Genetic sex determination (GSD) evolved independently and repeatedly in diverse taxa, including animals, plants, and fungi (Tree of Sex Consortium et al., 2014; Beukeboom and Perrin, 2014), but the stability of such systems varies drastically among groups. In mammals and birds, conserved male or female heterogametic sex determination (SD) systems have been maintained over a long evolutionary time with conserved master sex-determining (MSD) genes (Marshall Graves, 2008). In contrast, teleost fishes display both genetic and environmental sex determination (ESD), and a remarkable evolutionary lability driven by rapid turnovers of sex chromosomes and MSD genes (Kikuchi and Hamaguchi, 2013; Pan et al., 2017). These characteristics make teleosts an attractive group in which to study the evolution of SD systems.

In the past two decades, the identity of a variety of MSD genes has been revealed in teleosts thanks to advances in sequencing technologies. These findings generated new hypotheses on how the birth of MSD genes through allelic diversification or duplication with or without translocation may drive sex chromosome turnover in vertebrates (Kikuchi and Hamaguchi, 2013; Pan et al., 2017). These teleost MSD genes also provided empirical support for the ‘limited option’ idea that states that certain genes known to be implicated in sex differentiation pathways are more likely to be recruited as new MSD genes (Marshall Graves and Peichel, 2010). The majority of these recently discovered MSD genes, however, were phylogenetically scattered, making it challenging to infer evolutionary patterns and conserved themes of sex chromosomes and/or MSD gene turnovers. Although comparative studies have been accomplished in medakas, poeciliids, tilapiine cichlids, salmonids, and sticklebacks (Kikuchi and Hamaguchi, 2013), transitions of SD systems in relation to the fate of known MSD genes within closely related species have only been explored in medakas (Myosho et al., 2015) and salmonids (Guiguen et al., 2018).

Esociformes is a small order of teleost fishes (Figure 1) that diverged from their sister group Salmoniformes about 110 million years ago (Mya) and diversified from a common ancestor around 90 Mya (Campbell et al., 2013; Campbell and Lopéz, 2014). With two families (Esocidae, including Esox, Novumbra, and Dallia, and Umbridae, including Umbra) and 13 well-recognized species (Warren et al., 2020), Esociformes is an ecologically important group of freshwater species from the northern hemisphere (Campbell et al., 2013; Campbell and Lopéz, 2014). We demonstrated that a male-specific duplication of the anti-Müllerian hormone gene (amhby) is the MSD gene in Esociformes and that this gene is located in a small male-specific insertion on the Y chromosome of northern pike (Esox lucius) (Pan et al., 2019).

Figure 1

Download asset Open asset

Here, we took advantage of the small number of Esociformes species and their relatively long evolutionary history to explore the evolution of SD in relation to the fate of this amhby MSD gene. Generating novel draft genome assemblies and population genomic data in multiple species of Esociformes (Figure 1), we traced the evolutionary trajectory of amhby from its origin in a gene duplication event 65–90 Mya to its demise during species- or population-specific SD transitions. Our results highlight the diverse evolutionary fates experienced by an MSD gene. Among SD transitions, we uncovered a recent loss of the entire Y chromosome in some populations of northern pike. We hypothesize that drift, exacerbated by the bottleneck effect, may have facilitated the loss of the sex chromosome along with its MSD gene in these populations, a new mechanism for entire sex chromosome loss in vertebrates.

The northern pike MSD gene amhby substantially diverges from its autosomal copy amha, suggesting an ancient origin (Pan et al., 2019), unlike other cases of amh duplication in fishes, that appears to be comparatively young (Hattori et al., 2013; Li et al., 2015). Here, we show that the amhby duplicate emerged before the split of Esocidae and Umbridae between 65 and 90 Mya (Campbell et al., 2013) and was subsequently secondarily lost in the Dallia lineage. We also demonstrate that amhby presence is significantly associated with male phenotype in most species of Esox and in Novumbra. Although we cannot rule out the possibility that amhby was recruited independently as the MSD gene in Esox and Novumbra, our results suggest the more parsimonious hypothesis that amhby likely acquired an MSD function before the diversification of Esocidae at least 56 Mya.

Studies on SD systems of cichlid fishes and true frogs suggested that frequent turnovers can keep sex chromosomes undifferentiated (Gammerdinger et al., 2018; Jeffries et al., 2018). It was proposed that in these organisms, the turnover of sex chromosomes was facilitated by autosomes that host genes involved in sex differentiation pathways that could be readily recruited as new MSD genes, facilitating turnovers of sex chromosomes (Vicoso, 2019). Alternative evolutionary pathways could also involve conserved MSD genes that translocate onto different autosomes, as demonstrated for the salmonid sdY gene (Guiguen et al., 2018). Interestingly, this scenario does not seem to be the case with Esocidae. No highly differentiated sex chromosomes were observed in the surveyed population of E. masquinongy and N. hubbsi (this study), or in E. lucius, despite Esocidae having retained the same ancestral XX/XY system (likely controlled by amhby) for at least 56 million years. In addition, whole-genome analyses in E. masquinongy suggest that its male-specific locus on the Y chromosome is conserved in terms of size and location with that of E. lucius despite 45 million years of divergence. Such conservation is unusual in teleosts, where frequent turnover of SD systems is considered the norm (Kikuchi and Hamaguchi, 2013; Pan et al., 2017). In line with our present results, substantially undifferentiated sex chromosomes have also been maintained over relatively long evolutionary periods in some Takifugu fish species (Kamiya et al., 2012), supporting the idea that theoretical models of sex chromosome evolution cannot be generalized across taxa and that additional, as-yet unknown evolutionary forces can prevent sex chromosome decay.

Even though this MSD gene has been maintained for a long evolutionary period, our results revealed that it has been subjected to several independent SD transitions, potentially driven by different mechanisms in the Esocidae lineage. In D. pectoralis, we observed a transition from the ancestral XX/XY male heterogametic system shared by Esocidae and U. pygmaea to a ZZ/ZW female heterogametic system. This transition also coincided with the loss of amhby. This shift from male to female heterogamety could have been driven by the rise of a new dominant female determinant, leading to the obsolescence and the subsequent loss of the ancestral male MSD gene, similar to the transition of SD documented among the Oryzias and also in the housefly (Kozielska et al., 2008, Myosho et al., 2012).

The other SD transitions that we characterized, those in E. lucius and E. masquinongy, are probably more recent because these transitions are found within populations of the same species. In E. masquinongy, we observed population-specific variation in SD systems, supporting the conservation of an XX/XY system with amhby as the MSD gene in two US populations belonging to the northern lineage, but not in a Quebec population belonging to the Great Lakes lineage (Turnquist et al., 2017). This result suggests that although amhby is still present in the genome of the Great Lakes lineage, it is no longer the MSD gene and that a new population-specific SD mechanism emerged after the split of the lineages. Previously, female heterogamety was inferred for the Great Lakes lineage based on the presence of males in the offspring of gynogenetic females (Dabrowski et al., 2000). With RAD-Seq, we did not find evidence for female-specific genomic regions in the Great Lakes lineage of E. masquinongy. Higher resolution approaches are needed to identify differentiation between male and female genomes to reveal the new SD locus and its interaction with amhby in the Great Lakes lineage.

In E. lucius, we found that amhby is present and completely sex linked in European, Asian, and Alaskan regions, but is not present elsewhere in North America (Figure 5). This finding suggests that amhby functions as an MSD gene in Eurasian and Alaskan populations, but that populations from elsewhere in North America lost amhby together with the entire sex locus. The current geographic distribution of E. lucius results from a post-glacial expansion from three glacial refugia ~0.18 to 0.26 Mya. The North American populations lacking amhby belong to a monophyletic lineage with a circumpolar distribution originating from the same refugia as the other population we surveyed that carry amhby (Skog et al., 2014). Fossil records from Alaska support the idea of an ‘out of Alaska’ North American expansion of E. lucius within the last 100,000 years (Wooller et al., 2015), suggesting that the Y-specific sequences containing amhby were lost during this dispersal period (Figure 5, Appendix 1—figure 7).

Figure 5 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

The loss of the entire sex locus in such a short evolutionary time is unlikely to have resulted from the pseudogenization of the amhby gene, as is the case for the ancestral MSD gene of the Luzon medaka (Myosho et al., 2012). Rather, it is probably the result of colonization by a small pool of females and sex-reversed XX males. Such a founder-effect hypothesis is supported by the fact that North American populations of E. lucius display a much lower genetic diversity compared to other populations from the same lineage (Skog et al., 2014). This hypothesis is also supported by the fact that environmental influence on GSD systems is a well-documented phenomenon in fishes (Baroiller et al., 2009; Chen et al., 2014; Sato et al., 2005) and that XX sex reversal induced by environmental factors has been observed occasionally in captive E. lucius (Pan et al., 2019). Our whole-genome analyses failed to identify any sex-associated signals in these North American populations, meaning that if such a new sex locus exists, it would lack detectable signatures of sequence differentiation, similar to the one-SNP sex locus of some Takifugu species (Kamiya et al., 2012). Whether ESD, which is common among poikilothermic animals including teleosts (Navara, 2018), could be the SD system in these North American populations or whether these populations already have a new GSD system in place is still unresolved. Notably, this Y chromosome loss in natural populations of E. lucius mirrors the loss of the W chromosome in lab strains of zebrafish after just a few decades of selective breeding (Wilson et al., 2014).

A few evolutionary models have been formulated to capture the dynamics of sex chromosome turnover (Vicoso, 2019). The replacement of the ancestral SD locus by a new one could be driven by drift alone, by positive selection (Bull and Charnov, 1977), by sexual antagonistic selection (van Doorn and Kirkpatrick, 2007), or by the accumulation of deleterious mutations at the sex locus (Blaser et al., 2013). In all of these models, the ancestral sex chromosomes would revert to autosomes only when the new SD locus is fixed in the population. However, in North American populations of E. lucius, the ancestral sex chromosome was likely lost due to drift in bottlenecked populations. Interestingly, this process would not require the simultaneous emergence of a new GSD system, given the flexibility of SD mechanisms in teleosts, where environmental cues generate phenotypic sexes in the absence of a GSD system. ESD, which is easily invaded by a new genetic system (Muralidhar and Veller, 2018; van Doorn, 2014), may serve as a transitional state between sex chromosome turnovers.

We found two cases of altered amhby copies. In N. hubbsi and E. niger, amhby is strongly sex linked, which suggests that it is located in a Y-specific region of the genome. In both species, however, the amhby gene lacks parts of the conserved C- and/or N-terminal Amh regions, which are needed for proper protein secretion and interaction between Amh and its receptor (di Clemente et al., 2010). Although we cannot exclude that these are non-functional amhby copies, this hypothesis seems unlikely because the tight sex linkage of amhby in these species would require the independent emergence of a new MSD gene in close proximity to amhby. It is more likely that these copies still function as MSD genes, but with altered protein sequences. A similar example of a truncated amh duplicate acting as an MSD gene is found in the teleost cobalt silverside Hypoatherina tsurugae (Bej et al., 2017). Additional cases of truncated duplicated genes functioning as MSD genes have been described in Salmonids, yellow perch (Perca flavescens), and Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus), suggesting that the preservation of ancestral domains is not necessary for a duplicated protein to assume a novel role (Feron et al., 2020b; Rafati et al., 2020; Yano et al., 2012). These cases are all consistent with domain gains and losses contributing to new protein functions (Moore and Bornberg-Bauer, 2012).

Collectively, our results depict the evolutionary trajectories of a conserved MSD gene in an entire order of vertebrates, highlighting both the potential stability of MSD genes as well as non-differentiated sex chromosomes in some lineages, and the dynamics of species- or population-specific SD evolution in teleost fishes. Our results highlight the importance of careful consideration of the population demographic history of SD systems, and of the potential buffering role of ESD during transitions between genetic SD systems in sex chromosome evolution.

All gene sequences, genomic, Pool-seq and RAD-Seq reads were deposited under the common project number PRJNA634624.

1. 1. Pan

   (2020) NCBI BioProject

   ID PRJNA634624. Sex determination in the Esociformes.

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA634624

1. 1. Rondeau EB
   2. Minkley DR
   3. Leong JS
   4. Messmer AM
   5. Jantzen JR
   6. von Schalburg KR
   7. Lemon C
   8. Bird NH
   9. Koop BF

   (2014) NCBI Nucleotide

   ID GCA_000721915.2. Esox lucius isolate CL-BC-CA-002, whole genome shotgun sequencing project.

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/AZJR00000000.3/

1. 1. Alonge M
   2. Soyk S
   3. Ramakrishnan S
   4. Wang X
   5. Goodwin S
   6. Sedlazeck FJ
   7. Lippman ZB
   8. Schatz MC

   (2019) RaGOO: fast and accurate reference-guided scaffolding of draft genomes

   Genome Biology 20:224.

   https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-019-1829-6

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Altschul SF
   2. Madden TL
   3. Schäffer AA
   4. Zhang J
   5. Zhang Z
   6. Miller W
   7. Lipman DJ

   (1997) Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs

   Nucleic Acids Research 25:3389–3402.

   https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/25.17.3389

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Amores A
   2. Catchen J
   3. Ferrara A
   4. Fontenot Q
   5. Postlethwait JH

   (2011) Genome evolution and meiotic maps by massively parallel DNA sequencing: spotted gar, an outgroup for the teleost genome duplication

   Genetics 188:799–808.

   https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.111.127324

   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Baroiller JF
   2. D'Cotta H
   3. Saillant E

   (2009) Environmental effects on fish sex determination and differentiation

   Sexual Development 3:118–135.

   https://doi.org/10.1159/000223077

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Bej DK
   2. Miyoshi K
   3. Hattori RS
   4. Strüssmann CA
   5. Yamamoto Y

   (2017) A duplicated, truncated amh gene is involved in male sex determination in an old world silverside

   G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics 117:042697.

   https://doi.org/10.1534/g3.117.042697

   • Google Scholar
6. Book

   1. Beukeboom LW
   2. Perrin N

   (2014)

   The Evolution of Sex Determination

   Oxford University Press.

   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Blaser O
   2. Grossen C
   3. Neuenschwander S
   4. Perrin N

   (2013) Sex-chromosome turnovers induced by deleterious mutation load

   Evolution 67:635–645.

   https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2012.01810.x

   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Bull JJ
   2. Charnov EL

   (1977) Changes in the heterogametic mechanism of sex determination

   Heredity 39:1–14.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.1977.38

   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Campbell MA
   2. López JA
   3. Sado T
   4. Miya M

   (2013) Pike and salmon as sister taxa: detailed intraclade resolution and divergence time estimation of esociformes + salmoniformes based on whole mitochondrial genome sequences

   Gene 530:57–65.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gene.2013.07.068

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Campbell MA
    2. Lopéz JA

    (2014) Mitochondrial phylogeography of a beringian relict: the endemic freshwater genus of blackfish Dallia (Esociformes): phylogeography of a bberingian endemic

    Journal of Fish Biology 84:523–538.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12314

    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Catchen J
    2. Hohenlohe PA
    3. Bassham S
    4. Amores A
    5. Cresko WA

    (2013) Stacks: an analysis tool set for population genomics

    Molecular Ecology 22:3124–3140.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.12354

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Chen S
    2. Zhang G
    3. Shao C
    4. Huang Q
    5. Liu G
    6. Zhang P
    7. Song W
    8. An N
    9. Chalopin D
    10. Volff JN
    11. Hong Y
    12. Li Q
    13. Sha Z
    14. Zhou H
    15. Xie M
    16. Yu Q
    17. Liu Y
    18. Xiang H
    19. Wang N
    20. Wu K
    21. Yang C
    22. Zhou Q
    23. Liao X
    24. Yang L
    25. Hu Q
    26. Zhang J
    27. Meng L
    28. Jin L
    29. Tian Y
    30. Lian J
    31. Yang J
    32. Miao G
    33. Liu S
    34. Liang Z
    35. Yan F
    36. Li Y
    37. Sun B
    38. Zhang H
    39. Zhang J
    40. Zhu Y
    41. Du M
    42. Zhao Y
    43. Schartl M
    44. Tang Q
    45. Wang J

    (2014) Whole-genome sequence of a flatfish provides insights into ZW sex chromosome evolution and adaptation to a benthic lifestyle

    Nature Genetics 46:253–260.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.2890

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Dabrowski K
    2. Rinchard J
    3. Lin F
    4. Garcia-Abiado M-A
    5. Schmidt D

    (2000) Induction of gynogenesis in muskellunge with irradiated sperm of yellow perch proves diploid muskellunge male homogamety

    Journal of Experimental Zoology 287:96–105.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-010X(20000615)287:1<96::AID-JEZ13>3.0.CO;2-N

    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Denys GP
    2. Dettai A
    3. Persat H
    4. Hautecœur M
    5. Keith P

    (2014) Morphological and molecular evidence of three species of pikes Esox spp. (Actinopterygii, Esocidae) in France, including the description of a new species

    Comptes Rendus Biologies 337:521–534.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crvi.2014.07.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. di Clemente N
    2. Jamin SP
    3. Lugovskoy A
    4. Carmillo P
    5. Ehrenfels C
    6. Picard JY
    7. Whitty A
    8. Josso N
    9. Pepinsky RB
    10. Cate RL

    (2010) Processing of anti-mullerian hormone regulates receptor activation by a mechanism distinct from TGF-beta

    Molecular Endocrinology 24:2193–2206.

    https://doi.org/10.1210/me.2010-0273

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Earl D
    2. Bradnam K
    3. St John J
    4. Darling A
    5. Lin D
    6. Fass J
    7. Yu HO
    8. Buffalo V
    9. Zerbino DR
    10. Diekhans M
    11. Nguyen N
    12. Ariyaratne PN
    13. Sung WK
    14. Ning Z
    15. Haimel M
    16. Simpson JT
    17. Fonseca NA
    18. Birol İ
    19. Docking TR
    20. Ho IY
    21. Rokhsar DS
    22. Chikhi R
    23. Lavenier D
    24. Chapuis G
    25. Naquin D
    26. Maillet N
    27. Schatz MC
    28. Kelley DR
    29. Phillippy AM
    30. Koren S
    31. Yang SP
    32. Wu W
    33. Chou WC
    34. Srivastava A
    35. Shaw TI
    36. Ruby JG
    37. Skewes-Cox P
    38. Betegon M
    39. Dimon MT
    40. Solovyev V
    41. Seledtsov I
    42. Kosarev P
    43. Vorobyev D
    44. Ramirez-Gonzalez R
    45. Leggett R
    46. MacLean D
    47. Xia F
    48. Luo R
    49. Li Z
    50. Xie Y
    51. Liu B
    52. Gnerre S
    53. MacCallum I
    54. Przybylski D
    55. Ribeiro FJ
    56. Yin S
    57. Sharpe T
    58. Hall G
    59. Kersey PJ
    60. Durbin R
    61. Jackman SD
    62. Chapman JA
    63. Huang X
    64. DeRisi JL
    65. Caccamo M
    66. Li Y
    67. Jaffe DB
    68. Green RE
    69. Haussler D
    70. Korf I
    71. Paten B

    (2011) Assemblathon 1: a competitive assessment of de novo short read assembly methods

    Genome Research 21:2224–2241.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.126599.111

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. Preprint

    1. Feron R
    2. Pan Q
    3. Wen M
    4. Imarazene B
    5. Jouanno E
    6. Anderson J
    7. Herpin A
    8. Journot L
    9. Parrinello H
    10. Klopp C
    11. Kottler VA
    12. Roco AS
    13. Du K
    14. Kneitz S
    15. Adolfi M
    16. Wilson CA
    17. McCluskey B
    18. Amores A
    19. Desvignes T
    20. Goetz FW
    21. Takanashi A
    22. Kawaguchi M
    23. Detrich HW
    24. Oliveira M
    25. Nobrega R
    26. Sakamoto T
    27. Nakamoto M
    28. Wargelius A
    29. Ø K
    30. Wang Z
    31. Stöck M
    32. Waterhouse RM
    33. Braasch I
    34. Postlethwait JH
    35. Schartl M
    36. Guiguen Y

    (2020a) RADSex: a computational workflow to study sex determination using restriction Site-Associated DNA sequencing data

    bioRxiv.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.22.054866

    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Feron R
    2. Zahm M
    3. Cabau C
    4. Klopp C
    5. Roques C
    6. Bouchez O
    7. Eché C
    8. Valière S
    9. Donnadieu C
    10. Haffray P
    11. Bestin A
    12. Morvezen R
    13. Acloque H
    14. Euclide PT
    15. Wen M
    16. Jouano E
    17. Schartl M
    18. Postlethwait JH
    19. Schraidt C
    20. Christie MR
    21. Larson WA
    22. Herpin A
    23. Guiguen Y

    (2020b) Characterization of a Y-specific duplication/insertion of the anti-Mullerian hormone type II receptor gene based on a chromosome-scale genome assembly of yellow perch, Perca flavescens

    Molecular Ecology Resources 20:531–543.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13133

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Finn RD
    2. Bateman A
    3. Clements J
    4. Coggill P
    5. Eberhardt RY
    6. Eddy SR
    7. Heger A
    8. Hetherington K
    9. Holm L
    10. Mistry J
    11. Sonnhammer EL
    12. Tate J
    13. Punta M

    (2014) Pfam: the protein families database

    Nucleic Acids Research 42:D222–D230.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkt1223

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Gammerdinger WJ
    2. Conte MA
    3. Sandkam BA
    4. Ziegelbecker A
    5. Koblmüller S
    6. Kocher TD

    (2018) Novel sex chromosomes in 3 cichlid fishes from lake tanganyika

    Journal of Heredity 109:489–500.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/jhered/esy003

    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Gasteiger E
    2. Gattiker A
    3. Hoogland C
    4. Ivanyi I
    5. Appel RD
    6. Bairoch A

    (2003) ExPASy: the proteomics server for in-depth protein knowledge and analysis

    Nucleic Acids Research 31:3784–3788.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkg563

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. Book

    1. Guiguen Y
    2. Bertho S
    3. Herpin A

    (2018) Sex Determination and Sex Control in Salmonidae

    In: Fostier A, editors. Sex Control in Aquaculture. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 249–280.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119127291.ch11

    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Hardie DC
    2. Hebert PDN

    (2004) Genome-size evolution in fishes

    Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61:1636–1646.

    https://doi.org/10.1139/f04-106

    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Hattori RS
    2. Strüssmann CA
    3. Fernandino JI
    4. Somoza GM

    (2013) Genotypic sex determination in teleosts: insights from the testis-determining amhy gene

    General and Comparative Endocrinology 192:55–59.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygcen.2013.03.019

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Herrera S
    2. Reyes-Herrera PH
    3. Shank TM

    (2015) Predicting RAD-seq marker numbers across the eukaryotic tree of life

    Genome Biology and Evolution 7:3207–3225.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evv210

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Hughes AL

    (1994) The evolution of functionally novel proteins after gene duplication

    Proceedings. Biological Sciences 256:119–124.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1994.0058

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Jeffries DL
    2. Lavanchy G
    3. Sermier R
    4. Sredl MJ
    5. Miura I
    6. Borzée A
    7. Barrow LN
    8. Canestrelli D
    9. Crochet PA
    10. Dufresnes C
    11. Fu J
    12. Ma WJ
    13. Garcia CM
    14. Ghali K
    15. Nicieza AG
    16. O'Donnell RP
    17. Rodrigues N
    18. Romano A
    19. Martínez-Solano Í
    20. Stepanyan I
    21. Zumbach S
    22. Brelsford A
    23. Perrin N

    (2018) A rapid rate of sex-chromosome turnover and non-random transitions in true frogs

    Nature Communications 9:4088.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-06517-2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Kamiya T
    2. Kai W
    3. Tasumi S
    4. Oka A
    5. Matsunaga T
    6. Mizuno N
    7. Fujita M
    8. Suetake H
    9. Suzuki S
    10. Hosoya S
    11. Tohari S
    12. Brenner S
    13. Miyadai T
    14. Venkatesh B
    15. Suzuki Y
    16. Kikuchi K

    (2012) A trans-species missense SNP in Amhr2 is associated with sex determination in the tiger pufferfish, Takifugu rubripes (fugu)

    PLOS Genetics 8:e1002798.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1002798

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Katoh K
    2. Standley DM

    (2013) MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usability

    Molecular Biology and Evolution 30:772–780.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mst010

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Kikuchi K
    2. Hamaguchi S

    (2013) Novel sex-determining genes in fish and sex chromosome evolution: novel Sex-Determining genes in fish

    Developmental Dynamics 242:339–353.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/dvdy.23927

    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Kolmogorov M
    2. Yuan J
    3. Lin Y
    4. Pevzner PA

    (2019) Assembly of long, error-prone reads using repeat graphs

    Nature Biotechnology 37:540–546.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0072-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Kozielska M
    2. Feldmeyer B
    3. Pen I
    4. Weissing FJ
    5. Beukeboom LW

    (2008) Are autosomal sex-determining factors of the housefly (Musca Domestica) spreading north?

    Genetics Research 90:157–165.

    https://doi.org/10.1017/S001667230700907X

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Kumar S
    2. Stecher G
    3. Suleski M
    4. Hedges SB

    (2017) TimeTree: a resource for timelines, timetrees, and divergence times

    Molecular Biology and Evolution 34:1812–1819.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msx116

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Lartillot N
    2. Brinkmann H
    3. Philippe H

    (2007) Suppression of long-branch attraction artefacts in the animal phylogeny using a site-heterogeneous model

    BMC Evolutionary Biology 7:S4.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-7-S1-S4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Lartillot N
    2. Philippe H

    (2004) A bayesian mixture model for across-site heterogeneities in the amino-acid replacement process

    Molecular Biology and Evolution 21:1095–1109.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msh112

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Lartillot N
    2. Philippe H

    (2006) Computing bayes factors using thermodynamic integration

    Systematic Biology 55:195–207.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150500433722

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. Book

    1. Lemey P
    2. Sameli M
    3. Vandamme A

    (2009) The Phylogenetic Handbook: A Practical Approach to Phylogenetic Analysis and Hypothesis Testing

    Cambridge University Press.

    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511819049

    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Li H
    2. Handsaker B
    3. Wysoker A
    4. Fennell T
    5. Ruan J
    6. Homer N
    7. Marth G
    8. Abecasis G
    9. Durbin R
    10. 1000 Genome Project Data Processing Subgroup

    (2009) The sequence alignment/Map format and SAMtools

    Bioinformatics 25:2078–2079.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp352

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Li M
    2. Sun Y
    3. Zhao J
    4. Shi H
    5. Zeng S
    6. Ye K
    7. Jiang D
    8. Zhou L
    9. Sun L
    10. Tao W
    11. Nagahama Y
    12. Kocher TD
    13. Wang D

    (2015) A tandem duplicate of Anti-Müllerian hormone with a missense SNP on the Y chromosome is essential for male sex determination in nile Tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus

    PLOS Genetics 11:e1005678.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1005678

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Li H

    (2018) Minimap2: pairwise alignment for nucleotide sequences

    Bioinformatics 34:3094–3100.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bty191

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Li H
    2. Durbin R

    (2009) Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform

    Bioinformatics 25:1754–1760.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp324

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Marçais G
    2. Kingsford C

    (2011) A fast, lock-free approach for efficient parallel counting of occurrences of k-mers

    Bioinformatics 27:764–770.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btr011

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Marshall Graves JA

    (2008) Weird animal genomes and the evolution of vertebrate sex and sex chromosomes

    Annual Review of Genetics 42:565–586.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.genet.42.110807.091714

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Marshall Graves JA
    2. Peichel CL

    (2010) Are homologies in vertebrate sex determination due to shared ancestry or to limited options?

    Genome Biology 11:205.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2010-11-4-205

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Minh BQ
    2. Schmidt HA
    3. Chernomor O
    4. Schrempf D
    5. Woodhams MD
    6. von Haeseler A
    7. Lanfear R

    (2020) IQ-TREE 2: new models and efficient methods for phylogenetic inference in the genomic era

    Molecular Biology and Evolution 37:1530–1534.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msaa015

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Moore AD
    2. Bornberg-Bauer E

    (2012) The dynamics and evolutionary potential of domain loss and emergence

    Molecular Biology and Evolution 29:787–796.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msr250

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Muralidhar P
    2. Veller C

    (2018) Sexual antagonism and the instability of environmental sex determination

    Nature Ecology & Evolution 2:343–351.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0427-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Myosho T
    2. Otake H
    3. Masuyama H
    4. Matsuda M
    5. Kuroki Y
    6. Fujiyama A
    7. Naruse K
    8. Hamaguchi S
    9. Sakaizumi M

    (2012) Tracing the emergence of a novel sex-determining gene in medaka, Oryzias luzonensis

    Genetics 191:163–170.

    https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.111.137497

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Myosho T
    2. Takehana Y
    3. Hamaguchi S
    4. Sakaizumi M

    (2015) Turnover of sex chromosomes in Celebensis Group Medaka Fishes

    G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics 5:2685–2691.

    https://doi.org/10.1534/g3.115.021543

    • Google Scholar
50. Book

    1. Navara KJ

    (2018) Mechanisms of Environmental Sex Determination in Fish, Amphibians, and Reptiles

    In: Navara K. J, editors. Choosing Sexes: Mechanisms and Adaptive Patterns of Sex Allocation in Vertebrates, Fascinating Life Sciences. Springer International Publishing. pp. 213–240.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71271-0_10

    • Google Scholar
51. Book

    1. Nielsen H

    (2017)

    Predicting Secretory Proteins with SignalP. InProtein Function Prediction

    Humana Press.

    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Ouellet-Cauchon G
    2. Normandeau E
    3. Mingelbier M
    4. Bernatchez L

    (2014) EST-based microsatellites for northern pike (Esox lucius) and cross-amplification across all Esox species

    Conservation Genetics Resources 6:451–454.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12686-013-0123-2

    • Google Scholar
53. Book

    1. Pan Q
    2. Guiguen Y
    3. Herpin A

    (2017)

    Evolution of Sex Determining Genes in Fish Encyclopedia of Reproduction

    Laboratoire de Physiologie et Génomique des Poissons.

    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Pan Q
    2. Feron R
    3. Yano A
    4. Guyomard R
    5. Jouanno E
    6. Vigouroux E
    7. Wen M
    8. Busnel JM
    9. Bobe J
    10. Concordet JP
    11. Parrinello H
    12. Journot L
    13. Klopp C
    14. Lluch J
    15. Roques C
    16. Postlethwait J
    17. Schartl M
    18. Herpin A
    19. Guiguen Y

    (2019) Identification of the master sex determining gene in northern pike (Esox lucius) reveals restricted sex chromosome differentiation

    PLOS Genetics 15:e1008013.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1008013

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Pasquier J
    2. Cabau C
    3. Nguyen T
    4. Jouanno E
    5. Severac D
    6. Braasch I
    7. Journot L
    8. Pontarotti P
    9. Klopp C
    10. Postlethwait JH
    11. Guiguen Y
    12. Bobe J

    (2016) Gene evolution and gene expression after whole genome duplication in fish: the PhyloFish database

    BMC Genomics 17:368.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-016-2709-z

    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Rafati N
    2. Chen J
    3. Herpin A
    4. Pettersson ME
    5. Han F
    6. Feng C
    7. Wallerman O
    8. Rubin CJ
    9. Péron S
    10. Cocco A
    11. Larsson M
    12. Trötschel C
    13. Poetsch A
    14. Korsching K
    15. Bönigk W
    16. Körschen HG
    17. Berg F
    18. Folkvord A
    19. Kaupp UB
    20. Schartl M
    21. Andersson L

    (2020) Reconstruction of the birth of a male sex chromosome present in Atlantic herring

    PNAS 117:24359–24368.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2009925117

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Sato T
    2. Endo T
    3. Yamahira K
    4. Hamaguchi S
    5. Sakaizumi M

    (2005) Induction of female-to-male sex reversal by high temperature treatment in medaka, Oryzias latipes

    Zoological Science 22:985–988.

    https://doi.org/10.2108/zsj.22.985

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Sela I
    2. Ashkenazy H
    3. Katoh K
    4. Pupko T

    (2015) GUIDANCE2: accurate detection of unreliable alignment regions accounting for the uncertainty of multiple parameters

    Nucleic Acids Research 43:W7–W14.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkv318

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Simão FA
    2. Waterhouse RM
    3. Ioannidis P
    4. Kriventseva EV
    5. Zdobnov EM

    (2015) BUSCO: assessing genome assembly and annotation completeness with single-copy orthologs

    Bioinformatics 31:3210–3212.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btv351

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Skog A
    2. Vøllestad LA
    3. Stenseth NC
    4. Kasumyan A
    5. Jakobsen KS

    (2014) Circumpolar phylogeography of the northern pike (Esox lucius) and its relationship to the amur pike (E. reichertii)

    Frontiers in Zoology 11:67.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12983-014-0067-8

    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Solovyev V
    2. Kosarev P
    3. Seledsov I
    4. Vorobyev D

    (2006) Automatic annotation of eukaryotic genes, pseudogenes and promoters

    Genome Biology 7:S10.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2006-7-s1-s10

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Tree of Sex Consortium
    2. Bachtrog D
    3. Mank JE
    4. Peichel CL
    5. Kirkpatrick M
    6. Otto SP
    7. Ashman TL
    8. Hahn MW
    9. Kitano J
    10. Mayrose I
    11. Ming R
    12. Perrin N
    13. Ross L
    14. Valenzuela N
    15. Vamosi JC

    (2014) Sex determination: why so many ways of doing it?

    PLOS Biology 12:e1001899.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001899

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Turnquist KN
    2. Larson WA
    3. Farrell JM
    4. Hanchin PA
    5. Kapuscinski KL
    6. Miller LM
    7. Scribner KT
    8. Wilson CC
    9. Sloss BL

    (2017) Genetic structure of muskellunge in the great lakes region and the effects of supplementation on genetic integrity of wild populations

    Journal of Great Lakes Research 43:1141–1152.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2017.09.005

    • Google Scholar
64. 1. van Doorn GS

    (2014) Evolutionary Transitions between Sex-Determining Mechanisms: A Review of Theory

    Sexual Development 8:7–19.

    https://doi.org/10.1159/000357023

    • Google Scholar
65. 1. van Doorn GS
    2. Kirkpatrick M

    (2007) Turnover of sex chromosomes induced by sexual conflict

    Nature 449:909–912.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06178

    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Vaser R
    2. Sović I
    3. Nagarajan N
    4. Šikić M

    (2017) Fast and accurate de novo genome assembly from long uncorrected reads

    Genome Research 27:737–746.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.214270.116

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Vicoso B

    (2019) Molecular and evolutionary dynamics of animal sex-chromosome turnover

    Nature Ecology & Evolution 3:1632–1641.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-1050-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Walker BJ
    2. Abeel T
    3. Shea T
    4. Priest M
    5. Abouelliel A
    6. Sakthikumar S
    7. Cuomo CA
    8. Zeng Q
    9. Wortman J
    10. Young SK
    11. Earl AM

    (2014) Pilon: an integrated tool for comprehensive microbial variant detection and genome assembly improvement

    PLOS ONE 9:e112963.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0112963

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. Book

    1. Warren ML
    2. Burr BM
    3. Tomelleri JR
    4. Echelle AA
    5. Kuhajda BR

    (2020)

    Freshwater Fishes of North America: Volume 2: Characidae to Poeciliidae

    Johns Hopkins University Press.

    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Wilson CA
    2. High SK
    3. McCluskey BM
    4. Amores A
    5. Yan YL
    6. Titus TA
    7. Anderson JL
    8. Batzel P
    9. Carvan MJ
    10. Schartl M
    11. Postlethwait JH

    (2014) Wild sex in zebrafish: loss of the natural sex determinant in domesticated strains

    Genetics 198:1291–1308.

    https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.114.169284

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Wooller MJ
    2. Gaglioti B
    3. Fulton TL
    4. Lopez A
    5. Shapiro B

    (2015) Post-glacial dispersal patterns of northern pike inferred from an 8800 year old pike (Esox cf lucius) skull from interior alaska

    Quaternary Science Reviews 120:118–125.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2015.04.027

    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Yang Z

    (2007) PAML 4: phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood

    Molecular Biology and Evolution 24:1586–1591.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msm088

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Yano A
    2. Guyomard R
    3. Nicol B
    4. Jouanno E
    5. Quillet E
    6. Klopp C
    7. Cabau C
    8. Bouchez O
    9. Fostier A
    10. Guiguen Y

    (2012) An immune-related gene evolved into the master sex-determining gene in rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss

    Current Biology 22:1423–1428.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.05.045

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Qiaowei Pan

   1. INRAE, LPGP, Rennes, France
   2. Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8501-0405

2. Romain Feron

   1. INRAE, LPGP, Rennes, France
   2. Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
   3. Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics, Lausanne, Switzerland

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Software, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Elodie Jouanno

   INRAE, LPGP, Rennes, France

   Contribution

   Software, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

4. Hugo Darras

   Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

   Contribution

   Investigation, Visualization, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

5. Amaury Herpin

   INRAE, LPGP, Rennes, France

   Contribution

   Supervision, Investigation, Visualization

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0630-4027

6. Ben Koop

   Department of Biology, Centre for Biomedical Research, University of Victoria, Victoria, Canada

   Contribution

   Resources, Supervision, Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

7. Eric Rondeau

   Department of Biology, Centre for Biomedical Research, University of Victoria, Victoria, Canada

   Contribution

   Resources, Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

8. Frederick W Goetz

   Environmental and Fisheries Sciences Division, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Seattle, United States

   Contribution

   Resources, Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

9. Wesley A Larson

   Fisheries Aquatic Science and Technology Laboratory at Alaska Pacific University, Anchorage, United States

   Contribution

   Resources, Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

10. Louis Bernatchez

    Institut de Biologie Intégrative et des Systèmes (IBIS), Université Laval, Québec, Canada

    Contribution

    Resources, Investigation

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

11. Mike Tringali

    Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Marine Research Institute, St. Petersburg, United States

    Contribution

    Resources, Investigation

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

12. Stephen S Curran

    School of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, United States

    Contribution

    Resources, Investigation

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

13. Eric Saillant

    Gulf Coast Research Laboratory, School of Ocean Science and Technology, The University of Southern Mississippi, Ocean Springs, United States

    Contribution

    Resources, Investigation

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

14. Gael PJ Denys

    1. Laboratoire de Biologie des organismes et écosystèmes aquatiques (BOREA), MNHN, CNRS, IRD, SU, UCN, Laboratoire de Biologie des organismes et écosystèmes aquatiques (BOREA), Paris, France
    2. Unité Mixte de Service Patrimoine Naturelle – Centre d’expertise et de données (UMS 2006 AFB, CNRS, MNHN), Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris, France

    Contribution

    Resources, Investigation

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

15. Frank A von Hippel

    Department of Biological Sciences, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, United States

    Contribution

    Resources, Investigation

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9247-0231

16. Songlin Chen

    Yellow Sea Fisheries Research Institute, CAFS, Laboratory for Marine Fisheries Science and Food Production Processes, Pilot National Laboratory for Marine Science and Technology (Qingdao), Qingdao, China

    Contribution

    Resources, Investigation

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

17. J Andrés López

    College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences Fisheries, Fairbanks, United States

    Contribution

    Resources, Investigation

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

18. Hugo Verreycken

    Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Brussels, Belgium

    Contribution

    Resources, Investigation

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2060-7005

19. Konrad Ocalewicz

    Department of Marine Biology and Ecology, Institute of Oceanography, University of Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland

    Contribution

    Resources, Investigation

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

20. Rene Guyomard

    INRAE, GABI, Jouy-en-Josas, France

    Contribution

    Resources, Formal analysis, Investigation

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

21. Camille Eche

    GeT‐PlaGe, INRAE, Genotoul, Castanet-Tolosan, France

    Contribution

    Resources, Formal analysis, Investigation

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

22. Jerome Lluch

    GeT‐PlaGe, INRAE, Genotoul, Castanet-Tolosan, France

    Contribution

    Investigation

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

23. Celine Roques

    GeT‐PlaGe, INRAE, Genotoul, Castanet-Tolosan, France

    Contribution

    Resources, Investigation

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

24. Hongxia Hu

    Beijing Fisheries Research Institute & Beijing Key Laboratory of Fishery Biotechnology, Beijing, China

    Contribution

    Resources, Investigation

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

25. Roger Tabor

    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey, United States

    Contribution

    Resources, Investigation

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

26. Patrick DeHaan

    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey, United States

    Contribution

    Resources, Investigation

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

27. Krista M Nichols

    Conservation Biology Division, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, United States

    Contribution

    Resources, Investigation

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

28. Laurent Journot

    Institut de Génomique Fonctionnelle, IGF, CNRS, INSERM, Univ. Montpellier, Montpellier, France

    Contribution

    Resources, Investigation

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

29. Hugues Parrinello

    Institut de Génomique Fonctionnelle, IGF, CNRS, INSERM, Univ. Montpellier, Montpellier, France

    Contribution

    Resources, Investigation

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

30. Christophe Klopp

    INRAE, Sigenae, Genotoul Bioinfo, Toulouse, France

    Contribution

    Resources, Software, Investigation

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7126-5477

31. Elena A Interesova

    Tomsk State University, Tomsk, Russian Federation

    Contribution

    Resources, Software, Investigation

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1148-6283

32. Vladimir Trifonov

    Institute of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk, Russian Federation

    Contribution

    Resources, Investigation

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

33. Manfred Schartl

    University of Wuerzburg, Developmental Biochemistry, Biocenter, 97074 Würzburg, Germany; and The Xiphophorus Genetic Stock Center, Texas State University, San Marcos, United States

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Resources, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Project administration, Writing - review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

34. John Postlethwait

    Institute of Neuroscience, University of Oregon, Eugene, United States

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Project administration, Writing - review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

35. Yann Guiguen

    INRAE, LPGP, Rennes, France

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Visualization, Project administration, Writing - review and editing

    For correspondence

    yann.guiguen@inrae.fr

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5464-6219

• 2,217

  views

• 286

  downloads

• 17

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.