Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jul 27;16(7):e0254138. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254138

Mitochondrial genome of Geomydoecus aurei, a pocket-gopher louse

Theresa A Spradling 1,‡,*, Alexandra C Place 1, Ashley L Campbell 1,¤, James W Demastes 1,
Editor: Ross Frederick Waller2
PMCID: PMC8315533  PMID: 34314423

Abstract

Parasitic lice demonstrate an unusual array of mitochondrial genome architectures and gene arrangements. We characterized the mitochondrial genome of Geomydoecus aurei, a chewing louse (Phthiraptera: Trichodectidae) found on pocket gophers (Rodentia: Geomyidae) using reads from both Illumina and Oxford Nanopore sequencing coupled with PCR, cloning, and Sanger sequencing to verify structure and arrangement for each chromosome. The genome consisted of 12 circular mitochondrial chromosomes ranging in size from 1,318 to 2,088 nucleotides (nt). Total genome size was 19,015 nt. All 37 genes typical of metazoans (2 rRNA genes, 22 tRNA genes, and 13 protein-coding genes) were present. An average of 26% of each chromosome was composed of non-gene sequences. Within the non-gene region of each chromosome, there was a 79-nt nucleotide sequence that was identical among chromosomes and a conserved sequence with secondary structure that was always followed by a poly-T region. We hypothesize that these regions may be important in the initiation of transcription and DNA replication, respectively. The G. aurei genome shares 8 derived gene clusters with other chewing lice of mammals, but in G. aurei, genes on several chromosomes are not contiguous.

Introduction

Parasitic lice (Order Phthiraptera) have mitochondrial (mt) genomes that are exceptionally variable among species and strikingly atypical of the genomes observed in most other insects or other bilaterian animals. Whereas most bilaterian animals examined have a single, large mitochondrial chromosome [1, 2], the mt genome of some parasitic lice occurs as multiple smaller chromosomes. The initial discovery of an atypical genome was made in 2009 when Shao et al. characterized 18 small, circular chromosomes of the mt genome of the human louse (Pediculus humanus; [3]). That observation has been followed by numerous other examples of atypical mitochondrial genome architecture in other parasitic lice, with species exhibiting anywhere from 2–20 chromosomes [416].

Among parasitic lice, sucking lice (suborder Anopulura), the lice of elephants and warthogs (Suborder Rhynchophthirina), and the chewing lice of mammals (Family Trichodectidae; [13]), form a monophyletic assemblage [13]. All members of this assemblage studied to date exhibit highly fragmented mt genomes [13]. The exceptionally simple mt-genome architecture of this group is characterized by small chromosomes with only one to two protein-coding genes or one rRNA gene per chromosome along with one, two, three, or four tRNA genes and a non-coding region that bears motifs shared among chromosomes within each species [516].

In this study, we characterized the mitochondrial genome of Geomydoecus aurei, a chewing louse (Phthiraptera: Trichodectidae) found on pocket gophers (Rodentia: Geomyidae). One mitochondrial chromosome bearing the cytochrome oxidase c subunit I gene (cox1) and the trnI (isoleucine) gene of this species was previously characterized [17]. Herein, we characterize 11 additional chromosomes bearing the remaining 35 genes expected for an insect. We used a combination of methods including sequence reads from both Illumina and Oxford Nanopore sequencing coupled with wet-lab methods involving PCR, cloning, and Sanger sequencing to verify structure, sequence, and arrangement.

Pocket gophers and their chewing lice, including G. aurei, have been the subjects of considerable study with respect to cophylogeny (e.g., [1820] and references therein). More recently, G. aurei has been the subject of a long-term ecological and population genetics study that spanned the course of 25 years [21, 22]. Beyond cataloging the chromosomal architecture of another species with an atypical genome, providing a better understanding of the genetics of chewing lice that inhabit pocket gophers will provide a foundation to launch more detailed studies of cospeciation and population genetics using mitochondrial sequences.

Methods

Louse collection

Pocket gophers (Thomomys bottae) were collected from Socorro County, New Mexico, with the approval from the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (Permit #3500). Animals were collected using procedures in keeping with guidelines set by the American Society of Mammalogists [23] as described by Pietan et al. [17]. This study was approved by the University of Northern Iowa Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. Because G. aurei individuals are small, approximately 0.2 mg, multiple lice were needed for this analysis. Lice used in this study were collected from the same host species collected in the same county, with a maximum geographic distance of 28 km between specimens.

rrnL (16s) chromosome sequencing using universal primers

To characterize the mitochondrial chromosome bearing the rrnL gene, DNA was extracted from the same G. aurei specimen used by Pietan et al. [17] to characterize the cox1 chromosome (JWD 39.6; New Mexico: Socorro Co.; 3.5 mi. S La Joya, 34.317, -106.857; GenBank: KX228450.1). Universal rrnL polymerase chain reaction (PCR) primers Lx16SR and 16SF (Table 1) were used [8, 12], with 39 amplification cycles and an annealing temperature of 45°C. Amplification produced a DNA product approximately 300 nucleotides (nt) in length. This PCR product was treated with ExoSap-IT (USB, Cleveland, OH) and sequenced directly at the Iowa State University DNA Facility using the amplification primers. The sequenced product was used to generate primers 16S213F and 16S162R (Table 1), which were designed to amplify outward from each other to determine the remaining portion of the rrnL chromosome. Because cloning was to be used to allow sequencing through regions of heteroplasmy, a high-fidelity amplification mixture (Platinum SuperFi Green PCR Master Mix; Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) was used for this reaction. Thermal cycles were: 2 minutes at 95°C, then 39 cycles of 45 seconds at 94°C, 45 seconds at 45°C, 45 seconds at 72°C, followed by 10 minutes at 72°C. This amplification yielded a product that was approximately 1,500 nt in length. The product was cloned using the Zero Blunt TOPO 4 PCR cloning kit according to the manufacturer’s recommendations (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA), and clone DNA was reamplified and sequenced with primers 16S213F and 16S162R as described above. Sequences were edited manually, and consensus sequences of forward and reverse reactions were created and aligned to each other using Geneious 11.0.4 [24] to generate a full rrnL chromosome sequence with double sequencing coverage.

Table 1. Primers (5’→3’) used to generate mitochondrial sequences of Geomydoecus aurei.

Chromosome Primer Sequence (5’-3’)
rrnL Lx16SR GACTGTGCTAAGGTAGCATAAT
16SF TTAATTCAACATCGAGGTCGCAA
16S213F CAGGGTCTTCTCGTCCAGTC
16S162R GAAGGGGGAGCCAAACAGTT
Multiple circles Multicircle 1 TTCTATTTTGCACCTTTTGAACGG
Multicircle 3 CTTGTAGTTGTGAACTATTAGG
atp6 ATP6587F TCCCACCCGTGATCGATAGT
ATP6240R CCGGCCTATATCACTAGCCG
cox2 20Fcox2 TTGTGGTGCTCTACATAGATTT
25Rcox2 CCACAAATCTCTGAACACTGACC
cox3 cox3710F CTCTTCGGTATGAGCGCCTT
cox3500R ACCCATGGTGTGCTCATGTT
cox3444F AACCAATAACCCCAGCCGAG
cox3974R CGAGAGGCCTGCAGTTTGTA
cob cytb494F ACACCACCACATATCCAGCC
cytb407R CTACCGCTAGGCCAACCAAA
rrnS 12S294F CCCTTTCGCTATGCCCTTCA
12S214R CTTCAATTGGCACACACGCA
nad1 374Fnad1 GTCAAACCGGATTCGTGGGA
366Rnad1 TGTCCACTGGTTGGGTTGTC
nad3 ND3DashF4 CCCAGTCTCTGCAAGTAAA
ND3DashR3 GAGATTAACCGTATCCCATTTC
ND3DashF6 GAAGAATACTTCCCACTACC
ND3DashR6 GGAGAGAAGTCTAGGGTTTG
nad4 310Fnad4 ACATCTCAGGGATCGGTTAGTC
179Rnad4 ACTTCCATGATTTTGGGTTGGA
nad 5 ND5DashR5 GTGGAGTCTGAGAACTTAATC
ND5DashR3 CCTCCACTGAGAATCTCTAC
ND5DashF5 CTTTGGTCATATCCACTTATCC
ND5DashF2 GAAGGCCTACTTTCCTTTG
ND5DashR7 CTCAGATATCCAAAGGCTAAC

Cloning and sequencing by targeting a common sequence

Comparison of DNA sequences of the G. aurei cox1 and the rrnL chromosomes revealed a 79-nt region of identical nucleotide sequence. Hypothesizing that this common sequence may be found on additional chromosomes, primers were developed to target this region with an orientation to amplify outward from the 79-nt sequence (primers Multicircle 1 and Multicircle 3; Table 1). For this analysis, additional DNA was isolated as described above from three G. aurei lice collected 12 km away from those used to determine the cox1 and rrnL chromosomes (specimens TAS 845.33, 845.35, and 845.37; New Mexico: Socorro Co.; vicinity of Polvadera, 34.22008, -106.90454). Because these primers generated a heterogeneous mixture of amplification products, a high-fidelity amplification mixture (Platinum SuperFi Green PCR Master Mix; Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) was used to generate PCR products that were then cloned as described above. Clone DNA was then amplified and sequenced as above using plasmid primers. Sequences were edited manually, and consensus sequences of forward and reverse reactions were created and aligned using Geneious 11.0.4 [24]. Resulting contigs were subjected to BLASTn searches [25] against the National Center for Biotechnology Information’s nr/nt database (https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/). This strategy produced nucleotide sequences for atp6/atp8, cob, and rrnS, which were used to generate additional primers for amplification and sequencing of the remainder of the mitochondrial circle (Table 1), resulting in 2-4x sequencing coverage of each chromosome. This strategy also produced nucleotide sequences for nad2 that were combined with sequences from genomic analysis (below).

Genome analysis

Illumina sequencing of DNA extracted from fifteen G. aurei taken from a single host individual (TAS 750; New Mexico: Socorro Co., 1.4 mi S, 0.8 mi W Las Nutrias, 34.45405556, -106.78277778) was performed as described by Light et al. [26]. These reads were trimmed using SolexaQA [27] and assembled in Geneious Version 11.04 [24]. Fifty percent of the paired-end reads were used and the minimum length for contigs was set at 131. Resulting contigs were used as a local BLAST database within Geneious [24] and suitable sequences were used for the production of primers for cox2/nad4L, cox3, nad1, nad4, and nad5 chromosomes (Table 1), which were designed to amplify outward from these genes to cover the remainder of the chromosome. Resulting sequence data were aligned with the original contig data and used to generate additional sequencing primers (Table 1) where necessary to generate 2–4× coverage for each chromosome. Illumina sequences also were used in combination with cloned sequences (above) to reconstruct a nad2 chromosome with 2x coverage.

An additional genomic analysis was performed using an Oxford Nanopore GridION X5 (Oxford Nanopore, Oxford, UK) at the Iowa State University DNA Facility. For this analysis, high molecular weight DNA was extracted from a pool of 132 frozen lice (ca. 25 mg) using the Nanobind Insect Big DNA Kit (Circulomics, Baltimore, MD). These lice came from a single host individual (TAS 866; New Mexico: Socorro Co., vicinity of Polvadera, 34.20483, -106.89633), and sequence read data were accessioned at GenBank (BioProject PRJNA689128). The Oxford Nanopore GRIDIon instrument produced 7,049 megabases (mb) of sequence data with an N50 of 13866. Currently, two annotated genomes are available for phthirapterans: Pediculus humanus [28] and Columbicula columbae [16] with genome sizes of 108 (mb) and 208mb respectively. Assuming G. aurei approximates a similar genome size, the GridION analysis achieved 30x - 60x coverage of the genome. The CANU program [29] was implemented via the Europe Galaxy Instance (UseGalaxy.eu) to correct, trim and assemble the sequences produced by the Nanopore GridION analysis. Two local BLAST databases were constructed: one of corrected and trimmed reads, and one with corrected, trimmed and assembled contigs. These databases were subjected to BLAST analysis and used to design outward-facing primers for the nad5 and nad6/nad3 chromosomes (Table 1) as needed to yield 2-4x coverage for each chromosome.

Our attempts at chromosome assembly from Nanopore and Illumina data were fraught with several difficulties including sequences in the genome that were common to multiple chromosomes, extensive heteroplasmy in portions of each chromosome, inherent weaknesses in the data sets, and limited experience on our part. The relative contribution of each of these factors to the difficulty in assembling chromosomal-length sequences from next generation data is not clear to us. In the case of the Illumina data set, mitochondrial sequences of G. aurei seemed to be low in copy number and included significant confounding sequence from another louse species included in the same Illumina reaction. Chromosomal-length Illumina contigs were created for nad2, but not for other chromosomes. Nanopore data contained multiple disagreements in what appeared to be common sequences, contributing to difficulties in alignment. Regardless, because we were unable to create chromosome-scale assemblies, we found it more productive and reliable to use the genomic data as a foothold to allow access to individual chromosomes through standard PCR, cloning, and sequencing.

Annotation and analysis of genome size

The online software program MITOS2 was used to determine locations of tRNAs, origin of replication regions, and protein-coding and rRNA genes on each chromosome [30, 31]. The program determines protein-coding genes by detecting similarity in the results of BLASTx searches against the amino acid sequences of the annotated proteins of metazoan mitochondrial genomes. The tRNA genes are annotated using a structure-based covariance model, and annotations for rRNA genes are established using structure-based covariance number models similar to the tRNA models [31]. Finally, Mitos2 uses nucleotide sequences from RefSeq and employs the protein prediction pipeline of MITOS using BLASTN to identify origins of replication on the heavy strand, and it uses a covariance model built from a manually curated set of all light-strand origins of replication annotated in RefSeq 65 (Alexander Donath, personal communication). To assess the beginning and end of protein-coding and rRNA genes that had been determined through the Blast analysis of Mitos2, alignments of nucleotide and amino acid sequences were created with Trichodectes canis, the most closely related trichodectid louse available [13], and manually adjusted in Geneious 11.0.4 [24]. Web-Beagle [32] was used to align rRNA sequences against T. canis, to examine secondary structure, and to compare regions of structural similarity.

A second computer program, ARAGORN [33], was employed using the Europe Galaxy Instance (UseGalaxy.eu; [34]) to locate and characterize potential tRNA sequences on each minicircle. ARAGORN incorporates searches for subsets of B-box consensus sequences followed by the construction of the associated T-loop and T-stem. If this process locates a B-box sequence, a search is then conducted for a subset of A-box consensus sequences, which is then followed by construction of the tRNA D-loop.

We applied linear regression analysis (Excel © 2017, Microsoft) to chromosome size vs. gene(s) size per chromosome. We also used linear regression to compare chromosome size and non-gene size per chromosome and to compare gene size vs. non-gene size. Geneious 11.0.4 [24] was used to search for direct repeats in the nucleotide sequences of chromosomes. Annotated chromosome reconstructions were accessioned at GenBank (Table 2).

Table 2. Geomydoecus aurei mitochondrial chromosomes, named for their major protein-coding or rRNA genes.

Chromosome Name Chromosome Gene Order a Size (nt) of chromosome Size (nt) of protein/rRNA Genes Non-gene Region Size (nt) b / % of chromosome tRNA Genes with Anti-codon
rrnS -L1-rrnS 1,318 700 453 in 2 segments / 34% trnL1 (tag)
MW396892
rrnL H-rrnL-V 1,545 1,185 355 in 1 segment / 23% trnH (gtg), trnV (tac)
MW396893
atp8/6 L2-atp8-atp6 1,331 162 (atp8), 338 in 2 segments / 25% trnL2 (gaa)
MW396902 678 (atp6)
cob E-cob-S1 1,545 1,086 332 in 1 segment / 21% trnE (ttc), trnS1 (tct)
MW396901
cox1c I-cox1 1,914 1,536 315 in 1 segment / 16% trnI (gat)
KX228450
cox2-nad4L Y-cox2-R-nad4L 1,511 627 (cox2), 478 in 2 segments / 32% trnY (gta), trnR (tcg)
MW396900 279 (nad4L)
cox3 P-cox3 1,356 786 504 in 2 segments / 37% trnP (tgg)
MW396899
nad1 W-nad1-Q 1,463 918 337 in 2 segments / 23% trnW (tca), trnQ (ttg)
MW396898
nad2 N-nad2-C 1,519 981 415 in 2 segments / 27% trnN (gtt), trnC (gca)
MW396897
nad6/3 F-nad6-M-T-G-nad3 1,503 441 (nad6), 473 in 6 segments / 31% trnF (gaa), trnM (cat), trnT (tgt), trnG (tcc)
MW396896 327 (nad3),
nad4 K-nad4-A-S2 1,922 1,338 404 in 2 segments / 21% trnK (ttt), trnA (tcg), trnS2 (tga)
MW396895
nad5 D-nad5 2,088 1,596 425 in 1 segment / 20% trnD (gtc)
MW396894

All 37 genes typical of animal mtDNA are represented. Chromosome name with Genbank Accession number, gene order, chromosome size, gene size, non-gene content, and tRNA composition with anti-codons are given. DNA lengths are given in nucleotides (nt).

a tRNA genes are listed by their single letter code.

b excludes protein-coding, rRNA, and tRNA genes that are presumed functional

c [17]

Results

Chromosomal architecture

The 11 circular mitochondrial chromosomes characterized in this work, together with the one characterized by Pietan et al. [17], ranged in size from 1,318 nt to 2,088 nt and carried all 37 genes typical of metazoans (2 rRNA genes, 22 tRNA genes, and 13 protein-coding genes [1, 2]; Table 2). Total genome size was 19,015 nt. Mean chromosome size was 1,585 nt (standard deviation ± 252 nt). Each of the chromosomes of the G. aurei genome included only one or two protein-coding genes or one rRNA gene. Each chromosome also included one, two, three, or four tRNA genes.

Chromosomes were compact, with the majority of each chromosome devoted to genes. Chromosome size and gene size showed a significant relationship, with larger gene content strongly associated with larger chromosomes (F = 74.1, p < 0.0001, R2 = 0.88). However, there was no significant relationship observed between chromosome size and non-gene content. Likewise, gene size and non-gene content did not exhibit a significant relationship. Non-gene regions contributed an average of 26% to the length of each chromosome (Table 2). Gaps between genes were prevalent (Fig 1). Seven of the 12 G. aurei chromosomes exhibited multiple non-gene regions interspersed among the genes (Fig 1, Table 2).

Fig 1. Mitochondrial genome organization of G. aurei.

Fig 1

Name and orientation are given for each gene, indicated by arrows. The largest number on the outside of each circles indicates its total length (nt). Non-gene regions are shown as thin lines. Sizes are proportional. Gene names are: atp8 and atp6 (for ATP synthase subunits 8 and 6), cox1-3 (for cytochrome c oxidase subunits 1–3), cob (for cytochrome b), nad1-6 and nad4L (for NADH dehydrogenase subunits 1–6 and 4L), rrnS and rrnL (for small and large subunits of ribosomal RNA). tRNA genes are designated by the single-letter abbreviations of their corresponding amino acids. “79” refers to a 79-nt sequence found on all chromosomes. “CSB” (Conserved Sequence Block) indicates a DNA sequence that is highly similar among chromosomes (Fig 2).

Motifs shared among chromosomes

Every chromosome had a 79-nt region that was identical on all chromosomes and that ran in a direction that was consistent among chromosomes relative to the direction of the genes (Figs 1 and 2). This 79-nt sequence is non-repetitive and starts with a high (70%) AT content that suddenly transitions to a high (58%) GC content 19 nt before the end of the sequence.

Fig 2. Sequence of the 79-nt sequence common to all Geomydoecus aurei mtDNA chromosomes and alignment of a 77-nt sequence that is found 108–205 nt downstream, which is referred to here as the “CSB” (Conserved Sequence Block).

Fig 2

Some of these sequences were identified as having secondary structure similar to that of a tRNA gene in some analyses.

In addition to the 79-nt common sequence, all chromosomes had a block of sequence that was highly similar among them (a “Conserved Sequence Block” or CSB; Fig 2). These sequences were identified as potentially functional copies of the trnF gene on some chromosomes, an indication of secondary structure. The CSB sequences were located 108–205 nt downstream of the 79-nt common sequence (average of 128 nt; Fig 1). Within this intervening space between the 79-nt common sequence and the CSB, MITOS [31] identified a putative origin of replication near the trnF sequence in 11 of the chromosomes (the software did not recognize an origin of replication at all in the nad4 chromosome). The CSB exhibited direct repeat regions in the sequence for all chromosomes except the nad5 chromosome, and it was followed by a poly-thymine stretch of 9–11 nucleotides that occurred 11–32 nucleotides downstream from the start of the CSB (distance was 11 nucleotides in 1 chromosome, 12 nucleotides in 3 chromosomes, 31 nucleotides in 1 chromosome, and 32 nucleotides in 7 chromosomes). Shifts in AT composition were also noted near the CSB, with high AT content (roughly 75% AT) upstream and downstream of the CSB and low AT content (44–53% AT) within the CSB.

Primitive vs. derived gene arrangements

Song et al. [13] reported eight derived gene clusters common to parasitic lice (Phthiraptera): trnI-cox1, trnY-cox2, trnE-cob-trnS1, nad1-trnQ, trnG-nad3, trnR-nad4L, trnK-nad4, and rrnL-trnV. All eight of the derived gene clusters observed in most trichodectid and Anopluran lice were also observed in G. aurei (Fig 1, Table 2). However, despite these similarities, chromosome arrangement in G. aurei was unique among the trichodectid species reported to date [13], differing in at least three important aspects. In particular, while the nad4L and cox2 genes are collocated on the same chromosome in G. aurei, they are not adjacent to each other as they are in other trichodectid species examined. Likewise, while atp8 and atp6 are collocated on the same chromosome, they are not adjacent to each other in G. aurei as they are in other trichodectid species examined. Finally, while nad3 and nad6 are collocated on the same chromosome, they are not adjacent to each other in G. aurei as they are in the trichodectid species, T. canis.

Discussion

Chromosomal architecture

Parasitic lice exhibit an impressive diversity of gene arrangement and chromosome number in their chromosomal architectures. To date, with the exception of a few very closely related species pairs, all species have a unique chromosome content and gene arrangement [14]. The G. aurei mitochondrial genome analyzed herein also was unique, though chromosome gene content bears most similarity to the genome of T. canis, the louse found on domestic dogs and wild canids. While the mitochondrial genome of T. canis includes 13 chromosomes, all 37 genes of the G. aurei genome appear on 12 chromosomes. The smaller number of chromosomes in G. aurei is attributable to the lack of a tRNA-only chromosome; T. canis has one chromosome with only 2 tRNA genes [13]. Like other trichodectid lice [13], the chromosomes were compact with little non-coding sequence, and each of the chromosomes was simple, bearing only one to two protein-coding genes or one rRNA gene per chromosome along with one, two, three, or four tRNA genes (Table 2).

Natural selection has been suggested to favor compact chromosome size in lice with fragmented mitochondrial genomes based on observations that chromosomes with longer gene regions have smaller non-gene regions [12, 13]. In G. aurei chromosomes, we observed a strong relationship between chromosome size and gene size, with larger genes occupying larger chromosomes. However, there was not a relationship between chromosome size and the length of non-gene regions in G. aurei, casting some doubt on the impact of selection on chromosome size.

Whereas genes of other trichodectid lice found on the same chromosome are adjacent or very nearly so [13], that was not the case for G. aurei genes, which were frequently interrupted by non-gene regions between them. In other words, instead of a single non-gene region per chromosome, in G. aurei, there can be one or as many as six non-gene regions per chromosome (Table 2). Gaps between genes were prevalent in G. aurei, and more than half of the protein-coding and rRNA genes lacked a tRNA gene at the beginning and/or end of them. Similar dispersion of non-gene sequences was observed in a more distantly related bird louse, however [35]. Moreover, the tRNA-punctuation model of RNA processing [36], where each major gene begins and ends with a tRNA gene, thus allowing the transcript to be processed by cutting the protein- and rRNA-coding genes from the primary transcript at the flanking tRNAs, is not observed in G. aurei. While it seems to be the exception rather than the rule, some other insects, including some lice, have been shown to lack tRNA punctuation of major genes (e.g., [4, 13, 37]).

Motifs shared among G. aurei chromosomes

Some portion of the non-gene region(s) of G. aurei mitochondrial chromosomes must serve at least two important functions, one to initiate transcription of the circle and the other to initiate replication of the chromosome itself (i.e., the D-loop; [38, 39]. Given this functional importance, we would expect to see these functionally important regions potentially shared by multiple chromosomes and relatively free of heteroplasmy. Heteroplasmy is extensive in the non-coding regions of the G. aurei cox1 chromosome, as documented by analysis of multiple clones [17]. Heteroplasmy in non-coding regions of other G. aurei chromosomes was observed here in Sanger sequencing runs, necessitating cloning to read through sequences of these portions of the chromosomes. However, the 79-nt common sequence is conserved to such a degree that it provides a useful anchor for amplification primers. Pietan et al. [17] noted a highly similar sequence in a non-congeneric species of louse, Thomomydoecus minor, that inhabits pocket gophers. This conservation between genera and the presence of an identical 79-nt region on every chromosome in a zone of otherwise extensive heteroplasmy suggest the possibility of evolutionary conservation and functional significance of this sequence, perhaps serving as a common promoter for the initiation of transcription. Alternatively, other authors have viewed the conservation of common sequences among different chromosomes within a species as a possible outcome of the mechanics of chromosomal recombination or gene conversion [3, 7, 8, 15].

Another region of conserved sequence, designated the CSB herein, was found roughly 100–200 nt downstream of the 79-nt region. This shared motif (Fig 2) differed slightly in sequence among chromosomes. As suggested by others, this universal element may be a result of recombination among chromosomes followed by diversification through mutation [3, 7, 8, 15]. Alternatively, this common sequence may represent a functionally significant site. The CSB sequence had a low AT content, but was surrounded on either side by regions of high AT on each chromosome, and it was preceded by a potential origin of replication site on 11 of the 12 chromosomes and was followed by a poly-thymine stretch of 9–11 nucleotides 11, 12, or 32 nucleotides away from the start of the “gene”, which is consistent with this region being important in DNA replication [40]. Therefore, characteristics of the CSB could reflect chromosomal mechanics (i.e., recombination), but it could suggest the presence of functional significance, perhaps in DNA replication.

Primitive vs. derived gene arrangements

Song et al. [13] reported an exceptionally diverse set of karyotypes among trichodectid lice. In their analysis, the only species of lice with identical mitochondrial karyotypes were species that occurred on the same or very closely related host species, consistent with cospeciation from recent common ancestors. In their character-mapping analysis, they identified eight derived mitochondrial gene cluster arrangements (protein-coding genes plus tRNA genes). All eight of these derived characters are observed in the three species of Bovicola that they analyzed, and they are also observed here in G. aurei. Trichodectes canis shared only six of these eight derived gene clusters. Phylogenetic analysis of the cox1 gene indicates that G. aurei and T. canis are more closely related to one another than either is to the genus Bovicola (see Supplementary Material of [13]). Therefore, two of these derived gene clusters were likely lost in the lineage leading to T. canis.

The G. aurei mitochondrial genome is unusual in another respect. All eutherian mammal lice described to date have shown an atp8-atp6 arrangement, with the two genes being adjacent to each other. As discussed by Sweet et al. [15], these genes have been understood to be co-transcribed in most species [41, 42], although two exceptions to this rule have been described in bird lice [4, 15]. The arrangement of these genes on the same chromosome but not contiguous (interrupted by 29 nt of non-coding sequence) in G. aurei presents yet another exception to this rule and may have implications for how mRNA processing or translation occurs in lice.

Acknowledgments

Portions of this work were the subject of a University of Northern Iowa Master of Science thesis (A. Place). We thank Wyatt Andersen, Jillian Hill, and Dino Bolic for their assistance in the laboratory. We thank Arun Somwarpet-Seetharam and Tanya Murtha at the Iowa State University DNA Facility for their assistance. We are grateful to Alexander Donath, who provided helpful recommendations on interpretation of Mitos2 analyses, and to two anonymous reviewers.

Data Availability

Nanopore sequence data were accessioned accessioned at GenBank (PRJNA689128). Mitochondrial chromosome data were accessioned at GenBank (MW396892-396902).

Funding Statement

Portions of this work were funded by National Science Foundation Grant DEB 1445708 to TAS and JWD. The Galaxy server that was used for some calculations is in part funded by Collaborative Research Centre 992 Medical Epigenetics (DFG grant SFB 992/1 2012) and German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF grants 031 A538A/A538C RBC, 031L0101B/031L0101C de.NBI-epi, 031L0106 de.STAIR (de.NBI)). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Boore JL. Animal mitochondrial genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 1999;27(8). doi: 10.1093/nar/27.8.1767 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Lavrov D V. Key transitions in animal evolution: A mitochondrial DNA perspective. Integr Comp Biol. 2007. Nov;47(5):734–43. doi: 10.1093/icb/icm045 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Shao R, Kirkness EF, Barker SC. The single mitochondrial chromosome typical of animals has evolved into 18 minichromosomes in the human body louse, Pediculus humanus. Genome Res. 2009. May;19(5):904–12. doi: 10.1101/gr.083188.108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Cameron SL, Yoshizawa K, Mizukoshi A, Whiting MF, Johnson KP. Mitochondrial genome deletions and minicircles are common in lice (Insecta: Phthiraptera). BMC Genomics [Internet]. 2011. Aug 4;12. Available from: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/12/394 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Shao R, Zhu XQ, Barker SC, Herd K. Evolution of extensively fragmented mitochondrial genomes in the lice of humans. Genome Biol Evol. 2012;4(11). doi: 10.1093/gbe/evs088 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Jiang H, Barker SC, Shao R. Substantial variation in the extent of mitochondrial genome fragmentation among blood-sucking lice of mammals. Genome Biol Evol. 2013;5(7). doi: 10.1093/gbe/evt094 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Dong WG, Song S, Jin DC, Guo XG, Shao R. Fragmented mitochondrial genomes of the rat lice, Polyplax asiatica and Polyplax spinulosa: Intra-genus variation in fragmentation pattern and a possible link between the extent of fragmentation and the length of life cycle. BMC Genomics. 2014;15(1):1–12. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-15-44 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Dong WG, Song S, Guo XG, Jin DC, Yang Q, Barker SC, et al. Fragmented mitochondrial genomes are present in both major clades of the blood-sucking lice (suborder Anoplura): Evidence from two Hoplopleura rodent lice (family Hoplopleuridae). BMC Genomics. 2014;15(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Song SD, Barker SC, Shao R. Variation in mitochondrial minichromosome composition between blood-sucking lice of the genus Haematopinus that infest horses and pigs. Parasites and Vectors. 2014;7(1). doi: 10.1186/s13071-014-0467-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Shao R, Barker SC, Li H, Song S, Poudel S, Su Y. Fragmented mitochondrial genomes in two suborders of parasitic lice of eutherian mammals (Anoplura and Rhynchophthirina, Insecta). Sci Rep. 2015. Nov 30;5(November):1–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Herd KE, Barker SC, Shao R. The mitochondrial genome of the chimpanzee louse, Pediculus schaeffi: Insights into the process of mitochondrial genome fragmentation in the blood-sucking lice of great apes. BMC Genomics. 2015;16(1). doi: 10.1186/s12864-015-1843-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Shao R, Li H, Barker SC, Song S. The mitochondrial genome of the guanaco louse, Microthoracius praelongiceps: Insights into the ancestral mitochondrial Karyotype of Sucking Lice (Anoplura, Insecta). Genome Biol Evol. 2017. Feb 1;9(2):431–45. doi: 10.1093/gbe/evx007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Song F, Li H, Liu GH, Wang W, James P, Colwell DD, et al. Mitochondrial genome fragmentation unites the parasitic lice of Eutherian mammals. Syst Biol. 2019. May 1;68(3):430–40. doi: 10.1093/sysbio/syy062 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Fu YT, Nie Y, Duan DY, Liu GH. Variation of mitochondrial minichromosome composition in Hoplopleura lice (Phthiraptera: Hoplopleuridae) from rats. Parasites and Vectors [Internet]. 2020. Oct 6;13(1):1–9. Available from: doi: 10.1186/s13071-019-3862-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Sweet AD, Johnson KP, Cameron SL. Mitochondrial genomes of Columbicola feather lice are highly fragmented, indicating repeated evolution of minicircle-type genomes in parasitic lice. PeerJ. 2020;2020(3):1–27. doi: 10.7717/peerj.8759 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Baldwin-Brown JG, Villa SM, Vickrey AI, Johnson KP, Bush SE, Clayton DH, et al. The assembled and annotated genome of the pigeon louse Columbicola columbae, a model ectoparasite. G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics. 2021;jkab009:1–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Pietan LL, Spradling TA, Demastes JW. The mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase subunit I gene occurs on a minichromosome with extensive heteroplasmy in two species of chewing lice, Geomydoecus aurei and Thomomydoecus minor. PLoS One [Internet]. 2016;11(9):1–15. Available from: doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0162248 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Hafner MS, Sudman PD, Villablanca FX, Spradling TA, Demastes JW, Nadler SA. Disparate rates of molecular evolution in cospeciating hosts and parasites. Science (80-). 1994;265(5175):1087–90. doi: 10.1126/science.8066445 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Demastes JW, Spradling TA, Hafner MS, Spies GR, Hafner DJ, Light JE. Cophylogeny on a fine scale: Geomydoecus chewing lice and their pocket gopher hosts, Pappogeomys bulleri. J Parasitol. 2012;98(2):262–70. doi: 10.1645/GE-2904.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Light JE, Hafner MS. Cophylogeny and disparate rates of evolution in sympatric lineages of chewing lice on pocket gophers. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2007. Dec;45(3):997–1013. doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2007.09.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Demastes JW, Hafner DJ, Hafner MS, Light JE, Spradling TA. Loss of genetic diversity, recovery and allele surfing in a colonizing parasite, Geomydoecus aurei. Mol Ecol. 2019;28(4):703–20. doi: 10.1111/mec.14997 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Hafner DJ, Hafner MS, Spradling TA, Light JE, Demastes JW. Temporal and spatial dynamics of competitive parapatry in chewing lice. Ecol Evol. 2019;9(13):7410–24. doi: 10.1002/ece3.5183 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Sikes RS, Gannon WL. Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the use of wild mammals in research. J Mammal. 2011. Feb 16;92(1):235–53. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kearse M, Moir R, Wilson A, Stones-Havas S, Cheung M, Sturrock S, et al. Geneious Basic: An integrated and extendable desktop software platform for the organization and analysis of sequence data. Bioinformatics. 2012;28(12). doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts199 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ. Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol. 1990;215(3). doi: 10.1016/S0022-2836(05)80360-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Light JE, Harper SE, Johnson KP, Demastes JW, Spradling TA. Development and Characterization of 12 Novel Polymorphic Microsatellite Loci for the Mammal Chewing Louse Geomydoecus aurei (Insecta: Phthiraptera) and a Comparison of Next-Generation Sequencing Approaches for Use in Parasitology. J Parasitol. 2018;104(1):89–95. doi: 10.1645/17-130 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Cox MP, Peterson DA, Biggs PJ. SolexaQA: At-a-glance quality assessment of Illumina second-generation sequencing data. BMC Bioinformatics. 2010;11. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-11-485 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Kirkness EF, Haas BJ, Sun W, Braig HR, Perotti MA, Clark JM, et al. Genome sequences of the human body louse and its primary endosymbiont provide insights into the permanent parasitic lifestyle. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010. Jul 6;107(27):12168–73. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1003379107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Koren S, Walenz BP, Berlin K, Miller JR, Bergman NH, Phillippy AM. Canu: Scalable and accurate long-read assembly via adaptive κ-mer weighting and repeat separation. Genome Res. 2017;27(5). doi: 10.1101/gr.215087.116 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Bernt M, Donath A, Jühling F, Externbrink F, Florentz C, Fritzsch G, et al. MITOS: Improved de novo metazoan mitochondrial genome annotation. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2013;69(2). doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2012.09.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Donath A, Jühling F, Al-Arab M, Bernhart SH, Reinhardt F, Stadler PF, et al. Improved annotation of protein-coding genes boundaries in metazoan mitochondrial genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47(20):10543–52. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkz833 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Mattei E, Pietrosanto M, Ferrè F, Helmer-Citterich M. Web-Beagle: A web server for the alignment of RNA secondary structures. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43(W1). doi: 10.1093/nar/gkv489 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Laslett D, Canback B. ARAGORN, a program to detect tRNA genes and tmRNA genes in nucleotide sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32(1). doi: 10.1093/nar/gkh152 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Afgan E, Baker D, van den Beek M, Blankenberg D, Bouvier D, Čech M, et al. The Galaxy platform for accessible, reproducible and collaborative biomedical analyses: 2016 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44(W1). doi: 10.1093/nar/gkw343 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Cameron SL, Johnson KP, Whiting MF. The mitochondrial genome of the screamer louse Bothriometopus (Phthiraptera: Ischnocera): Effects of extensive gene rearrangements on the evolution of the genome. J Mol Evol. 2007;65(5). doi: 10.1007/s00239-007-9042-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Ojala D, Montoya J, Attardi G. tRNA punctuation model of RNA processing in human mitochondria. Nature. 1981;290(5806):470–4. doi: 10.1038/290470a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Stewart JB, Beckenbach AT. Characterization of mature mitochondrial transcripts in Drosophila, and the implications for the tRNA punctuation model in arthropods. Gene. 2009;445(1–2). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Clayton DA. Replication of animal mitochondrial DNA. Vol. 28, Cell. 1982. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(82)90049-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Aquadro CF, Greenberg BD. Human mitochondrial DNA variation and evolution: Analysis of nucleotide sequences from seven individuals. Genetics. 1983;103(2). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Saito S, Tamura K, Aotsuka T. Replication origin of mitochondrial DNA in insects. Genetics. 2005;171(4). doi: 10.1534/genetics.105.046243 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Senior AE. ATP synthesis by oxidative phosphorylation. Physiol Rev. 1988;68(1):177–231. doi: 10.1152/physrev.1988.68.1.177 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Pélissier P, Camougrand N, Velours G, Guèrin M. NCA3, a nuclear gene involved in the mitochondrial expression of subunits 6 and 8 of the Fo-F1 ATP synthase of S. cerevisiae. Curr Genet. 1995;27(5). doi: 10.1007/BF00311209 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Ross Frederick Waller

26 Apr 2021

PONE-D-21-09156

Mitochondrial Genome of Geomydoecus aurei, a Pocket-Gopher Louse

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Spradling,

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.

Both reviewers applaud the thoroughness of this report and the contribution that your data have to the field. However, both have identified minor issues with the interpretation of some of the analyses, and these comments should be addressed in your revision.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 10 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,

Ross Frederick Waller, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

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

2. 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.

[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: I Don't Know

**********

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: Spradling et al. present a very well conducted and valuable contribution to our understanding of louse mitochondrial genomics. While there are a few minor issues of interpretation and aspects in which I would prefer the authors provide a bit more detail, the paper is very close to publishable as is. Suggestions and questions are outlined below:

1) Line 56. Given that highly fragmented mitochondrial genomes are in no way synapomorphic for the clade Trichodectidae+Anoplura (Sweet 2020, 2021) and rather have evolved repeatedly across the Ischnocera, the term Mitodivisia shouldn't be used. Song et al. knew when they published that other lice had divided mt genomes (citing papers which had shown it) yet chose to ignore this in proposing such an ill fitting taxon name, we have even less reason to ignore this now that Sweet's work is coming out. That a fragmented mt genome of this type is ancestral for the clade Tricho+Ano is beyond doubt, but the clade shouldn't be named for a convergent feature.

2) Methods. The authors are to be applauded for the highly detailed description of the processes used to generate the mt genome sequences. The combination of PCR generated chromosome sequences with next generation data allows for strong comparison of assembly methods across the sequencing data types. Could you please provide some discussion on how assembly of the NGS data in Geneious (particularly through non-coding regions) compared with that of the PCR+cloning generated sequencing of the same regions?

3) Annotations. MITOS is a comparatively poor method for inferring rRNA annotations, the covarion model for such genes is much more poorly developed than the one for tRNAs (the shorter size and common cruciform arrangement makes that considerably easier). Accordingly rrnL is much larger than most other louse mt genomes sequenced to date (which are in the order or 1100-1200 bp). I suspect that it doesn't overlap H, but rather that the gene is roughly 300bp shorter than currently annotated and thus would match the minichromosome found in Damalinia (Cameron et al. 2011).

In a similar vein, I would encourage the authors to examine the gaps/overlaps identified between PCG and rRNA genes by making alignments of the MITOS inferred annotations against those of other lice to check the algorithm. MITOS is frequently deficient in determining start and stop codons when compared against other related taxa and I would not accept the annotations as outputted without further examination.

4) tRNA punctuation model. MITOS doesn't use the punctuation model in its annotation 'decisions' and has no issue with overlaps between tRNAs and PCGS - so tends to hugely underestimate incomplete stop codons. These should be revealed by doing the alignment comparisons suggested at #3, but I suspect you are misinterpreting the punctuation model - MITOS is not a good test of it's relevance to a given taxon when overlaps are inferred. Conversely, it really only applies to truncating the transcription of a gene which lacks a full stop codon, spacer sequence doesn't need to be post transcriptionally modified for the mRNA to be correctly translated (it just drops off at the stop codon), so the text at lines 303 and 315 reflect this mild misinterpretation of Ojala's model.

5) Similarity between the duplicated copies of tRNA-F should be quantified and probably also depicted in a figure (an alignment of the different chromosomal copies) such that the readers can clearly see this interesting result. Additionally, as the arrangement F-ND6 is found in all other trichodectids (and is common across Ischnocera: Cameron et al 2011), further exploration of why you consider the F-ND6-M-T-G-ND3 copy to be non-functional whereas other chromosomes are considered functional is worth exploring through such data. It's not impossible that the copy on F-ND6-M-etc has been rendered non-functional by mutations after duplication, but given that this is a strong candidate for the ancestral position in this family it bears extra scrutiny.

6) Primitive & Derived Gene Arrangements. These derived gene boundaries are somewhat misrepresented (lines 266-268) as 7 pf the 8 listed (all but E-cob-S1) are found in one or more other lice and only E-cob-S1 is reasonably synapomorphic for Tricho+Ano. This section is actually a discussion of shared derived gene boundaries in Ischnocera and should be presented as such.

Reviewer #2: This is an interesting, thorough and solid manuscript.

My only major comment is on the interpretation/annotation of trnF gene and trnF*. It is very unusual to have the same gene or its pseudo gene on all 12 minichromosomes, and they all have the opposite orientation to all other genes and all in the middle of non-coding regions. The authors will have to present enough convincing evidence to support the interpretation/annotation of trnF and trnF*. Having a secondary structure alone produced by a tRNA search program is not convincing because it can be formed simply by chance. This interpretation/annotation can be wrong and thus may mislead readers. These sequences look more like part of the non-coding regions which happen to form tRNA-like structure, based on what I can see in the current manuscript.

My minor comments are:

1. Line 33: trnF is mis-written as tRNF here and many times in the manuscript. Pls correct.

2. Line 63: correct tRNI to trnI.

3. Line 198: Table 2, row 3: pls check rrnL annotation. 1410 nt seems too long thus overlapping with trnV could be over-estimated. rrnL is ~1100 nt in some lice reported.

4. Line 198: Table 2, row 4: atp6/8 should be atp8/6.

5. Line 198: Table 2, row 5: Cob should be cob.

6. Table 2 bottom note: correct tRNAF to trnF.

7. Line 223: verify "six tRNA genes overlapping other genes by 7-64 nucleotides" after checking gene annotation.

8. Line 235: tRNAF to trnF.

9. Line 247: atp6/atp8 should be atp8/atp6.

10. Line 254: briefly explain how MITOS [30] works to identify a putative origin of replication in mt minichromosomes.

11. Line 267: nat1 should be nad1.

12. Figure 1: pls check rrnL annotation. 1410 nt seems too long thus overlapping with trnV could be over-estimated.

13. Figure 1: atp6 should be atp8, and vice versa.

14. Figure 1: pls check nad2 and nad4 annotation. Is there is an alternative annotation of their start site?

**********

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 Jul 27;16(7):e0254138. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254138.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


31 May 2021

Reviewer #1: Spradling et al. present a very well conducted and valuable contribution to our understanding of louse mitochondrial genomics. While there are a few minor issues of interpretation and aspects in which I would prefer the authors provide a bit more detail, the paper is very close to publishable as is. Suggestions and questions are outlined below:

1) Line 56. Given that highly fragmented mitochondrial genomes are in no way synapomorphic for the clade Trichodectidae+Anoplura (Sweet 2020, 2021) and rather have evolved repeatedly across the Ischnocera, the term Mitodivisia shouldn't be used. Song et al. knew when they published that other lice had divided mt genomes (citing papers which had shown it) yet chose to ignore this in proposing such an ill fitting taxon name, we have even less reason to ignore this now that Sweet's work is coming out. That a fragmented mt genome of this type is ancestral for the clade Tricho+Ano is beyond doubt, but the clade shouldn't be named for a convergent feature.

***We agree. Taxonomic use removed from three places in manuscript.

2) Methods. The authors are to be applauded for the highly detailed description of the processes used to generate the mt genome sequences. The combination of PCR generated chromosome sequences with next generation data allows for strong comparison of assembly methods across the sequencing data types. Could you please provide some discussion on how assembly of the NGS data in Geneious (particularly through non-coding regions) compared with that of the PCR+cloning generated sequencing of the same regions?

***See new paragraph at end of “Genome Analysis” section in Methods.

3) Annotations. MITOS is a comparatively poor method for inferring rRNA annotations, the covarion model for such genes is much more poorly developed than the one for tRNAs (the shorter size and common cruciform arrangement makes that considerably easier). Accordingly rrnL is much larger than most other louse mt genomes sequenced to date (which are in the order or 1100-1200 bp). I suspect that it doesn't overlap H, but rather that the gene is roughly 300bp shorter than currently annotated and thus would match the minichromosome found in Damalinia (Cameron et al. 2011).

***On reinspection (using Mitos2 but limiting the search to the single feature of interest), we find the rrnL gene to be smaller. We reached out to Alexander Donath for support with Mitos2, and determined that it is most likely that the annotation software is “tricked” into returning a longer length of rrnL that includes the surrounding tRNAs. A similar problem seen when T. canis sequence is run through Mitos2. Sequence alignment is difficult, but we examined alignments both in Geneious and using Beagle. In the end, we trimmed the rrnL gene annotation to remove the overlap with trnH and trnV. We removed text about overlapping genes as our evidence for this is poor.

In a similar vein, I would encourage the authors to examine the gaps/overlaps identified between PCG and rRNA genes by making alignments of the MITOS inferred annotations against those of other lice to check the algorithm. MITOS is frequently deficient in determining start and stop codons when compared against other related taxa and I would not accept the annotations as outputted without further examination.

***PCG boundaries have been reevaluated, particularly in cases where we see potential overlap with tRNA genes. Using MITOS2 again, but limiting the search to the single feature of interest, we’ve identified new boundaries for nad1, nad2, and nad6 that we think are more consistent with what has been reported for other species. This reanalysis removes the overlap between nad2 and trnN. The additional slight overlap in PCG and tRNA boundaries still exists for nad1, nad4, cox1 (Pietan et al.), specifically at the beginning of nad4, nad1, and cox1 (Pietan et al.) genes where there are multiple potential start sites, but manual alignment of these gene sequences with other trichodectid genes is not a straightforward process in these regions given the amount of sequence divergence at those sites. We trimmed the annotation to begin at the next available start site that did not overlap with the upstream tRNA gene, and we edited the text and figure accordingly, also partly as a result of our conversation with Alexander Donath.

4) tRNA punctuation model. MITOS doesn't use the punctuation model in its annotation 'decisions' and has no issue with overlaps between tRNAs and PCGS - so tends to hugely underestimate incomplete stop codons. These should be revealed by doing the alignment comparisons suggested at #3, but I suspect you are misinterpreting the punctuation model - MITOS is not a good test of it's relevance to a given taxon when overlaps are inferred. Conversely, it really only applies to truncating the transcription of a gene which lacks a full stop codon, spacer sequence doesn't need to be post transcriptionally modified for the mRNA to be correctly translated (it just drops off at the stop codon), so the text at lines 303 and 315 reflect this mild misinterpretation of Ojala's model.

***All of our sequences have full stop codons. The text the tRNA punctuation model has been edited in last paragraph of “Chromosome Architecture” in Discussion.

5) Similarity between the duplicated copies of tRNA-F should be quantified and probably also depicted in a figure (an alignment of the different chromosomal copies) such that the readers can clearly see this interesting result. Additionally, as the arrangement F-ND6 is found in all other trichodectids (and is common across Ischnocera: Cameron et al 2011), further exploration of why you consider the F-ND6-M-T-G-ND3 copy to be non-functional whereas other chromosomes are considered functional is worth exploring through such data. It's not impossible that the copy on F-ND6-M-etc has been rendered non-functional by mutations after duplication, but given that this is a strong candidate for the ancestral position in this family it bears extra scrutiny.

***Fig. 2 has been added to provide an alignment. Now that we have reevaluated the ND3 chromosome, we feel confident that there is indeed a functional trnF gene on that chromosome, near the ancestral position (near ND6). We have reframed our perspective of the sequences we were calling trnF or trnF-like, and now refer to these as a conserved sequence block (CSB), consistent with other authors.

6) Primitive & Derived Gene Arrangements. These derived gene boundaries are somewhat misrepresented (lines 266-268) as 7 pf the 8 listed (all but E-cob-S1) are found in one or more other lice and only E-cob-S1 is reasonably synapomorphic for Tricho+Ano. This section is actually a discussion of shared derived gene boundaries in Ischnocera and should be presented as such.

***We have clarified this (first sentence of the section titled, “Primitive vs. Derived Gene Arrangements” in the Results.

Reviewer #2: This is an interesting, thorough and solid manuscript.

My only major comment is on the interpretation/annotation of trnF gene and trnF*. It is very unusual to have the same gene or its pseudo gene on all 12 minichromosomes, and they all have the opposite orientation to all other genes and all in the middle of non-coding regions. The authors will have to present enough convincing evidence to support the interpretation/annotation of trnF and trnF*. Having a secondary structure alone produced by a tRNA search program is not convincing because it can be formed simply by chance. This interpretation/annotation can be wrong and thus may mislead readers. These sequences look more like part of the non-coding regions which happen to form tRNA-like structure, based on what I can see in the current manuscript.

***On further analysis and inspection of the nad3/nad6 chromosome, we see that we were missing the functional copy of trnF in a position that would be expected based on sequences of other trichodectid lice. We have submitted a new Genbank entry for this chromosome (and also for nad2 and 16s). All statistical analyses that used gene size have been repeated and new numbers inserted in the text. The sequence we previously referred to as trnF or trnF like is now called CSB (conserved sequence block) and Figure 2 has been created to show that alignment.

My minor comments are:

1. Line 33: trnF is mis-written as tRNF here and many times in the manuscript. Pls correct. ***Completed.

2. Line 63: correct tRNI to trnI. ***Corrected.

3. Line 198: Table 2, row 3: pls check rrnL annotation. 1410 nt seems too long thus overlapping with trnV could be over-estimated. rrnL is ~1100 nt in some lice reported.

***On reinspection, we find the rrnL gene to be 1,058 bp, which seems more reasonable in comparison to other species, as you point out.

4. Line 198: Table 2, row 4: atp6/8 should be atp8/6. ***Corrected

5. Line 198: Table 2, row 5: Cob should be cob. ***Corrected

6. Table 2 bottom note: correct tRNAF to trnF. ***Corrected

7. Line 223: verify "six tRNA genes overlapping other genes by 7-64 nucleotides" after checking gene annotation.

***As described in our response to reviewer 1, we have reanalyzed data, altered some gene annotations, and removed discussion of overlapping genes.

8. Line 235: tRNAF to trnF. ***Corrected

9. Line 247: atp6/atp8 should be atp8/atp6. ***Corrected

10. Line 254: briefly explain how MITOS [30] works to identify a putative origin of replication in mt minichromosomes.

***This has been added to the Methods section, first paragraph of “Annotation and Analysis of Genome Size.”

11. Line 267: nat1 should be nad1. ***Corrected

12. Figure 1: pls check rrnL annotation. 1410 nt seems too long thus overlapping with trnV could be over-estimated.

***On reanalysis, we find the rrnL gene to be 1,058 nt, placing the gene size just smaller than that of Trichodectes canis (1,092 nt). The new gene boundary annotations have been submitted to Genbank.

13. Figure 1: atp6 should be atp8, and vice versa. Corrected

14. Figure 1: pls check nad2 and nad4 annotation. Is there is an alternative annotation of their start site? ***The nad2 chromosome has been reinspected. We adjusted the placement of the start site. It aligns well with the Trichodectes canis nad2 start and produces a gene that is 981 nt, which is within 42 bp of the T. canis gene length. The nad4 chromosome and gene boundaries have been reinspected. We believe the start and end sites are both correct, and they produce a gene length of 1,338 nt, which is within 21 bp of the gene length in T. canis.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Ross Frederick Waller

21 Jun 2021

Mitochondrial Genome of Geomydoecus aurei, a Pocket-Gopher Louse

PONE-D-21-09156R1

Dear Dr. Spradling,

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,

Ross Frederick Waller, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Ross Frederick Waller

19 Jul 2021

PONE-D-21-09156R1

Mitochondrial Genome of Geomydoecus aurei, a Pocket-Gopher Louse

Dear Dr. Spradling:

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. Ross Frederick Waller

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

    Nanopore sequence data were accessioned accessioned at GenBank (PRJNA689128). Mitochondrial chromosome data were accessioned at GenBank (MW396892-396902).


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES