descriptive Statistics; 2020. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/package=DescTools.
  • 86. Margarido GRA, de Souza AP, Garcia AAF. OneMap: Software for genetic mapping in outcrossing species. Hereditas. 2007;144:78–79. 10.1111/j.2007.0018-0661.02000.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; 2016. Available from: https://www.R-project.org/. [Google Scholar]
  • 88. Karimi K, Fortriede JD, Lotay VS, Burns KA, Wang DZ, Fisher ME, et al. Xenbase: a genomic, epigenomic and transcriptomic model organism database. Nucleic Acids Research. 2018;46(D1):D861–D868. 10.1093/nar/gkx936 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Catherine L Peichel, Kirsten Bomblies

7 Jun 2020

Dear Dr Evans,

Thank you very much for submitting your Research Article entitled 'High intensity sex chromosome evolution sexualized the transcriptome of a frog (Xenopus tropicalis)' to PLOS Genetics. Your manuscript was fully evaluated at the editorial level and by independent peer reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important problem, but raised some substantial concerns about the current manuscript. Based on the reviews, we will not be able to accept this version of the manuscript, but we would be willing to review again a much-revised version. We cannot, of course, promise publication at that time.

Should you decide to revise the manuscript for further consideration here, your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer. We will also require a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript.

If you decide to revise the manuscript for further consideration at PLOS Genetics, please aim to resubmit within the next 60 days, unless it will take extra time to address the concerns of the reviewers, in which case we would appreciate an expected resubmission date by email to plosgenetics@plos.org.

If present, accompanying reviewer attachments are included with this email; please notify the journal office if any appear to be missing. They will also be available for download from the link below. You can use this link to log into the system when you are ready to submit a revised version, having first consulted our Submission Checklist.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see our guidelines.

Please be aware that our data availability policy requires that all numerical data underlying graphs or summary statistics are included with the submission, and you will need to provide this upon resubmission if not already present. In addition, we do not permit the inclusion of phrases such as "data not shown" or "unpublished results" in manuscripts. All points should be backed up by data provided with the submission.

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool.  PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. 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 us at figures@plos.org.

PLOS has incorporated Similarity Check, powered by iThenticate, into its journal-wide submission system in order to screen submitted content for originality before publication. Each PLOS journal undertakes screening on a proportion of submitted articles. You will be contacted if needed following the screening process.

To resubmit, use the link below and 'Revise Submission' in the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder.

[LINK]

We are sorry that we cannot be more positive about your manuscript at this stage. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any concerns or questions.

Yours sincerely,

Catherine L. Peichel

Guest Editor

PLOS Genetics

Kirsten Bomblies

Section Editor: Evolution

PLOS Genetics

Comments from Guest Editor:

Your manuscript has been carefully reviewed by two experts in the field, as well as by me. We all agree that these polymorphic X. tropicalis sex chromosomes present a fascinating system for the study of sex chromosome evolution and that there are some really interesting results in this paper. Nonetheless, the paper needs substantial rewriting to clarify points of confusion about the data and to tone down some of the claims about what can be inferred from these data. Furthermore, some additional analyses (detailed below in my comments and those of the reviewers) would also greatly improve the clarity and impact of the manuscript.

1. Title: “High intensity sex chromosome evolution sexualized the transcriptome of a frog (Xenopus tropicalis)”

The title needs to be changed to better reflect the findings of the paper. I agree with Reviewer 2 that it is unclear what is meant by “high intensity sex chromosome evolution”. And, there is no evidence that the transcriptome of this frog has been sexualized. Indeed, there are transcripts linked to the sex determination locus that show differences in expression between males and females, but these are a very small proportion (~0.05%) of the transcriptome. Furthermore, we do not know if these genes showed sex-biased expression before the evolution of these sex chromosomes or whether populations with and without the Y chromosome discovered here differ in the extent of sex-biased expression of these transcripts. Without these data, it is impossible to assign causality.

2. L26-28: “These observations argue for a strong role for natural selection in sexualizing the transcriptome, with mutations in the sex-linked genomic region with sex-specific fitness effects being frequently and efficiently favored”.

Again, this is an overstatement of the findings. See comment 1 about the sexualization of the transcriptome. And, the transcripts that were identified in this study as sex-biased during gonadal differentiation have not been linked to sex-specific fitness effects.

3. L39-41: “Using modern genomic approaches, we discovered rapid and intense natural selection in a small sliver of the genome that sexualized the transcriptome during gonadal differentiation.”

There are no tests for selection presented in this manuscript. Divergence between sex chromosomes can also result from neutral processes, and disentangling the roles of neutral and selective processes on sex chromosomes requires careful analyses.

4. L41-43: “Our results point to the possibility that three genetic variants at a single gene define the different sex chromosomes of this frog”

This is certainly a very interesting possibility, but the data presented in this paper are far from conclusive and much more work would be required before this could be determined. I think it is perfectly fine to speculate on this possibility in the Discussion but would leave such far- reaching conclusions out of the Abstract and Author Summary and instead highlight the results that you have actually found.

5. L43-44: “These findings match theoretical preductions that many mutations have sex-specific effects on fitness”

Again, no sex-specific effects on fitness have been shown here. And it is possible that sex-specific expression of genes linked to the sex-determination locus could be due to other processes, including the possibility of different artefacts raised by the reviewers.

6. L59-61: “the extent of recombination suppression and the degree of sex chromosome divergence …are not necessarily positively correlated”

Certainly age and extent of recombination suppression/degree of sex chromosome divergence are not necessarily positively correlated, but I am unaware of any studies that show either a high degree of sex chromosome divergence in the absence of recombination suppression, or a low degree of sex chromosome divergence in the presence of recombination suppression. Of course, I am aware of the work in frogs in which sex chromosomes are not highly diverged, depsite suppression of recombination in males. But, rare recombination has been detected between these sex chromosomes, which is enough to account for the low levels of divergence. But, perhaps I have misunderstood the point or missed some key references. I tried to look at the review cited by the authors for this point, but could not find a clear statement in that review like the one in this manuscript.

7. L67-68: “wherein the function (i.e. whether female or male determining)”

This is confusing as stated here, because changes in heterogamety are discussed later in the paragraph, and because transitions can involve male-determining to male-determining factors (or female-determining to female-determining). I think here it might be more clear to say “wherein the identity or the genomic location of the sex determining locus changes”.

8. L76: perhaps also cite papers in salmonids for translocation of an existing sex determination gene; e.g. Yano et al. (2013) Evolutionary Applications 6: 486-496.

9. L131-133: I wasn’t sure why the YY individuals were mentioned here until reading further. I agree with Reviewer 1 that it might be nice to make a figure with the possible crosses and sexes of the different chromosome combinations. I drew one for myself!

10. L129-143: Within this paragraph alone, the different sex chromosome genotypes are referred to as ZW or WZ, YZ or ZY, and YW and WY! It is already challenging for the reader to follow these different combinations; please use one order for each genotype combination and then apply it consistently throughout the paper.

11. L144: Like Reviewer 2, I also stumbled over the point that three crosses are introduced earlier but only two are mentioned here. Perhaps in the very helpful overall introduction to the data (lines 120-127), this could be clarified.

12. L161-162: the statement: “and that at least one (and possibly both) of the parents did not carry a Z chromosome” needs more explanation. I am guessing that it is because the numbers are too small in the crosses to be confident that the sex ratios are really 1:1?

13. L174-197: I find this section confusing as well as troubling that the region of sex-linked markers differ between the two families. I appreciate that you did extensive Sanger sequencing to try and identify additional, shared markers that were sex-linked across the populations and in the two crosses. This was a lot of work and did not yield very conclusive results. It is not necessary to do so for this paper, but one option that has worked very well for my lab is to determine whether any of the SNPs identified in your RAD-seq data are in restriction sites. You can then design PCR primers flanking these SNPs and simply do a restriction digest of the PCR product and run the products on an agarose gel to diagnose whether an individual is homozygous for the presence of the allele that creates a cut site, heterozygous, or homozygous for the allele that does not contain the restriction site. Alternatively, you could scan the genomic sequence from this region for microsatellites, and design primers flanking those microsatellites, to see if any show patterns of sex-linkage. This approach has also worked well in my lab for identifying recombination boundaries on sex chromosomes.

For the paper, I think it could be more clearly explained that the Ghana East family shows that there is no recombination with SNPs between 2.6 and 6.5 Mb and sex phenotype: the next marker is somewhere after 10Mb, suggesting that the male-determining factor is within the first 10Mb of the chromosome; you just don’t have any markers to say where the boundary is. The marker most strongly associated in the Ghana West family suggests that the male determination factor is between 8.1 and 13.79, with the peak at 9.149. So, these intervals do overlap, but the data are shaky. One idea would be to look for sex-linked SNPs in the RNA-seq data of the third cross, which also was derived from the same Ghana East father as the mapping cross and see if additional resolution of the sex-linked region can be found. This would hopefully increase confidence that the sex-determination locus is indeed the same in these two populations/crosses.

14. L109-110: I agree with the Reviewers that these tests would likely be much more powerful if split between the different populations!

15. L208-220: This paragraph is very confusing. I think it would be much clearer for the reader if you first explain that there are differences in the order of the assembly v9 and v10 in this region of the genome, and that you are trying to compare the locations of markers identified as sex-linked in a ZW system with those identified here.

16. L237: “although we did not assess sex-linkage in this cross”. You certainly could do this with the RNA-seq data, using a method like SEX-Detector (Muyle et al. (2016) Genome Biology and Evolution 8: 2530-2543), which would provide additional markers and increase confidence in the concordance of the position of the sex determination locus in the two different populations from Ghana.

17. L241-244: This sentence is not particularly clear. Also you found 151 of 259,197 mapped transcripts were sex-biased (~0.05% of transcripts). The clustering of these transcripts is definitely interesting, but I do not see that this is the “sexualized transriptome” referred to in the title and abstract.

18. L248-249: “suggestive of stronger sexual selection in males”. This is an overstatement. Is a difference of 62 male-biased vs 43 female-biased transcripts of 259,197 total transcipts significant? And, what does expression during gonadal development have to do with sexual selection?

19. L267-286: I find it over-reaching to immediately jump to the sexual antagonism explanation for this result. First, you need to consider the possibility that there are artefacts that could explain this result. The possibility of mapping errors due to using a female genome without the Y chromosome absolutely needs to be considered (suggested by Reviewer 1) as does the possibility that the ancestral W is degenerated in this region and therefore the reduced expression in females simply results from missing sequence from the W chromosome (suggested by Reviewer 2). It is not clear whether the genome assembly was generated from a ZW or WW female; if a ZW female, it is possible that the assembly represents mostly the Z chromosome if the W has experienced degeneration. You might be able to assess this by examining your RAD-seq data: if all of the males in your crosses carry a degenerate W chromosome, then you would find reduced number of reads (relative to the genome-wide average) in your RAD-seq data in the sex-linked regions.

If the results are not due to an artefact, then why would metabolic genes like mannose-6-phosphate receptor (accounting for 3 of the sex-biased transcripts) or gapdh (accounting for 8 of the sex-biased transcripts) be under sexually antagonistic selection during gonadal development? Furthermore, I don't really understand the argument about why it is useful to compare the expression level of the sex-biased genes to the expression level of non sex-linked, non sex-biased genes? This argument needs to be clarified.

20. L307-309: It would be really interesting to present more detailed data on the male and female meiotic events in these two families in this region of chromosome 7. A supplementary table or figure would be fine. Is there any evidence for suppression of recombination in male meiosis in this region of the genome?

21. L346-348: If your hypothesis is correct that there are three different variants at the sex determination locus, then you would expect it to be present on all the sex chromosomes. In this case, it would be interesting to know whether any of the genes that are more highly expressed in developing male gonads are interesting candidate genes for the sex-determination locus? With the RNA-seq data, you should be able to look for sex-specific/sex-linked SNPs in these genes that might lead you to a good candidate gene!

22. L401-402: “pronounced nucleotide divergence”. I am not sure that an Fst of 0.05 counts as “pronounced”.

23. L465-467: Why is this surprising? If sexually antagonistic selection is driving these patterns, as you claim, the pseudoautosomal region is predicted to be an excellent place for sexually antagonistic mutations (See Otto et al. (2011) Trends in Genetics 27: 358-367; Jordan and Charlesworth (2012) Evolution 66: 505-512; Charlesworth et al. (2014) Evolution 68: 1339-1350).

24. L468-483: Here you should probably cite a recent review from Sardell and Kirkpatrick (2020) American Naturalist 195: 361-379, which provides a comprehensive overview of the generality of these sex-specific recombination patterns and possible explanations. Another nice and interesting review is Brandvain and Coop (2012) Genetics 190: 709-723.

25. L514-515 “It is fascinating that these pronounced sex-specific fitness differences can emerge so early in development – at or before the earliest steps in primary gonadal differentiation.”

Again, please be clear about what you have shown, which is sex-biased gene expression, not sex-specific fitness differences.

I know this is a lot of comments. I hope these suggestions are useful for you; they are certainly intended to be constructive and help you improve your manuscript!

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Authors:

Please note here if the review is uploaded as an attachment.

Reviewer #1: I found this manuscript very hard to follow, and below I comment on some text that is too detailed to be understandable, or too long-winded. Line 116 states the main goals as studying X. tropicalis to

(i) test for male or female heterogamy in natural populations

(ii) narrow down the sex-linked region

(iii) study sex-biased expression [and nucleotide differentiation, which probably belongs under point ii]

(iv) characterize patterns of recombination in both sexes of wild-caught individuals of this species

The study seems to have detected a region that appears to suggest male heterogamety, whereas some previous work suggested female heterogamety. It does identify a sex-linked region, though it was not clear enough whether this is the same region in both these systems (the abstract suggests this, but the reasoning is not clearly explained). I have some reservations about the conclusions under aims (iii) and (iv).

It is no longer surprising or astonishing (lines 18 and 60) that genetic sex-determining systems differ (it’s not clear what ‘extensively’ means) among – and even within – species. This has been known for many decades, with many well-studied examples, and line 90 cites three other cases in frogs, — the question is whether the frog system studied can add new understanding. Line 83 says, correctly, that ‘Understanding the drivers of [or, better, the selective forces causing] sex chromosome turnovers is challenging (reviewed in [18]), but catching them in the act – during evolutionary windows where multiple sex determination systems co-exist in one species – may help us understand why and how they occur’. Yes, studies should be done, but please tell us here precisely what the questions are.

It is also confusing to write ‘three sex chromosomes’. Even the term’ sex chromosomes’ (and Y chromosome) may be misleading in the system studied, as these are sex-determining genes with none of the distinctive characteristics of sex chromosomes. If these terms are used, it needs to be explained that they are used purely for brevity, but that the situation is very different from that of more familiar sex chromosomes whose Y chromosomes include non-recombining regions.

The most interesting finding, which IS novel, is that a small ‘sex-associated’ part of the sex chromosome pair in this frog can be detected by higher sequence ‘differentiation’, but is not completely sex-linked, yet the region has a 50-fold enrichment of transcripts with male-biased expression during early gonadal differentiation, compared to the rest of the genome. The information about sex-differences in the rates and genomic locations of recombination is also valuable.

DETAILED COMMENTS

In line 198, the heading has a typo, and should read ‘The X. tropicalis Sex Chromosome Has a Small Region of Differentiation Between the Sexes’. Fst between the sexes can identify the sex-linked region much more precisely than genetic mapping in families (with limited progeny numbers, see comment below), and can also tell one which sex is heterogametic for the region. The ms states that all of the females have a W-chromosome, but does not explain how this is known, and whether it is consistent with the genetic results from Ghana frogs. [‘differences in nucleotide polymorphism …. Is’ should be corrected to be in the plural, though the sentence can be omitted entirely, and indeed most of the paragraph]. Something called v10 is mentioned, but not explained.

The paragraph starting in line 208 tells us that a peak in Fst occurs at the genome assembly location where a W factor was previously inferred. This text could be made shorter and clearer by simply referring to Figure 2 (and S2), together with mentioning which population it refers to, and the paper(s) with the previous genetic result. I was left unclear whether populations with male and female heterogamety all have an Fst peak in the same region, as Figure 2 seems to combine several population samples. It is also not clear what genome-wide Fst values are seen between the sexes in the sampled individuals. To understand the gene expression results, readers need to understand the extent of the region that has high Fst between the Y and X, or W and Z, depending on which system is being analysed. Figure 3 appears to show that at least 20 genes within a few Mb have high M/F ratios. It would be helpful to tell us the actual size of the region, and the raw fold difference represented by the y axis, so that we can know if these are all large differences (rather than just the log values, where differences are harder to see). It should be made clear whether this is a ‘normal’ gene density for this genome (or for a chromosome end), or out of line in either direction, and whether the GC content could be affecting the expression results (I do not know if this is a potential problem, but it is known to affect DNA sequence coverage estimates).

The gene expression results should also be evaluated carefully, and any other caveats should be discussed. A recent study found that sex differences were due to ‘reference bias’ in a species where the reference genome was a female in an XY species, and new work (by the same lab) that used reference genomes from the males used to estimate expression did not detect the expression differences that had been claimed previously (ZHOU AND BACHTROG 2012; WEI AND BACHTROG 2019). This possibility should be excluded in future work, including this study (where, of course, it may not be a concern, but, if so, readers should have it explained why not). I therefore did not review the section about expression in detail. If this concern is not justified, it should be explained why it can be excluded. In addition, the use of the gonad/mesonephros complex during an early stage of sexual differentiation should be justified. Clearly, such tissue is relevant to finding the sex-determining gene(s) but it is not clear to what extent other genes expressed only in gonad tissue will be included.

There seems to be no heading for the section about recombination (line 296 onwards), and the text does not actually describe mapping results, or the marker numbers, or really explain the reasoning for any conclusion. I was not sure whether linkage groups were based on enough markers to be confident that markers near the ends were included. The text says ‘There was a strong relationship between map length and chromosomal coverage in females map’ [meaning the female map of an unspecified family], but here ‘coverage’ seems to mean something that is not defined, and Fig. 4, which is stated to show the result, doesn’t use it. I think that the authors are trying to explain that total genetic map lengths in females increased with the chromosomes’ lengths [measured in an unspecified way, maybe the assembly lengths?], but in males were unrelated to these lengths, which suggests that crossover events in males are concentrated in limited regions. However, it is unclear whether the genetic and physical — assembly — maps are good enough to make this convincing.

Given these caveats, and the need for extensive shortenings and clarifications, I did not review the Discussion section.

MINOR COMMENTS [Please note that the line numbers are exceedingly small, and sometimes I may not have the correct one, as I could not always read them. The text is also small and very difficult to read on a laptop]

A general comment is that the text is long-winded and could be shorter and clearer. For example ‘A remarkably high number of changes amphibian sex chromosome systems is evidenced by variation among species in whether males or females are the heterogametic sex’. Means simply ‘In amphibia, many cases of changes between male and female heterogamety have been inferred [or discovered]’. Line 100 onwards could also be shortened and made clearer. The important point is that the ancestral sex determining system of subgenus Silurana, which includes X. tropicalis, was inferred to have female heterogamy, implying that the X. tropicalis Y is derived either from the W-chromosome or the sex chromosome that is shared with other species, which is referred to as the Z-chromosome [28].

Line 51: expropriated does not seem the right word

Line 61: It is confusing to say that differences in recombination suppression do not correlate with the

degree of sex chromosome divergence, as divergence will largely occur only once recombination is suppressed. It is also not clear enough to say that ‘dosage imbalances’ are a problem, as the main problem when Y or W chromosomes lose genes is that the amount of gene product in the affected sex may be lower than optimal, which is not what readers will understand from this phrase (they will think of the cases where balance is needed between the expression of two or more genes in a multi-protein complex, which may contribute to the evolution of sex chromosome dosage compensation, but are very rare). These problems can be corrected by shortening the Introduction to focus on the points relevant to this study, including the very long-winded description of turnover events, which can be briefly outlined, with a reference to a recent review.

Line 81: Is heterogamy the correct word?

Line 92: ‘segregating male9linked and female-linked variation’ is not correct terminology. It should be something like ‘variants that segregate in families as Y- or W-linked’, and ‘no cytological divergence among sex chromosomes of this or any other Xenopus species has been detected’, means ‘no Xenopus species with genetic sex-determination has heteromorphic sex chromosomes’.

Line 130: ‘dominant for female differentiation over the Z-‘ is not well expressed. Maybe change to something like ‘Relative to the Z, defined above, the factor carried by the ‘W’ dominantly determines femaleness and the ‘Y” factor is male-determining’. The following text is hard to understand and can be cleaned up and shortened (it repeats things unnecessarily). Maybe a Supplementary figure can show the expected progeny ratios of the crosses, and be referred to to state the conclusion clearly and briefly, for example, as follows (some comments are in []) ‘Two small families generated from individuals from the western and eastern edges of Ghana, provided unambiguous evidence for male heterogamety. The sex ratio was close to 1:1 in both crosses (22 females and 21 males or Ghana west, and seven females and five males for Ghana east). Several paternal SNPs at the distal end of chromosome 7 were associated with sex, and several SNPs were completely Y-linked in each family (though the sex-linked SNPs differed in the two families), but no heterozygous SNPs in the maternal frogs were identified as sex linked in either family (Fig. 1). Thus, at least one (and possibly both) of the parents in both crosses did not carry a Z-chromosome [here, I was not sure why this is inferred — should it be W chromosome?]. After FDR correction, five SNPs in the Ghana west sire were significantly associated with offspring sex [I am not sure why genome-wide ‘heterozygosity’, which is not defined, is mentioned here, as the significance test is surely all that is needed], and three in the Ghana east family. [It is important to understand that complete sex linkage in such small families does not mean that no recombination occurs in the region studied — to detect complete sex-linkage, one needs to use an adequate natural population sample.] Some non-sex-linked SNPs in the Ghana west family also varied in the Ghana east family, and were sex linked, and vice-versa, probably reflecting the small family sizes, such that recombination events may not occur in a given family; overall, the results identify a sex-linked region, and not a non-recombining region.

In small samples of wild caught individuals, Sanger sequencing identified at least one fully sex-linked SNP in the Ghana east Ghana east population, but it was not fully sex-linked in the Ghana west one, or in either family (Table 1). [Again, the text can be greatly shortened and much more clearly written].

References

Wei, K. H.-C., and D. Bachtrog, 2019 Ancestral male recombination in Drosophila albomicans produced geographically restricted neo-Y chromosome haplotypes varying in age and onset of decay. PLoS Genetics 15: e1008502. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1008502

Zhou, Q., and D. Bachtrog, 2012 Chromosome-wide gene silencing initiates Y degeneration in Drosophila. Current Biology 22: 522–525. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2012.01.057

Reviewer #2: X. tropicalis is a great system for studying sex chromosome turnover, as it has polymorphic ZW and "WY" sex-determining systems (derived from an ancestral ZW). In this manuscript, Furman et al use a combination of genetic and sequencing approaches to characterize the sex-linked regions of ZW and YW individuals. I really enjoyed the manuscript, but I struggled to interpret some of the data, to a large extent because not much information is provided/available on the ancestral pair of sex chromosomes. Specifically:

- An important part of the puzzle is how differentiated the ancestral ZW pair is, and whether the Y chromosome is derived from the Z or the W. I think this could really change the interpretation of the differentiation and gene expression patterns. For instance, if the W-specific region has reduced expression due to degeneration, and the Y is derived from the non-degenerated Z, then WW females may have lower expression than WY(Z) males. The fact that a similar excess of male-biased genes was found in ZW X. tropicalis (ref. #52) is consistent with this scenario.

- More information is in places needed to make sense of the results. For instance, it would be very helpful to state early on what is known about the sex chromosomes of the lab strains used here, and if at all inferred, those of the Sierra Leone and Nigeria individuals. If this is not known, then it should be explicitly mentioned as an important caveat.

- FST analysis: I found it confusing that all genotypes were combined; which sex chromosome is differentiated, if we don't know the genotypes of the individuals used for the Fst analysis? Would it be possible to plot separately the differentiation between:

females(ZW) and males (ZZ)

females (WW) and males (WY)?

Or at the very least to plot this for only the WW/WY individuals?

- Sanger sequencing: I apologize if I missed it, but I could not find how these loci were chosen for sequencing. Are they just all the loci that had a sex-linked SNP in the crosses? A few sentences in the methods and results would be very helpful even if the details are in a supplementary file.

- P5L120: "generated three families" -- I could not find information about the third family. Is this a typo? If not, how many individuals were sequenced? Did you find evidence of a ZW system there?

- P7L184: "we were able to identify at least one 100% sex-linked SNP in the Ghana east laboratory cross and the Ghana east wild population" -- This makes it sound as if the same SNP was fully sex-linked in the crosses and in the wild population, which does not seem to be the case if I understand Table 1 (i.e. no locus is classified as "Y" in both columns).

It also seems that only a single female was sanger-sequenced for the wild Ghana east population (and only 1 to 3 males for these "Y" loci), so it seems a bit optimistic to say that you found a 100% sex-linked SNP in this population?

- I found the title confusing. What is high intensity evolution, and what evidence of it do you find? What would low intensity evolution of a sex chromosome look like?

Other:

P5L114: I think quite a bit is known about when sex chromosomes become differentiated, and maybe a couple of citations would make sense here.

P5L131: "YY individuals can only be generated if" --> from the rest of the sentence it sounds like they can in fact not be generated? I was a bit confused by this.

Comparing the expression of the sex-biased genes to the average expression in the sample does not seem very reliable. A better approach would be to use X. laevis gene expression as a proxy for ancestral expression to check if there has been up- or down-regulation (e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Traces/study/?acc=SRP167133 ). But this is merely a suggestion as it is not necessarily within the scope of the present manuscript.

Similarly, it seems a shame not to have taken advantage of the SNP information in the RNA-seq data, especially given that the RAD-seq data seems to have somewhat low/inconsistent coverage.

**********

Have all data underlying the figures and results presented in the manuscript been provided?

Large-scale datasets should be made available via a public repository as described in the PLOS Genetics data availability policy, and numerical data that underlies graphs or summary statistics should be provided in spreadsheet form as supporting information.

Reviewer #1: None

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Decision Letter 1

Catherine L Peichel, Kirsten Bomblies

8 Aug 2020

Dear Dr Evans,

Thank you very much for submitting your Research Article entitled 'A frog with three sex chromosomes that co-mingle together in nature: Xenopus tropicalis has a degenerate W- and a Y- that evolved from a Z-' to PLOS Genetics. Your manuscript was fully evaluated at the editorial level and by independent peer reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important problem, but raised some substantial concerns about the current manuscript. Based on the reviews, we will not be able to accept this version of the manuscript, but we would be willing to review again a much-revised version. We cannot, of course, promise publication at that time.

Should you decide to revise the manuscript for further consideration here, your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer. We will also require a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript.

If you decide to revise the manuscript for further consideration at PLOS Genetics, please aim to resubmit within the next 60 days, unless it will take extra time to address the concerns of the reviewers, in which case we would appreciate an expected resubmission date by email to plosgenetics@plos.org.

If present, accompanying reviewer attachments are included with this email; please notify the journal office if any appear to be missing. They will also be available for download from the link below. You can use this link to log into the system when you are ready to submit a revised version, having first consulted our Submission Checklist.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see our guidelines.

Please be aware that our data availability policy requires that all numerical data underlying graphs or summary statistics are included with the submission, and you will need to provide this upon resubmission if not already present. In addition, we do not permit the inclusion of phrases such as "data not shown" or "unpublished results" in manuscripts. All points should be backed up by data provided with the submission.

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool.  PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. 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 us at figures@plos.org.

PLOS has incorporated Similarity Check, powered by iThenticate, into its journal-wide submission system in order to screen submitted content for originality before publication. Each PLOS journal undertakes screening on a proportion of submitted articles. You will be contacted if needed following the screening process.

To resubmit, use the link below and 'Revise Submission' in the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder.

[LINK]

We are sorry that we cannot be more positive about your manuscript at this stage. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any concerns or questions.

Yours sincerely,

Catherine L. Peichel

Guest Editor

PLOS Genetics

Kirsten Bomblies

Section Editor: Evolution

PLOS Genetics

Comments from the Guest Editor

Both reviewers and I agree that the manuscript is improved with the new analyses. The results are quite interesting in that there is evidence that a new Y chromosome has evolved from an ancestral Z chromosome. Of course, confirming this hypothesis will take a much more detailed molecular analyses than that presented here, but this study lays the groundwork for these longer-term analyses. The main challenge is that the current manuscript is a difficult read that makes the reader work extremely hard to understand what has been found and the significance of the findings. It feels like the results have not yet been fully digested by the authors of the paper and that they can no longer “see the forest for the trees”. Reviewer 2 points out that the manuscript is still written in a historical manner and suggests some re-organisation that might help. I agree with this suggestion, as I detail below. My extensive (although not comprehensive) comments are aimed at helping the authors present their results more clearly and concisely. In addition, and as noted by Reviewer 1, I also found many small typos and grammatical errors throughout the manuscript. Not all have been indicated, and it would probably be useful for someone not associated with the study to give this manuscript a very careful read before it is resubmitted.

I am happy to re-consider another version of this manuscript, if the authors are willing to significantly revise in order to make it clearer and more accessible.

Overall organisation

1. I agree with Reviewer 2 that it would help the reader a lot to present some of the results of the analyses of the RNA-seq data of Family 3 in the first part of the paper. Although there is no RNA-seq data from the parents of this cross, the analyses of nucleotide diversity in these data is extremely illuminating for inferring the sex chromosome status of the parents of both Families 2 and 3. As such, this should be presented sooner. Essentially, I would move the text from L311-344 to the first section of the Results, after presenting the mapping results for Families 1 and 2. The results in L345-374 seem a little tangential could be shortened and/or moved to the Supplement (see more detailed comments below).

An even more radical rewrite might involve presenting the nucleotide diversity analyses from the RNA-seq analyses of Family 3 first, and then present the mapping results of Families 1 and 2. This could helpful because it would provide the probable sex chromosome status of the parents, at least of Family 2. But it is hard to know which is better without trying.

Still even more radical would be to reorder the entire results section. I would start with the population structure analyses. This would provide the reader with a better context for the populations studied here. Then, the Fst analyses could come next, as it identifies a possible sex-linked region in this broader set of populations and shows that it is the same genomic region as the previously identified W-chromosome. Then, I would follow this with the more detailed “linkage” analyses of families 1-3 in which the various sex chromosomes are identified. Then, this could be followed by the RNA-seq expression analyses, which would now be much easier to understand because we know the sex chromosome genotypes of the parents of this cross. Finally, investigation of genome-wide recombination rates could come at the end.

I leave it to the authors to determine the optimal organisation of the manuscript, but at least some changes to the organisation and clarity need to be made, as the current order made things unclear for me and for the other two reviewers.

2. The presentation of the mapping results for Families 1 and 2 is still extremely confusing and hard to follow. Here is my interpretation of the data with a suggestion for a concise summary:

Five sex-linked RRGS markers were found in the region between 8.1Mb and 13.58Mb on chromosome 7 in Family 1, while in Family 2, three sex-linked RRGS markers were found in the region between 2.7Mb and 6.54Mb on chromosome 7. However, there were no informative RRGS markers between 6.54Mb and 11Mb in Family 2, so it was not possible to assess whether RGGS markers in this region were also sex-linked. Genotyping of additional markers in Family 2 by Sanger sequencing found three sex-linked markers located between 8.1Mb and 10.26Mb, suggesting that this region is sex-linked in both Families 1 and 2. [I know it is not perfect sex-linkage, which might require a little more explanation, but not much – just that recombination occurs outside the sex-determination region!].

By contrast, informative RRGS markers between 0 and 8.1Mb were present in Family 1, but were not sex-linked in this family. [then here you can use the discussion of reasons why found in L180-190, although this could be more clearly written]. Here you could also integrate the Sanger data for this family into the discussion…

Having a separate discussion of the Sanger data is just confusing and long-winded. As suggested above, I think it would be better to integrate the Sanger and RRGS data for each family/population, with perhaps the brief paragraph on the analyses of the Sanger data in the Nigeria strain (L212-219) at the end of this section. The table with the Sanger data could probably be Supplemental.

Detailed comments:

1. L78: this sentence about the identity of master sex determining genes is not really connected to the rest of the paragraph. It could easily be deleted. If it remains, it needs to be clarified how it is related to the other information in this paragraph.

2. L82-85: this is an example of a long sentence with several spelling and grammatical errors, which could be shortened, perhaps to “Specifically, these transition periods may offer insights into whether and how characteristics of ancestral sex chromosomes (e.g. nucleotide divergence, sex-biased expression, degeneration [not degeneracy]) affect the evolution of the sex chromosome systems that follow.”

3. L141: “which can be combined in six ways for reproduction” is not correct, you are showing the possible offspring genotypes. Just say “and six possible offspring genotype combinations”. [This new Figure 1 is super helpful!!!].

4. L155: “We intentionally sampled” makes it seem like a subset of the offspring were sampled for genotyping, but you are claiming that there are equal sex ratios in this cross. Whether you genotyped all offspring in the cross, or a subset should be clarified. If a subset, you should give the total numbers so a reader can see whether there was an equal sex ratio in the cross.

5. Figure 2: Please add the Family names to the labels; i.e. Family 1 Ghana west, and Family 2 Ghana east, as you are referring to families in the text, making it challenging for the reader to connect the text and figure.

6. Figure 2 legend: As suggested by Reviewer 1, “Manhattan plot of sex linkage” is not really a clear description. Perhaps “Manhattan plot of association between genotype and sex phenotype on chromosome 7”. Please delete “the” before Family 1. Also, I could not really see the difference in the dark and light dots between the top and bottom graphs, and this explanation in the legend “Dark and light dots indicate variants with a significant or not significant association with sex” seems to refer to the darker dots which have a strong association with sex, and the lighter dots on the rest of the chromosome. So, then the phrase “respectively, after FDR correction in (top) and before FDR correction in (bottom) is very unclear. And not all three shades of blue are shown in the top legend of the figure. This needs to be clarified.

7. L221-222: Here it would be good to clarify how many individuals of each sex and population were used for the Fst analyses.

8. L232-234: The RRGS data from Family 2 only showed evidence for sex-linked markers between 0 and 6 Mb. Perhaps just say, “in the sex-linked region (between 0 and 11Mb) of chromosome 7 that was identified in the mapping families.

9. L234: by “genome-wide Fst peak” do you mean that the highest Fst value in the genome was found at this location?

10. L240: “female-linked linkage group” could be “female-linked genomic region”.

11. L241-245: this additional information about the overlap between these Sanger SNPs and the female-linked regions in the previous study does not seem necessary. You have already established that the regions of differentiation here are the same as in previous studies. If you do keep this text, please also change the “female-linked – linkage group” in line 242 to “female-linked genomic region” because it reads like it is a separate linkage group when you just mean that it is a separate region on chromosome 7.

12. L245: you conclude this paragraph by saying the sex-linked region is between 0 and 10.4Mb [I agree with Reviewer 1 that using <10.4Mb is not very clear], but you started the paragraph by saying it was between 0 and 11Mb. Please be consistent here and throughout the manuscript. Or define that the region of high Fst was between 0 and 10.4Mb. Also, I think it would be better to start this paragraph by first stating the genome-wide Fst, then the average across the sex-linked region, and then finally the peak marker. This provides better context for the reader to see that the peak Fst of 0.13 is truly a peak.

13. L255: perhaps provide the coordinates of the markers used for genotyping by Sanger sequencing.

14. L256-260: by moving the analyses of the nucleotide diversity in Family 3 earlier, you do not have to include this lengthy discussion as you would have already given the probable genotypes of this cross!

15. L264: clarify that these scaffolds were not part of chromosome assemblies

16. L266-267: this first sentence could be deleted, as well as “for example” in L268

17. L271: here you say the region of sex-linkage is less than 10.4Mb, and in L310, you say it is less than 11Mb. Another example of inconsistencies in the manuscript.

18. L311-344: as suggested, this section could be moved earlier, and also shortened.

19. L345-374: these points seem more relevant to the analyses of the sex chromosome complement of the crosses, rather than the analyses of gene expression. I think they could also be moved earlier, but also be shortened and/or be supplemental.

20. L375-398: I really like these new analyses! It would seem to follow most naturally after the analyses of the male vs female RNA-seq analyses (especially if you follow the suggestion to move the analyses of nucleotide divergence earlier in the manuscript). In these paragraphs, please also change “degeneracy” to “degeneration of”.

21. Figure 6: As in Figure 2, please label the graphs as Family 1 Ghana west, and Family 2 Ghana east.

22. L407-408 and L412: “the size in base pairs of the genomic region to which the linkage map corresponds” is so awkward and wordy! Perhaps change to the “physical size in base pairs of the chromosome assembly”. Also, here you say “females maps” and “males maps” instead of female and male maps.

23. L428: “subdivision is within” to “subdivisions are found within”

24. L443: “two localities Ghana” should be “two localities in Ghana”

25. L446-447: how are your findings consistent with the origin of the Y in Nigeria? You found evidence for a Y in Nigeria, but it’s not clear how that is evidence that it originated there.

26. L448: It might be helpful to say where the Ivory Coast populations are located, relative to those shown in Figure 7.

27. L463-465: this sentence is hard to parse. Also, just because you found these chromosomes in your crosses, doesn’t mean they are common. You might have just gotten lucky. Thus, I don’t think you can say anything about whether they are on the brink of extinction.

28. L499-501: less than “one hundred and fiftieth”: can you just give the percentage; i.e. less than 1% of the genome? And, it doesn’t seem necessary to give two different ways to characterize the abundance of sex-biased expression in this region of the genome. This is quite clear already.

29. L503-506: there is an interesting paper by Jun Kitano’s group (Kitano et al. 2020 Journal of Evolutionary Biology doi: 10.1111/jeb.13662), suggesting that sex-biased expression at earlier stages of development is more likely to be due to sex-linkage, while sex-biased expression at later stages of development is more likely to be due to hormonal mechanisms. These results are also consistent with that hypothesis.

30. L517-518: I don’t quite understand the point here.

31. L519-521: this sentence doesn’t seem necessary, but the faster-Z should probably be briefly explained in the next sentence.

32. L541: “each one generation in length” could be deleted.

33. L570: “evidence W-chromosome degeneracy” could be “evidence for W-chromosome degeneration”.

34. L589-591: I think this information comes later, but it would be good to provide the numbers of wild-caught males and female samples in each population used for RRGS.

35. L613-614: “or for the offspring” seems incomplete.

36. L619: “east” should be “Family 2” for clarity.

37. L631-633: in the absence of providing any details about these markers, there should at least be a reference the Table with this marker information.

38. L650: “likelihood of their being a SNP” should be “likelihood of there being a SNP”

39. L665-666: it would be good to provide the genomic location of these markers used to genotype the tadpoles.

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Authors:

Please note here if the review is uploaded as an attachment.

Reviewer #1: The manuscript is improved by the extra analysis, but it remains poorly written and largely descriptive of a further study of a case of within-species variation in the heterogametic sex. Much of the text is long-winded and difficult to understand, obscuring the main points. It is valuable to get genetic data, and this appears to establish that there is no physically extensive fully sex-linked region in the species studied, consistent with its apparently homomorphic sex chromosomes, and with the fact (already known) that it has a sex chromosome polymorphism with Z, W and a more recently derived Y chromosomes, similar to the polymorphisms in some other frogs.

The study may indeed have identified, for the first time in natural X. tropicalis population samples, the Y-chromosome previously found in captive individuals. The paragraph starting in line 442 is very long, and not easy to follow. The information needs to be digested and presented more clearly after the authors have decided what they need to tell readers. I hoped for an advance in understanding, or at least a clear discussion, of whether the results support one model for turnover events or another, but it is not clear to me what these results tell us about turnovers.

The most interesting other result is that there are unexpectedly many transcripts with significantly male-biased or (not “and” as written in line 278) male-specific expression on chromosome 7. I do not have the necessary expertise to evaluate this, but obviously it is important to use reference genome from an appropriate sex in order to avoid a bias due to potential absence of some sequences in some fully sex-linked regions. The paper by Wei and D. Bachtrog, 2019 is now cited, but this problem, and the reference assemblies used, should surely be mentioned in the main text, not just a Supplementary file.

The Discussion (from line 495) deals with this finding as a “Sign of Age in Cytologically Indistinguishable Sex Chromosomes”, but I think the authors probably mean “sign of adaptation” or maybe “sign of genetic degeneration of the W”. Again the text could be clearer after shortening to make the essential point(s) clear. In the present version, the evidence for the claimed genetic degeneration of the W chromosome is not compelling, and needs to be much clearer.

The following text about these expression results is again very hard to understand, but may mean the following: We therefore examined the genotypes in sex-linked expressed transcripts of each individual offspring of Family 3 using the RNAseq data, in order to detect transcripts expressed from only one of the individual’s sex chromosomes (based on observing no heterozygous variants), and those co-expressed by both gametologous alleles in heterozygous genotypes [17]. I leave the rest of this section for the authors to revise and clarify. It is very confusing to write about “levels of polymorphism” when genotypes are meant. Possibly a table showing the possibilities (including a degenerated W-chromosome), and the expectations in the different situations and the different parental genotypes, would be helpful. Ideally the results would be digested and shown as a comparison with those expectations, so that the text can guide the reader to understand the evidence for the

results about the sex-specificity of rates and locations of recombination in X. tropicalis are potentially helpful for understanding how and/or why a turnover happened, though I still found the conclusions rather weakly supported. The results are consistent with the conclusion, but not compelling. The discussion of what we can learn from this is improved, but still appears not to be related to the claimed genetic degeneration of the W chromosome.

The section about population structure needs an introduction to give an idea of why these data are needed. This could maybe be merged with the start of the Discussion.

MINOR COMMENTS

The writing still needs considerable revision, as it is often very long-winded, making it difficult to understand the meaning.

Throughout, the manner of specifying regions on a chromosome like this example “<10.4Mb” should be changed to be clear to readers. There should also be no hyphens in the phrase Y (or other) chromosome. The authors should read the text carefully for errors (I have not listed all of them here), and make sure that the word “that” is not missing in places where it is needed in written English.

SHORTENINGS AND EDITINGS

Line 67: Shorten to: A sex chromosome turnover is called "homologous" when a new variant that assumes the sex determination role arises on an ancestral sex chromosome [1], and "non-homologous" if it establishes a on a different chromosome pair from the ancestral sex chromosomes.

Line 74 Turnovers 9in the plural)

Line 75:. Non-homologous XY to XY turnovers may be favoured by natural selection if the ancestral Y-chromosome has a high load of deleterious mutations due to genetic degeneration [21,22]. However, Y-linked deleterious mutations may disfavour XY to WZ transitions because they result in the appearance of homozygotes for the ancestral Y-chromosome[16].

Surely a new paragraph is needed before “So far, only a handful of master sex determining genes are known”.

Line 82 Specifically, these transitions [should be singular] periods may offer insights ….

Line 95: Although it is technically no longer a Z-chromosome after the Y-chromosome appeared, we

use this term as a placeholder to refer to the extant non-male-specific sex-chromosome that descended from 97 the ancestral Z-chromosome, following [28]” can be shortened to “We use the term ‘Z-chromosome’, following [28]’, to refer to the extant non-male-specific sex-chromosome that presumably evolved from the ancestral Z-chromosome still present in related species”. Is this the correct meaning? How is it known that this Z is the ancestral one, and that the Y is derived? If the evidence is in this paper, why not make that clear here?

Line 102: The genomic location of the female-associated region of the W-chromosome in a laboratory strain was narrowed down [BY WHAT APPROACH?] to an interval between positions 0–3.9 megabases (Mb) on chromosome 7 in genome assembly 9.1 (v9) [30]. However, this region did not show complete linkage to the female phenotype in our study (below), and it was proposed that this could be due to ancestral admixture with an individual carrying a Y-chromosome [30]. The male determining factor of the X. tropicalis Y-chromosome of is thought to be in a similar location to that of the female-determining factor [28], but has nor been precisely located. Within the genus Xenopus, the most recent common ancestor of subgenus Silurana, which includes X. tropicalis, probably had heterogametic females [26], implying that the X. tropicalis Y chromosome is derived from an ancestral W or Z chromosome. Mitochondrial genomes of species in subgenus Silurana diverged about 25 million years ago [33], implying that the Y-chromosome of X. tropicalis is younger than that. This

113 variation raises the possibility that X. tropicalis is currently undergoing a homologous sex chromosome turnover. HERE IT IS NOT CLEAR WHAT ‘variation’ IS BEING MENTIONED.

Line 122: We also evaluate whether and how recombination differs between the sexes of X. tropicalis – including in the sex-linked region and across the genome. The goals of this study are to ….

Line 131 : a comma is needed before “and their offspring”

Line 135: We also studied sex linkage in different portions of the sex-linked region, using Sanger sequencing of selected amplicons.

Line 140: There are two possible sex chromosome genotypes in females (WZ, WW) and three in males (ZZ, ZY, WY), and six possible parent genotype combinations (Fig. 1).

Line 170: None of the sex-linked SNPs from Families 1 and 2 were present in the sequences of the other family, presumably reflecting variable presence of SbfI restriction sites. In each of the Ghana families, some SNPs in the region that was sex linked in one family displayed genotypes suggesting independent segregation in the other (Fig. 2). One possible explanation is that our sex-linked markers are partially sex-linked. In Ghana East Family 2, we lacked markers between 6-11Mb on chromosome 7, and therefore our the RRGS data cannot delimit the fully sex-linked region In this family. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THESE MARKERS ARE PARTIALLY SEX-LINKED OR SEGREGATE INDEPENDENTLY OF THE SEX-DETERMINING LOCUS.

Line 179: The writing needs correcting here (the current version reads rather raw and undigested) — “On chromosome 7 <6Mb, we had variable markers that overlapped in Family 1 and 2, and these markers were male-linked in Family 2 but not Family 1 (Fig. 2). Analyses discussed below allowed us to infer….This scenario would explain why there were sex-linked sites on the end of chromosome 7 in Family 2 but not Family 1; it is also consistent with evidence presented below for a lack of recombination in the sex-linked region during spermatogenesis of male BJE4362, the father of families 2 and 3, and with an origin of the Y chromosome from an ancestral Z chromosome

Figure 2 legend: I don’t think one can just sat “Manhattan plot of sex linkage for chromosome….”

Line 193: Sanger sequencing identified one SNP that co-segregates in our small Family 2 with the sex-determining locus, and two almost completely co-segregating SNPs. With a very small sample size we identified three completely co-segregating SNPs in the Ghana east

wild population, but none in either Family 1 or the Ghana west wild population. The lack of sex-specific SNPs (even with our small sample) in Family 1 is consistent with the hypothesis proposed above that the sex chromosome genotype of the father may have the ZY genotype

(though other explanations are possible).

Line 216: However, without invoking Y linkage, the chance of observing a heterozygous genotype in 17 of 17 males and none of 18 females is very low (_ 7 _ 106).

This sentence is hard to understand, and so is its relevance (and the tense is wrong): “The sex-linked SNPs in the Nigeria strain was different from a nearby sex-linked SNP in three wild Ghana east males.”

Line 220: The X. tropicalis Sex Chromosomes Have ONLY a Small Differentiated Region

Line 223: This passage is particularly badly written and can be much shorter and clearer. As demonstrated above, some of these individuals have a Y chromosome, and , because a W chromosome is required for female development, they must all have a W; some individuals of either sex may have a Z chromosome along with their Y or W. Differences in allele frequencies are expected to affect FST between females and males, and nucleotide divergence between the Y, Z and W chromosomes leads to different frequencies in the two sexes, and can reveal fully sex-linked regions, with higher differentiation than elsewhere in the same chromosome.

We indeed observed higher FST values in the region where sex-linkage was detected in our analyses above using RRGS data from Family 2 (the chromosome 7 region before 11Mb), with an FST value of 0.13 at position 9,940,000 in the v10 assembly of this chromosome, and values >0.09 between positions 9,775,600 and 9,999,600 (1,615,479 to 1,454,645 – 1,664,477 in assembly v9). The genome-wide 95% CI is 0.002 – 0.038. [THIS SHOULD BE SPECIFIED HERE, NOT LATER]. Are the high FST values due to low diversity within the population of X (or other relevant) chromosomes?

Line 239 : should be changed to “found previously [30] (Suppl.Fig. S3).”

Line 266: This sentence is not clear (and can probably be omitted). For neutral variants in an autosomal locus, genetic drift of the transcriptome is not expected to produce a skew in sex-biased expression.

Line 304” another problem with tenses — “it does suggest that there is no reason to expect that transcripts in this genomic region was somehow predisposed to have male-biased expression”

Line 307: There is no need to keep repeating the information that high densities of male- or female-biased expression are rare on the autosomes. This is repeated 3 times in quick succession.

Line 311: section on How might sex-linkage lead to a skew towards male-biased expression of transcripts encoded by sex linked genes? Again, the writing is vague and unclear. I think the first sentence (One possible explanation is that expression of some alleles in the sex-linked region of the chromosome decreased or was [wrong tense again] lost due to recombination suppression) is referring to genetic degeneration, but it is hard to be sure if this is the meaning. Maybe it is supposed to mean “One possibility is that expression of some alleles in the sex-linked region of the chromosome became decreased below the level of alleles on an ancestral non-degenerated Z-chromosome, and thus alleles that are now Y-linked (and were derived from a Z) retain the Z’s high ancestral expression level”.

Line 432: “interceded” is the wrong word here.

Reviewer #2: I think that the current version of the paper is much stronger - the analyses and interpretations are sound, and the results still very exciting. The authors did a great job at addressing my previous comments (although I would specify "but only a single female and 1 to 3 males were sequenced" rather than saying "with a very small sample size").

My only remaining comment is that I still sometimes found the manuscript a bit hard to follow (but figure 1 is very helpful!).

Some of that seems to come from the fact that the structure of the paper reflects its history. I think it would make more sense to have the inference of the genotypes of the three families in the first section (including the RNA), and then going into the gene expression knowing those genotypes, instead of going back to them later.

In general the text seems (to me) a bit longer than necessary. For instance, the Sanger sequencing part, from which not much was concluded, could maybe be shorter or even moved to the supplementary material.

**********

Have all data underlying the figures and results presented in the manuscript been provided?

Large-scale datasets should be made available via a public repository as described in the PLOS Genetics data availability policy, and numerical data that underlies graphs or summary statistics should be provided in spreadsheet form as supporting information.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: None

**********

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

Decision Letter 2

Catherine L Peichel, Kirsten Bomblies

16 Sep 2020

Dear Dr Evans,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript entitled "A frog with three sex chromosomes that co-mingle together in nature: Xenopus tropicalis has a degenerate W and a Y that evolved from a Z chromosome" has been editorially accepted for publication in PLOS Genetics. Congratulations!

Before your submission can be formally accepted and sent to production you will need to complete our formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. Please be aware that it may take several days for you to receive this email; during this time no action is required by you. Please note: the accept date on your published article will reflect the date of this provisional accept, but your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until the required changes have been made.

Once your paper is formally accepted, an uncorrected proof of your manuscript will be published online ahead of the final version, unless you’ve already opted out via the online submission form. If, for any reason, you do not want an earlier version of your manuscript published online or are unsure if you have already indicated as such, please let the journal staff know immediately at plosgenetics@plos.org.

In the meantime, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgenetics/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information to ensure an efficient production and billing process. Note that PLOS requires an ORCID iD for all corresponding authors. Therefore, please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field.  This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

If you have a press-related query, or would like to know about one way to make your underlying data available (as you will be aware, this is required for publication), please see the end of this email. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming article at this point, to enable them to help maximise its impact. Inform journal staff as soon as possible if you are preparing a press release for your article and need a publication date.

Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Genetics!

Yours sincerely,

Catherine L. Peichel

Guest Editor

PLOS Genetics

Kirsten Bomblies

Section Editor: Evolution

PLOS Genetics

www.plosgenetics.org

Twitter: @PLOSGenetics

----------------------------------------------------

Comments from the reviewers (if applicable):

I would like to thank the authors for their careful revisions. The manuscript has been greatly improved! It is a complex set of results, but the main results and conclusions are far more clearly presented now. This will be a nice contribution to the literature on sex chromosome turnovers.

I still have a very few minor comments, but I think these can be dealt with before the final files are uploaded rather than as a revision.

P4, L90: Can delete the full spelling out of Xenopus tropicalis as it appears in the line before.

P4, L97: YZ should be ZY to be consistent with the rest of the manuscript.

P5, L149-154: This would be much better to state in the introductory paragraph to the Results, where you nicely provide an overview of what you did. Here, it breaks the flow.

P5, L151: Here you reference Fig. S3 without referencing Fig. S1 or S2. I checked and the order of calling out the supplementary figures and tables is jumbled (probably due to the reorganization). Please renumber and reorder the supplementary figures and tables so that they are numbered in the order that they appear in the manuscript.

P7, L158: delete “genome wide”

P7, L197: Here you define the sex-linked region with a marker at 10.26Mb, but later you say consistently say that the sex-linked region is found at less than 10.4Mb. Perhaps this needs to be clarified somewhere.

P7, L218-219: perhaps change to “homozygous genotypes in one son and heterozygous in four other sons”

P7, L223: perhaps delete “at the NXR” because it is not clear what this is, and these details should be in the methods.

P7, L229: add “P” before “<7x10-6”

P9, L237-238: maybe change “gametologous alleles” to “both alleles”

P12, L301: maybe change “gametologous loci” to “gametologs”

The version of Figure 3 in my PDF is missing the grey band and the x and y-axis lines.

----------------------------------------------------

Data Deposition

If you have submitted a Research Article or Front Matter that has associated data that are not suitable for deposition in a subject-specific public repository (such as GenBank or ArrayExpress), one way to make that data available is to deposit it in the Dryad Digital Repository. As you may recall, we ask all authors to agree to make data available; this is one way to achieve that. A full list of recommended repositories can be found on our website.

The following link will take you to the Dryad record for your article, so you won't have to re‐enter its bibliographic information, and can upload your files directly: 

http://datadryad.org/submit?journalID=pgenetics&manu=PGENETICS-D-20-00636R2

More information about depositing data in Dryad is available at http://www.datadryad.org/depositing. If you experience any difficulties in submitting your data, please contact help@datadryad.org for support.

Additionally, please be aware that our data availability policy requires that all numerical data underlying display items are included with the submission, and you will need to provide this before we can formally accept your manuscript, if not already present.

----------------------------------------------------

Press Queries

If you or your institution will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, or if you need to know your paper's publication date for media purposes, please inform the journal staff as soon as possible so that your submission can be scheduled accordingly. Your manuscript will remain under a strict press embargo until the publication date and time. This means an early version of your manuscript will not be published ahead of your final version. PLOS Genetics may also choose to issue a press release for your article. If there's anything the journal should know or you'd like more information, please get in touch via plosgenetics@plos.org.

Acceptance letter

Catherine L Peichel, Kirsten Bomblies

15 Oct 2020

PGENETICS-D-20-00636R2

A frog with three sex chromosomes that co-mingle together in nature: Xenopus tropicalis has a degenerate W and a Y that evolved from a Z chromosome

Dear Dr Evans,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript entitled "A frog with three sex chromosomes that co-mingle together in nature: Xenopus tropicalis has a degenerate W and a Y that evolved from a Z chromosome" has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Genetics! Your manuscript is now with our production department and you will be notified of the publication date in due course.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, unless you have opted out or your manuscript is a front-matter piece, the early version of your manuscript will be published online. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

Thank you again for supporting PLOS Genetics and open-access publishing. We are looking forward to publishing your work!

With kind regards,

Matt Lyles

PLOS Genetics

On behalf of:

The PLOS Genetics Team

Carlyle House, Carlyle Road, Cambridge CB4 3DN | United Kingdom

plosgenetics@plos.org | +44 (0) 1223-442823

plosgenetics.org | Twitter: @PLOSGenetics

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data. Numerical data for figures.

    (ZIP)

    S1 Text. Supplemental methods, results, and Tables A–D.

    (PDF)

    S1 Fig. A dot plot of the sex-linked portion of chromosome 7 in v9 (y-axis) and the corresponding region in v10 (x-axis).

    The most strongly female-linked linkage group identified by [29] (pink) the FST peak identified here (dotted line; Fig 3). The 95% CI of the female-linked region from [29] has an inversion between assembly v9 and v10 at the upper bound of the most strongly linked region (super_547:1), and an insertion in v10. However, the most strongly sex-linked linked regions identified by [29] and this study are syntenous between these assemblies.

    (EPS)

    S2 Fig. FST between females and males for all X. tropicalis chromosomes provides perspective on the level of differentiation of the sex linked region of chromosome 7.

    FST was calculated and plotted as described in Fig 3.

    (EPS)

    S3 Fig. Genome-wide sex linkage Manhattan plot for genotype association with sex for paternal heterozygous sites with correction for double recombinants (S1 Text).

    For the Ghana west population (left), the p-values are FDR corrected, and for the Ghana east population (right), the p-values are not corrected (due to a much smaller sample size, see Methods).

    (EPS)

    S4 Fig. Pairwise nucleotide diversity in expressed transcripts encoded by genes in the sex-linked (SL) region in individuals with different putative sex chromosome genotypes.

    For comparison, data from the entire sex linked region from Fig 5 are displayed in blue next to values from the first (<6Mb) and second (6-11 Mb) portions of the sex-linked region; other labeling follows Fig 5.

    (EPS)

    S5 Fig. The degree of sex-biased expression of gonad/mesonephros tissue in stage 50 tadpoles, expressed as the log2 transformed ratio of the male/female fold change (logFC) on each of the ten X. tropicalis chromosomes (labeled on the right) in offspring of Family 3.

    The x-axis indicates the genomic coordinates of the transcript start position in millions of bp (Mb) on v10. Small dots represent individual transcripts and * represent transcripts that are significantly differentially expressed after FDR correction. Boxes indicate a cluster of genes on the sex-linked portion of chromosome 7 with mostly male-biased expression, and another cluster of genes on a portion of chromosome 3 with mostly female-biased expression.

    (EPS)

    S6 Fig. Analysis of differential expression between putative WW females and WY males (subset 1) on chromosome 7.

    Labeling follows Fig 6. The high density of genes encoding transcripts with sex-biased expression extends slightly beyond the region with a high density of male-biased transcripts that was identified in the RNAseq analysis of all samples (red box). In this analysis, the sex-linked region of chromosome 7 had 34 significantly male-biased transcripts with 27 of these being male-specific and 7 being expressed in both sexes; 3 transcripts in the sex-linked region were significantly female biased and all three were expressed in both sexes.

    (EPS)

    S7 Fig. Analysis of differential expression between putative WZ females and ZY males (subset 2) on chromosome 7.

    Labeling follows Fig 6. In this analysis, the sex-linked region of chromosome 7 had 19 significantly male-biased transcripts with 16 of these being male-specific and 3 being expressed in both sexes; there were no significantly female-biased transcripts detected in the sex-linked region.

    (EPS)

    S8 Fig. Analysis of differential expression between putative WW females and ZY males (subset 3) on chromosome 7.

    Labeling follows Fig 6. The high density of genes encoding transcripts with sex-biased expression extends slightly beyond the region with a high density of male-biased transcripts that was identified in the RNAseq analysis of all samples (red box). In this analysis, the sex-linked region of chromosome 7 had 37 significantly male-biased transcripts with 29 of these being male-specific and 8 being expressed in both sexes; 2 transcripts in the sex-linked region were significantly female biased and both were expressed in both sexes.

    (EPS)

    S9 Fig. Analysis of differential expression between putative WZ females and WY males (subset 4) on chromosome 7.

    Labeling follows Fig 6. In this analysis, the sex-linked region of chromosome 7 had 19 significantly male-biased transcripts with 16 of these being male-specific and 3 being expressed in both sexes; 1 transcript in the sex-linked region were significantly female biased and it was expressed in both sexes.

    (EPS)

    S10 Fig. In the allotetraploid species X. borealis, genomic regions that are orthologous to the sex-linked region of X. tropicalis (boxes) do not encode transcripts with substantially skewed male-biased expression.

    Data are from gonad/mesonephros tissue from X. borealis tadpole stage 48; labeling follows Fig 6. Assembly and expression analysis of these X. borealis data followed the same steps as for X. tropicalis, with the exception that the transcripts were mapped to the X. laevis genome assembly version 9.2 because a high quality assembly is currently unavailable for X. borealis. Orthology was established using dot plots as in S1 Fig, but using chromosome sequences from X. tropicalis and X. laevis instead of different genome assemblies of X. tropicalis. A comprehensive analysis of these X. borealis data is presented elsewhere [37].

    (EPS)

    S11 Fig. Genome-wide sex linkage Manhattan plot for genotype association with sex for paternal heterozygous sites, without correction of double recombinants (S1 Text).

    FDR correction and non-correction follows S3 Fig.

    (EPS)

    S12 Fig. Differential expression analysis with EdgeR and DeSeq2 produced similar results as illustrated here for chromosome 7.

    In the sex-linked region <10.3 Mb, both methods identified 32 male-biased transcripts, EdgeR but not DeSeq2 identified 13 additional male-biased and 1 female-biased transcripts, DeSeq2 but not EdgeR identified 2 additional female-biased transcripts, and neither methods identified significant sex-biased expression in 1,737 other transcripts on chromosome. 7.

    (EPS)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: L_to_Eds_and response_to_reviews.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Responses_2.pdf

    Data Availability Statement

    The RRGS and RNAseq data from Xenopus tropicalis have been deposited in the Short Read Archive of NCBI (BioProject PRJNA627066) as has the RNAseq data from Xenopus borealis (BioProject PRJNA616217). Representative Sanger sequences have been deposited in GenBank (accession numbers MW115652-MW115842). The transcriptome assembly has been deposited at DDBJ/EMBL/GenBank under the accession GIVH00000000.


    Articles from PLoS Genetics are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES