Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jun 4;16(6):e0252049. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252049

Exceptional long-term sperm storage by a female vertebrate

Brenna A Levine 1,2, Gordon W Schuett 2,3, Warren Booth 1,2,*
Editor: Stefan Schlatt4
PMCID: PMC8177532  PMID: 34086677

Abstract

Females of many vertebrate species have the capacity to store sperm within their reproductive tracts for prolonged periods of time. Termed long-term sperm storage, this phenomenon has many important physiological, ecological, and evolutionary implications, particularly to the study of mating systems, including male reproductive success and post-copulatory sexual selection. Reptiles appear particularly predisposed to long-term sperm storage, with records in most major lineages, with a strong emphasis on turtles and squamates (lizards, snakes, but not the amphisbaenians). Because facultative parthenogenesis is a competing hypothesis to explain the production of offspring after prolonged separation from males, the identification of paternal alleles through genetic analysis is essential. However, few studies in snakes have undertaken this. Here, we report on a wild-collected female Western Diamond-backed Rattlesnake, Crotalus atrox, maintained in isolation from the time of capture in September 1999, that produced two healthy litters approximately one and six years post capture. Genetic analysis of the 2005 litter, identified paternal contribution in all offspring, thus rejecting facultative parthenogenesis. We conclude that the duration of long-term sperm storage was approximately 6 years (71 months), making this the longest period over which a female vertebrate has been shown to store sperm that resulted in the production of healthy offspring.

1. Introduction

The ability for females to store viable spermatozoa in their reproductive tracts, capable of retaining fertilization capacity for months or even years post insemination, has been reported across a variety of vertebrate species [17]; a reproductive phenomenon termed long-term sperm storage (LTSS) [1, 8]. The duration of LTSS prior to fertilization varies greatly among taxa [4]. In mammals, sperm typically survives in the uterus for only a few hours to several days, though in bats it may persist for many months [2, 9]. In ectothermic vertebrates, particularly the non-avian reptiles (i.e., chelonians, crocodilians, Rhynchocephalia, and squamates), LTSS is remarkably prolonged, with duration reports of months to several years (reviewed by [1, 2, 4, 8, 1015]. In snakes, this may be assisted by the presence of anatomical structures, such as sperm storage tubules in the posterior infundibulum, where spermatozoa migrate post mating [8]. Despite these reports, few studies have applied molecular genetic testing to conclusively confirm the presence of paternal alleles in the resulting offspring. Given the widespread prevalence of facultative parthenogenesis (FP) across the phylogenies of both lizards and snakes [1619], such testing should be considered essential [15]. In reptiles, LTSS has been genetically confirmed, for example, in turtles [3, 20, 21], lizards [22, 23], and several species of snakes [15, 24]. With an estimated storage duration of at least 67 months, the eastern diamond-backed rattlesnake (Crotalus adamanteus) holds the record for the longest genetically confirmed case of LTSS of any vertebrate species [15].

The capacity for, and duration of, LTSS has important implications for mating systems and their analysis [1, 2, 2527]. This is particularly important when considering male reproductive success and the opportunity for sexual selection [25, 2830]. Accordingly, polygyny-polyandry and multiple paternity have the potential to be strongly influenced by LTSS [22, 24, 3133], and its impact on post-copulatory sexual selection, including sperm competition [23, 34, 35] and cryptic female choice [36, 37], should be considered when interpreting results.

Given the prevalence of LTSS across vertebrate species, understanding the duration over which viable spermatozoa can be stored has important implications for the maintenance of genetic diversity, conservation, and management. Here, we report on an exceptional case of LTSS in a female pitviper from the New World, the Western Diamond-backed Rattlesnake, Crotalus atrox (Fig 1). Through several lines of evidence, including robust genetic screening using double-digest restriction-site associated DNA (ddRAD) sequencing, we conclusively reject the competing hypothesis of FP [15], an alternative reproductive mode in squamate reptiles [38, 39], and conclude that LTTS persisted for at least 71 months. This finding represents the longest duration of genetically confirmed sperm storage for any vertebrate species which resulted in the production of viable offspring.

Fig 1. Female western diamond-backed rattlesnake, Crotalus atrox, with newborn offspring.

Fig 1

Photograph courtesy of Brendan O’Connor.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Subject

The female subject (ID: Ca-149) is a Western Diamond-backed Rattlesnake (Crotalus atrox), field collected as an adult from central Arizona on September 17 1999, and maintained in the laboratory (Arizona State University) under strict isolation from the moment of capture (see electronic supplementary material for husbandry conditions). At the time of collection, Ca-149 was deemed to be in excellent health (740 mm snout-vent length, 50 mm tail length, and 435.0 g). On August 22 2000, 340 days after her collection from the wild, Ca-149 gave birth to seven healthy offspring (four males, three females). No infertile ova were present. On August 18 2005, approximately five years (1,822 days) following the first litter, and nearly 71 months (2,162 days) after being collected, Ca-149 produced a second litter of nine offspring (five males, four females). Again, all neonates were healthy in appearance and no infertile ova were present.

2.2. Captive care

Ca-149 was maintained in a glass enclosure (91 cm L x 30 cm W x 25 cm H) with a screen cover, supplied with newsprint as a floor covering. Heat tape (8 cm wide), was situated beneath and across the front end of the cage and maintained at 35°C. From the time of collection and during her time in the laboratory Ca-149 was maintained in strictly isolation. Artificial lighting (eight 40 W fluorescent tubes positioned 3 m above the cage) was electronic timer-controlled to a simulate natural photoperiod year round. Pre-killed, thawed laboratory rodents (hamsters and rats) were offered as food every 10 days until 15 November. Water was available in a glass bowl ad libitum year-round. From 15 November to 1 March, Ca-149 was maintained under dark and cool conditions to simulate hibernation. Approximately 0.1 ml of blood was collected from 8 of the 9 offspring and female Ca-149 through caudal vein venipuncture, using sterile disposable Tuberculin syringes fitted with 25-G 5/8” needles. Details of collection permits and Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee approvals can be found in the Ethics Statement.

2.3. DNA library preparation

Whole genomic DNA was extracted from blood collected from offspring (n = 8 of 9) and female Ca-149 using the Qiagen DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit (Qiagen), and the concentrations of DNA extracts were quantified with a Qubit 4 Fluorometer (InvitrogenTM). The presence of whole genomic DNA was confirmed by separating 5 μL of each DNA sample on a 1.5% agarose gel for 60 minutes at 100 mV and visualizing with SYBRTM Safe DNA gel stain (InvitrogenTM). DNA was then prepared for high throughput, parallel sequencing using a double-digest restriction-site associated DNA (ddRAD) library preparation protocol [40], slightly modified from that described for snakes by Levine et al. [41]. Approximately 1000 ng DNA of each sample was digested in a thermocycler for 16 hours at 37°C with 1 μL each of FastDigestTM restriction enzymes PstI and MspI (Thermo ScientificTM), 5 μL FastDigest 10× buffer (Thermo ScientificTM) and 3 μL molecular grade water. It was confirmed that DNA was digested by separating a 5 μL aliquot of each digest on a 1.5% agarose gel and visualizing with SYBRTM Safe gel stain (InvitrogenTM). Digests were cleaned using 1.5× Serapure solution (as prepared from Sera-Mag SpeedBeadsTM [GE Healthcare] following the protocol of Rohland and Reich [42]).

A unique 5-base pair (bp) barcode was ligated to the PstI overhangs for each sample using a reaction mix of 2 μL barcoded P1 adapter, 2 μL P2 adapter, 3 μL 10× T4 ligase buffer (New England BioLabs® Inc.), and 1 μL T4 ligase (New England BioLabs® Inc.). The reaction mix was incubated in a thermocycler with the following thermal profile: 22°C for 60 minutes, 65°C for 10 minutes with a -1°C/minute ramp rate, and a 20°C hold. Barcoded samples were then pooled and an additional clean-up with 1.5× Serapure solution was performed. The pooled library was size-selected using a Blue Pippin (Sage Science), retaining only those fragments 300 bp ± 50 bp in length. This size-selection range was chosen by performing an in silico digestion of the published prairie rattlesnake, C. viridis viridis, genome [43], with the cut-site sequences of PstI (CTGCA^G) and MspI (C^CGG) using the program FRAGMATIC [44].

Finally, four PhusionTM PCRs were performed to reduce the introduction of PCR error into the library. Each reaction mix contained 5 μL size-selected library, 5.8 μL molecular grade water, 0.5 μL MgCl2 (50 mM), 0.5 μL dNTPs (10 mM), 2 μL PCR 1 Primer (2 μM), 2 μL indexed PCR 2 primer (2 μM), 4 μL 5× PhusionTM HF Buffer (Thermo Scientific), and 0.2 μL PhusionTM DNA polymerase (Thermo Scientific). Reaction mixes were incubated in a thermocycler with the following temperature profile: 1 cycle of 98°C for 1 minute; 10 cycles of 98°C for 15 seconds, 62°C for 30 seconds, and 72°C for 30 seconds; 1 cycle of 72°C for 7 minutes; 20°C hold. The four PCR products were subsequently pooled and cleaned with 1.5× Serapure solution prior to Illumina sequencing. Single-end 100-bp sequencing was performed on an Illumina HiSeq4000 at the University of Oregon Genomics and Cell Characterization Core Facility (GC3F).

2.4. Bioinformatics

Post-sequencing, raw fastq files were inspected for quality using FastQC [45]. The process_radtags module of program Stacks v. 2.41 [46, 47] was then used to clean and demultiplex the raw sequencing reads. Raw reads were clustered into loci via both reference-based and de novo analysis pipelines in Stacks v. 2.41 [48] to confirm that the pipeline didn’t impact the clustering of reads into loci. Prior to executing the reference-aligned Stacks pipeline, the cleaned sequencing reads were aligned to the reference genome sequence for the C. v. viridis [43] using the BWA-MEM algorithm implemented in BWA [49], with default settings. The gstacks module of Stacks v. 2.41 was then executed to identify and genotype single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) at each locus, with the alpha thresholds for discovering SNPs (var-alpha) and calling genotypes (—gt-alpha) set more stringent than the default values (= 0.001).

For de novo clustering and genotyping of SNPs, combinations of Stacks core parameters (m, M, and n) were compared to identify the parameter combination at which the number of polymorphic loci shared by at least 80% of samples stabilized [48]. Values of M = n from 1–9 were tested, while holding m at 3. After identifying the parameters at which the number of polymorphic loci shared across samples stabilized (M = n = 3), the denovo_map.pl wrapper script was executed to identify and genotype variable loci in all individuals. As for the reference-aligned analysis, the alpha threshold for discovering SNPs and calling genotypes was set to 0.001.

For both reference-based and de novo analyses, the populations module was used to identity variable loci present in all individuals (r = 1.0) and to produce output formatted as a Structure file, while retaining only the first SNP at each locus with the—write_single_snp option.

2.5. Scan for paternal alleles and sibship reconstruction

To determine whether male offspring resulted from LTSS or FP, a custom Python3 script was written to scan male genotypes in each Structure file for putative paternal alleles. Prior to running the script, both the reference-based and de novo Structure files were modified to discard genotypes for female offspring while retaining those for Ca-149 and all male offspring. The script then identified loci at which the mother was homozygous and cross-referenced male alleles against those of the homozygous female to identify males with alleles that differed from the maternal alleles at each locus. Since multiple sources of error can result in heterozygotes called as homozygotes and vice versa [50], the number of loci at which all males (n = 5) displayed alleles that differed from those of the mother was summed to yield a conservative estimate of the frequency of paternal alleles in the male offspring.

To supplement the above analysis, and to determine the number of sires that may have contributed to the litter, relationships among the offspring were also inferred via sibship reconstruction with COLONY v. 2.0.6.6 [51]. A subset of the de novo loci, as filtered via program PLINK v. 1.9 beta [52] to retain only those with a minor allele frequency (MAF) of 0.5, was analyzed. Five iterations of medium length runs were conducted. Parameters for the COLONY runs included: male and female polygamy, no inbreeding, no sibship size prior, no known or candidate parents, and a genotyping error rate of 0.05 per SNP.

3. Results

The reference-aligned Stacks analysis identified 3,493 SNPs present in all individuals at a mean effective per-sample coverage of 29.0×, whereas the de novo analysis pipeline identified 4,228 SNPs present in all individuals at a mean effective per-sample coverage of 41.1×. With respect to the reference-aligned data, of 1,197 loci at which the mother was inferred to be homozygous, putative paternal alleles were found in all male offspring at 61 loci (5.1%). With respect to the de novo clustered loci, all males displayed paternal alleles at 67 of the 1,445 loci for which the mother was homozygous (4.6%). All loci for which the mother was homozygous yet males displayed putative paternal alleles are found within Python3 Jupyter notebook (https://github.com/brenna-levine/atrox_LTSS). Supporting these results demonstrating the presence of paternal alleles in male offspring, COLONY assigned all offspring to one full-sibship when a subset of high MAF loci were analyzed (n = 417).

4. Discussion

Combining captive history and genomic screening, we unequivocally identify LTSS as the reproductive mechanism underlying the production of offspring from female Ca-149, following a period of approximately 71 months of isolation post capture. With the identification of paternal alleles in all offspring, we also conclusively reject FP as an alternative developmental mechanism for any of the male offspring. All offspring analyzed were sired by a single male. While offspring from the first birth were unavailable for genomic screening, the captive history of this female shows that not only can female C. atrox store sperm over prolonged periods of time, they can also utilize this sperm over multiple distinct reproductive events.

Reviewed in Booth & Schuett [15, 17], caenophidian snakes (advanced snakes including the pitvipers) exhibit common characteristics indicative of FP that differ markedly from LTSS. Specifically, a high number of infertile ova, male-only offspring due to the possession of ZZ/ZW sex chromosomes (males are ZZ and WW females are not viable), and offspring exhibiting developmental abnormalities, are commonly observed in instances of FP. In contrast, litters genetically confirmed as LTSS in pitvipers, have been indistinguishable from those produced without sperm storage (results presented here, [15]). Given these distinct differences in litter characteristics, the longest reported case that is attributed to LTSS (84 months in the Javan File Snake, Acrochordus javanicus, [53]), cannot be conclusively confirmed as LTSS, as the litter characteristics are also strongly indicative of FP [15, 17]. Furthermore, it was believed that the embryo died during development, shortly prior to the death of the mother. Thus, this frequently cited case failed to produce a viable offspring. Therefore, to our knowledge, the duration of successful LTSS reported here, which can be conclusively disentangled from FP, represents the longest confirmed duration over which any vertebrate has been found to stored sperm that was later used in the production of viable offspring.

Sperm storage by females has the potential to profoundly affect mating systems, particularly male reproductive success and the strength of post-copulatory sexual selection [25, 2933, 54]. In C. atrox, while the species exhibits characteristics that could promote male-biased sexual selection (e.g., male-male combat for access to females, male-biased sex ratio, and male-biased sexual size dimorphism), Levine et al. [30] found no such pattern. In the population studied by Levine et al. [30], high instances of multiple paternity were previously reported [33]. Furthermore, of 12 females for which multiple paternity litters were identified, 10 were radio-tracked over the mating season with both courtship and mating behaviors reported. Of these, seven were not observed to mate with multiple males [33]. Thus, while mating events with additional males may have been missed, LTSS from a previous season cannot be excluded.

In snakes, while there is limited evidence that sperm stored over multiple reproductive seasons can compete with spermatozoa from recent inseminations [1, 12, 24, 32, 55], general models show that overlapping ejaculates resulting in multiple paternity can erode the strength of post-copulatory sexual selection in males [1, 25, 54]. In studies investigating post-mating sexual selection, a primary aim is to measure the opportunity for sexual selection [25, 54], or selection intensity acting directly on mate numbers using Bateman gradients or traits such as body size [2830, 33, 54, 56, 57]. These types of evolutionary analyses would clearly profit from a broader understanding of LTSS in populations given the eroding effect it may have on sexual selection [24, 30].

While the evolutionary significance of LTSS in regards to its impact on mating systems and its potential to retain genetic diversity previously considered lost from a population can be evaluated theoretically, the physiological mechanism(s) permitting LTSS are at present still unclear. However, anatomical studies have shown that seminal receptacles [8, 5861], termed “sperm storage tubules”, located in the posterior infundibulum of the oviduct, are present in multiple species of crotaline snakes, including C. atrox. Post mating, spermatozoa ascend the reproductive tract until reaching these, and sperm is believed to be stored until ovulation. Similarly, uterine muscular twisting has been reported in viperids and also could play a role [6065]. After copulation, uterine contractions may result in a twisting of the oviducts, with untwisting and therefore sperm migration occurring only after ovulation [63]. In the Neotropical rattlesnake, C. durissus, uterine muscular twisting was observed to occur from the formation of coils by the inner layers of the oviducts at the utero-vaginal junction, not actual rotation of the oviducts around their axis [64]. Within these coils, furrows formed through the process of contraction may then retain sperm within this region [63]. Interestingly, while uterine muscular twisting has been observed in both non-vitellogenic and vitellogenic females, as might be expected if it serves a sperm storage function, it has also been observed in gravid females [61, 65], questioning the anatomical function of this structure in LTSS. However, the finding presented here of multiple litters resulting from LTSS suggests that this mechanism is potentially functional in LTSS and retained until all spermatozoa are depleted; a process which may span multiple seasons. Further research into the function of uterine-muscular twisting in LTSS is clearly warranted.

Although the present example of LTTS appears to be exceptional, more frequent testing in the future will likely determine that similar cases are not uncommon in certain taxa of snakes, and LTSS is potentially more widespread among squamate reptiles than currently known. Such findings would have significant implications for the understanding of mating systems in natural populations, and the evolution of sexual selection. Furthermore, based on these results, rattlesnakes may represent an ideal model system for understanding the mechanisms by which viable sperm can be stored under non-cryogenic conditions [66], the application of which would have significance to assisted reproduction in humans, livestock, and species of conservation concern.

Acknowledgments

We thank Ryan Sawby, Dale DeNardo, Roger Repp, and Emily Taylor for assistance in the field. We thank the University of Oklahoma Supercomputing Center for Education and Research (OSCER) for access to computational resources.

Data Availability

All files, including the Structure and COLONY input files and the custom Python3 script within a Jupyter Notebook, are publicly available on GitHub (https://github.com/brenna-levine/atrox_LTSS).

Funding Statement

Funding was provided by a Research Incentive Award, and a Research Creative Activities Award (Arizona State University West) to GWS, and Faculty Startup Funds from The University of Tulsa to WB. Zoo Atlanta and Chiricahua Desert Museum provided additional financial assistance. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Schuett GW. 1992. Is long-term sperm storage an important component of the reproductive biology of temperate pitvipers? In Campbell JA, Brodie ED Jr editors. Biology of the Pitvipers. Selva: Tyler, TX. 1992. pp. 169–184. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Birkhead TR, Møller AP. 1993. Sexual selection and the temporal separation of reproductive events: sperm storage data from reptiles, birds and mammals. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 50, 295–311. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Pearse DE, Avise JC. 2001. Turtle mating systems: behavior, sperm storage, and genetic paternity. J. Hered. 92, 206–211. doi: 10.1093/jhered/92.2.206 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Holt WV, Lloyd RE. 2010. Sperm storage in the vertebrate female reproductive tract: how does it work so well. Theriogenology 73, 713–722. doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2009.07.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Bernal MA, Sinai NL, Rocha C, Caither MR, Dunker F, Rocha LA. 2014. Long-term sperm storage in the brownbanded bamboo shark, Chiloscyllium punctatum. J. Fish Biol. 86, 1171–1176. doi: 10.1111/jfb.12606 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Farrell ED, O’Sullivan N, Sacchi C, Mariani S. 2014. Multiple paternity in the starry smooth-hound shark Mustelus asterias (Carcharhiniformes: Triakidae), Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 111, 119–125. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Matsuzaki M, Sasanami T. 2017. Sperm storage in the female reproductive tract: a conserved reproductive strategy for better fertilization success. In Sasanami editor. T. Avian Reproduction: From Behavior to Molecules. Springer: Singapore. 2017. pp. 173–186. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Sever DM, Hamlett WC. 2002. Female sperm storage in reptiles. J. Exp. Zool. 292, 187–199. doi: 10.1002/jez.1154 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Racey PA. 1979. The prolonged storage and survival of spermatozoa in Chiroptera. J. Reprod. Fert. 56, 391–402. doi: 10.1530/jrf.0.0560391 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Saint Girons H. Sperm survival and transport in the female genital tract of reptiles. In Hafez ESE, Thibault CG editors. The Biology of Spermatozoa. Karger: Basel, Switzerland. 1975. pp. 105–113. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Devine MC. Potential for sperm competition in reptiles: behavioral and physiological consequences. In Smith RL editor. Sperm Competition and the Evolution of Animal Mating Systems. Academic Press: New York, NY. 1984. pp. 509–521. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Schuett GW, Gillingham JC. 1986. Sperm storage and multiple paternity in the copperhead, Agkistrodon contortrix. Copeia 1986, 807–811. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Gist DH, Jones JM. 1987. Storage of sperm in the reptilian oviduct. Scanning Microsc. 1, 1839–1849. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Olsson M, Madsen T, Nordby J, Wapstra E, Ujvari B, Wittsell H. 2003. Major histocompatibility complex and mate choice in sand lizards. Proc.R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 270, S254–S256 doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2003.0079 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Booth W, Schuett GW. 2011. Molecular genetic evidence for alternative reproductive strategies in North American pitvipers (Serpentes, Viperidae): long-term sperm storage and facultative parthenogenesis. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 104, 934–942. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Watts PC, Buley KR, Sanderson S, Boardman W, Ciofi C, Gibson R. 2006. Parthenogenesis in Komodo dragons. 444, 1021–1022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Booth W, Schuett GW. 2016. The emerging phylogenetic pattern of parthenogenesis in snakes. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 118, 172–186. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Miller KL, Rico SC, Muletz-Wolz CR, Campana MG, McInerney N, Augustine L, et al. 2019. Parthenogenesis in a captive Asian water dragon (Physignathus cocincinus) identified with novel microsatellites. PLoS ONE 14, e0217489. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217489 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Kratochvíl L, Vukić J, Červenka J, Kubička L, Pokorná MJ, Kukačková D, et al. 2020. Mixed-sex offspring produced via cryptic parthenogenesis in a lizard. Mol. Ecol. 29, 4118–4127. doi: 10.1111/mec.15617 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Pearse DE, Janzen FJ, Avise JC. 2001. Genetic markers substantiate long-term storage and utilization of sperm by female painted turtles. Heredity 86, 378–384. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2540.2001.00841.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Roques S, Díaz-Paniagua C, Portheault A, PérezSantigosa N, Hidalgo-Vila J. 2006. Sperm storage and low incidence of multiple paternity in the European pond turtle, Emys orbicularis: a secure but costly strategy? Biol. Conserv. 129, 236–243. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Calsbeek R, Bonneaud C, Prahbu S, Manoukis N, Smitth TN. 2007. Multiple paternity and sperm storage lead to increased genetic diversity in Anolis lizards. Evol. Ecol. Res. 9, 495–503. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Olsson M, Schwartz T, Uller T, Healey M. 2007. Sons are made from olds stores: sperm storage effect on sex ration in a lizard. Biol. Lett. 3, 491–493. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2007.0196 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Friesen CR, Mason RT, Arnold SJ, Estes S. 2014. Patterns of sperm use in two populations of Red-sided Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis parietalis) with long-term female sperm storage. Can. J. Zool. 92, 33–40. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Shuster SM, Wade MJ. 2003. Mating Systems and Strategies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Wade MJ, Shuster SM. 2004. Sexual selection: harem size and the variance in male reproductive success. Am. Natur. 164, 83–89. doi: 10.1086/424531 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Janicke T, Häderer IK, Lajeunesse MJ, Anthes N. 2016. Darwinian sex roles confirmed across the animal kingdom. Sci. Adv. 2, e1500983. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1500983 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Arnold SJ, Duvall D. 1994. Animal mating systems: a synthesis based on selection theory. Am. Nat. 143, 317–348. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Levine BA, Smith CF, Schuett GW, Douglas MR, Davis MA, Douglas ME. 2015. Bateman-Trivers in the 21st Century: sexual selection in a North American pitviper. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 114, 436–445. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Levine BA, Schuett GW, Clark RW, Repp RA, Hermann H-W, Booth W. 2020. No evidence of male-biased sexual selection in a snake with conventional Darwinian sex roles. R. Soc. Open Sci. 7, 201261. doi: 10.1098/rsos.201261 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Zamudio KR, Sinervo B. 2000. Polygyny, mate-guarding, and posthumous fertilization as alternative male mating strategies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97, 14427–14432. doi: 10.1073/pnas.011544998 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Uller T, Olsson M. 2008. Multiple paternity in reptiles: patterns and processes. Mol. Ecol. 18, 298–303. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2008.03772.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Clark RW, Schuett GW, Repp RA, Amarello M, Smith CF, Herrmann H-W. 2014. Mating systems, reproductive success, and sexual selection in secretive species: a case study of the western diamond-backed rattlesnake, Crotalus atrox. PLoS ONE 9, e90616. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0090616 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Birkhead TR, Møller AP. Sperm competition and sexual selection. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 1998. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Ball MA, Parker GA. 2003. Sperm competition games: sperm selection by females. J. Theor. Biol. 224, 27–42. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5193(03)00118-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Eberhard WG. Female Control: Sexual Selection by Cryptic Female Choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 1996. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Firman RC, Gasparini C, Manier MK, Pizzari T. 2017. Post-mating female control: 20 years of cryptic female choice. Trends Ecol. Evol. 32, 368–382. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2017.02.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Avise JC. Clonality: The Genetics, Ecology, and Evolution of Sexual Abstinence in Vertebrate Animals. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Avise JC. 2015. Evolutionary perspectives on clonal reproduction in vertebrate animals. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 112, 8867–8873. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1501820112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Peterson BK, Weber JN, Kay EH, Fisher HS, Hoekstra HE. 2012. Double digest RADseq: an inexpensive method for de novo SNP discovery and genotyping in model and non-model species. PLoS One, 7, e37135. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0037135 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Levine BA, Douglas MR, Yackel Adams AA, Lardner B, Reed RN, Savidge JA, et al. 2019. Genomic pedigree reconstruction identifies predictors of mating and reproductive success in an invasive vertebrate. Ecol. Evol. 9, 11863–11877. doi: 10.1002/ece3.5694 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Rohland N, Reich D. 2012. Cost-effective, high-throughput DNA sequencing libraries for multiplexed target capture. Genome Res. 22, 939–946. doi: 10.1101/gr.128124.111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Pasquesi GIM, Adams RH, Card DC, Schield DR, Corbin AB, Perry BW, et al. 2018. Squamate reptiles challenge paradigms of genomic repeat element evolution set by birds and mammals. Nat. Comm. 9, 2774. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-05279-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Chafin TK, Martin BT, Mussmann SM, Douglas MR, Douglas ME. 2018. FRAGMATIC: in silico locus prediction and its utility in optimizing ddRADseq projects. Conserv. Genet. Resour. 10, 325–328. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Andrews S. 2014 A quality control tool for high throughput sequence data. Retrieved from http://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/ projects/fastqc/.
  • 46.Catchen JM, Amores A, Hohenlohe P, Cresko W, Postlethwait JH. 2011. Stacks: Building and genotyping loci de novo from shortread sequences. G3 (Bethesda) 1, 171–182. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Catchen J, Hohenlohe PA, Bassham S, Amores A, Cresko WA. 2013. Stacks: an analysis tool set for population genomics. Mol. Ecol. 22, 3124–3140. doi: 10.1111/mec.12354 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Rochette NC, Catchen JM. 2017. Deriving genotypes from RADseq short-read data using Stacks. Nat. Protoc. 12, 2640. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2017.123 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Li H, Durbin R. 2009. Fast and accurate short-read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler Transform. Bioinformatics, 25, 1754–1760. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp324 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Mastretta-Yanes A, Arrigo N, Alvarez N, Jorgensen TH, Pineros D, Emerson BC. 2015. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 15, 28–41. doi: 10.1111/1755-0998.12291 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Jones O, Wang J. 2010. COLONY: a program for parentage and sibship inference from multilocus genotype data. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 10, 551–555. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-0998.2009.02787.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Purcell S, Neale B, Todd-Brown K, Thomas L, Ferreira MAR, Bender D, et al. 2007. PLINK: a toolset for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analysis. A. J. Hum. Genet. 81, 559–575. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Magnusson WE. 1979. Production of an embryo by an Acrochordus javanicus isolated for seven years. Copeia 1979, 744–745. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Shuster SM, Briggs WR, Dennis PA. 2013. How multiple mating by females affects sexual selection. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 368, 20120046. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2012.0046 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Jellen BC, Aldridge RD. Paternity patterns. In Aldridge RD, Sever DM editors. Reproductive Biology and Phylogeny of Snakes. Science Publisher: Enfield, NH. 2011. pp. 619–644. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Arnold SJ. 1994. Bateman’s principles and the measurement of sexual selection in plants and animals. Am. Nat. 144, S126–S149. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Glaudas X, Rice SE, Clark RW, Alexander GJ. 2020. The intensity of sexual selection, body size and reproductive success in a mating system with male–male combat: is bigger better? Oikos 129, 998–1011. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Fox W. 1956. Seminal receptacles of snakes. Anat. Rec. 124, 519–539. doi: 10.1002/ar.1091240303 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Siegel DS, Sever DM. 2008. Sperm aggregations in female Agkistrodon piscivorus (Reptilia: Squamata): a histological and ultrastructural investigation. J. Morphol. 269, 189–206. doi: 10.1002/jmor.10588 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Silva KMP, Barros VA, Rojas CA, Almeida-Santos SM. 2019. Infundibular sperm storage and uterine muscular twisting in the Amazonian lancehead, Bothrops atrox. Anat. Rec. 303, 3145–3154. doi: 10.1002/ar.24309 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Silva KMP, Braz HB, Kasperoviczus KN, Marques OAV, Almeida-Santos SM. 2020. Reproduction in the pitviper Bothrops jararacussu: large females increase their reproductive output while small males increase their potential to mate. Zoology. 142, 125816. doi: 10.1016/j.zool.2020.125816 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Siegel DS, Sever DM. 2006. Utero-muscular twisting and sperm storage in viperids. Herpetol. Conserv. Biol. 1, 87–92. [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Almeida-Santos SM, Salomao MG. Reproduction in Neotropical pitvipers, with emphasis on species of the genus Bothrops. In Schuett GW, Höggren M, Douglas ME, Greene HW editors. Biology of the Vipers. Eagle Mountain Publishing: Eagle Mountain, UT. 2002. pp. 445–462. doi: 10.1023/a:1015781330919 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Muniz-Da-Silva DF, Passos J, Siegel DS, Almeida-Santos SM. 2020. Caudal oviduct coiling in a viperid snake, Crotalus durissus. Acta Zool. 101, 69–77. [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Souza E, Almeida-Santos SM. 2020. Reproduction in the bushmaster (Lachesis muta): uterine muscular coiling and female sperm storage. Acta Zoo. In Press: doi: 10.1111/azo.12369 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Clulow J, Clulow S. 2016. Cryopreservation and other assisted reproductive technologies for the conservation of threatened amphibians and reptiles: bringing the ARTs up to speed. Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 28, 1116–1132. doi: 10.1071/RD15466 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Stefan Schlatt

26 Apr 2021

PONE-D-21-10790

Exceptional long-term sperm storage by a female vertebrate

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Booth,

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

This is an interesting observation on an exceptionally long storage period of sperm in a snake. I agree with the two reviewers that the data are interesting and that the manuscript is well written. I do support their recommendations and comments and request minor revision of the paper.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 06 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

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

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

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

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

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Stefan Schlatt

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

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

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

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

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

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

2.1.    You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: The authors report on a wild-collected female Crotalus atrox, maintained in isolation from 1999, that produced two healthy litters approximately one and six years post capture. Genetic analysis of the second litter identified paternal contribution in all offspring, thus rejecting facultative parthenogenesis. They suggest the long-term sperm storage to last approximately 71 months, making it the longest period over which a female vertebrate has been shown to store sperm that resulted in the production of healthy offspring from LTSS.

This is an observational study reproting an interesting finding with implications for sperm competition, mating and reproductive strategies in a snake. The methods applied and the data obtained appear valid. I have only a very few minor points that have tob e clarified during a revision oft he paper.

Material and methods:

I am missing a note on the approval for the collection of the animal from the wild as well as a licence for keeping it in captivity.

Whole genomic DNA was obtained from offspring: Please explain how this was done: From which tissues? Were the animals killed? By which means? And, again, under which licence?

Discussion:

Appears rather long. Please shorten if possible.

Reviewer #2: This is manuscript is well written and provides unprecedented data on exceptional long-term sperm storage for 71 months in a female Western Diamond-backed Rattlesnake (Crotalus atrox). The methods are soundly carried out. Descriptions are detailed and well documented. The combination of data obtained in captivity, genetic screening and the observation of paternal alleles in all offspring showed a very accurate result, confirming the differentiation between long-term sperm storage (LTSS) and facultative parthenogenesis (FP). Both males and females were born, all in good condition and no anomalies present, reinforcing the results presented in the paper. Some inttriguing questions about long-term sperm storage remain uncertain: we still need to understand how spermatozoa are able to survive during this period and how females may produce multiple clutches using these stored sperm. The authors of this study are experts on this subject and this manuscript is a huge contribution to the knowledge on the reproductive biology of vertebrates. This is a good paper and I look forward to see this paper published. Minor suggestions are included below:

INTRODUCTION

Line 27-29: The authors mention in these lines that ectothermic vertebrates (non-avian reptiles) may show sperm storage for several years, however they do not mention where sperm is stored. A brief anatomical description of sperm storage sites in the oviducts of female reptiles, mainly for snakes is important. Later, the authors mention in the discussion section, sperm storage in UMT (uterine muscular twisting) in the útero-vaginal junction and in the infundibular portion. The inclusion of this information in the introduction will contribute to a general view on sperm storage in the oviduct, contributing to a better understanding of this reproductive tactic by the readers.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The dataset and analysis presented by the authors strongly support the goals of the study, reflecting huge experience of the authors within these techniques. The methodology is well detailed and the replication of this study is possible. On line supporting information contains the protocols and algorithms used in this study, allowing their application in future research.

Line 121: Please, include the meaning of SNPs in the first time that this abbreviation appears in the text.

DISCUSSION

This section is short, however interesting and well written. However, I suggest the inclusion of some recent publications on uterine muscular twisting (UMT) and infundibular sperm storage in Viperidae snakes to improve this section.

Line 217-219: This paragraph may be improved with the inclusion of these recent publications (Silva et al 2019; Silva et al., 2020, Barros et al., 2020; Souza and Almeida-Santos, 2020) on sperm storage in Bothrops and Lachesis (closely related taxa). Recent data show that the UMT does not prevent the passage of spermatozoa to the infundibulum after mating as it previously hypothesized for some Viperidae snakes. The UMT has been described in vitellogenic, non-vitellogenic and pregnant females, with and without the presence of sperm, raising many doubts about the function of this structure. Recent findings showed that sperm storage in Bothrops and Lachesis occur in the furrows of the útero-vaginal junction or in the UMT, and in infundibular sperm receptacles. It suggests that Crotalus may also have infundibular sperm receptacles. Please, find the references for the publications below:

SILVA, KARINA M. P.; BARROS, VERÔNICA A.; ROJAS, CLAUDIO A.; ALMEIDA'SANTOS, SELMA M. .Infundibular sperm storage and uterine muscular twisting in the Amazonian lancehead,. Anatomical Record-Advances in Integrative Anatomy and Evolutionary Biology, v. 2019, p. ar.24309-1-10, 2019

BARROS, VERÔNICA A.; ROJAS, CLAUDIO A; ALMEIDA'SANTOS, SELMA M Biologia Reprodutiva das Serpentes Jararacas: Ciclos e Comportamentos, Dimorfismo e Maturidade sexual. 1. ed. Ilhas Mauricio: Novas Edições Acadêmicas, 2020. v. 1. 173p

SILVA, KARINA M.P.; BRAZ, HENRIQUE B.; KASPEROVICZUS, KARINA N.; MARQUES, OTAVIO A.V. ; ALMEIDA-SANTOS, SELMA M. Reproduction in the pitviper Bothrops jararacussu: large females increase their reproductive output while small males increase their potential to mate. Zoology, v. xx, p. 125816, 2020

SOUZA, ELETRA; ALMEIDA'SANTOS, SELMA MARIA. Reproduction in the bushmaster ( Lachesis muta ): Uterine muscular coiling and female sperm storage. Acta Zoologica ONLINE, v. 2020, p. 1-12, 2020

REFERENCES

This reference was not cited in the manusccript

52 -Purcell S, Neale B, Todd-Brown K, Thomas L, Ferreira MAR, Bender D, Maller J, Sklar P, de Bakker PIW, Daly MJ, Sham PC. 2007 PLINK: a toolset for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analysis. A. J. Hum. Genet. 81, 559–575.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

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

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

PLoS One. 2021 Jun 4;16(6):e0252049. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252049.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


30 Apr 2021

Response to Reviewer comments:

We thank the reviewers for the constructive feedback and have taken these into account in our revision of the manuscript. These revisions, albeit minor, enhance the quality of the manuscript.

Reviewer #1: The authors report on a wild-collected female Crotalus atrox, maintained in isolation from 1999, that produced two healthy litters approximately one and six years post capture. Genetic analysis of the second litter identified paternal contribution in all offspring, thus rejecting facultative parthenogenesis. They suggest the long-term sperm storage to last approximately 71 months, making it the longest period over which a female vertebrate has been shown to store sperm that resulted in the production of healthy offspring from LTSS.

This is an observational study reporting an interesting finding with implications for sperm competition, mating and reproductive strategies in a snake. The methods applied and the data obtained appear valid. I have only a very few minor points that have to be clarified during a revision of the paper.

Material and methods:

I am missing a note on the approval for the collection of the animal from the wild as well as a licence for keeping it in captivity.

Response – Information regarding the collection permits and IACUC approval are already provided in the Ethics Statement section of the manuscript.

Whole genomic DNA was obtained from offspring: Please explain how this was done. From which tissues? Were the animals killed? By which means? And, again, under which license?

Response – Relevant information has been included in the methods section and the lACUC protocol number can be found in the Ethics Statement.

Discussion:

Appears rather long. Please shorten if possible.

Response – While reviewer 1 suggests shortening the discussion, reviewer 2 does not, and but instead suggests expansion of the section discussing the anatomical mechanisms of sperm storage in snakes. In light of recent studies which report uterine muscular twisting in gravid females (a finding which contradicts the function of this anatomical process in LTSS), our report of sequential LTSS litters despite isolation from males suggest that this mechanism is indeed important in LTSS, and may actually permit the storage of sperm over multiple reproductive events. As such, we feel that this, in concert with the significance of our findings to sexual selection, justifies following the recommendation of reviewer 2.

Reviewer #2: This is manuscript is well written and provides unprecedented data on exceptional long-term sperm storage for 71 months in a female Western Diamond-backed Rattlesnake (Crotalus atrox). The methods are soundly carried out. Descriptions are detailed and well documented. The combination of data obtained in captivity, genetic screening and the observation of paternal alleles in all offspring showed a very accurate result, confirming the differentiation between long-term sperm storage (LTSS) and facultative parthenogenesis (FP). Both males and females were born, all in good condition and no anomalies present, reinforcing the results presented in the paper. Some intriguing questions about long-term sperm storage remain uncertain: we still need to understand how spermatozoa are able to survive during this period and how females may produce multiple clutches using these stored sperm. The authors of this study are experts on this subject and this manuscript is a huge contribution to the knowledge on the reproductive biology of vertebrates. This is a good paper and I look forward to see this paper published. Minor suggestions are included below:

INTRODUCTION

Line 27-29: The authors mention in these lines that ectothermic vertebrates (non-avian reptiles) may show sperm storage for several years, however they do not mention where sperm is stored. A brief anatomical description of sperm storage sites in the oviducts of female reptiles, mainly for snakes is important. Later, the authors mention in the discussion section, sperm storage in UMT (uterine muscular twisting) in the útero-vaginal junction and in the infundibular portion. The inclusion of this information in the introduction will contribute to a general view on sperm storage in the oviduct, contributing to a better understanding of this reproductive tactic by the readers.

Response – a brief statement has been added, which is expanded in the discussion.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The dataset and analysis presented by the authors strongly support the goals of the study, reflecting huge experience of the authors within these techniques. The methodology is well detailed and the replication of this study is possible. On line supporting information contains the protocols and algorithms used in this study, allowing their application in future research.

Line 121: Please, include the meaning of SNPs in the first time that this abbreviation appears in the text.

Response - done

DISCUSSION

This section is short, however interesting and well written. However, I suggest the inclusion of some recent publications on uterine muscular twisting (UMT) and infundibular sperm storage in Viperidae snakes to improve this section.

Line 217-219: This paragraph may be improved with the inclusion of these recent publications (Silva et al 2019; Silva et al., 2020, Barros et al., 2020; Souza and Almeida-Santos, 2020) on sperm storage in Bothrops and Lachesis (closely related taxa). Recent data show that the UMT does not prevent the passage of spermatozoa to the infundibulum after mating as it previously hypothesized for some Viperidae snakes. The UMT has been described in vitellogenic, non-vitellogenic and pregnant females, with and without the presence of sperm, raising many doubts about the function of this structure. Recent findings showed that sperm storage in Bothrops and Lachesis occur in the furrows of the útero-vaginal junction or in the UMT, and in infundibular sperm receptacles. It suggests that Crotalus may also have infundibular sperm receptacles.

Response – The section has been expanded and additional citations included.

REFERENCES

This reference was not cited in the manuscript

52 -Purcell S, Neale B, Todd-Brown K, Thomas L, Ferreira MAR, Bender D, Maller J, Sklar P, de Bakker PIW, Daly MJ, Sham PC. 2007 PLINK: a toolset for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analysis. A. J. Hum. Genet. 81, 559–575.

Response – Incorrectly numbers as 47, but now corrected.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Stefan Schlatt

10 May 2021

Exceptional long-term sperm storage by a female vertebrate

PONE-D-21-10790R1

Dear Dr. Booth,

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

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

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

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

Kind regards,

Stefan Schlatt

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The authors of the present study “Exceptional long-term sperm storage by a female vertebrate” followed all the sugestions indicated in the review and especially regarding the inclusion of more recent hypotheses about the long-term sperm storage (LTSS) in crotaline snakes. The insertion of this information aimed to improve the quality of the manuscript from the morphophysiological point of view. The study is of high quality and will stimulate new research on the storage of sperm in vertebrates. Minor sugestions are included below:

References

Line 144: change Souz by “Souza” and Almeida Santo by “Almeida-Santos”

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Stefan Schlatt

26 May 2021

PONE-D-21-10790R1

Exceptional long-term sperm storage by a female vertebrate

Dear Dr. Booth:

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

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

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

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

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Stefan Schlatt

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All files, including the Structure and COLONY input files and the custom Python3 script within a Jupyter Notebook, are publicly available on GitHub (https://github.com/brenna-levine/atrox_LTSS).


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES