Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2022 Jul 7;17(7):e0263804. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263804

Genetic determination and JARID2 over-expression in a thermal incubation experiment in Casque-Headed Lizard

Gabriel Suárez-Varón 1, Eva Mendoza-Cruz 2, Armando Acosta 3, Maricela Villagrán-Santa Cruz 2, Diego Cortez 3,*, Oswaldo Hernández-Gallegos 1
Editor: Patrick R Stephens4
PMCID: PMC9262179  PMID: 35797377

Abstract

Non-avian reptiles, unlike mammals and birds, have undergone numerous sex determination changes. Casque-Headed Lizards have replaced the ancestral XY system shared across pleurodonts with a new pair of XY chromosomes. However, the evolutionary forces that triggered this transition have remained unclear. An interesting hypothesis suggests that species with intermediate states, with sex chromosomes but also thermal-induced sex reversal at specific incubation temperatures, could be more susceptible to sex determination turnovers. We contrasted genotypic data (presence/absence of the Y chromosome) against the histology of gonads of embryos from stages 35–37 incubated at various temperatures, including typical male-producing (26°C) and female-producing (32°C) temperatures. Our work apparently reports for the first time the histology of gonads, including morphological changes, from stages 35–37 of development in the family Corytophanidae. We also observed that all embryos developed hemipenes, suggesting sex-linked developmental heterochrony. We observed perfect concordance between genotype and phenotype at all temperatures. However, analysis of transcriptomic data from embryos incubated at 26°C and 32°C identified transcript variants of the chromatin modifiers JARID2 and KDM6B that have been linked to temperature-dependent sex determination in other reptiles. Our work tested the validity of a mixed sex determination system in the family Corytophanidae. We found that XY chromosomes are dominant; however, our work supports the hypothesis of a conserved transcriptional response to incubation temperatures across non-avian reptiles that could be a reminiscence of an ancestral sex determination system.

Introduction

Although squamate reptiles are the most species-rich group among non-avian reptiles (96.3% of the diversity [1]) the factors that drive variation in sex-determination mechanisms among species remain poorly understood. In squamate reptiles, sex determination occurs by two general methods: genotypic sex determination (GSD, the norm for Squamata) and temperature-dependent sex determination (TSD). In the first method, specific sex chromosomes control the development of the gonads, whereas in the second method, external cues, typically ambient temperature, regulate the sexual differentiation of ovaries and testis [2]. In many TSD species, ~26°C produces 100% males (i.e., male-producing temperature), whereas ~32°C produces 100% females (i.e., female-producing temperature).

Historically, researchers assumed that GSD and TSD were mutually exclusive; however, as sex determination in more non-avian reptiles has been studied, we now understand that GSD and TSD represent the endpoints of a continuum [3, 4] with some lizards showing temperature-induced sex reversal where ambient temperature can alter the genetic pathways of gonad differentiation [5]. Several squamate reptiles such as the three skinks Niveoscincus ocellatus (Spotted Skink) [6], Eulamprus heatwolei (Water-Skink) [7, 8], and Bassiana duperreyi (Eastern Three-Lined Skink) [4, 9], as well as the agamid Pogona vitticeps (Central Bearded Dragon) [10, 11] show intermediate states where the sex of the offspring is controlled by sex chromosomes under medium incubation temperatures but sex-linked genes can be overridden by alternative signaling cascades at elevated (Central Bearded Dragon [11]) or lowered incubation temperatures (Eastern Three-Lined Skink [12]).

Although mammals and birds have stable sex chromosomes, non-avian reptiles have undergone numerous sex determination changes with lineages shifting from TSD to GSD and vice versa [13]. A general explanation of why sex determination changes are more common in reptiles is lacking. Analyses of ancestral states indicated that the last common ancestor of all reptiles had TSD [14, 15] and, subsequently, GSD systems evolved in some lineages [14, 15]. It is possible, therefore, that the TSD systems we presently observe in turtles, crocodiles, and some lizards are derived from the ancestral TSD system [8, 16].

Non-avian reptiles are thought to have evolved temperature-dependent sex determination because their embryos develop in a close relationship with the environment [17]. An interesting evolutionary hypothesis suggests that species with intermediate states showing sex chromosomes and thermal-induced sex reversal may be more susceptible to sex determination turnovers [18] because the ancestral TSD system is still present, but it has been overridden by sex chromosomes [8]. This hypothesis is supported by observations in the Central Bearded Dragon (P. vitticeps) where TSD becomes the dominant sex determination system when the ZW chromosomes are lost [10]. Moreover, three phylogenetically distant reptiles, a turtle (Trachemys scripta), a crocodile (Alligator mississippiensis), and the Central Bearded Dragon, showed the same temperature-dependent spliced isoforms of two genes members of the family Jumonji of chromatin modifiers, KDM6B and JARID2 [16]; KDM6B plays an important role in temperature-dependent sex determination signaling cascade because its knockdown results in a male-to-female sex reversal at male-producing temperatures in the turtle T. scripta [19]. JARID2 has been proposed to play an important role in the temperature-dependent sex determination pathway in non-avian reptiles [20].

Pleurodonts, including iguanas, spiny lizards, and anoles have a common XY system [21, 22]. In Anolis carolinensis (Green Anole), researchers characterized a highly degenerated Y chromosome and a perfect dosage compensation mechanism that over-expresses the X chromosome in males [23]. In the pleurodont clade, however, Casque-Headed Lizards (Corytophanidae) replaced the ancestral XY system with a new pair of XY chromosomes [24, 25]. Moreover, initial observations performed in our laboratory with clutches of the Brown Basilisk (Basiliscus vittatus), a Casque-Headed Lizard, indicated that female-biased offspring may occur at medium-high incubation temperatures (~29°C). In this study, we explored the proximate mechanisms of sex determination in a squamate reptile, tested whether the Brown Basilisk showed temperature-dependent sex reversal. Moreover, we also explored the possibility that B. vittatus exhibited genetic signatures of an ancestral temperature-dependent sex determination system.

Materials and methods

Animal collection

22 gravid females of B. vittatus were collected from a population that inhabits the tropical rainforest habitat at the community of “La Selva del Marinero” in the state of Veracruz, México (18°26’36.3"N, 94°37’81.9"W, ca. 170 m a.s.l). Permission for fieldwork and sampling was granted by the Secretaría del Medioambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT Scientific Collector Permit 08–043). We sampled from April to July of 2019 and females were captured manually and with a noose. To evaluate the reproductive condition, both visual assessment and abdominal palpation were performed (females with eggs showed multiple contours in the abdomen area). Twenty-two females were confirmed to be gravid. They showed the following morphometric data (mean ± standard error): LHC = 128.1 ± 1.4 mm, and weight 59.6 ± 2.3 g.

Laboratory conditions

Each gravid female was placed inside a separate terrarium (100 cm width x 50 cm depth x 50 cm height) until the termination of oviposition. Conditions for one female per terrarium were: thermal gradient between 20–40°C, photoperiod of 12/12 h (photofase/scotophase), constant humidity, live insects as food, and water ad libitum. The terrariums were monitored daily. We obtained 130 eggs which were randomly assigned to three incubation temperatures, 26°C, 29°C, and 32°C. Eggs were incubated at the three temperatures in three Percival L-30 incubators until they reached relatively late developmental stages (35–37 according to the development table established by Dufaure and Hubert [26]) at which point gonads should be differentiated. Forty-two eggs (32%) became contaminated with fungal infection and the embryos died with no correlation with the incubation temperature (X2 test, P > 0.05). Of the 88 eggs that successfully reached the target developmental stages, 40 were used in a parallel study that aimed to establish the effect of incubation temperatures on the development of the embryos [27]. Finally, forty-eight eggs (12, 18, 18 for 26°C, 29°C, and 32°C, respectively) reached the target stages 35–37. Each embryo was assigned a number so we could match genetic data versus histological data. The posterior part of the embryos, where the gonads are located, was dissected and fixed using Bouin solution for 30 minutes, washed with water for 30 minutes, and stored in 10% formaldehyde for further histological analysis. The upper part of the embryos (head and eyes) was stored in DNA/RNA shield buffer by Zymo Research (Cat. No. R1200–125) for further genetic analysis.

Microscopy analysis

Conventional histological techniques were performed on each sample: dehydration via graded ethanol, clearing tissues in xylene, and embedding tissues in Paraplast (Sigma-Aldrich, Cat. No. 145686-99-3). Histological sections were made at five microns and stained with Ehrlich-Eosin Hematoxylin (Sigma-Aldrich, Cat. No. 17372-87-1) to facilitate the description of the structures. Samples were then viewed and imaged via a compound microscope including a digital camera.

DNA extraction and Y-specific PCR analysis

The upper part of the embryos (head and eyes) was divided longitudinally into two fragments of equal size. We homogenized one of those fragments and collected 25 mg of tissue and then purified DNA using the QIAamp Fast DNA Tissue Kit from QIAGEN (Cat. No. 51404). We verified the integrity of the DNA using 1% agarose gels. All DNA samples were tested for integrity (260/280 and 260/230 ratios >1.8), using a NanoDrop 2000 spectrophotometer (Thermo Scientific), and quantified in a Qubit 4 fluorometer (Thermo Scientific, MA, USA) with the Qubit dsDNA BR Assay kit from the same supplier. We confirmed the presence or absence of a Y chromosome in the samples using Y-specific primers designed previously [24]: CAMSAP1Y, forward: AGT CTC AGT CTG CAC CAG TGA AAG, reverse: TGA TTT CTG AGC CCA GGC AGT T. GOLGA2Y, forward: AGG CTG TCA GTC TCA CTC AGT AAG, reverse: CCC CAT ATT CCC AGG TTC TGT CA. We verified that PCR reactions worked using primers against COL1A1 (autosomal/control) forward: TTT CGT GCA GGG TGG GTT CTT T, reverse: TCT GAA CTG GTG CAG CTT CAC A. We used the Phusion Flash High Fidelity from Thermo Fisher Scientific (Cat. No. F548L) with the following program: first 98°C - 10s, then 30 cycles of 98°C - 2s, 66°C - 5s and 72°C - 10s, with a final elongation step at 72°C - 30s. We confirmed the size of the PCR products and the presence of single amplicons in a 1% agarose gel.

RNA extraction and RNA-seq analysis

The second fragment of the upper part of the embryos (head and eyes) was homogenized for RNA purification. In many samples, however, the RNA was degraded. For a total of six samples, we obtained sufficient good-quality RNA and generated strand-specific RNA-seq libraries (using the Illumina TruSeq Stranded mRNA Library protocol) for four samples incubated at 26°C (three females and one male) and two samples incubated at 32°C (two females). Each library was sequenced on Illumina HiSeq 2500 platforms at the Macrogene facility in Korea (100 nucleotides, paired-end). We generated 31,910,378 million reads on average (± 3,753,014 million reads). We reconstructed a full transcriptome using Trinity (v2.0.2, default k-mer of 25 bp) [28]. Then, RNA-seq reads from 26°C and 32°C samples were mapped to the reconstructed transcriptome using Kallisto (100 bootstraps) [29]. We obtained the estimated counts per transcript and we used the EdgeR package [30] to perform differential expression analyses of transcripts between incubation temperatures (26°C versus 32°C, and vice versa). We used the edgeR and splines R libraries, TMM (Trimmed Mean of M-values) normalization, FDR (False Discovery Rate) set at 0.0001 given the limited number of replicates at 32°C, from which non-degraded RNA was difficult to obtain. We downloaded A. carolinensis (Green Anole) cDNAs and lncRNAs sequences from the Ensembl database (https://www.ensembl.org/; v.92) and we used BLASTn [31] to assign gene identities to the differentially expressed transcripts. When various transcripts for the same gene were differentially expressed, count estimates were added to obtain single values per gene. Enrichment analyses were carried out using Webgestalt (http://www.webgestalt.org/), specifying over-representation analysis, the genontology database, and the Biological Process category. RNA-seq data have been deposited to the NCBI-SRA database under BioProject PRJNA766022.

Results

Histological analysis showed that ovaries and testes were well-differentiated in stages 35–37 of development

To evaluate the effect of temperature on the sex of the embryo, we initially established the developmental stages where gonads were well-differentiated. We observed clear testis-specific and ovary-specific structures in stages 35–37 of embryonic development. During stage 35, the ovary showed an oval morphology (Fig 1A). The cortex and the medullary zone were well-differentiated. The cortex was structured by epithelial and germ cells, and the presence of some oogonia were visible. The testis in stage 35 showed cords in the medullary region together with epithelial cells, the future Sertoli cells (Fig 1B). Some of these cords presented spermatogonia in the lumen, around the medullary area. In stage 36, the ovary size increased, the cortical zone became thicker showing 2–3 layers of germ cells, closely related to somatic cells or future follicular cells in their thickest part, delimited by a basal lamina of connective tissue, in addition to a greater number of oogonia than in the previous stage (Fig 1C). Testes in stage 36 were more elongated, testicular cords increased in density in the medullary region (Fig 1D), and spermatogonia were common inside the testicular cords. Finally, in stage 37, connective tissue fibers in the ovaries delimited the cortical zone and the medullary region (Fig 1E). In the cortical region, the proliferation of oogonia covered the entire region. In stage 37 of the shape of the testicles they were elongated and curved and an entire testicle was made up of testicular cords, which were located more closely to the central area of the spinal cord. Large spermatogonia became abundant inside the testicular cords, while Sertoli cells were peripheral to the testicular cords (Fig 1F).

Fig 1. Ovaries and testes at stages 35–37 of development in B. vittatus embryos.

Fig 1

a) histology of the ovary in stage 35. b) histology of the testis in stage 35. c) histology of the ovary in stage 36. d) histology of the testis in stage 36. e) histology of the ovary in stage 37. f) histology of the testis in stage 37.

No effect of incubation temperatures on the sex of B. vittatus embryos

We performed experiments to evaluate whether the sex of the embryos was affected by different incubation temperatures, including typical male-producing (26°C) and female-producing (32°C) temperatures. To do so, we contrasted genotypic data (i.e., presence/absence of the Y chromosome) against the histology of the gonads from stages 35–37 (i.e., presence of testicular or ovarian structures) at three incubation temperatures (26°C, 29°C, and 32°C). If B. vittatus presented temperature-dependent sex reversal, specific genotypes would not necessarily develop the expected gonads. For example, in a male-to-female sex reversal, individuals with a Y chromosome would develop ovaries.

We analyzed 48 embryos that reached the target developmental stages (see Methods). At 26°C we observed eight embryos with a Y chromosome and four embryos without a Y chromosome (Fig 2). At 29°C we observed 11 embryos with a Y chromosome and seven embryos without a Y chromosome (Fig 2). At 32°C we observed nine embryos with a Y chromosome and nine embryos without a Y chromosome (Fig 2). We detected the same frequency of males and females at the three temperatures (X2 test, P > 0.05). Moreover, after contrasting the genotype of the embryos against their gonads, we found that embryos with a Y chromosome developed testes in all instances. Similarly, embryos without a Y chromosome always developed ovaries (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Number of embryos according to the incubation temperature, genotype, and histology.

Fig 2

Histogram showing the number of B. vittatus embryos with a Y chromosome that developed testes (Ychr+ts; no sex reversal), the number of embryos lacking a Y chromosome that developed ovaries (noY+ov; no sex reversal), the number of embryos with a Y chromosome that developed ovaries (Ychr+ov; male-to-female sex reversal), and the number of embryos without a Y chromosome that developed testes (noY+ts; female-to-male sex reversal).

Differential expression analysis of transcriptomic data

We performed a differential expression analysis of RNA-seq data obtained from the upper part (i.e., head and eyes) of embryos incubated at 26°C versus embryos incubated at 32°C. We found 272 genes that were over-expressed at 26°C and 136 genes that were over-expressed at 32°C (S1 Table). Enrichment analysis of GO terms showed that differentially expressed genes were associated, as expected, with biological processes that are common during embryonic development. Interestingly, genes over-expressed at 26°C were more frequently associated with neuron development (Table 1), whereas genes over-expressed at 32°C were mostly associated with muscle development (Table 2).

Table 1. GO terms enrichment of genes over-expressed at 26°C.

Gene Set Description Size Expect Ratio P Value FDR
GO:0048666 neuron development 1068 15.382 3.251 7.57E-14 6.88E-10
GO:0010975 regulation of neuron projection development 475 6.8411 4.678 3.48E-13 1.58E-09
GO:0030030 cell projection organization 1522 21.92 2.692 9.84E-13 2.98E-09
GO:0120036 plasma membrane bounded cell projection organization 1488 21.431 2.66 4.33E-12 9.83E-09
GO:0120035 regulation of plasma membrane bounded cell projection organization 665 9.5775 3.759 6.61E-12 1.20E-08
GO:0022604 regulation of cell morphogenesis 473 6.8123 4.404 9.31E-12 1.26E-08
GO:0031344 regulation of cell projection organization 674 9.7072 3.709 9.72E-12 1.26E-08
GO:0031175 neuron projection development 940 13.538 3.176 1.23E-11 1.39E-08
GO:0030182 neuron differentiation 1313 18.91 2.697 4.67E-11 4.72E-08
GO:0000902 cell morphogenesis 982 14.143 2.97 1.81E-10 1.55E-07

Table 2. GO terms enrichment of genes over-expressed at 32°C.

Gene Set Description Size Expect Ratio P Value FDR
GO:0003012 muscle system process 423 3.1984 8.754 0 0
GO:0006936 muscle contraction 339 2.5633 9.753 0 0
GO:0030239 myofibril assembly 67 0.5066 25.66 2.44E-15 7.40E-12
GO:0010927 cellular component assembly involved in morphogenesis 106 0.80149 17.47 5.62E-14 1.28E-10
GO:0031032 actomyosin structure organization 184 1.3913 11.5 6.27E-13 1.14E-09
GO:0097435 supramolecular fiber organization 640 4.8392 5.373 1.61E-12 2.44E-09
GO:0055001 muscle cell development 166 1.2552 11.95 1.97E-12 2.56E-09
GO:0030240 skeletal muscle thin filament assembly 14 0.10586 66.13 3.92E-12 4.46E-09
GO:0055002 striated muscle cell development 153 1.1569 12.1 9.45E-12 9.54E-09
GO:0014866 skeletal myofibril assembly 16 0.12098 57.86 1.29E-11 1.17E-08

Although we did not detect thermal-induced sex reversal in B. vittatus within the 26°C–32°C temperature range, we examined the differentially expressed transcripts in further detail. We found that specific isoforms of JARID2 and KDM6B were over-expressed at 26°C (Table 3; S1 Table). JARID2 was the gene with the highest expression difference between 26°C and 32°C (LogFoldChage = -5.2891, FDR = 8.96E-12; Table 3). For both genes, the isoforms that were differentially expressed appeared to have retained an intron. In JARID2, the retained intron corresponds to intron 15, the third to last intron (Fig 3), which is the same retained intron that was previously reported for a turtle T. scripta, a crocodile A. mississippiensis, and the Central Bearded Dragon [16]. In contrast, KDM6B retained the last intron, intron 18, instead of the second to last that was reported in the other species [16]. Careful examination of KDM6B using BLASTn alignments indicated, contrary to JARID2, that the isoform did not retain the full sequence of intron 18. Instead, three shorter sections of intron 18 were included in the KDM6B isoform (Fig 3).

Table 3. Estimated read counts for JARID2 and KDM6B (differentially expressed isoforms).

      embryos at 32°C embryos at 26°C
  FoldChange FDR rep1 rep2 rep1 rep2 rep3 rep4
JARID2 -5.2891 8.96E-12 307 380 3635 2143 8742 5135
KDM6B -3.3684 0.000159 150 125 1305 933 5716 1964

Fig 3. Exon and intron structure of differentially expressed isoforms of JARID2 and KDM6B.

Fig 3

a) Diagram of the exon/intron structure of the JARID2 isoform from B. vittatus that is over-expressed at 26°C. Exons are shown as dark blue rectangles, introns are shown as light blue lines. BLASTn matches to exonic sequences are shown as yellow rectangles, whereas matches to intronic sequences are indicated by pink rectangles. The green bar represents the reference genome of A. carolinensis. BLASTn alignments were performed against this reference genome. b) Same as in a) but for the KDM6B isoform from B. vittatus that is over-expressed at 26°C.

All embryos had hemipenes; Sex has to be established through histology of gonads or genotypic analysis

It should be noted that 100% of the embryos presented intrusive organs (hemipenes), regardless of their genotype (presence/absence of the Y chromosome) or whether the embryos carried testes or ovaries. The presence of copulatory organs was observed from stage 35 (Fig 4A and 4D). The morphology in this stage corresponded to a prominent lobe that becomes slightly larger. The hemipenes became bilobed in stage 36, with blood supply throughout the entire phallus (Fig 4B and 4E). By stage 37, hemipenes were bifurcated and bilobed with blood supply only in the apical part (Fig 4C and 4F).

Fig 4. Hemipenes are present in both male and female embryos.

Fig 4

Females showing hemipenes in a) stage 35, b) stage 36, c) and stage 37. Males showing hemipenes in d) stage 35, e) stage 36, and f) stage 37. Black arrows point at the hemipenes.

Discussion

Our work examined for the first time to our knowledge the development of gonad during stages 35–37 in a member of the Casque-Headed Lizards family (Corytophanidae). We found that gonads were well-differentiated and increased in size and cellular density during these stages. Intriguingly, we found that all embryos showed hemipenes during stages 35–37. This result suggests heterochrony in the regression of hemipenes in females (i. e., both gonad and genital structures development may not be closely coordinated), as it occurs in just three phylogenetically distant lizards [3234].

Casque-Headed Lizards is the only group of pleurodonts that transitioned from the ancestral XY system to a more recent pair of XY chromosomes. The evolutionary forces that triggered this transition have remained unclear. Here, we tested whether B. vittatus showed temperature-dependent sex reversal and whether we could detect genetic signatures of an ancestral TSD system; having a latent sex determination system could facilitate transitions between sex determination systems. We contrasted genotypic data and histological data of embryos from stages 35–37 incubated at three different temperatures. We found no effect of incubation temperatures on the development of gonads: embryos with a Y chromosome developed testes, whereas embryos without a Y chromosome developed ovaries. Thus, B. vittatus does not appear to show temperature-dependent sex reversal within the 26–32°C temperature range. We selected these incubation temperatures because they are common male-producing or female-producing temperatures in non-avian reptiles and because they represent average temperatures during the reproductive season of B. vittatus [35].

Remarkably, we observed that JARID2 was the gene with the highest expression difference between low and high incubation temperatures. We found that at a lower temperature (26°C) JARID2 retained the same intron that was previously reported for a turtle, a crocodile, and the Central Bearded Dragon at male-producing temperatures [16]. Our results suggested that the alternative splicing of JARID2 is a common trait across non-avian reptiles and appears to be a reminiscence of an ancestral response to temperature [36]. We showed that the new pair of XY chromosomes are dominant; however, it is not clear whether the two XY systems co-existed or whether a potentially latent TSD system facilitated the transition. Future work could explore whether more extreme incubation temperatures (i. e., 36°C, as in the agamid the Central Bearded Dragon) may trigger sex reversal and the nature of the signaling cascades controlled by the temperature-specific isoforms of JARID2.

In contrast, the differentially expressed isoform of KDM6B did not show the expected pattern since it retained shorter sections of the last intron rather than the complete sequence of the second to last intron. This pattern is rather consistent with KDM6B showing alternative 3’-UTR and could indicate that only the JARID2-dependent pathway is still sensitive to temperature changes in pleurodonts. This represents additive knowledge to the GSD-TSD continuum and the differentially expressed genes along this continuum may shed light on the evolution of specific signaling pathways during GSD to TSD changes and vice versa.

Moreover, differential expression analyses showed that genes related to neuron development were over-expressed at lower temperatures, whereas genes related to muscular development were over-expressed at higher incubation temperatures. Embryonic development is boosted at elevated incubation temperatures, however, we found that tissues responded differently to temperature. This could ultimately play a role in future sex-related differences in hatchlings and adults, including secondary sexual characters and characteristics. However, the exact role of temperature on non-sex determining characteristics needs further investigation. Although this study provides insights into the patterns of evolution and transitions between GSD and TSD, future studies on this topic are necessary. Our results suggest some variation in gene specific expression of JARID2, which has been previously noted to play a role in the TSD pathway [16]. Further work on additional species could help determine whether the JARID2-dependent pathway represents the ancestral state in reptiles. Additionally, even though we did not find temperature influence in sex determination at the range of 26–32°C, we cannot exclude at the moment whether lower or higher incubation temperatures could trigger sex reversal in Casque-Headed Lizards. Additional experiments will be required to explore this possibility.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Differentially expressed genes found in this study.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We thank Programa Investigadoras e Investigadores COMECYT Edoméx por la cátedra a G.S.-V. We give special thanks to Ana E. López-Moreno, Ailed Pérez-Pérez and Orlando Suárez-Rodríguez for aiding in the collection of lizards. We also thank the community of La Selva del Marinero, state of Veracruz, México, for field assistance. To Justin L. Rheubert for useful comments on a draft of our manuscript.

Data Availability

RNA-seq data have been deposited to the NCBI-SRA database under BioProject PRJNA766022.

Funding Statement

This study was supported by grants from PAPIIT-UNAM (No. RA-200516 and No. RA-200518; https://dgapa.unam.mx/index.php/impulso-a-la-investigacion/papiit) and CONACyT Basic Science grant (No. 254240; https://conacyt.mx/) awarded to D.C., and UAEMéx 4668/2019SF (https://www.uaemex.mx/) to OH-G.

References

  • 1.Pincheira-Donoso D, Bauer AM, Meiri S, Uetz P. Global taxonomic diversity of living reptiles. PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e59741. Epub 2013/04/02. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0059741 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3609858. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Bachtrog D, Mank JE, Peichel CL, Kirkpatrick M, Otto SP, Ashman TL, et al. Sex determination: why so many ways of doing it? PLoS Biol. 2014;12(7):e1001899. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001899 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4077654. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Sarre SD, Georges A, Quinn A. The ends of a continuum: genetic and temperature-dependent sex determination in reptiles. Bioessays. 2004;26(6):639–45. Epub 2004/06/02. doi: 10.1002/bies.20050 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Shine R, Elphick MJ, Donnellan S. Co‐occurrence of multiple, supposedly incompatible modes of sex determination in a lizard population. Ecology Letters. 2002;5(4):486–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Whiteley SL, Castelli MA, Dissanayake DSB, Holleley CE, Georges A. Temperature-Induced Sex Reversal in Reptiles: Prevalence, Discovery, and Evolutionary Implications. Sex Dev. 2021;15(1–3):148–56. Epub 2021/06/11. doi: 10.1159/000515687 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Hill PL, Burridge CP, Ezaz T, Wapstra E. Conservation of Sex-Linked Markers among Conspecific Populations of a Viviparous Skink, Niveoscincus ocellatus, Exhibiting Genetic and Temperature-Dependent Sex Determination. Genome Biol Evol. 2018;10(4):1079–87. doi: 10.1093/gbe/evy042 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5905450. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Robert KA, Thompson MB. Sex determination. Viviparous lizard selects sex of embryos. Nature. 2001;412(6848):698–9. doi: 10.1038/35089135 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Cornejo-Paramo P, Dissanayake DSB, Lira-Noriega A, Martinez-Pacheco ML, Acosta A, Ramirez-Suastegui C, et al. Viviparous Reptile Regarded to Have Temperature-Dependent Sex Determination Has Old XY Chromosomes. Genome Biol Evol. 2020;12(6):924–30. Epub 2020/05/21. doi: 10.1093/gbe/evaa104 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7313667. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Radder RS, Quinn AE, Georges A, Sarre SD, Shine R. Genetic evidence for co-occurrence of chromosomal and thermal sex-determining systems in a lizard. Biol Lett. 2008;4(2):176–8. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2007.0583 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2429925. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Holleley CE, O’Meally D, Sarre SD, Marshall Graves JA, Ezaz T, Matsubara K, et al. Sex reversal triggers the rapid transition from genetic to temperature-dependent sex. Nature. 2015;523(7558):79–82. doi: 10.1038/nature14574 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Quinn AE, Georges A, Sarre SD, Guarino F, Ezaz T, Graves JA. Temperature sex reversal implies sex gene dosage in a reptile. Science. 2007;316(5823):411. doi: 10.1126/science.1135925 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Quinn AE, Radder RS, Sarre SD, Georges A, Ezaz T, Shine R. Isolation and development of a molecular sex marker for Bassiana duperreyi, a lizard with XX/XY sex chromosomes and temperature-induced sex reversal. Mol Genet Genomics. 2009;281(6):665–72. Epub 2009/03/12. doi: 10.1007/s00438-009-0437-7 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Pennell MW, Mank JE, Peichel CL. Transitions in sex determination and sex chromosomes across vertebrate species. Mol Ecol. 2018. doi: 10.1111/mec.14540 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Gamble T, Coryell J, Ezaz T, Lynch J, Scantlebury DP, Zarkower D. Restriction Site-Associated DNA Sequencing (RAD-seq) Reveals an Extraordinary Number of Transitions among Gecko Sex-Determining Systems. Mol Biol Evol. 2015;32(5):1296–309. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msv023 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Sabath N, Itescu Y, Feldman A, Meiri S, Mayrose I, Valenzuela N. Sex determination, longevity, and the birth and death of reptilian species. Ecol Evol. 2016;6(15):5207–20. doi: 10.1002/ece3.2277 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4984498. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Deveson IW, Holleley CE, Blackburn J, Marshall Graves JA, Mattick JS, Waters PD, et al. Differential intron retention in Jumonji chromatin modifier genes is implicated in reptile temperature-dependent sex determination. Sci Adv. 2017;3(6):e1700731. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1700731 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5470834. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Georges A, Ezaz T, Quinn AE, Sarre SD. Are reptiles predisposed to temperature-dependent sex determination? Sex Dev. 2010;4(1–2):7–15. doi: 10.1159/000279441 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Dissanayake DSB, Holleley CE, Deakin JE, Georges A. High elevation increases the risk of Y chromosome loss in Alpine skink populations with sex reversal. Heredity (Edinb). 2021;126(5):805–16. Epub 2021/02/03. doi: 10.1038/s41437-021-00406-z ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8102603. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Ge C, Ye J, Weber C, Sun W, Zhang H, Zhou Y, et al. The histone demethylase KDM6B regulates temperature-dependent sex determination in a turtle species. Science. 2018;360(6389):645–8. Epub 2018/05/12. doi: 10.1126/science.aap8328 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Czerwinski M, Natarajan A, Barske L, Looger LL, Capel B. A timecourse analysis of systemic and gonadal effects of temperature on sexual development of the red-eared slider turtle Trachemys scripta elegans. Dev Biol. 2016;420(1):166–77. Epub 2016/09/28. doi: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2016.09.018 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Altmanova M, Rovatsos M, Johnson Pokorna M, Vesely M, Wagner F, Kratochvil L. All iguana families with the exception of basilisks share sex chromosomes. Zoology (Jena). 2018;126:98–102. doi: 10.1016/j.zool.2017.11.007 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Rovatsos M, Pokorna M, Altmanova M, Kratochvil L. Cretaceous park of sex determination: sex chromosomes are conserved across iguanas. Biol Lett. 2014;10(3):20131093. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2013.1093 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3982436. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Marin R, Cortez D, Lamanna F, Pradeepa MM, Leushkin E, Julien P, et al. Convergent origination of a Drosophila-like dosage compensation mechanism in a reptile lineage. Genome Res. 2017;27(12):1974–87. doi: 10.1101/gr.223727.117 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5741051. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Acosta A, Suarez-Varon G, Rodriguez-Miranda LA, Lira-Noriega A, Aguilar-Gomez D, Gutierrez-Mariscal M, et al. Corytophanids Replaced the Pleurodont XY System with a New Pair of XY Chromosomes. Genome Biol Evol. 2019;11(9):2666–77. Epub 2019/09/27. doi: 10.1093/gbe/evz196 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Nielsen SV, Guzman-Mendez IA, Gamble T, Blumer M, Pinto BJ, Kratochvil L, et al. Escaping the evolutionary trap? Sex chromosome turnover in basilisks and related lizards (Corytophanidae: Squamata). Biol Lett. 2019;15(10):20190498. Epub 2019/10/09. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2019.0498 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6832183. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Dufaure JP, Hubert J. Table de développement du lézard vivipare: Lacerta (Zootoca) vivipara jacquin. Arch Anat Microsc Morphol Exp. 1961;50:309–28. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Suarez-Varon G, Cortez D, Villagrán-Santa Cruz M, Rojas-Hernández U, Hernandez-Gallegos O. Variación del estadio embrionario de Basiliscus vittatus (Squamata: Corytophanidae) en la oviposición. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad. 2021;92:e923795. 10.22201/ib.20078706e.2021.92.3795. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Grabherr MG, Haas BJ, Yassour M, Levin JZ, Thompson DA, Amit I, et al. Full-length transcriptome assembly from RNA-Seq data without a reference genome. Nat Biotechnol. 2011;29(7):644–52. doi: 10.1038/nbt.1883 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3571712. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Bray NL, Pimentel H, Melsted P, Pachter L. Near-optimal probabilistic RNA-seq quantification. Nat Biotechnol. 2016;34(5):525–7. doi: 10.1038/nbt.3519 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Robinson MD, McCarthy DJ, Smyth GK. edgeR: a Bioconductor package for differential expression analysis of digital gene expression data. Bioinformatics. 2010;26(1):139–40. Epub 2009/11/17. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp616 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2796818. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ. Basic local alignment search tool. Journal of molecular biology. 1990;215(3):403–10. doi: 10.1016/S0022-2836(05)80360-2 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Martinez-Torres M, Rubio-Morales B, Pina-Amado JJ, Luis J. Hemipenes in females of the Mexican viviparous lizard Barisia imbricata (Squamata: Anguidae): an example of heterochrony in sexual development. Evol Dev. 2015;17(5):270–7. Epub 2015/09/16. doi: 10.1111/ede.12134 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Neaves L, Wapstra E, Birch D, Girling JE, Joss JM. Embryonic gonadal and sexual organ development in a small viviparous skink, Niveoscincus ocellatus. J Exp Zool A Comp Exp Biol. 2006;305(1):74–82. Epub 2005/12/17. doi: 10.1002/jez.a.249 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Whiteley SL, Weisbecker V, Georges A, Gauthier ARG, Whitehead DL, Holleley CE. Developmental asynchrony and antagonism of sex determination pathways in a lizard with temperature-induced sex reversal. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):14892. Epub 2018/10/07. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-33170-y ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6173690. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Cornejo-Paramo P, Lira-Noriega A, Ramirez-Suastegui C, Mendez-de-la-Cruz FR, Szekely T, Urrutia AO, et al. Sex determination systems in reptiles are related to ambient temperature but not to the level of climatic fluctuation. BMC Evol Biol. 2020;20(1):103. Epub 2020/08/19. doi: 10.1186/s12862-020-01671-y ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7433102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Haltenhof T, Kotte A, De Bortoli F, Schiefer S, Meinke S, Emmerichs AK, et al. A Conserved Kinase-Based Body-Temperature Sensor Globally Controls Alternative Splicing and Gene Expression. Mol Cell. 2020;78(1):57–69 e4. Epub 2020/02/16. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2020.01.028 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Patrick R Stephens

28 Feb 2022

PONE-D-22-02482A study of thermally-induced sex reversal in casque-headed lizardsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Cortez,

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 were enthusiastic about the topic and the potential importance of the findings.  However both authors found issues with the text.  James Walker volunteered to be identified, and made a number of editorial suggestions.  You can find a document in the PLOS One editorial system with his suggest edits (the final version that he sent to me is labeled JWalker edits).  These are only meant to be taken as suggestions, and I leave it to your discretion which of them you wish to implement.  However, many of his suggestions seem sound to me so please do carefully consider his feedback.

The other reviewer identified more substantial issues, particularly areas where the clarity of the manuscript could be improved.  Please do respond directly to each of the issues raised by this reviewer in your rebuttal letter.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 14 2022 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Patrick R Stephens, 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. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. 

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

**********

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

**********

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 present an interesting paper bringing new insight into the sex determination system of the brown basilisk. The paper is clearly written and well presented. In an ideal world, the sample sizes would be larger, but I appreciate the difficulties associated with using wild caught animals.

Due to the small sample sizes and limited temperature range the available eggs could be incubated at, this study was unable to definitively conclude whether or not the species has sex reversal. As such, I strongly suggest that the title be changed to more accurately reflect the findings of the study. It currently reads like sex reversal was shown to occur in this species, and the short title "Lack of sex reversal in casque-headed lizards" is actually what was found.

I think that it is likely that this species does has sex reversal, and I would be keen to see this expanded on in the discussion. Currently only two other reptiles have been definitively shown to posses sex reversal, and only one of these has an XY system. Both are Australian lizards, so from an evolutionary perspective, sex reversal occurring in a New World species is very interesting.

I noticed that 82 eggs were incubated, but only 48 across the three incubation temperatures reached the target developmental stages. That seems like quite a high mortality rate - are the authors able to comment on this? Was the mortality observed at a particular temperature, were perhaps some of the eggs not actually viable when they were initially incubated? The temperatures aren't particularly extreme, so I would be surprised to see temperature specific mortality. If sex specific mortality has occured this could affect the results presented in the manuscript.

My major concern with the manscript is the tissue used for the RNA-seq analysis. As the methods are currently written I am not entirely clear what tissue was used. Under the "laboratory conditions" section of the methods the posterior part of the embryo was used for histology, so was clearly the part of the embryo containing the gonads. Then the rest of the embryo was preserved for further genetic analysis. This is quite a large part of the embryo containing a wide variety of different tissue types. Then in the "RNA extraction and RNA-seq analysis" section samples were obtained from whole embryos. Were they sub sampled from the other half of the embryo, or were these whole embryos that weren't also used for histology? Regardless, what was the actual tissue type that was sequenced? Or was a large part of the embryo homogenised?

This information is important not only for the methodological clarity of this manuscript, but also because the RNA-seq data has been deposited publicly on SRA, so any other researchers looking to use this data need to have a clear understanding of what the actual sample was. An additional concern is if the same tissue type wasnt used, this significantly affects the validity of the differential gene expression analysis. Based on the low number of differentially expressed genes, I assume that the tissues were consistent between samples, but this does need to be explictly stated.

The discussion feels a little unfinished, and would benefit from a short concluding paragraph, particularly highlighting future research directions, or how it might be possible to definivitely show whether or not the species has sex reversal.

Overall, it is a well presented manuscript, and would be suitable for publication in PLoS One if the concerns outlined above are addressed.

**********

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

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

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

Attachment

Submitted filename: Suarez-Varon.et.al.fullMS.2022.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: Suarez-Varon.et.al.fullMS.2022 Jwalker edits.docx

PLoS One. 2022 Jul 7;17(7):e0263804. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263804.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


28 Mar 2022

10 March 2022

Patrick R Stephens, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Stephens,

The authors would like to thank you and the reviewers for their thoughtful insights into our manuscript. These comments and suggestions have largely improved the quality of our work. We have addressed all of the comments in the manuscript (of Reviewer#1 and edits of J. Walker). A detailed list of the corrections is shown below (comments of Reviewer#1). The newly revised version of the manuscript includes the editor and reviewers’ comments. Throughout the entire manuscript, several paragraphs were rewritten for better understanding, and the discussion was expanded.

Academic Editor’s comments:

Both reviewers were enthusiastic about the topic and the potential importance of the findings. However, both authors found issues with the text. James Walker volunteered to be identified and made a number of editorial suggestions. You can find a document in the PLOS One editorial system with his suggest edits (the final version that he sent to me is labeled JWalker edits). These are only meant to be taken as suggestions, and I leave it to your discretion which of them you wish to implement. However, many of his suggestions seem sound to me so please do carefully consider his feedback.

The other reviewer identified more substantial issues, particularly areas where the clarity of the manuscript could be improved. Please do respond directly to each of the issues raised by this reviewer in your rebuttal letter.

Answer:

We thank the Academic Editor for these comments. We have now carefully studied the suggestions made by Dr. Walker. We have accepted most of these suggestions as they clearly improved the text. We have also clarified the questions raised by Dr. Walker regarding the use of some words, the meaning of some sentences, and the common names or families of reptiles we described. Additionally, we have addressed the comments raised by Reviewer#1 regarding the lack of important information in the Methods and the Discussion. Please find below our point-by-point answer to Reviewer#1 comments. We addressed Dr. Walker suggestion’s in the marked-up copy of your manuscript.

Reviewer#1’s comments:

1) Reviewer#1:

Due to the small sample sizes and limited temperature range the available eggs could be incubated at, this study was unable to definitively conclude whether or not the species has sex reversal. As such, I strongly suggest that the title be changed to more accurately reflect the findings of the study. It currently reads like sex reversal was shown to occur in this species, and the short title "Lack of sex reversal in casque-headed lizards" is actually what was found.

Answer:

We thank Reviewer#1 for the detailed revision of our work. Following her/his advice, we have changed the title of the study to reflect the main findings. The new title is: “Genetic determination and JARID2 over-expression in a thermal incubation experiment in Casque Headed Lizard”. Page 1 in the revised version of the manuscript.

2) Reviewer#1:

I noticed that 82 eggs were incubated, but only 48 across the three incubation temperatures reached the target developmental stages. That seems like quite a high mortality rate - are the authors able to comment on this? Was the mortality observed at a particular temperature, were perhaps some of the eggs not actually viable when they were initially incubated? The temperatures aren't particularly extreme, so I would be surprised to see temperature specific mortality. If sex specific mortality has occurred this could affect the results presented in the manuscript.

Answer:

We thank Reviewer#1 for this comment. We agree that the number of eggs that were incubated and the number of eggs reported for the histological/genotypic analyses do not match. We have now corrected this mistake. We would like to clarify that of the 22 females, a total of 130 eggs were obtained. These eggs were randomly assigned to three incubation temperatures (26, 29 and 32°C). Of these, 42 eggs (32%) became contaminated with fungal infection and the embryos died with no effect of temperature on mortality rates (X2 > 0.05). Of the 88 eggs that successfully reached the target developmental stages, 40 were used in a parallel study that aimed to establish the effect of incubation temperatures (26, 29 and 32°C) on the development of the embryos: Suárez-Varón. etal. (2021). REVISTA MEXICANA DE BIODIVERSIDAD. 92:923795 (http://rev.mex.biodivers.unam.mx/index.php/es/variacion-del-estadio-embrionario/). Thus, we used 48 eggs to study the association between incubation temperature, genotype, and the histology of gonads (present study). We have added more information to the Methods. Page 5, first paragraph.

3) Reviewer#1:

My major concern with the manuscript is the tissue used for the RNA-seq analysis. As the methods are currently written I am not entirely clear what tissue was used. Under the "laboratory conditions" section of the methods the posterior part of the embryo was used for histology, so was clearly the part of the embryo containing the gonads. Then the rest of the embryo was preserved for further genetic analysis. This is quite a large part of the embryo containing a wide variety of different tissue types. Then in the "RNA extraction and RNA-seq analysis" section samples were obtained from whole embryos. Were they sub sampled from the other half of the embryo, or were these whole embryos that weren't also used for histology? Regardless, what was the actual tissue type that was sequenced? Or was a large part of the embryo homogenised?

Answer:

We thank Reviewer#1 for this comment. We agree that the Methods are not clear about the tissues used for the analyses. Embryos that reached the target developmental stages were divided into two segments. An upper segment that comprised the head and eyes. And a lower segment where the gonads were located. Each individual was assigned a number so we could match the genetic material versus the histology of the gonads. The upper (head/eyes) segment was then divided longitudinally into two fragments of equal size. One that was homogenized and from which we extracted DNA for the genotypic verification of the Y chromosome, and a second fragment that was also homogenized and from which we attempted to purify RNA; RNA was degraded in many samples though. We have added more information to the Methods. Page 5, first and last paragraphs; Page 6, second paragraph.

4) Reviewer#1 comment:

This information is important not only for the methodological clarity of this manuscript, but also because the RNA-seq data has been deposited publicly on SRA, so any other researchers looking to use this data need to have a clear understanding of what the actual sample was. An additional concern is if the same tissue type wasnt used, this significantly affects the validity of the differential gene expression analysis. Based on the low number of differentially expressed genes, I assume that the tissues were consistent between samples, but this does need to be explictly stated.

Answer:

Reviewer#1 is correct. Using different tissues to conduct differential gene expression analysis may have led to potentially odd results. Besides, detailed information about the samples used is important to replicate our results. As explained above, we used half of the upper segment (head/eyew) of the embryos for DNA/RNA extractions. Tissues were homogenized prior to the purification of the genetic material. We have added more information to the Methods. Page 5, first and last paragraphs; Page 6, second paragraph.

5) Reviewer#1 comment:

The discussion feels a little unfinished, and would benefit from a short concluding paragraph, particularly highlighting future research directions, or how it might be possible to definivitely show whether or not the species has sex reversal.

Answer:

We thank Reviewer#1 for this comment. We have added a new paragraph at the end of the Discussion where we describe the limitations of the work and future research directions. Page 12, second paragraph.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you need any further information or clarification.

Diego Cortez, PhD

Centro de Ciencias Genómicas

UNAM

Ave. Universidad s/n. CP-62210. Cuernavaca. México

email: dcortez@ccg.unam.mx

Oswaldo Hernández, PhD

Laboratorio de Herpetología

Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México

Instituto Literario #100 Centro. CP-50000. Toluca. México

email: ohg@uaemex.mx

Attachment

Submitted filename: Suarez-Varon.et.al.Rebuttal_Letter.pdf

Decision Letter 1

Patrick R Stephens

20 May 2022

PONE-D-22-02482R1Genetic determination and JARID2 over-expression in a thermal incubation experiment in Casque-Headed LizardPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Cortez,

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. The manuscript needs a few additional minor revisions for polish and readability, but overall this is a really solid piece of work. This should be ready to go after a final small revision.  Great work.    

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 04 2022 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Patrick R Stephens, Ph.D.

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.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

My apologies for how long this decision took. Since we were unable to obtain a second review in a timely fashion I have acted as the second reviewer for this revision. I think there are a few minor revisions you still need to make, but overall this is a really solid work. Once you make a few small changes to enhance readability, I believe this will be ready to go. Here are my additional suggestions:

Line 58:

Change “their sex determination mechanisms remain poorly understood”

To “the factors that drive variation in sex determination mechanisms among species remain poorly understood”

Your next sentence demonstrates that we know a lot about how sex determination works in squamates in general, making the first sentence seem like an exaggeration as written.

Line 76:

Delete “however”

Should read:

. . .chromosomes, non-avian reptiles have . . .

Methods:

PLOS is pretty flexible about formatting. However, for readability the formatting should be internally consistent. I suggest that you follow the formatting you use in the Results for headings and subheading throughout.

Line 112: bold the heading like in the discussion

Line 121: there should be a line of space in between 121 and 122, bold the heading

Line 141: bold the heading

Line 148: bold the heading

Line 165: bold the heading

Line 261:

By “top-second gene” do you mean the gene with highest expression difference between 26°C and 32°C? If that is the case, I would delete the phrase “top-second” as I find it really unclear.

I’m also not sure what’s “remarkable” about this result from the intro. In this context “remarkably” implies a result running counter to what most people would expect or that is unusual or unexpected in some other way. However, from what we have read up to this point it’s not clear why you think the result is remarkable.

I would change this sentence to

“JARID2 was the gene with the highest expression difference between 26°C and 32°C . . .”

In the discussion, where you immediately explain what’s remarkable about the result, I think it’s fine to use this phrasing.

Line 322: I would delete “top-second” here as well. I find the phrase really unclear.

Change the sentence to:

“Remarkably, we observed that JARID2 was the gene with the highest expression difference between low and high incubation temperatures.”

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

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

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: The ammendments the authors have made to the manuscript have addressed my questions, and the manuscript is acceptable for publication in PLoS One

**********

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

[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. 2022 Jul 7;17(7):e0263804. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263804.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


14 Jun 2022

My apologies for how long this decision took. Since we were unable to obtain a second review in a timely fashion I have acted as the second reviewer for this revision. I think there are a few minor revisions you still need to make, but overall this is a really solid work. Once you make a few small changes to enhance readability, I believe this will be ready to go. Here are my additional suggestions:

Line 58:

Change “their sex determination mechanisms remain poorly understood”

To “the factors that drive variation in sex determination mechanisms among species remain poorly understood”

Your next sentence demonstrates that we know a lot about how sex determination works in squamates in general, making the first sentence seem like an exaggeration as written.

A. Done, manuscript was modified to attend this suggestion (line 58).

Line 76:

Delete “however”

Should read:

. . .chromosomes, non-avian reptiles have . . .

A. Done, manuscript was modified to attend this suggestion (line 77).

Methods:

PLOS is pretty flexible about formatting. However, for readability the formatting should be internally consistent. I suggest that you follow the formatting you use in the Results for headings and subheading throughout.

Line 112: bold the heading like in the discussion

A. Done, manuscript was modified to attend this suggestion (line 113).

Line 121: there should be a line of space in between 121 and 122, bold the heading

A. Done, manuscript was modified to attend this suggestion (line 124).

Line 141: bold the heading

A. Done, manuscript was modified to attend this suggestion (line 143).

Line 148: bold the heading

A. Done, manuscript was modified to attend this suggestion (line 150).

Line 165: bold the heading

A. Done, manuscript was modified to attend this suggestion (line 167).

Line 261:

By “top-second gene” do you mean the gene with highest expression difference between 26°C and 32°C? If that is the case, I would delete the phrase “top-second” as I find it really unclear.

A. Done, we delete the phrase “top-second” (line 263).

I’m also not sure what’s “remarkable” about this result from the intro. In this context “remarkably” implies a result running counter to what most people would expect or that is unusual or unexpected in some other way. However, from what we have read up to this point it’s not clear why you think the result is remarkable.

I would change this sentence to

“JARID2 was the gene with the highest expression difference between 26°C and 32°C . . .”

A. Done, manuscript was modified to attend this suggestion (line 262).

In the discussion, where you immediately explain what’s remarkable about the result, I think it’s fine to use this phrasing.

A. Thanks.

Line 322: I would delete “top-second” here as well. I find the phrase really unclear.

Change the sentence to:

“Remarkably, we observed that JARID2 was the gene with the highest expression difference between low and high incubation temperatures.”

A. Done, manuscript was modified to attend this suggestion (line 324).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Suarez-Varon.et.al.Response_to_Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Patrick R Stephens

17 Jun 2022

Genetic determination and JARID2 over-expression in a thermal incubation experiment in Casque-Headed Lizard

PONE-D-22-02482R2

Dear Dr. Cortez,

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,

Patrick R Stephens, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Patrick R Stephens

28 Jun 2022

PONE-D-22-02482R2

Genetic determination and JARID2 over-expression in a thermal incubation experiment in Casque-Headed Lizard

Dear Dr. Cortez:

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. Patrick R Stephens

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Differentially expressed genes found in this study.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Suarez-Varon.et.al.fullMS.2022.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Suarez-Varon.et.al.fullMS.2022 Jwalker edits.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Suarez-Varon.et.al.Rebuttal_Letter.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Suarez-Varon.et.al.Response_to_Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    RNA-seq data have been deposited to the NCBI-SRA database under BioProject PRJNA766022.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES